Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1527e1535

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Consumer reflections on the usage of plastic bags to parcel hot edible

items: an empirical study in Malaysia
K. Jayaraman a, *, Hasnah Haron a, Gooi Bee Sung a, Soh Keng Lin b
a
Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia
b
School of Management, University Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The packaging industry offers a wide range of pouching products to their clients in the food and beverage
Received 6 August 2010 industries, healthcare industries and households as well. It is observed that pouching products are
Received in revised form widely used and seemingly making them indispensable. Such practices are commonly found in Malaysia
17 March 2011
especially to parcel hot or cold food. The use of pouches raises two concerns namely solid waste disposal
Accepted 31 March 2011
Available online 21 April 2011
and food safety. The present study found more than 62% of the consumers purchase hot edible items in
plastic bags daily or weekly because of its cost effectiveness and storage convenience. Consumers
apparently are unperturbed by public campaigns against the use of plastic bags and neither do
Keywords:
Hot edible items
government regulations have any influence to reduce the use of plastic bags to parcel hot edible items.
Environmental hazards On the other hand, consumers are optimistic that the environmental and health hazards from the use of
Health hazards plastic bags to store hot edible items would only see a positive impact in the future.
Green marketing Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Stakeholder theory

1. Introduction (Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive) regulations

The usage of plastic bags has caused both convenience and
inconvenience in our daily routine. However the indiscriminate
disposal of plastic bags at an alarming rate can be seen in most parts
of Asia. The disposal of plastics bags is an environmental hazard as
most plastic bags are not bio-degradable. The bio-degradable ones
pose even greater dangers as they degrade into smaller particles
that eventually get into our food and water system. Countering the
environmental and health hazards is the green concept that is
embraced by many organizations and environmentalists. Con-
tained in the green concept are green products which are made
without hazardous materials, use energy saving components or use
recyclable materials but not pervasively popular as yet. There are
individuals who give priority to green products which bear eco-
labels on their purchases. One of the most well known green
consumer products is the Body Shop and the manufacturer claims
that their products are non-animal tested and come with recycling/
refilling policies. In order to be competitive in the business world,
companies have begun practicing the green concept because of
customer pressure and government regulations such as the RoHS
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dr_kjraman@usm.my (K. Jayaraman), hhasnah@usm.my
(H. Haron), Bee-Sung.Celaeno-Gooi@spansion.com (G.B. Sung), klsoh@usm.my
(S.K. Lin).
imposed by European countries (EU). This regulation restricts the
use of six hazardous materials in the manufacturing of electronic
and electrical equipments in EU countries. Therefore, manufac-
turers who export their products to EU countries have to comply
with this regulation. In this case, the government is a powerful
stakeholder which forces companies to practice the green concept.
Large organizations have started to take note and participate in the
green marketing concept with small businesses taking the cue from
them. In Malaysia, small businesses can be seen along the streets e
with hawkers by the road side or in coffee shops selling food and
drinks commonly in plastics bags for takeaways. This raises plastic
bag disposal concerns to the local authorities. It also creates indi-
vidual concerns for those who may suffer from indigestion, vom-
iting and stomachache. It is widely known that the direct contact of
high temperature food or drinks with plastic surfaces may cause
chemical migration from plastics into food. These chemicals
include styrene, bisphenol-A and phthalates which cause cancer,
heart diseases and reproductive problems. Massoud et al. (2010)
opined that the food industry is generally more concerned with
safety and quality issues rather than environmental issues. In order
to combat these issues and to promote the green marketing
concept, the government, consumers and business owners are all
important stakeholders to reduce the use of plastic bags. In line
with that, an attempt is made in this paper, to study the consumer
experiences on the usage of plastic bags to parcel hot edible items.

0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.019
1528 K. Jayaraman et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1527e1535
2. Plastic use in Malaysia
In Malaysia, plastic bags are widely used to pack groceries and
food. Even though Malaysia is considered a developing country,
packing hot edible items in plastic bags is still practiced. Malaysians
have the habit to buy hot edible items in plastic bags from food
courts at major shopping malls, hawker centers and cafeterias. The
Malaysian government often conducts campaign to do away with
the use of plastic bags but its impact are yet to be felt especially in
small businesses. This study is undertaken to find possible reme-
dies to overcome the use of plastic bags for hot edible items in
Malaysia. The target group of this article is Malaysians who favor
plastic bags usage in purchasing hot edible items. In addition, the
views of the respondents who do not favor plastic bags to pack hot
edible items are also discussed. Not surprisingly, the popular use of
plastic bags is also found in other countries. A study was done in
Kenya by Njeru (2006) and it attributed this popularity to:

Easy availability e plastic bag is seen everywhere because it is
cheaper than paper bag or metal container. Furthermore, it is
easier to seal or make parcels.

Easy storage e plastic bags are smaller in size compared to
other containers. Therefore, consumers do not require a big
storage place for plastic bags.

