sustainability

Article
Influencing Factors for Consumers’ Intention to Reduce Plastic
Packaging in Different Groups of Fast-Moving Consumer
Goods in Germany
Shahida Anusha Siddiqui 1,2, *, Adriano Profeta 3 , Thomas Decker 4 , Sergiy Smetana 2 and Klaus Menrad 4

1 Campus Straubing for Biotechnology and Sustainability, Technical University of Munich, Essigberg 3,
94315 Straubing, Germany
2 German Institute of Food Technologies (DIL e.V.), Prof.-von-Klitzing Str. 7, 49610 Quakenbrück, Germany
3 Prokribus GmbH, Sensory Institute, Market Research, Data Science, Steinbreite 5a,
37603 Holzminden, Germany
4 Marketing and Management of Biogenic Resources, TUM Campus Straubing, Weihenstephan-Triesdorf
University of Applied Sciences, Essigberg 3, 94315 Straubing, Germany
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The greatly increased global use of plastic has serious negative environmental conse-
quences. This study aims to analyse the influence of environmental attitudes, personal norms, social
norms, and socioeconomic and demographic characteristics on consumers’ intention to reduce plas-
tic packaging in different groups of fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs) in Germany. Data on
plastic packaging use for food, clothing, cosmetics, cleaning goods, and furniture were collected
from 299 German families in a four-stage survey. The findings show differing consumer intentions
to reduce plastic packaging between food products and other FMCG. In particular, environmental
attitudes can differentiate between consumer groups with high and low intentions to reduce plastic
packaging in nearly all the product groups analysed, while social norms, gender and age only show
statistically significant differences in some product groups. Personal norms did not contribute to
group differentiation in any of the groups of FMCG analysed. The results are helpful for managers
of FMCGs to develop more ecological packaging solutions in the future and for state authorities to
Citation: Siddiqui, S.A.; Profeta, A.; derive political activities in this field.
Decker, T.; Smetana, S.; Menrad, K.
Influencing Factors for Consumers’ Keywords: plastic packaging; fast-moving consumer goods; consumer attitudes; personal norms;
Intention to Reduce Plastic Packaging social norms; gender; family size; educational level; age
in Different Groups of Fast-Moving
Consumer Goods in Germany.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097625
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Riccardo Testa According to [1], more than 59 million tonnes of plastic were produced in European
Received: 25 March 2023
countries in 2016 alone. Global plastic production has reached 348 million tonnes [2].
Revised: 1 May 2023
Geyer et al. [3] claim that the volume of plastic production increases by 8.4% annually. It is
Accepted: 3 May 2023 important to note that around half of all plastic products are disposable products that are
Published: 6 May 2023 discarded after use [4]. Borrelle et al. [5] claim that around 11% of the 2016 global plastic
production found its way into freshwater environments, expected to rise to 53 million
tonnes annually by 2030.
The increase in the production of plastics causes serious environmental impacts [6–8],
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. considering that plastics and plastic waste have high chemical resistance, environmental
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. resistance and durability, and will not decompose for decades. In particular, the estimated
This article is an open access article decomposition period of a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle ranges from 27 to
distributed under the terms and 93 years [9]. Prata et al. [10] believe that plastic pollution is considered a planetary threat
conditions of the Creative Commons
and can cause disruption of the Earth’s systemic processes, harming ecosystems or changing
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
the physicochemical properties of the environment. The plastic pollution of land and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
aquatic environments is among the most critical worldwide environmental pollution and
4.0/).

Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097625 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 2 of 21

toxicological problems [11,12]. A variety of toxicological hazards to lower and higher

organisms are caused by plastics (micro-plastics) and their accompanying chemicals, which
are persistent and pervasive pollutants [13–16]. Additionally, according to Ford et al. [17],
plastic production will cause the emission of more than 56 billion tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent into the atmosphere in the period from 2015 to 2050, which is about 13% of
the total number of expected carbon dioxide emissions for this period across the globe. It
is important to note that an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide is one of the
causes of global warming, the consequences of which are the intensification of dry seasons,
sea level rise, changes in the geography of the Earth, an increase in the frequency of fires
and increased desertification [18].
In Germany, regulations for packaging waste are set out in the German Packaging Act
(Verpackungsgesetz). Currently, there are no special regulations for other plastic waste.
Instead, disposal is governed by the general waste law requirements under the German
Circular Economy Act (Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz) and in particular separate collection
and observance of the waste hierarchy. The German Ordinance on Single-Use Plastics
(Einwegkunststoffverbotsverordnung) has been adopted and entered into force on 3 July
2021. The Ordinance on Single-use Plastics implements the requirements of the Directive
(EU) 2019/904 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment
one-to-one [19]. In the future, certain single-use plastic products for which environmentally
friendly alternatives already exist are to be banned. The ban affects products such as cotton
swabs, disposable cutlery and plates, drinking straws, stirrers, cotton buds and balloon
wands made of plastic. To-go food containers and beverage cups such as containers made
of foamed expanded polystyrene (also known as Styrofoam) are also banned from the
market. All products made from oxo-degradable plastic are also banned, which break
down into micro-particles that are particularly difficult to dispose off, but do not degrade
further [20]. Moreover, at the European Council of July 2020, the EU heads of state and
government decided to introduce a tax on unrecycled plastic packaging waste from 2021.
As a new source of own resources, the plastic tax should go to the EU budget, and the
funds collected are to be used primarily to finance COVID-19 aid [19]. Despite the fact that
the German government has not yet accepted this initiative, the plastic tax seems to be an
important instrument in the global fight against plastic pollution.
One of the tools influencing manufacturers of packaging materials is also the assess-
ment of consumer preferences for packaging. In recent years, some knowledge has been
accumulated regarding consumer reactions to plastic packaging and reducing the use of
plastic packaging. Walker et al. [21] found that most Canadian respondents (93.7%) are
personally interested in reducing the consumption of disposable plastic packaging for food,
but are less willing to pay for sustainable alternatives such as edible films, biodegradable
materials, organic ecological textiles, recycled cardboard and paper, bioactive suspensions,
nanopackaging, etc. [22]. At the same time, consumers from other high-income countries
are willing to pay for more expensive sustainable packaging [23–25]. This indicates the
absence of a unified consumer reaction to the rejection of the use of cheap plastic materials
in food packaging.
Although the willingness to pay for eco-friendly packaging is usually high, there are
gaps between attitude and behaviour, and a misunderstanding of eco-friendly packaging
that can be a problem [26]. Misleading factors related to design in terms of colour or
images [27] on packaging become barriers to understanding consumer behaviour. External
factors also influence purchasing behaviour, but consumers are still critical of environmen-
tally friendly options if they do not meet specific criteria [28]. However, the most important
aspect in the eyes of consumers is the material from which the packaging is made, of
which plastic is considered one of the most unstable [26]. This corresponds to the growing
environmental problems that plastic production creates due to the growth rates of global
production [6,8]. In addition to product characteristics and situational factors, consumers’
psychographic characteristics often influence pro-environmental behaviour in general and
the choice of packaging material for fast-moving consumer goods in particular. We analyse
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 3 of 21

the influence of environmental attitudes, personal norms, social norms, and some socioeco-
nomic factors on reducing the use of plastic packaging in different fast-moving consumer
good product categories in Germany. The following research questions are studied in
this context:
Are there differences in the willingness of consumers to reduce plastic packaging
between different product categories of fast-moving consumer goods?
Which psychographic and socioeconomic factors influence consumers’ willingness
or behaviour to reduce plastic packaging in different product categories of fast-moving
consumer goods?
Although the plastic packaging problem and its negative environmental impacts have
been well-documented for years, the role of consumers in tackling this problem is not
yet well-researched. While some studies have analysed consumers’ views and estimates
on food plastic packaging in recent years [29–31], other consumer goods categories have
been less researched in this context. In this sense, the study contributes to this field of
research by comparing consumers’ willingness to reduce plastic packaging not only for
food products but mainly for other categories of fast-moving consumer goods. Additionally,
the influence of some psychographic and socioeconomic factors is analysed in this context,
giving additional insights for scientific and practical purposes in this field of research.

2. Theoretical Framework: Attitudes and Behaviour

In the studies on consumer behaviour, it is argued that behaviour is mainly explained
by attitudes. The attitude of consumers to products and their packaging is formed cogni-
tively through beliefs and feelings of the product. One of the well-known social psychol-
ogy theories that link behaviour and persuasion is Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour
(TPB) [32]. This theory is an offshoot of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). TRA and
TPB focus on theoretical constructs concerned with individual motivational factors as de-
terminants of the likelihood of performing a specific behaviour. TRA and TPB both assume
the best predictor of a behaviour is behavioural intention, which in turn is determined by
attitude toward the behaviour and social normative perceptions regarding it [33].
TPB is an extension of the TRA and includes an additional construct: perceived control
over performance of the behaviour. This theory states that consumer behaviour is directly
influenced by behavioural intent. This intent can be predicted using three independent
components: attitude to the target behaviour (benefits and consequences of the behaviour),
perceived behavioural control (a person’s perception of the ease or difficulty of performing
this behaviour) and norms (subjective norms or perception of other people’s opinions about
the target behaviour) [30]. TPB is often used to study people’s attitudes to environmental
problems [30,34]. For example, So et al. [35] used the theory of planned behaviour to study
the intentions of Hong Kong citizens to manage plastic waste. Studies have shown that
situational factors directly and positively impacted the intention to manage plastic waste,
but also indirectly influenced attitudes and perceived behavioural control concerning
plastic waste.
TRA is mainly used to predict people’s behaviour based on their pre-existing attitudes
and behavioural intentions. Individuals’ decisions to engage in specific behaviour are
based on the results they expect to obtain from that behaviour [36,37]. Asnawi et al. [38]
used TRA to analyse consumer reactions to government policies related to paid-for plastic
bags in Indonesia. The study results showed that the chosen model is suitable for predict-
ing consumers’ intentions to support government policy regarding paid-for plastic bags.
However, the authors found that consumers’ knowledge of environmental issues and their
religiosity were not directly related to their intentions to support the state policy against
free plastic bags.
However, it is important to note that in most of the works in which TRA and TPB were
used, only the attitude of consumers to the processing of plastic waste and the intention to
purchase from several sustainable packaging options were analysed [39,40]. The attitude of
consumers towards plastic packaging reduction remained a poorly lit area.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 4 of 21

3. Literature Review: Plastic Packaging-Related Attitudes and Avoidance Behaviour

Plastic packaging is one of the most common types used with food, cosmetic products,
personal care products, etc. A large body of literature has examined the links between
consumers’ attitudes and the use of plastic packaging to understand why consumers
choose plastic-packaged products. Studies have consistently found that various individual
psychological factors and attitudes influence plastic purchasing behaviour [41–43]. Con-
sumers’ behaviour towards plastic packaging use is very complex and therefore needs to
be intensively studied from different angles.
This bundle of factors can lead to preferences for different packaging designs and
materials and to different purchasing, use, and disposal behaviour [44–46].

