Packaging - SUM: Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Anna Torbecke, Maren Wyngra, Theresa Garrecht
Last updated: October 1st 2023

1 Introduction and Relevance

Packaging is a crucial component of our modern society, providing containment, protection, and communication for various products. The definition as well as the relevance of the topic are classified below.

1.1 Definition

Packaging functions as a system that facilitates the secure, economical, and effective storage, handling, and marketing of goods throughout the supply chain.¹ Furthermore, efficient transportation and shelving can be achieved by well-designed packaging, which additionally contributes to waste reduction along the supply chain.²

There is a continuous debate about the definition of sustainable packaging.³ Nguyen, A. T., Parker, L., Brennan, L. & Lockrey, S (2020) define sustainable packaging as safe, environmentally friendly, and beneficial throughout its life cycle. Market standards for performance and cost are met. It utilizes renewable energy for sourcing, manufacturing, transportation, and recycling. The use of renewable or recycled materials is maximized. It employs clean production technologies and is designed to optimize materials and energy. The materials of sustainable packaging are healthy in all likely end-of-life scenarios and can be effectively recovered and utilized in cradle-to-cradle cycles, both biological and industrial.⁴

The Sustainable Packaging Alliance stated sustainable packaging on the bases of four principles. The first one, effectively says that the focus of innovation should be on optimizing the functionality of packaging. It should contain and protect the product effective through the supply chain and at the same time support informed and responsible consumption. The second principle is efficiency, which needs to efficiently minimize the consumption of resources (energy, water, and materials) as well as emissions and wastes through the life cycle of the products. The principle cyclic aims to maximize the recovery of materials and minimize the material degradation. Safety is the last principle. Packaging should be designed to promote safety and health and minimize risks to the humans and ecosystems.⁵

1.2 Economic importance

The global packaging market has a size of USD 1.1 trillion in 2023 and is approximated to grow to USD 1.33 trillion in 2028. The Asia-Pacific market is the largest and at the same time fastest growing market concerning packaging.⁶ The total output of the German packaging industry amounts to over 50 billion Euros. This accounts for around 2 % of the German gross domestic product. About 70 % of sales are generated in Germany and about 30 % abroad. Well over 5,000 companies are active in the packaging industry in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.⁷ On a global scale, the estimated annual average growth rate for the period between 2021 and 2026 is +4 %. Consumer goods such as food and hygiene products account for more than half of the world’s packaging. Here, convenience products are relatively independent of economic cycles.^[2]

The packaging industry generates 659,817 jobs in 2021 in the U.S..⁸ In Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, over 500,000 people are employed in the packaging industry. With its products, the packaging industry represents an important link between the end consumer and the manufacturers or retailers. In addition, it is of central importance for the movement of goods and the supply of the population. High flexibility, high-tech production processes, and dynamism in the development of innovative solutions are among the key features of the industry due to its strong customer focus 86 % of packaging manufacturers have their own research and development department.^[7] One of the most important innovations in this industry is the development of automated packaging machines. This technology has revolutionized the packaging process by making it faster, more efficient, and more cost-effective.⁹ The packaging industry is a diversified industry that includes various industry segments. The industry is characterized by a very heterogeneous structure with many different players. More than 90 % of the companies are classic small and medium-sized enterprises, including many hidden champions.^[7]

The social and economic importance of the packaging industry leads to a high influence from policies and society. The range of companies which are active in the packaging industry are an indicator for the complexity of the value chain of packaging. There are manufacturers of packaging materials, packaging aids and machines, companies from the fields of logistics, transport, printing, trade and brands, packers, design and consulting agencies, service providers from the waste disposal sector and many more.^[⁷^]

The importance of disposable and reusable packaging in policy and practice is also shown in the inclusion into the Sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the United Nations. An Agenda for 2030 with 17 SDGs. Goal 12 pursues a substantial reduction of waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse.¹⁰

2 Sustainability impact and measurement

Below is an insight into the impact of packaging on sustainability and the measurement methods to evaluate it.

2.1 Environmental Impact

In today’s society, the scarcity of resources has become a pressing concern due to the fact that resources available for human use become increasingly limited.¹¹ Packaging already prevents food waste but has further potential to reduce it. New technologies like nanotechnology and active packaging create room for improvement of the progress of physical, chemical, sensory, and microbiological protection of food. That enhances shelf life and reduces food loss and waste.¹²

At the same time packaging largely consists of single-use products that quickly turn into waste, resulting in a significant consumption of resources. Furthermore, the short product life cycle of packaging contributes to this resource-intensity. That endangers the ecological environment. Packaging for products comes in various forms, including disposable inside packaging that directly contacts the product. In some cases, additional secondary packaging is used to facilitate transport, storage, and loading/unloading processes. Various types of logistics containers, such as trays, containers, container bags, corrugated boxes, cans, and buckets, are employed. Both the packaging of products and logistics containers require significant resource consumption and generate substantial amounts of solid waste.^[11] Food packaging alone is responsible for utilizing 50 % of the plastics derived from fossil fuels, within the packaging industry.¹³

In 2019, Germany generated 18.91 million tons of packaging waste. Packaging made of paper, cardboard or paperboard corresponds for the largest share in Germany, at around 8.3 million tons. Followed by packaging made of plastics (3.2 million tons), glass (3.1 million tons) and wood (3.3 million tons).¹⁴ Looking at the European Union (EU), in 2020 it was approximated that the per capita packaging waste amounted to 177.9 kg per inhabitant. From 2009 to 2020, the generation of the overall quantity of packaging materials increased by 13.6 million tons (+20.6%). During this period there was an overall increase in packaging waste. A slight decrease was observed in 2020. The highest increase concerned plastic, wooden, and paper and cardboard packaging waste. The recycling rates displayed a steady increase until 2016, but subsequently declined to levels comparable to 2011. These findings underscore the dynamic nature of packaging waste management and emphasize the need for sustained efforts in recycling practices and waste reduction.¹⁵

The labelling and design of packaging can have an impact on the recycling behaviour of the consumer and is fundamental for high quality recycling. Easily separable packaging combined with a clear recycling guidance stated on the packaging promotes recycling.¹⁶

Especially among millennials in industrialized countries and emerging consumer markets in developing countries an increase in demand for single-use plastics is expected. Regarding the latter, a considerable export from industrialized countries like the U.S. is projected. This can result in non-biodegradable solid waste accumulation because these regions often lack an adequate waste management system.¹⁷ A release of greenhouse gases like CO, CO₂, SO, NO, and PM10 into the atmosphere is caused by open waste burning which contributes to air pollution. Furthermore, workers are exposed to serious health risks by waste picking activities in open dump sides. Widespread environmental contamination is the result of marine litter caused by the disposal of solid waste in water bodies. The mismanagement of solid waste has extensive environmental and social impacts, impede progress towards sustainable development. Reduction plans for the worldwide ecological footprint and restructuring of current patterns of production, consumption, and waste generation are necessary to achieve both economic growth and sustainable development. Indicated by the growing material footprint per person developing countries have experienced a significant increase in living standards. However, sustainable waste management practices are not yet adequately incorporated into national regulations.¹⁸

Significant amounts of plastic waste are burned in landfills or discarded into the environment due to inadequate product design and insufficient political infrastructure. In 2015 only 9 % of the total production of 9.2 billion tons of plastic has undergone proper recycling processes. This underlines the necessity of improved product design strategies and enhanced political frameworks. This supports an effective tackling of the plastic waste crisis and sustainable recycling practices. Manufactured plastic items remain on earth and indefinitely in the environment as they are non-biodegradable.¹⁹ Especially in the relation of fish and the overall marine food chain but also on further various aspects of the marine environment marine microplastics has significant effects. These plastic particles have been found to exert toxic effects on fish and other aquatic organisms, manifesting as diminished food intake, hindered growth rates, oxidative damage, and aberrant behavioural patterns.²⁰ The importance of effective ways of waste management and the reduction of harmful plastic debris in the environment can be seen in the effects on marine life caused by plastic pollution.^[13]

