Waste Management 178 (2024) 362–370

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Research Paper

Insights into plastic food packaging waste sorting behaviour: A focus group
study among consumers in Germany
Ellen Mielinger *, Ramona Weinrich
Department of Consumer Behaviour in the Bioeconomy, University of Hohenheim, Wollgrasweg 49, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Despite international efforts to foster the circular economy, plastic waste remains a major environmental
Group discussions problem. In the circular economy, the success of a waste management system depends, inter alia, on consumers
Qualitative research properly sorting their plastic waste. Yet mis-sorting of plastic food packaging waste happens routinely. We sought
Barriers to recycling
to find out why and to outline the ways consumers prefer to receive information about waste sorting procedures.
Plastic waste disposal
Tailoring information to consumer preferences can improve the effectiveness of waste management policy. Using
Consumer behaviour
MOA framework the Motivation Opportunity Ability (MOA) framework to explain consumer behaviour, we conducted focus group
discussions in two German cities. Our findings suggest that more accurate information and financial incentives
best motivate consumers to sort waste correctly. Uncertainty and confusion over the packaging material are the
most severe hindrances to correct sorting behaviour. The Internet and social media are preferred most for
acquiring information on how to sort plastic food packaging correctly. Policymakers can use our results to adjust
packaging and waste management regulations to help eliminate confusion among consumers and to facilitate
their recycling intentions. Food industry practitioners and company decision makers can use our results to adjust
their plastic packaging features to better match consumer preferences for easily recyclable waste.

1. Introduction contributes to estimates that plastic waste worldwide will increase to

1.1. Problem statement
Plastic is a great material for food packaging as it is well suited to
protect the food it contains. Moreover, the material offers design flexi­
bility, is inexpensive, lightweight, and can easily be integrated into
different production processes (Marsh and Bugusu, 2007). Its principal
disadvantage is in the sheer volume of waste it produces, whereby 46 %,
equalling 152 million metric tonnes, of plastic waste generation
worldwide accounts for packaging in 2017 (Geyer, 2020). The average
annual per capita production of plastic waste in the EU in 2020 was
34.55 kg. In Germany, the figure stood at 39.71 kg, well above the EU
average (Eurostat, 2023). Thereby, packaging accounts for 58,7 % of
post-consumer plastic waste in Germany (Conversio, 2022).
The large volume of plastic waste is compounded by the fact that
plastic waste from food packaging accumulates much faster than it does
from other sectors, such as building and construction (Geyer, 2020).
Plastic food packaging has an extremely short life, usually no longer
than the time it takes to consume the food (Conversio, 2022). This
33,000 million metric tonnes by 2050 (Geyer, 2020).
Policymakers are aware of this problematic development, so Euro­
pean legislation has sought to reduce plastic packaging waste and foster
the circular economy. The European packaging directive (EU 2018/
852), amended in 2018, aims directly at these goals (European Parlia­
ment, 2018). The more recent EU Directive 2019/904 on the reduction
of the environmental impact of plastic products specifies, inter alia, the
proportion of recycled plastic in PET bottles; it further dictates banning
several single-use plastics (European Parliament, 2019).
For these initiatives to succeed in bringing plastic packaging into the
recycling system, consumers in private households must separate waste
correctly. Otherwise, plastic will end mis-sorted in residual, organic, or
paper waste. Unfortunately, we know that plastic food packaging waste
is routinely mis-sorted by consumers (Nemat et al., 2020). This mis-
sorting of post-consumer plastic packaging poses a direct threat to the
circular economy, since a considerable higher amount of plastic waste
can be recycled when it is collected separately (Plastics Europe, 2022).
Otherwise, if collected as residual waste, plastic will be burnt, releasing
toxins into the air; collected as organic waste, it may be sent into the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ellen.mielinger@uni-hohenheim.de (E. Mielinger), ramona.weinrich@uni-hohenheim.de (R. Weinrich).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2024.02.038
Received 22 June 2023; Received in revised form 21 February 2024; Accepted 22 February 2024
Available online 1 March 2024
0956-053X/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E. Mielinger and R. Weinrich
ecosystem where it can take hundreds of years to break down. Only by
minimizing both outcomes can we prevent further pollution of agricul­
ture or marine systems (German Environment Agency, 2022).
1.2. Literature review
Most research into plastic food packaging waste sorting behaviour
has focused on the design of the packaging itself. We know that the great
heterogeneity and varying placement of labels, logos, and on-pack
separation instructions tend to confuse consumers rather than provide
useful disposal instructions (Langley et al., 2011; Latkin et al., 2022;
Nemat et al., 2020; Williams et al., 2018). Convenience in handling the
respective packaging is found to play an important role, whereby an easy
cleaning process and the reseal function can enhance the possibility of
correct plastic packaging waste sorting (Williams et al., 2018). Further,
it has been suggested that a high perceived value of the packaging
supports correct sorting behaviour (Langley et al., 2011).
Some research has considered how internal consumer factors such as
attitudes, beliefs or perceived knowledge about recycling and packaging
influence consumer sorting behaviour (Williams et al., 2018). Uncer­
tainty and confusion regarding the whole sorting process have been
identified as barriers. Further barriers to correct sorting behaviour
include confusion over which materials can be recycled (Roy et al.,
2022), over cleaning the plastic packaging for recycling, and over se­
lection of the correct waste stream (Henriksson et al., 2010). Facilitators
of correct sorting behaviour appear to be environmental concern and
knowledge about recycling systems and processes (Nemat et al., 2020).
A few studies have considered external factors that may influence
consumer behaviour. These include different waste management sys­
tems (McDonald and Ball, 1998) or financial incentives. Moreover,
frequent waste removals as well as nearby recycling bins can positively
influence correct sorting behaviour (Matiiuk and Liobikienė, 2021). As
interesting for background as these studies may be, they are limited in
being able to pinpoint why consumers nonetheless routinely make
incorrect plastic waste sorting decisions.
1.3 Research objectives.
The research into plastic waste sorting behaviour is limited; it is often
more general than specific (Nemat et al., 2022), and most critically, it is
not able to yield insight into the problematic behaviour of consumers in
a country where the social commitment to the circular economy is
strong. Hence, we pursue two questions in this study:
1. What causes the mis-sorting of plastic packaging waste in German
households?
