Sustainable packaging design: a holistic methodology for packaging design (original) (raw)

Sustainable Packaging Design: a Holistic Methodology for Packaging Design

By Erik Svanes, 1∗{ }^{1 *} Mie Vold, 1{ }^{1} Hanne Møller, 1{ }^{1} Marit Kvalvåg Pettersen, 2{ }^{2} Hanne Larsen 2{ }^{2} and Ole Jørgen Hanssen 1{ }^{1}
1{ }^{1} Department of Environmental Protection, Ostfold Research, Gamle Bedding vei 2b, 1671 Kraakeroey, Norway.
2{ }^{2} Department of Food Safety and Quality, Nofima Mat, Osloveien 1, N-1430 Aas, Norway.

SUMMARY

This study describes a holistic methodology for sustainable packaging design. This methodology studies the combined systems of packaging and the packaged products across the whole distribution chain from manufacturer to end consumer and the life cycle from raw material extraction to the waste phase. It contains a number of indicators that are grouped into the following main categories: environmental sustainability, distribution costs, product protection, market acceptance and user friendliness. The methodology integrates a number of different analytical methods. It is intended to be used in packaging design and optimisation, for idea generation, decision support and as documentation of properties of existing packaging systems. The study describes experiences with the methodology from one case study in the Norwegian Food Industry. The experiences show that the methodology is very comprehensive, and gives a good overview of the properties of a packaging solution. It enables quantitative comparisons between different packaging solutions throughout the design process. The methodology reduces the risk of implementing sub-optimal packaging solutions. An additional benefit of the methodology is gained by working in cross-functional teams. One potential drawback is that the methodology can be resource and data intensive. The methodology can be used as a tool box in packaging design, i.e. it is not necessary to use all methods and quantify all indicators to gain benefit. However, all indicators and requirements should be evaluated and considered. In all cases, it should be considered to include additional indicators if important sustainability issues have not been addressed. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 8 May 2009; Revised 11 December 2009; Accepted 18 December 2009
KEY WORDS: sustainable packaging design; distribution chain; product quality preservation; life cycle perspective

INTRODUCTION

As the awareness that products and services cause serious environmental degradation has increased, attention has shifted from finding end-of-pipe solutions to designing products that prevent such degradation from occurring in the first place or reduce such problems. Ecodesign is an example of such an approach; however it is easier to envision than to carry out in practise. The number of environmental problems that occur and the number of processes that a product goes through from cradle to grave is great. Hence designers are often looking for tools that are simple to use and give clear and precise answers on a products’ ‘environmental sustainability performance’. Many Ecodesign tools exist, but few studies on their usability have been published.

Waage 19{ }^{19} comments that the proliferation of sustainability assessment principles, strategies, actions and tools has created confusion for designers rather than a clear-cut path towards sustainability. What tool should be used for what application? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each tool? How can the usefulness of the tool be evaluated? Rather than presenting a new method, tool, strategy or

[1]

action; Waage gives the outline of a roadmap towards sustainability. The roadmap consists of a fourphase process for integrating sustainability perspectives into product design and manufacturing decisions. The phases are: (a) establish sustainability context, (b) define sustainability issues, © assess, (d) act and receive feedback.

The main idea is that designers and other involved personnel should, rather than using a tool or method not developed for, and perhaps not fitting their own situation, investigate what sustainability means in their particular situation. In the same way as designers regularly start with a concept phase where the degree of freedom is high, there ought to be a ‘sustainability concept phase’. An example of a question in such a phase: Should we design a product to fulfil this particular need or could the need be fulfilled in another way? 8{ }^{8} Once the context has been defined designers can proceed to investigating solutions and implications of the solutions. The next phase is a quantitative and qualitative assessment where appropriate tools can be used and the last phase is the implementation and monitoring phase.

Byggeth and Hochschorner 2{ }^{2} evaluated 15 different Ecodesign tools with a special view on how trade-off situations were handled. They argue that such a tool should contain a valuation to support trade-off decisions. They further argue that one important principle for such valuation is a strong link to overall sustainability principles such as avoidance of build-up of substances in the earth’s ecosystems, destruction of said ecosystems, as well as future generations’ capacity to fulfil its needs. They further opined that an Ecodesign tool should contain all sustainability dimensions, i.e. ecological, economic and social and cover the entire life-cycle.