Energy resources are essential to produce plastic packaging. Currently these resources are predominantly obtained from non-renewable sources whose consumption emits greenhouse gases.²¹ In 2019 approximately 0.86 billion tons of carbon dioxide associated with greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) were emitted in terms of plastic as a raw material for packaging. Forecasts indicate that by 2030 and 2050, these emissions could rise to 1.34 billion and 2.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide, respectively.²² In terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) the production of plastics is responsible for emitting around 1.78 gigatons (Gt) in 2015. Projections indicate that these emissions will increase to 6.5 Gt CO2-eq by the year 2050.²³

Looking on the social sustainability of packaging there are two types of impacts. On the one hand the impact on social equity. Packaging may increase food availability in developing regions. Furthermore, packaging protects products from harmful substances and may be safe and healthy for a community as well as individuals throughout its life cycle. A further aspect is the possibility of employment within the packaging sector through provided jobs in the industry. The other impact of social sustainability is the impact on the perception as well as behaviour of the consumers. Packaging may be able to affect the behaviour of consumers leading to appreciation of materials and reduction of waste generation. Packaging could additionally promote certain lifestyles for example via portioning and motivate consumers to buy eco-packaged products.^[¹⁰^]

2.2 Measurement

The development towards sustainable packaging needs concrete indicators to improve the environmental performance. Particularly regarding the multi-disciplinarity of the developing process of product packaging systems. An approach must be collaborative and holistic and at the same time show comprehensive as well as plausible information inside and outside of the organization.^[³^]

The common basis for a discussion and assessment of the relative sustainability of packaging within the consumer goods and packaging industry is the Global Protocol on Packaging Sustainability (GPPS). It consists of a framework and a measurement system. The GPPS divides indicators into three categories (Environmental, Economic and Social), which you can see in Table 1: Excerpt of the indicators for the three categories of GPPS in accordance with source [24]. In the environmental category, these indicators are again divided into assessment and life cycle.²⁴

Table 1: Excerpt of the indicators for the three categories of GPPS in accordance with source [24]

Environmental		Economic	Social
Assessment: Packaging Weight and OptimizationPackaging to Product Weight Ratio Material Waste Recycled ContentRenewable ContentPackaging Reuse Rate Packaging Recovery Rate	Life Cycle: Impact on Climate/ Atmosphere Global Warming Potential (GWP)Ozone Depletion Impact on Human Health Toxicity, CancerImpact on EcosphereImpact on Resource Base Non-Renewable Resource Depletion Land Use	Total Cost of Packaging Packaged Product Wastage	Packaged Product Shelf Life Community Investment

The GPPS helps to process business decisions on different levels:

Level 1: Simple analyses including cost consideration and another single indicator.
Level 2: Optimization analysis for a specific functional unit (FU) including multiple indicators to increase environmental relevance compared to using a single indicator.
Level 3: Comparative analysis including one or more packaging formats/materials across various formats for same functional unit. Life Cycle assessment (LCA) might be needed.
Level 4: Full system design and analysis comparing packaging formats/materials with information on the product. LCA needed which incorporates elements of product and the packaging across the supply chain.

LCA is a quantitative tool to assess the environmental impact of products, encompassing their entire life cycle. It measures the performance of goods, services, and processes. This can be used to access alternative packaging options. It is a useful tool to identify packaging disposal options.²⁵ LCA enjoys both scientific and international reputation. However, the majority of companies do not have enough information available on the impacts of their packaging throughout the life cycle and therefore no scientifically based strategy to deal with the sustainability of packaging systems. The complexity of the tool causes companies to outsource this process. This limits the use of this tool to bigger companies who have the financial capacity for hiring academic researchers or consultants.²⁶

The choice of which and how many indicators included in the assessment depends on what and how sustainability should be measured. The concrete question may be answered by using only one or two indicators. However, the impacts may not be clear or complete. A selection of five to ten indicators that represent the goals of a company may be more suitable and easier to apply than a list of 40 indicators.^[²⁴^]

3 Sustainability strategies & measures

The following part is about strategies and measures to improve the performance of packaging regarding sustainability issues. On the one hand, governments can have a significant impact on reducing the carbon footprint of packages by enacting laws and policies which promote sustainable practices. These can include initiatives aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging the adoption of sustainable practices.^[²²^]On the other hand, there are multiple strategies and measures that can be implemented by firms that produce or buy packages to store their products to improve the environmental performance of their packages.

As we transition towards a circular economy, increasing the efficiency of packaging bears many potentials. This can be achieved at various stages, including the choice of packaging concept, the choice and processing of materials, end-of-life options, and recycling. Regarding the concept and consumption of packaging, potentials of reusable packaging as an alternative to single-us packaging need to be considered, which significantly depend on the complexity of supply chains and logistics. Regarding different materials for packaging, it can be distinguished between renewable, raw materials, like paper and bioplastics, and fossil-based, exhaustible resources, like conventional plastics.²⁷

3.1 Strategies and measures along the life product cycle

3.1.1 Design

To increase the performance of packaging in terms of sustainability issues, the design phase offers the greatest potential, as it considers various stages of the packaging life cycle, from concept and material, to processing, to waste management and recycling options. In fact, 80 % of the environmental performance of packaging can be influenced by a holistic design approach.^[16^] In addition to more general approaches like the principles of the European Waste Hierarchy Directive, which proposes avoidance as the most sustainable option followed by reuse, recycling, recovery and disposal at the end of the scale, there are more concrete design frameworks for the packaging industry.²⁸ There are different design frameworks following a circular economy approach, lean practices, Cradle-to-Cradle, or ecological approaches to improve the sustainability performance of the packaging industry.²⁹ ³⁰

In 2022, Zhu et. al. proposed a design framework for circular economy packaging, which is divided in four phases and should be seen as an iterative process. Within the framework, the authors demonstrate tools and strategies, as well as relevant examples.^[16^]

Regarding the first phase, which is the material selection, the authors emphasize the use of reusable and recyclable materials, like bioplastics and ocean plastics, and look at mechanical properties of those. Another important factor regarding the choice of material is the application of the package, whether it is indented for single use or for reuse.^[16^]

The second phase concerns the conceptual design, where the number of reuses and supply chain considerations, as travel distance and local return rates, and end-of-life options play a central role. It is followed by the third phase, the Design Development phase, where size, weight, durability, cleaning and maintenance options, and labelling for recyclability are considered. Tools and strategies to improve the sustainability performance in that design phase focus on effective, light and easy to use packaging as well as on modularity of packaging components.^[16^] To increase recyclability, varieties of sizes, materials and components should be reduced, as well as dark colours, since they cannot be easily detected by recycling machines. ³¹ ³²

The last phase of the circular packaging design framework is the Design Validation Phase, where the environmental impact is evaluated, in terms of the toxicity, biodiversity, energy use, produced emissions or other factors. Common tools to support that phase are the Life Cycle Assessment, circular economy, and material circularity indicators as well as Cradle to Cradle certification.

