Strengthening approach to household recycling collection services: consultation analysis

1. Introduction

Background

The Scottish Government has set out a clear and ambitious agenda to accelerate the transition to a circular economy, recognising the environmental, social, and economic benefits of reducing waste and making better use of resources. In close collaboration with stakeholders, the Scottish Government is co-designing a new statutory Code of Practice for household waste and recycling services. This Code will replace the current voluntary code, set out the duties of local authorities, and aim to ensure a consistent, high-quality approach to service delivery across Scotland.

A public consultation gathering evidence and perspectives to inform the development of the revised Code of Practice opened on the 25 March 2025 and closed on the 17 June 2025. The findings will support the Scottish Government in refining its strategic approach and addressing implementation challenges.

The consultation focused on two areas that may be incorporated into the new Code: the introduction of mandatory kerbside textile collections and the rural food waste collection exemption. These have been identified due to their significant carbon impacts and the need to balance environmental benefits with operational and financial feasibility. The consultation also sits alongside a Call for Evidence on extending the biodegradable municipal waste landfill ban, which is due to come into effect at the end of 2025. Responses to the consultation and the Call for Evidence have been analysed and reported upon separately.

Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population.

Respondent profile

In total, 60 consultation responses were received^[1]. Almost all were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team.

Individuals provided 26 responses to the consultation; the remaining 34 responses were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped according to the nature of their work. Table 1 shows the number of each type of respondent.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed, and, where possible, using closed questions, to quantify how many respondents hold particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is impossible to detail every response in this report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise. These responses are referenced where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

Similarly, the technical nature of some of the proposals outlined in the consultation means it is impractical to fully repeat or explain these within this report. Further information on the proposals can be found in the consultation paper.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included 14 closed questions. Not all respondents answered every question. To compare across sub-groups, this report presents the results of the closed questions based on those who answered each question. For clarity, each table shows:

• The percentage of respondents from the total sample of 60 respondents who selected each response (grey row).
• The number and percentage response among those who answered each question, broken down by individual and organisation responses (rows including and under “All answering”).

A full results table for each question can also be found in Appendix A. Please note that the row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

When reviewing the qualitative analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to consider:

• Where differences between the views of individuals and organisations were evident in qualitative responses, these have been noted. If no specific differences are highlighted, then a theme was raised by a mix of respondents.
• Many respondents repeatedly raised the same issues or suggestions at multiple questions, regardless of the specific focus of the question. These views are all included in this report, but analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include each theme to avoid repetition.
• Where a response received via email or in a PDF document contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.
• In a few instances, qualitative comments from individuals do not align with their response to the quantitative questions. For example, a respondent may agree in principle but use their open comment to caveat their agreement or suggest an alternative approach.
• Where appropriate, quotes from a range of the 60 consultation responses are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.
• Two sets of organisations, amounting to five organisations in total, provided similarly worded responses. This is not unusual, as organisations often publish their response before the consultation closes, allowing others to refer to it. For analysis purposes, each response was treated separately and the full content of all responses was analysed.

Weight of opinion

This report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority. Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• Many respondents, 20 or more respondents, a prevalent theme.
• Several respondents, between 12 and 19 respondents, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents, between five and 11 respondents, another theme.
• A few / a small number, fewer than five respondents, a less common theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view identified in two responses.