2. How do consumers want to be informed about correct waste sorting
practices?
Fig. 1. Applied MOA framework (own presentation, following Thøgersen (1994) and van Geffen et al. (2020)).
363
Waste Management 178 (2024) 362–370
These research questions were addressed through focus group dis­
cussions, one held in Munich, Germany, and one in Frankfurt am Main,
Germany. The focus group approach allowed us to capture deep insights
into the attitudes and opinions of consumers regarding waste sorting
practices and frustrations. These insights can help policymakers imple­
ment expedient and effective waste management policy; they can help
companies’ and food packaging decision makers understand customer
behaviour and improve packaging designs; and they can support future
research into waste management education and consumer training.
2. The MOA framework
We analyse our focus group data using the MOA framework depicted
in Fig. 1. This uses the three components Motivation, Opportunities and
Abilities to explain consumer behaviour (Thøgersen, 1994). The part
describing the motivation of consumers to perform a certain behaviour
is based on the theory of reasoned action (TRA) by Ajzen and Fishbein
(1980) and Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). The TRA in turn forms the basis
of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) by Ajzen (1991).
With his MOA-framework Thøgersen (1994) developed a model to
explain the disposal behaviour of consumers. Other consumer behav­
ioural models such as the TPB or the theory of buyer behaviour try to
explain human behaviour in any specific context or in particular during
the buying process (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Howard and Sheth,
1969). However, the MOA-framework focuses on the rear part of the
consumption cycle. It is built to understand the recycling behaviour of
consumers and to find out more about the handling of items with no
worth for its owner such as used packages (Thøgersen, 1994).
The MOA framework has proven useful for the analysis of consumer
behaviour in waste management research (Ölander and Thøgersen,
1995). Fogt Jacobsen et al. (2022) use it in their systematic literature
review to structure factors of plastic packaging waste recycling behav­
iour of consumers. Moreover, it is used to find out more about consumer
behaviour concerning food waste (van Geffen et al., 2020).
2.1. Motivation
Several factors can motivate consumers to sort their waste at home,
while others may demotivate – principally, problems or barriers con­
cerning waste separation. Beliefs and attitudes form the personal atti­
tude components of motivation, whereas social norms capture
subjectively perceived, socially important influences. Social norms may
be set by family members, friends, neighbours, experts, authorities, or
opinion leaders. Both personal attitude components and social norms
contribute to forming the intention to perform a certain behaviour
(Thøgersen, 1994).
E. Mielinger and R. Weinrich
2.2. Opportunity
Not only does motivation affect consumer sorting behaviour, but the
externally given opportunities to act also exert their influence. Those
opportunities, created by waste management systems and authorities of
the respective countries, can facilitate or complicate the intended
behaviour. (Thøgersen, 1994).
2.3. Ability
The third influencing factor that helps explain consumer behaviour is
the ability to perform the tasks required. Thøgersen (1994) proposes this
ability be differentiated into habits and task knowledge, which here
would mean knowledge about correct waste separation and habits ac­
quired through socialisation.
3. Materials and methods
We selected two in-depth focus group discussions to uncover atti­
tudes and opinions about consumer sorting of plastic food packaging
waste. Focus groups allow an area of interest to be explored in a friendly
and open atmosphere (Vogl, 2014). They can uncover both individual
opinions and common patterns of orientation in a group (Kruse, 2015).
Focus group discussions are especially useful in carrying out research
for relatively unexplored themes (Fernqvist et al., 2015). They surface
not only opinions and perceptions that consumers have about a behav­
iour, but also feelings, issues, problems, or barriers that may prevent
consumers from engaging in that behaviour (Krueger and Casey, 2015).
Moreover, several studies have already applied focus groups to investi­
gate consumer behaviour connected with sustainability issues (Barone
and Aschemann-Witzel, 2022; Fraj-Andrés et al., 2023; Wiefek et al.,
2021); focus groups have also been used in waste management or
recycling research (Gudmann Knutsson et al., 2021; Halldórsson et al.,
2019; Lynch et al., 2018).
3.1. Procedure
An interview guideline was created based on a comprehensive
literature review. The guideline consists of predefined questions for
structuring the focus group discussions. It helps the moderator focus on
the important aspects, while offering enough flexibility to dig deeper
into topics of collective interest.1 Per the guideline, discussions started
with general, broad questions and then became thematically more spe­
cific (Vogl, 2014). To create a pleasant atmosphere and make the par­
ticipants feel more comfortable, the discussions started with an
icebreaker. The topic discussed during the icebreaker was not linked
thematically to waste separation (Flick, 2021).
The focus group discussions were conducted in German. The quo­
tations we have cited in our results are translations. At the beginning of
each discussion, we explained the background of the study, how we
would proceed as well as the general rules of conversation.2 Each dis­
cussion took approximately 90 min and concluded with a joint summary
of the results, to highlight the most important issues. In the course of this
joint summary, we asked focus group participants to rank their top three
motivations for sorting waste, problems and forms of information
transmission presented in tables in the results and discussion section.
Thereby, they had one vote each for their first, second, and third
priority.
1 Location
To test the interview guideline as well as the feasibility of the study design,
a pre-test with three participants at the authors home university was carried
out. The results of the pre-test are not included in this paper, since it did not aim
at revealing insights, but rather to test the project management.
2 Munich
All participants from both groups stated at the beginning of the discussions
that they engage in waste separation practices at home.
364
Waste Management 178 (2024) 362–370
In preparation for the study, we developed a data protection decla­
ration and coordinated it with our university data protection officer.
This declaration was signed by each participant before the start of the
discussion and adhered to throughout the discussions. We also obtained
ethical approval from the ethics committee of our university.
3.2. Data collection
The focus group discussions took place in Munich (FG 1) and in
Frankfurt (FG 2), Germany in October 2022. Each focus group had seven
participants who had been recruited through a market research com­
pany. An overview of the data collection plan can be found in Table 1. To
avoid understaffing, usually more participants than needed are invited.
In our case, seven individuals showed up although 10 accepted the
invitation.
Since five to eight people build the ideal number of participants for
focus group discussions (Kuckartz and Rädiker, 2019), with seven par­
ticipants each, our sample is within the optimal range. Eight key ques­
tions form the basic structure of the discussions. Depending on the
course of the discussions, further specific follow-up questions were
asked after each key question.