Weight convenience e plastic bag is light weight.
Starting from 1980s, the green concept emerged as people
became more and more green-conscious. Many green products
using renewable energy, reduced energy and emission of green-
house gases, and made without hazardous materials have slowly
been introduced into the market. These initiatives are largely
undertaken by corporations. It remains doubtful of similar initia-
tives by small businesses and the participation by consumers when
purchasing products from the small and medium enterprises
(SMEs). In order to address such matters, it would be necessary to
create an eco-effective system of “nutrient” management to coor-
dinate the material flows amongst actors in the product system
(Braungart et al., 2007).
According to Ottman et al. (2006), a green product should consist
of three major criteria which are consumer value positioning, cali-
bration of consumer knowledge and credibility of product claims.
These three criteria are applied to the plastic bag usage research in
Malaysia. The consumer positioning and knowledge of the plastic
bag usage is included to identify consumers who are greener
conscious and to further educate them on the concept. As for the
credibility of the products, the plastics are considered non-
environmental friendly and unhealthy. Therefore, there is a need
to study the customers’ reflections on the usage of plastic bags to
hold hot edible items. However, it should be noted that other than
green issues, consumers are also concerned with cost and conve-
nience. Therefore, more research on consumer needs and behavior is
encouraged (Rex and Baumann, 2007). Gossling et al. (2005) stated
that the target group comprising marketing is one of the important
factors to enlarge green consciousness with the lowest cost. There
are also researches done on stakeholder theory on the influence of
consumers on green issues. However, the majority of these research
is related to large organizations and the results have indicated bigger
organizations are more likely to be involved in green initiatives than
smaller business since the stakes are higher for them. Researches
done on smaller companies on this issue are scarce and no research
has been done on hawkers in Malaysia. The available literature
describes different topics such as waste management and the usage
of plastic bags in general (Zabaniotou and Kassidi, 2005) with many
technical research in chemistry, medicine and industrial packing. In
terms of management issues, it has been identified that green
marketing might be the theory to support this study. While previous
literature of green marketing was mostly based on manufacturing
companies, small business is researched in this study. Although,
consumer attitude and behavior have been studied before in green
marketing, there is still a lack of research on the usage of plastic bags
for hot edible items.
The plastic bags that are used in food courts or hawker stalls in
Malaysia do not have any plastic identification code on them and
may not be safe to contain hot items. The real concern is whether
the consumers are aware of the type of plastic bags used in packing
hot items. Even though some plastic pouches might have identifi-
cation codes, the knowledge of food safety of hawkers and the
sense of ethical responsibility and integrity of plastic suppliers are
likely to be questionable. Plastic materials which might be banned
in some countries because of environmental or health reasons
make these plastics readily available because they are relatively
cheaper.
The Malaysian public is educated of plastic bag hazards by
public media and figures. Plastic bags are not meant for storing hot
drinks or other liquid unless the plastic is heat resistant (Mustafa
Ali Mohammed (2007)). The use of cheap but usually harmful
plastic materials has chemicals seeping from the plastics. This is
aggravated if milk drinks contain fats. Edwards (2007) quoted the
Malaysian Health Minister Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek as saying it is
crucial for consumers not to misuse packaging materials in an
“unintended or unanticipated manner”. Likewise the Consumer
Association of Penang (CAP) advisor Dr. T. Jayabalan who is also
a member of the Malaysian National Poison Center also urges
consumers to avoid using plastic bags, polystyrene boxes and cling
wrap to pack their food fearing high heat would cause seepage from
plastics. The Federation of Malaysian Consumers Associations
(FOMCA) chief executive officer Mohd Yusof Abdul Rahman also
hopes that the Malaysian authorities would conduct more research
in this matter and set up strict regulations on plastic bag use
especially for hot food of Malaysian’s street stalls (Star Online,
2008). It should be noted that Malaysia produces 18,000 metric
tons of plastic related materials a day and this is 24% of the total
daily national production output (Economic Planning Unit, 2006).
The state of Penang in Malaysia disposes 1500e1600 tons of plas-
tics daily and averages the disposal of 1 kg of plastic per person
daily! Chong (2009) quoted the Chief Minister of Penang as having
said the local councils had spent US18.6 million to pay for waste
disposal in 2007. In Penang, plastics can be seen littered or clogged
in water channels, drains and streets. To combat this menace, on 1
July 2009, the state government of Penang declared Monday as
a “No Plastic Bag Day” to reduce plastic bag usage in the six major
supermarkets which used a total of 25.2 million pieces of plastic
bags in 2008 notwithstanding the plastic bags distributed by
retailers, hawkers and other traders. With this “No Plastic Bag Day”
campaign, the government estimates the disposal of plastic bags
can be reduced by 2.1 million pieces per month (Filmer and Chin,
2009). In 2010, “No Plastic Bags Day” in Penang was extended
from Monday through Wednesday to further reduce the usage of
plastic bags. However, not all business owners pay heed to the
government campaign and plastic bags are still used in retail shops
and other small businesses.
3. Plastic components and types
In general, plastics may be divided into two major categories:
thermo sets and thermoplastics. A thermo set is more durable and
stronger and is used primarily in automobiles, construction appli-
cations, adhesives, inks, and coatings. A thermoplastic is weaker
and softer and is used to produce milk jugs, floor coverings, credit
cards, and carpet fibers. Each manufacturer has its own proprietary
 K. Jayaraman et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1527e1535 1529

formula for plastics and each plastic uses a variety of additives such
as plasticizers for flexibility, UV filters for protection from sunlight,
antistatic agents to protect electronic components, flame-
retardants, colorants, antioxidants, and heavy metals such as
cadmium, mercury and lead (Rosato, 2000). The plastic identifica-
tion code (PIC) was introduced by the Society of Plastics Industry to
provide a uniform system for identification. There are seven groups
of plastics used worldwide in relation to food as found in Table 1.
According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), those
plastics are classified as “Food Contact Substances”. Some of the
toxins might seep from the plastic to the substances they come in
contact with. Though rules require plastic materials be tested for
safety for approval by FDA, there are still doubts on the testing
method for plastics as there are conflicts of interest and a lack of
knowledge in the plastics migration process. The migration process
may cause chemical changes in the food, its packaging or both
causing food contamination, loss of package integrity, or a decrease
in quality. The most common food and plastic interactions are the
migration of low molecular weight substances such as stabilizers,
plasticizers, antioxidants, monomers, and oligomers from plastic
packaging materials into food (Arvanitoyannis and Bosena, 2004 as
cited in Khaksar and Khansari, 2009). Table 2 shows the commonly
migrating chemicals into food when plastic materials are misused
to handle hot edible items. The plastic cling film should not be used
to cover hot food but plastic packaging for takeaway plastic is safe
only for one time use if the correct plastic is used. There is also
doubt whether food stall owners on the street has the knowledge in
choosing the appropriate or ‘best’ plastic bag to pack food for
customers. No study has been done in Malaysia to test the public
awareness and perception of plastics particularly the street
vendors. In Dubai, a case study was done to test the vendor’s ability
to select the suitable plastic cup in serving hot drinks. Apparently
cups with PS plastic (group 6) were used but unsuitable because its
maximum serving temperature is only 85 Celsius while hot drinks
might be have higher temperatures. In order to minimize the risk,
the recommendation was to prohibit the use of PS plastic cup in
serving hot beverages and to guide the vendors and consumers to
use the correct cup ratings. Recommendations are also made to
organize more consumer awareness through media and schools
(Mohammed, 2007).
Another test was also done to investigate the factors of seepage
of chemical from polystyrene (PS group 6) cups. It was found that
styrene monomer will migrate into the hot beverages depending
upon the fat content, temperature and duration. However,
temperature is the most crucial factor as the level of migration
increases when temperature increases (Khaksar and Khansari,