3.1. Psychographic Variables Used in This Study

Psychographic variables are factors that can be used to segment target audiences into
different groups or segments based on their internal traits [47]. These can include lifestyles,
attitudes, personality traits, and values. Lifestyles can be associated with the consumers’
patterns of behaviour. These can be further categorised into three sub-groups: activities,
interests and opinions [48]. Activities can be defined as the nature of the consumers’ work,
hobbies and entertainment, the social events they attend, the type of vacations they go on,
their club memberships, the sports they play, their shopping patterns, etc. Interests may
be subdivided into the consumer’s likes and dislikes regarding their families, homes, jobs,
communities, forms of recreation, fashions, food and media, etc. The specific opinions that
consumers hold tend to influence their buying decisions. These opinions can be based on
themselves, social issues, politics, business, education, economics, culture, and the future,
for example [49].
Attitudes tend to affect the consumer’s perception of different commodities and brands
of goods that might be used to satisfy their needs. Once the desire to purchase something
arises, the next step that consumers need to take is to evaluate the need for it and then
assess which brand they would opt for. The outcome of this decision is firmly based on
attitudes. These will help evaluate the available alternatives when selecting a particular
item [50].
In the framework of this study, the following psychographic variables were considered:
environmental attitudes, personal norms, and social norms.
Social norms are rules or standards of behaviour that guide people’s actions, help
shape expectations about how others will act, and promote greater coordination in social
life [51]. Social norms can be divided into descriptive norms (what other people do) and
prescriptive ones (whether others approve or disapprove of the behaviour). Borg et al. [52]
studied the impact of social norms on the problem of plastic waste. The authors found
that descriptive norms are the strongest predictor of plastic avoidance, and most of the
remaining variables regulate the relationship between norms and behaviour. The study
results showed that it was possible to use the exchange of messages about social norms
to bridge the gap between perception and action among consumers to solve the global
plastic waste problem. This practice has already shown effectiveness in matters of global
warming [53] and waste disposal [54].
Personal norms were chosen as the second psychographic parameter in this work.
The main difference between personal and social norms is that social norms include reac-
tions from other group members, while personal norms are based on rules and standards
only on the part of the individual [55]. The importance of using personal norms in the
study of environmental problems is considered in several works [56–59]. Wiefek et al. [60]
found that personal norms and barriers significantly affect the reduction of plastic pack-
aging consumption. Santos et al. [61] pointed out that personal norms are the strongest
predictor of consumer intent when choosing eco-friendly packaging as an alternative to
plastic packaging.
Environmental attitudes can be described as a set of moral, psychological, and social
attitudes that arise in a person when interacting with the environment. Leonidou et al. [62]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 5 of 21

and Trivedi et al. [63] emphasise that the attitude towards the environment can be divided
into internal and external components. The internal attitude towards the environment is
the attitude to the abuse of the environment by individual consumers, in which the main
role in preserving the environment is played by a person. External attitude towards the
environment is defined as an attitude towards the perceived need for social, political and
legal changes to protect the environment. Understanding consumers’ attitudes towards
the environment can significantly influence the problem of reducing the use of plastic, in
particular plastic packaging [64,65].

3.2. Environmental Attitudes

The attitude towards the environment is a critical psychographic factor in analysing the
problem of plastic waste [43,66]. Modifying or preventing unnecessary plastic consumption
is one example that depends on consumer decisions [2,67]. A study conducted in Canada
showed that environmental pollution was one of the motivators for solving the problem of
plastic waste [8]. Bisht and Janotra [68] found that environmental consciousness, health
consciousness, the value of self-improvement and social pressure were important factors
influencing the purchasing behaviour of “environmentally friendly” products through
attitude and intention. Dilkes-Hoffman et al. [69] also studied the environmental attitude
towards plastics in Australia. Eighty percent of respondents indicated a desire to reduce the
use of plastics, which is associated with understanding the harmful effects of these materials
on the environment. Filho et al. [70] observed that consumers increasingly considered the
misuse and disposal of plastic packaging and bags as an environmental problem.
It is important to note that despite consumers’ understanding of the relationship
between the problem of plastic pollution and the environment, some consumers from
industrialised nations such as Germany perceive their plastic pollution to be well under
control through disposal, with pollution mostly occurring at other locations. This attitude is
in line with the finding that outsourcing pollution to other locations leads to the emotional
detachment from the negative environmental impact [71]. Understanding the importance
of preserving the environment and similar ethical beliefs are not just prevalent in Western
countries. These concepts can be observed globally [29,72]. Overall, a thrifty attitude
towards the environment is commonly found to be the most important factor for plastic
avoidance [66].
It was also observed that many consumers appear to lack knowledge of the environ-
mental impacts of some packaging alternatives [27,73]. Even well-informed consumers
frequently show a disconnection between their attitudes and their actions, with purchasing
decisions that contradict their expressed intentions and behaviour [74].
This study proposes that environmental attitudes influence the consumer’s intention
to reduce the consumption of plastic packaging and proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). People who score higher in terms of pro-environmental attitudes will show
greater willingness to reduce consumption of plastic packaging.

3.3. Personal Norms

Often people underestimate the influence of personal norms as a psychographic
factor when considering environmental problems, particularly plastic waste [75]. Kim
and Seock [42] found close relationships between personal norms and behaviour aimed at
protecting the environment.
The Norm Activation Model (NAM) Schwartz [76] describes personal norms or moral
norms as self-expectations, punishments, and duties that are anchored in internalised
values. It is possible to determine with great accuracy a person’s preferences on several
issues by knowing their personal norms. For example, people with strong personal norms
buy eco-friendly plastic because they feel ethically obligated to do so. Hwang et al. [77]
stated that moral duty had positive and substantial effects on purchase intentions of
eco-friendly plastic packaging and products manufactured with recycled materials. The
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 6 of 21

findings of Karandikar et al. [78], who relate personality traits and personal norms to
decision-making in moral dilemma situations, explain why some people prefer convenience
over personal norms in choosing to buy more plastic packaging than necessary.
In this study, we hypothesise that a high personal norm correlates with reduced
plastic-packaged product consumption. Several studies indicate that TPB is criticised for
the dominance of cognitive variables [79,80]. Considering that personal norms have an
emotional nature, using this parameter in the study is important. For example, the work
of Morren and Grinstein [81] shows that adding personal norms to the TPB model and
subjective norms moderately improves the understanding of cross-cultural differences in
behaviour towards the environment.

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Personal norms have a positive impact on reducing the consumption of
plastic-packaged products.

3.4. Social Norms

One of the most controversial constructions in TPB is the influence of social norms.
In their meta-analysis, Heidbreder et al. [2] found that social norms were a weak predic-
tor in a wide range of actions aimed at protecting the environment. However, in other
studies [42,82], the authors confirmed the importance of the social norm in studying envi-
ronmental problems.
There is a widespread belief that people’s intentions and behaviours are highly influ-
enced by their social surroundings [83,84]. People are significantly influenced by normative
forces and the social circumstances of their daily life. For example, the degree to which
an individual believes that a specific conduct contributes to the environment or global
warming is likely to be connected to the perception that other individuals they regard as
significant also hold this opinion. Consequently, social norms have been acknowledged as
a vital component of motivation and behaviour, as well as a critical aspect in behavioural
impact and change. Nonetheless, the idea of social norms is currently underutilised in the
environmental field [85].
Social norms directly impact purchasing behaviour and personal norms moderate the
association between social norms and purchasing eco-friendly clothing, for example [86].
The findings revealed that social norms are highly linked to purchasing behaviour, while
personal norms considerably regulate the association between social norms and shopping
behaviour. The study by (Ajzen [32] and Ye and Yao [41] showed that social norms influence
behaviour, not just directly but also indirectly through personal standards of eco-friendly
conduct. Social norms influence individuals’ pro-environmental behaviour directly and
indirectly by creating a strong personal duty to buy eco-friendly clothing. In other words,
personal norms are a process variable that relates societal standards to eco-friendly clothing
purchase behaviour. As a result, societal standards must be internalised for people to buy
eco-friendly clothing.
Even though modern consumers tend to have control over their purchasing behaviour,
their personal conceptions of ethical and moral behaviour are influenced by social norms
and examples of social behaviour [71]. For example, in the context of single-use plastic
consumption, peer pressure has been shown to be a relevant factor [87]. Other studies
showed that the effect of subjective norms on plastic buying behaviour is ambiguous [2,72].
Taking all these insights together, this study hypothesises that social norms positively
influence consumers’ intentions to reduce the consumption of plastic packaging products.

