PHD Xuezi e

PLASTIC PACKAGING ELIMINATION IN THE
FMCG SECTOR
Xuezi Ma
Queens’ College
Institute for Manufacturing
Department of Engineering
University of Cambridge
This thesis is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
September 2020
DECLARATION
This thesis is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of
work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It
is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently
submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge
or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and
specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my thesis has already been
submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other
qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar
institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It does not exceed
the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee.
Xuezi Ma
PLASTIC PACKAGING ELIMINATION IN THE FMCG SECTOR – Xuezi Ma – September 2020
ABSTRACT
Plastic waste problem has become a pressing issue for businesses. Growing awareness
of the need for the reduction of plastic waste has fully reached business reality.
Companies are seeking alternatives to mitigate pressing environmental demands
resulting from growth in plastics consumptions. This is especially so for FMCG
companies as one of the key contributors to the plastic waste. In addition, companies
must deal with an increasingly competitive context where sustainable innovation is
regarded as necessary for survival. Thus research into current plastic reduction
innovation is paramount to guide companies to succeed in this area. In this context, this
research consolidates research and knowledge in the FMCG industry in the field of
plastic reduction. It aggregates findings through the framework of factors influencing
the reduction of plastic usage in FMCG sector. The research comprises, in different
research stages, two rounds of literature research and semi-structured interviews with 23
FMCG companies deploying a Factor Mapping Grid developed in this research.
Deployment of the grid identified 51 factors, along with 15 themes and three
sequencing types concerning these factors’ relationships with each other. The research
demonstrated the central function of consumers: they ranked simultaneously as the
greatest enabler for companies to reduce the use of plastics in packaging and as the
second greatest barrier. Whether consumers function as an enabler or a barrier depends
on if consumers are well educated on sustainability and transfer this into action. Barriers
result from commercial uncertainties associated with adopting alternatives: Will the
alternative have the same properties as plastics? Will consumers buy the new
packaging? Will we have enough money for new machinery? Overall, the framework
produced by this research facilitates the development of circular packaging supply
chains.
CONTENTS
1 UNDERSTANDING PLASTIC PACKAGING CHALLENGES IN

SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING..................................................................................... 1
1.1 THE CONTEXT ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 PLASTIC PACKAGING PROBLEM ................................................................................ 4
1.3 THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS RESEARCH........................................................................... 7
1.4 THESIS STRUCTURE .................................................................................................. 7
2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................... 10
2.1 REFINING SCOPE OF RESEARCH ............................................................................... 11
2.2 STAKEHOLDER THEORY .......................................................................................... 11
2.2.1 Stakeholders in plastic packaging reduction ................................................. 12
2.3 LITERATURE REVIEW APPROACH ............................................................................ 14
2.4 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 17
2.4.1 Sample characteristics ................................................................................... 17
2.4.2 Articles focused on technical aspects of plastic packaging ........................... 19
2.4.3 Articles focused on human aspects of plastic packaging ............................... 26
2.4.4 Articles focused on the environment .............................................................. 29
2.4.5 Articles focused on brand owners .................................................................. 30
2.5 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 32
2.6 KNOWLEDGE GAP AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES....................................................... 33
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN ............................ 35
3.1 REFINING SCOPE OF RESEARCH ............................................................................... 36
3.2 PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH .................................................................................... 36
3.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES .................................................................................. 38
3.3.1 Mixed Methods Action research .................................................................... 39
3.3.2 Design research methodology ........................................................................ 41
3.4 RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................................. 43
3.4.1 Evaluation of research design........................................................................ 46
3.5 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 47
4 EXPLORATORY STUDY ........................................................................................ 48
4.1 REFINING THE SCOPE OF THIS STUDY ...................................................................... 49
4.2 RESEARCH METHODS .............................................................................................. 49
4.2.1 Data validity................................................................................................... 52
4.3 RESEARCH RESULTS ............................................................................................... 52
4.3.1 Companies implementing sustainable packaging knowledge ........................ 52
4.3.2 Companies supporting the implementation of sustainable packaging
knowledge ............................................................................................................... 59
4.4 DISCUSSION............................................................................................................ 63
4.4.1 People that are responsible for sustainable packaging ................................. 63
4.4.2 The ‘knowledge’ enables and barricades sustainable packaging design and
the development process ......................................................................................... 64
4.4.3 Motivations for and difficulties in implementing sustainable packaging ...... 64
4.4.4 Difficulties encountered in implementing sustainable packaging ................. 65
4.5 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 65
5 PRELIMINARY FACTOR MAPPING GRID DEVELOPMENT ....................... 67
5.1 REFINING THE SCOPE OF THIS RESEARCH ................................................................ 68
5.2.1 Desk research to develop the plastic reduction framework ........................... 69
5.2.2 Expert interviews ........................................................................................... 70
5.2.3 Data validity................................................................................................... 71
5.3 FACTOR MAPPING GRID .......................................................................................... 72
5.3.1 Plastic reduction framework .......................................................................... 72
5.3.2 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 84
5.3.3 Factor mapping grid ...................................................................................... 86
5.4 SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 89
6 ADOPTING FACTOR MAPPING GRID ............................................................... 90
6.1 REFINING THE SCOPE OF THIS RESEARCH ................................................................ 91
6.2.1 Data collection ............................................................................................... 94
6.2.2 Data analysis ................................................................................................. 97
6.2.3 Data validity................................................................................................. 101
6.3 RESEARCH RESULTS ............................................................................................. 101
6.3.1 Brand owners ............................................................................................... 105
6.3.2 Packaging companies .................................................................................. 118
6.3.3 Consultancies ............................................................................................... 124
6.4 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 127
7 FORMALIZATION OF LEARNING.................................................................... 129
7.1 REFINE THE SCOPE OF THIS RESEARCH .................................................................. 130
7.2 CRITICAL THEMES ................................................................................................ 130
7.2.1 Collaboration ............................................................................................... 132
7.2.2 Design and alternative ................................................................................. 135
7.2.3 Cost .............................................................................................................. 136
7.2.4 Consumers .................................................................................................... 138
7.2.5 Recycling ...................................................................................................... 140
7.2.6 Governance .................................................................................................. 142
7.2.7 Summary....................................................................................................... 143
7.3 SEQUENCE ............................................................................................................ 143
7.4 REFINED PLASTIC REDUCTION FRAMEWORK ......................................................... 148
7.5 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 149
7.6 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 152
8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................... 154
8.1 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE ........................................................................... 156
8.1.1 Core contributions ....................................................................................... 156
8.1.2 Primary research contributions ................................................................... 157
8.1.3 Secondary research contributions ............................................................... 158
8.2 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH .................................................................. 158
8.3 IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE WORK ....................................................................... 159
9 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 163
10 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 195
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1 BIODEGRADABILITY OF SELECTED PLANT-BASED POLYMERS IN DIFFERENT

ENVIRONMENTS........................................................................................................ 20
TABLE 2.2 INSTRUMENTS ADOPTED TO IMPROVE THE PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT

(XEVGENOS ET AL., 2015) ........................................................................................ 22
TABLE 2.3 METHODS CONSIDER A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT PACKAGING COMPONENTS ... 23
TABLE 2.4 SELECTED ARTICLES ON THE ASSESSMENT OF CONSUMER ASPECTS AND

SUSTAINABLE BEHAVIORS RELATED TO PACKAGING ................................................ 28
TABLE 3.1 A LIST OF VARIOUS PHILOSOPHICAL PARADIGM NAMES (HOLDEN AND LYNCH,
2006) ....................................................................................................................... 37
TABLE 3.2 RESEARCH STAGES OF THIS STUDY ................................................................. 45
TABLE 4.1 INTERVIEWEES IN THIS STUDY......................................................................... 50
TABLE 5.1 INTERVIEWEES IN THIS RESEARCH................................................................... 70
TABLE 5.2 PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK FOR THE REDUCTION OF PLASTIC USAGE IN

PACKAGING IN FMCG SECTOR ................................................................................. 74
TABLE 5.3 MODELS FOR SETTING SUSTAINABLE GOALS AND PROGRAMMES (LANDRUM,
2017) ....................................................................................................................... 75
TABLE 5.4 OVERVIEW OF COMMUNICATION METHODS AND TOOLS .................................. 78
TABLE 5.5 PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK OF FACTORS INFLUENCING THE REDUCTION OF

PLASTIC USAGE IN PACKAGING IN FMCG SECTOR .................................................... 84
TABLE 6.1 INTERVIEWEES INVOLVED IN EXPERTS’ INTERVIEWS....................................... 93
TABLE 6.2 ENABLER AND BARRIERS TO PLASTICS PACKAGING ELIMINATION*E=ENABLER;

B=BARRIER ............................................................................................................ 102

B=BARRIER ............................................................................................................ 105
TABLE 6.4 CONNECTEDNESS GROUPS OF ENABLER AND BARRIERS TO PLASTICS

PACKAGING ELIMINATION. ..................................................................................... 112
B=BARRIER............................................................................................................. 118
TABLE 6.6 CONNECTEDNESS GROUPS OF ENABLER AND BARRIERS TO PLASTICS

PACKAGING ELIMINATION ...................................................................................... 123

B=BARRIER............................................................................................................. 124
TABLE 7.1 RESEARCH STAGES........................................................................................ 130
TABLE 7.2 SUMMARY OF THEMES INFLUENCING PLASTIC REDUCTION/ELIMINATION IN