This study is concerned with packaging design. Packaging design has been developed as an integrated process in companies over the last few decades, both theoretically and practically. Klooster 18{ }^{18} has described the processes and methods available for more efficient and effective packaging design. Klooster 18{ }^{18} draws attention to the need to consider all functional requirements for packaging systems in the design process. Olsmats 14{ }^{14} emphasises the strategic role of packaging for companies, and the need to strike a balance between the important functions of packaging. In these studies, environmental and resource efficiency is discussed as important properties of packaging systems, and both Klooster and Olsmats emphasise the potential conflict between environment and economy as driving forces for packaging design. Both authors use the terms ‘packaging minimisation’ or ‘packaging waste minimisation’ as the key issue with respect to environmental impact.

Environmental sustainability has become an important target for the industry. Most often, companies have focused on one or two aspects, e.g. low weight of packaging per unit product or the non-use of materials viewed as environmentally harmful, such as PVC. However, there is a need to consider a products’ environmental perspective in a more systematic and holistic way than has been realised in the last years. Several methods have been proposed for assessing a product’s total environmental impact from cradle (raw materials acquisition and processing) to grave (waste treatment phase). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has emerged as a leading assessment method with a complete life cycle scope. One of the major advantages of this method is the emphasis on function, which means that a product’s effectiveness, e.g. its ability to perform a certain function, is taken into account.

A large number of studies have been done on packaging. The scope and goal for these studies vary a lot. The most common usages are for documenting a packaging’s environmental performance for external communication and for internal improvement analysis. Detzel and Krüger 4{ }^{4} compared packaging made of PLA with equivalent packaging made of petroleum-based materials such as PP. The system borders of this study included waste treatment in order to get a good picture of the product’s environmental performance during all life phases. The functional unit defines the minimum top load strength of the packaging, thus, covering one key quality issue. Detzel et al. 5{ }^{5} studied PET packaging and included the potential benefit of several end uses for recycled packaging. Bovea et al. 1{ }^{1} calculated the direct environmental impacts of packaging, and evaluated the effect of packaging minimisation options by using LCA. These packaging studies attempt a holistic approach by including as much of the packaging life cycle as possible, including waste treatment and even new utilisation after recycling. One important dimension seems to be missing. The studies do not quantitatively assess the packaging’s effect on the packaged product. Assessment of packaging is more complex than assessment of other product groups because it has a ‘double’ environmental impact that is evaluated through system enlargement, where the packaging system and the product system are seen in combination:

Direct impacts related to the packaging itself and indirect impacts, through the packaging systems, impact on the packed product (e.g. product loss, transport efficiency, etc.).

In a holistic design approach, both effects should be taken into account. There are, however, a number of requirements that have to be balanced in packaging design, in addition to environmental impacts.

Williams et al. 21{ }^{21} have listed many important quality indicators, especially for consumers. Among these are, protection and preservation of product, declaration of contents, easy to empty completely, recyclable material, communicates a certain brand, fits in storage spaces and contains just the right quantity. The packaging must in addition fulfil all legal requirements for food safety, environment and labelling. Chien-Chung and Hwong-Wen 3{ }^{3} introduce a new framework for incorporating the traditional LCA approach with qualitative methods to assess important aspects of packaging, in particular environmental assessment, but also functional characteristics. These authors also (as does the Detzel papers) put great emphasis on the potential positive environmental effect of materials after recycling or incineration.

The following review of sustainable packaging design methodologies show that most Ecodesign methodologies and tools do not consider a broad spectre of the requirements mentioned above. The Australian packaging evaluation tool PIQET 17{ }^{17} measures several environmental impacts of packaging: global warming/climate change, cumulative energy demand, photochemical oxidation, water use, solid waste and land use. The tool also evaluates other packaging properties such as product protection, shelf-life and consumer knowledge/labelling. The packaging scorecard evaluation method designed by Olsmats and Dominic 15{ }^{15} has a wider scope than PIQET. It takes into account practical aspects and other parts of the distribution chain. Important indicators are machinability (i.e. runnability, convertability), product protection, flow information, volume and weight efficiency, right amount and size, handleability, other value-adding properties, product information, selling capability, safety, reduced use of resources, minimal use of hazardous substances, minimal amount of waste and packaging costs. The large international retail company Wal-Mart has developed and implemented a Scorecard Method for packaging evaluation. All suppliers of products to Wal-Mart are obliged to use this tool to declare their packaging systems. The indicators considered in the scorecard are greenhouse gas emissions, material value, product/package ratio, cube utilisation, transportation efficiency, recycled content, recovery value, use of renewable energy and degree of innovation.