The recruiting criteria were selected to yield the best possible mix
among participants of age, gender, education level, net household in­
come, employment status, and housing situation. Tables 2 and 3 depict
the socioeconomic strata of the participants in Munich and in Frankfurt.
Audio and video recordings were made of the discussions. The audio
files were subsequently transcribed by a professional transcription
service.
3.3. Data analysis
The transcribed text files were analysed with MAXQDA software
(VERBI Software, 2023). Not only can this data analysis package be used
to analyse standard qualitative interviews, but it also works effectively
on focus group analyses (Kuckartz and Rädiker, 2019).
We applied qualitative content analysis to the text files to structure
the data by content. To start, relevant content-related parts of the dis­
cussions were assigned to categories and coded accordingly (Kuckartz
and Rädiker, 2014). The text segments were coded using a multilevel
approach, starting with deductive category assignments derived from
the interview guideline, where categories were derived and elaborated
not from collected data, but thematically from prior literature. In the
following step, inductive category formation, codes were derived
directly from the material. Every group discussion was coded line by line
from beginning to end. In this way, the text was structured by codings to
signify content (Kuckartz and Rädiker, 2022).
To test the quality of the coding system, the consensual coding
approach was used (Hopf and Schmidt, 1993). Each author worked on
parts of the discussions independently and subsequently compared re­
sults. With the memo function in MAXQDA, the comments on the codes
where discrepancies appeared could be effectively compared and
resolved (Kuckartz and Rädiker, 2022). After joint discussion, agree­
ment was achieved across all cases.
Table 1
Data collection plan.
Number of Number of Number of Number of
participants invitations individuals key
invited accepted participating questions
(sample size) asked
10 10 7 8
Frankfurt 10 10 7 8
E. Mielinger and R. Weinrich Waste Management 178 (2024) 362–370

Table 2
Socioeconomic strata of the participants of the focus group discussion in Munich.
Socioeconomic strata
Participant Age Gender Education level Net household income (in €) Employment status Housing situation(number of apartments)

1 24 Female A-levels 1,701 – 2,600 Employed Building with three and more apartments(12)
2 65 Female A-levels 1,301 – 1,700 Employed Building with three and more apartments(4)
3 53 Female A-levels 5,000 or more Employed One family house
4 52 Female Secondary school 2,601 – 3,600 Employed One family house
5 58 Female A-levels 3,601 – 5,000 Employed Semi-detached house
6 20 Male A-levels 1,701 – 2,600 Student Student residence(50)
7 25 Male A-levels 2,601 – 3,600 Student Building with three and more apartments(8)

Table 3
Socioeconomic strata of the participants of the focus group discussion in Frankfurt.
Socioeconomic strata
Participant Age Gender Education level Net household income (in €) Employment status Housing situation(number of apartments)

1 27 Female A-levels 1,701 – 2,600 Employed Building with three and more apartments(10)
2 25 Male A-levels 1,701 – 2,600 Student Building with three and more apartments(15)
3 60 Male A-levels 5,000 or more Employed One family house
4 37 Female A-levels 5,000 or more Employed One family house
5 48 Male Secondary school 2,601 – 3,600 Employed Building with two apartments
6 35 Male A-levels 3,601 – 5,000 Employed Building with two apartments
7 26 Female A-levels 1,301 – 1,700 Student Building with three and more apartments(10)

4. Results and discussion
The discussions made clear participants’ preference for sorting paper
and their dislike of sorting plastic waste.3 Plastic and plastic food
packaging were frequently disparaged:
“I don’t know, plastic is already a fundamental problem in the world.
That is why it has an extra negative, yes, an extra negative connection
somehow. It really is important to separate it.” FG 1,4 52, Female.
What is more, in both group discussions, plastic waste was named as
the waste type occurring most frequently in the respective household.
Table 4 ranks all the mentioned waste types for each focus group dis­
cussion according to the frequency of occurrence.5 That plastic comes so
often into the household makes it especially important to separate it
correctly, and the participants express a strong motivation to do so. At
the same time, there is frustration about the separation process.
4.1. Motivation
We asked focus group participants to rank their top three motivations
Table 4
Waste types sorted by frequency of occurrence at the household level.
Ranking Munich Frankfurt
1 Plastic Plastic & residual waste
2 Residual waste & paper Paper & organic waste
3 Organic waste Glass
4 Preserves & glass Hazardous waste & electronic
waste
5 Hazardous waste & electronic – packaging. The participants expressed worry about microplastics
waste
3
In Germany mainly four waste categories are to be sorted at the household
level. These are: Organic waste, paper, plastics, and residual waste.
4 migration of microplastics from plastic packaging into foods. The au­
FG 1 refers to the focus group discussion conducted in Munich; FG 2 refers
to the focus group discussion conducted in Frankfurt. The second term is the
participant age and the third the stated gender.
5
The participants were asked to first name the types of waste which they deal
with at home. The moderator noted them down on cards and asked the par­
ticipants in a second step to rank those types according to the frequency of
occurrence in their households.
for sorting waste, one vote each for first, second, and third priority after
the factors have been elaborated together.
4.1.1. Beliefs and attitudes
Table 5 shows that the most important factor motivating participants
to sort waste is information, with three participants in Munich and four
in Frankfurt ranking it their top priority. Participants ask for enlight­
enment, clarification of rumours, or correction of wrong assumptions;
they want to be able to make rational decisions, but feel they lack the
information to do so, especially as it pertains to plastic waste sorting:
“So, I just realize for myself, I’m missing information and transparency.
For example, what is actually the ecological footprint of plastic processing or
cleaning glass or transporting it. So really such background information, I’m
just missing a lot. And that’s what I wish for.” FG 1, 52, Female.
The participants of both groups emphasized that detailed factual
information about the waste management and recycling system would
not only improve understanding but increase participation:
“Yes, it would be totally motivating, if you could know how much of the
plastic is actually recycled and so on. And if you could really see what can be
made of it. That would be an absolute motivation.” FG 1, 65, Female.