De Koeijer (2017) collected different models and tools for sustainable packaging design, including the packaging design process, generic package development process, ideal-eco-product approach, environmental review process, holistic integrated sustainable design. Their focus is either on integration of product and packaging development, environmental optimization or on the replacement of conventional plastics.³³

3.1.2 Materials

Besides the traditional factors of material choice, as functionality, cost efficiency and non-toxicity, the main considerations for sustainable packaging materials focus on its renewability, reusability, and recyclability.^[16^] Increasing the share of recycled materials can increase the products environmental performance and contribute to a circular economy. A study for beverage packaging systems involving the Carlsberg Group as one of the largest breweries performed a life cycle assessment and the results showed, that the use of recycled aluminium had a significant impact on the environmental performance of the beer cans.³⁴ While there are different materials used in the packaging industry, as paper, wood, glass and metal, most recent studies did research on the use and substitution of conventional polymers, since plastic waste is seen as a major issue in the packaging industry.^[16^]

In literature, special attention is given to bioplastics, which include bio-based and/or bio-degradable materials.³⁵ While some packaging materials out of bioplastics have already entered the market, research in that field is still vivid and bears further potentials.^[16^,29^] The advantages of bioplastics are that (most of them) are a promising alternative to petroleum-derived plastics: they are abundant, readily available and cost-effective.^[35^] While some of them are bio-degradable or recyclable, others are not. Another disadvantage is the energy-intensive production, and the production of methane gas, which is released during the decomposition of biodegradable plastics.^[35^], ³⁶

The most promising bioplastic in the packaging industry is based on starch, which is abundant, renewable, and can be processes in a cost-effective way. As a packaging material, it possesses the technical requirements, since it is mechanically strong, to a certain degree flexible and thermostable, and resistant to UV light and certain chemicals. It is environmental-friendly, non-toxic and in most cases completely biodegradable. Within six to twelve weeks, plain plastic out of starch can be composed. In practice, starch-based plastics undergo chemical modification or additives are used to improve their performance, which can make composting challenging or toxic, depending on the additives.^[35^] In practice, leading companies producing biodegradable packaging material out of starch are Kuraray, Novamont and Biotec, whose products have already been commercialized. The products include films, e.g., for bags or food packaging, foams used for fruit trays, cushioning or as packaging peanuts and thermoforms used as chocolate, meat, or coffee trays.³⁷ Biotec is a German producer, advertising themselves the “world leader in fully biodegradable materials.” They were founded in 1992, have an installed capacity of 60,000 tons per year and a turnover of 100,000,000 Euros.³⁸

3.1.3 Production & processing

Regarding the production and processing of packaging, there is little evidence of packaging-specific strategies and tools to improve their environmental performance. Intensive energy usage is still a major issue for bioplastics or recycled materials.^[35^]

3.1.4 Consumption

While many sustainability efforts have set the focus on reducing packaging volume and impact trough light-weighting and recyclable packaging material, changing the consumption pattern of packaging can contribute to a sustainable development as well. Through a reduction of the packaging demand, issues like pollution trough waste or use of petroleum to produce polymers can be prevented.^[27^] There are different strategies to reduce the demand:

On the one hand, when developing products, packaging should be integrated into design choices, to prevent redundant packaging material. If possible, the packaging amount should be reduced to a minimum, even though this is not always the most sustainable approach since packaging can contribute to food quality preservation and increased shelf life.^[27^]

Another strategy to reduce the packaging waste volume is the promotion of reusable packaging. Within its scope, one can classify reusable packaging concepts into bulk dispensers, refillable parent packaging, returnable packaging, or transit packaging. They all have in common, that no additional use of materials and processing is needed. While conventional single-use packaging follows a linear approach from production for a single use to disposal, reusable packaging systems require reverse logistics, which oftentimes are not in place yet. Therefore, reusable packaging concepts appear costly and inefficient, since many stakeholders along the value chain need to be included and additional costs for maintaining, cleaning and transport of the reusable packages, as well as additional warehousing and increased costs in handling delays.^[16^] The environmental performance of reusable packaging depends on various factors and needs to be evaluated for different products and their supply chains. Transport distance is considered the most crucial factor for the environmental performance, followed by the number of reuses and existing logistics.^[16^{], [}10^]

Whether packages are made for single use or reuse, consumer behaviour plays a central role in the transformation of consumption patterns and the reduction of demanded packaging material. Research has shown that the purpose and handling of reusable packaging has not been understood properly by consumers. To increase the use of reusable packaging, consumers need to be guided to be able to evaluate the environmental performance of packaging alternatives. Furthermore, more sustainable packaging alternatives need to be comparably affordable and qualitative.^[10^]

Reusable packaging systems on the other hand can also increase consumer loyalty, as customers must return the packages to the store. It can also increase branding, as customers associate the brand with sustainable activities.³⁹

Besides reusable packaging systems, packaging can also be offered as a service, where products are equipped with a rented package, which needs to be returned to and managed by the supplier.^[16^]

3.1.5 Recycling & waste management

As municipal waste and its recycling is targeted by EU legislation and packaging material forms a major share of waste in households, introduced recycling rates increase the need for recyclability of packaging material.⁴⁰ To improve the circularity of packaging material, the aspect of recyclability needs to be included in the design phase. Besides separatable parts, the use of less material variety and less additives,⁴¹ labelling of packaging components can support the facilitation of recycling. As shown by the Carlsberg example, the adoption of a Life Cycle assessment and a Cradle to Cradle program made the company separate body and lids from the can and increase transparency on the composition of the materials to improve recycling.^[34^] Avoiding the use of black colours for packaging material can also facilitate recycling, since dark colours are more difficult to be detected by technological recycling equipment.^[31^]

The limitations regarding recycling techniques are that in many cases they are still costly and energy intensive and the use of recycled material in packaging material is not very common. Furthermore, virgin materials are not easily substitutable by recycled materials.^[16^{], [}29^] This implicates, that packaging waste should be prevented in the first way by avoiding single-use packages, minimizing packaging volume, and enhancing biodegradable materials.^[16^]

Regarding waste management, no packaging specific measures and strategies to improve their sustainability performance were identified.

3.2 Performance of different strategies and measures

3.2.1 Evaluation of performance

As seen in the previous chapter, there are different strategies and measures to increase the sustainability performance of packaging. Applying them can increase the sustainability performance of packaging applications but the actual impact depends on various factors and needs to be evaluated from case to case.⁴²

One example and at the same time one of the most popular measures implemented by firms to increase the sustainability performance of packaging regards recycling activities. In this case, an empirical analysis by Cozzolino et. al. (2023) has shown that recycled materials do not function well as substitutes for virgin material. Moreover, using recycled materials for packaging products did not lead to emissions savings due to transportation, sorting and processing. This example shows that the performance of single measures involves various factors and does not certainly lead to a better environmental performance. Instead, the authors draw the attention to reusable packages rather than creating recyclable packaging materials.^[29^]

Therefore, special attention is given to the evaluation of reusable versus single-use packaging as well as the comparison of conventional plastics to bioplastics for packaging solutions.