Table 1
Plastic identification code and its attributes for food items.

Plastic identification code Type of plastic polymer Properties Common packaging applications

Polyethylene Terephthalate Clarity, strength, toughness, barrier Soft drinks, water and salad dressing
(PET, PETE) to gas and moisture. bottles; peanut butter and jam jars.

Stiffness, strength, toughness, resistance Milk, juice and water bottles; yogurt
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
to moisture, permeability to gas. and margarine tubs; trash and retail bags.

Versatility, clarity, ease of blending,

Polyvinyl Chloride (V) Juice bottles; cling films.
strength, toughness.

Frozen food bags; squeezable

Ease of processing, strength, toughness,
Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) bottles, e.g. honey, mustard; cling films;
flexibility, ease of sealing, barrier to moisture.
flexible container lids.

Reusable microwaveable ware;

Strength, toughness, resistance to heat, kitchenware; yogurt containers;
Polypropylene (PP) chemicals, grease and margarine tubs; microwaveable
oil, versatile, barrier to moisture. disposable take-away containers;
disposable cups and plates.

Egg cartons; disposable cups, plates,

trays and cutlery; disposable take-away
Polystyrene (PS) Versatility, clarity, easily formed.
containers; yoghurt and margarine
containers.

Dependent on polymers or combination

Other Beverage bottles; baby milk bottles.
or polymers.

Source: Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore, 2008.

1530 K. Jayaraman et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1527e1535
Table 2
Chemicals from seepage and their health hazards.
Chemical Health hazards
Styrene e a monomer used in the Potential human carcinogen
production of polystyrene.
Bisphenol-A e a monomer used in Heart disease, diabetes, and
the production of polycarbonate. abnormally high levels of
certain liver enzymes
Phthalates e an additive used in the Adverse male reproduction
manufacture of plastic cling films problems.
to increase their flexibility.
2009). In Malaysia, hot edible items are wrapped in plastic bags in
food courts in major shopping malls, hawker centers or cafeteria for
food and drinks takeaways.
4. Research methodology
This study is conducted in Malaysia by sending the question-
naire through emails, and the responses received from 9 March
2010 through 25 March 2010 were accepted for this study. The
items in the questionnaire are found in Appendix-III. A total of 96
respondents from different parts of Malaysia correctly filled in the
questionnaire and their responses were used for the study. Out of
the 96 respondents, 36 (37.5%) were males and the remaining 60
(62.5%) were females. The age of the respondents ranged from 21
years to 56 years. Based on the responses, the majority of the
respondents (46.7%) purchased hot edible items in plastic bags on
a weekly basis and 15.2% of respondents purchased daily. The
majority of the respondents (97.8%) purchased hot food in plastic
bags from hawker stalls, followed by 44.1% from coffee shops, 20.4%
from restaurants and 14% from shopping mall food courts. These
statistics describe the popularity of plastic bags and explain the
attendant disposal costs. 75.3% of the respondents felt that plastic
bags are cost-effective, 60.2% felt that plastic bags are for easy
storage and 87.1% felt the convenience. Some respondents stated
that they used plastic bags for hot edible items because there are no
other alternative containers for them. Another more alarming issue
is that 39.8% of the respondents had tasted plastic substances in
their food. This means that there is chemical reaction between the
hot food and the plastic materials which possibly has released toxic
chemicals that are harmful when consumed by the respondents.
Thus, serious action should be taken to reduce the usage of plastic
bags unless appropriate ones are used. One action was to impose
extra charges on plastic bags during purchase. About 82.8% of the
respondents mentioned that they would bring their own
containers to pack food if there are extra charges imposed if plastic
bags are used. Clearly this justifies this study on such public
awareness and responses are carried out to consider solutions to
the issues at hand in relation to small business. This study covers
five independent variables, one moderating variable and one
dependent variable and the research framework is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Research framework.
The set of independent variables in Fig. 1 is partially supported
by Maibach et al. (2008) and highlights products and services, laws
and policies, enforcement and media influence are presumed
important factors in influencing public environmental and health
concerns. For instance, the construct awareness/publicity relates to
the individual level of knowledge, belief and self-efficacy as well as
cultural and media messages whereas health and spoilage relates to
the motivation of the respondents to adopt a no plastic bag lifestyle.
Health hazards in particular would relate to stomachache, indi-
gestion and liver problems. Regulations relates to laws and policies
and the enforcement of the framework. Lynes and Andrachuk
(2008) stated that regulations and awareness are very important
in directing the organizations to participate in green activities.
These four independent variables are also used in waste manage-
ment and food research particularly by Bianco et al. (2008), Shekdar
(2009),and Troschinetz and Mielcic (2009). Van Birgelen et al.
(2009) suggested that environmental awareness and attitude
toward environment play a pivotal influence to consumer behavior.
D’Souza et al. (2006) mentioned that consumer practice is
influenced by the past experience of their usage of the green
products. Lee and Holden (1999) stated that perceived benefit is
one of the variables that lead a person to adopt to green practice.
Therefore, it is logical for this study to assume that the past expe-
rience of the public might influence their plastic usage. Thus, one of
the additional construct added in the present study is spoilage.
Gender and age are considered as moderating variables as
numerous studies show that females are more environmental
conscious than males (Bianco et al., 2008; Xing, 2009).
4.1. Hypotheses development
Creating awareness and generating publicity are vital to influ-
ence public perception and practice as supported by Troschinetz
and Mielcic (2009) and Shekdar (2009). Accordingly, this study
hypothesizes that:
H1. Awareness/publicity leads to reduction in the usage of plastic
bags to parcel hot edible items
Maibach et al. (2008) and Hartmann and Ibanez (2006) estab-
lished that individual benefit in certain issues can influence their
perception. In this study, the absence of health hazards may be
categorized as an individual benefit and therefore directly impacts
the consumers. Accordingly, this study hypothesizes that:
H2. Health hazards lead to reduction in the usage of plastic bags to
store hot edible items
D’Souza et al. (2006) suggested that past experience of spoilage
of food has an influential role on the consumer’s view point. Hence,
the study hypothesizes that:
H3. Spoilage leads to reduction in the usage of plastic bags to store
hot edible items
Environmental factor is used in many previous studies like
Maibach et al. (2008) and Ayalon et al. (2009). Van Birgelen et al.
(2009) observed that environmental awareness and attitude
toward environment play a pivotal part in consumer behavior.
Accordingly, this study hypothesizes that:
H4. Environmental hazards lead to reduction in the usage of
plastic bags to parcel hot edible items
Regulations are one of the most commonly used variables in
studies like Ayalon et al. (2009), Troschinetz and Mielcic (2009), Xing
(2009) and Lu et al. (2006). Accordingly, this study hypothesizes that:
H5. Regulations lead to reduction in the usage of plastic bags for
hot edible items
 K. Jayaraman et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1527e1535 1531

