Why Coles, the ban on Woolworths plastic bags triggered such a strong reaction

This reaction is due to the fact that supermarkets break their "psychological contract" with customers. When the two big supermarkets seemed to be doing backflips in front of angry customers, it only made the problem worse. "

Contrary to written legal contracts, psychological contracts are a set of" unwritten rules "or" expectations "exchanged between the parties, which can be between an employee and an employer, or a client and a client. retailer.

These agreements are often tacit or implied: they tend to be invisible, supposed, tacit, informal or, at best, partially vocalized.

The pre-ban psychological contract between a supermarket and a buyer was something like: "I'm going to shop with you and, in exchange, you pack my purchases into a free plastic bag."

There was an implicit financial exchange between the parties. Buyers spent money on groceries and the supermarket paid for a plastic bag.

With the ban on bags, the psychological contract changed: "I'm going shopping with you and I'm going to give up a plastic bag.

Supermarkets have justified the phasing out of lightweight plastic bags by the idea of ​​a corporate social responsibility strategy. Customers may have been happy to give up one-time plastic bans to support a greener future, but that's where the problem appeared.

Shoppers began to realize that supermarkets were saving money. they themselves bore a cost (pay 15 cents or more, depending on the type of reusable bag).

Supermarkets did not keep their psychological contract end by reducing the use of plastic in the store, especially packaging. Social media comments reflect this widely.

In case of violation of a psychological contract, people can take revenge and revenge.

This can range from simply broadcasting on social networks to acts of sabotage.

COMPLEMENTARY FACTORS

A couple of other factors aggravated the perceived breach of contract.

Unlike small states and territories (South Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory and ACT) where state legislation banned single-use plastic bags by all retailers, this ban was imposed by retailers.

Buyers of these small states quickly got used to not having free bags.

By simply doing a backflip shortly after the implementation of the policy, supermarkets also encouraged consumers to question their intentions and their integrity.

Although buyers first accepted the rationa For the ban, long periods of free delivery sent the message that supermarkets are not so serious about banning plastic bags for environmental reasons .

While Woolworths said he would channel "earned money" to sell his "Bag for Good" In an environmental system for young people, customers also rightly question the savings and the revenue generated.

The removal of a single-use plastic bag is a positive first step, but it's only the beginning. Customers still go to supermarkets today and see many varieties of food packaged in plastic and place themselves fruits and vegetables in plastic bags.

Through the media coverage, customers are more sensitized and sensitive departments of grocery store. They see more and more unnecessary plastic packaging, such as dry pasta in a box with a clear plastic window.

FIXING THE PROHIBITION OF PLASTIC BAG

to positive environmental results. But a national and uniform approach is needed, supported by consumer awareness and education programs.

While many state and territory governments have legislated bans on plastic bags, others have stood firm. The Victorian government announced last year its intention to ban single-use plastic bags, but despite widespread consumer support, it has not yet taken effect.

Supermarkets need to be open to the financial aspects of plastic bags.

Consumers can understand that the costs of supply and logistics of plastic spare bags will be higher – because the bags are thicker and heavier and it takes longer to pack bags of different sizes. (not gross profits) the sale of all reusable bag options should be channeled to sustainability programs, research grants and education programs. Programs must be calibrated, measured and publicly announced.

Buyers will be more likely to accept the change if they can understand how their small sacrifice (say 15 cents) helps the environment.

Buyers also have an important role to play in the scheme of things. Although it will take time to break old habits, the responsibility lies with the customers not to forget to bring a bag. If they forget, they simply have to buy another one.

In the end, the psychological contract must be aligned and balanced again. To do this, governments, retailers and consumers must work together to address this important environmental issue.

This article originally appeared on The Conversation and is reproduced with permission.