FIRMS ..................................................................................................................... 152
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1 THE FOUR DIMENSIONS OF A DEFINITION OF SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING

(SONNEVELD ET AL., 2005) ......................................................................................... 2
FIGURE 1.2 CUMULATIVE PLASTIC WASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL (GEYER, JAMBECK
AND LAW, 2017) NOTE SOLID LINES SHOW HISTORICAL DATA FROM 1950 TO 2015;
DASHED LINES SHOW PROJECTIONS OF HISTORICAL TRENDS TO 2050. ............................ 5
FIGURE 1.3 THESIS STRUCTURE.......................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 2.1 THESIS STRUCTURE........................................................................................ 10
FIGURE 2.2 LINEAR, CLOSED LOOP AND CIRCULAR SUPPLY CHAINS (FAROOQUE ET AL.,
2019) ....................................................................................................................... 13
FIGURE 2.3 CIRCULAR PACKAGING SUPPLY CHAIN ........................................................... 14
FIGURE 2.4 DISTRIBUTION OF ARTICLES PER YEAR........................................................... 18
FIGURE 2.5 GOVERNANCE FOR PLASTICS IN MARINE, LAND AND CHEMICALS (TESSNOW-
VON WYSOCKI AND LE BILLON, 2019) .................................................................... 27
FIGURE 3.2 MIXED METHODS ACTION RESEARCH FRAMEWORK. SOLID ARROWS INDICATE
THE SEQUENCE OF THE PHASES IN THE ACTION PROCESS, WHILE DASHED ARROWS
SHOW OTHER POSSIBLE ITERATIONS OF THE RESEARCH ACTIVITIES WITHIN AN ACTION
RESEARCH CYCLE. *MM=MIXED METHODS ............................................................ 41
FIGURE 3.3 DESIGN RESEARCH METHODOLOGY (BLESSING AND CHAKRABARTI, 2009A)

THE BOLD ARROWS BETWEEN THE STAGES ILLUSTRATE THE MAIN PROCESS FLOW, THE
LIGHT ARROWS THE MANY ITERATIONS ........................................................................ 42
FIGURE 4.2 CIRCULAR PACKAGING SUPPLY CHAIN ........................................................... 64
FIGURE 5.2 FMCG SUSTAINABLE DESIGN FACTORS FRAMEWORK.................................. 73
FIGURE 5.3 FACTOR MAPPING GRID ................................................................................ 87

FIGURE 5.4 FACTORS........................................................................................................ 88
FIGURE 5.5 STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................. 89
FIGURE 6.1 THESIS STRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 90
FIGURE 6.2 AN EXAMPLE OF THE FINISHED GRID .............................................................. 96
FIGURE 6.3 AN EXAMPLE OF THE DIGITAL VERSION OF THE GRID ..................................... 98
FIGURE 6.4 AN EXAMPLE OF THE DIGITAL VERSION AFTER 3RD ROUND OF CODING ......... 99
FIGURE 6.5 AN EXAMPLE OF THE DIGITAL VERSION AFTER ORGANIZING FACTORS BY

THEMES .................................................................................................................. 100
FIGURE 6.6 CONNECTEDNESS OF FACTORS IN FMCG COMPANIES’ PLASTIC REDUCTION

PRACTICES *E=ENABLER; B=BARRIER .................................................................... 110
FIGURE 6.7 CONNECTEDNESS OF FACTORS IN PACKAGING COMPANIES’ PLASTIC

REDUCTION PRACTICES *E=ENABLER; B=BARRIER ................................................. 122
FIGURE 6.8 CONNECTEDNESS OF FACTORS IN PACKAGING COMPANIES’ PLASTIC

REDUCTION PRACTICES *E=ENABLER; B=BARRIER ................................................. 127
FIGURE 7.1 THESIS STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 129
FIGURE 7.2 SEQUENCES OF COMPANY 2, 3 AND 6. THE THEMES ITEMISED AT THE HEAD OF
THE FIGURE CORRESPOND TO THOSE USED IN CHAPTER 6 AND EXPLAINED IN 3.1.2 IN
CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................. 144
FIGURE 7.3 SEQUENCES OF COMPANY 4A, 4B, 8 AND 12. THE THEMES ITEMISED AT THE
HEAD OF THE FIGURE CORRESPOND TO THOSE USED IN CHAPTER 6 AND EXPLAINED IN
3.1.2 IN CHAPTER 6................................................................................................. 146
FIGURE 7.4 SEQUENCES OF COMPANY 4C, 5, 7 AND 9. THE THEMES ITEMISED AT THE HEAD
OF THE FIGURE CORRESPOND TO THOSE USED IN CHAPTER 6 AND EXPLAINED IN 3.1.2
IN CHAPTER 6 ......................................................................................................... 147
FIGURE 7.5 FRAMEWORK OF FACTORS INFLUENCING THE REDUCTION OF PLASTIC USAGE IN

PACKAGING IN FMCG SECTOR. NOTE THEMES WE DID NOT DISCUSS IN THIS CHAPTER
ARE GREYED OUT ................................................................................................... 149
FIGURE 8.1 THESIS STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 155

FIGURE 8.2 FRAMEWORK OF FACTORS INFLUENCING THE REDUCTION OF PLASTIC USAGE IN
PACKAGING IN FMCG SECTOR ............................................................................... 157
FIGURE 10.1 GRID OF COMPANY 1 ................................................................................. 201
FIGURE 10.3 GRID OF COMPANY .................................................................................... 202
FIGURE 10.4 GRID OF COMPANY 4 C4A ......................................................................... 202
FIGURE 10.5 GRID OF COMPANY 4 C4B ......................................................................... 203
FIGURE 10.6 GRID OF COMPANY 4 C4C ......................................................................... 203
FIGURE 10.10 GRID OF COMPANY 8 ............................................................................... 205
FIGURE 10.11 GRID OF COMPANY 9 ............................................................................... 206
FIGURE 10.12 GRID OF COMPANY 10 ............................................................................. 206

LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .............................................................................. 196
APPENDIX B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .............................................................................. 198
APPENDIX C INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .............................................................................. 199
APPENDIX D GRIDS ........................................................................................................ 201

Chapter 1: Understanding plastic packaging challenges in sustainable packaging
1 UNDERSTANDING PLASTIC
PACKAGING CHALLENGES IN
SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING
This chapter presents the context of plastic packaging in the field of sustainable
packaging before it illustrates the problem plastic packaging creates. The problem
points to the objective of this research. This chapter lays a foundation for chapter 2
where I explain the knowledge gaps and the research questions. This chapter concludes
with an overview of the thesis structure.
1.1 The context

Packaging fulfils essential functions to protect food from detrimental physical, chemical
and biological influences in the distribution process along the supply chain. It also acts
as a media to promote the product it contains and inform consumers about the product’s
content, shelf life and storage conditions. In addition, by preventing the product it
contains from leakages, spillage, friction of loose materials and mixing of different
1
products packaging also contributes to sustainability. Since the term ‘sustainability’ first
officially appeared in the Brundtland Report by the United Nation, different
organizations, scholars, policy makers and NGOs defined and adopted this term in
various fields. Sonneveld et al. (2005) first discussed the sustainability nature of
packaging and defined the role sustainable packaging plays in different dimensions, i.e.
society, packaging systems, packaging materials and packaging itself (see Figure 1.1),
and the circulation and security it underpins. With the development in environmental
research, sustainability has become one of the integral parts of packaging industry. In
2006 Wal Mart – one of the largest multinational retail corporations proposed the 7 R’s
of sustainable packaging i.e. Remove, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Renew, Revenue, and
Read. Other FMCG corporations such as Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, P&G, Unilever and
Tesco also defined sustainability and sustainable packaging with their own indicators
and principles. These definition gives the researcher a holistic picture of what should be
involved in sustainable packaging research.
Figure 1.1 The four dimensions of a definition of sustainable packaging (Sonneveld

et al., 2005)
The sustainable packaging challenge is particularly evident with plastic packaging due
to its visible environmental pollution in soils, waterways and eventually in oceans as
one major source of marine litter (Worm et al., 2017). In recent decades, due to
increasing environmental consciousness, plastic packaging in particular, has received
considerable attention at different levels (Ma, Aranda-Jan and Moultrie, 2019). Firstly,
governments have launched standards and regulations to regulate packaging
2
sustainability. More than 60 countries have introduced bans and levies to curb single-
use plastic packaging waste (Das and Prasad, 2014; Raynaud, 2014). To specifically
address plastic packaging issues, in July 2019, UK Department for Business, Energy &
Industrial Strategy and Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs launched a
call for evidence on standards for bio-based and biodegradable plastics with the aim to
understand the environment impact for these plastic alternatives. Secondly,
professionals from academia as well as industry have tried to understand how they
could work on plastic packaging issue and handle the pressure from the market and
legislation. The New Plastics Economy Global Commitment movement, initiated by the
United Nations and Ellen MacArthur Foundation has been signed by 250 organizations
including major FMCG companies, governments and packaging manufacturers, which
aims to eliminate plastic waste and pollution at its source (Calleja, 2019). Finally,
consumers have increasingly taken the sustainability of products into consideration
while purchasing (Magnier and Schoormans, 2015). Prata et al.'s (2019) study showed
that public concern about plastic and packaging has increased gradually in the past 15
years and peaked with the release of relevant articles or videos on social media. This is
resulted in great awareness of environmental issues and the desire to seek solutions by
the general public.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s report ‘Rethinking the future of plastics’ in 2016

