This section discusses previous studies that investigated packaging attributes with an integrated approach from primary and secondary packaging perspectives. Due to the lack of research on identifying reusable packaging attributes, this section reviews comprehensive models that described packaging attributes from previous studies. There is much research that considers packaging design from different perspectives. Lockamy III (1995) highlighted three main areas: finance systems, resource systems and customer performance systems. Olsmats and Dominic (2003) integrated a theoretical framework for a packaging scorecard. Rundh (2005) designed a framework link function of packaging with marketing. Simms and Trott (2010) constructed a framework that related the distribution chain to the stakeholders’ perspectives. Svanes et al. (2010) proposed a framework which has several indicators: environmental sustainability, distribution cost, product production, market acceptance and user-friendliness. Williams et al. (2008) mentioned that there are around 24 quality attributes of a product which
36
help guide good design or manufacture. However, Azzi et al. (2012) conducted a systemic approach on qualitative and quantitative literature on packaging design in order to roadmap further packaging design studies. This systematic approach demonstrated the strength of different packaging systems and discovered the interaction between one factor and another and how this changes the system (Mollenkopf et al., 2005). Azzi et al. (2012) addressed some failures in previous studies to address packaging design related to social sustainability and ergonomics. The study, on the conceptual framework of packaging design, consists of five main aspects of safety, ergonomics, sustainability, logistics, and marketing and communication. These five aspects contribute to understanding and analysing efficient packaging design. The Azzi et al. model identified 42 social, economic and environmental factors. These factors concentrated on primary packaging design and assisted packaging designers to understand the important factors which lead to successful and innovative packaging solutions.
The work presented here considered the Azzi et al. model for three reasons. The first states that some of the attributes of general packaging can be implemented for reusable packaging. The second reason why the Azzi et al. model has been selected is inclusion, which included all packaging life cycle attributes. The third reason states that it is sustainable, considering the sustainability of packaging attributes in the whole life cycle, which reflects economic, social and environment benefits.
Refillable packaging is another possible solution to reduce the amount of waste produced. Recently, a project conducted between Loughborough University and the Boots Company investigated the potential benefits a refillable packaging system for a body wash can offer customers and the environment (Lofthouse et al., 2009). The main aim of the project was to improve the sustainability performance of packaging through two objectives. First, the project sought to understand the variables that impact on existing refillable packaging for consumers and businesses. Second, the project team expected the finding would help develop a refillable packaging system from consumers’ and business perspectives. The project consists of three main stages: literature review, questionnaire and workshop. In the early stages, the project recognised 16 types of refillable packaging through market analysis and literature review. In order to understand the positive and negative attributes of refillable packaging, some questions were raised in a questionnaire distributed to volunteers who participated in the activities.
37
Some 89 questionnaires were answered and participants ranged in age from 21 to 71. Then, a workshop was conducted to investigate business drivers and barriers. The data from the workshop were analysed by a clustering methodology (Lofthouse et al., 2009).
The project used different types of packaging such as self-dispense (the consumers take a reusable packaging back to store and then refill it with the same product), original packaging swapped for a new product (e.g. the consumers return empty packaging and take a new product), deposit system (e.g. the consumers return empty packaging to the manufacturer for a financial incentive), top-up card (e.g. the consumers pay for a delivery service refill by using a payment card), dispensed concentrate (e.g. the consumers can obtain hot drinks and fizzy drinks from a Soda Stream machine), dispensed product (e.g. the consumers buy a dispenser then refill the packaging a number of time) and concentrate mixed in original packaging (e.g. the consumers buy a product which has good packaging quality, such as fabric softener bottles, to refill the packaging). The key findings regarding the attributes of a refillable packaging system from the consumers’ perspective are summarised in Table 2-2. The results show that lightweight packaging and ease of opening the dispenser encourage them to refill the body wash product. Quality and durability are important. The project also found that price incentive is one of the important factors together with the quality of packaging to be refilled. The findings also highlighted that, as long as there is a good reason behind the refill approach, consumers will not mind participating in the activity (Lofthouse et al., 2009).