3.2.2 Reusable vs single-use packaging

In literature, there are various studies that investigate whether reusable packages are favourable over single-use packages in terms of sustainability performance and the number of them has been increasing over the years. The results of the studies vary.^[10^] A study by Pålsson and Olsson (2023) came to the result, that the performance of reusable packaging systems is mostly influenced by the transport mode, the cleaning and maintaining system, the material type and amount, as well as by the recycling rate and the consumer behaviour. While materials made of bioplastic and cardboard perform better in single-use packages, glass and metal can promise environmental advantages as reusable packaging material. In the case of plastics, it depends on various factors, as weight and type of packaged product.^[10^]

The study by Cozzolino et. al. (2023) that examined sustainable packaging practices in Italian companies concluded that the most important strategic lever is reverse logistics. With smart logistics in place, significant savings of CO₂ emissions can be reached when using packages multiple times.^[29^] Those savings are more likely to be achieved in the business to business sector or in local markets with short transportation distances, which is often the case for breweries or local catering services.^[27^]

3.2.3 Bioplastics vs. conventional plastics

Another field of research is the comparison of conventional plastics and bioplastics. While bioplastics are oftentimes promoted as environmental-friendlier option, their weaknesses should not be underestimated. The degradation phase of biodegradable plastics is energy-intensive and produces methane gas. Moreover, in the case of plant-based bioplastics the use of land competes with food supply. On the other hand, energy savings are achieved at the production process and there is no net increase in CO₂. When degrading in landfills, significant savings of CO₂ emissions can be achieved. Several studies showed savings around 25 %. Despite the shortcomings associated with bioplastics, the authors believe they are overall less harmful than conventional plastics.^[36^]

4 Practical implications for firms

As stated before, the environmental impact of different strategies and tools needs to be evaluated from case to case, as it depends on various factors. Products and their packaging should be evaluated using Life Cycle Assessment to identify the most promising potentials for more sustainable packaging. In the next step, firms can implement the strategies and measures mentioned in chapter three. Nevertheless, a proactive and integrated supply chain approach is required and the involvement of various stakeholders to realize significant environmental improvements.^[33^]

The most popular strategies adopted by firms include the optimization of recycling activities, logistics and production processes, followed by saving raw materials, reusing packaging, or simplifying it. Oftentimes, firms rather implement one or two single measures, than a comprehensive portfolio of measures, which in the end is less effective.^[29^]

Regarding the facilitation of recycling, as targeted by many firms, investments in greener technologies are necessary to improve the recycling process. This can also be supported by transparency and labelling regarding the material composition, as well as trough cooperation with material producers and recycling companies.^[29^] The example of Carlsberg shows that increasing collaboration with suppliers and transparency on the compilation of cans were most challenging but decisive. In that way, they were able to increase the share of recycled materials and recognized significant benefits in terms of environmental performance.^[34^]

Whether companies should use single-use or reusable packaging depends on the type of product, transportation distances, and logistics.^[10^] Where supply chains are less complex and transportation distances short, reusable packaging systems are feasible. For their implementation, reverse logistics need to be introduced, which require a systematic involvement of various stakeholders and a different form of organization.^[27^]

Another challenge but also potential regarding more sustainable packaging systems concerns the involvement of consumers. As mentioned before, consumers are not able to evaluate the more sustainable packaging option, or they are not familiar with new packaging systems yet. In general, consumers prefer the recycling of packaging material over reusable packaging systems, as those are more time-consuming. Increasing the awareness of customers and educating them can increase the success of implemented measures, like reusable packaging or recycling rates.^[10^]

5 Drivers and Barriers

There is no generalizable solution for sustainable packaging because it is needed in different companies operating in various sectors and is impacted by several variables, consequently attitudes, perceptions and priorities differ.⁴³ Therefore, the adoption and implementation of sustainable packaging are influenced by a range of internal and external drivers and barriers explored in this chapter. They shape the decisions of stakeholders involved in the packaging industry.⁴⁴

5.1 Drivers

These internal and external drivers push firms toward more sustainable packaging. They are sector specific and include political, economic, social, technological, and environmental factors. As shown in table 2, the internal drivers are cost reductions, increased sales, competitive advantages, and an integrative and collaborative supply chain.

Table 2: Internal drivers for sustainable packaging partly adopted from source [42]

Driver	Description
Cost reductions	Sustainable packaging might significantly reduce material use, waste, and transportation costs.⁴⁵
Increased sales	Successful marketing promotes the brand to environmentally responsible consumers.^[⁴⁵^]
Competitive advantages	Creating a perception as a sustainable company is a cause for competitive advantages and innovation.^[⁴³^]
Integrative and collaborative supply chain	Packaging sustainability depends on an effective interaction between supply chain actors.^[⁴³^]

In many cases, sustainable packaging is adopted by firms when it delivers economic benefits like cost reduction or increased sales.⁴⁶ This is supported by the fact that managers place more emphasis on the economic well-being of the firm than on environmental or moral concerns.⁴⁷ Financial benefits are observable since sustainable packaging has a significant positive influence on the Return on Assets and the market value of firms when testing with the Bloomberg Environmental, Social, and Governance Database.⁴⁸ Regarding the practical implementation, refill packaging could induce higher profit margins because it is designed to use minimal materials, can be reused by another customer, or refilled by the same customer, and thus reduces the packaging costs.^[45] Cost savings can also result from reduced waste generation by savings in landfill tax duties.^[45] Yet, the environmental benefit is of secondary importance; returnable packaging is especially implemented because it decreases the labour cost of packaging.⁴⁹

Competitiveness and product innovation are driven by sustainable packaging despite its potentially complex implementation, reflected to some extent in the following subchapter.^[43] Sustainable packaging can impose a competitive advantage because it doesn’t influence the aesthetic or functional properties of packaging and is, therefore, not less effective than conventional packaging.⁵⁰ To achieve a competitive advantage, the package needs an ecosystem integration and a focus on consumers’ needs.^[43] For instance, packaging design that supports a decline in food losses can help to increase consumer satisfaction, reduce the environmental impact of the food packaging system, and therefore impose a competitive advantage.⁵¹

Creating an integrative and collaborative supply chain involves including relevant stakeholders at earlier stages of the decision-making process, significantly reducing environmental and operational costs.^[⁴²^] There are many relationships and interactions between the actors of the supply chain. To minimize the supply chain footprint, an exchange of competencies between companies is required, involving, for example, quality management and process control.^[⁴³^] This exchange leads to a balance between divergent stakeholder requirements, resulting in more sustainable packaging.^[⁴²^]

The external drivers for sustainable packaging are partly interconnected and include consumer pressure, environmental benefits, market-based instruments, and regulatory pressure.

Table 3: External drivers for sustainable packaging partly adopted from source [42]

Driver	Description
Consumer pressure	Customers may be price sensitive and demand convenience and performance.^[⁵^]
Environmental benefits	Reduced resource depletion is achieved by a reduction in packaging materials.^[⁴⁵^]
Market-based instruments	Eco-taxes or polluter-pays principle provide economic incentives for less packaging.⁵² ⁵³
Regulatory pressure	“Verpackungsgesetz” and the new proposal of the EU Commission force companies to act.

Although consumers’ behaviour may vary from their stated preferences, the perceived costs of choosing sustainable packaging are low, do not capture the consumers attention, allowing environmental concerns to enter the decision-making process.⁵⁴ Thogersen, J. The ethical consumer. Moral norms and packaging choice. Journal of Consumer Policy 22, 5439-460 (1999). ⁵⁵ For instance, consumers are not only concerned about the quality and the packaging design but also about compliance with environmental requirements.^[11] In Finland, the largest consumer segment ranked environmentally labelled packaging as the most important criterion in product selection.⁵⁶ Furthermore, in 2022 the share of consumers that planned to avoid products with much packaging for sustainability reasons was 58 % in the global average and 55 % in Germany.⁵⁷ In Italy 47 % of the customers prefer plastic-free products and 54 % often avoid buying overpackaged products.^[43]

Environmental benefits are partly interconnected with economic benefits and result, among other things, from a reduction in material use, leading to less material that ends up in landfills.^[⁴⁵^] Reducing waste in consumers’ households, in distribution, and in retail could be the most efficient solution to decrease environmental impacts.^[⁵¹^] Additionally, lighter packaging leads to less energy required for the transport, thus reducing the environmental impact of distribution even more.^[⁴⁵^]

