Strong opposition to abolishing deposit return scheme

Of the people who are correctly informed, only 19% are in favour of the possible abolition of deposit fees on plastic bottles. This was the result of a survey among more than 30,000 participants of the Radar Test Panel. This result stands in sharp contrast to the 46% recently reported by TNS-NIPO after a study among 1,035 Dutch citizens. The Plastic Heroes organisation, which wants to abolish the deposit return scheme and hopes to receive the empty bottles itself, is hereby corrected for an earlier misleading press release: Not 7, but only 2 out of 10 Dutch people think the abolition of the deposit fee is "fine". And with a fair introduction, it turns out that 7 out of 10 Dutch people are actually opposed to the abolition of deposit fees. 

The abolition of deposit fees has been a great desire of the largest soft drink manufacturer and the largest supermarket chain for more than ten years; namely Coca-Cola and Albert Heijn. The battle being fought over this is accompanied by the publication of all kinds of research reports commissioned by the interested companies and their trade organisations. With these, they want to prove that deposit systems are not environmentally conscious, are extremely expensive and unwanted. It often turns out afterwards that the research results are different from what was suggested in the press release, or even that a better research approach leads to completely opposite results.

Recycling Netwerk, which is active in the fight for deposit systems on behalf of environmental organisations, has for years been providing critical opposition to studies on the results and costs of deposit return schemes, and also to the recent TNS-NIPO study on attitudes towards the abolition of deposit fees.

Robbert van Duin, chairman of Recycling Netwerk, comments on this: "The TNS-NIPO study into the attitude towards the abolition of deposit fees is yet another example of the systematic deception with studies bought with the money of interested companies. The environmental study into the former reusable plastic deposit bottle ultimately had to be completely revised: abolition was not better for the environment. A year ago, it also turned out that the presented cost study on the current deposit system gave a completely false picture. Furthermore, we are still waiting for a judgment from the integrity committee on that. And the study by the Radar test panel convincingly shows that the recent behavioural study by TNS-NIPO and the press release about it are also completely flawed."

Some remarks on this:

It is clear that the introduction to the questions asked by TNS-NIPO was leading. The introduction by TNS-NIPO leads to only 23% being negative about the disappearance of the deposit system, whereas with a fair introduction this turns out to be 69%. This shows that 7 out of 10 Dutch people are still against abolition!

The question of whether it matters to people to return the bottles in a different way must not be interpreted as a question of whether people think it is "fine" to abolish deposit fees (see Plastic Heroes press release), but only as a question about the convenience of collection methods.

The test panel study among the second group even shows that this question must also have been answered positively by many people who are opposed to the abolition of deposit fees. So they do not think it is "fine".

And it is precisely that convenience that turns out to be barely relevant when it comes to answering questions about the collection of empty PET bottles. Although it was already mentioned by TNS-NIPO in the introduction, only 23% state this as a motive. It is also remarkable that there are far fewer of them in the Radar Test Panel study. It is possible that in the TNS-NIPO study, in addition to the introduction to the question in question, the introduction to previous questions also had a leading effect.

For further information:

Radar: Outcome of deposit study determined by framing of questions

Recycling Netwerk: Do we want deposit fees or Plastic Heroes?

Of the people who are correctly informed, only 19% are in favour of the possible abolition of deposit fees on plastic bottles. This was the result of a survey among more than 30,000 participants of the Radar Test Panel. This result stands in sharp contrast to the 46% recently reported by TNS-NIPO after a study among 1,035 Dutch citizens. The Plastic Heroes organisation, which wants to abolish the deposit return scheme and hopes to receive the empty bottles itself, is hereby corrected for an earlier misleading press release: Not 7, but only 2 out of 10 Dutch people think the abolition of the deposit fee is "fine". And with a fair introduction, it turns out that 7 out of 10 Dutch people are actually opposed to the abolition of deposit fees.

The abolition of deposit fees has been a great desire of the largest soft drink manufacturer and the largest supermarket chain for more than ten years; namely Coca-Cola and Albert Heijn. The battle being fought over this is accompanied by the publication of all kinds of research reports commissioned by the interested companies and their trade organisations. With these, they want to prove that deposit systems are not environmentally conscious, are extremely expensive and unwanted. It often turns out afterwards that the research results are different from what was suggested in the press release, or even that a better research approach leads to completely opposite results.

Recycling Netwerk, which is active in the fight for deposit systems on behalf of environmental organisations, has for years been providing critical opposition to studies on the results and costs of deposit return schemes, and also to the recent TNS-NIPO study on attitudes towards the abolition of deposit fees.

Robbert van Duin, chairman of Recycling Netwerk, comments on this: "The TNS-NIPO study into the attitude towards the abolition of deposit fees is yet another example of the systematic deception with studies bought with the money of interested companies. The environmental study into the former reusable plastic deposit bottle ultimately had to be completely revised: abolition was not better for the environment. A year ago, it also turned out that the presented cost study on the current deposit system gave a completely false picture. Furthermore, we are still waiting for a judgment from the integrity committee on that. And the study by the Radar test panel convincingly shows that the recent behavioural study by TNS-NIPO and the press release about it are also completely flawed."

Some remarks on this:

It is clear that the introduction to the questions asked by TNS-NIPO was leading. The introduction by TNS-NIPO leads to only 23% being negative about the disappearance of the deposit system, whereas with a fair introduction this turns out to be 69%. This shows that 7 out of 10 Dutch people are still against abolition!

The question of whether it matters to people to return the bottles in a different way must not be interpreted as a question of whether people think it is "fine" to abolish deposit fees (see Plastic Heroes press release), but only as a question about the convenience of collection methods. The test panel study among the second group even shows that this question must also have been answered positively by many people who are opposed to the abolition of deposit fees. So they do not think it is "fine".

And it is precisely that convenience that turns out to be barely relevant when it comes to answering questions about the collection of empty PET bottles. Although it was already mentioned by TNS-NIPO in the introduction, only 23% state this as a motive. It is also remarkable that there are far fewer of them in the Radar Test Panel study. It is possible that in the TNS-NIPO study, in addition to the introduction to the question in question, the introduction to previous questions also had a leading effect.

For further information: Radar: Outcome of deposit study determined by framing of questions Recycling Netwerk: Do we want deposit fees or Plastic Heroes?