Table 3 Table 5
Basic matrix for comparison computation. Results of the two sample independent t-test.

Class/Recognized As positive As negative Consumer practice

Positive tp fn Independent variables Not to buya Buya (n2 ¼ 60) t-statistic p-value
Negative fp tn (n1 ¼ 36)
Awareness/Publicity 3.57  1.00 2.67  1.03 4.19 0.00
Health hazards 3.67  1.07 2.47  0.88 5.96 0.00
Spoilage 3.73  0.96 2.86  1.00 4.18 0.00
4.2. Power estimates of the models Environmental hazards 3.63  1.02 2.56  0.94 5.22 0.00
Regulations 3.52  1.14 2.66  0.95 3.97 0.00
a
The binary logistic regression analysis and the two-group Mean  SD on a 5-point Likert scale.
discriminant analysis have been used for data analysis. This
included the comparison of the powers of these two different
methods (Sokolova et al., 2006). The basic matrix of the computa- Out of the 96 respondents, 60 (62.5%) respondents reported that
tion is given in Table 3. they were buying hot edible items in plastic bags and the remaining
Youden’s index is used for identifying correctly the failure 36 (37.5%) stated that they never favored plastic bags to pack hot
avoidance, the sensitivity and the specificity of the tests. The higher edible items. The independent two sample t-test was applied to
the value of Youden’s index means the better the ability to avoid compare these two groups of respondents on the five independent
failures. The index is defined as: variables and the results are provided in Table 5. It is worthwhile to
Youden’s index (r) ¼ sensitivity(1specificity);where sens- observe that the respondents who did not buy hot edible items in
itivity ¼ tp/(tp þ fn) and specificity ¼ tn/(fp þ tn). plastic bags have given higher scores for all the Independent vari-
Likelihoods are measures that evaluate the classifier’s perfor- ables and are found to be highly statistically significant (p < 0.001)
mance to a finer degree with respect to both classes (positive and supporting the hypotheses H1eH5.
negative.) It treats sensitivity and specificity separately.
Let A ¼ Classification findings from discriminant analysis,
B ¼ Classification findings from binary logistic regression analysis.
5.1. Binary logistic analysis
Then,
rþ ¼ sensitivity/(1specificity); r ¼ (1sensitivity)/specificity.
The binary logistic regression is used when the dependent
If rþA > rþB and rA < rB implies A is superior overall.
variable is dichotomous and the independent variables are of any
If rþA < rþB and rA < rB implies A is superior for confir-
type. In this study, the dependent variable has two measurements
mation of negative examples.
namely the respondents who bought hot edible items in plastic
If rþA > rþB and rA > rB implies A is superior for confir-
bags (1) and those respondents who did not buy (0). The model was
mation of positive examples.
first applied without moderating variables and subsequently with
If rþA < rþB and rA > rB implies A is inferior overall.
gender and age as moderating variables. In the first case, the binary
Discriminant power (DP) is another measure given by:
logistic analysis with five independent variables of awareness/

