Discussion Paper exploring the likely impact of a series of behavioural nudges on the reduction of single-use plastic cups in Ireland.

1. Discussion Paper:
The impact of the
framing effect on the
15c ‘Latte Levy’

2. 15c
As part of the ongoing collaboration between Amárach Research
and Carr Communications, we have embarked on a series of short
behavioural economics studies examining issues prominent in
public debate. In this case we conducted a nationally representative
study of 1,000 Irish adults exploring public opinion about the 15c
levy on single use plastic cups (dubbed the ‘latte levy’) currently being
proposed by the government and aimed at reducing the 2 million
disposable cups a day sent to landfill. We examined the effects of
framing the levy in positive and negative ways on the reactions of
the respondents.
This research found that Irish adults purchase on average of 4.17
hot beverages per week. Nearly 6 in 10 consider that plastic cups
contribute to environmental pollution, and just under half felt that
the cost of the levy was appropriate. A significant majority (over
7 in 10) would be in favour of a suite of measures to reduce our
overreliance on them:
o a discount when using a reusable container or a free reusable
container,
o refund schemes for the return of reusable cups,
o options for alternative packaging,
o rewards scheme for repeat use of reusable cups, and
o reduced availability of single use plastics.
Those aged between 16 and 24 consumed more disposable
coffees yet were most environmentally conscious and open to the
introduction of these measures. Further, our research found that
people are more sensitive to losses than gains, are influenced by
how a decision is framed, and are responsive to clear environmental
messaging.
This suggests that the introduction of the levy, as a single measure,
may increase the prevalence of reusable cups by up to 3.4% (that
is 68,000 of the 2 million cups used diverted from landfill each day).
If we were to apply the multiple behavioural nudges / interventions
suggested above in addition to the levy this may divert up to 12.5%
of single use cups (or 250,000) a day from landfill.
Therefore, when communicating key policy decisions, such as the
‘latte levy’, these framing effects are important to consider. Our
findings also propose that the introduction of these measures by
producers and retailers would be additions to their current service
offering welcomed by the public.
Single use plastics have been supporting world economic
growth over the past 100 years. They are being used in
packaging, cosmetics, and to support our ‘on the go lifestyles’
in the form of disposable and non-recyclable containers,
cutlery, straws, and bags. While we have benefited from this
versatilematerial,thescientific evidence suggests that human
beings have become over reliant on plastic to the detriment
of the environment, and human health and wellbeing.
February 2018
Discussion Paper:
The impact of the
framing effect on
the 15c ‘Latte Levy’
By Robert Mooney (Amárach
Research), Amy Hume (Carr
Communications), Colm Murphy
and Séin Healy (Amárach
Research).
Executive Summary
2Discussion Paper: The impact of the framing effect on the 15c ‘Latte Levy’

3. Introduction
According to the World Economic Forum (WEF)i
plastics
have become a ubiquitous material driving the modern
economy “combining unrivalled functional properties
with low cost [yet] hundreds of millions of tonnes of
plastics with biodegradation lifecycles of hundreds of
years are currently polluting the oceans and seas of the
planet.” According to the United Nations Environmental
Programme only 22% to 43% are recycled.ii
Reports by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeiii
, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the World Health
Organisationiv
clearly establish a causal link between
environmental quality and human health.
A recent report published by the National University
of Ireland Galway (NUIG)v
indicates an occurrence of
microfibre plastics in the guts of 73% of fish species in
the North Atlantic. The report suggests that the high rate
of microfibre plastics found in the gut are of primary
concern to the health of fish species and the entire
ecosystem. This indicates that significant risks from the
overreliance on single use plastics to the environment
and to human health and wellbeing exist and are
interlinked. Further, the the rapid rise in single use
plastics, which is fuelled by our faster ‘on the go’ lifestyle,
is unsustainable. The risks these unsustainable practices
represent require that we, as human beings, must
transform our way of living by anchoring the impacts
of these risks to our everyday behaviour. This includes
reducing the production, use, and disposal of single use
plastics. The good news is that these changes are not
only socially and environmentally sustainable, but make
more economic sense than the current trajectory we are
on.
The European Environment Agency (EEA) Country Profile
report on Ireland, states that:
“Recent research estimates that if Ireland achieved
a target of a 2% reduction in domestic material
consumption per annum, this would yield savings
of about €928 million in the first year and increased
annual savings thereafter. By 2020 this could lead
to a 25% improvement in resource efficiency,
yielding a total saving of approximately €7 billion
over that period.” vi
This will allow us to “reduce our dependency on finite raw
materials without compromising future development”vii
.
In 2017 a Waste Reduction Bill was proposed which
proposes the introduction of a deposit and return
scheme for milk, soft drinks, or water beverage
containers including plastic, glass, tin or other materials
and a ban on single use non-compostable cups and
tableware. In a recent speech in the Dáil, the Minister
for the Environment Denis Naughten stated that the
2 million single use plastic coffee cup/hot beverage
containersviii
which are not recyclable due to the plastic
lining on their inside, are sent to landfill every day in
Ireland and described the discarding of plastic waste
as “environmental sabotage”ix
. In response to this
challenge, Minister Naughten proposes the introduction
of a 15c levy on all single use coffee cups. This has been
dubbed ‘the latte levy’.
A recent pilot study carried out at Cardiff University
explores series of interventions to promote the use of
renewable cups. The study found the following:
• a charge/levy on disposable cups increased the use
of re-usable coffee cups by 3.4%,
• environmental messaging in cafes increased the use
of re-usable coffee cups by 2.3%,
• the availability of re-usable cups led to an increase
of 2.5%,
• the distribution of free re-usable cups led to a
further increase of 4.3 %,
• the provision of free re-usable alternatives
combined with clear environmental messaging and
a charge on disposable cups increased the use of
reusable cups from 5.1% to 17.4%x
.
The study implies that the use of reusable coffee cups
could be increased by 12.5% following the simultaneous
introduction of several of the measures suggested
above. In Ireland, of the 210,000 tonnes of plastics
produced each year, only 40% are recycled and 52% go
straight to landfill.xi
3Discussion Paper: The impact of the framing effect on the 15c ‘Latte Levy’

