It was slightly different, depending on who we were talking to.
The pitch was really informed by a year of research to understand where there were barriers. What were these barriers? Were they costs? Were they management? Were they understanding? Were they education? Were they culture? Were they language? There were a variety of different barriers that we identified. We didn't look just to the Canadian context. We looked around the world. We plucked, if you will, the “best in show” attributes of working reuse programs and we combined them.
The pitch, to answer your question directly, was really distilled down to a couple of things.
First, there was a misunderstanding that reusing containers was harder or required more effort, more cost or more management than having single-use. We were able to dispel that myth by bringing real-time, time-bound studies and demonstrating, by working with each restaurant and grocery store independently, that there really wasn't much change. A container is a container. That's one of the myths we've had to dispel.
The second was absolutely cost. Again, unique to our pilot, nowhere is there any geography like Canada, where we're so disaggregated. It's a very large geography. It's very expensive for a grocery store, given it has locations across the country, to create a program by itself. It would have to move these containers between its locations, and it gets quite complicated and quite expensive.
The availability for it to pay a subscription or membership fee to get access to this program made it much more cost-effective. It eliminated its need to purchase single-use containers. Most importantly, it also got to subtract the reuse containers it was able to deploy from its extended producer responsibility fees, because reuse does not attract an EPR cost. When it combined those elements of cost savings, it was a bit of a no-brainer.