Despite increasing environmental awareness and official initiatives, a recent investigation by the Hong Kong Consumer Council (CC) found significant inconsistency and resistance among local restaurants regarding the public’s ability to purchase takeaway food using Bring-Your-Own-Container (BYOC). The exercise, documented in Choice magazine issue 577, sought to gauge the feasibility, cooperation levels, and consumer experience of adopting reusable containers across the city’s dining sector, highlighting persistent operational roadblocks nearly a year after the Environmental Protection Department launched its “Don’t Waste Box Eateries” scheme.
The Council’s undercover staff conducted 45 separate trials between August and September of this year, targeting 15 diverse food establishments including fast-food chains, noodle shops, and international cuisine outlets during busy weekday lunch hours. The officers, acting as typical consumers, attempted to purchase meals using plastic, silicone, or glass containers, even requesting separate flasks for soup-based meals. The overall success rate across all trials was only 69%, with 14 instances resulting in failure to use a personal container due to inflexible policies or staff reluctance.
Disparity in Green Adoption Among Eateries
The CC categorised the surveyed restaurants into two main groups: five establishments participating officially in the government’s “Don’t Waste Box Eateries” campaign and ten large chain restaurants. The results showed a stark performance gap.
Restaurants officially participating in the government’s green initiative demonstrated much higher compliance, successfully fulfilling 13 out of 15 attempts (87%). In comparison, the larger, non-participating chain restaurants only accommodated 18 out of 30 attempts, yielding a 60% success rate. Major chains identified as generally accepting BYOC included Fairwood, Maxim’s MX, Milk Cafe, and Pizza Hut.
In successful cases, consumer satisfaction was high; nearly 90% of testers were happy with the customer service, and an overwhelmingly positive 95% reported satisfaction with the quality, temperature, and portion size of their meal, noting no significant difference in waiting times compared to standard takeaway orders.
Operational Hurdles and Negative Experiences
However, the 31% failure rate revealed several challenges hindering mass adoption of the BYOC culture. The most concerning instances involved major fast-food players. At one Café de Coral location, staff at both the cashier and collection counter reportedly refused the container and offered no explanation, with the officer noting the employee’s demeanor was “impatient,” resulting in an unfriendly customer experience.
Furthermore, operational confusion and rigid policies often sabotaged well-intentioned efforts:
- Joutor: Despite offering a “BYOC” option on its online ordering platform, the food was already packaged in disposable containers upon collection. Staff cited company policy against receiving external containers due to food safety concerns, suggesting the consumer unpack the meal themselves and transfer it to their container—a practice that defeats the purpose of “zero waste.”
- Bafang Yunji: In one successful transaction, the CC officer was mistakenly charged a HK$1 takeaway packaging fee, which was refunded in cash. This highlights the need for consumers to immediately check their receipts after placing an order to ensure fees are waived.
- Yoshinoya: While also denying direct container use due to kitchen safety rules, staff proactively offered positive alternatives. They suggested ordering for dining in, and then provided assistance, like separating the rice and protein, to allow the customer to easily pack the food into their personal container. This willingness to find a solution salvaged the customer experience, despite the policy restrictions.
Lack of Transparency and Incentives
A key finding was the universal lack of public information. Excluding Maxim’s MX, which offers an electronic stamp scheme for customers bringing their own utensils or containers, no other surveyed restaurant provided clear, accessible information about their BYOC policies on their websites, mobile apps, or physical stores. This absence of transparency leaves consumers uncertain about where and how to participate.
The CC advises consumers to be prepared with not just one, but multiple suitable, clean containers—including soup flasks—as packaging fees can still be applied if a single “set meal” requires multiple disposable items or a plastic bag. Consumers should also consider the advantages and drawbacks of materials like plastic, glass, and silicone, especially when transferring hot items.
Ultimately, while the push for eco-friendly dining through BYOC shows pockets of success, widespread adoption requires systemic changes. The Consumer Council urges food service providers to clearly publicise their BYOC policies, implement staff training to manage customer requests courteously, and streamline internal processes to align with the city’s environmental goals. Until operational consistency improves, consumers must navigate a fragmented landscape where environmental responsibility is often met with resistance.