Market-based instruments can provide economic incentives to produce less packaging and increase recyclability for companies.^[⁵²^] Firms have an additional incentive to reconsider their packaging when they bear the financial burden of eliminating its waste too; they choose sustainable packaging when the disposal costs that must be borne by the firm are sufficiently high.^[⁴²^] The negative externalities that remain after environmental regulations must be priced for an optimal reduction in packaging.^[⁴²^]

Regulatory pressure could make firms pay for the externalities caused by their packaging. Governments should promote green packaging by developing policies and regulations or using economic instruments to encourage manufacturers to use sustainable packaging processing behaviour.^[11]The country where the firm is located affects the adoption drivers related to legislation.⁵⁸ Legislation requiring manufacturers and distributors to take financial responsibility for recycling of packaging waste and a recycling compulsory payment is needed to increase the amount of recycled waste.^[11] Many firms perceive legislation as an opportunity to reduce waste and costs and optimize packaging.^[42] In Germany the “Verpackungsgesetz” regulates product responsibility for manufacturers of packaging since January 2019 and serves to implement the European Packaging Directive 94/62/EC.⁵⁹ It is intended to regulate the behaviour of companies so that packaging waste is avoided, is prepared for reuse or recycled, and promotes reusable packaging by introducing and gradually extending the mandatory deposit for disposable bottles and introducing a duty to provide information in the retail sector.^[59] In Europe many countries started to improve the generated externalities by packaging through policies devoted to the increased attention to sustainability party because of the directive.^[43] The headline target of the new proposal of the EU Commission released on November 30^th 2022, is to reduce packaging waste by 15 % by 2040 per Member State per capita compared to 2018.⁶⁰ Furthermore, unnecessary packaging, like single-use packaging for food when consumed inside restaurants, will be banned and measures aim to make packaging fully recyclable by 2030.^[60] Regarding a broader view, countries worldwide promote environmental policies to mitigate pollution.⁶¹

5.2 Barriers

Internal and external barriers hinder the adoption of sustainable packaging practices. Internally, they encompass a range of factors such as the multi-criteria and cost-benefit analysis, eventually higher cost, change management restrictions, and internal motivation. A summary of the internal barriers is shown in table 4.

Table 4: Internal barriers for sustainable packaging partly adopted from source [42]

Barrier	Description
Multi-criteria analysis	Companies must consider environmental, logistical, and marketing requirements. Hence, trade-offs are inevitable.^[⁴²^]
Cost-benefit analysis	It is challenging to find clear evidence of economic benefits and there is uncertainty anticipating impacts on profits.^[⁴²^]
Higher cost	It may require logistics investment and dedicated equipment.^[53],⁶²
Change management restrictions	There might be lock-in effects with current production processes, high complexity, and competing requirements in the supply chain.^[⁵⁸^]
Internal motivation	Top management or employees lack motivation for sustainable packaging.^[⁵⁸^]

Cost-benefit analyses helps to notice additional costs.^[42] This analyses are important because companies perceive financial restrictions when confronted with sustainability adoption.^[58] Companies also prioritize costs over environmental sustainability in packaging development and selection.^[58] A sustainable packaging design may be costly and challenging because it must minimize environmental impacts while protecting, preserving, communicating, and differentiating the product and allowing efficient logistics.^[42] Thereby, a lack of financial, technical, and human resources can confront firms.^[58] This may lead to the lack of necessary production capabilities to adopt new sustainable packaging practices and financial resources to invest in new equipment.⁶³ A possible best practice example to work on this barrier is the global reuse platform Loop. Loop works with brands and manufacturers to offer refillable versions of their single-used products and then partners with retailers to include them in their retail stores.⁶⁴ Hence, companies are not on their own when trying to offer refillable packaging versions.

Lock-in effects, high complexity, and competing requirements in the supply chain hinder the adoption of sustainable packaging and lead to change management restrictions.^[⁵⁸^] The complex structures and configurations lock organizations and whole supply chains in the current processes, hindering the adoption of sustainable practices.^[58] But processes must be changed because it is often challenging to link sustainability effectively to existing structures and adoption procedures can be decelerated by a lack of informative guidelines.^[⁵⁸^]

The internal motivation of the company may be influenced by the top management and effective employee engagement and empowerment.^[58]Additionally, internal motivation can be affected by a resistance to changing company culture.⁶⁵ Lacking effective internal communication leads, among other things, to too little collaboration between the marketing and the packaging development team, two key actors in adopting sustainable packaging practices.^[44] With limited internal communication, a gap between the sustainability department and the supply chain executors may emerge, leading to limited awareness of sustainable standards for raw materials and lower motivation.^[58] Since training and organizational knowledge are requirements for sustainable supply chain practices, this also influences the internal motivation for sustainable packaging practices.^[58] So, to overcome this barrier in practice, firms must provide training for their employees, making them not feel overlooked in the transformation to more sustainable practices, aware of environmental benefits and sustainability adoption practices, and have a more positive attitude.^[61]

Table 5 shows external barriers to the implementation of sustainable packaging practices. Those encompass negative consumer attitudes, the sector of the firm, and a lack of legislation.

Table 5: External barriers for sustainable packaging partly adopted from source [42]

Barrier	Description
Negative consumer attitudes	There is a risk of perceived greenwashing and uncertainty in identifying sustainable packaging.⁶⁶
Sector of the firm	Sustainable practices depend on the consumer segment.^[⁵⁶^]
Legislation	Some governments lack support to adopt environmentally friendly policies.^[⁵⁸^]
Suppliers	There may be a lack of effective packaging-supplier interaction.^[⁵⁸^]

Consumers feel economic, social and environmental pressures of sustainable behaviour and are concerned about conformity or fairness, which can influence the adoption of sustainable packaging.⁶⁷ Furthermore, a new packaging display and lack of consumer interest could lead to marketing risks at the point of sale.^[63] Hence, consumers need guidance to recognize environmentally-friendly packaging because design elements like pictures of nature can be misleading and they lack knowledge about new packaging materials.⁶⁸

The firm’s sector is important because some markets supply price-sensitive consumers who do not wish to pay a higher price, which, for example, prevents supermarkets from offering a fair price based on the value of a green product.^[⁵¹^] Additionally, a sustainable redesign of a packaging could influence how much the consumer spends when shopping.^[⁵¹^] So, consumers differ in their preferences for packaging; there are different consumer segments on the market.^[⁵⁶^]

