Britain’s push towards a greener economy is being derailed by a problem hiding in plain sight: language.
New research suggests that while consumers want to make sustainable choices, the terminology used to describe eco-friendly materials remains so technical and unfamiliar that it is fuelling confusion, poor disposal habits and, ultimately, greenwashing.
The study, led by the University of Sheffield and published by BB-REG-NET – the UK’s first regulatory science network for bio-based and biodegradable materials – argues that sustainability has become trapped in specialist jargon, leaving most people unable to navigate it with confidence.
Terms such as biodegradable, bio-based and bioplastic may dominate policy papers and packaging claims, but they barely register in everyday speech. Using large-scale linguistic analysis, the researchers examined both the Oxford English Dictionary and a 52-billion-word database of contemporary English. The findings were stark.
- Biodegradable appears just 1.5 times per million words
- Compostable appears 0.5 times
- Bio-based appears 0.2 times
- Bioplastic appears 0.1 times
By contrast, commonly used vocabulary typically appears hundreds of times per million words.
The result, the report argues, is a form of “hypocognition” – 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 University of Sheffield, said:
“People want to make sustainable choices, but they are being asked to navigate language they simply don’t encounter often enough to understand. When terms are unfamiliar, inconsistent or poorly explained, people disengage – not because they don’t care, but because the system is working against them.”
This disconnect between intention and understanding is reflected in consumer behaviour. A nationwide survey of more than 2,000 UK adults, analysed as part of the study, found that trust routinely outpaces knowledge.
More than half of respondents (51 per cent) said they trusted compostability claims. Yet only 22 per cent understood what happens to waste once it is collected.
According to the report, this gap creates fertile ground for misleading claims, contaminates recycling streams and undermines efforts to build a circular bioeconomy.
Rather than diagnosing the problem alone, the researchers also propose practical fixes. Drawing on linguistic theory, focus groups and behavioural research, the report sets out clear guidance for businesses and policymakers.
Among its recommendations:
- Negative disposal instructions such as “Do not put in recycling” are clearer and more effective than positive alternatives
- Instructions should be readable and actionable within 10 seconds
- The term “bioplastic” should be avoided altogether due to widespread misunderstanding
The report also calls for a single, nationwide labelling system, legally supported definitions, and sustained public education. The decades-long effort that led to recycling behaviour being second nature should not be made redundant to inconsistent or confusing terminology.
Professor Gavins said:
“Recycling wasn’t always second nature – it became normal through clear, consistent communication and repetition. Sustainable materials need the same treatment. The evidence shows we know how to fix this.”
Industry figures echoed the findings.
Dr Thomas Baker, Specialist in Plastics at WRAP, said:
“Clear, simple and consistent labelling is essential if we want people to dispose of biodegradable materials correctly. Without it, good intentions quickly turn into wrong behaviour.”
Katherine Manshreck, Senior Sustainability Strategist at Shellworks, added:
“As 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.”
The researchers argue that better labels alone will not be enough. They call for broader public storytelling – across media, advertising and digital platforms – that treats consumers not as passive end-users but as active participants in building a circular economy.
At a moment when trust in environmental claims is increasingly fragile, the report concludes, clarity may prove just as important as innovation.