The mentioned studies contain more than just a list of relevant indicators. Williams 21{ }^{21} studied the environmental relevance of the quality indicators. Olsmats and Dominic 15{ }^{15} and Wal-Mart 20{ }^{20} have described methods for rating a packaging’s performance in relation to those indicators. In Olsmats’ method, the supplier, transporter/distributor/wholesaler, retailer and consumer rate these criteria (only those criteria relevant for each group) as being more or less important ( 0−100%0-100 \% ). For each product, a value is assigned to show how the product performs in relation to that criterion ( 0 to 4 ). Based on those weightings and scores, normalised total score or score for each actor (supplier, consumer, etc.) can be calculated for each product. Wal-Mart’s scorecard online tool is used by suppliers to be given as a single score. Designers often request methodologies and tools that take into account as many as possible of the above-mentioned properties throughout the design process. Each method described above covers a certain number of important requirements. However, there seems to be a need for a more comprehensive tool that takes the whole distribution chain and life cycle into consideration, that views the packaging/product system as a whole and that gives quantitative output that can be used to optimise packaging.

In this study the aim has been to view the environmental and resource challenges related to packaging systems in a holistic and sustainable perspective. Rather than packaging minimisation, the focus is on packaging optimisation. The aim has been to include all three pillars of sustainability (environmental sustainability, economic viability and social equity) but this aim has only partially been achieved. The methodology includes mainly environmental dimension of sustainability, although total distribution costs, market acceptance and user friendliness are relevant factors in evaluation of economical sustainability. Social dimensions have not been included because it is very difficult to quantify in relation to products.

In this study the outline for such a methodology for sustainable packaging design will be presented. Furthermore the experiences gained with using the methodology in one practical case study are

presented. This study also discusses how the methodology can be further developed for practical use in packaging design processes in companies. The study further contains a qualitative comparison with other sustainability design tools.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY: PROBLEM DEFINITION

The main scope of the study is to present and discuss a comprehensive methodology for sustainable packaging design, which takes into consideration, as many as possible, important requirements on packaging solutions. The study will discuss experiences with the method in design of new packaging solutions, and if the results are meaningful in relation to the purpose of developing sustainable packaging solutions. A qualitative comparison with other methodologies will also be presented. The method is intended to be used in real packaging design processes, as an input to idea generation in the early phases, as decision support in choosing between alternative solutions from concept development to final design and as a system for declaration of the properties of packaging systems to the customers and to society (authorities, consumers, etc.).

METHODOLOGY AND DATA

In this study, we will present a comprehensive methodology for sustainable packaging design, with a set of methods that can be used throughout the design process. Not all methods have been used in the case that is presented in the study, but all methods have been tested in one or more case studies over the last five years.

The methodology for sustainable packaging design has been developed with a basis in a number of important preconditions:

  1. The whole packaging system is considered as a combined system, including primary packaging, secondary packaging and tertiary packaging.
  2. Product and packaging systems are considered as interconnected in the method.
  3. The whole distribution chain is included from packing process to consumption.
  4. The whole life cycle of both the product and the packaging systems are considered, from raw material extraction to the waste phase.
  5. The effectiveness of the packaging and product systems are assessed in relation to a functional unit (see LCA literature10), which in the case of a packaging system, is defined as ‘packing and distribution of 1000 kg of product from a manufacturing company to the final consumer’.
  6. The external conditions that the packaging systems will meet in the distribution chain should also be taken into consideration. Ideally, these conditions should be monitored. Important indicators include temperature and humidity stress (and duration of stay under the specified temperature and humidity), handling in transport, in storage and by the consumers as well as lead time from production to opening by the consumer.

One important basic element in the methodology is the LCA method. LCA is a standardised 10{ }^{10} and widely used method. There have been several approaches to simplify LCA by focusing on some key environmental and resource indicators, and/or only include part of the life cycle and/or the most important processes in the life cycle of products. This should ideally be done based on knowledge from full-scale LCA studies, where the main impacts and life cycle stages have been identified (see Hanssen 9{ }^{9} ). For reference cases, specific data are used as far as possible. In the design process, this is normally estimated based on available data from life cycle inventory data related to the different materials and processes or activities.

The described method for sustainable packaging design consists, first of all, of a number of methods to characterise different properties in relation to the most important requirements of packaging systems. These requirements can be grouped into the following main categories evaluated over the whole life cycle and distribution chain:

  1. Environmental performance of the total packaging/product system.
  2. Total distribution costs of the packed product. This includes, for example, cost of all materials and processes along the distribution chain such as packaging, packing process, storage, transport and retail costs.
  3. Preservation of product quality.
  4. Market acceptance, branding and exposure.
  5. User friendliness.

In addition to the mentioned categories, the methodology contains an additional element: monitoring of conditions in the distribution chain.