4. The study
To provide insight into the current debate around the
proposed ‘latte levy’ we conducted a national survey
representative across age, gender, region, and social
class of 1,000 Irish adults in late 2017. We examined
the public perceptions of the risks posed to health and
wellbeing by single use plastics, public concerns about
the environment, their purchasing habits, and the
different preferences of different consumers.
We also carried out a behavioural study examining
the effectiveness of the framing of different options to
reduce the use of single use coffee cups. In this way
we explored how effective one specific intervention,
the framing effect, might be in reducing our societal
wide overreliance on disposable coffee cups. Finally, we
examine our findings in the context of the findings of
the Cardiff study.
The Irish public believe that plastic bottles contribute the most to pollution, followed by plastic bags. This may be
despite the success of the plastic bag levy or possibly because there is a plastic bag levy; i.e. a prominent anti-waste
measure in Irish society that is resonant with the public. Plastic cups still rate highly at 58%xii
.
Survey Results
When asked what the biggest risks that climate change
poses to health and wellbeing, extreme weather events
were considered to be the largest while an increase
in waste to landfill was the least. This may point to a
lack of connection between waste, climate change and
health among the Irish population. Further, it indicates
that the links between climate change and health reflect
the more prominent societal discourses around climate
change; e.g. the impact of extreme weather events
which have been widely covered across multiple media
channels.
35%
41% 42%
47%
51%
71%
Waste
to landfill
Decreasing
air quality
Decreasing
water quality
Other
Pollution
Risk to animal
and plant life
Extreme
weather
22%
46%
58%
77%
82%
Plastic straws Microbeads Plastic cups Plastic bags Plastic bottles
Figure 2: What single use plastic products do you believe contribute most significantly to environmental pollution.
Figure 1: What are the biggest risks climate change poses to our health and wellbeing?
4Discussion Paper: The impact of the framing effect on the 15c ‘Latte Levy’

5. When asked how often they buy takeaway hot beverages, 44% of respondents claimed to purchase one at least once
a week. While there is little difference in purchasing habits between genders, there is a clear decrease in consumption
with age: with almost 6 in 10 of those aged 16-24 reporting purchasing a beverage at least once a week, while fewer
than 3 in 10 of those over the age of 55 do so.
On average, those who buy a takeaway coffee do so 4.17 times each week. The data suggests that some differences
exist across the demographics: males consume more than females (consuming 4.91 compared to 3.5); those aged
16-24 consumed the largest amount of any subgroup (at 5.63 each week); and those in Dublin also consumed more
than other regions (5.12 per week, compared to the Rest of Leinster at 3.55).
57% 56% 58% 42% 46% 51% 61% 72% 52% 60% 59% 56% 51% 62%
TOTAL
M
ALE
FEM
ALE
16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55+
DUBLIN
ROL
M
UNSTER
CONN
/ ULST
ABC1F50+
C2DEF50-
At least once a week Less often than once a week
4.17 4.91 3.5 5.63 4.44 3.64 4.15 3.59 5.12 3.55 3.76 4.19 3.74 4.57
TOTAL
M
ALE
FEM
ALE
16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55+
DUBLIN
ROL
M
UNSTER
CONN
/ ULST
ABC1F50+
C2DEF50-
Mean Score
Figure 4: Average number of takeaway hot drinks consumed each week.
Figure 3: Propensity to purchase takeaway hot beverages each week.
5Discussion Paper: The impact of the framing effect on the 15c ‘Latte Levy’