identifies sectors that need to take action immediately in order to reduce plastic waste
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016). Specifically, cutting the use of plastic packaging
by FMCG sector is identified as a very significant driver of reducing plastics. If we are
to see a just transition to a zero-plastic future, FMCG sector will be a significant player.
To reduce plastic usage FMCG companies need to commit to for example reducing
virgin plastic usage, increasing recycled material, sustainable sourcing, weight
reduction, packaging redesign etc.. Such commitments require a good understanding of
plastic packaging practices in current supply chain and a direction to make a strong
business case for sustainable packaging.
In this context, this research seeks to understand the plastic packaging practices within
the FMCG sector and provide guidance for practitioners in this sector to facilitate the
trajectory towards a zero-plastic future.
3
1.2 Plastic packaging problem
Plastic has been applied widely because of its exceptional functional properties such as
being lightweight, strong, durable, corrosion-resistant, and having high thermal,
electrical insulation benefits and low cost. Because of its diversity and versatility, the
usage of plastic has increased twentyfold since the last century (Thompson et al., 2009),
reaching 311 million tonnes in 2014, and is estimated to double again by 2035 and
might even quadruple by 2050 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016). According to the
research conducted by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 2018,
plastic packaging has accounted for 50% of total plastic waste globally. According to
Plastic Europe, packaging from FMCG sector is the largest application sector for the
plastic industry and represents 39.6% of the total plastics demand (Plastics Europe,
2017).
Plastic consumption results in a significant amount of plastic waste. In Europe alone

25.8 million tonnes of plastic waste was generated in 2019, of which less than 30% was
recycled (Meys et al., 2020a). There are mainly three ways of plastic disposal:
landfilling, incineration and recycling. Most plastics are landfilled after the
consumption phase. Geyer, Jambeck and Law (2017) assumed consistent use patterns
and projected current global waste management trends to 2050 (Figure 1.2). They
predicted in 2050, 9000 million metric tonnes of plastics will have been recycled,
12,000 million metric tonnes incinerated, and 12,000 million metric tonnes put in
landfills or the natural environment.
4
Figure 1.2 Cumulative plastic waste generation and disposal (Geyer, Jambeck and
Law, 2017) Note solid lines show historical data from 1950 to 2015; dashed lines
show projections of historical trends to 2050.
Given the impact of plastic packaging on the eco-system, it is imperative to explore

possible ways to tackle plastic packaging waste. FMCG sector as a major contributor to
plastic waste therefore face a challenge that is both extremely urgent and presents a
global threat. However there seems to be an underperformance in sustainable packaging
implementation in the FMCG sector, especially evident in plastic packaging (Ma and
Moultrie, 2017). The lack of understanding to assist the implementation of sustainable
packaging prevents FMCG sector from unlocking its sustainability potential.
A recent literature review by Meherishi, Narayana and Ranjani (2019) revealed that
research on sustainable packaging is very fragmented and the role of packaging as a
sustainable practise to work towards sustainability remains unclear. There is research in
different areas such as alternative materials, new packaging technologies, marine
littering, regulations and policy, consumer purchasing decisions and behaviours.
However, because of some disadvantages due to alternative materials’ properties, new
technologies’ productivities, manufacturing cost, and lack of clarity for policy makers
5
and consumers concerning the environment impact of these alternatives and new
technologies, it is still taking time to mitigate current plastic pollution problems.
Furthermore, tools are used to calculate eco-costs. Many studies, using various methods,
have tried to ascertain the extent to which plastic packaging should be recycled into new
products, or whether it rather should be incinerated or sent to landfill (Srinivasan and
Lu, 2014; Singh and Cooper, 2017; Resat and Unsal, 2019). However, scientific
consensus on this issue has yet to be reached, neither on the use of plastic packaging nor
on what method is the most appropriate for answering questions on recycling issues.
Sustainable packaging frameworks are used to clarify the distribution network and
quantify the economic returns and environmental impacts. The main focus of these tools
and frameworks has been on quantifying the environmental impact and comparing
different packaging concepts so that tool users could go for the packaging concepts that
make the best business sense (Geissdoerfer, Vladimirova and Evans, 2018; Joseph et
al., 2019). The main idea for research in this area is to calculate the environmental
impact and economic returns of certain materials and plastic packaging is often a small
part of the discussion. The key question, i.e. what hinders the plastic reduction in plastic
packaging practices, is not clearly discussed.
Plastic recycling is another area that attracted a significant amount of research. Milios et
al. (2018) discussed the barriers and opportunities in plastic recycling and found that the
reasons for low utilization of plastic waste include price considerations, traceability, and
general design deficiencies. The Thailand Pollution Control Department reported in
2016 that most plastic wastes do not have high potential to be recycled as 80% of plastic
wastes are contaminated, such as plastic bags and packaging, which are made from high
density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (PP) and low-density polyethylene
(LDPE). However, in this level, companies are not considered as the main body of
reducing the plastic waste. The plastic packaging reduction in waste management area
relies mainly on governments and the society, and rarely FMCG companies are
considered as a key stakeholder which can also contribute to the development of plastic
packaging recycling (Hopewell, Dvorak and Kosior, 2009; Mwanza and Mbohwa,
2017; Ragossnig and Schneider, 2017).
6
These challenges are also later backed by literature review in chapter 2, exploratory
study in chapter 4 and adopting factor mapping research in chapter 5 which confirm that
FMCG sector lacks understanding to assist the implementation of sustainable packaging
solutions. Also it is clear that there is an absence of method(s) from research that can
facilitate FMCG sector’s trajectory towards a zero-plastic future.
1.3 The objective of this research

As research on how to reduce plastic packaging waste continues to involve, there
remains significant potential for empirical research (Jia, Evans and Linden, 2019;
McNicholas and Cotton, 2019; Simms et al., 2020): although previous research has
explored mitigating the plastic issue from different angles such as alternative materials,
consumers, waste management, legislation and the environment, studies that look at
enablers and barriers to reduce plastic packaging are scarce. Based on above discussion,
the objective of this research is therefore to help understand what plastic packaging
sustainability considerations FMCG companies need to incorporate to transition
from high use of plastics in packaging to zero use of plastics in packaging?
This objective sits in the field of sustainable packaging, and with a focus on plastic
packaging. With this objective there are several possible fields of enquiry and I
conducted a literature review on plastic reduction before finalising the research
questions, which is presented in chapter 2.
1.4 Thesis structure

Thesis structure shows in Figure 1.3.
7
Figure 1.3 Thesis structure
I start with chapter 1 which introduces the background of this study, i.e. the context of
this research, the plastic packaging problem and the objective of this research. This
chapter serves to help the readers get an understanding of the context, the importance of
tackling this problem and the objective this research tries to achieve.
Chapter 2 situates the research in the context of the existing literature and identifies the
research gaps and research questions.
Chapter 3 describes the philosophical approach and design of this study. Researchers
see things in many different ways. How they see a problem will affect ways they
approach a problem. The point of this chapter is to help the readers appreciate my
philosophical stances and my approach to this problem so that they will understand my
findings depend on my philosophy and judge my research critically.
First three chapters deal with the background of this research, the focus of this research
and the approach to tackle this problem. Plastic packaging sits under the umbrella of
sustainable packaging. To better tackle the plastic packaging problem, it is vital to
8
understand how sustainable packaging decisions are made in the FMCG sector. This is
explained in chapter 4.
After getting a good understanding of the decision making in sustainable packaging in

the FMCG sector, I prepare to explore this further in the plastic reduction field. This
needs a tool to facilitate the gathering of the knowledge in the plastic reduction
practices. In chapter 5 I introduce the development of such tool which I call Factor
Mapping Grid.
Chapter 6 focuses on interviews conducted to understand the plastic reduction practice

in the FMCG companies by deploying the Factor Mapping Grid.
Chapter 7 synthesizes the research findings of all the research stages and chapter 8
concludes this study with the contributions, limitations and directions for future work.
9
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
We have seen in the last chapter the background of this research. Despite the multitude
of discussions and debates in academia and industry, global patterns of plastic
production, consumption and trade still remain dangerously unsustainable (Dauvergne,
2018). This chapter aims to understand the current status of plastic reduction research
on sustainable packaging in the FMCG sector and identify the knowledge gaps. It firstly
presents the status of sustainable packaging research in the FMCG sector through a
review of the available literature. The knowledge gaps are then identified, and the
research questions are specified.
10
Chapter 2: Literature review
2.1 Refining scope of research

As discussed in chapter 1, around 60% of plastics waste came from discarded packaging
mainly in the FMCG sector. When plastics are not recovered from recycling, they are
often associated with a symbol of environmental degradation provoked by industry
(Hage and Söderholm, 2008). Shifting the production value chain from linear flows
(‘take-make-use-dispose’) of plastic packaging to circular flows (‘take-make-use-
recover’) (Ken, 2017) is therefore critical for the sustainable development of society and
reputation of the FMCG industry. To tackle plastic issues in the FMCG sector, it is
necessary to adopt a holistic perspective which integrates different types of circular
flows along the supply chain to enable the recovery of plastics.
Deploying a Systematic Literature Review methodology, this chapter maps and

critically evaluates the existing efforts from FMCG sector in the area of plastic
packaging reduction and gauges the research gaps. In particular the objective of this
research is to report the major research work conducted in sustainable packaging and
plastic packaging reduction by analysing the thematic content of recent sustainable
packaging literature. The research methods are employed across themes and regional
contexts.
2.2 Stakeholder theory