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Social norms positively impact reducing the consumption of plastic-
packaged products.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 7 of 21

3.5. Sociodemographics
A range of sociodemographic factors may play a role in decisions on purchasing plas-
tic. For example, more highly educated people frequently avoid purchasing plastics [88,89].
This may be associated with this group’s higher relevance of environmental attitudes [2].
Many studies have found that women are also less likely to buy plastic bags or packaging [2],
demonstrating the role gender plays in shaping environmentally friendly consumption
decisions [52]. Age is also quite a conflicting factor, with some studies pointing to older
people willing to reduce plastic consumption [29], whereas others found younger people
to be more committed to environmentally friendly purchasing decisions [2,66]. In Lithua-
nia, young people also prefer to use their own shopping bags when shopping more than
consumers aged over 60 years old [90]. In Canada, the green attitude is observed by more
highly educated shoppers, who tend to follow waste-prevention initiatives and cut out
alternative packaging suppliers [21]. Consumers with the lowest levels of education are
more concerned with the content of the product than with its packaging, and they are more
price-oriented than concerned with the packaging. It has been discovered that consumers
with greater levels of education give more importance to packaging and are more environ-
mentally conscious [91]. There is another factor for consumers’ intention to reduce plastic
associated with less visible plastic hazard—the threat to human health from toxic chemicals
found in most plastic products, including children’s toys, food packaging, kitchen products,
clothing, electronics and many other daily consumer products [92]. Therefore, it is logical
to assume that the size of the family has an influence on consumers’ intention to reduce
plastic packaging in the household. Thus, regarding family size in particular families with
children should have a higher tendency to reduce plastic consumption.
Based on the previous studies, the following hypothesis can be formulated.

Hypothesis 4 (H4). The willingness of people to reduce plastic consumption depends on sociode-
mographic status:

Hypothesis 4.1 (H4.1). Gender—women are more motivated to reduce plastic, which is used in
households for packaging cleaning detergents, care and decorative cosmetics, foods, etc.

Hypothesis 4.2 (H4.2). Age—young people are more interested in preserving the environment
than the older generation, and thus are more engaged in reducing plastic packaging.

Hypothesis 4.3 (H4.3). Education level—people with higher education are more picky about the
use of plastic packaging.

Hypothesis 4.4 (H4.4). Family size—families with children tend to reduce the use of plastic.

3.6. Plastic Packaging Avoidance across Product Groups, Care and Decorative Cosmetics
Packaging Avoidance across Product Groups
Plastics are associated with food packaging and convenience among consumers. Plastic
packaging is mainly used in the food industry and for other fast-moving consumer goods.
Plastic packaging represents the largest commercial use of plastics, accounting for almost
half of all plastic waste produced worldwide, approx. 85 million tonnes [93,94]. Similarly,
Dilkes-Hoffman et al. [69] observed that consumers usually identify plastics with food
packaging and convenience, but are aware of plastic’s negative environmental implications.
According to Swedish customer opinions, paper-based packaging is ecologically beneficial,
but plastic and metal are not. No less than 86% of respondents said they would pay
more for ecologically friendly food packaging. The majority of Swedish consumers are
aware of their weaknesses in appraising the environmental status of food packaging,
emphasising the need for advice. Despite many consumers recognising that plastic waste
is an environmental concern and seeking to minimise their personal plastic packaging
consumption, reduction does appear to be difficult [69].
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 8 of 21

Consumers are primarily concerned with packaging’s end-of-life characteristics, al-

though cultures differ in balancing the relative importance of recycling, reusability, and
biodegradability. According to Boesen et al. [95], plastic is viewed as the least ecologically
beneficial packaging material for liquid foodstuffs, and consumers judge this mostly on
imagined recycling possibilities. When analysing bio-based plastic packaging, customers
prioritise features connected to the end-of-life stage, such as recyclability and biodegrad-
ability, while focusing less on manufacturing, transportation, and retailing [73].
Numerous studies have shown consumers’ interest in avoiding the use of plastic pack-
aging in many sectors of industry, such as the food industry [96], cleaning products [97],
and the cosmetic industry [98]. Cavaliere et al. [96] argue that plastic avoidance is driven
mostly by environmental and health concerns about plastics. Furthermore, subjective
awareness and the value placed on parties’ commitment to addressing the plastic issue
only indirectly impact consumer behaviour in terms of plastic avoidance. Cinelli et al. [98]
found that even cosmetic packaging is seeking sustainable solutions, with research con-
centrating on adapting bio-based and biodegradable polymers to suit the demanding
standards for cosmetic preservation while retaining sustainability and biodegradability.
Several bio-based and biodegradable polymers are available, including poly (lactic acid),
polyhydroxyalkanoates, polysaccharides, and others, and some first solutions for both rigid
and flexible packaging are now on the market. However, some variables, such as travel [8],
furniture [99], and textiles [100], may influence packaging-avoidance behaviour. Rhein and
Schmid [8] found that people were more likely to recycle if the recycling sites are nearby
and they did not have to travel a great deal. Migliaccio et al. [99] found that there were also
multiple issues with the selection of packaging and trash disposal for ecological demands.
Environmental trademarks and branding are not often deployed in Italian businesses.
Wiederhold and Martinez [100] found that price, availability, knowledge, transparency,
image, and purchasing habits are all impediments to sustainable fashion consumption. To
summarise, the following hypothesis can be formulated based on the outcome of all these
studies, and a pattern can be observed where the reduction in plastic packaging varies
among the different product categories.

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Consumers’ interest in reducing plastic packaging varies among the different
product categories of consumer goods.

4. Methodology
4.1. Data Collection
The study participants were found through an online survey. In order to obtain as
many participants as possible, many channels (e.g., email lists, social media, press releases)
were used to contact potential respondents. The target audience for this survey was over 18
and currently living in Germany. They also had to be responsible for purchasing groceries
for the household. In the online survey’s cover letter, potential participants were informed
that the study consisted of four parts and that €50 would be paid if all four parts were
successfully completed. Before the questionnaire was sent out, various pretests were
carried out. A total of 453 people followed the call via social media and mailing lists and
participated in the first online survey. However, for budgetary reasons, a selection had to be
made among the interested participants of the first online survey. Accordingly, 350 people
were selected based on the criteria size of residence and waste collection system (e.g., buy-
back centre, “yellow bag”; recycling point). Since different waste collection systems exist
in different German regions, it was essential to have enough participants in the various
systems (Part 1 of this study). In the second part (Part 2), light packaging was collected
for 14 days, and a diary was kept for specific product packaging (Part 3). The study was
completed with a second online survey (Part 4). The data in this publication are from
this second online survey (Part 4). Of the 350 people selected, 299 ultimately participated
in the final online survey. In the second online survey, in addition to sociodemographic
data (age, gender, education level, and family size), we also asked about environmental
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 9 of 21

attitudes, personal norms and social norms. These were queried with different statements:
social norms were measured by three statements used in [42], rated from 1 (strongly agree)
to 7 (strongly disagree). The statements on personal norms were also adapted from [42].
Again, a seven-point scale was offered for a response. The same scale was used when
asking about environmental attitudes. The questions on these attitudes were based on the
questions from Haws et al. [101]. For our study, a seven-point Likert Scale was chosen for
evaluating the different items, since it provided more varied options [102].

4.2. Data Analysis

In this study, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) [101]. This technique
has been used quite often in social and behavioural sciences. One of the biggest advantages
of CFA is that it can bridge the gap between theory and observation. Furthermore, it can
give crucial information regarding the fit of data to the assigned model and the results point
toward likely modifications that can be analysed next. Lastly, it is beneficial to confirm or
reject the theory-derived model. Hence, CFA has been used as a part of our analysis to
specify the variables that are not clearly dedicated to an analysed factor and to confirm or
reject the theory-derived model.
Besides this, we used a binomial logistic regression. With the help of binary logistic
regression, one can predict the relationship between the independent variables (nominal,
ordinal or metric scale level) and the dependent variables (nominal scale level). Binary
logistic regression is used to model nominal outcome variables, in which the log odds of
the outcomes are modelled as a linear combination of the predictor variables.
In our questionnaire, the respondents were asked directly about their level of consid-
eration for avoiding plastic packaging across different product categories. For the logistic
regression model, the original seven-point-scale was recorded as a dummy variable with
the denomination “strong” (originally codes: very strong (1) and strong (2)) and “weak”
(original codes: not so strong (3) partly (4), little (5), very little (6), not at all (7)). The
denomination “strong” was given the value of one, and the denomination “not strong” the
value of zero. This variable was entered into the regression as a dummy-coded dependent
parameter. Via the binomial regression analysis, it was explored whether the factors “en-
vironmental attitude”, “personal norms” and “social norms” have an impact on plastic
packaging avoidance. Besides that, other independent variables such as “age”, “sex”,
“education level”, and “size of family” were used to explain the probability of belonging
to one of the two dependent groups (“strong”; “not strong”). Consequently, data were
modelled using the following expression:

logit (“strongly” avoid plastic packaging) = x0 β = environmental attitude ∗ β1

+ personal norms ∗ β2
+ social norms ∗ β3
+ female ∗ β4
(1)
+ elderly age group ∗ β5
+ higher education ∗ β6
+ family size ∗ β7
+ constant

The software application “R” [103] and the logit package [104] were used in this study
to estimate the specified model.