Furthermore, it motivates participants to learn and get informed
about how their efforts in waste separation make a difference; they want
to see that their behaviours are not in vain, that their actions are
meaningful. Environmental awareness and the desire to contribute to
the protection of the environment seem to be important issues:
“Yes, for me it is also the environmental aspect. Because I think that
[sorting waste] is really the simplest thing you can do.” FG 2, 26, Female.
This factor seems to be of particular importance for plastic food
entering the food cycle and the associated risks to human health and the
environment; they expressed awareness of plastic waste littering in third
world countries; and they understand the implications of the long half-
life of plastic. Hence, more information and facts about microplastics
would motivate participants to engage in correct sorting behaviour.
Siddiqui et al. (2023) focus on these concerns in their study about the
thors indicate that it still remains unclear how microplastics intake af­
fects the human health. This lack of information unsettles consumers.
Table 5 shows that financial incentives are next in importance as
motivation to sort waste correctly. If plastic is not sorted correctly, the
waste goes into residual bins, which means additional costs. Separating

365
E. Mielinger and R. Weinrich
Table 5
Number of votes for the respective form of motivation by priority ranking.
Municha
Motivation ∑ Priority 1 Priority 2
Information 11 3 1
Financial incentives 7 – – 2
Penalty fees 5 – – 1
School education 5 – – –
Simplicity 4 – 2 2
Uniformity of regulationsb 3 1 2 –
Bans 1 1 – –
a
In Munich, two participants had to leave the discussions 10 min early, therefore the points do not add up to 21 but to 15.
b
The uniformity of regulations is discussed in part 3.2 Opportunities.
the plastic means smaller residual waste bins can be used, meaning
lower costs.6 This aspect emerges as an incentive to sort correctly:
“We would have to purchase a big residual waste bin if we did not
separate. This motivates. It is all about the price.” FG 2, 60, Male.
For plastic food packaging, the same attitude prevails. The partici­
pants propose to use other financial incentives to further motivate cor­
rect plastic waste sorting. Matiiuk and Liobikienė (2021) in their study
about the impact of different tools on waste sorting behaviour also find
that financial incentives can positively influence the consumer.
One possible financial incentive discussed for correct waste sorting is
a deposit on plastic food packaging. Most participants support the idea
of an extended, uniform deposit system as this speaker does:
“I would also consider introducing deposits for things that are purely
plastic, which could also be recycled together with plastic bottles.” FG 1, 24,
Female.
Here the speaker alludes to the successful deposit system on plastic
bottles in Germany. That could be extended to encourage uniform
treatment of plastic. The deposit system has become a well-organised
and helpful way to foster plastic waste sorting and promote an ever
more circular economy. Also, the findings of Steinhorst and Beyerl
(2021) in their study about enabling consumers to reduce plastic waste
generation, support the idea of extending the current deposit return
schemes to other types of plastic packaging. Producers and retailers are
named as the main change agents for this purpose.
Participants also suggested that waste separation should be more
controlled and more strictly enforced by state authorities. Penalty fees
appear in third place in Table 5, along with school education. The first
goes with suggestions made for a ‘garbage police’, with penalty pay­
ments to increase motivation. Participants also wish for more education
and transparency:
“It’s probably both. You have to educate people, of course, but a little
more pressure might not be a bad thing if we really want to get away from this
whole waste problem.” FG 2, 60, Male.
The attendees further emphasize the importance of simplicity and
user-friendliness in the process for sorting plastic waste. The more
convenient, the less effort required, the greater the motivation to attend
to sorting correctly. The participants made the point that removing
paper banderoles from plastic yoghurt packaging stands in the way of
the desired feasibility. Roy et al. (2022) find in their study about barriers
and facilitators to recycling plastics that to maximise participation in
plastic waste sorting, the process itself needs to be perceived as conve­
nient by consumers.
What is more, consumers would like to see bans on plastic packaging
enacted through policy. Proposals were made to prohibit plastic pack­
aging for certain foods, such as some types of fruits or vegetables.
The focus groups also surfaced several problems associated with
waste separation. These are beliefs and attitudes that demotivate
6
In Germany, no direct costs for the disposal of plastic waste at the house­
hold level are levied. The costs for plastic packaging is included in the product
price.
366
Waste Management 178 (2024) 362–370
Frankfurt
Priority 3 Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3
– 4 2 1
– 4 1
3 1
– 1 4
– – –
– – –
– – –
consumers and present obstacles to effective waste separation at the
household level. Table 6 depicts the number of votes for the respective
problem, again ranked in a top-three format.
One of the major problems reported by participants is recognizing
the type of material. Often, it is not clear whether the material really is
plastic or not, which makes it confusing to find the correct waste stream:
“I think for some products, it is not entirely clear what material it is, so
where [, in which bin,] it belongs.“ FG 2, 27, Female.
Uncertainty and confusion in general stand in the way of proper
plastic waste sorting behaviour. This finding is supported by several
other studies concerning waste handling (e.g. Fogt Jacobsen et al., 2022;
Henriksson et al., 2010; Roy et al., 2022). There seem to be great
knowledge deficits about standards or regulations. During the discus­
sions, the participants frequently asked questions, questioned their own
knowledge and facts or the statements of others. Doubts about specific
topics and circumstances arose, as did divergent opinions. Moreover, the
participants bemoan the opacity of waste management systems and
express a lack of trust in it:
“Yes, as the lady said, more information would also be good somehow.
Because a lot of things and processes [in waste management] are obscure.”
FG 1, 65, Female.
The participants expressed great uncertainty about the cleanliness of
the packaging, question the recyclability of polluted plastic packaging,
but express doubt about the reasonableness of wasting tap water to clean
it. There is great agreement, though, that plastic waste stored inside the
apartment needs to be cleaned to prevent unpleasant odours:
“Above all, think about how much water there is wasted when you wash
out the plastic waste, because otherwise the plastic really stinks. We store it in
the closet and if I don’t rinse it out, it stinks.” FG 2, 60, Male.
Furthermore, the correct behaviour with mixed materials regularly
poses challenges for consumers. They complain about packages that are
made of different plastics or combined with other materials such as
paper or aluminium. Deliberating over the correct waste stream in this
case is perceived as too time consuming. Besides, mono-material pack­
aging, due to its homogeneity, has advantages from a sustainability
point of view, since it can be more easily recycled with current recycling
systems (Soares et al., 2022). Hence, policy makers should consider
further regulations to support the use of mono-materials.