As an emerging body of knowledge, the literature on plastic reduction is fragmented
and dispersed. To facilitate the literature review, the research identified and analysed the
stakeholders involved in this field based on stakeholder theory. The book Strategic
Management: A Stakeholder Approach defined stakeholders as individuals or groups
who can affect, or who are affected by, the activities of the firm (Freeman, 2010).
Stakeholder theory grew from corporate social responsibility which described in Social
Responsibilities of the Businessman as “business leaders are servants of society” and
that “management merely in the interests (narrowly defined) of stakeholders is not the
sole end of their duties” (Schnepp and Bowen, 1954). Ackoff (1974) tried to see
stakeholders from a system view and claimed that stakeholders must play participatory
roles in the solution of systemic problems. Donaldson and Preston (1995) developed
11
this further as normative aspects of stakeholder theory. They argued that firms should
be operated in order to serve interests of customers, employees, lenders, suppliers, and
neighbouring communities as well as stakeholders.
Stakeholder theory regulates the scope and definition of research involving stakeholders
in firms. Even if the definition is too broad and researchers need to apply the theory and
give it narrative interpretation case by case (Jones and Wicks, 1999). In the following
section stakeholder theory is employed to identify stakeholders in this research.
2.2.1 Stakeholders in plastic packaging reduction

Over the last 10 years, FMCG companies have pioneered a number of initiatives to
support recovery processes for packaging waste and implement packaging recycling as
part of their sustainability strategies. These have mainly been led by multinational
corporations such as Coca-Cola, Unilever, Tetra Pak and Wal Mart (Thom, 2018). Yet
plastic waste from FMCG sector is still a large problem as discussed in chapter 1.
These initiatives around plastic reduction are closely related to a number of concepts,
such as sustainable supply chains, green supply chains, environmental supply chains
and closed loop supply chains (Meherishi, Narayana and Ranjani, 2019). While these
concepts represent different degrees of integrating sustainable thinking into the
packaging supply chain and supporting circular flows of plastics along the supply chain,
most recent reviews focus on the supply chain as a whole (Guide and Van Wassenhove,
2006). Packaging, as a small part of the discussion, is rarely investigated (Wang et al.,
2016). Meanwhile, the extent of literature on plastic reduction in sustainable packaging
remains fragmented where some key principles of sustainable packaging are reflected at
a strategic level and others around supply chain functions such as design, procurement,
production and waste management.
Thus, it is important to discuss the term ‘plastic reduction’ and its relevant stakeholders
before we conduct the literature research. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation
(MacArthur, 2017) identified two types of circular industrial system: restorative and
regenerative. It defines restorative as “Ability of end of life products/materials to
become technical nutrients through repair, refurbishing, remanufacturing, and
recycling” and regenerative as “Ability of end of life products/materials to become
12
biological nutrients and become part of the biosphere as natural capital for reuse” (Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2016). Therefore, plastic reduction in this research implies the
aim to keep plastic materials or plastic alternatives at their highest utility and value at all
times in both biological and technical cycles.
Furthermore, in an ideal plastic reduction system zero plastic waste is generated. This is
also called the circular supply chain. Unlike the linear supply chain in which packaging
generated from multiple supply chain stages are often deposited in landfill or the closed
loop supply chain in which some of the packaging value are recovered through
remanufacturing, recycling and incineration (Toffel, 2004; Guide and Van Wassenhove,
2006; Moula, Sorvari and Oinas, 2017), a circular supply chain systematically restores
and regenerates packaging value in each stage through recycling, retaining, reusing,
repairing, remanufacturing, refurbishing, recovering etc. (Pan et al., 2015; Genovese et
al., 2017; Geissdoerfer, Vladimirova and Evans, 2018). Figure 2.2 illustrates these three
types of supply chain.
Figure 2.2 Linear, closed loop and circular supply chains (Farooque et al., 2019)
Integrating the circular supply chain concept in combination with the packaging supply
chain concept proposed by Verghese and Lewis (2007), resulted in the circular
packaging supply chain being developed (Error! Reference source not found.). Based o
n stakeholder theory stakeholders that are relevant to the waste reduction in the FMCG
companies include environment, raw material supplier, packaging manufacturer, brand
owner, distributor, retailer, consumer, local government and recycler. These
stakeholders influence the plastic reduction on the packaging supply chain. Based on
plastic reduction and its relevant concepts, the literature review on the circular
13
packaging supply chain is carried out in this chapter. In the section below, research
methods are explained.
Figure 2.3 Circular packaging supply chain
2.3 Literature review approach

This research adopted a Systematic Literature Review methodology (SLR). Tranfield,
Denyer and Smart (2003) outlined that SLR has been adopted widely in sustainable
supply chain management, sustainable design and circular economy studies (Badi and
Murtagh, 2019; Carl et al., 2019; Ülgen et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2019). This method is
used to uncover main themes or perspectives in sustainable packaging and plastic
packaging elimination filed rather than accumulate evidence for a particular finding.
The literature review consists of three steps. For the first step articles were sourced from
Scopus. Scopus provides a higher data quality compared to Google Scholar and a wider
data coverage compared to Web of Science. Mongeon and Paul-Hus (2016) found that
in general, the number of journals in the Web of Science not covered by Scopus is about
5%, and the number of Scopus articles not covered by the Web of Science is about 50%.
The following search terms were used, searching within English papers’ abstract,
keywords and titles (excluding irrelevant fields such as Chemistry, Agricultural and
Biological Science, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Physics and
Astronomy, Computer Science, Medicine, Mathematics, Pharmacology, Nursing,
Health Professions and Neuroscience):
• “plastic” AND “packaging” AND “sustainable” (453)
• “plastic” AND “packaging” AND “environment” (809)
• “plastic” AND “packaging” AND “eliminat*” (271)
• “plastic” AND “packaging” AND “reduc*” (1650)
14
This initial search returned an initial set of 2667 distinct articles. All articles published
until 2020 were considered.
Article titles were then scanned to remove any articles that were obviously in irrelevant
subject areas (e.g. chemistry, physical and astronomy, medicine, biochemistry, genetics
and molecular biology, computer science, pharmacology, toxicology and pharmaceutics,
immunology and microbiology, mathematics, earth and planetary, nursing, veterinary,
health professions and neuroscience etc.). This resulted in the removal of 1300 articles,
leaving 1367 for further analysis.
At this stage, the article abstracts were reviewed, resulting in the removal of a further
852 articles. Examples of the decision-making criteria for removing articles at this stage
are given below:
• Not focused on plastic packaging (e.g. articles containing key words such as
“plastic”, “packaging”, “elimination” and “reduction” but in fields such as
veterinary, military, chemistry, eduction, human resource management,
electronic systems, microelectronic, optical and communication engineering)
• Not focused on packaging (e.g. articles that were assessing tyres, toys, grid,
electronic components, footpath, manufacturing components, industrial by-
products, aircraft, construction, smart phones, argriculture, dairies, feedstock,
waster treatment, corrugator)
• Not focused on any stakeholders indentified in 2.2.1 (e.g. articles that are
irrelevant to environment, raw material supplier, packaging manufacturer, brand
owner, distributor, retailer, consumer, local government or recycler)
• Only focused on one specific recycling technical aspect of one plastic type (e.g.
articles that were assessing plastic recycling technolgies such as converting
certain type of plastic packaging waste to oil or other fuel or eliminating the
odor in certain type of plastic waste)
• Only focused on one specific technical aspect of one plastic type (e.g. articles
that were assessing mechanical properties, thermal and antimicrobial properties,
15
thickness, temperature, humidity on oxygen transmission, translucency, gas
barrier of certain polymer, resin or cellulose)
This results in a list of 515 articles. Non-peer reviewed publications were also studied
from sources such as consultancies, NGOs and governments reports. The snowballing
technique was also adopted to identify additional literature (including conference
papers, journal articles, book chapters and grey literatures). This results in 587 articles.
To minimize subjectivity, the results were cross checked with the supervisor and regular
meetings were conducted to resolve any emerging inconsistencies in interpreting the
results and to clarify ambiguities.
The first step in then reviewing existing literature was to categorise each paper, relating
to the primary ‘focus’ of the paper. This results in (note because of the interdisciplinary
nature of this topic one paper can fall in multiple categories):
• Articles focused on alternative materials to plastic for packaging (200)
• Articles focused on social aspects including consumer behaviour as a means to

reduce plastics in packaging (126)
• Articles focused on waste management and recycling technologies (117)
• Articles focused on legislation and policy responses to reducing plastics in

packaging (53)
• Articles focused on the impact on the environment (42)
• Articles focused on one packaging component such as packaging design to

reduce plastic usage in packaging (37)
• Articles focused on how brandowners can reduce plastics in packaging (21)
Articles were spread across 295 journals, conference proceedings, books and reports, of
which only 16 journals included more than three articles. As anticipated, among the
leading journals in the field, the Journal of Cleaner Production in the emerging field of
plastic reduction research heads the list. Articles are dispersed across journals in other
domains such as Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Waste Management and
16
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment which may indicate that these journals
are addressing very specific operations and technology issues in plastic reduction.
Journals, proceedings, books and reports had an editorial slant towards four general
categories: the technical aspects (alternative materials, waste management and recycling
technologies, packaging components), the human aspects (social aspects, legislation and
policy), the environment, and the companies (brand owners). This classification forms
the basis for the rest of this chapter.
2.4 Findings
The majority of the literature reviewed (200 articles) try to reduce the plastic packaging
usage through developing alternative materials such as Polyethylene terephthalate
(PET), High-density polyethylene (HDPE), Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), Oriented
Polystyrene (OPS) or other bio-based plastics. This followed by research on consumer
attitude and behaviour towards plastic packaging (126 articles) as well as plastic
recycling technologies (117 articles) such as plastic to oil, chemical safety of recycled
food packaging, plastic sorting technology, plastic heat melt compacting and plastic
incineration. In the following subsections, the results are analysed by categories set out
above, i.e. the technical aspects (alternative materials, waste management and recycling
technologies, packaging components), the human aspects (social aspects, legislation and
policy), the environment, and the companies (brand owners). Note these categories are
corelated and not mutually exclusive. They are organized by headings for the
convenience of the analysis.
2.4.1 Sample characteristics