pffiffiffi  publicity, health hazards, spoilage, environmental hazards and
Discriminant power ¼ 3=p ðlog X þ log YÞ
regulations reveal that the Nagelkerke R Square is 0.38, p < 0.05
and the overall correct classification is 78.1%. However, the Wald
where X ¼ sensitivity/(1sensitivity), Y ¼ specificity/(1specificity).
Chi-Square statistics show that only the health hazard is statisti-
The DP summarizes sensitivity and specificity which evaluates
cally significant at 1% level (Table 6). With the introduction of
how well an algorithm distinguishes between positive and nega-
gender and age as moderators, the Nagelkerke R Square has
tive. The algorithm is a poor discrimination if DP < 1, limited if
increased slightly from 0.38 to 0.39. However, overall correct clas-
DP < 2, fair if DP < 3 and good in other cases.
sification increased from 78.1% to 82.0%. Health hazard remains the
only significant variable among all the independent and moder-
ating variables with p < 0.05. Therefore, gender and age are not
5. Significant findings and results
significant as moderating variables and may be discarded from the
framework.
Factor analysis and reliability analysis were used to test the
goodness of data. The confirmatory factor analysis has
been applied through Varimax rotation (Hair et al., 1995). The
Table 6
questions in the five constructs of independent variables namely
Results of binary logistic regression models.
awareness/publicity, health hazards, spoilage, environmental
hazards and regulations are included in the factor analysis to find Variable Model-1 Model-2

out whether their subjective measurements in the Likert scale of Without moderating With moderating
1e5 are actually converging to their respective constructs. Of the variables variables
19 questions associated with the five constructs, two questions Exp (B) Wald c2 p-value Exp (B) Wald c2 p-value
connected with awareness/publicity were dropped because the Independent variables
main factor loading is below 0.5. All other questions were Awareness/Publicity 0.84 0.16 0.69 0.83 0.16 0.69
retained for further data analysis. The reliability analysis of Health hazards 4.49 5.42 0.02 4.98 5.71 0.02
Spoilage 0.71 0.44 0.51 0.65 0.71 0.40
Cronbach’s Alpha was used to determine whether the measure-
Environmental hazards 1.68 0.78 0.38 1.72 0.83 0.36
ments of the five constructs were consistent. Cronbach’s Alpha Regulations 0.69 0.62 0.43 0.70 0.54 0.46
values above 0.95 for the five constructs indicated data was Moderating variables
consistent. Table 4 in Appendix-II shows the summary of the Gender 1.72 0.99 0.32
results of the factor analysis and reliability analysis for each Age 0.95 0.67 0.41

construct. DV: Consumer practice (Not to buy ¼ 36; Buy ¼ 60).

1532 K. Jayaraman et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1527e1535

Table 7 Table 9
Results of discriminant analysis. Model power comparison.

Model-1 Model-2 Model Youden’s Likelihoods Discriminating

index power
Without With moderating
moderating variables Discriminant Superior Superior for negative category Limited
variables Binary logistic Inferior Superior for positive category Limited

Variable Wilks’ Lambda p-value Wilks’ Lambda p-value

Independent variables
Awareness/Publicity 0.84 0.00 0.84 0.00 discriminant analysis of 0.52 while Youden’s index for binary
Health hazards 0.73 0.00 0.73 0.00
logistic regression analysis is 0.49. Therefore, the discriminant
Spoilage 0.84 0.00 0.84 0.00
Environmental hazards 0.78 0.00 0.78 0.00
analysis has greater power with Youden’s index. As for likelihood
Regulations 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.00 calculations, where A ¼ results from the discriminant analysis and
Moderating variables B ¼ results from the binary logistic regression analysis, it is has the
Gendera 1.00 0.83 following results: rþA ¼ 3.61, rA ¼ 0.35 and rþB ¼ 5.24 and
Agea 1.00 0.95
rB ¼ 0.44. Therefore, rþA < rþB and rA < rB imply that the
DV: Consumer practice (Not to buy ¼ 36; Buy ¼ 60). discriminant analysis is superior for confirmation of negative
a
Not significant.
examples. It means that the analysis is more superior for the
5.2. Discriminant analysis respondents who have the opinion that they would not stop using
plastic bags for hot edible items. On the other hand, the binary
The two-group discriminant analysis was applied to explore the logistic regression analysis is more superior in classifying the
differences simultaneously between the two groups of the depen- respondents who have favored to stop plastic bags to store hot
dent variable. As in binary logistic regression model, the discrimi- edible items. Furthermore, the discriminant power (DP) for
nant analysis with and without the moderating variables of gender Discriminant Analysis is 1.84 whilst the binary logistic analysis is
and age were tested. The moderating variables can be analyzed in 1.95. It means that both analyses fall into the limited category.
discriminant analysis as shown in Besthorn et al. (1997). The Wilks’ Table 8 and Table 9 show the new classification results and the
Lambda scores on the discriminant function in Table 7 were summary of the model power comparisons. It can be concluded
between 0.73 and 0.86 for the five independent variables and were that the discriminant model is marginally superior to the binary
found to be statistically significant at 1% level. Health Hazards had logistic regression model. However, it should be noted that a higher
the smallest Wilks’ Lambda which means it contributes more to the accuracy does not guarantee an overall better performance of an
discriminant function. Overall, the Wilks’ Lambda for the model algorithm. The performance of the model is based on a combination
was at 0.72 with p < 0.01. The Fisher’s procedure was employed to of measures giving a balanced evaluation. The results of the
make pair wise comparisons. It is observed that for awareness/ discriminant analysis will now be taken for the interpretation of
publicity, spoilage, and regulations, the respondents’ answer not to this study.
stop using plastic bags to parcel hot edible items are significant.
However, the respondents’ opinion toward health hazards and
6. Conclusions
environmental hazards to give up the use of plastic bags to parcel
hot edible items can be attributed to these variables. The con-
This study has investigated the usage of plastic bags to parcel
structed two-group discriminant model correctly classifies 77.1% of
hot edible items by the food vendors in Malaysia. The research in
the respondents.
this area is lacking and thus this study is undertaken to fill the gap
Pertaining to the discriminant model with the moderating
in the literature. The initial presumption of pervasive plastic bags
variables of gender and age, it is proven to be insignificant with
usage by the Malaysian public has unearthed evidence that more
p > 0.1 and the results coincide with the binary logistic model.
than 62% of the respondents in Malaysia purchase hot edible items
Furthermore, the overall Wilks’ Lambda had been decreased from
in plastic bags on a daily and weekly basis because of cost effec-
0.72 to 0.70 when these two moderating variables were added. The
tiveness, easy storage and convenience. Therefore the time and
percentage of correct group classification is reduced from 77.1% to
effort spent invested in this study has been justified.
76.0%. Therefore, gender and age did not cause any significant
The research objective of this study is to examine the factors
difference to the relationship.
influencing the consumers to discontinue buying hot edible items
in plastic bags. The local authorities, NGO or media may employ
5.3. Comparison between binary logistic analysis and discriminant these factors in their messages to the public to create more
analysis awareness on the danger of using plastic bags to keep hot edible
items. The independent two sample t-test reveals that consumers
It is observed that the results of discriminant analysis and binary who are not buying hot edible items in plastic bags have given high
logistic regression analysis did not coincide. Therefore, the tests scores for all the five independent variables (awareness/publicity,
(Sokolova et al., 2006) based on Youden’s Index, discriminant health hazards, spoilage, environmental hazards and regulations)
power and likelihoods were tested to identify which analysis fits and the scores are found to be highly statistically significant. In
the model better. The results yield a Youden’s index for addition, two multivariate statistical techniques via discriminant
analysis and binary logistic regression analysis were applied to test
Table 8
the influencing factors which might contribute to the reduction in
New classification results.
the usage of plastic bags for hot edible items. The reasons for
Measure Discriminant analysis Binary logistic analysis applying these methods were to check the validity of the t-test and
Youden’s index (r) 0.52 0.49 also to derive predictive inferences. Discriminant analysis shows
rþ 3.61 5.24 that health hazards and environmental hazards will lead to the
r 0.35 0.44
DP 1.84 1.95
reduction in the usage of plastic bags for hot edible items while
binary logistic analysis shows that only health hazards are
 K. Jayaraman et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1527e1535 1533