At the present state of development of the methodology, there is no weighting between the five categories into one or two common scores or indexes. All categories are thus regarded as equally important. The method also contains no weighting between the indicators within each category, for example, between material intensity and climate effect. However, there are presentation alternatives that display many indicators in one diagram and in this way gain an overall view, e.g. spider diagram.

In the methodology, each of the five categories contains a number of indicators. These indicators are described below.

Environmental performance of the total packaging/product system.

Six different indicators have been defined in the methodology related to environmental and resource impacts:

Gross material intensity (GMI). GMI shows total mass of packaging materials of five main types (fibre, plastic, glass, metal and wood) that are used in the total packaging system. This parameter takes reuse into account, by the functional unit. If packaging is reused, it carries more product, but without the initial burdens of production of the raw materials and packaging. This parameter is an indication of the total burden caused by material usage.

Net material intensity (NMI). NMI shows the mass of packaging materials that is not being recycled. Net material intensity is thus an estimate for the total amount of packaging waste generated from the systems. Recycling rates are based on data from the National Material Recycling Schemes in the relevant markets. This indicator is a vital supplement to the gross material intensity indicator because it shows how much material is not recycled into new products. If the NMI is low, it indicates that the material used is fed into other applications, hence, reducing society’s total need for virgin materials.

Degree of filling. This is divided into three indicators:

This parameter is a very good indicator of transport efficiency. Since the number of pallet spaces in a lorry is fixed and volume is normally the limiting factor, this parameter shows truck volume utilisation.

Cumulative primary energy use. Cumulative primary energy use over the total life cycle and distribution chain of the packaging system is measured as total use of primary energy. Important contributors to total energy consumption are production of packaging and its raw materials, the packing process, transport and storage in refrigerators or freezers.

Greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions over the total life cycle and distribution chain of the packaging system, measured in CO2-equivalents.

Amount of product waste. Amount of product waste generated from the whole distribution chain, is measured in mass of product loss. The amount of product waste is used both to correct the amount

of product that is necessary to produce and pack to make 1000 kg product usable for the final consumer, and to estimate potential improvement in environmental effectiveness and distribution costs through improved packaging solutions.

Impacts from treatment of waste are accounted for in the indicators, e.g. energy recovered in incineration of used packaging or emissions from land filling.

Total distribution costs of packed product

As far as possible, total distribution costs related to 1000 kg of packed product should be collected. Examples include:

The methodology will give a better focus on distribution costs rather than traditional cost calculations, where cost per unit of packaging has been the most used criteria. Total distribution costs per 1000 kg product will give a better overview when applying a functional approach to packaging design and packaging purchasing.

Product quality preservation

Product quality preservation can be measured in a number of ways, depending on the type of product and distribution solution (frozen, chilled, canned, etc.). Some examples of typical tests that can be carried out to evaluate if a given packaging solution is fulfilling requirements to product quality preservation are:

All the tests are done repeatedly over a number of days or weeks until the shelf-life period is beyond the defined quality limit set by food authorities or food standards. In the final evaluation, the specific quality factor which is the limiting factor in relation to shelf-life of the product.

Market acceptance, branding value and exposure

Market acceptance can be measured with two principally different approaches, depending on the stage of development:

User friendliness

User friendliness related to packaging solutions can also be measured with two principally different approaches:

The methodology for Sustainable Packaging Design also includes assessments of the conditions in the distribution chain. The results are important as a basis for defining specific requirements to the packaging solution. Detailed knowledge about these conditions can also be important to evaluate strategies and options for improving the external conditions for the packaging system, as an alternative or supplement to redesign of the packaging system itself.

The following conditions can be assessed as part of the study of the reference system in the sustainable packaging design methodology:

Presentation of results is, in our experience very important for the usefulness of the methodology. Figure 1 shows the preferred presentation mode for the methodology. In this presentation mode the indicators in four out of the five main categories are shown. User friendliness is difficult to present in such a way because it is a more complex area that is difficult to quantify. Even though some indicators are missing, it can still be useful to display the full diagram. In this way, users of the results are made aware of the fact that these indicators are missing.

Data gaps and data quality

Since this methodology contains many indicators, it is to be expected that data gaps will occur. However, the method works without using all the indicators. Not all indicators are relevant for all situations. Users should start with evaluating which indicators are meaningful for them. For example, products aimed at professional users have different demands on them compared to products aimed at regular consumers. Another example: food products have different quality and safety indicators than other products. Hence, data gaps are often not problematic. If data gaps occur in chosen indicators the problem could be dealt with by making estimates based on expert advice. Proxy data, e.g. data from similar products or same product for slightly different purposes, could also be used to fill data gaps. Data quality should be recorded. When the method has been used, usually some key indicators can be identified. If some data that is of vital importance to these key indicators are of a low quality an attempt should be made to increase the quality of the data.

img-0.jpeg

Use of the methodology in real cases

In the case study reported in this study, most of the assessment methods that are described in the sustainable packaging design methodology have been applied and tested. However, so far all the methods have not been used in the same case. Experiences from application of the methodology have been gained in a number of cases being carried out with industrial companies, covering different elements of the total methodology.