Furthermore, there are a few different issues that annoy the partic­
ipants and seem to stand in the way of correct plastic waste sorting
behaviour. Overpackaging of assorted products like sweets or snacks is
one of those factors. Consumers are irritated by the large amounts of
plastic packaging waste. They would have the producers save on pack­
aging wherever possible, doubly so since plastic food packaging now is
mostly bulky and fills the plastic bin liner too quickly. There was great
consensus among the participants that the volume of plastic waste they
have to deal with is excessive and reflects poorly on the producers.
Still, there seems to be a reluctance to become really engaged in
correct waste sorting behaviour. For example, there is ambivalence
about separating different packaging parts from each other, such as
completely removing the lid from a yoghurt package. The behaviour is
recognized as necessary, but considered too time consuming:
E. Mielinger and R. Weinrich Waste Management 178 (2024) 362–370

Table 6
Number of votes for the respective problem by priority ranking.
Munich7 Frankfurt
Problem ∑ Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3

Type of material 7 – – – 3 4 –
Uncertainty 6 – – 1 4 1 –
Cleanliness 6 – 4 2 – – –
Mixed materials 5 5 – – – – –
Overpackaging 5 – – – – 2 3
Amount 3 – – 2 – – 1
Lack of motivation 3 – – – – – 3
Size 1 – 1 – – – –
7
Every participant had one vote for their priority 1, one for their priority 2 and one for the third priority. In Munich, two participants had to leave the discussions 10
min early, therefore the points are not adding up to 21 but for 15.

“Actually, I want to spend my time with other things than thinking about
how to dispose of my plastic packaging waste.” Female, 37, FG 2.
Another issue that demotivates consumers from plastic waste sorting
is doubt about the action. Participants express doubts about their effi­
cacy, the trustworthiness in waste management systems, and the
worthiness of their actions. Concerning plastic packaging, one doubt
dominated the discussions, namely, that the waste would not be recycled
but incinerated.
Henriksson et al. (2010) in their study about the uncertainty con­
cerning waste handling also found that consumers seek to contribute to
positive environmental effects and strive to act sustainably through
waste sorting practices, but uncertainty creates barriers and leads to
frustration. Consumers desire to do the right thing and make positive
contributions, but often end up feeling helpless.
4.1.2. Social norms
Matiiuk and Liobikienė (2021) found that social tools, including the
promotion of waste sorting behaviour by family and friends, motivate
consumers to sort waste correctly. Our focus group participants, how­
ever, were split in rating the motivational value of social norms. Some
substantiated this finding by emphasizing the importance of exemplary
behaviour and attitudes in shaping their waste separation practices.
Others stated that the behaviour or opinion of family, friends, or
neighbours had not been relevant in shaping their own waste sorting
behaviour. Still others are themselves role models or consultants.
However, the influence of social norms can work in reverse. If the
behaviour of neighbours or the waste management systems of other
countries are perceived as ineffective, consumers tend to become
demotivated, since their own actions are devalued.
To enhance motivation for correct separation behaviour, our findings
permit the following relevant information and practical implications for
policy makers and producers:
Consumers must become educated about the importance of correct
waste separation practices for the success of the circular economy and
that their contribution makes a difference. They must learn about the
sustainability of different packaging alternatives and myths around
plastic food packaging must be dispelled, so that the negative attitudes
around plastic food packaging no longer stand in the way of motivation
to sort it correctly.
Policy makers should be aware of the strong impact of financial in­
centives on consumers and consider implementing waste audits with
subsequent penalty payments for incorrectly sorted waste.
Implementing a more comprehensive deposit systems to improve
sorting accuracy and waste management may not only be advantageous
concerning financial incentives and associated learning effects but are
also supported by the existing habit of returning bottles.
The use of mono-materials for food packaging should be supported
through legislation.
Wherever possible, producers should eliminate overpackaging to
increase consumers’ motivation to separate plastic food packaging waste
correctly.
4.2. Opportunities
Opportunities to dispose of plastic waste correctly depend on the
waste management system available, which in Germany is not regulated
by federal or state government but separately by every county. This
diffuse authority surfaced as an issue among the participants; since the
regulations differ, sometimes even within federal states or from one city
to the next, the field is ripe for confusion. This is especially problematic
for consumers who relocate to another county.
Thøgersen (1994) stressed that structural conditions can facilitate or
complicate sorting intentions. Simply put, the fewer obstacles, the easier
it is for a consumer to follow through on recycling intentions. An
example of this is the collection itself. McDonald and Ball (1998),
studying public participation in different plastics recycling schemes,
found more consumers will sort plastic waste when it is collected. But in
Munich, inhabitants have to bring plastic waste to recycling centres
themselves; in contrast, in Frankfurt, the local disposal company collects
the plastic waste. The participants from Munich perceive this as unfair
and resent the added burden of inconvenience they have to shoulder.
As long as regulations remain inconsistent, problems with waste
separation practices are likely to remain. Uniformity and consistency in
waste management practices would make it easier for consumers to sort
waste correctly.
Furthermore, it was the consensus of the focus groups that producers
should be required to take more responsibility for the correct sorting of
plastic food packaging; they need to be incentivized to design correct
disposal into their packages. It is perceived as unfair that so much re­
sponsibility is pushed down onto the consumers to manage the detri­
ments of plastic, while producers profit widely from its benefits. This
point has also been made by Latkin et al. (2022), who propose extending
producer responsibility through legislative action. Moreover, Roy et al.
(2022) find that the consumer perception that manufacturers and local
authorities are obliged to make recycling easier hinders participation in
plastic recycling.
Participants emphasized the need to focus on plastic waste preven­
tion, not just reduction and further public separation efforts such as
different waste bins in city centres. During the group discussions, it also
became clear that from the consumer point of view, it would be more
advantageous to reduce plastic packaging for foods, to renounce it
completely, or to replace it by paper or cardboard:
“But at least these cucumbers are now no longer packaged in plastic, so
that now goes by paper sticker. So, a little bit happens gradually.” FG 1, 53,
Female.