6. When asked how they felt about a 15c levy for
single use coffee cups, 45% of respondents felt
that it was just right, however 42% felt that it was
too much, and 13% felt that it was too little.
Again, we see a clear distinction between younger and older age groups. Those aged between 16-24 and 25-34 are
more likely to consider the 15c levy to be too little or just right, compared to the total, while older age groups are more
likely to consider the 15c levy to be too much compared to the total.
Finally, we asked a series of questions examining interventions which might encourage behavioural change; specifically,
how likely they are to encourage an individual to purchase fewer single use plastics goods.
Ages 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+
Too little 14% s 17% s 13% = 11% t 12% t
Just right 51% s 48% s 50% s 39% t 40% t
Too much 35% t 35% t 37% t 50% s 47% s
Figure 5: Feelings towards a 15c levy for a single use coffee cup
Figure 6: Preference for reducing the reliance on single use coffee cups
80%A percentage discount for using a refillable container
80%Free usable container
76%A refund for the return of each single use plastic item
74%Alternative packaging - no additional cost
73%A free product with a number of purchases using refillable
73%Reduced availability of single use plastic products
69%Local community initiatives
64%Information defining the risks to human health
64%Asked for reusable container before every purchase
63%Pictures illustrating where the waste will end up on
63%Information defining the risks to animal and sea life
62%Information regarding local retail and service poroviders
62%A national information campaign
60%A levy on single use plastic goods
Just right 45%
Too little 13%
Too much 42%
6Discussion Paper: The impact of the framing effect on the 15c ‘Latte Levy’

7. Each of the options as a means of reducing the
overreliance on single use coffee cups provided to the
respondents scored 60%. They can be roughly divided
into two groups; those scoring above 70% and those
between 60 and 70%. Firstly, these results illustrate
the propensity to be convinced by convenience and
immediate financial rewards (discounts, free container,
refunds, no additional costs, free products) yet seeking
to retain the same access to the same products and
services. Secondly, the respondents opted for action
orientated initiatives (reduced availability, and local
initiatives) and the provision of information (risks to
health, the provision of information) or a levy.
One of the most interesting findings in this research,
from a behavioural perspective, is the 20% difference in
preference for a discount for using a refillable container,
compared with paying a levy on a single use plastic.
While a discount will reduce the cost for consumers,
and the levy increase the cost to them, retailers will
have a degree of discretion as to how they pass on the
cost to consumers, and so ultimately will reward those
who use a refillable cup, and penalise those who use a
single use cup. It will be interesting to see how retailers
frame this.
So, what does this research say about Ireland, our
overreliance on single use cups, and what the impact
of the ‘latte levy’ might be? Overall, this indicates a
significant support for the reduction of the use of single
use plastics, yet consumers have clear preferences
for interventions which have the minimum impacts
on their lifestyle. It also suggests that it is those who
purchase the most disposable coffees (the 16 to 24-
year olds) who may be most responsive to measures
to reduce their prevalence. Further, it appears that how
information is framed has an effect on decision making
and behaviour. The purpose of the behavioural aspect
of this research is to test this assumption.
Behavioural Insights
The basis of a behavioural approach is that human
beings make decisions based on shortcuts, or cognitive
heuristics, which allow us to carry out everyday activities
without having to reflect on every aspect of every choice
we make. Therefore, we make decisions in socio-cultural
contexts and rarely with all the relevant facts available,
or the adequate time available to us to make the most
logical and rational decision.
There are a wide range of biases prominent in decision
making, and many relevant to product choice; in this
study we explore the framing effect. This is a behavioural
bias first explored by Tversky and Kahneman in 1981xiii
,
and since has been applied to the exploration of many
policy areas. It allows us to explore what responses we
might elicit simply by framing, or wording, a question
or statement differently. That is, individuals may react
to a choice in different ways depending on how it is
presented to themxiv
.
In this study we examine the relevance of the framing
effect on the impact of a 15c levy on consumer
choice when purchasing a single use plastic cup. Our
hypothesis is that framing the question in a positive or
negative manner will not affect respondent’s answers,
as rational human beings. To examine this, respondents
were asked two questions to allow us to explore two
things: the impact of positive and negative framing on
responses to individual choice and also on the choices
others might make.
The first question, examining individual choice, was
framed in a positive and negative way:
• Positive: “I think that the introduction of a 15c levy on
all single-use disposable cups will result in me taking
my own refillable container to where I purchase a hot
beverage (coffee, tea or hot chocolate).”
• Negative: “I think that the introduction of a 15c levy on
all single-use disposable cups will not result in me taking
my own refillable container to a where I purchase a hot
beverage (coffee, tea or hot chocolate).”
The second question, examining ‘others’ choices, was
also framed in a positive and negative way:
• Positive: “The 15c levy on all single-use disposable cup
will change other people’s use of disposable cup.”
• Negative: “The 15c levy on all single-use disposable cup
will not change other people’s use of disposable cup.”
We split the 1,000 respondents, asking roughly half of
them a positively and half a negatively framed question.
The base for the positive frame was n=512 and for the
negative frame n=503. The results from both questions
showed a significant difference in survey responses,
proving the framing effects. In theory, the way the
questions were asked should not have influenced the
responses people gave.
7Discussion Paper: The impact of the framing effect on the 15c ‘Latte Levy’