4.3. Sample
Compared to the average in Germany, women are noticeably overrepresented in the
sample of this study (Table 1). However, this also reflects the fact that in most house-
holds, housework and shopping for fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) are still done
by women [105]. Furthermore, younger and better-educated participants are also over-
represented in the sample. This might be because younger people are more interested in
issues related to environmental protection. The rather complex structure and procedure
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 10 of 21

of the survey’s data collection might also have favoured the participation of more highly
educated people.

Table 1. Sociodemographic structure of the sample.

Characteristics Sample (n = 299) Germany

% %
Gender Male 25.4 48.8
Female 74.6 51.2
Age groups I
43.8 16.6
18–29 years
30–44 years 42.9 22.3
45–59 years 10.0 27.5
>60 years 3.3 33.6
Age groups II (for logistic regression)
75.6 -
18–35 years
>35 years (elderly age group) 24.4 -
Family size
22.7 42.3
1
2 37.1 33.2
3 16.7 11.9
4 16.5 9.1
5 and more 7.0 3.5
Number of children in family
77.3 66.0
No children
1 child 9.7 16.2
2 children 9.7 10.6
3 children 2.6 6.3
4 children 0.7 0.9
Education I
0.3 -
No indication about school grade
No school grade 1.7 1.0
Still in school 0.7 -
Lower secondary school diploma (Hauptschule) 0.3 -
Secondary school level I (mittlere Reife) 7.4 37.6
Polytechnic secondary school (polytechnische Oberschule) 1.0 -
Final secondary school (Abitur) 88.6 31.5
Education II (for logistic regression) no grade, lower or secondary education 11.4 -
higher education * 88.6 16.7
* Considering with diplomas of universities and equivalent institutions according to German Education System.

5. Results
5.1. General Plastic Packaging Avoidance Behaviour and Comparison across Product Categories
In a first step, we analysed participants’ general motivation to reduce plastic waste
in their family. For this purpose, we used the question “How strongly do you consider
reducing plastic packaging in your daily life?”, which is also the dependent variable for
the binomial logistic regression analysis. Many respondents indicated a “very strong” and
“strong” motivation to reduce plastic packaging. Both top scores accounted for more than
60% of all answers (Figure 1). This illustrates the importance of reducing plastic packaging
in consumers’ minds.
A comparison of the motivation to plastic packaging reduction across product cate-
gories revealed a slightly more detailed picture (Table 2). We asked the respondents the
following question: “To what extent do you pay attention within the specified areas, to
reduce or avoid plastic packaging?”. To this end, the original seven-point-scale was recoded
and aggregated to a two-point-scale with the denominations “strong” (original codes: very
strong (1) and strong (2)) and “weak” (original codes: slightly strong (3), partly (4), less (5),
Lower secondary school diploma (Hauptschule) 0.3 -
Secondary school level I (mittlere Reife) 7.4 37.6
Polytechnic secondary school (polytechnische Oberschule) 1.0 -
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 11 of 21
Final secondary school (Abitur) 88.6 31.5
Education II (for logistic regression) no grade, lower or secondary education 11.4 -
higher education * 88.6 16.7
very little (6), not at all (7)). The findings demonstrate that for foods, a high proportion
* Considering with diplomas of universities and equivalent institutions according to German Edu-
(75.3%) of the respondents revealed a self-reported favourably strong intention to reduce
cation System.
plastic packaging. Textiles followed far behind (top scores strong = 52.8%) in the second
position and cosmetics (40.1%) and furniture (40.1%) as joint third places. The lowest
5. Results
intention of the respondents to reduce plastic packaging was for cleaning products (top
5.1. General
scores strongPlastic Packaging
= 27.8%). Avoidance
In analogy to theBehaviour
descriptiveandfindings,
Comparisona χ2across Product Categories
-test revealed significant
In a first step, we analysed participants’ general 2
motivation to reduce
differences across the seven analysed product categories (χ = 170.95, df = 6, p < 0.01). plastic wasteA
in their plot
mosaic family. For 2)
(Figure this
waspurpose,
createdwe used thethe
to analyse question “How
differences strongly
across productdo you consider
categories in
reducing
detail. Blueplastic packaging
indicates that theinobserved
your daily life?”,
value which than
is higher is also
thethe dependent
expected valuevariable for
if the data
the binomial
were random.logistic regression
Red shows analysis.
that the Many
observed respondents
value indicated
is lower than a “very strong”
the expected value ifand the
“strong”
data weremotivation
random. Intothe reduce plastic
category packaging.
of foods Both top
and textiles, thescores accounted
frequency for more
of the answer than
option
“strong”
60% of allwas significantly
answers (Figure above
1). Thisthe average,the
illustrates whereas in the of
importance cleaning
reducing category
plasticthe “weak”
packaging
option was greatly
in consumers’ overrepresented.
minds.

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22

Figure 1. Distribution of answers to the question: “How strongly do you consider reducing plastic
Table 2. Intention
packaging of users
in your daily to reduce plastic packaging across various categories based on a two-
life?”.
life?”.
point-scale.
TableA Intention of users
2. comparison to reduce
of the plastic packaging
motivation across
to plastic various categories
packaging reduction based on a two-point-scale.
across product cate-
Strong Intention (%) Weak Intention (%)
gories revealed a slightly more detailed Strong picture (Table
Intention (%) 2). We asked
Weakthe respondents
Intention the
Food 75.3 24.7 (%)
following question: “To what extent do you pay attention within the specified areas, to
Textiles
Food 75.352.8 47.2
24.7
reduce or avoid plastic packaging?”. To this end, the original seven-point-scale was re-
Textiles
Cosmetics 52.840.1 47.2
59.9
coded andCosmetics
aggregated to a two-point-scale 40.1with the denominations “strong”
59.9 (original
Washing
codes: veryWashing
strong (1) and strong (2)) and “weak” 39.5 60.5 (3), partly
39.5 (original codes: slightly 60.5
strong
Furniture
(4), less (5),Furniture
very little (6), not at all (7)). The 40.1
40.1findings demonstrate that for59.9
59.9foods, a high
Cleaning
proportionCleaning
(75.3%) of the respondents revealed27.827.8 72.2
72.2
a self-reported favourably strong inten-
Travel
Travel 37.1 37.1 62.9
62.9
tion to reduce plastic packaging. Textiles followed far behind (top scores strong = 52.8%)
in the second position and cosmetics (40.1%) and furniture (40.1%) as joint third places.
The lowest intention of the respondents to reduce plastic packaging was for cleaning
products (top scores strong = 27.8%). In analogy to the descriptive findings, a χ2-test re-
vealed significant differences across the seven analysed product categories (χ2= 170.95, df
= 6, p < 0.01). A mosaic plot (Figure 2) was created to analyse the differences across product
categories in detail. Blue indicates that the observed value is higher than the expected
value if the data were random. Red shows that the observed value is lower than the ex-
pected value if the data were random. In the category of foods and textiles, the frequency
of the answer option “strong” was significantly above the average, whereas in the clean-
ing category the “weak” option was greatly overrepresented.

Figure 2. Mosaic plot of standardised Pearson residuals.

The results related to environmental attitudes, personal norms and social norms are
shown in Figure 3. They are mostly positive regarding the items of the analysed scales,
i.e., the participants predominantly either totally agreed, agreed or slightly agreed to the
individual statements. Only for two statements related to personal norms (see the first
 Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 12 of 21

The results related to environmental attitudes, personal norms and social norms are
shown in Figure 3. They are mostly positive regarding the items of the analysed scales,
i.e., the participants predominantly either totally agreed, agreed or slightly agreed to the
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 22
individual statements. Only for two statements related to personal norms (see the first two
statements in Figure 3) can a somewhat higher degree of disagreement be observed.

Figure
Figure 3. Pictographic
3. Pictographic representationof
representation of the
the response
responsedistribution
distributionto the statements
to the of environmental
statements of environmen-
attitudes, social and personal norms.
tal attitudes, social and personal norms.

In a further step, we performed a factor analysis to reduce the complexity of the

Table 3. Factor loadings and communalities (h2) for the statements of the survey.
analysed data. An initial step in any factor analysis is to check the factorability of the
data. For this purpose, we applied the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin factor adequacyFactors and received h2 a
good value of 0.89. Because the main purpose of the factor analysis was data reduction, a
Environm Person
confirmatory factor analysis was carried out with the aim of deriving Social
factor scores for the
Statements ental
subsequent logistic regression analysis (Table 3). A parallel analysis suggested al
Norms a three-factor
Attitudeswere satisfactory
solution. The found factor loadings using the oblim-algorithm Norms for the
It is important to me to use products that
three-factor do not
solution harm
and fittedthe environment.
well 0.72of the chosen
to the three item-batteries 0.02 scales 0.02 0.55
(Table 4).
The factor solution accounted for 58%
I consider the potential environmental impact of my actions when making of the variation. The fit indices found (CFI = 0.939,
0.79 Cronbach’s
= 0.923, p-value RMSEA < 0.05) were all satisfied. In addition,
TLIdecisions. 0.03 alpha 0.01for the
0.66
three factors was calculated and demonstrated to all have a good reliability (Environmental
My shopping habits are influenced by my concern for our environment. 0.75 −0.03 0.20 0.74
attitudes α = 0.87, social norm α = 0.76, personal norms α = 0.84).
I am concerned about the waste of resources on our planet. 0.46 0.05 0.09 0.29
I would describe my actions as environmentally conscious. 0.63 0.10 0.02 0.48
I am ready to accept inconvenience and restrictions to be more environmentally
0.71 0.05 −0.01 0.53
friendly.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 13 of 21

Table 3. Factor loadings and communalities (h2) for the statements of the survey.