References

1
Meherishi, L., Narayana, S. A. & Ranjani, K. S. Sustainable packaging for supply chain management in the circular economy. A review. Journal of Cleaner Production 237, 1–23 (2019).
2
Metsä. The global packging market. https://www.metsagroup.com/metsaboard/investors/operating-environment/global-packaging-market/ (n.d.).
3
Sonneveld, K. James, K. Fitzpatrick, L. Lewis, H. Sustainable Packaging: How do we Define and Measure It? IAPRI Symposium 11, 1-9 (2005).
4
Nguyen, A. T., Parker, L., Brennan, L. & Lockrey, S. A consumer definition of eco-friendly packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production 252, 1–10 (2020).
5
Nordin, N. & Selke, S. Social aspects of sustainable packaging. Packaging Technology and Science 23, 301-361 (2010).
6
Mordor Intelligence. Packaging Market Size & ShareAnalyses – Growth Trends & Forecast (2023-2028). Mordor Intelligence https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/global-packaging-market (2023).
7
Deutsches Verpackungsinstitut. Verpackungswirtschaft. https://www.verpackung.org/themen/verpackungswirtschaft (n.d.).
8
Ameripen. Packaging Industy, Economic impact study. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.ameripen.org/resource/resmgr/docs/AMERIPEN-JDA-Economic-Impact.pdf (2021).
9
Der Grazer. Wirtschaftsfaktor: Die Rolle der Verpackungsindustrie in der Region. https://grazer.at/de/TxLSqCOF/wirtschaftsfaktor-die-rolle-der-in-der-region/ (2023).
10
Pålsson, H. & Olsson, J. Current state and research directions for disposable versus reusable packaging: A systematic literature review of comparative studies. Packaging Technology Science 36 (6): 391- 409 (2023).
11
Zhang, G., Zhao, Z. Green Packaging Management of Logistics Enterprises. Physics Procedia 24, 900-905 (2012).
12
Wikström, F. et al. Packaging Strategies That Save Food: A Research Agenda for 2030. Journal of Industrial Ecology 23, 515-738 (2019).
13
Ncube, L. K. et al. Environmental Impact of Food Packaging Materials: A Review of Contemporary Development from Conventional Plastics to Polylactic Acid Based Materials. Materials 13 (2020).
14
Umweltbundesamt. Verpackungen. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/abfall-ressourcen/produktverantwortung-in-der-abfallwirtschaft/verpackungen (2021).
15
Eurostat. Packaging waste statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Packaging_waste_statistics#Waste_generation_by_packaging_material (2023).
16
Zhu, Z., Liu, W. & Batista, L. Packaging design for the circular economy: A systematic review. Sustainable Production and Consumption 32, 817-832 (2022)
17
Surfrider Foundation. The Link Between Fossil Fuels, Single-Use Plastics, and Climate Change. https://www.surfrider.org/news/the-link-between-fossil-fuels-single-use-plastics-and-climate-change (2018).
18
Ferronato, N.; Torretta, V. Waste Mismanagement in Developing Countries: A Review of Global Issues. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, 1-28 (2019).
19
Supply Chain Solution Center. Packaging waste 101: the problem. https://supplychain.edf.org/resources/sustainability-101-packaging-waste-the-problem/ (n.d.).
20
Li, Y. et al. Research on the Influence of Microplastics on Marine Life. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 631, 1-5 (2021).
21
Brandt, B. Pilz, H. Die Auswirkungen von Kunststoffverpackungen auf Energieverbrauch Treibhausgasemissionen in Europa (2011).
22
Castillo-Benancio, S. et al. Circular Economy for Packaging and Carbon Footprint. in Circular Economy Impact on Carbon and Water Footprint (eds. Alvarez-Risco, A. Muthu, S. S. Del-Aguila-Arcentales, S.)115-138 (Springer Singapore, 2022)
23
Meys, R. et al. Towards a circular economy for plastic packaging wastes – the environmental potential of chemical recycling. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 162, 1-10 (2020).
24
The Consumer Goods Forum. Global Protocol on Packaging Sustainability 2.0 (2011).
25
Pasqualino, J. Meneses, M. Castells, F. The carbon footprint and energy consumption of beverage packaging selection and disposal. Journal of Food Engineering 103, 357-365 (2011).
26
Verghese, K., Horne, R., Fitzpatrick, L., Jordan, R. PIQET—a packaging decision support tool. Australian life cycle assessment conference 5. Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society (ALCAS) (2006).
27
Coelho, M., ten Klooster, T. & Worrell, E. Sustainability of reusable packaging – Current situation and trends. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X6 (2020).
28
European Commission. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:312:0003:0030:en:PDF. Reviewed 20120910.
29
Cozzolino, A., & De Giovanni, P. Portfolios of sustainable practices for packaging in the circular economy: an analysis of Italian firms. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 34 (7), 24-49 (2023).
30
Svanes, E. et. al. Sustainable packaging design: a holistic methodology for packaging design. Packaging Technology and Science: An International Journal, 23 (3), 161-175 (2010).
31
Leissner, S. & Ryan-Fogarty, Y. Challenges and opportunities for reduction of single use plastics in healthcare: a case study of single use infant formula bottles in two Irish maternity hospitals. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 151, 104462 (2019).
32
Brunner, S., Fomin, P. & Kargel, C. Automated sorting of polymer flakes: fluorescence labeling and development of a measurement system prototype. Waste Manag. 38, 49–60 (2015).
33
de Koeijer, B., Wever, R. & Henseler, J. Realizing product‐packaging combinations in circular systems: Shaping the research agenda. Packaging Technology and Science, 30(8), 443-460 (2017).
34
Niero, M., Hauschild, M.Z., Hoffmeyer, S.B. & Olsen, S.I. Combining eco-efficiency and eco-effectiveness for continuous loop beverage packaging systems: lessons from the Carlsberg circular community. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 742–753 (2017).
35
Singh, A. A. & Genovese, M. E. Green and sustainable packaging materials using thermoplastic starch. Sustainable food packaging technology, 133-160 (2021).
36
Atiwesh, G., Mikhael, A., Parrish, C. C., Banoub, J. Environmental impact of bioplastic use: A review. Heliyon 7.9, e07918 (2021).
37