The distribution of articles by the year of publication are presented in Figure 2.4. The
discussion of plastic reduction started in 1969 and continued at a flat rate until 1993,
and have been increasing with some fluctuations afterwards. It is interesting that in
2016 when this PhD project started this is a subject with modest attention and with the
progress of the PhD project this area has received increasing attention. There has been a
drastic increase of articles on this topic since 2018, which indicates a growing research
interest in this field, further supporting the need for our research.
17
120
100 Sum of Papers focused on how

brandowners can reduce plastics in
packaging
Sum of Papers focused on social aspects

80 including consumer behaviour as a means
to reduce plastics in packaging
Sum of Papers focused on legislation and

policy responses to reducing plastics in
60 packaging
Sum of Papers focused on waste
management and recycling technologies
40
Sum of Papers focused on one packaging
component such as packaging design to
reduce plastic in packaging
20 Sum of Papers focused on alternative
materials to plastic for packaging
0
1969
1974
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
2010
2013
2016
2019
Figure 2.4 Distribution of articles per year
Before 1993 the discussion was mainly focused on the technical aspects (22 out of 28
articles) of plastics such as waste management, plastic technologies and components of
plastic packaging including creating barriers for food packaging and designing the
appropriate size of plastic packaging for transportation. Articles that were most cited by
other research were focused on technical aspects of plastics such as the impact to the
environment including biodegradability (Monk, 1972), characteristic properties
multilayer plastic packaging (Schrenk, 1974), plastic waste formation and transfer in
solid waste (Ilgenfritz, 1975) and plastic waste degradation in natural environment
(Mayer, 1990).
1993 is a turning point for research in this field. After 1993 more and more researchers
started thinking about the human aspects of plastics, i.e. the legislation responses to
plastic waste as well as plastic’s social impact (McCarthy, 1993; Van Keuren, 1993). In
2020 the number of research on human aspects took over the number of research on
technical aspects in this field and become the category that was researched on the most.
Although the technical aspects are still in the centre of discussions in this field until the
end of 2020 (382 out of 587 articles), more and more studies have valued the
18
importance of helping companies to reduce materials usage in packaging. Researchers

tried to look at companies’ packaging design and development from eco-efficiency,
branding, innovation, consumer convenience etc. to see if it’s possible for companies to
reduce material usage (Humbert et al., 2009; N. Espinoza-Orias, Stichnothe and
Azapagic, 2011; Ravi, 2015; Oliveira and Magrini, 2017a; Bhaskar B. Gardas, Raut and
Narkhede, 2019).
Studies have emerged from China, India, Japan, Thailand and Malaysia after 2017.
Before 2017 these developing countries took plastic packaging wastes shipped from
developed countries such as US and European countries. However, this practice of
shifting the burden of plastic waste and disposal to developing countries has been
curbed by the plastic waste import ban released by the State Council of China 2017.
This showcases a shift in focus on research in plastic reduction in these developing
regions.
2.4.2 Articles focused on technical aspects of plastic packaging

The alternative materials to plastics for packaging along with plastic material recycling
and waste management methods has been to date the primary research field. These
articles depict the major trend of research efforts in the field of plastic technologies over
the period of study. This includes the development of bio-based plastics, recycling and
waste management technology and packaging components redesign.
Different materials such as glass and aluminium have been compared with plastics to
find a good alternative to fossil-resourced plastics. Among these materials, bio-based
plastics have recorded a significant increase over the years. Bioplastics play an integral
part in replacing fossil resources-based plastics with renewable materials. This includes
plant-based materials such as cellulose, starch, wood, cotton, flax, hemp, seaweed etc.
which are primary adopted for food packaging. There are a large number of scientific
approaches to develop bioplastics to meet performance and durability requirements of
packaging and many reviews in this area, to which a few reviews such as (Narayan,
2007; Katarzyna Leja and Lewandowicz, 2010; Delidovich et al., 2016; Galbis et al.,
2016; Zhu, Romain and Williams, 2016) can be suggested. These substitutions of fossil
plastics try to offer compatible functionalities but their barrier properties and economic
19
competitiveness are often limited. This remains an ultimate technical challenge in this
field. In addition, not all bioplastics are biodegradable (see Table 2.1). Examples
include polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
which are all sourced from plant and not biodegradable. There are research also
focusing on nanotechnologies to improve the functionality and degradability of
bioplastics such as nanocellulose, nanoclay composites and layer-by-layer (Lbl)
technologies together with polyelectrolyte complexes (Sarfraz et al., 2021). However,
nanotechnologies have issues in toxicity, legislation and consumer acceptance and have
not yet been widely deployed.
Table 2.1 Biodegradability of selected plant-based polymers in different

environments
Material Compost Soil Marine References
Kraft paper Y Y Y (Shen, Fatehi and

Ni, 2014)
Cellulose acetate Y Y Y (Nelson et al., 2016)
Corn starch Y Y Y (Balasubramanian

and Raiyani, 2014)
PLA Y N N (Zhu, Romain and

Williams, 2016)
PHA Y Y Y (Barron and Sparks,

2020)
PBS Y N N (Mondal et al.,

2019)
PBAT Y Y N/A (Saibuatrong,

Cheroennet and
Suwanmanee,
2017)
PE N N N (Auras, Singh and

Singh, 2005;
PP N N N
Mohanty et al.,
PET N N N 2005; K. Leja and
PS N N N Lewandowicz,
2010; Johansson et
20
al., 2012; Rabnawaz

et al., 2017)
Due to the challenges presented above, scholars recently realize that the development of
bioplastics cannot been seen as an instant solution for the current plastic pollution
problems. Instead of focusing on specific technical aspects, many scholars demand
circular economy approaches to address plastic pollution problems (Hong and Chen,
2017; Geueke, Groh and Muncke, 2018; Briassoulis, Pikasi and Hiskakis, 2019;
Shogren et al., 2019) as it is challenging to replace fossil resources-based plastics with
renewable materials because of issues in functionality, economic return, consumer
perception, recyclability and degradability. It is clear that an approach addressing the
supply chain as a whole and promoting circularity in the entire value chain is needed.
Apart from finding alternative materials, the end-of-life management of plastics has
been another major research focus. It is widely recognized that the best practice to
reduce plastic packaging is to design plastic packaging that enables reusing, repairing or
remanufacturing before it enters the waste streams. FMCG companies are the best
stakeholder to address this as they can tackle the plastic waste problem at the early
stage. Once plastics enter the recycling process, the common methods of plastic end-of-
life management are mainly landfilling, incineration, composting, mechanical recycling
and chemical recycling. The majority of plastics goes to landfill (40%) or incineration
(25%) while another 22% is mismanaged dumps (Degnan and Shinde, 2019). The
recycling performance of plastics varies considerably in different regions due to
different policy objectives and waste management methods set by different geographic
levels (Dahlén et al., 2007; Shekdar, 2009; Xevgenos et al., 2015; Dahlbo et al., 2018).
Table 2.2 summarizes different instruments adopted to improve the plastic waste
management. After evaluating 19 cases, Xevgenos et al. (2015) found that the
implementation of kerbside waste collection schemes, the provision of economic
incentives as well as the use of legal instruments were the most effective factors in
influencing waste management performance. These researches are more of a focus on
regional level systems for end-of-life management of plastics, rather than the decisions
to which these can be applied on a company level.
21
Table 2.2 Instruments adopted to improve the plastic waste management
(Xevgenos et al., 2015)
Instruments Examples Reference
Technical Waste separation at source; Collection services; (Wollny et al., 2001; Jung, Matsuto
instruments Treatment methods and Tanaka, 2006; Dahlén et al.,
2007)
Economic Extended Producer Responsibility; Deposit-refund; (Wang, 2014; Martinho, Balaia and
instruments Landfill/incineration tax and tradable permit Pires, 2017; Kunz, Mayers and Van
schemes Wassenhove, 2018; Friedrich,
2020)
Regulatory Landfill/incineration bans and restrictions; Bans on (Li and Zhao, 2017; Nwafor and
instruments products with low or no recyclability; Mandatory Walker, 2020; Wagner, 2020)
separation of non-packaging waste
Communicative Raising awareness and participation rate (Panainte et al., 2014)