The perception that plastic food packaging is always inferior to paper
or cardboard was also found in the review by Otto et al. (2021), where
the authors contrast consumer perceptions with scientific facts about
food packaging and sustainability. They find that consumers mainly
judge the sustainability of a package by its appearance and the apparent
naturalness of the material. Other key factors, such as transportation or
the avoidance of food loss, hardly factor in to this judgement. Moreover,
plastic is underestimated as food packaging material in its

367
E. Mielinger and R. Weinrich
characteristics and its carbon footprint compared to other packaging
materials. The authors conclude that consumer perceptions differ
greatly from scientific facts (Otto et al., 2021).
A final opportunity factor works on a more subjective level. The
opportunity and space to store the different waste types inside the home
or in front can influence waste sorting behaviour. Lacking space to store
and sort different waste types may be perceived as a burden to do so.
Participants mention the size of their homes as not being big enough or
the unattractive visual appearance of waste inside the flat.
To enhance the opportunity of consumers concerning correct sepa­
ration behaviour, our findings permit the following relevant information
and practical implications for policy makers and producers:
Regulation concerning waste management practices should be
harmonised across federal and state levels.
Implementing collection schemes across the whole country and
replacing bring systems by collection schemes may offer a great possi­
bility in enhancing the structural opportunities for correct waste sorting
behaviour.
4.3. Abilities
In considering how ability helps explain consumer waste sorting
behaviour, we adopt Thøgersen’s (1994) proposal that ability be
differentiated into habits and task knowledge. The first are acquired
through socialisation; the second develops through multiple paths.
4.3.1. Habits
The participants stated that most of the assumptions they have about
waste separation and recycling are based on the education received
during childhood. Early learned lessons and habits is what motivates
them later in adulthood:
“Yes, I think the education is extremely important. What and how you are
taught as a child, that remains.” FG 2, 48, Male.
Nemat et al. (2020), studying the potential of food packaging attri­
butes to influence waste sorting behaviour, found that waste sorting
mostly is an acquired habit that may compete with ingrained habits.
This led Heidbreder et al. (2019) to propose that more research focus on
breaking habits that lead to incorrect waste sorting and creating new,
effective habits. However, we might also build on behaviours already
habituated and leverage these to promote correct waste sorting. An
example is expanding the deposit system on bottles to include e.g. cans
or plastic packaging (Henriksson et al., 2010).
4.3.2. Task knowledge
To engage in correct waste separation practices, consumers need to
have sufficient task knowledge. They need to be able, first, to correctly
identify the waste they are disposing of, and second, to choose the
correct stream for the waste. In our discussions, we also focused on how
exactly communication and provision of information should best take
place. We again asked for the top three rankings, and our results are
Table 7
Number of votes for the respective form of information transmission and by priority.
Munich8
Form of information transmission ∑ Priority 1
Internet/social media 8 –
School education 5 –
On-pack indications 5 5
Container markings 5 –
Appealing advertising 4 –
Television ads 4 –
Newspaper ads 2 –
Deposit 2 –
Apps 1 –
8
Every participant had one vote for their priority 1, one for their priority 2 and one for the third priority. In Munich, two participants had to leave the discussions 10
min early, therefore the points do not add up to 21 but to 15.
Waste Management 178 (2024) 362–370
presented in Table 7.
The most frequently mentioned and desired forms of information
transmission were the Internet and social media. Information is easily
accessible online and gaining knowledge is perceived as convenient. The
participants propose using Facebook or Instagram, as well as the
homepages of sponsored advertisements. Another suggestion from par­
ticipants is to leverage ‘waste-fluencers’. This coinage uses the popular
‘influencer’ as a root to suggest individuals who use social media to
encourage proper waste handling:
“Yes, via social media. If only influencers would advertise something
meaningful. If there were “waste-fluencers” promoting the issue.” FG 2, 25,
Male.
Through influencers, values, beliefs, or information can be shared
and spread rapidly. Besides being a target for marketing, the followers of
these influential content creators are open to receiving and discussing
the messages disseminated (Yalcin et al., 2020). In this way, influencers
focussing on sustainability related topics, such as waste management,
may have great potential to transfer the information effectively.
Another important means for acquiring task knowledge is formal
education in school. Learning and internalizing the rules, habits, and
practices of effective waste sorting in early childhood are believed to
have the longest lasting effects:
“I also would have said schools, that you simply show the children from
an early age on how things work properly. And then they pass it on and it will
be gradually implemented in society. And then we would no longer be
dependent on any labels. Everyone would simply know about it.” FG 2, 35,
Male.
Hartley et al. (2015) show that an educational intervention with
schoolchildren can be very effective in raising awareness for the prob­
lem of marine litter. Educating children with artwork or mini-
experiments about the causes and impacts of marine litter leads to
more cautious views on plastic as well as encouraging family and friends
to behave correctly. Focussing on educational interventions among
children may be a promising approach in promoting all kinds of sus­
tainable behaviour what could become self-reinforcing.
Opinions are divided on the value of on-pack instructions. Some
participants think of labels and logos as an effective and desirable format
for information. Others indicate that they rarely to never pay attention
to labels to learn correct waste handling procedures. That said, partici­
pants share a knowledge deficit about labels and thus uncertainty about
their meanings. The participants bemoan the large number of different
labels, dismissing as too time consuming the idea of studying them all in
detail. They propose labels be made clearer and simpler using images or
colours and omitting text. This proposal is consistent with the results of
Latkin et al. (2022), who asked over 800 United States citizens about the
meaning of the triangle recycling symbol on plastic packages and found
the vast majority gave inaccurate answers. Therefore, the authors
recommend implementing guidelines for designing easy and clear on-
pack information. A further idea is printing quick response (QR) tags
to help consumers identify the correct waste stream (Latkin et al., 2022).
Frankfurt
Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3
– 1 5 – 2
– 1 – – 4
– – – – –
5 – – – –
– – – 3 1
– – 1 3 –
– – 1 1 –
– 2 – – –
– 1 – – –
368
E. Mielinger and R. Weinrich
In discussions, participants suggested spreading information through
markings on public waste containers to promote correct sorting de­
cisions. Appealing and easily understandable pictures either with or
without words could be printed on waste bins. Participants also pro­
posed disseminating information about waste management and sepa­
ration practices through catchy advertising, either appealing TV spots,
screens in public transport with memorable tag lines, or posters in city
centres, train stations, or underground stations. What is more, learning
about the correct handling with packaging through an extended deposit
system is supported.
