Ben Mitchell

Businesses facing the challenge of improving the sustainability of its products and packaging need to understand consumer intentions relating to purchasing and recycling. Previous research suggests that, very broadly, consumers are segmented into those who are willing, unwilling and occasionally willing to shop sustainably. This paper investigates the relationship between preferred shopping behaviours and consumer actions relating to the environment. Exploratory analysis of a survey of more than 1000 UK adult consumers identified general attitudes to shopping and the environment as well as engagement in pro-environmental shopping behaviours. No specific shopping styles – such as a preference for shopping online or in stores or taking pleasure from shopping or wanting to get it done quickly - indicate any greater tendency towards environmentally friendly shopping. However, those more willing to spend time looking for such products were found to be more likely to value aspects of shopping, such as inspiring displays and seeing what’s new, that suggest time being taken gather information on what is available. While the analysis does not find any clear patterns about the shopping styles and preferences of pro-environmental and non-environmental shoppers, it does confirm that there is diversity in behaviour within both groups.

The Futures and Foresight Learning (FFL) was the approach used for the ‘Future of Packaging’ programme with 16 industry professionals. Throughout seven sessions spread bi-monthly within a year, we facilitated a series of Futures tasks and discussions using a variety of FFL methods. The result of our work is summarised in this report, with the core aims of the project to map optimal outcomes for the packaging industry projecting into the year 2034. The generation of desirable future scenarios ascertained the number of actions that need to happen in the next 10 years. The systemic overview of the challenges means that this report will cover a range of themes, from consumer behaviour to self-sufficiency challenges in the UK to waste value chains. Both the action research and analysis of information generated by the groups provided rich data, which is mapped in this publication with the aim of highlighting the systemic dependencies and interconnectivity and the changes that must happen to ensure a sustainable future – both in the business and environmental sense. Notes were taken from each of the seven sessions and group members provided further information through follow-up research undertaken between each session. All of this data was collected and analysed thematically so that the current context, potential future scenarios and actions to advance packaging sustainability could be summarised comprehensively. This led to the chapters and sub-headings found in this report. Many of the topics are interrelated, with cross-cutting issues reflected in the chapter on ‘principles for collaborative action’. The analysis is also represented in our ‘Future of Packaging systemic model’ (Figure 1). This encapsulates the interrelated nature of ‘the packaging system’, acknowledging important roles in achieving circular outcomes for government, the public, and industry both as collective entities and individual organisations. The arrows in the model demonstrate the influence that each element has over others. For example, public attitudes influence political decision making and the legislation that comes from that has an impact on industry and the waste system. To produce the agreed outcomes, we need strong, reliable evidence and leadership and to enhance organisational capabilities, whether it’s through better knowledge, skills or technological capacity. Agreed outcomes must be based on good evidence and leadership. The report’s recommendations relate to each element of this model.

Intense scrutiny of the retail packaging supply chain has led to calls from consumers, campaigners and government for better, more radical solutions for reducing waste, pollution, littering and energy consumption. Despite years of pro-environmental innovation in packaging, retailers and manufacturers are coming to terms with a new level of attention and expectation to change. This report presents the findings of a collaborative group of experts from the retail packaging supply chain that met six times over 12 months to share problems and identify strategic priorities for the future of packaging. While anti-plastic campaigners call for radical change such as a massive reduction in the use of plastics, people in the packaging industry feel frustrated that the media tends to ignore the environmental benefits of plastic, such as reducing food waste and the smaller carbon footprint of production and distribution compared with other materials. Solutions to the problems generated by packaging are likely to be multiple, context-dependent, complex and require actions by manufacturers, retailers, government, consumers and campaign groups.

The retail packaging supply chain is experiencing intense scrutiny following increased public awareness of ocean plastic pollution and criticism of single use plastics. Industry must meet these challenges while maintaining standards in packaging functionality and food protection and remaining economically viable. Solutions are likely to require the input from all areas and levels, including manufacturers, retailers, government, consumers and campaign groups. The success of any innovation must take account of multiple future scenarios that could affect policy implementation and new product development. These complexities require collaboration between stakeholders and academic input is vital to evidence-based leadership and decision-making. This paper describes early findings from a new collaborative group, led by Leeds Beckett University, which is using the Futures and Foresight approach to develop collective goals for tackling the environmental challenge. It seeks to answer the question of how action learning can be used to create a collaborative approach to considering the future of sustainable packaging. The approach focused on allowing groups of stakeholders to find actions to take and questions for their futures against which learning could take place. The early findings report some initial agreements on the challenges that the industry currently faces.