Moreover, the project investigated the incentives and barriers associated with refillable packaging. For drivers, the project found that environment benefits from refillable packaging converge with reducing distribution effort; less energy and materials are used that would otherwise end up in landfill. Also, the project found cost savings for manufacturers (reducing the amount of materials), saving on waste management system (reducing the amount of waste during collection), saving on transportation, saving for customers, and, finally, an increase in sales. In the market, refillable packaging also brought some opportunities for market completions. The project discovered that space, addition of cost, health and safety, additional waste and new business models are barriers to refillable packaging. In Lofthouse et al. (2009), the study determined some reusable packaging attributes especially refilling from a social point of view as there was a lack of research trying to find reusable packaging attributes. The research
38
presented here is going to use these attributes for further investigation to test if they are capable of implementation for various types of reusable packaging.
Table 2-2: Positive Attributes and Negative Attributes of Refillable Packaging Systems (Lofthouse et al., 2009)
Positive Attributes Negative Attributes
Good product quality Expensive refills in giveaway parent pack Convenient delivery Inconvenience / requiring additional planning
Good value Take up more space
Less packaging and or product waste Hassle of maintenance
Easy to use Increased waste
Clean and hygienic Poor product quality Takes us less space Bad delivery
Light to transport Bad quality packaging
No mess ‘Fiddly’ to refill
Cheap Concerns over how long refill will be available Quick to use/refill Incompatibility between systems
Incentives / rewards for use Suitability for purpose
The refillable packaging attributes did not include the packaging contents because the participants did not worry if the packaging had been used, or was new, wet or dry. As long as they are able to clean the packaging, they are encouraged to refill it; they will clean the packaging and then re-use it (Lofthouse et al., 2009). As shown in the participants’ statement in Table 2-2, they are looking for packaging that is easy to clean and refill.
There is only one study that has analysed reusable packaging attributes in relation to waste. Langley et al. (2011) conducted a real case study in the UK to determine how different packaging can encourage and discourage the consumer in relation to options such as reusing, recycling and composting. The study focused on transition of packaging and observed consumers’ behaviour and found a relationship between shopping for goods and disposal of waste packaging. The study used different kinds of methods in order to find out how different packaging design attributes can affect consumer behaviour in the store and at home. The study used a questionnaire, a digital diary and bin raids to obtain quick and easy results. The study was focused in the South Yorkshire region of the UK around Sheffield. The participants gave information about the research and they were selected from known contacts. There was no repetition of participants during the three methods. Ten households participated in bin raid tests; after requests, appointments were arranged and approval for photographs was given. Sheets of plastic were laid out for the bin contents to be analysed on, and all waste bins in the house were gathered in order to observe them. The digital diary tests were conducted in
39
five households. The author observed the cupboard products at the beginning and end of the day for five continuous days. The questionnaire was conducted with 200 questions which consisted of some product images under various dimensions for attributes of packaging. There was a choice for respondents to tick such as general waste bin, recycling, reuse and compost. The questionnaire was conducted at three different supermarkets. The study found that there are good intentions amongst people to tackle waste but due to unavoidable pressures in everyday life they did not convert this intention into environmental behaviours.
Also, the study found that clear labelling on packaging is necessary with more information about how to deal with waste. Moreover, the study found that clearer and more consistent information on packaging helps to reduce poor control and management of the product. Easier to clean packaging would reduce unwashed items going to landfills. Thus, the study found that waste that should be reused or composted, because of packaging attributes, did not go into the bin or recycling in the consumer’s mind. All packaging attributes discovered in this study are outlined in Table 2-3. The study identified the main packaging attributes that consumers preferred from their dealings with waste such as reusing, recycling and composting. The research is going to use these attributes for further investigation because the Langley et al. study did not determine which attributes have a relationship with reuse of packaging.
Table 2-3: Langley Framework of Attributes of Packaging (2011)
Materials Geometry Other
Glass Refill ability with other product Recycling Metal Clean ability Instructions Plastic Re-seal ability Endurance
Cardboard Branding relating to quality and value