Surendren, A., Mohanty, A. K., Liu, Q. & Misra, M. A review of biodegradable thermoplastic starches, their blends and composites: recent developments and opportunities for single-use plastic packaging alternatives. Green Chemistry. 8606-8636 (2022).
38
Biotec. MORE THAN A RESOURCE: A VIRTUOUS CYCLE. https://www.biotec.de/company/.
39
Bakker, C., den Hollander, M. C., van Hinte, E., Zijlstra, Y. Products That Last: Product Design for Circular Business Models. BIS Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 112 (2014).
40
European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A new Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and more competitive Europe. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:9903 b325-6388-11ea-b735-01aa75ed71a1.0017.02/DOC_1&format=PDF(2020).
41
Silva, N., & Pålsson, H. Industrial packaging and its impact on sustainability and circular economy: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 333, 130165 (2022).
42
Afif, K., Rebolledo, C., & Roy, J. Drivers, barriers and performance outcomes of sustainable packaging: a systematic literature review. British Food Journal, 124 (3): 915-935 (2022).
43
Matti, G. Di Leo, A. & Pratesi, C. A. Recognizing the Key Drivers and Industry Implications of Sustainable Packaging Design: A Mixed-Method Approach. Sustainability 13, 5299 (2021).
44
De Koeijer, B., de Lange, J. & Wever, R. Desired, perceived, and achieved sustainability: trade-offs in strategic and operational packaging development. Sustainability9, 1–29 (2017).
45
Lofthouse, V. A., Bhamra, T. A. & Trimingham, R. L. Investigation Consumer Perceptions of Refillable Packaging and Assessing Business Drivers and Barriers to Their Use. Packaging Technology and Science22, 335-348 (2009).
46
Verghese, K. & Lewis, H. Environmental innovation in industrial packaging: a supply chain approach. International Journal of Production Research 45, 4381-4401 (2007).
47
Bone, P.F. & Corey, R.J. Packaging ethics: perceptual differences among packaging professionals, brand managers and ethically-interested consumers. Journal of Business Ethics 24, 199-213 (2000).
48
Xie, J., Nozawa, W., Yagi, M., Fujii, H. & Managi, S. Do environmental, social, and governance activities improve corporate financial performance? Business Strategy and the Environment 28, 257-300 (2019).
49
White, G.R.T., Wang, X. & Li, D. Inter-organisational green packaging design: a case study
of influencing factors and constraints in the automotive supply chain. International Journal of
Production Research 53, 6551-6566 (2015).
50
Prendergast, G. & Pitt, L. Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: are there trade-offs? International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 26, 60-72 (1996).
51
Gustavo, J.U., Pereira, G.M., Bond, A.J., Viegas, C.V. & Borchardt, M. Drivers, opportunities and barriers for a retailer in the pursuit of more sustainable packaging redesign. Journal of Cleaner Production 187, 18-28 (2018).
52
Fullerton, D. & Wu, W. Policies for green design. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management36, 131-148 (1998).
53
Mayers, K. & Butler, S. Producer responsibility organizations development and operations. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17, 277-289 (2013).
54
Scott, L. & Vigar-Ellis, D. Consumer understanding, perceptions and behaviors with regard to environmentally friendly packaging in a developing nation. International Journal of Consumer Studies 38, 642-649 (2014).
55
56
Rokka, J. & Uusitalo, L. Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices – do consumers care? International Journal of Consumer Studies 32, 516-525 (2008).
57
Tighe, D. Share of consumers that plan to avoid products with a lot of packaging for sustainability reasons in selected countries worldwide 2022. Statista https://www.statista.com/statistics/1287917/consumers-trying-to-avoid-excess-product-packaging-world/ (2022).
58
Pålsson, H. & Sandberg, E. Adoption barriers for sustainable packaging practices: A comparative study of food supply chains in South Africa and Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production 374, 133811 (2022).
59
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, nukleare Sicherheit und Verbraucherschutz. Gesetz über das Inverkehrbringen, die Rücknahme und die hochwertige Verwertung von Verpackungen. https://www.bmuv.de/gesetz/gesetz-ueber-das-inverkehrbringen-die-ruecknahme-und-die-hochwertige-verwertung-von-verpackungen#:~:text=Das%20Verpackungsgesetz%20dient%20der%20Umsetzung,zu%20vermeiden%20oder%20zu%20verringern (2021).
60
European Commission. European Green Deal: Putting an end to wasteful packaging, boosting reuse and recycling. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7155 (2022).
61
Wang, Z., Mathiyazhagan, K., Xu, L., & Diabat, A. A decision making trial and evaluation laboratory approach to analyze the barriers to Green Supply Chain Management adoption in a food packaging company. Journal of Cleaner Production 117, 19–28 (2016).
62
Yusuf, Y.Y. et al. Returnable transport packaging in developing countries: drivers, barriers and business performance. Production Planning and Control 28, 629-658 (2017).
63
Simms, C., Trott, P., van den Hende, E. & Hultink, E.J. Barriers to the adoption of waste-reducing eco-innovations in the packaged food sector: a study in the UK and The Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production244, 118792 (2020).
64
Loop. Eliminating the Idea of Waste. https://exploreloop.com/purpose/ (2022).
65
Mangla, S.K., Sharma, Y.K., Patil, P.P., Yadav, G. & Xu, J. Logistics and distribution challenges to managing operations for corporate sustainability: study on leading Indian diary organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production 238, 1–20 (2019).
66
Boz, Z., Korhonen, V. & Koelsch Sand, C. Consumer considerations for the implementation of sustainable packaging: a review. Sustainability 12, 2192–2225 (2020).
67
Isenhour, C. On conflicted Swedish consumers, the effort to stop shopping and neoliberal environmental governance. Journal of Consumer Behaviour9, 454-469 (2010).
68
Ketelsen, M., Janssen, M. & Hamm, U. Consumers’ response to environmentally friendly food packaging – A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production 254, 120123 (2020).

