"zero container waste" would more clearly define their mission. They should not mislead consumers by diluting the term "zero waste".
If another business offers similar services, but using exclusively zero emission vehicles (at a higher cost?), then environmentally conscious consumers will not have correct information to make their purchasing decisions.
Yea, I get your point. I think part of the problem is many people first hear about "Zero Waste" from some corporation marketing their product/service as zero-waste. The term has been in-use environmentalists since the late 90's, and was really popularized by Bea Johnson's book "Zero Waste Home" in the 2000's. It's a bit of a bummer it's been coopted by the likes of Unilever and Proctor and Gamble as a way to green-wash and make money.
If another business offers similar services, but using exclusively zero emission vehicles (at a higher cost?), then environmentally conscious consumers will not have correct information to make their purchasing decisions.