The retail and packaging supply chain continues to tackle complex problems relating to improving the sustainability of its products. The problems of plastic pollution and carbon emissions have increased expectations from consumers and government for businesses to reduce the use of plastic and improve recyclability in packaging. These create significant challenges. Alternative packaging formats add extra costs and create unwanted consequences due to poor functionality and there are potential side effects that worsen rather than improve environmental outcomes. In addition, consumer behaviours and the waste infrastructure are not sufficiently prepared to ensure the successful implementation of new packaging systems. To tackle these complexities, representatives of businesses and trade associations from the retail and packaging supply chain were assembled to discuss what is needed to create a more sustainable future packaging system. The Futures and Foresight Learning (FFL) approach was undertaken as a collaborative group. Over seven sessions, organised into 4 action learning groups, priority areas for analysis and action were identified and a variety of FFL methods were utilised to anticipate possible and desired outcomes for the year 2034. This ascertained the actions needed in the present that will enable these desired futures and limit unwanted effects. As action learning groups, the participants worked on topics including consumer behaviour, UK self-sufficiency, the waste value chain and systemic change. The research and analysis of the groups, combined with discussions in each session, provided a wealth of rich data for reporting and identification of further action both by individual organisations and the collective group. The process has enhanced the knowledge and understanding of all participants and provides evidence to call for further action to improve the sustainability of the packaging system. The paper will report on the results of the processes undertaken and actions to be taken in the future.

This study is shaped by the recognition that while there has been a great deal of policy development around the transition from unemployment and inactivity to employment over the last decade, policy has not been sufficiently informed about how best to nurture sustainable employment for those at risk of labour market exclusion. The review focused on evidence from 2005: it provides a review of data, UK and international literature and, incorporates findings from four international case studies ( Australia, Germany, Denmark and the United States. The report provides an overview of the economic context for low pay and low skilled work and highlights the need for a continuing commitment to promoting opportunities in the labour market as a means of progression and alleviating poverty and encouraging social mobility. The report argues that there is an inextricable link between skills and ‘better jobs’. The authors conclude that a long-term view is required to decide how best to support someone at the point of worklessness: to address employability barriers in the short-term; and prepare the individual to retain, and progress in, employment. The concept of career is explored as a framework for progression: a combination of career guidance, a career / personal development plan and career management skills are identified as tools to raise aspiration and enable individual’s to take action once they are in work to support their own progression. Thinking about the workplace, the report reviews the evidence on the role of job design, line management and progression pathways in facilitating workplace learning as a route to progression.

This report presents the findings from a literature review which explores how other Public Employment Services (PES) across Europe use performance measurement in support of their organisational objectives in order that Jobcentre Plus can learn from this when considering future improvements to its performance measurement regime. The main aim of this review was to understand existing labour market targets and whether these would be appropriate for Jobcentre Plus. This aim is underpinned by a number of objectives: - to determine what labour market targets other PES use to measure their performance of moving people into work; - to understand whether other PES use off flow measures; - to determine what evidence exists to demonstrate why these targets are used in other countries, i.e. how they help move people into work; - to investigate whether there are other organisations who have labour market targets and what these targets are; - to understand if there are differences between public, private and voluntary sector targets, where appropriate.

The report presents findings of a large consumer survey on packaging, environmental issues and the media, conducted by Dr Martina Topic, Ben Mitchell and Olga Munroe. The survey was conducted on a representative sample of 1000 respondents, and forms a backbone of the future research and research outputs currently being prepared. This report has been distributed to the clients of the Retail Institute and will be presented at the Annual Retail Institute conference in September 2018.

