Packaging waste and the environment: economics and policy

Economic incentives and small firms: Does it pay to be green?

“…As discussed previously, extensive research has shown the positive effects of green economic incentives on green performance for energy consumption, packaging waste and litter, waste management, beverage container recycling and electric utilities (Brisson, 1993;Heberlein and Warriner, 1983;Kahle and Beatty, 1987). The incentives are increasing green performance with little or no impact on financial performance.…”

“…They can be carrots or sticks depending on one's vantage point. Economic incentives such as packaging charges have benefited the general public in waste management costs reductions in the longer term but have been a financial burden to current consumers and industry (Brisson, 1993). Bottle bills have helped consumers who are willing to return bottles (Kahle and Beatty, 1987;Naughton et al, 1990) but have cost current taxpayers and caused job loss (Moore and Scott, 1983).…”

“…Many researchers have demonstrated the positive impacts of green economic incentives on green performance for energy consumption (Heberlein and Warriner, 1983); packaging waste and litter (Brisson, 1993); waste management (Pearce and Turner, 1993); beverage container recycling (Kahle and Beatty, 1987;Moore and Scott, 1983;Naughton et al, 1990); and electric utilities (Nwaeze and Mereba, 1997).…”

Understanding the Implications of Environmental taxes: The Case of the Danish Weight Based Packaging Product Charge

“…A key example is the German Packaging Directive of 1991 (Klepper and Michaelis, 1991), which provided a set of laws seeking the reduction of packaging weight as much as possible at the moment of production as well as promoting refillability where it is economically feasible or reprocessing where it is not feasible (Brisson, 1993). A key example is the German Packaging Directive of 1991 (Klepper and Michaelis, 1991), which provided a set of laws seeking the reduction of packaging weight as much as possible at the moment of production as well as promoting refillability where it is economically feasible or reprocessing where it is not feasible (Brisson, 1993).…”

An Approach to Litter Generation and Littering Practices in a Mexico City Neighborhood

“…(4) The presence of litter in public spaces increases refuse collection costs and associated economic losses [4]. The cost imposed by litter on society is reflected by the loss of amenity in having to share streets and parks with litter [5]. (5) Litter, as a part of urban deterioration, affects crime rates in two ways: (a) it visually advertises that residents tolerate violations of the social order and are unlikely to intervene in order to stop crime and disorderly conduct, and (b) residents feel threatened by disorderly elements in the neighborhood environment and retreat inside their homes without building relationships with neighbors or establishing their ownership of public spaces.…”