Factors h2
Environmental Social Personal
Statements
Attitudes Norms Norms
It is important to me to use products that do not harm the environment. 0.72 0.02 0.02 0.55
I consider the potential environmental impact of my actions when
0.79 0.03 0.01 0.66
making decisions.
My shopping habits are influenced by my concern for our environment. 0.75 −0.03 0.20 0.74
I am concerned about the waste of resources on our planet. 0.46 0.05 0.09 0.29
I would describe my actions as environmentally conscious. 0.63 0.10 0.02 0.48
I am ready to accept inconvenience and restrictions to be more
0.71 0.05 −0.01 0.53
environmentally friendly.
Family members whose opinion I value would agree with my
0.21 0.68 −0.13 0.58
commitment to buying environmentally friendly products.
Close friends who are important to me would support my commitment to
−0.01 0.84 0.02 0.71
buying environmentally friendly products.
The general public would support my commitment to buying
−0.17 0.61 0.21 0.38
environmentally friendly products.
When I shop, I feel morally obliged to prefer environmentally friendly
0.32 0.04 0.63 0.75
products over other products.
I would feel guilty if I didn’t buy environmentally friendly products. 0.05 0.03 0.86 0.80
I feel morally obliged to buy environmentally friendly products
0.16 0.01 0.75 0.73
regardless of what others say.
I would be a better person if I bought environmentally friendly products. −0.28 −0.01 0.65 0.30

Table 4. Distribution of variances across the three factors.

Environmental Personal Social

Attitudes Norms Norms
Proportion Variance 0.26 0.19 0.13
Cumulative Variance 0.26 0.45 0.58
Proportion Explained Variance 0.45 0.33 0.22
Cumulative Proportion Variance 0.45 0.78 1.00

5.2. Logistic Regression Findings for Groups with Differing Motivations to Reduce Plastic
Packaging Use
As mentioned in the methodology section, the seven-point-scale measuring the mo-
tivation to reduce plastic packaging was reduced to a dummy variable for the logistic
regression analysis. Thus, for each product category, there is a segment of respondents that
“strongly” considers the reduction of plastic packaging (coded with 1) and one segment that
only “weakly” takes this topic into account (coded with zero for the regression analysis).
The logistic regression estimates show that environmental attitudes are an important
factor for separating consumers with a high intention to reduce plastic packaging waste
from those with a lower intention, with high statistical significance (p < 0.01) for all consid-
ered product categories except textiles (p < 0.1) (Table 5). The logistic regression coefficients,
as mentioned in Table 5, suggest that environmental attitudes have the highest effect on the
dependent variable compared to the other independent variables. The positive regression
coefficient of environmental attitudes for all product categories suggests that participants
with higher environmental attitudes show a higher intention to reduce plastic waste in all
the product categories analysed than those with a lower environmental attitude.
Related to personal norms, no statistically significant influence on the intention to
reduce plastic packaging could be found among our survey participants. This is true for
every product category analysed in the study. For the scale of social norms, a statistically
significant influence was observed in the categories of textiles, furniture and travel, which
also have the highest and positive regression coefficients for this factor. It means that
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 14 of 21

decisions made by consumers to reduce plastic packaging in these fields are highly affected
by the people around them (for instance, family members, friends and social peers).

Table 5. Regression coefficients β and their standard error values (s.e.) estimated in logistic regres-
sion analysis.

Dependent Variable:
Overall Food Textile Cosmetics Washing Cleaning Furniture Travel
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
β β β β β β β β
(s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.)
Environmental
1.005 *** 1.106 *** 0.253 1.152 *** 0.928 *** 1.047 *** 0.295 * 0.610 ***
attitudes
(0.196) (0.206) (0.161) (0.209) (0.193) (0.220) (0.170) (0.185)
Personal norms 0.201 −0.005 0.250 0.026 −0.085 −0.096 0.018 −0.065
(0.171) (0.184) (0.156) (0.173) (0.167) (0.184) (0.164) (0.165)
Social norms 0.304 * −0.030 0.254 * 0.030 −0.056 −0.239 0.363 ** 0.450 ***
(0.156) (0.171) (0.137) (0.154) (0.147) (0.160) (0.151) (0.157)
Female 0.169 −0.158 0.353 0.524 0.690 ** 0.802 ** 0.839 *** −0.354
(0.319) (0.356) (0.286) (0.322) (0.316) (0.367) (0.316) (0.303)
Older age group 0.066 −0.457 0.356 −0.118 0.087 0.330 0.720∗∗ 0.336
(0.345) (0.358) (0.303) (0.333) (0.315) (0.337) (0.307) (0.311)
High education −0.347 −0.723 0.367 −0.272 0.437 0.411 0.015 −0.373
(0.477) (0.555) (0.395) (0.433) (0.422) (0.456) (0.402) (0.408)
Family size 0.063 0.064 0.015 0.050 0.012 0.022 0.037 0.077
(0.117) (0.126) (0.102) (0.114) (0.108) (0.118) (0.106) (0.109)
Constant 0.670 2.078 *** −0.593 −0.804 −1.478 *** −2.262 *** −1.360 ** −0.311
(0.586) (0.696) (0.507) (0.555) (0.550) (0.621) (0.535) (0.520)
Note: * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.

The sociodemographic variables shown in Table 5 indicate a very mixed picture

regarding their influence on consumers’ motivation to reduce plastic packaging. However,
female respondents were shown to have a statistically significant positive motivation for
plastic packaging reduction in the categories of washing, cleaning and furniture, while
the influence of gender was not statistically significant in the other categories (Table 5).
Another statistically significant influence—age—could be only observed in the furniture
category, while education and family size did not show any significant influence in any of
the analysed categories (Table 5).

6. Discussion
This study aimed at analysing the influence of environmental attitudes, personal
norms, and social norms, as well as such sociodemographic factors as gender, age, education
level, and family size on reducing plastic packaging consumption across different product
groups, as a case study for German conditions. For this study, a seven-point Likert scale
was chosen to categorise the responses of the correspondents, since it has been successfully
used in several previous studies and has proven to acquire an accurate description of
the participants’ responses. The limitation of this scale is the avoidance of extreme and
average values in correspondents’ responses. This fact indicates that the data obtained
must be statistically processed to identify this type of error on the experimental results. A
confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish relationships between the different
factors. Finally, several binomial logistic regression models were estimated to find the
significance of the analysed factors to answer the hypotheses suggested in Section 2.
More than 60% of respondents note a “strong” or “very strong” willingness to reduce
the use of plastic packaging. This result is in line with the results of other studies that show
the extent of consumer interest in reducing the use of plastic containers [21,106]. The results
are also close to a study conducted in Germany to check consumer attitudes towards plastic
waste [4,107]. Another study [108] indicated that 86% of Swedish consumers were prepared
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 15 of 21

to pay more for ecologically friendly food packaging, and in their opinion, paper-based
packaging is ecologically better than plastic or metal packaging. Another study [109]
showed that most (93.7%) of the Canadian consumers were personally motivated to reduce
their consumption of single-use plastic food packaging.
Reliability and validity tests were conducted for the three measurement scales. It was
shown that environmental attitude significantly impacts the reduction of plastic packaging
in all analysed product groups as hypothesised in this study (Hypothesis 1). This may be
related to respondents’ awareness of the increase in plastic waste and its negative impact on
the environment and their high environmental awareness. The data obtained are consistent
with the results of other researchers, such as Escario et al. [65] and Popovic et al. [40].
In this study, it was found that personal norms show some tendencies to influence
the motivation of consumers to reduce plastic packaging. However, this influence is not
significant for any of the analysed product categories and does not differ statistically
significantly among the product groups studied (p > 0.01) (Hypothesis 2). The results
obtained are consistent with the results of other scientists [56,57]. Wiefek et al. [60] observed
that personal norms significantly affect consumers’ attitudes to plastic packaging for
household needs. Santos et al. [61] found that personal norms are the strongest predictor
of consumer intention when choosing eco-friendly packaging, which is an alternative to
plastic packaging.
Studies of Heywood [58] and Khan et al. [59] from different periods showed that social
norms have an ambiguous effect on consumers’ motivation to avoid plastic packaging.
The study on hand found that social norms had a statistically significant impact on the
motivation of consumers to reduce plastic packaging only in areas of textiles, travel and
transport (p < 0.1). In other areas, social norms did not have any significant impact
on the respondents’ motivation (Hypothesis 3). Studies conducted in other countries
also indicate the ambiguous influence of social norms in the study of the plastic waste
problem. Researchers from Finland [110] found that social norms do not significantly impact
behaviour when dealing with plastic packaging. A study conducted in China showed that
attitudes towards the environment, social norms and environmental behaviour in the past
show a less direct relationship with people’s intentions to avoid buying disposable plastic
packaging [111]. On the other hand, Australian scientists [52] have found that descriptive
norms are the strongest predictor of plastic avoidance, and most of the remaining variables
regulate the relationship between norms and behaviour. The results of this study showed
that it is possible to use the exchange of messages about social norms to bridge the gap
between perception and action among consumers to solve the global plastic waste problem.
This practice has already shown effectiveness in matters of global warming [53] and waste
disposal [54].
The analysis of Table 5 showed that there are gender differences in the motivation
of consumers to avoid plastic packaging in the field of washing, cleaning, and furniture
compared to other groups (p < 0.05). This result may be because women use products
of these consumer product groups more than men, which is observed not only in our
study [30]. It is important to note that the age group of the respondents only has a
statistically significant difference in the level of motivation of consumers to avoid plastic
packaging in the field of furniture (p < 0.05). Theoretically, higher education and family size
should positively affect the motivation of consumers to avoid plastic packaging. However,
there were no statistical differences between the product groups analysed. Thus, the study’s
results only partly confirmed the influence of gender, age, level of education, and family
size on reduced consumption of products packaged in plastic (Hypothesis 4).
The results of this study confirm the hypothesis that there are significant differences
in the reduction of plastic consumption by categories of different consumer goods/services
(Hypothesis 5). If we consider the full sample (Table 5, Constant group), we find that
consumers’ motivation to reduce the consumption of food products in plastic packaging
is statistically significantly different from all the other consumer goods packed in plastic
(p < 0.01). The data obtained may become the basis for understanding the behaviour and
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 16 of 21

motivation of consumers in relation to the plastic waste problem, particularly disposable

plastic packaging.
One of the key limitations is the sample structure. The sample consists mostly of
young and educated people. The people making up the sample are very keen to reduce
the environmental impacts of plastic waste and hence it is not a representative sample
for Germany based on the demographics, but also concerning environmental attitudes.
This may probably lead to biased and more favourable results. In this context, the social
desirable answers of respondents cannot be excluded.