instruments
Strategies Zero Waste strategy/plan; Quantified targets for (Shekdar, 2009)

waste diversion rates (incl. zero waste targets);
Waste prevention and re-use activities
Although there is a wide range of technologies for plastic waste pre-treatment and
sorting, in reality mechanical recycling and incineration remain the main way of plastic
recycling (Nishida, 2011). This unsustainable way of plastic recycling has been
criticized for its low efficiency and unsustainable uses of plastics (Shekdar, 2009;
Briassoulis, Pikasi and Hiskakis, 2019; Meys et al., 2020a). The sorting technologies
range from manual dismantling and picking to automated processes including
shredding, sieving, air or liquid density separation, magnetic separation and highly
sophisticated spectrophotometric sorting technologies such as UV/visible spectroscopy
(VIS), near infrared (NIR), laser etc. (Perugini, Mastellone and Arena, 2005; Hopewell,
Dvorak and Kosior, 2009). Despite the various technologies developed, it is often times
still challenging to separate plastic debris and to sort plastics from each other. In such
cases plastic waste goes to feedstock or chemical recycling or the energy recovery to
substitute conventional fuels.
22
Responding to the above need of reducing plastic usage from production various
methods have been adopted to change the packaging material usage. This includes
considering a number of important packaging components in relation to plastic
reduction, such as product quality and freshness conservation, chemical safety, trade-
offs, thinning plastic packaging wall, bio-based plastics and their environmental impacts
(summarized in Table 2.3). These methods include both changing the design of the
packaging, changing the packaging system and promoting standardisation in packaging
industry. However sustainable packaging design needs to find a balance between a
product and its packaging to avoid counterintuitive effects and achieve real
sustainability. For example, Silvenius et al. (2011) conducted LCA for food packaging
and found that the carbon footprint of the packaging of a rye bread and cold nuts
product studied constituted 1-3% share of the carbon footprint of the whole product-
packaging combination. Other studies reached a similar conclusion: the environmental
impacts of the packaging are small when they are compared with the environmental
impacts of the packed products (Büsser and Jungbluth, 2009; Silvenius et al., 2011;
Grönman, Soukka, Järvi-Kääriäinen, J.-M. Katajajuuri, et al., 2013). The environmental
impacts of the damage caused by the products themselves are greater than that of the
production of the packaging.
Table 2.3 Methods consider a number of important packaging components
Category Method Description Reference
Packaging Dimension Reducing the material used and, consequently, the (Cole, 2003;
design changes quantity of waste generated; Facilitating the R. Lewis et
improvement of the product’s volumetric and al., 2007)
subsequent logistical efficiency; Making the packaging
and packing processes more productive; Reducing
deterioration and ensuring the packaging sufficiently
protects the product.
Aesthetic A suitable design in terms of text, colour, iconography, (Hunter,

changes material or shape can simplify the purchasing and 2007)
recycling costs of packaging. It can also promote sales
23
and consumption by communicating the attributes, and
the product’s tangible and intangible features.
Material Simplifying the number of materials used (allowing for (Boyle,

changes economies of scale), cheaper materials, or the use of 2007)
more easily recyclable or recoverable materials.
Packaging Reducing the consumption of materials and the (Johnson,

capacity generation of packaging waste. For example family or 2009)
changes economy size formats generally present a better
logistical and environmental option.
Packaging Pack process For example, switching from a manual to an automatic (García-
production changes process (or vice versa) can contribute to lowering Arca and
production costs, as well as decreasing product Prado,
rejection/deterioration, and resource consumption. 2008)
Obviously, the introduction of new materials can also
mean changes in the production process with associated
costs and rejections.
Packaging Different levels Redesigning the relationship between primary, (Hellström

logistics of packaging secondary and tertiary packaging can contribute to and Nilsson,
changes improving logistic performance (handling, storage and 2011)
transport), by rationalising the consumption of materials
and waste generation.
Retailing Shelf Ready Consisting of a group of primary packages in secondary (Boyle,

Packaging or tertiary packaging that is ready for exhibition at the 2007)
point of sale, facilitating consumer purchasing. It also
facilitates the reduction of material costs, waste
generation and logistical costs, particularly those
associated with handling and product location at the
point of sale.
Recycling Returnable Returnable The use of returnable packaging instead of (Sustainable

packaging single-use packaging can facilitate the reduction of Packaging
overall logistics costs, including the reduction of Coalition,
purchase costs, resources consumption and waste 2016)
generation.
24
Regulation Materials Standardising the material types and characteristics in (Kye, Lee
Standardisation the packaging, facilitates procurement and supplying and Lee,
tasks for the packaging manufacturer, and contributes to 2013)
obtaining economies of scale.
Dimensional Simplifying the procurement process for packing (H. Lewis et

Standardisation companies, providing economies of scale when al., 2007)
purchasing. It also benefits productivity by reducing set-
up times in packing equipment.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a main method was used to identify the environmental
hotspots related to the life cycle of a given packaging system. LCA is especially
commonly used by companies in their environmental decision making to reduce plastic
packaging and find alternatives to plastics. The one of the early studies concerning the
application of LCA on FMCG packaging was developed by Zabaniotou and Kassidi
(2003). They compared the use of polystyrene (PS) and recycled paper in the production
of six-egg packages and conclude that the paper eggcups have less environmental
impact than the polystyrene ones. Kliaugaite et al. (2018) studied PET and LDPE
packaging and concluded that the environmental impact could be reduced by 36% (from
35 to 22 kg CO2 eq./f.u.) by decreasing the plastic film thickness as well as by reducing
the package size by 10%. Benavides et al. (2018) researched bio-derived and fossil fuel-
derived PET bottles and found bio-derived and recycled PET bottles offer both Green
House Gas (GHG) emissions and fossil fuel consumption reductions ranging from 12%
to 82% and 13% to 56% respectively, on a cradle-to-grave basis compared to fossil fuel-
derived PET bottles assuming PET bottles are landfilled. The LCA also was adopted in
comparing waste management efficiency of different materials such as aluminium,
recycling PP and PET and bio-based plastics. But they all present different challenges
as we discussed in 2.4.2. LCA evaluates the packaging or the packaging system over the
entire life cycle and allows the trade-offs associated with each option to be assessed.
However, it does not cover issues of the non-environmental factors of plastic reduction
such as design and supply chain management. In this regard, it was only possible to
observe that the contribution due to packaging phase, in terms of environmental impact,
can be reduced by adopting solutions oriented towards materials use and energy
consumption optimization.
25
From reviewing the literature in the technical aspects of plastic reduction we can
conclude that technologies are helpful in terms of mitigating current plastic problems
however purely relying on technologies is insufficient for current plastic pollution
problems. These approaches all seek to address plastic pollution problems in a
quantitative/resources intensive way and in the niche area they choose to focus. None of
the existing literature try to help the FMCG companies gain a holistic overview of the
plastic pollution problem from a design or a supply chain perspective.
2.4.3 Articles focused on human aspects of plastic packaging

There is a significant focus of scholarship showing that plastic waste is damaging the
planet we live on. This attracts attention from different parties. Following the research
on technologies, the research on social aspects and legislation ranked as the second
most studied area in this field. Reports on social media, including the documentary Blue
Planet produced by BBC, the recent article The known unknown of plastic pollution on
Economist and academic publications (Brooks, Wang and Jambeck, 2018a; Chiba et al.,
2018; Groh et al., 2019) have acted as a major catalyst of public concerns. Prata et al.
(2019) studied the trend concerning use of microplastics and microbeads. The research
showed that public attention has increased gradually in the past 15 years and peaked
with the release of relevant articles or videos on social media. This is resulted in a great
awareness of environmental issues and a desire to seek solutions by the public.
Governments as we discussed in 2.4.2 designed and implemented various intervention

options to reduce the plastic usage and pollution. Policy makers have passed laws to
tackle this issue, which affects packaging designers, manufacturers (packer/fillers),
distributors, retailers and consumers. For example, in 2002 Bangladesh became the first
country to ban plastic packaging followed by Mauritania, Morocco, Rwanda and Kenya
(Afroz et al., 2017). France banned plastic bags with a thickness under 50 microns
(Prata et al., 2019). In the United States, there are more than 130 regulations both at a
city level as well as a national level governing plastic packaging (Wijen et al., 2012).
Tessnow-von Wysocki and Le Billon (2019) summarized plastic governance efforts in
the past decades (Figure 2.5). It is clear that plastic related governance emerged firstly
in connection with the marine environment, followed by the land environment and
26
chemicals in production. The governance can be understood broadly as the steering of