1
Meherishi, L., Narayana, S. A. & Ranjani, K. S. Sustainable packaging for supply chain management in the circular economy. A review. Journal of Cleaner Production 237, 1–23 (2019).
2
Metsä. The global packging market. https://www.metsagroup.com/metsaboard/investors/operating-environment/global-packaging-market/ (n.d.).
3
Sonneveld, K. James, K. Fitzpatrick, L. Lewis, H. Sustainable Packaging: How do we Define and Measure It? IAPRI Symposium 11, 1-9 (2005).
4
Nguyen, A. T., Parker, L., Brennan, L. & Lockrey, S. A consumer definition of eco-friendly packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production 252, 1–10 (2020).
5
Nordin, N. & Selke, S. Social aspects of sustainable packaging. Packaging Technology and Science 23, 301-361 (2010).
6
Mordor Intelligence. Packaging Market Size & ShareAnalyses – Growth Trends & Forecast (2023-2028). Mordor Intelligence https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/global-packaging-market (2023).
7
Deutsches Verpackungsinstitut. Verpackungswirtschaft. https://www.verpackung.org/themen/verpackungswirtschaft (n.d.).
8
Ameripen. Packaging Industy, Economic impact study. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.ameripen.org/resource/resmgr/docs/AMERIPEN-JDA-Economic-Impact.pdf (2021).
9
Der Grazer. Wirtschaftsfaktor: Die Rolle der Verpackungsindustrie in der Region. https://grazer.at/de/TxLSqCOF/wirtschaftsfaktor-die-rolle-der-in-der-region/ (2023).
10
Pålsson, H. & Olsson, J. Current state and research directions for disposable versus reusable packaging: A systematic literature review of comparative studies. Packaging Technology Science 36 (6): 391- 409 (2023).
11
Zhang, G., Zhao, Z. Green Packaging Management of Logistics Enterprises. Physics Procedia 24, 900-905 (2012).
12
Wikström, F. et al. Packaging Strategies That Save Food: A Research Agenda for 2030. Journal of Industrial Ecology 23, 515-738 (2019).
13
Ncube, L. K. et al. Environmental Impact of Food Packaging Materials: A Review of Contemporary Development from Conventional Plastics to Polylactic Acid Based Materials. Materials 13 (2020).
14
Umweltbundesamt. Verpackungen. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/abfall-ressourcen/produktverantwortung-in-der-abfallwirtschaft/verpackungen (2021).
15
Eurostat. Packaging waste statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Packaging_waste_statistics#Waste_generation_by_packaging_material (2023).
16
Zhu, Z., Liu, W. & Batista, L. Packaging design for the circular economy: A systematic review. Sustainable Production and Consumption 32, 817-832 (2022)
17
Surfrider Foundation. The Link Between Fossil Fuels, Single-Use Plastics, and Climate Change. https://www.surfrider.org/news/the-link-between-fossil-fuels-single-use-plastics-and-climate-change (2018).
18
Ferronato, N.; Torretta, V. Waste Mismanagement in Developing Countries: A Review of Global Issues. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, 1-28 (2019).
19
Supply Chain Solution Center. Packaging waste 101: the problem. https://supplychain.edf.org/resources/sustainability-101-packaging-waste-the-problem/ (n.d.).
20
Li, Y. et al. Research on the Influence of Microplastics on Marine Life. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 631, 1-5 (2021).
21
Brandt, B. Pilz, H. Die Auswirkungen von Kunststoffverpackungen auf Energieverbrauch Treibhausgasemissionen in Europa (2011).
22
Castillo-Benancio, S. et al. Circular Economy for Packaging and Carbon Footprint. in Circular Economy Impact on Carbon and Water Footprint (eds. Alvarez-Risco, A. Muthu, S. S. Del-Aguila-Arcentales, S.)115-138 (Springer Singapore, 2022)
23
Meys, R. et al. Towards a circular economy for plastic packaging wastes – the environmental potential of chemical recycling. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 162, 1-10 (2020).
24
The Consumer Goods Forum. Global Protocol on Packaging Sustainability 2.0 (2011).
25
Pasqualino, J. Meneses, M. Castells, F. The carbon footprint and energy consumption of beverage packaging selection and disposal. Journal of Food Engineering 103, 357-365 (2011).
26
Verghese, K., Horne, R., Fitzpatrick, L., Jordan, R. PIQET—a packaging decision support tool. Australian life cycle assessment conference 5. Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society (ALCAS) (2006).
27
Coelho, M., ten Klooster, T. & Worrell, E. Sustainability of reusable packaging – Current situation and trends. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X6 (2020).
28
European Commission. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:312:0003:0030:en:PDF. Reviewed 20120910.
29
Cozzolino, A., & De Giovanni, P. Portfolios of sustainable practices for packaging in the circular economy: an analysis of Italian firms. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 34 (7), 24-49 (2023).
30
Svanes, E. et. al. Sustainable packaging design: a holistic methodology for packaging design. Packaging Technology and Science: An International Journal, 23 (3), 161-175 (2010).
31
Leissner, S. & Ryan-Fogarty, Y. Challenges and opportunities for reduction of single use plastics in healthcare: a case study of single use infant formula bottles in two Irish maternity hospitals. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 151, 104462 (2019).
32
Brunner, S., Fomin, P. & Kargel, C. Automated sorting of polymer flakes: fluorescence labeling and development of a measurement system prototype. Waste Manag. 38, 49–60 (2015).
33
de Koeijer, B., Wever, R. & Henseler, J. Realizing product‐packaging combinations in circular systems: Shaping the research agenda. Packaging Technology and Science, 30(8), 443-460 (2017).
34
Niero, M., Hauschild, M.Z., Hoffmeyer, S.B. & Olsen, S.I. Combining eco-efficiency and eco-effectiveness for continuous loop beverage packaging systems: lessons from the Carlsberg circular community. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 742–753 (2017).
35
Singh, A. A. & Genovese, M. E. Green and sustainable packaging materials using thermoplastic starch. Sustainable food packaging technology, 133-160 (2021).
36
Atiwesh, G., Mikhael, A., Parrish, C. C., Banoub, J. Environmental impact of bioplastic use: A review. Heliyon 7.9, e07918 (2021).
37
Surendren, A., Mohanty, A. K., Liu, Q. & Misra, M. A review of biodegradable thermoplastic starches, their blends and composites: recent developments and opportunities for single-use plastic packaging alternatives. Green Chemistry. 8606-8636 (2022).
38
Biotec. MORE THAN A RESOURCE: A VIRTUOUS CYCLE. https://www.biotec.de/company/.
39
Bakker, C., den Hollander, M. C., van Hinte, E., Zijlstra, Y. Products That Last: Product Design for Circular Business Models. BIS Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 112 (2014).
40
European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A new Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and more competitive Europe. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:9903 b325-6388-11ea-b735-01aa75ed71a1.0017.02/DOC_1&format=PDF(2020).
41
Silva, N., & Pålsson, H. Industrial packaging and its impact on sustainability and circular economy: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 333, 130165 (2022).
42
Afif, K., Rebolledo, C., & Roy, J. Drivers, barriers and performance outcomes of sustainable packaging: a systematic literature review. British Food Journal, 124 (3): 915-935 (2022).
43
Matti, G. Di Leo, A. & Pratesi, C. A. Recognizing the Key Drivers and Industry Implications of Sustainable Packaging Design: A Mixed-Method Approach. Sustainability 13, 5299 (2021).
44
De Koeijer, B., de Lange, J. & Wever, R. Desired, perceived, and achieved sustainability: trade-offs in strategic and operational packaging development. Sustainability9, 1–29 (2017).
45
Lofthouse, V. A., Bhamra, T. A. & Trimingham, R. L. Investigation Consumer Perceptions of Refillable Packaging and Assessing Business Drivers and Barriers to Their Use. Packaging Technology and Science22, 335-348 (2009).
46
Verghese, K. & Lewis, H. Environmental innovation in industrial packaging: a supply chain approach. International Journal of Production Research 45, 4381-4401 (2007).
47
Bone, P.F. & Corey, R.J. Packaging ethics: perceptual differences among packaging professionals, brand managers and ethically-interested consumers. Journal of Business Ethics 24, 199-213 (2000).
48
Xie, J., Nozawa, W., Yagi, M., Fujii, H. & Managi, S. Do environmental, social, and governance activities improve corporate financial performance? Business Strategy and the Environment 28, 257-300 (2019).
49
White, G.R.T., Wang, X. & Li, D. Inter-organisational green packaging design: a case study
of influencing factors and constraints in the automotive supply chain. International Journal of
Production Research 53, 6551-6566 (2015).
50
Prendergast, G. & Pitt, L. Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: are there trade-offs? International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 26, 60-72 (1996).
51
Gustavo, J.U., Pereira, G.M., Bond, A.J., Viegas, C.V. & Borchardt, M. Drivers, opportunities and barriers for a retailer in the pursuit of more sustainable packaging redesign. Journal of Cleaner Production 187, 18-28 (2018).
52
Fullerton, D. & Wu, W. Policies for green design. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management36, 131-148 (1998).
53
Mayers, K. & Butler, S. Producer responsibility organizations development and operations. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17, 277-289 (2013).
54
Scott, L. & Vigar-Ellis, D. Consumer understanding, perceptions and behaviors with regard to environmentally friendly packaging in a developing nation. International Journal of Consumer Studies 38, 642-649 (2014).
55
56
Rokka, J. & Uusitalo, L. Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices – do consumers care? International Journal of Consumer Studies 32, 516-525 (2008).
57
Tighe, D. Share of consumers that plan to avoid products with a lot of packaging for sustainability reasons in selected countries worldwide 2022. Statista https://www.statista.com/statistics/1287917/consumers-trying-to-avoid-excess-product-packaging-world/ (2022).
58
Pålsson, H. & Sandberg, E. Adoption barriers for sustainable packaging practices: A comparative study of food supply chains in South Africa and Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production 374, 133811 (2022).
59
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, nukleare Sicherheit und Verbraucherschutz. Gesetz über das Inverkehrbringen, die Rücknahme und die hochwertige Verwertung von Verpackungen. https://www.bmuv.de/gesetz/gesetz-ueber-das-inverkehrbringen-die-ruecknahme-und-die-hochwertige-verwertung-von-verpackungen#:~:text=Das%20Verpackungsgesetz%20dient%20der%20Umsetzung,zu%20vermeiden%20oder%20zu%20verringern (2021).
60
European Commission. European Green Deal: Putting an end to wasteful packaging, boosting reuse and recycling. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7155 (2022).
61
Wang, Z., Mathiyazhagan, K., Xu, L., & Diabat, A. A decision making trial and evaluation laboratory approach to analyze the barriers to Green Supply Chain Management adoption in a food packaging company. Journal of Cleaner Production 117, 19–28 (2016).
62
Yusuf, Y.Y. et al. Returnable transport packaging in developing countries: drivers, barriers and business performance. Production Planning and Control 28, 629-658 (2017).
63
Simms, C., Trott, P., van den Hende, E. & Hultink, E.J. Barriers to the adoption of waste-reducing eco-innovations in the packaged food sector: a study in the UK and The Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production244, 118792 (2020).
64
Loop. Eliminating the Idea of Waste. https://exploreloop.com/purpose/ (2022).
65
Mangla, S.K., Sharma, Y.K., Patil, P.P., Yadav, G. & Xu, J. Logistics and distribution challenges to managing operations for corporate sustainability: study on leading Indian diary organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production 238, 1–20 (2019).
66
Boz, Z., Korhonen, V. & Koelsch Sand, C. Consumer considerations for the implementation of sustainable packaging: a review. Sustainability 12, 2192–2225 (2020).
67
Isenhour, C. On conflicted Swedish consumers, the effort to stop shopping and neoliberal environmental governance. Journal of Consumer Behaviour9, 454-469 (2010).
68
Ketelsen, M., Janssen, M. & Hamm, U. Consumers’ response to environmentally friendly food packaging – A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production 254, 120123 (2020).