RESULTS

The following presents the results from using the methodology in one case. In the case study, the following main areas have been included: environmental efficiency and effectiveness, distribution costs, product quality preservation and user friendliness. Monitoring of the external conditions in the distribution chain was also carried out in this case.

Fresh meat product

The case example is from a study where packaging solutions for three different meat products were analysed. This was a part of a research project that focused on new and optimal packaging solutions. The reference product and the product labelled 'packaging 2 ’ are the same product with two different packaging solutions. The product labelled ‘packaging 3’ is a third type of packaging solution, but for a slightly different product. The reference product was a vacuum-packaged product, where the intention was to identify the main challenges with the existing solution, as input to the design of new alternative packaging solutions. The other two included modified atmosphere packing. The case study focused on product quality and environmental impact.

The results for the reference product compared with the two alternatives are presented in Figures 2−62-6, where the score for the reference product is set as 100%100 \%.

Figure 2 shows the results from the environmental analysis. Six categories of environmental impacts were assessed in this case study. The new solutions seem to have a higher environmental impact than the reference case, as all of them are equal to, or worse than the existing solution for all key indicators. Both gross material intensity, net material intensity, emissions of climate gasses and especially energy consumption was significantly higher than in the reference case. The amount of product waste was not measured, during the short period of time for the project, but it was assumed to be no change in product waste as a consequence of changes in packaging solutions.

Figure 3 shows distribution of costs. The method includes five economic indicators (cost of loss of product, cost of packaging materials, cost of packaging process, cost of transport from producer via grocery stores to retail shops and cost of handling by users). In this case, four indicators are used;
img-1.jpeg

Figure 2. Environmental Efficiency.

img-2.jpeg

Figure 3. Distribution costs.
img-3.jpeg

Figure 4. Product quality.
cost of packaging materials, cost of packaging process, cost of transport from producer via grocery stores to retail shops and cost of handling by users. Loss of product was not assessed due to lack of data. The analysis showed that the new solutions are more expensive than the old ones for all the measured indicators.

Figure 4 shows product quality. The method includes the following quality indicators: microbiological tests, water loss, oxidation due to light, texture quality, sensory tests and colour of product. The two new products were assessed as equal regarding all the analysis. Packaging 3 seemed to give slightly decreased quality on the microbiological tests and colour of product.

Figure 5 shows market acceptance. For market acceptance, market position of product group, number of claims per year and market change per year are the suggested indicators. In this particular case only, one indicator was used for all three cases. The indicator was market position of product group, measured as total sales, see Figure 5. The sales figure was increased for both of the new packaging solutions.

Figure 6 shows user friendliness. User friendliness indicates how easy it is to handle the packaging (and packaged product) across the distribution chain all the way to the end consumer. This case study did not include a comprehensive study of user friendliness of the product. A qualitative assessment between the solutions was made based on the suggested key factors (‘easy to open by customer’, ‘easy to handle in use’, ‘easy to handle as waste’, ‘easy to handle in transport’, ‘easy to handle in shops’). No differences were found in the indicators: ‘easy to handle as waste’ and ‘easy to handle in transport’,

img-4.jpeg

Figure 5. Market acceptance.
img-5.jpeg

Figure 6. User friendliness.
since materials and transport systems were the same. The new solutions seem to be easier to open, but they are a bit more sensitive to light and also need more complicated display systems in shops. A subjective judgement by the project members (from whole value chain) gave the results in Figure 6.

The study concluded that the new solutions are less environmentally efficient and have higher distribution costs whereas quality and the market acceptance were higher, relative to the original product.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Discussion of the methodology

In the study, we have described a holistic methodology for sustainable packaging design. The methodology has been developed to assist packaging designers to evaluate all requirements to packaging and product solutions throughout the packaging design process, and be able to balance between the different requirements. It is intended to be used by cross-functional teams.