Background This systematic scoping review was commissioned by NHS Health Scotland as one of a number of projects to investigate reasons behind ‘excess’ mortality in Scotland compared to other parts of the UK. It aimed to identify explanations for (1) the high mortality in Scotland, or parts of Scotland relative to comparable populations (2) excess mortality between otherwise comparable populations. Methods Ten electronic databases were searched in November 2014, plus searches of relevant websites and a structured internet search. Potentially relevant records were screened by one reviewer with a random 10% double screened. Data was extracted into the categories: Countries compared; Study design; Outcomes reported; Hypotheses proposed (if any). Results 27,723 articles were screened and 837 included (1) Half of the 305 included studies mentioned deprivation or deprivation-related artefacts as an explanation for excess mortality in Glasgow or Scotland. The next largest category (29%) related to health behaviours. Other significant explanations related to political attack, effects of policies, health services supply and demand, deindustrialisation, different culture of substance misuse, possible mechanisms, migration, lower social capital, poor housing, life course effects, artefacts of measurement and the external physical environment. (2) In the international literature (n = 532), the largest category related to health behaviours (37%), with deprivation featuring in 32%. Other significant explanations related to health services supply and demand, income inequalities, artefacts of measurement, political attack or effects, social capital, different culture of substance misuse, and genetic differences. Conclusions There is a great deal of relevant literature offering explanations for “excess” mortality. Further research that includes validity assessment of these studies would be necessary to understand the reasons more fully and to ascertain which are the most robust. Key messages: Further research might focus on the links between “downstream” (e.g. health behaviours), “midstream” and “upstream” levels of explanations for excess mortality both in Scotland and internationally It would be of interest to explore similarities and differences between upstream influences, health behaviours and linked outcomes in Scotland and in eastern European countries © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.

Background: Stakeholder engagement for the What Works Centre for Wellbeing’s (WWCW) Community Wellbeing Evidence Programme identified ‘boosting social relations’ in communities as a priority policy-related topic. A scoping review of 34 reviews identified evidence gaps relating to social relations in the following areas: community infrastructure (places and spaces); interventions to reduce or prevent social isolation in adults <60 years; community engagement and volunteering; social network analyses. We developed “community infrastructure (places and spaces)” as a systematic review, as this can be addressed at a local or regional level and has potential to produce immediate practical impact. Methods: We searched 11 bibliographic databases from 1997-2017, performed reference and citation checking, searched the websites of relevant organisations, and issued a call for evidence through the WWCW. We included studies which reported: interventions to improve or make alternative use of physical places and spaces at community or neighbourhood level; outcomes of social relations, community wellbeing and related concepts; quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies, and process evaluations. Two reviewers undertook study selection. One reviewer undertook data extraction and validity assessment, with a random 20% checked by a second reviewer. Validity of included studies was assessed using established checklists. Following thematic synthesis of qualitative data, a narrative synthesis was produced for each of eight intervention categories. The GRADE and CERQual approaches were used to rate the overall strength of evidence for each outcome. Results: 51 studies, mostly of poor to moderate quality, were included. The better quality evidence was qualitative, and most of the review’s findings come from the thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence There was moderate evidence that: (i) Community hubs may promote social cohesion, increase social capital and build trust between people, widen social networks and increase interaction between people, and increase people’s knowledge or skills; (ii) Changes to neighbourhood design may positively affect sense of belonging and pride in a community; (iii) Green and blue space interventions that provide the opportunity to participate in activities or meetings improve social interactions, increase social networks, bonding and bridging social capital, physical activity and healthy eating, and improve people’s skills and knowledge. There were also common themes relating to facilitators and barriers to successful interventions. Conclusions: The review found moderate evidence that a range of intervention approaches to community infrastructure can boost social relations and community wellbeing. Future research should prioritise high quality evaluations using repeated measures and validated tools, with robust and credible qualitative evidence.

Introduction: There are many scales and measures of individual wellbeing, but community wellbeing is less well defined. Indicators measuring a community’s wellbeing may not be described as such. To address this knowledge gap, the What Works Wellbeing Communities Evidence Programme conducted a rapid scoping review of indicators, frameworks and measures of community wellbeing used by UK agencies in the last 5 years. Methods: Five electronic databases were searched from 2010 – 2016, plus relevant organisations’ websites. We included policy documents, evaluations and research studies if they measured community wellbeing in the UK. Electronic search results were uploaded to systematic reviewing software, screened and data extracted by one of five reviewers, with a random 10% double checked. Results: 6,494 records were screened and 47 included, containing 43 indicators currently or recently in use in the UK. Governmental organisations were more likely to use indicator frameworks or sets; non-governmental or academic organisations were more likely to use conceptual frameworks. Academic organisations were the most likely to use validated measures or scales. A wide range of synonyms or proxy terms relating to community wellbeing were used; we have begun to map these against their included domains. Conclusion: This is the first iteration of a working document compiling and indexing UK community wellbeing indicators. The review is intended to grow throughout the life of the What Works Wellbeing Centre; as further measures are identified in systematic reviews or by stakeholder engagement, they will be added.