significant. The results of discriminant analysis show that the
factors awareness/publicity, spoilage, and regulations have not
influenced the respondents to stop using plastic bags for hot edible
items and the results are statistically significant.
The preceding results means that those three factors (aware-
ness/publicity, spoilage, and regulations) have little or no influence
on the consumers to reduce the usage of plastic bags for hot edible
items although these factors were important in the study of
Arkesteijn and Oerlemans (2005) and Maibach et al. (2008). The
health hazards and environmental hazards are the primary factors
influencing respondents to give up the usage of plastic bags for hot
edible items. This is consistent with the argument of Hartmann and
Ibanez (2006) as health can be a perceived self benefit to the
consumers which is directly linked to their usage. The significance
of environmental factor is also consistent with the opinions of
Arkesteijn and Oerlemans (2005), Kim and Choi (2005) and Laroche
et al. (2001). The negative impact of environmental hazards
parceling hot edible items in plastic bags might have been
constantly pricking the minds of the respondents brought about by
communication technologies.
The moderating variables namely age and gender were also
tested in both statistical methods but were found to be insignifi-
cant. This is consistent with the opinion of Conrad (1995) where
the demographic variables were found to be insignificant in their
discriminant analysis. The two statistical methods were then
evaluated for their model power by using Youden’s Index, likeli-
hoods and discriminant power. From the comparison, it is noted
that the discriminant model is slightly superior in comparison to
the binary logistic regression model. The health hazard is found to
be statistically significant in both the analyses and should be given
emphasis during public campaigns to achieve reduction in plastic
bags usage. The other factors such as awareness/publicity,
spoilage and regulations were not significant because of the low
importance perceived by the respondents. The consumers would
continue to use plastic bags even though there was greater
publicity, awareness and education on the ban of plastic bags. This
may be attributed to the consumers’ habit of buying food in plastic
bags and avoiding the inconvenience to bring their own
containers. For instance, containers are usually bigger in size and
heavier than plastic bags and poses subsequent storage problems.
Carrying along food containers to buy hawker food during shop-
ping is troublesome because shopping malls do not encourage the
bringing in of containers to prevent shoplifting. Shopping malls
provide lockers or open shelves to customers to keep their
personal belongings such as containers. However, forgetful
customers will avoid using these lockers or open shelves. Habits
such as plastic bags usage might stem from culture and therefore
those habits are cultivated since childhood; children learn what
adults do and perceived adults to be right. Therefore it might take
several years to break poor habits and to slowly inculcate a culture
not to use plastic bags. Some countries have been able to make its
citizenry alienate the use of plastic bags to parcel hot food items.
Another factor not in the consumer’s favor is spoilage. The
respondents stated that they would continue to use plastic bags
for hot edible items even though they experienced plastic bags
leakage. Leakage problems can be conveniently resolved by
replacing plastic bags right away. The rare occurrence of the
softening or melting of plastic bags does not bother consumers. In
order to overcome damages to assets because of leakages, a double
layer of plastics will resolve such problems. The last independent
factor shows respondents did not favor regulatory measures. The
government has not yet introduced any other alternatives to
control and reduce plastic bags. Ayalon et al. (2009) suggested that
a complete ban on the plastic bags usage is not a rational policy
but imposing charges for the requesting plastic bags may be
a better and rational policy. This policy can confidently find
support from the respondents as 82.8% of them felt that they
would bring their own containers for hot edible items if they are
required to pay for the plastic bags.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank the three referees for their valuable
comments and suggestions which are really helpful in enhancing
the quality of this research article.
Appendix-I. List of abbreviations.
RoHS Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive
SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises
CAP Consumer Association of Penang
FOMCA Federation of Malaysian Consumers Associations
PIC Plastic Identification Code
FDA Food and Drug Administration
DP Discriminant Power
NGO NoneGovernmental Organizations

Appendix-II

Table 4
Results of factor analysis for the independent variables (n ¼ 96).