7. Managerial Applications
In this study, we observed that consumers’ motivation to reduce plastic packaging in
food products is significantly different between the analysed categories of FMCG. Thus,
the findings of this study may be of value for managing the (plastic) packaging of FMCG to
find more environmental solutions in this field in the future. Additionally, the study may
also provide new insights to improve governments’, policymakers’ and other academics’
understanding of citizens’ behavioural intentions, allowing for the development of effective
campaigns or initiatives to be taken in the field analysed.

8. Conclusions
The increase in the global production and use of plastic is causing serious global
environmental pollution. There is ample research on strategies for collecting, recycling
and disposing of plastic waste, but very little research on consumer behaviour towards
plastic waste and consumption. This study aimed to analyse the influence of environmental
attitudes, personal norms, and social norms, as well as sociodemographic factors such as
gender, age, education level, and family size in reducing plastic packaging consumption
across different product groups, as a case study for German consumers. The results ob-
tained from regression analysis showed that more than 60% of respondents were interested
in avoiding plastic food packaging and reducing plastic consumption. A comparison of the
motivation to plastic packaging reduction across product categories showed that for foods,
a high proportion (75.3%) of the respondents revealed a self-reported favourably strong in-
tention to reduce plastic packaging. Textiles followed far behind (top scores strong = 52.8%)
in second position and cosmetics (40.1%) and furniture (40.1%) as joint third places. The
lowest intention of the respondents to reduce plastic packaging was for cleaning products
(top scores strong = 27.8%). The logistic regression estimates show that environmental
attitudes are an important factor for separating consumers with a high intention to reduce
plastic packaging waste from those with a lower intention, with high statistical significance
(p < 0.01) for all considered product categories except textiles. Personal norms have po-
tential to influence the motivation of consumers to abandon plastic packaging, but this
influence does not significantly statistically differ between the product groups studied. It is
important to note that social norms have an ambiguous effect on consumer motivation to
reduce plastic packaging between different product groups. We did find a fuzzy influence
of sociodemographic parameters (gender, age, level of education, family size) on reducing
the consumption of products in plastic packaging. One important conclusion of the study
is the confirmation of the hypothesis that there are significant differences in the reduction
of plastic consumption by categories of different FMCG. The study results are pertinent
to Germany. Hence, transferring the results to other industrialized countries with high-
income consumers might be possible. However, the results should be handled carefully if
other socioeconomic, social or environmental conditions are important in other countries.
Cross-cultural and international studies could give more insight in this area of research in
the future.

Limitations of the Study and Further Research

The results of this study are based on the response of volunteer respondents in the
online questionnaire. In this regard, we used a convenience sample for our study and
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 17 of 21

there is no way of knowing how representative such a convenience sample is. As with any
work based on survey results, our work has limitations related to the uneven distribution
of respondents by social groups relative to the average distribution of social groups in
Germany. One of the key limitations is the sample structure. The sample consists mostly of
young and educated people. The people making up the sample are very keen to reduce
the environmental impacts of plastic waste and hence it is not a representative sample for
Germany based on the demographics but also concerning environmental attitudes. This
may probably lead to biased and more favourable results. In this context, the socially
desirable answers of respondents cannot be excluded. Thus, for further research on this
topic, it is recommended that researchers use probability sampling techniques, which are
much more likely to be representative of the larger population.

Author Contributions: S.A.S.—conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, data

curation, writing—original draft, writing—Review and Editing, visualization, resources, project
administration. A.P.—conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, data curation,
writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. T.D.—validation, data curation, writing—review
and editing, project administration. S.S.—validation, formal analysis, writing—review and editing, re-
sources, funding. K.M.—conceptualization, methodology, validation, visualization, writing—review
and editing, supervision, project administration. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors of the study express gratitude for the support of the study from
DIL e.V.—German Institute of Food Technologies in Quakenbrück, Germany.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The article’s results originate from the project “Consumer Behaviour Related
to Plastic and its Avoidance at the Point of Sale”. The German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research funded the project under the funding code 01UP1701.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Kehinde, O.; Ramonu, O.J.; Babaremu, K.O.; Justin, L.D. Plastic wastes: Environmental hazard and instrument for wealth creation
in Nigeria. Heliyon 2020, 6, e05131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Heidbreder, L.M.; Bablok, I.; Drews, S.; Menzel, C. Tackling the plastic problem: A review on perceptions, behaviors, and
interventions. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 668, 1077–1093. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J.R.; Law, K.L. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1700782. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
4. Decker, T.; Lippl, M.; Albrecht, S.; Bauer, K.; Drechsel, P.; Frommeyer, B.; Habermehl, T.; Heider, D.; Holterbosch, J.; Klaene, K.; et al.
Verbraucherreaktionen bei Plastik und dessen Vermei-dungsmöglichkeiten am Point of Sale (VerPlaPoS). Abschlussbericht,
Straubing. 2021. Available online: https://bmbf-plastik.de/sites/default/files/2021-06/Abschlussbericht%20_VerPlaPoS_20
21.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
5. Borrelle, S.B.; Ringma, J.; Law, K.L.; Monnahan, C.C.; Lebreton, L.; McGivern, A.; Murphy, E.; Jambeck, J.; Leonard, G.H.; Hilleary,
M.A.; et al. Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science 2020, 369, 1515–1518. [CrossRef]
6. Beaumont, N.J.; Aanesen, M.; Austen, M.C.; Börger, T.; Clark, J.R.; Cole, M.; Hooper, T.; Lindeque, P.K.; Pascoe, C.; Wyles, K.J.
Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine plastic. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 142, 189–195. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Connors, M.; Bisogni, C.A.; Sobal, J.; Devine, C.M. Managing values in personal food systems. Appetite 2001, 36, 189–200.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Rhein, S.; Schmid, M. Consumers’ awareness of plastic packaging: More than just environmental concerns. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2020, 162, 105063. [CrossRef]
9. Haider, T.P.; Völker, C.; Kramm, J.; Landfester, K.; Wurm, F.R. Plastics of the Future? The Impact of Biodegradable Polymers on
the Environment and on Society. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2019, 58, 50–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Prata, J.C.; Silva, A.L.P.; da Costa, J.P.; Mouneyrac, C.; Walker, T.R.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T. Solutions and Integrated
Strategies for the Control and Mitigation of Plastic and Microplastic Pollution. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2411.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 18 of 21

