[greggman]

This topic brings up the issue of wrapping in Japan. Japan is notorious for having excessive wrapping. Individually wrapped cookies in a box with a plastic tray to hold each cookie. The bottom half of the box is sealed with a plastic tear off cover. The top of the box slides over. Then the entire box is wrapped in paper. If you purchase if they will then put it in a branded paper bag. If it's raining they will then put that paper bag in a plastic bag to protect it from the rain. That's 6 levels of wrapping.

It's a cultural thing AFAICT. Sure people speak out once in while but it seems unlikely to change without some major major concerted national PR effort against it, getting celebrities, politicians, etc all on board pushing for months or years and possibly even organizing boycotts until things change. But, if someone wants to do their part of make a small dent here well, here's a project you can try to take on.

[sureaboutthis]

In the 1970s, I remember being out of town and buying a bag of doughnuts at a grocery store. I walked to the cashier who promptly asked me if I wanted it in a bag. There was a pause and I didn't know how to reply.

Eventually I said, "It's already in a bag."

On another note, there's a hilarious scene of Archie Bunker (All in the Family, also from the 1970s) in the kitchen making hiimself a sandwich and trying to unwrap a single cheese slice. These were relatively new then I believe.

[sithadmin]

>Individually wrapped cookies in a box with a plastic tray to hold each cookie.

When used in cases where an item should be consumed sparingly anyway (as with sweets), I don't see the individual wrappers as excessive. It helps keep the food from spoiling due to exposure, thus prolonging the useful life of the product.

[kalleboo]

Exactly. In Japan you're not expected to buy a box of cookies and stuff your face with all 1800 calories at once. You take out a couple of them when you have guests over, maybe someone takes one or two, the rest go back in the cupboard until next time.

[mikorym]

In South Africa, you pay for the plastic bag, unless it's not a perishable product.

[baud147258]

In France you can't even pay for a plastic bag anymore. But you can buy one-use paper bags or reusable plastic bags.

[kalleboo]

In Japan major supermarket chains now give you a discount if you choose to refuse a bag, but it's on the order of 2 yen, and it's an "opt-out" thing rather than an opt-in thing.

[majewsky]

> unless it's not

I think there's one negation too many in there. You're saying that you pay for the plastic bag if it is a perishable product, which sounds backwards.

[mikorym]

In SA, you pay for any plastic bag that is bought at a supermarket or similar store. If it contains a product which is not perishable (like clothes), then you usually get a different type of paper or plastic bag with it without charge.

I think I said this in a funny way, because this slightly differs from store to store—I am not sure whether the regulations are applied uniformly. (Takeaways, for instance.) But yes, if it is perishable, then usually you pay for the bag.

[mrhappyunhappy]

Funny, I just wrote a comment on this below. There are some things that are uniquely Japanese that make zero sense. Wrapping is one of them.

[derefr]

> some major major concerted national PR effort against it, getting celebrities, politicians, etc all on board pushing for months or years

Why do you need PR when the parties responsible for all this wrapping are corporations? It’s not the dagashi down the street giving you six layers of wrapping.

When big corporations are doing something you don’t like, you don’t use PR to fix it. We’ve had plenty of PR about recycling in the US and it’s affected consumers plenty and corporations not—at—all (except where the responsibility ends up in the hands of individual consumers, like office managers.)

No, the way to make corporations change their behaviour, is to just make a law about it. For example, a “consumer waste reduction corporate tax incentive.” It’s the bottom line that says that extra wrapping is good (for some reason); so it’s the bottom line that needs to be convinced otherwise.

[chrisseaton]

> When big corporations are doing something you don’t like, you don’t use PR to fix it.

> No, the way to make corporations change their behaviour, is to just make a law about it.

But for example society in the UK and US (not sure where else) has basically just decided that plastic straws are not acceptable, and major corporations have made huge changes in a matter of months to remove them. That's much faster than implementing a law.

[WorkLifeBalance]

It's not altruism, they're just getting ahead of changes in the law.

The EU announced[1] they were looking at banning single use plastics. It was after that announcement that lots of companies annoucned they were making changes. By getting ahead of the law they can brand it as doing something they didn't need to do. (Much like how UK phone companies announced they were "abolishing roaming charges" because they did it a few months before it was an enforced law.

They get to advertise their 'green' credentials while not moving themselves to an uncompetitive position in the long term.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/e1168020-627a-11e8-90c2-9563a0613...

[chrisseaton]

All of what you're describing sounds like PR to me. The fact of the matter is Starbucks are reducing plastic straws and there is no law telling them to do so.

[nerdponx]

It's partly PR, and partly the ability to do things on your own terms. You do not want regulations forced on you, that is bad for the bottom line. You need to be in control. This is the story with self-regulation across industries.

[dspillett]

> You do not want regulations forced on you, that is bad for the bottom line.

Also, self regulation can be safer in terms of come-back.

Where under an external regulatory pressure a misstep might result in some form of fine or at least a public outing. With self regulation many things can be more easily wrapped up with "oops, butter fingers! sorry, won't happen again" and all that might be more readily kept internal rather that having some form of issue reporting requirement enforced by the regulations.

[dspillett]

But it is the companies creating positive PR by getting ahead of expected pressure.

I think what the earlier poster was talking about is using the relationship the other way around: the public using their relationship with the company to say "I could always vote with my feet/money you know, you might want to consider...".

It amounts to the same thing in the end (the pressure they are trying to stay ahead of is created by governments reacting to social change and environmental issues) but the earlier post was talking about more direct action. The more direct route can be quicker, but it requires more effort (well, some effort from more of the public) to be truly effective.

[donarb]

There is in Seattle, where their corporate headquarters are located.

[rexpop]

These are the "huge changes" to which you refer? https://www.facebook.com/mcsuk/posts/10156716876190086

Individually plastic-wrapped paper straws? No, yours is not a good example of corporations respecting human needs.

[dsfyu404ed]

>We’ve had plenty of PR about recycling in the US and it’s affected consumers plenty and corporations not—at—all

That pile of used tires, cardboard, scrap metal, pretty much anything that's even slightly cheaper to recycle (into the same product like in the case of paper or something else in the case of vulcanized rubbers) than to make from scratch gets recycled wherever possible because there's a profit to be skimmed off of doing so.

Taxing people or corperations into doing what you want is a messy solution with all sorts of negative externalities (e.g. cost of compliance prevents competition and innovation). If all you care about is that the negative externalities not occasionally litter the side of the highway then I guess it's a win but I'd rather pay someone to clean up trash than drive extra business for people who make their living dealing with taxes.

[greggman]

the issue is culture. customers want this. it seems fancy/nice/luxury/high-class. so companies are not going to gut their own sales. If you want it to change imo you need to change the customers' minds so they actually want less wrapping.

corps have changed by PR. no demand = no sales = change.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Why do you need PR when the parties responsible for all this wrapping are corporations?

Consider this from the perspective of the person in charge of packaging. They propose a change requiring costly re-tooling. It also changes the product's appearance and user's experience.

What is the benefit to this cost and this risk? Could the decrease in packaging give advantage to a competitor? If you deploy the marketing dollars to promote this trend, could a competitor piggyback on that by making the switch but not incurring the associated marketing costs? If they can't answer these questions--which itself costs time and money--the proposal is D.O.A.

> the way to make corporations change their behaviour, is to just make a law about it

How do you think one builds a coalition for getting a law passed?