[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?