practices by private and public authorities, including international institutions, state
legislation, nongovernmental standards, corporate codes of conduct, and societal norms
of right and wrong. Despite efforts made by private and public authorities around the
world, governance in plastic waste remains substantially uneven across jurisdictions in
waste management, regulations and producer responsibility. Plastic pollution as a
mounting global environmental crisis shows no signs of abetment. Dauvergne (2018)
studied the literature and concludes that the failure of ocean governance is due to the
fragmentation of governance across national and local jurisdictions and industry efforts
to resist government regulation. Lam et al. (2018) pointed that for plastic related
legislation worldwide to be effective, it is vital that packaging manufacturers and brand
owners take responsibility and ensure their products comply with related legislation.
Figure 2.5 Governance for plastics in marine, land and chemicals (Tessnow-von
Wysocki and Le Billon, 2019)
Consumers’ awareness on environmental impacts has been increasing in the past few
years through formal and informal education such as schools, news, campaigns, clean-
ups etc. however this is a long-term process and many consumers still develop an
incomplete understanding of packaging sustainability. This results in poor consumer
acceptance of unknown technologies, costs increase, related regulations, change of
27
packaging design (i.e. change of packaging forms, materials, colour, labelling etc.). This
in turn hinders the success of sustainable packaging in market. Table 2.4 summarizes
recent publications on consumer aspects in terms of sustainable packaging. It is notable
that plastic as one component in sustainable packaging is not specifically discussed in
any of these articles. From these articles it is clear that many packaging manufacturers
and brand owners fail to communicate the sustainability aspect of their products’
packaging to consumers, which leads to the failure of business cases of implementing
sustainable packaging.
Table 2.4 Selected articles on the assessment of consumer aspects and sustainable
behaviors related to packaging
Focus area Assessment Reference
Design elements Graphical/iconic, structural, materials, colors, labelling, (Magnier and Crié, 2015;
including forms, cues contribute to consumers’ decision Jerzyk, 2016; Hurley et
materials, colors, making/perceptions/attitudes/preferences/willingness al., 2017; Magnier and
labelling etc. to pay Schoormans, 2017;
Steenis et al., 2017; Ma
and Moultrie, 2018; Krah,
Todorovic and Magnier,
2019; Nguyen et al.,
2020)
Consumer Packaging costs/convenience/utility effect consumers; (Chekima et al., 2016;

perceptions and Behavior theories/spillover effect/principle factor Lacasse, 2016; Hao et al.,
purchase decisions analysis method study consumers’ decision on 2019; Kapoor and
towards specific sustainable packaging Kumar, 2019; Singh,
products Rajendran and Wahab,
2019)
Product purchase, Different packaging characteristics contribute to (Steenis et al., 2018;

consumption and purchase decisions in retail stores/post-consumption Nemat et al., 2019;
post-consumption considerations/food wastage/recycling behaviors Petljak, Naletina and
behaviors and food Bilogrević, 2019; Taufik
waste et al., 2020)
Research on human aspects helps policy makers and the public understand their direct
and indirect contributions to reducing plastic consumption and pollution. However
current communication of a more sustainable packaging production, consumption and
28
recycling system between governments, packaging manufacturers, brand owners and

consumers is problematic. Although issues related to FMCG companies are identified in
the literature as the main influence in plastic reduction, none of the articles reviewed
offered a comprehensive model mapping these issues to identify the organizational
influencers.
2.4.4 Articles focused on the environment

Plastic has been applied widely because of its exceptional functional properties such as
being lightweight, strong, durable, corrosion-resistant, and having high thermal,
electrical insulation benefits and low cost. Because of its diversity and versatility, the
usage of plastic has increased twentyfold since the last century (Thompson et al., 2009),
reaching 311 million tonnes in 2014, and is estimated to double again by 2035 and
might even quadruple by 2050 (Rhodes, 2018).
Packaging from FMCG sector is the largest application sector for the plastic industry
and represents around 39.6% of the total plastics demand (MacArthur, 2017; Rhodes,
2019). The plastics packaging industry in Europe contributes around 1.5 million jobs
and over 340 billion euros in turnover, placing it as the seventh largest value-added
contributor (Penca, 2018).
Plastic consumption results in a significant amount of plastic waste. In Europe alone

25.8 million tonnes of plastic waste were generated in 2014, of which less than 30%
was recycled (Calleja, 2019; Meys et al., 2020b). As we discussed in 2.4.2, most
plastics are landfilled after the consumption phase.
The high stability and durability of plastic makes the degradation time very long and
plastic waste therefore tends to accumulate in the natural environment. The longevity of
plastics is estimated to range from hundreds to thousands of years depending on the
type of the polymer (Barnes et al., 2009). The degradation of plastic is more feasible in
soil environment as microorganisms in soils help accelerate the degradation process.
The oceanic hydrodynamic and wind transport plastic litters in the oceans, and these
litters beak down as it ages. Plastic takes around 85% of marine litter (Auta, Emenike
and Fauziah, 2017).
29
Plastic debris in soil, air water exposures via diet or inhalation raises concerns. To boost
functional properties of plastics, virgin plastic polymers resins are usually mixed with
additives which might be toxic to the environment as well as humans (MacArthur,
2017; Rhodes, 2018). Research found micro- and nano- plastics can act as vectors for
persistent pollutants, which can result in these plastics becoming carriers of toxic
components (Galloway, 2015; Wang, Zheng and Li, 2018). Health concerns arise also
for the uptake of food products in contact with plastics or containing micro plastics.
Microplastics or microbeads are not only entering the food chain but also contaminating
the soil and freshwater which impacts our ecosystem (Wright and Kelly, 2017).
Although the effects of bioaccumulation in the human food chain remain mostly
unknown (Engler, 2012), preliminary research suggests plastic micro-particles in the
digestive system have the potential to cause increased risk of infection (Agamuthu,
2018; Bruge et al., 2018; Battulga, Kawahigashi and Oyuntsetseg, 2019).
2.4.5 Articles focused on brand owners

For brand owners, the term packaging generally refers to the material as well as the
underlying production process. It covers specific technical and qualitative requirements
necessary for each type of product. In this regard, three types of packaging are
distinguished: primary packaging mainly for sale; secondary packaging aims for
keeping the product quality and multi purposes; tertiary packaging mainly for the
transport of goods. Research focused on brand owners can be categorized on the levels
of packaging they discussed.
Primary packaging is in direct contact with the goods it contains and the majority of the
articles (12 articles) focus on this type of packaging, out of which eight articles are from
food and beverage industry. This is understandable as it is essential for the food and
beverage industry to prevent toxic or dangerous substances in plastics from releasing to
the packed goods. Plastic reduction research on primary packaging has been conducted
to date mainly through experiments and LCA as introduced in the previous section
(Humbert et al., 2009; Namy Espinoza-Orias, Stichnothe and Azapagic, 2011; Golsteijn
et al., 2015; Hanssen et al., 2017; Oliveira and Magrini, 2017b; Sieti et al., 2019;
Blanca-Alcubilla et al., 2020).
30
The analysis of secondary and tertiary packaging has not been covered adequately as the
analysis of primary packaging. The sustainability of secondary and tertiary packaging is
largely related to distributors and retailers in protecting products during the
transportation. Furthermore, secondary and tertiary packaging is often reused in the
supply chain. Due to the very different characteristics of reusable packages, such as
plastic crates, wooden boxes, plastic pallets or wooden pallets, when compared to single
use packages made of cardboard, the resulting scenarios are characterized by high
complexity, and the results derived from their analysis can differ. Some studies showed
that reusable plastic crates have a better environmental performance than the single used
wooden and carboard boxes (Albrecht et al., 2013; Accorsi et al., 2014; Bernstad
Saraiva et al., 2016; Tua et al., 2019) while other studies argue that the single used
carboard boxes should be preferred within certain specific scenarios (Levi et al., 2011;
Battini et al., 2016; Bortolini et al., 2018; Abejón et al., 2020).
There is also research which try to address the packaging problem from all packaging
levels (nine articles). Notably four out of these nine articles were from the researcher.
Majumdar, Verghese and Fitzpatrick (2009) developed a PIQET tool which calculates
the energy efficacy of materials to replace plastic in packaging while Wakefield-Rann
(2017) and Setiadi (2018) try to address plastic problem through design. Gardas, Raut
and Narkhede (2019) and Coelho et al. (2020) try to review the packaging development
trends and identify the influence factors for changing packaging design. However these
research focus on one specific perspective of plastic reduction in packaging and brand
owners are rarely studied as the centre of the issue. There is not a coherent literature
about how brand owners incorporate various considerations into their decision making
when it comes to reduce plastic usage.
Apart from trying to address plastic waste problem from different levels, brand owners
have responded to an increased demand from consumers for sustainability initiatives
based on the realization of a needed shared value (Kuhlman and Farrington, 2010). For
example, in collaboration with Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) brand owners
including McDonald’s, Unilever, Nestlé, Kraft-Heinz, PepsiCo, and Coca-Cola set
targets in action plans to improve their product sustainability by 2025, which includes
supporting sustainable packaging solutions, increasing recyclable content in their
31
packaging while reducing virgin material composition, sustainable sourcing, reducing
material usage etc. (Boz, Korhonen and Koelsch Sand, 2020). However, many
sustainable packaging solutions presented challenges in productivity, economic return
and technology maturity and brand owners fail to implement these solutions (de
Koeijer, de Lange and Wever, 2017). There are a large number of sustainable packaging
solutions won awards in various sustainable competitions each year but only a few
manifestations of these awards are commercialized. This creates a disconnect between
what brand owners say and do as well as what can be done and is actually viable.
2.5 Conclusion
Research specifically focused on plastic packaging reduction is overall scarce. Most
research focuses on reducing the energy consumption of all packaging materials.
Indeed, the energy consumption in packaging and transportation as a proportion of the
overall energy consumption of producing the product is small. Therefore, most FMCG
companies neglected the plastic packaging issues in the past. However, the plastic waste
problem and the fact that the majority of the plastic waste comes from plastic packaging
is discarded after first use makes it hard to ignore now.
Moreover, in the literature there is an apparent disconnect between the various plastic
problems in different niche areas and a systematic mapping for brand owners to factor
these problems into decision making. There lacks research in the plastic reduction from
the supply chain perspective to give brand owners a holistic understanding of plastic
packaging problems and how to tackle them.
Furthermore, due to the interdisciplinary nature of the plastic waste issue the literature
is very fragmented. This fragmentation of the literature has limited theoretical
development of a holistic view on plastic waste problem for brand owners. What is
needed therefore is a more integrative approach to the topic to make connections
between the technical, social and environmental literatures for brand owners to help
them leverage current knowledge.
In addition, in the literature studies try to mitigate plastic waste impacts but limited
research has mentioned the possibility of eliminating plastics in packaging. There are
32
significant potentials as seen in the literature that plastic reduction might be realized
through technological advances both in the manufacture of conventional plastics and the
design of items made from them, or through the introduction of bio-based polymers, and
improved collection and recycling methods. These are all largely means to alleviate the
status quo, but essentially to preserve business as usual in their focused areas.
Lastly, despite the increasing trend in plastic reduction research, the FMCG sector still
produces substantial plastic waste. Plastics are a such deeply entrenched feature of our
modern, consumer society that to break free from them entirely seems a remote
prospect, at least without drastic changes to the fabric and mechanism of that society
(Ma, Park and Moultrie, 2020). Given that 9% of plastic waste is recycled currently
(Geyer, Jambeck and Law, 2017), it is vital to help FMCG companies to view the
plastic problem form a holistic view over the whole supply chain to reduce plastic usage
in packaging.
2.6 Knowledge gap and research objectives