Another proposed idea is for the respective municipality to
communicate through brochures and the homepage of the local disposal
service. During the discussions, the idea to provide information right
away when registering the residency at the registration office arose.
To enhance the ability of consumers concerning correct separation
behaviour, our findings permit the following relevant information and
practical implications for policy makers and producers:
Consumers must be educated and informed about the correct waste
sorting practices. This information transmission should be performed
target-group specific and tailored to consumers’ wants and needs.
Therefore, empirical social research must be conducted before launch­
ing information campaigns concerning waste separation practices to
achieve the desired waste sorting results.
Waste management practices and techniques should be integrated
into the curriculum of school children.
4.4. Limitations
As in every research project, there are limitations to consider when
interpreting our results. They have been gained through focus group
discussions, a qualitative research approach. Qualitative research fo­
cuses on exploratory, in-depth, and detailed findings rather than
deriving generalizable data (Flick, 2021). We also acknowledge that
basing our findings on only two focus group discussions may be chal­
lenged, since past studies focusing on the same topic have used three to
six rounds (e.g. Gudmann Knutsson et al., 2021; Helmefalk and Rose­
nlund; Yukalang et al., 2018). However, the two discussions surfaced
deep insights, and exciting results were already at hand. Our results can
already serve as a foundation for quantitative studies with larger sam­
ples to yield representative results from which can be developed
campaign suggestions for promoting correct sorting behaviour in private
households.
5. Conclusion
To manage the huge amount of packaging waste, we need to turn our
current linear waste management practices into those of a circular
economy. This requires that waste in private households be separated
correctly, meaning consumers have a key role in making the circular
economy possible.
Consumers are generally motivated to sort their waste correctly, but
are often impaired by knowledge gaps and misinformation. Tailored
target-group specific education and information transmission as well as
integrating waste management practices into curriculums at school can
represent promising approaches to improve plastic food packaging
waste separation at the household level. Financial incentives are found
to represent important motivators. Hence, penalty payments for incor­
rectly sorted waste or more comprehensive deposit systems could also
contribute to this goal and thus keep substance flows as clean as
possible.
Reducing mixed materials, overpackaged products and more gener­
ally the large amount of plastic waste in the food sector are challenges
that need to be tackled by the industry and policy makers. Consumers
have the power to choose those products that use less plastic packaging.
Thus, there are first mover advantages for the food industry. Packaging
that is designed for recycling could make it even easier for consumers to
369
Waste Management 178 (2024) 362–370
choose those products.
The correct waste separation practices should be made as convenient
as possible for consumers. Therefore, nationwide uniformity of regula­
tions, plastic collection schemes instead of bring systems and sufficient
storage capacities would contribute to more correct waste sorting
behaviour.
Effectively conveyed waste management information and appro­
priate structural conditions can change the practices consumers follow
in sorting their plastic food packaging waste. The insights from this
study revealing preferred forms of communication and information
transmission by consumers can contribute to transforming current waste
management practices into a circular economy.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ellen Mielinger: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology,
Project administration, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing. Ramona Weinrich: Conceptualiza­
tion, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visuali­
zation, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Ajzen, I., 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 50, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Barone, A.M., Aschemann-Witzel, J., 2022. Food handling practices and expiration dates:
Consumers’ perception of smart labels. Food Control 133, 108615. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108615.
Conversio, 2022. Stoffstrombild Kunststoffe in Deutschland 2021: Zahlen und Fakten
zum Lebensweg von Kunststoffen. file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Kurzfassung_
Stoffstrombild_2021.pdf.
Plastics Europe, 2022. Plastics - the facts 2022. https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-
hub/plastics-the-facts-2022/.
Eurostat, 2023. Packaging waste by waste management operations: plastic packaging.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ENV_WASPAC__custom_5232340/
default/table?lang=en.
Fernqvist, F., Olsson, A., Spendrup, S., 2015. What’s in it for me? Food packaging and
consumer responses, a focus group study. British Food Journal 117, 1122–1135.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2013-0224.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Flick, U., 2021. Qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Einführung, 10th ed. Rowohlt, Reinbek
bei Hamburg.
Fogt Jacobsen, L., Pedersen, S., Thøgersen, J., 2022. Drivers of and barriers to
consumers’ plastic packaging waste avoidance and recycling - A systematic literature
review. Waste Management 141, 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2022.01.021.
Fraj-Andrés, E., Herrando, C., Lucia-Palacios, L., Pérez-López, R., 2023. Intention versus
behaviour: integration of theories to help curb food waste among young Spanish
consumers. British Food Journal 125, 570–586. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-
2021-1042.
German Environment Agency, 2022. Bioabfälle. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/
daten/ressourcen-abfall/verwertung-entsorgung-ausgewaehlter-abfallarten/
bioabfaelle#qualitatsanforderungen-fur-kompost-und-garreste-.
Geyer, R., 2020. Production, use, and fate of synthetic polymers. In: Letcher, T.M.,
Letcher, T.M. (Eds.), Plastic Waste and Recycling: Environmental Impact, Societal
Issues, Prevention, and Solutions. Elsevier, Cambridge, pp. 13–32.
Gudmann Knutsson, S., Asplund, T., Höst, G., Schönborn, K.J., 2021. Public Perceptions
of Waste Management in Sri Lanka: A Focus Group Study. Sustainability 13, 12960.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312960.
E. Mielinger and R. Weinrich
Halldórsson, Á., Altuntas Vural, C., Wehner, J., 2019. Logistics service triad for
household waste: consumers as co-producers of sustainability. IJPDLM 49, 398–415.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-02-2019-0065.
Hartley, B.L., Thompson, R.C., Pahl, S., 2015. Marine litter education boosts children’s
understanding and self-reported actions. Marine Pollution Bulletin 90, 209–217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.049.
Heidbreder, L.M., Bablok, I., Drews, S., Menzel, C., 2019. Tackling the plastic problem: A
review on perceptions, behaviors, and interventions. The Science of the Total
Environment 668, 1077–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437.
Helmefalk, M., Rosenlund, J. Make Waste Fun Again! A Gamification Approach to
Recycling, in: Brooks, A., Brooks, E. (Ed.), Interactivity, Game Creation, Design,
Learning, and Innovation.: Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences,
Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol. 328, 328th ed.
