How “ecological” labels confuse buyers and make recycling less effective

Have you ever put something into a bin on recycling, hoping that it can be recycled? Maybe toothpaste tube, bubble packaging or a plastic toy marked as “ecological”?

This common practice, known as a “wish”, may seem harmless. But my colleagues and I published tests This shows that companies misleading the company’s environmental claims make recycling more misleading – and less effective.

This type of marketing leads to Consumer behavior with the Green President – When people think they are making cordial elections, but are misled by exaggerated or false claims about how balanced the product is.

We conducted a survey of 537 consumers from 102 cities in Great Britain to investigate a uncomplicated question: is there a relationship between consumer behavior and wish? We wanted to find out if they fuel each other, which drives them both and how consumers perceive the connection.

What makes this problem particularly compelling is its psychological basis. We claim that contemporary consumers were burdened with responsibility, which can go beyond their capacity: deciding what to do with the packaging of products after utilize.

Many people are unprepared, underpricted or simply unaware of the full effect of their choices – and why should they be? This is a burden that should not rest on their arms. Recycling, depicted as a solution, has stepped down in this gap. Consumers are convinced that recycling perform their part to facilitate the environment.

Read more: A guide for beginners after Greenwash and four ways to avoid falling

However, when products wear claims or environmental symbols-unclear, such as green leaf, green banner or “earth-friendly” label-consumers often fall victim to what we call “Effect of the environmental halo”. This cognitive prejudice causes people to attribute positive environmental features to the whole product, including the way they are removed, even if these claims may not be true.

Surprising, ours test It reveals that consumers aware of the environment can be most susceptible to this effect. Their forceful environmental values ​​may make them more willing to trust green marketing claims, even if these claims are unclear or misleading.

Consumers, guided by the desire to make balanced choices, often accept green marketing claims at the nominal value, assuming that environmental claims reflect true efforts in favor of sustainable development.

Even more intriguing, we have found that people with a higher level of education tend to easily trust the environmental claims of companies, especially when these companies present themselves as responsible for the environment.

All this leads to more wishes, no less. When companies talk about their environmental ethos and social responsibility, it is more likely that their packaging is recycled – even if this is not the case.

Our research also suggests that younger consumers, despite the fact that they are more aware of the environment, live more often. While the millenniums and the Z generation often express forceful environmental values, they often pollute recycling streams more often, throwing unrealing elements.

The future is round

The solution is not to stop taking care of the environment, but more effectively managing this care. The heart of this approach is the concept of a circulation economy in which products and materials are reused, renewed and recycled, not rejected.

The answer is not only better recycling – from the very beginning it is a better packaging project and corporate responsibility. Although we consumers should continue our role, the main load should rest with producers to create packaging that are really recyclable or reusable, not only sold as “environmentally cordial”.

This means the implementation of radiant, standardized labeling, which does not leave room for confusion, using packaging made of individual, easily recycling materials and design of re -use and complement systems.

On February 11, 2025, the EU introduced a novel one Packaging and packaging directive. This is to reduce packaging waste and support circulation economy by determining the rules for the creation, utilize and removal of packaging throughout the entire life cycle.

Until these system changes are fully implemented, we must be both aware of the environment and critically aware consumers. But it is critical to remember: although our daily choices and activities are critical, the key to real changes is to press our packaging systems at the politics level.

When designing waste, the circulation economy offers a balanced model that can conduct these changes and reduce our dependence on one -time packaging. We hope that this can inspire us to improve current practices and still find better ways to do things, which leads to a more balanced and resistant future.

You don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you want?

Instead, get a weekly summary in the inbox. Each Wednesday, the editor of the interview writes Imagine, a miniature e -mail, which is a bit deeper into only one atmospheric problem. Join 45,000 readers who have subscribed so far.