Regulations imposed to protect the environment may continue to have impacts even after they are repealed. And those lingering impacts include some that run contrary to the goals of the policies.
Such are the findings of a study published in the Journal of Marketing Research co-authored by UC Riverside marketing professor Hai Che that examined policies to curtail the use of single-use plastic bags in grocery stores and other retail outlets in Austin and Dallas, Texas—policies that were later repealed.
Significantly, the behaviors spurred by the plastic bag rules continued after the rules were no longer in place. And some impacts were not beneficial to the environment.
Che and his coauthors found an increase in sales of plastic bags after the cities prohibited stores from giving away free plastic bags for carrying home groceries. They quantified plastic bag sales by analyzing barcode scanner data on consumer purchases.
“We were hoping for positive spillover effects, like customers will be more environmentally conscious and consume less one-time use plastic or paper products,” said Che, an associate professor at UCR’s School of Business. “But that’s not what happened in the data. People wound up buying more plastic.”
Che added store customer had been repurposing the free grocery bags al as liners for household trash bins.”
The bag rules, however, most likely changed consumer behavior in positive ways as well, such as people getting in the habit of using reusable canvas or burlap bags for everyday shopping, although such data wasn’t available to the researchers, Che said.
The study found that the longer a policy is in place, the longer the behaviors spurred by the policy lingered on.
The Dallas City Council had imposed a 5-cent fee for single-use bags for five months in 2015 before repealing the fee when the city faced lawsuits from plastic bag manufacturers. When free bags became available again, plastic bag sales initially declined sharply and returned to pre-policy levels after 13 months.
The Austin City Council banned single-use carryout bags in 2013, and the policy remained in place for five years until 2018 when the Texas Supreme Court struck down such bans statewide when it ruled on a case about a similar bag ban in Lerado. After the repeal, the carryover effect of plastic bag purchases declined gradually and did not revert to the pre-policy baseline after 18 months, which was the end of the researchers’ analysis time frame. In fact, the carryover effect remained 38.6% above the baseline even at the end of the analysis
To assess the net environmental impact, the research team conducted a “break-even analysis” to determine if the plastic bag policy, despite the negative spillover effects, ultimately reduced plastic waste. They calculated how many fewer single-use grocery bags consumers would need to use to offset the additional trash bags purchased due to the policy. In Dallas, consumers would need to use one less grocery bag every seven trips, while in Austin, it would be one less bag every five trips to break even in terms of environmental impact.
“Interestingly, even a slight reduction in grocery bag use can offset the increased plastic consumption from trash bags,” Che said. “This suggests that these policies might still benefit the environment overall, even when repealed.”
The study’s title is “Are We Worse Off After Policy Repeals? Evidence from Two Green Policies.” In addition to Che, the authors are Dinesh Puranam of the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California, Sungjin Kim of Rutgers Business School at Rutgers University, and Jihoon Hong at W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University.
The study contributes to a growing body of knowledge on the unintended consequences of environmental policies and offers insights applicable beyond plastic bag usage, Che said.
“While our study focused on plastic bags, similar spillover effects have been documented in policies targeting sugary drinks, energy efficiency, and health incentives,” Che said. “In each case, behaviors that weren’t directly targeted by the policy—like purchasing more sugary snacks when soda is taxed—can offset or even undermine the policy’s primary goals.”