Springer, Cham, pp. 415–426.
Henriksson, G., Åkesson, L., Ewert, S., 2010. Uncertainty Regarding Waste Handling in
Everyday Life. Sustainability 2, 2799–2813. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2092799.
Hopf, C., Schmidt, C., 1993. Zum Verhältnis von innerfamilialen sozialen Erfahrungen,
Persönlichkeitsentwicklung und politischen Orientierungen: Dokumentation und
Erörterung des methodischen Vorgehens in einer Studie zu diesem Thema.
Howard, J.A., Sheth, J.N., 1969. A theory of buyer behavior. Journal of the American
Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.2307/2284311.
Krueger, R.A., Casey, M.A., 2015. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research,
5th ed. Sage, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC.
Kruse, J., 2015. Qualitative Interviewforschung: Ein integrativer Ansatz, 2nd ed. Beltz
Juventa, Weinheim und Basel.
Kuckartz, U., Rädiker, S., 2014. Datenaufbereitung und Datenbereinigung in der
qualitativen Sozialforschung. In: Baur, N., Blasius, J. (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden
Der Empirischen Sozialforschung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden,
pp. 383–396.
Kuckartz, U., Rädiker, S., 2019. Analyzing Qualitative Data with MAXQDA. Springer
International Publishing, Cham, p. 293.
Kuckartz, U., Rädiker, S., 2022. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse.: Methoden, Praxis,
Computerunterstützung, 5th ed. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim und Basel.
Langley, J., Turner, N., Yoxall, A., 2011. Attributes of packaging and influences on waste.
Packag. Technol. Sci. 24, 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.924.
Latkin, C.A., Dayton, L., Yi, G., Balaban, A., 2022. The (Mis)Understanding of the Symbol
Associated with Recycling on Plastic Containers in the US: A Brief Report.
Sustainability 14, 9636. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159636.
Lynch, D., Kupper, F., Broerse, J., 2018. Toward a Socially Desirable EU Research and
Innovation Agenda on Urban Waste: A Transnational EU Citizen Consultation.
Sustainability 10, 1641. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051641.
Marsh, K., Bugusu, B., 2007. Food packaging–roles, materials, and environmental issues.
Journal of Food Science 72, R39–R55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-
3841.2007.00301.x.
Matiiuk, Y., Liobikienė, G., 2021. The impact of informational, social, convenience and
financial tools on waste sorting behavior: Assumptions and reflections of the real
situation. Journal of Environmental Management 297, 113323. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113323.
McDonald, S., Ball, R., 1998. Public participation in plastics recycling schemes.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 22, 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0921-3449(97)00044-X.
Nemat, B., Razzaghi, M., Bolton, K., Rousta, K., 2020. The Potential of Food Packaging
Attributes to Influence Consumers’ Decisions to Sort Waste. Sustainability 12, 2234.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062234.
370
Waste Management 178 (2024) 362–370
Nemat, B., Razzaghi, M., Bolton, K., Rousta, K., 2022. Design affordance of plastic food
packaging for consumer sorting behavior. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
177, 105949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105949.
Ölander, F., Thøgersen, J., 1995. Understanding of Consumer Behaviour as a Prerequisite
for Environmental Protection. Journal of Consumer Policy 345–385. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF01024160.
Otto, S., Strenger, M., Maier-Nöth, A., Schmid, M., 2021. Food packaging and
sustainability e Consumer perception vs. correlated scientific facts: A review. Journal
of Cleaner Production 298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126733.
European Parliament, 2018. Directive (EU) 2018/852 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and
packaging waste, 14 pp.
European Parliament, 2019. Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products
on the environment, 19 pp.
Roy, D., Berry, E., Dempster, M., 2022. “If it is not made easy for me, I will just not
bother”. A qualitative exploration of the barriers and facilitators to recycling plastics.
PloS One 17, e0267284.
Siddiqui, S.A., Bahmid, N.A., Salman, S.H.M., Nawaz, A., Walayat, N., Shekhawat, G.K.,
Gvozdenko, A.A., Blinov, A.V., Nagdalian, A.A., 2023. Migration of microplastics
from plastic packaging into foods and its potential threats on human health.
Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 103, 313–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/
bs.afnr.2022.07.002.
Soares, C.T.d.M., Ek, M., Östmark, E., Gällstedt, M., Karlsson, S, 2022. Recycling of
multi-material multilayer plastic packaging: Current trends and future scenarios.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 176, 105905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2021.105905.
VERBI Software, 2023. VERBI Software GmbH. https://www.maxqda.com/de/about.
Steinhorst, J., Beyerl, K., 2021. First reduce and reuse, then recycle! Enabling consumers
to tackle the plastic crisis – Qualitative expert interviews in Germany. Journal of
Cleaner Production 313, 127782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127782.
Thøgersen, J., 1994. A model of recycling behaviour, with evidence from Danish source
separation programmes. International Journal of Research in Marketing 11,
145–163.
van Geffen, L., van Herpen, E., Sijtsema, S., van Trijp, H., 2020. Food waste as the
consequence of competing motivations, lack of opportunities, and insufficient
abilities. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X 5, 100026. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rcrx.2019.100026.
Vogl, S., 2014. Gruppendiskussion. In: Baur, N., Blasius, J. (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden
Der Empirischen Sozialforschung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden,
pp. 581–586.
Wiefek, J., Steinhorst, J., Beyerl, K., 2021. Personal and structural factors that influence
individual plastic packaging consumption—Results from focus group discussions
with German consumers. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 3, 100022. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2021.100022.
Williams, H., Wikström, F., Wetter-Edman, K., Kristensson, P., 2018. Decisions on
Recycling or Waste: How Packaging Functions Affect the Fate of Used Packaging in
Selected Swedish Households. Sustainability 10, 4794. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su10124794.
Yalcin, T., Nistor, C., Pehlivan, E., 2020. Sustainability influencers: Between marketers
and educators. Business Forum 28.
Yukalang, N., Clarke, B., Ross, K., 2018. Solid Waste Management Solutions for a Rapidly
Urbanizing Area in Thailand: Recommendations Based on Stakeholder Input.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph15071302. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3800316.