8. Distribution of Social Scores (Negative)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Frequency
Distribution of Individual Scores
(Positive)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Frequency
Figure 7: Distribution of individual question scores.
Figure 8: Distribution of social scores.
These framing effects can be clearly seen for both ‘individual’ and ‘societal’ frames as demonstrated in Figure 7 and 8,
where scores given are skewed towards the higher end of the scale for the positively framed question and the lower
end for the negatively framed questions.
Distribution of Social Scores (Positive)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Frequency
8Discussion Paper: The impact of the framing effect on the 15c ‘Latte Levy’
Distribution of Individual Scores
(Negative)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Frequency

9. Figure 9: Mean scores for both individual and social frames.
Figure 10: Mean scores for both Individual and Social based on exposure to Negative or Positive Frame.
Comparing the means of each framing question further highlights the discrepancies between the positively and
negatively framed survey responses, as seen in Figure 9.
From these results we can see that the means were found to be significantly different for both questionsxv
. We can,
therefore, reject the null hypothesis that framing the question in a positive or negative light does not affect respondent
answers. This suggests that framing the question in a positive light increases the average response rating, as shown
in Figure 10. This holds true across both the individual question and the societal question, demonstrating that the
framing effect is not limited to how people view their own actions but is applicable to how they view the actions of
others. This suggests that the respondents in our survey can be heavily influenced by simply reframing the question
in a positive manner for both individual and social measures.
Negative Positive
3.33
2.90
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Means Score Individual based on exposure
to Negative or Positive Frame
Negative Positive
3.53
2.94
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Means Score Social based on exposure
to Negative or Positive Frame
Means Score Social
by Experimental Frame
Experimental Frame
MeanScoreQ5
Negative Positive
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
9Discussion Paper: The impact of the framing effect on the 15c ‘Latte Levy’
Means Score Individual
by Experimental Frame
Experimental Frame
MeanScoreQ4
Negative Positive
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6

10. As has been demonstrated above, the scores for
Individual behaviour are lower than those for Social
behaviour i.e. the behaviour of others. We compared the
means of the collective responses to the two questions,
and found that controlling for framing effects, people
expected the levy to be a more effective mechanism for
behaviour change on others than themselves, as shown
in Figure 11. Statistical analysis showed there to be a
significant difference between the two responses.
This is not the effect we would have expected to find,
based on theories of overconfidence bias, in particular
overplacement. People tend to rate themselves as
better compared to others than they actually arexvi
.
Therefore, we would have expected to see it manifest
itself here, as people anticipate that they will respond
far more positively to the levy than other people.
4.0
Individual Other
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
3.135 3.256
Levy impact on behaviour of individuals v others
Figure 11: Mean scores for expected levy impact on individuals v others.
10Discussion Paper: The impact of the framing effect on the 15c ‘Latte Levy’