Variable Factor loadings

Awareness/Publicity
more publicity in media or news is needed regarding the danger of plastic 0.93
bags used to pack hot edible items
more awareness of “No Plastic Day” like Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday 0.62
in Penang is needed.
more education is needed for the public regarding the danger of plastic 0.61
bags packing on hot edible items.
Health Hazards
the type of plastic vendor used to pack hot edible items poses health hazards 0.80
in general, hot edible items packed in plastic bags pose health hazards 0.79
it’s not healthy to keep the hot edible items inside plastic bags for long time 0.89
hot edible items in plastic bags are not healthy for children 0.77
hot edible items in plastic bags are not healthy for Senior Citizens 0.83
(continued on next page)
1534 K. Jayaraman et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1527e1535

Table 4 (continued )

Variable Factor loadings

Spoilage/Wastage
plastic bags can cause leakage of hot food/drinks. 0.79
plastic bags can melt or soften when carrying hot edible items. 0.76
plastic bags can cause damage to your asset (car seat, clothes, skin burn) 0.66
in case of leaking.
Environmental Hazards
plastic bags are causing soil and food chain contamination due to toxic substance 0.70
after the chemical breakdown.
plastic bags are generally non bio-degradable. 0.78
plastic bags are causing hygiene and cleanliness issues on the street. 0.81
Regulations
government should propose some other alternatives to control and reduce 0.84
plastic bags for hot edible items
government regulation is not the best option to control and reduce plastic 0.75
bags used to pack hot edible items.
government should ban plastic bags for hot edible items. 0.72
KMO sampling of adequacy 0.67 0.81 0.73 0.76 0.76
Eigen Value 2.47 4.41 2.68 2.74 2.73
Variance explained 82.2% 88.2% 89.4% 91.3% 90.9%
Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) 0.98 0.97 0.94 0.95 0.95

Appendix-III

The constructs of the questionnaire items measured on a 5-point Likert scale:

Independent Variables Source(s)

Awareness/Publicity
1. Other containers (except plastic bags) for hot edible items is convenient Njeru (2006); Omran et al. (2009)
2. Other containers (except plastic bags) for hot edible items is easily accessible Arkesteijn and Oerlemans (2005); Omran et al. (2009)
3. More publicity in media or news is needed regarding the danger of plastic Greenley and Foxall (1996); Henriques and Sadorsky (1996);
bags used to pack hot edible items Clarke and Clegg (1998); Mohammed (2007); Maibach et al. (2008)
4. More awareness of “No Plastic Day” like Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday Filmer and Chin (2009)
in Penang is needed.
5. More education is needed for the public regarding the danger of plastic Lu et al. (2006); Xing (2009)
bags used to pack hot edible items.
Health Hazards
1. The type of plastic vendor used to pack hot edible items poses health hazards Arvanitoyannis and Bosena, 2004 as cited in Khaksar and Khansari, 2009.
2. In general, hot edible items packed in plastic bags pose health hazards Arvanitoyannis and Bosena, 2004 as cited in Khaksar and Khansari, 2009.
3. It is not healthy to keep the hot edible items in plastic bags for a long time Khaksar and Khansari, 2009
4. Hot edible items in plastic bags are not healthy for children Self-construct but supported by face validation
5. Hot edible items in plastic bags are not healthy for Senior Citizens Self-construct but supported by face validation
Spoilage
1. Plastic bags can cause leakage of hot food/drink. Mohammed (2007)
2. Plastic bags can melt or soften when carrying hot edible items.
3. Plastic bags can cause damage to your asset (car seat, clothes, skin burn)
in case of leaking.
Environmental Hazards
1. Plastic bags have caused soil and food chain contamination due to toxic Clean Up Australia (2008); Van Birgelen et al. (2009)
substance in the chemical breakdown.
2. Plastic bags are generally non bio-degradable. Siracusa et al. (2008); Van Birgelen et al. (2009)
3. Plastic bags are causing hygiene and cleanliness issues on the street. Clean Up Australia (2008); Van Birgelen et al. (2009)
Regulations
1. The government should propose some other alternatives to control and reduce Henriques and Sadorsky (1996)
plastic bags which are used for hot edible items
2. The government regulation is not the best option to control and reduce plastic Ayalon et al. (2009)
bags used to pack hot edible items.
3. The government should ban plastic bags used for hot edible items. Ayalon et al. (2009); Xing (2009)

