Commentary: Supermarket plastic bag charge – a case where policies work but expectations diverge

SINGAPORE: It has been more than two years since Singapore put in place a mandatory charge for plastic bags at major supermarkets.

Concerns emerged recently over where the policy proceeds are going. In a CNA report, the Singapore Environment Council flagged concerns about supermarket operators using these funds for internal business operations, rather than external causes, and warned that such uses may undermine public support. Reactions online suggest that some members of the public share these concerns.

It is important to note that the policy did not fail. Based on earlier media reports, the mandatory charge has reduced disposable carrier bag usage by 50 per cent to 80 per cent.

This outcome matters but what the recent discussion reveals is a divergence between how the policy is designed and how it has come to be understood. This is important, especially for sustainability initiatives that rely on public cooperation, rather than strict enforcement.

POLICY DESIGN VS PUBLIC EXPECTATIONS

Under the Disposable Carrier Bag Charge scheme, which started in July 2023, large supermarket operators with annual turnover of more than S$100 million (US$79 million) are required to charge at least five cents for each disposable carrier bag.

They are also required to publish annually the number of disposable carrier bags supplied, the amount of proceeds collected and how those proceeds are used. The government “strongly encourages” operators to channel the proceeds to social or environmental causes, but this is not a legal obligation.

At its core, the scheme is designed first and foremost as a behavioural tool – a price signal intended to discourage unnecessary disposable bag use. This is similar to what’s available in places such as Hong Kong and Taiwan, where charges are framed as deterrents, rather than contribution mechanisms, with proceeds either retained by retailers or made secondary to broader restrictions.

Yet, earlier communication about the scheme here has shaped expectations.

When addressing concerns about supermarket operators profiting from the plastic bag charge, then Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment Amy Khor noted in a 2023 parliamentary speech that these operators have indicated their intention to channel the proceeds to environmental or social causes.

Ahead of implementation, media reports also carried similar statements by major supermarket operators, although most said then that specific details have yet to be finalised.

While these statements did not alter the legal structure of the scheme, they shaped public understanding. Over time, a social expectation formed: If consumers were paying extra for a bag, the money would likely go somewhere meaningful beyond business-as-usual operations.

OBSERVATIONS WORTH LEARNING FROM

The recent discussion is quietly instructive in a few ways.

First, encouragement without obligation leaves room for varied interpretation.

Mandating the plastic bag charge while encouraging meaningful use of proceeds has allowed operators to interpret “meaningful” differently. Such different interpretations lead to a wider range of practices, including the use of proceeds for in-house operations that are framed as sustainability-related.

This does not imply illegality or bad faith, but mixed public reactions clearly suggest that not all interpretations resonate equally.

In an ideal setting, retailers could take such feedback into account and adjust practices voluntarily. In reality, organisations tend to align with what is clearly required, rather than what is loosely encouraged. This is where public feedback matters - clearer signals from consumers can help to shape norms, especially when formal standards are intentionally left flexible.

Second, a policy can be effective in changing behaviour, yet still generate discomfort if people become unsure of what the measure ultimately represents or in this case, the use of the proceeds is perceived as ambiguous.

Third, transparency is not the same as clarity.

While disclosures are required, most consumers lack the time or tools to assess whether uses align with the policy’s intended spirit. The resulting unease is not about legality, but about meaning, which when left unaddressed could weaken trust in public-facing sustainability initiatives, especially those that ask individuals to pay more or accept inconvenience.

MAINTAINING TRUST IN SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES

Many sustainability initiatives are inherently unpopular because they introduce friction and cost. People do not naturally enjoy paying more, even for good reasons, and that makes clarity especially important.

At the same time, addressing such issues does not necessarily require legislative change, which can be slow and costly. In many cases, clearer expectation-setting, stronger norm signalling and more accessible summaries of outcomes can reduce misunderstanding before it hardens into cynicism.

Given that the National Environment Agency has previously noted that operators intend to channel proceeds towards social and environmental causes, it may be helpful for the agency to clarify how current practices align with that expectation and to outline whether it intends to maintain the current approach or provide further guidance.

This could mean the regulator taking the lead in compiling and presenting disclosed figures in a consolidated way by, for example, summarising how different operators have used the proceeds, rather than leaving consumers to interpret multiple standalone reports from retailers.

This would allow the public to form their own views on how retailers are faring, strengthen the accountability standards of these reports and reduce unnecessary finger-pointing at the agency when expectations are not met.

LESSONS FROM OVERSEAS

Comparatively, other jurisdictions have taken different approaches.

Take Hong Kong for example, where the initial charge of HK$0.50 (US$0.06) was introduced in 2009 and limited to some 3,000 supermarkets, convenience stores and health and beauty shops. Between 2009 to 2015, retailers were required to return the charge to the government for environmental proceeds.

Due to public feedback on the limited scope of the scheme, this was revised in 2015 to cover all retail outlets and subsequently doubled to HK$1 in 2022. From 2015, the charge was kept by retailers, with authorities noting a lack of manpower to monitor and collect the fees. Retailers are encouraged to donate them to suitable environmental causes.

In contrast, jurisdictions like Ireland treat the charge as a levy, with proceeds channelled into a central environmental fund. That structure provides clarity, but it also frames the charge explicitly as a form of taxation which is a move that may not be politically or contextually suitable everywhere.

If Singapore were to look to other jurisdictions for lessons, one implication is that pricing measures tend to be more effective when applied consistently across comparable retail contexts.

For instance, having plastic bag charges applied broadly across retail outlets reinforces a clear deterrent signal. On the other hand, applying them to a narrower segment of retailers may raise questions about proportionality and effectiveness, particularly if similar plastic usage continues elsewhere without equivalent signals.

All in, the plastic bag charge is a useful policy tool, and evidence suggests it has nudged consumers to be more prudent in using disposable bags. But it also offers a reminder that sustainability policies need to be designed and communicated beyond compliance, especially when consumers are asked to repeatedly adjust their habits or absorb small costs. 

When public expectations drift apart, even effective policies can feel misaligned.

Heng Li Seng is founder of social enterprise Green Nudge.