With respect to the sustainability aspect of packaging, the aim of the methodology is to evaluate different options for improving environmental and resource effectiveness and efficiency of specific packaging systems. Another important aim has been to enable simulation how changes made in the packaging system change environmental and resource impacts and other important characteristics

(economy, user friendliness, market acceptance) in the design process. The methodology as such is not a guarantee for developing more environmental and resource efficient packaging systems, as the design team and the company still must find a balance between the different properties of the packaging/product system. In the end, market considerations might prevail. However, by making environmental and resource impacts as well as distribution costs visible as part of the decision support, those impacts will probably get higher priority in packaging design in the future. It is especially important to implement such a methodology in the early phases of packaging design, as the degree of freedom to find more optimal solutions decrease further out in the process. By seeing all requirements in a holistic perspective in the early phase, the design team might get ideas to solutions that give more synergy.

In the development of the methodology, it has been necessary to find a balance between comprehensiveness and usability. If the methodology is too complicated it will not be used.

Some important environmental and resource impacts are not included, like biodiversity, water usage, build-up of persistent chemicals, sustainable management of resources and other impact categories other than the Greenhouse Effect. Regarding biodiversity and sustainable management of resources, this can be addressed through certification systems like the FSC Forest Certification Scheme. The proportion of renewable raw materials could also be included as a parameter. Other indicators, like the build-up of persistent chemicals should be included in the methodology in cases where this is found to be an especially important concern. Regarding other environmental impact categories, studies have shown that most of them (e.g. acidification and photochemical oxidant formation) are highly correlated with greenhouse gas emissions (Hanssen 9{ }^{9} ). Greenhouse gas emissions is a good indicator for all impact categories that are related to the use of fossil energy, but other LCIA categories might be included when deemed necessary. The economic dimension of sustainability is to some extent covered in the methodology, as the total cost of distribution is calculated, and not only the unit cost of packaging. Environmental costs are included to some extent, as the cost of product loss, cost of waste treatment and cost of packaging fees are part of the total distribution cost. Also external costs related to GHG emissions can easily be included, as well as other types of impacts. When the calculations are made in an LCA tool like, for instance, SimaPro, it is also quite easy to calculate the costs of those emissions, based on available external cost factors.

The social dimension of sustainability is not covered in the present version of the methodology, although user friendliness can be related to the occupational health of workers in the distribution chain. As this methodology includes not only packaging, but also the packaged product, a large number of social issues can be relevant. Examples of such issues are protection of workers and their family’s health, the right to collective bargaining and the use of forced labour or child labour. These are issues that are most pressing for products manufactured in developing countries where legislation is weak or not enforced. These issues are difficult to quantify in a meaningful way and time-consuming with little measureable gain. It is probably a difficult task, if at all possible, to create social indicators that enable distinction to be made between e.g. packaging made from 85 grams PP and one made from 100 grams corrugated board? In our view, it is much more effective to monitor performance in the field of social equity through minimum standards like the SA 8000, than making quantifications. The methodology does not contain any advice, tool or method for valuation in the case of trade-off situations. This is a deliberate choice. Such a valuation should be carried out by decision-makers, if needed in cooperation with experts. One of the intentions of this methodology is to increase decisionmakers’ awareness of their products’ impacts. If the methodology contains valuation methods, the result could conceal important information, such as the case with LCA weighting methods. The priorities of decision makers are not necessarily the same as those who design the weighting factors. Another reason for not including valuation is that we believe that decision makers are capable of doing valuations themselves or getting advice from competent people. They are trained in making valuations. It is an important part of their job.

The methodology in relation to other methodologies or tools

The methodology presented in this study can be seen as following the principles of the roadmap presented by Waage. 19{ }^{19} Based on our experiences in the LCA of products and packaging, we have

Table 1. Comparison of some packaging design tools.

Methodology Characterisation Sustainable Packaging Design Olsmats & Dominic (2002) scorecard model Wal-Mart Packaging Scorecard PIQET
Environmental and resource indicators Waste GHG emissions Energy use volume and weight efficiency, reduced use of resources, minimal use of hazardous substance, minimal amount of waste and packaging GHG emissions, product / package ratio, cube utilization, transportation efficiency, recycled content, recovery value, use of renewable energy Global warming / climate change, cumulative energy demand, photochemical oxidation, water use, solid waste, and land use.
Economy Full distribution costs External costs partly included Costs N.m. N.m.
Social elements Not included N.m. N.m. N.m.
Combined system packaging and product Both systems included −- N.m. N.m.
Whole life cycle considered Distribution chain from production to user N.m. N.m. N.m.
Product loss considered Product loss included if data are available No No Uncertain
Product protection Product protection considered Product protection considered N.m. Product protection and shelf-life
User Friendliness User friendliness considered N.m. N.m. N.m.
Market acceptance Market acceptance considered right amount and size, product information, selling capability N.m. Consumer knowledge/ labelling.