11. Conclusive remarks
As our survey suggests, most people would support a
ban on single use coffee cups and the ‘latte levy’ will
be somewhat effective in reducing the prevalence
of single use coffee cups in Ireland. We also surmise
that the effective implementation of framing and other
behavioural nudges could reduce the use of single use
coffee cups further.
This supports the argument for a reduction in the
overreliance on single use plastics and suggests that
while there may be short term challenges for producers
and retailers, closing the loop on the circular economy
will have significant and positive long term ecological,
social and economic benefits.
Finally, these measures could also support Ireland in
meeting our targets as defined in the Europe 2020xvii
which emphasises smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth and help us to achieve our United Nations
Sustainable Development Goalsxviii
.
Broader Societal Discourse and Context
of this Study
If the findings of the Cardiff study are to apply to the
Irish case, this implies that the introduction of the levy,
as a single measure, may reduce the prevalence of
single use coffee cups by 3.4% or 68,000 of the 2 million
used per day in Ireland. If we were to apply all the
interventions explored in the Cardiff study to the Irish
case, the figures suggest that we could divert 12.5%
or 250,000 of the 2 million cups away from landfill in
Ireland every day. That is 182,000 more cups a day not
going to landfill than if the levy were introduced on its
own.
Consequently, we can deduce that while the ‘latte levy’
may have an impact, it would be greatly enhanced by the
inclusion of a combination of other behavioural nudges
including the increased availability of containers, loyalty
schemes/incentives for repeat purchase, and clear
environmental messaging/framing. Our research also
highlights that people are more sensitive to losses than
gains and are influenced by how a decision is framed.
This suggests that when communicating key policy
decisions, such as the ‘latte levy’, these framing effects
are important to consider.
This is also directly relevant to the sustainability
discourses. These are often focused on risks to the
economy, health and/or the environment. They do not
focus on the benefits of implementing more sustainable
practices such as improvements in health and wellbeing,
supporting jobs and indigenous economic growth,
and promoting the socio-cultural benefits of a healthy
environment.
11Discussion Paper: The impact of the framing effect on the 15c ‘Latte Levy’

12. End Notes
i
The New Plastics Economy Rethinking the future of plastics:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_New_Plastics_Economy.pdf
ii
Valuing Plastics: https://wedocs.unep.org/rest/bitstreams/16290/retrieve
iii
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch/
iv
World Health Organisation: http://www.who.int/en/
v
Frontiers in Marine Science: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00039/full
vi
EPA Towards a Resource Efficient Ireland: A National Strategy to 2020:
http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/waste/prevention/TowardsAResourceEfficientIreland.pdf
vii
https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/waste/prevention/TowardsAResourceEfficientIreland.pdf
viii
Further referred to as ‘coffee cups’.
ix
Minister Denis Naughten speech re Waste Reduction Bill 2017:
https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/news-and-media/speeches/Pages/Minister-Denis-Naughten-speech-re-.aspx
x
Results of a field experiment to reduce coffee cup waste:
https://orca.cf.ac.uk/99366/1/Coffee%20cup%20summary%20report%20-%20Poortinga%20%28FINAL%29.pdf
xi
EPA Waste Plastics Packaging Statistics for Ireland 2013:
https://epa.ie/pubs/reports/waste/stats/wastepackagingdata2013/EPA_Packaging_2013_data_release_web.pdf
xii
It is worth noting that this research was carried out in September 2017; a recent national poll conducted by Amárach
for the Claire Byrne Show suggested that this figure has now risen to 70%: most likely in response to ongoing public
discourse about the ‘latte levy’.
xiii
Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel (1981) The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,
https://www.uzh.ch/cmsssl/suz/dam/jcr:ffffffff-fad3-547b-ffff-ffffe54d58af/10.18_kahneman_tversky_81.pdf
xiv
To paraphrase, and re-contextualise, Kahenman’s (2011) description of the result of a sporting contest, in this case Ireland
versus Wales in Rugby- ‘Ireland Won’ can have a very different meaning than ‘Wales Lost’ and evoke markedly different
associations and reactions, even though they are logically equivalent (Kahenman’s; 2011: 363).
Another example from a study Tversky conducted with medical students in Harvard Medical School where they were
given the outcomes of two treatments for lung cancer.
• the one-month survival rate is 90%, or
• there is a 10% mortality in the first month.
In this instance, survival is a positive framing and mortality is a negative one. Unsurprisingly, the former frame was more
popular (ibid: 365).
xv
With a p value of 0.0001 for both questions and rejection of the null hypothesis of 99.99%.
xvi
Moore, D. and Schatz, D. (2017). The three faces of overconfidence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(8),
p.e12331.
xvii
Europe 2020 Strategy: https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/economic-and-fiscal-policy-coordination/eu-
economic-governance-monitoring-prevention-correction/european-semester/framework/europe-2020-strategy_en
xviii
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals:
http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
If you would like to discuss the findings of this research or
discuss social, behavioural and market research consultancy,
solutions, and insights please contact Dr Robert Mooney
at robert.mooney@amarach.com or +353 (1) 4105200
or Amy Hume at amy@carrcommunications.ie
12Discussion Paper: The impact of the framing effect on the 15c ‘Latte Levy’