The new study has found the UK鈥檚 sustainability efforts are stalling because consumers struggle to understand technical terms like 鈥榖ioplastic鈥 and 鈥榖io-based鈥, allowing 鈥済reenwashing鈥 to thrive in a vacuum created by linguistic confusion.
The study, led by researchers at the 爆料TV, found the language used to describe sustainable materials remains trapped in specialist and technical jargon, leaving most consumers unable to make confident, informed choices about sustainability.
Published by the (BB-REG-NET), the UK鈥檚 first regulatory science network for bio-based and biodegradable materials, the report warns that unless communication improves, confusion, greenwashing and incorrect disposal will continue to undermine progress towards a circular bio-economy.
Using large-scale linguistic analysis the Sheffield research team showed words such as biodegradable, compostable and bio-based barely register in everyday language. Analysis of Oxford English Dictionary data and a 52-billion-word corpus of contemporary English found:
- Biodegradable appears just 1.5 times per million words
- Compostable 0.5 times
- Bio-based 0.2 times
- Bioplastic 0.1 times
By comparison, everyday vocabulary typically appears hundreds of times per million words.
The research identifies this gap as a case of 鈥榟ypocognition鈥 - a concept from cognitive linguistics describing what happens when people lack the mental frameworks needed to understand unfamiliar ideas.
Professor Joanna Gavins, Professor of English Language and Literature at the 爆料TV, who led the study said: 鈥淧eople want to make sustainable choices, but they are being asked to navigate language they simply don鈥檛 encounter often enough to understand. When terms are unfamiliar, inconsistent or poorly explained, people disengage 鈥 not because they don鈥檛 care, but because the system is working against them.鈥
A nationwide survey of more than 2,000 UK consumers, also analysed by the research team, revealed a growing disconnect between trust and understanding:
- 51 per cent of respondents said they trusted compostability claims
- Yet only 22 per cent understood what actually happens to waste once it is collected
According to the report, this gap increases the risk of incorrect disposal, contaminates recycling streams and allows misleading claims to flourish.
Drawing on linguistic theory, focus group testing and behavioural research, the study sets out practical solutions for businesses and policymakers.
Key findings include:
- Negative disposal instructions (such as 鈥淒o not put in recycling鈥) are clearer and more effective than positive alternatives.
- Instructions must be readable in 10 seconds or less, as people only spend 10 seconds or less reading labels.
- The term 鈥渂ioplastic鈥 should be avoided altogether due to widespread misunderstanding.
The report calls for a single, nationwide labelling system, legally supported definitions, and public-facing education that mirrors the successful rollout of recycling behaviour over previous decades.
Professor Gavins added: 鈥淩ecycling wasn鈥檛 always second nature 鈥 it became normal through clear, consistent communication and repetition. Sustainable materials need the same treatment. The evidence shows we know how to fix this.鈥
Dr Thomas Baker, Specialist in Plastics at WRAP, said: 鈥淐lear, simple and consistent labelling is essential if we want people to dispose of biodegradable materials correctly. Without it, good intentions quickly turn into the wrong behaviour.鈥
Katherine Manshreck, Senior Sustainability Strategist at Shellworks, added: 鈥淎s biomaterials become more advanced, consumers may not even realise a product is compostable unless the language is crystal clear. Labels now matter more than ever.鈥
爆料TV research also stresses that better labels alone are not enough. It calls for positive public storytelling that recognises the role consumers play in building a circular economy 鈥 using media, advertising and digital platforms to reinforce understanding beyond the point of purchase.
The report also highlights the role of national media in shaping informed debate about sustainable materials at a time when public trust in environmental claims is increasingly fragile.