N.m. == Not mentioned in description of the methodology.
defined what sustainability means in this context and described the most important environmental effects caused by the products and packaging. However, the methodology cannot describe all environmental effects of all packaged products in the world. The user of the methodology will have to supplement if important issues have not been addressed. In addition to the sustainability issues raised by Waage, this methodology covers many practical aspects that are important when designing packaging solutions. If a packaging solution does not appeal to the market or is logistically very impractical, it does not matter whether or not it is sustainable - it will not be used.

The methodology presented in this study has not been quantitatively compared to the other relevant methodologies in parallel case studies. The reason is that most of the other methodologies are not accessible for testing, since they are not fully open to the market. Thus, it is difficult to make a complete evaluation of the methodology we present in this study compared to other available methodologies. However, as far as we can see from the descriptions that are given about the other methodologies, we conclude that this is the most comprehensive and complete published methodology to be used in sustainable packaging design. Use of the methodology is not a guarantee for designing more sustainable packaging systems, as the decisions regarding different properties and values in trade-off situations still has to be taken by the companies and the persons in the design process.

We have summarised the different methodological approaches discussed in the study in Table 1 above, based on the available descriptions of the methods in the literature.

Experiences with application of the methodology

Experience from using this methodology shows that it gives a lot of benefits. Users have commented that they get a good overview of the properties of a packaging/product system. They have said that information gained from using the method have enabled them to make informed decisions regarding which packaging to use or in what field further development work should be directed

In the reported cases, the methodology has not been used in the full version. The focus has been on product protection, economy and environmental protection. In our experience, the other main categories such as market acceptance and user friendliness are difficult to evaluate to a full extent before a product/packaging solution has been introduced into the market. In most cases, the best that can be done regarding packaging solutions in the design phase is to make estimates based on experiences from existing solutions. However, some methods exists that can give an indication of market acceptance such as consumer focus groups. Users have reported that the benefits of the methodology are not limited to the end results. The working method gives additional benefits. Working in crossfunctional teams raises awareness among the participants that the other aspects they are working with are also important. It also reminds participants of the importance of working more closely together. In such teams, professionals in the fields of marketing, logistics, environmental protection, quality control and economy work together. They represent the actors in the distribution chain such as manufacturers, packaging manufacturers, transporters, wholesalers and retailers.

One potential drawback with this methodology is that it can be quite resource-intensive, especially when it is used for the first time in a company. Gathering of data can be problematic. Some of this information is usually not readily available, especially in the early phases of the design process. However, some data is easy to find, such as volume, weight, packaging material, transport distances and transport mode. Other data must be collected from the actors involved in the packaging development or external actors. For example, data on product wastage in retail and wholesale is important information, but can be difficult to obtain if no retailers and wholesalers take part in the project. In many cases, it is very difficult or impossible to get specific data, i.e. on the environmental impact on plastic production, but these data gaps can often be covered by generic information from databases, e.g. from LCA software.

In cases where the methodology has been applied, it has sometimes been difficult to get complete data sets on costs. Such information is often regarded by the actors as strictly confidential. Often, they do not want to reveal this data to the other actors in the distribution chain. In some cases, this barrier is overcome when the analysis is done by a third party R&D institution under confidentiality agreements and if results are reported in a way that ensures that sensitive data are not possible to deduct by competitors or customers. In other cases, it might be easier to get access to data if the analysis is done by the internal project staff, especially when the distribution chain is highly integrated. Another challenge has also been that many companies are not measuring real costs per unit of product, as often only calculated costs or costs for whole product groups are available.

In a few cases, users of the methodology have expressed an initial difficulty in assessing the results. This has been caused by trade-off situations, i.e. a new solution can give increased sales and be easier to use, but gives higher GHG emissions. Sometimes, even the environmental data can be conflicting, i.e. higher material intensity, but lower climate impact. Trade-off situations can be difficult to handle, but also give decision-makers valuable insights into the impacts of their products. In some cases, it might be necessary for users to consult experts to get a more in-depth explanation of the results.

Need for further work

The methodology presented in this study has been developed through R&D projects in close cooperation with packaging users and packaging producing companies, and has so far only been tested in a few cases. There is certainly a need for more testing of the complete methodology in specific design cases. This is important both to get experience with how the results from the analysis can be interpreted and used as decision support by the design team, and to get more experiences with which elements of the methodology should be used in different stages of the design process. It is important to recognise that the methodology can give meaningful results although not all elements are used in a specific design process.