11. Yuan, Z.; Nag, R.; Cummins, E. Human health concerns regarding microplastics in the aquatic environment-From marine to food
systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 823, 153730. [CrossRef]
12. Patra, I.; Huy, D.T.N.; Alsaikhan, F.; Opulencia, M.J.C.; Van Tuan, P.; Nurmatova, K.C.; Majdi, A.; Shoukat, S.; Yasin, G.;
Margiana, R.; et al. Toxic effects on enzymatic activity, gene expression and histopathological biomarkers in organisms exposed
to microplastics and nanoplastics: A review. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2022, 34, 80. [CrossRef]
13. Alimba, C.G.; Faggio, C. Microplastics in the marine environment: Current trends in environmental pollution and mechanisms of
toxicological profile. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2019, 68, 61–74. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Barletta, M.; Lima, A.R.A.; Costa, M.F. Distribution, sources and consequences of nutrients, persistent organic pollutants, metals
and microplastics in South American estuaries. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 1199–1218. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Chang, X.; Xue, Y.; Li, J.; Zou, L.; Tang, M. Potential health impact of environmental micro- and nanoplastics pollution. J. Appl.
Toxicol. 2020, 40, 4–15. [CrossRef]
16. Prüst, M.; Meijer, J.; Westerink, R.H.S. The plastic brain: Neurotoxicity of micro- and nanoplastics. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 2020, 17, 24.
[CrossRef]
17. Ford, H.V.; Jones, N.H.; Davies, A.J.; Godley, B.J.; Jambeck, J.R.; Napper, I.E.; Suckling, C.C.; Williams, G.J.; Woodall, L.C.;
Koldewey, H.J. The fundamental links between climate change and marine plastic pollution. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150392.
[CrossRef]
18. Töbelmann, D.; Wendler, T. The impact of environmental innovation on carbon dioxide emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,
244, 118787. [CrossRef]
19. Kumar, P. Moving towards stronger packaging waste legislation in Germany. An analysis of the German Packaging Act. IASS
Policy Brief 2020, 4. [CrossRef]
20. Sattlegger, L. Negotiating attachments to plastic. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2021, 51, 820–845. [CrossRef]
21. Walker, T.R.; McGuinty, E.; Charlebois, S.; Music, J. Single-use plastic packaging in the Canadian food industry: Consumer
behavior and perceptions. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2021, 8, 80. [CrossRef]
22. Gvozdenko, A.A.; Siddiqui, S.A.; Blinov, A.V.; Golik, A.B.; Nagdalian, A.A.; Maglakelidze, D.G.; Statsenko, E.N.; Pirogov, M.A.;
Blinova, A.A.; Sizonenko, M.N.; et al. Synthesis of CuO nanoparticles stabilized with gelatin for potential use in food packaging
applications. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 12843. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Magnier, L.; Schoormans, J. Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging: The interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim and
environmental concern. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 44, 53–62. [CrossRef]
24. Orzan, G.; Cruceru, A.; Bălăceanu, C.; Chivu, R.-G. Consumers’ Behavior Concerning Sustainable Packaging: An Exploratory
Study on Romanian Consumers. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1787. [CrossRef]
25. Steenis, N.D. Consumer response to sustainable packaging design. In Knowledge of Religions; Wageningen University: Wageningen,
The Netherlands, 2019. [CrossRef]
26. Gustavo, J.U.; Pereira, G.M.; Bond, A.J.; Viegas, C.V.; Borchardt, M. Drivers, opportunities and barriers for a retailer in the pursuit
of more sustainable packaging redesign. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 18–28. [CrossRef]
27. Ketelsen, M.; Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ response to environmentally-friendly food packaging—A systematic review.
J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120123. [CrossRef]
28. Nguyen, A.T.; Parker, L.; Brennan, L.; Lockrey, S. A consumer definition of eco-friendly packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252,
119792. [CrossRef]
29. Afroz, R.; Rahman, A.; Masud, M.M.; Akhtar, R. The knowledge, awareness, attitude and motivational analysis of plastic waste
and household perspective in Malaysia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 2304–2315. [CrossRef]
30. Aruta, J.J.B.R. An extension of the theory of planned behaviour in predicting intention to reduce plastic use in the Philippines:
Cross-sectional and experimental evidence. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2022, 25, 406–420. [CrossRef]
31. Fogt Jacobsen, L.; Pedersen, S.; Thøgersen, J. Drivers of and barriers to consumers’ plastic packaging waste avoidance and
recycling—A systematic literature review. Waste Manag. 2022, 141, 63–78. [CrossRef]
32. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
33. Waldron, T.; Carr, T.; McMullen, L.; Westhorp, G.; Duncan, V.; Neufeld, S.-M.; Bandura, L.-A. Development of a program theory
for shared decision-making: A realist synthesis. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2020, 20, 59. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Aslam, M.K.; Sadaf, M.; Ali, S.; Danish, M. Consumers’ Intention towards Plastic Bags Usage in a Developing Nation: Applying
and Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior. Pac. Bus. Rev. Int. 2019, 12, 81–95.
35. So, W.W.M.; Cheng, I.N.Y.; Cheung, L.T.O.; Chen, Y.; Chow, S.C.F.; Fok, L.; Lo, S.K. Extending the theory of planned behaviour to
explore the plastic waste minimisation intention of Hong Kong citizens. Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 2021, 37, 266–284. [CrossRef]
36. Galati, A.; Alaimo, L.S.; Ciaccio, T.; Vrontis, D.; Fiore, M. Plastic or not plastic? That’s the problem: Analysing the Italian students
purchasing behavior of mineral water bottles made with eco-friendly packaging. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 179, 106060.
[CrossRef]
37. Shahrabani, S. The impact of Israel’s Front-of-Package labeling reform on consumers’ behavior and intentions to change dietary
habits. Isr. J. Health Policy Res. 2021, 10, 44. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Asnawi, N.; Sukoco, B.M.; Setyaningsih, N.D.; Fanani, M.A. Determinants of consumers’ responses on government policy toward
eco-friendly behavior in Indonesia. Syst. Rev. Pharm. 2020, 11, 410–420.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 19 of 21

39. Phulwani, P.R.; Kumar, D.; Goyal, P. A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Recycling Behavior. J. Glob.
Mark. 2020, 33, 354–376. [CrossRef]
40. Popovic, I.; Bossink, B.A.G.; van der Sijde, P.C. Factors Influencing Consumers’ Decision to Purchase Food in Environmentally
Friendly Packaging: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go from Here? Sustainability 2019, 11, 7197. [CrossRef]
41. Ye, J.; Yao, Y.; Li, L. The more involved, the more willing to participate: An analysis of the internal mechanism of positive spillover
effects of pro-environmental behaviors. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 375, 133959. [CrossRef]
42. Kim, S.H.; Seock, Y.-K. The roles of values and social norm on personal norms and pro-environmentally friendly apparel product
purchasing behavior: The mediating role of personal norms. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 51, 83–90. [CrossRef]
43. Do, H.H.; Prasad, P.; Maag, A.; Alsadoon, A. Deep Learning for Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis: A Comparative Review. Expert
Syst. Appl. 2019, 118, 272–299. [CrossRef]
44. Kasza, G.; Veflen, N.; Scholderer, J.; Münter, L.; Fekete, L.; Csenki, E.Z.; Dorkó, A.; Szakos, D.; Izsó, T. Conflicting Issues of
Sustainable Consumption and Food Safety: Risky Consumer Behaviors in Reducing Food Waste and Plastic Packaging. Foods
2022, 11, 3520. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Kautish, P.; Paço, A.; Thaichon, P. Sustainable consumption and plastic packaging: Relationships among product involvement,
perceived marketplace influence and choice behavior. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 67, 103032. [CrossRef]
46. Nemat, B.; Razzaghi, M.; Bolton, K.; Rousta, K. The Role of Food Packaging Design in Consumer Recycling Behavior—A
Literature Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4350. [CrossRef]
47. Fennell, G.; Allenby, G.M.; Yang, S.; Edwards, Y. The Effectiveness of Demographic and Psychographic Variables for Explaining
Brand and Product Category Use. Quant. Mark. Econ. 2003, 1, 223–244. [CrossRef]
48. Krishnan, J. Lifestyle—A tool for understanding buyer behavior. Int. J. Econ. Manag. 2011, 5, 283–298.
49. Mohiuddin, Z.A. Effect of Lifestyle on Consumer Decision Making: A Study of Women Consumer of Pakistan. J. Account. Bus.
Financ. Res. 2018, 2, 12–15. [CrossRef]
50. Park, C.W.; Macinnis, D.J.; Priester, J. Beyond Attitudes: Attachment and Consumer Behavior. Seoul Natl. J. 2009, 12, 3–36.
51. Neville, F.G.; Templeton, A.; Smith, J.R.; Louis, W.R. Social norms, social identities and the COVID-19 pandemic: Theory and
recommendations. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2021, 15, e12596. [CrossRef]
52. Borg, K.; Curtis, J.; Lindsay, J. Social norms and plastic avoidance: Testing the theory of normative social behaviour on an
environmental behaviour. J. Consum. Behav. 2020, 19, 594–607. [CrossRef]
53. Sparkman, G.; Howe, L.; Walton, G. How social norms are often a barrier to addressing climate change but can be part of the
solution. Behav. Public Policy 2021, 5, 528–555. [CrossRef]
54. Salazar, G.; Neves, J.; Alves, V.; Silva, B.; Giger, J.C.; Veríssimo, D. The effectiveness and efficiency of using normative messages to
reduce waste: A real world experiment. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0261734. [CrossRef]
55. Esfandiar, K.; Pearce, J.; Dowling, R. Personal norms and pro-environmental binning behaviour of visitors in national parks: The
development of a conceptual framework. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2019, 44, 163–177. [CrossRef]
56. Esfandiar, K.; Dowling, R.; Pearce, J.; Goh, E. Personal norms and the adoption of pro-environmental binning behaviour in
national parks: An integrated structural model approach. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 10–32. [CrossRef]
57. Han, H.; Yu, J.; Kim, H.C.; Kim, W. Impact of social/personal norms and willingness to sacrifice on young vacationers’ pro-
environmental intentions for waste reduction and recycling. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 2117–2133. [CrossRef]
58. Heywood, J.L. The cognitive and emotional components of behavior norms in outdoor recreation. Leis. Sci. 2002, 24, 271–281.
[CrossRef]
59. Khan, F.; Ahmed, W.; Najmi, A. Understanding consumers’ behavior intentions towards dealing with the plastic waste: Perspective
of a developing country. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 142, 49–58. [CrossRef]
60. Wiefek, J.; Steinhorst, J.; Beyerl, K. Personal and structural factors that influence individual plastic packaging consumption—Results
from focus group discussions with German consumers. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2021, 3, 100022. [CrossRef]
61. Santos, V.; Gomes, S.; Nogueira, M. Sustainable packaging: Does eating organic really make a difference on product-packaging
interaction? J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 304, 127066. [CrossRef]
62. Leonidou, L.C.; Leonidou, C.N.; Kvasova, O. Antecedents and outcomes of consumer environmentally friendly attitudes and
behaviour. J. Mark. Manag. 2010, 26, 1319–1344. [CrossRef]
63. Trivedi, R.H.; Patel, J.D.; Acharya, N. Causality analysis of media influence on environmental attitude, intention and behaviors
leading to green purchasing. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 11–22. [CrossRef]
64. Casaló, L.V.; Escario, J.J. Heterogeneity in the association between environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior: A
multilevel regression approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 175, 155–163. [CrossRef]
65. Escario, J.J.; Rodriguez-Sanchez, C.; Casaló, L. The influence of environmental attitudes and perceived effectiveness on recycling,
reducing, and reusing packaging materials in Spain. Waste Manag. 2020, 113, 251–260. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Elgaaïed-Gambier, L. Who Buys Overpackaged Grocery Products and Why? Understanding Consumers’ Reactions to Overpack-
aging in the Food Sector. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 135, 683–698. [CrossRef]
67. Klug, K.; Niemand, T. The lifestyle of sustainability: Testing a behavioral measure of precycling. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126699.
[CrossRef]
68. Bisht, D.; Janotra, J. Psychographic Determinants of Green Purchase Behaviour. Anvesak 2022, 51, 70–77.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 20 of 21