Background: Stakeholder engagement for the What Works Centre for Wellbeing’s (WWCW) Community Wellbeing Evidence Programme identified ‘boosting social relations’ in communities as a priority policy-related topic. A scoping review of 34 reviews identified evidence gaps relating to social relations in the following areas: community infrastructure (places and spaces); interventions to reduce or prevent social isolation in adults <60 years; community engagement and volunteering; social network analyses. We developed “community infrastructure (places and spaces)” as a systematic review, as this can be addressed at a local or regional level and has potential to produce immediate practical impact. Methods: We searched 11 bibliographic databases from 1997-2017, performed reference and citation checking, searched the websites of relevant organisations, and issued a call for evidence through the WWCW. We included studies which reported: interventions to improve or make alternative use of physical places and spaces at community or neighbourhood level; outcomes of social relations, community wellbeing and related concepts; quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies, and process evaluations. Two reviewers undertook study selection. One reviewer undertook data extraction and validity assessment, with a random 20% checked by a second reviewer. Validity of included studies was assessed using established checklists. Following thematic synthesis of qualitative data, a narrative synthesis was produced for each of eight intervention categories. The GRADE and CERQual approaches were used to rate the overall strength of evidence for each outcome. Results: 51 studies, mostly of poor to moderate quality, were included. The better quality evidence was qualitative, and most of the review’s findings come from the thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence There was moderate evidence that: (i) Community hubs may promote social cohesion, increase social capital and build trust between people, widen social networks and increase interaction between people, and increase people’s knowledge or skills; (ii) Changes to neighbourhood design may positively affect sense of belonging and pride in a community; (iii) Green and blue space interventions that provide the opportunity to participate in activities or meetings improve social interactions, increase social networks, bonding and bridging social capital, physical activity and healthy eating, and improve people’s skills and knowledge. There were also common themes relating to facilitators and barriers to successful interventions. Conclusions: The review found moderate evidence that a range of intervention approaches to community infrastructure can boost social relations and community wellbeing. Future research should prioritise high quality evaluations using repeated measures and validated tools, with robust and credible qualitative evidence.

The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the available evidence, and describe the quality of that evidence, in relation to interventions that improve or create the community infrastructure that impacts on social relations and/ or community wellbeing. For this review, we are defining community infrastructure as the physical places and spaces where people can come together, formally or informally, to interact and participate in the social life of the community. We intend to produce a synthesis which is accessible and will inform practice and future research in the area.

Background: Social relations are recognized as an important determinant of individual & community wellbeing. The UK What Works Wellbeing Centre chose “boosting social relations” as a priority topic for systematic review. First, a scoping review was undertaken to identify evidence gaps. Methods: We searched: Cochrane database of systematic reviews, DARE, Campbell Library, DoPHER (EPPI-Centre), Joanne Briggs Institute, MEDLINE, IDOX, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Policy & Practice, Social Care Online; relevant websites. Inclusion criteria: Population – communities in OECD countries; Intervention - Any community-based intervention, change in policy, organisation or environment that were designed to boost social relations within the community; Outcomes – social relations, community wellbeing or related synonyms; Study design – systematic & non-systematic reviews published between 2005 and 2016. Studies were selected & data extracted by 3 reviewers, and summarised narratively. Results: 11,257 titles and abstracts were screened, 182 obtained in full & 29 included. Existing evidence tells us: Targeted group interventions that foster social networks & provide meaningful roles can reduce social isolation and/ or loneliness in older people; Volunteering can improve physical & mental health & wellbeing in older people; Effective community engagement produces sustainable improvements in community health & individual wellbeing. Evidence gaps: Interventions for social isolation &/ or loneliness in adults aged up to 65 years; Volunteering in people aged up to 65 years; Social network analyses; Community infrastructure (places & spaces). Stakeholder consultations identified community infrastructure (places & spaces) as the most useful topic for systematic review. Conclusions: A systematic scoping review of reviews, with stakeholder consultation, identified community infrastructure (places & spaces) as an evidence gap. Early findings from the resulting systematic review will be presented.