Practical experience has shown that the indicators regarding environmental sustainability and preservation of product quality are the core elements of the methodology. They should not be omitted, but other parts of the methodology could be omitted in some cases. Further applications of the methodology in future practical tests together with packaging users and producers will give more experience and aid in the further improvement of the methodology.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study has been made possible by grants from the Norwegian Research Council, the Food Program and the Manufacturing Programs (Varemat and BIA). We would like to thank companies in the Norwegian Food Industry and the Packaging Sector, especially the Packaging Optimisation Committee in Norway, for their cooperation and support. We would also like to thank our colleague Barany Sotiraj for valuable assistance to improve the English language.

REFERENCES

  1. Bovea MD, Serrano J, Bruscas GM and Gallardo A. Application of Life Cycle Assessment to improve the environmental performance of a ceramic tile packaging system. Packaging Technology and Science 2006; 19: 83-95.
  2. Byggeth S, Hochschomer E. Handling trade-offs in ecodesign tools for sustainable product development and procurement. Journal of Cleaner Production 2006; 14: 1420e1430.
  3. Chien-Chung H, Hwong-Wen M. A multidimensional environmental evaluation of packaging materials. Science of the Total Environment 2004; 324: 161-172.
  4. Detzel A, Krüger M. Life Cycle Assessment of PLA. A comparison of food packaging made from NatureWorks® PLA and alternative materials. Final report. IFEU GmbH, Heidelberg, July 2006.
  5. Detzel A, Griegrich J, Krüger M, Möhler S, Ostermayer A. Ökobilanz für PET-Einwegsysteme unter Berucksichtigung der Sekundärprodukte. Endbericht. IFEU GmbH, Heidelberg, August 2004.
  6. Hansen, AÅ, Hey, M and Pettersen, M. K. Prediction of optimal CO2 emitter capacity developed for modified atmosphere packaging of fresh salmon fillets (Salmo Salar L.). PackagingTechnolnology & Science. 2008; 22(4): 199-208.
  7. Hanssen, O.J. Sustainable Product Systems. Experiences based on case projects in Sustainable Product Development. Journal of Cleaner Production 1999; 7: 27-41.
  8. Hansen AA, Mørkere T, Rudi K, Rødbotten M, Bjørke F, Eie T. Quality changes of pre-rigor filleted Atlantic salmon (Salmo Salar L.) packaged in modified atmosphere using CO2 emitter, traditional MAP and vacuum. Journal of Food Science 2009; 74(6): 242-249.
  9. Hanssen, OJ. Environmental Impacts of Product Systems in a Life Cycle Perspective. A General Survey based on 18 Life Cycle Assessment Studies. Journal of Cleaner Production 1998; 6: 299-311.
  10. ISO standards; http://www.iso.org/iso/iso\_catalogue.htm. ISO 14040: Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework. ISO 14044: Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines.
  11. Larsen H, Westad F, Sørheim O, Nilsen LH. Determination of critical oxygen level in packages for cooked sliced ham to prevent color fading during illuminated retail display. Journal of Food Science 2006; 71(5): 407-413.
  12. Lawless, H.T. and Heymann H., 1999. Sensory Evaluation of Food. Aspen Publishers, Inc. Maryland USA, 1999.
  13. Lee SG, Xu X. Design for the environment: life cycle assessment and sustainable packaging issues. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management 2005; 5(1): 14 - 41.
  14. Olsmats C. The business mission of packaging. Packaging as a strategic tool for business development towards the future. Dr Thesis, Åbo Akademi. Åbo Akademi University Press, Åbo. 2002.
  15. Olsmats C and Dominic C: Packaging Scorecard - a Packaging Performance Evaluation Method. Packaging Technology and Science 2003; 16: 9-14.
  16. Pettersen MK, Nissen H, Eie T, Nilsson A. Effect of packaging materials and storage conditions on bacterial growth, offodour, pH and colour in chicken breast fillets, Packaging Technology and Science 2004; 17: 165-174
  17. PIQET. http://www.cfd.rmit.edu.au/programs/sustainable\_products\_and\_packaging/piqet\_packaging\_impact\_quick\_ evaluation_tool
  18. Klooster R. Packaging Design. A methodological development and simulation of the design process. Dr. Thesis Delft University of Technology, Design for Sustainability program publications no. 6. Delft, 2002.
  19. Waage SA: Re-considering product design: a practical ‘road-map’ for integration of sustainability issues. Journal of Cleaner Production 2007; 15: 638-649
  20. Wal-Mart http://walmartstores.com/FactsNews/NewsRoom/6039.aspx
  21. Williams H, Wikström F, Löfgren M: A life cycle perspective on environmental effects of customer focused packaging development. Journal of Cleaner Production 2007; 16(7): 853-859. 2008.