69. Dilkes-Hoffman, L.S.; Pratt, S.; Laycock, B.; Ashworth, P.; Lant, P.A. Public attitudes towards plastics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2019, 147, 227–235. [CrossRef]
70. Filho, W.L.; Salvia, A.L.; Bonoli, A.; Saari, U.A.; Voronova, V.; Klõga, M.; Kumbhar, S.S.; Olszewski, K.; De Quevedo, D.M.; Barbir,
J. An assessment of attitudes towards plastics and bioplastics in Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 755, 142732. [CrossRef]
71. Barnes, S.J. Out of sight, out of mind: Plastic waste exports, psychological distance and consumer plastic purchasing. Glob.
Environ. Chang. 2019, 58, 101943. [CrossRef]
72. Sun, Y.; Wang, S.; Li, J.; Zhao, D.; Fan, J. Understanding consumers’ intention to use plastic bags: Using an extended theory of
planned behaviour model. Nat. Hazards 2017, 89, 1327–1342. [CrossRef]
73. Herbes, C.; Beuthner, C.; Ramme, I. Consumer attitudes towards biobased packaging—A cross-cultural comparative study.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 194, 203–218. [CrossRef]
74. Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental
behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [CrossRef]
75. Enneking, U.; Franz, R.; Profeta, A. Nachhaltigkeitssegmente in den Bedarfsfeldern Ernährung, Wohnen und Mobilität. Nachhalt.
Konsum Und Verbrauch. Im 2007, 21, 79–103.
76. Schwartz, S.H. Normative Influences on Altruism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1977, 10, 221–279. [CrossRef]
77. Hwang, C.G.; Lee, Y.-A.; Diddi, S. Generation Y’s moral obligation and purchase intentions for organic, fair-trade, and recycled
apparel products. Int. J. Fash. Des. Technol. Educ. 2015, 8, 97–107. [CrossRef]
78. Karandikar, S.; Kapoor, H.; Fernandes, S.; Jonason, P.K. Predicting moral decision-making with dark personalities and moral
values. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2019, 140, 70–75. [CrossRef]
79. Oteng-Peprah, M.; de Vries, N.; Acheampong, M.A. Households’ willingness to adopt greywater treatment technologies in a
developing country—Exploring a modified theory of planned behaviour (TPB) model including personal norm. J. Environ. Manag.
2020, 254, 109807. [CrossRef]
80. Shalender, K.; Sharma, N. Using extended theory of planned behaviour (TPB) to predict adoption intention of electric vehicles in
India. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 665–681. [CrossRef]
81. Morren, M.; Grinstein, A. The cross-cultural challenges of integrating personal norms into the Theory of Planned Behavior: A
meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) approach. J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 75, 101593. [CrossRef]
82. Ding, Z.; Jiang, X.; Liu, Z.; Long, R.; Xu, Z.; Cao, Q. Factors affecting low-carbon consumption behavior of urban residents: A
comprehensive review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 132, 3–15. [CrossRef]
83. Joshi, Y.; Rahman, Z. Factors Affecting Green Purchase Behaviour and Future Research Directions. Int. Strateg. Manag. Rev. 2015,
3, 128–143. [CrossRef]
84. Newell, B.R.; McDonald, R.I.; Brewer, M.; Hayes, B.K. The Psychology of Environmental Decisions. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
2014, 39, 443–467. [CrossRef]
85. Schultz, P.W.; Messina, A.; Tronu, G.; Limas, E.F.; Gupta, R.; Estrada, M. Personalized Normative Feedback and the Moderating
Role of Personal Norms. Environ. Behav. 2016, 48, 686–710. [CrossRef]
86. Matthies, E.; Selge, S.; Klöckner, C.A. The role of parental behaviour for the development of behaviour specific environmental
norms—The example of recycling and re-use behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2012, 32, 277–284. [CrossRef]
87. Fang, W.-T.; Ng, E.; Wang, C.-M.; Hsu, M.-L. Normative Beliefs, Attitudes, and Social Norms: People Reduce Waste as an Index of
Social Relationships When Spending Leisure Time. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1696. [CrossRef]
88. Madigele, P.K.; Mogomotsi, G.E.J.; Kolobe, M. Consumer willingness to pay for plastic bags levy and willingness to accept
eco-friendly alternatives in Botswana. Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ. 2017, 15, 255–261. [CrossRef]
89. Zambrano-Monserrate, M.A.; Alejandra Ruano, M. Do you need a bag? Analyzing the consumption behavior of plastic bags of
households in Ecuador. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 152, 104489. [CrossRef]
90. Jeseviciute-Ufartiene, L. Differences of consumer behaviour regarding plastic usage. Manag. Theory Stud. Rural Bus. Infrastruct.
Dev. 2020, 41, 520–526. [CrossRef]
91. Tüzemen, A.; Kuru, Ö. Does the consumer want to be greened? The place of green packaging applications with green supply
chain function in consumer perception. Int. J. Contemp. Econ. Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 200–216.
92. Wright, S.L.; Kelly, F.J. Plastic and Human Health: A Micro Issue? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 6634–6647. [CrossRef]
93. de Mello Soares, C.T.; Ek, M.; Östmark, E.; Gällstedt, M.; Karlsson, S. Recycling of multi-material multilayer plastic packaging:
Current trends and future scenarios. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 176, 105905. [CrossRef]
94. Phelan, A.A.; Meissner, K.; Humphrey, J.; Ross, H. Plastic pollution and packaging: Corporate commitments and actions from the
food and beverage sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 331, 129827. [CrossRef]
95. Boesen, S.; Bey, N.; Niero, M. Environmental sustainability of liquid food packaging: Is there a gap between Danish consumers’
perception and learnings from life cycle assessment? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 1193–1206. [CrossRef]
96. Cavaliere, A.; Pigliafreddo, S.; De Marchi, E.; Banterle, A. Do Consumers Really Want to Reduce Plastic Usage? Exploring the
Determinants of Plastic Avoidance in Food-Related Consumption Decisions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9627. [CrossRef]
97. Vranjanac, Z.; Spasic, D. Economic and environmental effects of collection and primary recycling of packaging waste from
hygiene and cleaning products in Serbia. Serb. J. Manag. 2017, 12, 315–327. [CrossRef]
98. Cinelli, P.; Coltelli, M.; Signori, F.; Morganti, P.; Lazzeri, A. Cosmetic Packaging to Save the Environment: Future Perspectives.
Cosmetics 2019, 6, 26. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 7625 21 of 21

99. Migliaccio, G.; Rossetti, L.U. Italian Furniture Sector SMEs: Sustainability and Commercial Ethics. Sinergie Ital. J. Manag. 2020, 2,
225–259. [CrossRef]
100. Wiederhold, M.; Martinez, L.F. Ethical consumer behaviour in Germany: The attitude-behaviour gap in the green apparel industry.
Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 419–429. [CrossRef]
101. Haws, K.L.; Winterich, K.P.; Naylor, R.W. Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: Green consumption values and
responses to environmentally friendly products. J. Consum. Psychol. 2014, 24, 336–354. [CrossRef]
102. Joshi, A.; Kale, S.; Chandel, S.; Pal, D. Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. Br. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2015, 7, 396–403. [CrossRef]
103. Team, R.C. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna Austria, 2021.
104. Croissant, Y. Estimation of Random Utility Models in R: The mlogit Package. J. Stat. Softw. 2020, 95, 1–41. [CrossRef]
105. Foxall, G.R. Consumer Behaviour: A European Perspective. Eur. J. Mark. 1999, 33, 1–2. [CrossRef]
106. Williams, H.; Wikström, F.; Wetter-Edman, K.; Kristensson, P. Decisions on Recycling or Waste: How Packaging Functions Affect
the Fate of Used Packaging in Selected Swedish Households. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4794. [CrossRef]
107. Decker, T. Achtung Plastik. Wie Verbraucher(innen) beim Einkaufen Plastikmüll reduzieren können. GAIA—Ecol. Perspect. Sci.
Soc. 2018, 27, 330–331. [CrossRef]
108. Lindh, H.; Williams, H.; Olsson, A.; Wikström, F. Elucidating the Indirect Contributions of Packaging to Sustainable Development:
A Terminology of Packaging Functions and Features. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016, 29, 225–246. [CrossRef]
109. Revelle, W. How to: Use the psych package for factor analysis and data reduction. In Rdrr.Io; Northwestern University: Evanston,
IL, USA, 2018.
110. Reijonen, H.; Bellman, S.; Murphy, J.; Kokkonen, H. Factors related to recycling plastic packaging in Finland’s new waste
management scheme. Waste Manag. 2021, 131, 88–97. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
111. Yang, K.; Vassanadumrongdee, S. Assessing Consumers’ Intentions Towards Green Alternatives of Disposable Packaging: A Case
Study in Beijing and Shanghai. 2022. Available online: https://link.springer.com/bookseries/7487 (accessed on 24 March 2023).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.