References Bianco, A., Nobile, C.G.A., Gnisci, F., Pavia, M., 2008. Knowledge and perceptions
of the health effects of environmental hazards in the general population in
Italy. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 211,
Arkesteijn, K., Oerlemans, L., 2005. The early adoption of green power by Dutch
412e419.
households: an empirical exploration of factors influencing the early adoption
Braungart, M., McDonough, W., Bollinger, A., 2007. Cradle-to-cradle design: creating
of green electricity for domestic purposes. Energy Policy 33, 183e196.
healthy emissions e a strategy for eco-effective product and system design.
Arvanitoyannis, I.S., Bosena, L., 2004. Migration of substances from packaging
Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (13e14), 1337e1348.
materials to foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 44, 63e76. as
Chong, D., 2009. To Cut Waste, Penang Makes Shoppers Pay for Plastic Bags. The
cited in (Khaksar, M.R. & Khansari, M.G. (2009)).
Malaysian Insider. <themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/28665>
Ayalon, O., Goldrath, T., Rosenthal, G., Grossman, M., 2009. Reduction of plastic
(accessed 03.08.09).
carrier bag use: an analysis of alternatives in Israel. Waste Management 29,
Clarke, T., Clegg, S., 1998. Changing Paradigms: The Transformation of Management
2025e2032.
Knowledge for the 21st Century. Harper Collins Business, London.
Besthorn, C., Zerfass, R., Geiger-Kabisch, C., Sattel, H., Daniel, S., Schreiter-Gasser, U.,
Conrad, C.A., 1995. Consumer Ethnocentrism, Purchase Intentions and the Moder-
Förstl, H., 1997. Discrimination of Alzheimer’s disease and normal aging by EEG
ating Effects of Involvement and Quality Perception. <sbaer.uca.edu/research/
data. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 103 (2), 241e248.
swma/1995/pdf/13.pdf> (accessed 25.06.10).
 K. Jayaraman et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (2011) 1527e1535
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P., Peretiatkos, R., 2006. Green products and
corporate strategy: an empirical investigation. Society and Business Review 1
(2), 144e157.
Economic Planning Unit, 2006. 9th Malaysian Plan 2006e2010. <epu.gov.my/html/
themes/epu/html/rm9/html/english.htm> (accessed 2.08.09).
Edwards, A., 2007. Not Safe to Use Cheap Plastics for Hot Drinks. The Star Online.
<thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file¼/2007/7/13/nation/18294761&sec¼
nation> (accessed 08.08.09).
Filmer, A., Chin, C., 2009. Aye to Green Campaign. The Star Online. <thestar.com.my/
metro/story.asp?file¼/2009/7/7/north/4266533&sec¼North> (accessed 03.08.09).
Gossling, S., Kunkel, T., Schumacher, K., Heck, N., Birkemeyer, J., Froese, J., 2005. A target
group-specific approach to “green” power retailing: students as consumers of
renewable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 9, 69e83.
Greenley, G., Foxall, G., 1996. Consumer and non-consumer stakeholder orientations
in UK companies. Journal of Business Research 35, 105e116.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1995. Multivariate Data Analysis
with Readings, fourth ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hartmann, P., Ibanez, V.A., 2006. Green value added. Market Intelligence & Planning
24 (7), 673e680.
Henriques, I., Sadorsky, P., 1996. The determinants of an environmentally responsive
form: an empirical approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 30, 381e395.
Khaksar, M.R., Khansari, M.G., 2009. Determinants of migration monomer styrene
from GPPS (Genral purpose polystyrene) and HIPS (High impact polystyrene)
cups to hot drinks. Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods 19 (3), 257e261.
Kim, Y., Choi, S.M., 2005. Antecedents of green purchase behavior: an examination
of collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. Advances in Consumer
Research 32, 592e599.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., Barbaro-Forleo, G., 2001. Targeting consumers who are
willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer
Marketing 18 (6), 503e520.
Lee, J.A., Holden, S.J.S., 1999. Understanding the determinants of environmentally
conscious behavior. Psychology and Marketing 16 (5), 373e392.
Lu, L.T., Hsiao, T.Y., Shang, N.C., Yu, H.Y., Ma, H.W., 2006. MSW management for
waste minimization in Taiwan: the last two decades. Waste Management 26,
661e667.
Lynes, J.K., Andrachuk, M., 2008. Motivations for corporate social and environ-
mental responsibility: a case study of Scandinavian airlines. Journal of Inter-
national Management 14, 377e390.
1535
Maibach, E.W., Roser-Renouf, C., Leiserowitz, A., 2008. Communication and
marketing as climate change-intervention assets: a public health perspective.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35 (5), 488e500.
Massoud, M.A., Fayad, R., El-Fadel, M., Kamleh, R., 2010. Drivers, barriers and
incentives to implementing environmental management systems in the
food industry: a case of Lebanon. Journal of Cleaner Production 18 (3),
200e209.
Mohammed, A., 2007. Risk analysis of food packaging materials in Dubai Dubai
International Food Safety Conference.
Njeru, J., 2006. The urban political ecology of plastic bag waste problem in Nairobi,
Kenya. Geoforum 37, 1046e1058.
Omran, A., Mahmood, A., Abdul Aziz, H., Robinson, G.M., 2009. Investigating
households attitude toward recycling of solid waste in Malaysia: a case study.
International Journal of Environmental Research. 3 (2), 275e288.
Ottman, J.A., Stafford, E.R., Hartman, C.L., 2006. Avoiding green marketing Myopia.
Environment 48 (5), 22e36.
Rex, E., Baumann, H., 2007. Beyond eco-labels: what green marketing can learn
from conventional marketing. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (6), 567e576.
Rosato, D.V., 2000. Injection Molding Handbook. Springer. books.google.com/
books?ct¼result&id¼l5jqDRauKNYC&dq¼mercuryþadditiveþþplastic&ots¼OZ
SSlKiMx7&pg¼PA549&lpg¼PA549&sig¼ACfU3U14Nb6NofUBZI543FgdEuPIKD
yfmw&q¼mercury#PPA549,M1 (accessed 05.08.09).
Shekdar, A.V., 2009. Sustainable solid waste management: an integrated approach
for Asian countries. Waste Management 29, 1438e1448.
Sokolova, M., Japkowicz, N., and Szpakowicz, S. (2006) Beyond accuracy, F-score and
ROC: a family of discriminant measures for performance evaluation. Australian
conference on artificial intelligence, 4304. LNCS, Germany, 1015e1021.
The Star Online, 2008. Melamine Fears Unfounded. <thestar.com.my/news/story.
asp?file¼/2008/9/29/nation/2144305&sec¼nation> (accessed 04.08.09).
Troschinetz, A.M., Mielcic, J.R., 2009. Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste
in developing countries. Waste Management 29, 915e923.
Van Birgelen, M., Semeijin, J., Keicher, M., 2009. Packaging and proenvironmental
consumption behaviour: investigating purchase and disposal decisions for
beverages. Environment and Behaviour 41 (1), 125e146.
Xing, X.F., 2009. Study on the ban on free plastic bags in China. Journal of
Sustainable Development 2 (1).
Zabaniotou, A., Kassidi, E., 2005. Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging
made from polystyrene and recycled paper. Journal of Cleaner Production 11
(5), 549e559.