It is clear that plastic causes a significant and ongoing problem to the environment and
FMCG packaging contributes to this in a very substantial way. It is interestingly evident
that small environmental changes will not suffice. Instead, a much more drastic change
is required to prevent a growing environmental and humanitarian crisis. Reducing
plastics in packaging involves decisions of companies covering the supply chain and
requires cooperation from all stakeholders. Yet, companies are not making sufficient
changes: to date compare to research on technologies, human aspects, the environment
there are very limited studies that have sought to understand where the problems lie in
FMCG companies and how these companies could solve these problems and move
things forward from the status quo.
Identified gaps in literature are:
Gap 1. There is a lack of understanding of current plastic reduction practices in the

FMCG companies from a supply chain view.
Gap 2. There is a lack of a blueprint for the FMCG companies to understand how to
transfer from current massive plastic usage to zero plastic usage.
33
This leads to an overall objective which is to explore the plastic reduction in the FMCG
sector. Plastic reduction is a process and a transition. To understand this, we need to
image both ends for this process and transition: current high use of plastics and zero use
of plastics. The leading research question of this study is therefore: what plastic
packaging sustainability considerations FMCG companies need to incorporate to
transition from high use of plastics in packaging to zero use of plastics in packaging? To
answer this large question, we can break it into three small questions. The following
research questions were formulated to facilitate the achievement of the research aim:
In companies different departments/teams prioritize different issues. It is important to

firstly understand key stakeholders in the decision making relevant to sustainable
packaging in the FMCG sector. Thus, the first research question is:
Research Question 1. Who are the key stakeholders in solving the plastic reduction
issue?
I also need to have a focus on plastic reduction to understand companies’ behaviors.

This includes what they have or encounter to overcome or prevent them from plastic
reduction. This leads to our second research question:
Research Question 2. What are enablers and barriers of plastic packaging reduction in
FMCG companies?
After generating the current knowledge in the plastic reduction field, I gain a good
understanding of the current practices. This leads to the third research question:
Research Question 3. What is the order or sequence in tackling plastic packaging waste?
Together, the research questions help to explore the plastic reduction practices and
understand how to achieve the plastic reduction in the FMCG sector, i.e. enablers,
barriers and their correlations.
34
Chapter 3: Research methodology and research design
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
AND RESEARCH DESIGN
This chapter is divided into five sections. Initially, it refines the scope of this research
and reemphasizes the research question. Second, it explores the philosophical approach
and the researcher’s philosophical stance. Two research methodologies: Mixed Methods
Action Research and Design Research Methodology are discussed within section three.
Section four introduces the research design which is followed by a summary.
This chapter does not provide detailed discussions of methods employed. These
methods are discussed in chapter 4, 5 and 6.
35
3.1 Refining scope of research
This research aims to explore sustainable packaging with the focus on plastic reduction
in the FMCG sector. The first objective is to capture how sustainable packaging
decision making is situated within this sector. This will aid understanding of the
environment in which the sustainable packaging design decisions are made:
Who are the key stakeholders in solving the plastic reduction issue?
Once the sustainable packaging design decision making process has been established
the second objective is to investigate the following research question:
What are the enablers and barriers to plastic packaging reduction in FMCG companies?
The responses to this question shall also help to identify the interrelationships of these
enablers and barriers, which will lead onto the final objective, i.e. the means to plastic
reduction in FMCG. This will be interrogated using a second research question:
What is the order or sequence in tackling plastic packaging waste?
Details on the approach taken in relation to these objectives are provided in the
remainder of this chapter.
3.2 Philosophical approach

Easterby-Smith (2002) argue failing to think about the research philosophy impacts the
research design. Every research study necessary position itself in relation to the research
philosophy. In consideration of research philosophy researchers need to think about
epistemology, ontology and axiology. Epistemology is concerned with how the
researcher knows about the reality and assumptions concerning how knowledge should
be acquired and generated. Ontology focuses on questions of assumptions of reality.
Axiology reveals the researchers’ assumptions about their value system. These three
concepts complement the foundation of research philosophy. Proponents of research
philosophies share their knowledge and definitions of the nature of research from
different angles (Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Becker, 1996; Saunders, Lewis and
Thornhill, 2009). Although they adopt different descriptions and classifications, they are
36
not entirely different (Mkansi and Acheampong, 2012). They all share a common set of
assumptions and their commonalities identify these philosophies as examples of broader
philosophies (Table 3.1). For the purpose of this study I take this philosophical position
which I explain further in the following paragraphs.
Table 3.1 A list of various philosophical paradigm names (Holden and Lynch,
2006)
Objectivist Subjectivist
Quantitative Qualitative
Positivist Phenomenological
Scientific Humanistic
Experimentalist Interpretivist
Traditionalist
Functionalist
As research is very much associated with the knowledge of the research and how
researchers view the world, it is important for researchers to plan their research by
clarifying their assumptions related to their personal values (Clark, Burrell and Morgan,
1981; Crossan, 2003). As argued by Moñivas, Benton and Craib (2005), a philosophical
stance helps researchers to associate the research philosophy with the choice of research
method as it allows researchers to make a more informed decision about the research
approach. The philosophical stance in this research will be explained further below.
In this research, sustainable packaging design in the FMCG sector is a complex,

interdisciplinary decision-making process, dependent upon the interaction of
practitioners from a wide range of disciplines. Packaging design takes place in a
dynamic environment (technological, sociological and anthropological) in which most
influencing factors are correlated (Guercini, 2014). It would be difficult to isolate them
and look at them independently. It would be inappropriate for this research, therefore, to
37
adopt a purely logical and value free positivist model of science to gather knowledge
(Susman and Evered, 1978).
This research attempts to view the reality of sustainable packaging practices and aims to
understand and capture the meanings that people generate (Mao, 2014). Gordon (2002)
has posited that all we can do as researchers is to qualify research findings as
contextually explanatory and probably generalisable, rather than insisting that findings
are absolutely objective. Gathered evidence should be viewed as building bricks which
aid our "cognition of the world" (Gordon, 2002). Therefore, the intermediate
philosophical position allows the researcher room to match the research approach to the
research problem. This research took an intermediate position in the spectrum of
positivism and interpretivism.
To answer the research question, this research needs to employ methodologies from
three disciplines: sustainability, design and management. Methodologies that are most
appropriate for this research include case study, stakeholder theory, hermeneutics,
action research and design research methodology (Wiek and Lang, 2016). Two
methodologies support the philosophical stances of this research and were adopted in
this research: Mixed Methods Action Research and Design Research Methodology. The
following section discusses how three main research methodologies incorporated the
above in detail.
3.3 Research methodologies

Research methodology helps research to be conducted systematically (Besen-Cassino
and Cassino, 2017). It is the “collection of methods or rules by which a particular piece
of research is undertaken” and the “principles, theories and values that underpin a
particular approach to research” (Seem, Nachmias and Nachmias, 1988). It is widely
recognized that research methodology is the overall research approach linked to the
philosophical stances while research method refers to systematic modes, procedures or
tools used for collecting and analysing data (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). Holden and
Lynch (2006) as well as Pathirage and CPPathirage (2008) argue that methodologies are
best used in complementary ways to develop theories. Gill and Johnson (2009) state that
38
a multi-method methodology leads to the convergent validation of research results

through internal cross-checking. This would minimize the issues between philosophical
and methodological pluralism.
In response to the argument above, this section explores two methodologies available
including Mixed Methods Action Research and Design Research Methodology and
proposes a multi-method methodology that combines these methodologies and suits this
research.
3.3.1 Mixed Methods Action research

This section presents an exploration of the methodology of Mixed Methods Action
Research (MMAR). It begins by discussing characteristics of mixed methods, action
research, and then explains the MMAR framework which combines both
methodologies.
Mixed methods research combines elements from both qualitative and quantitative
paradigms to produce converging findings by examining an issue from different aspects
and building on the strengths of different methods (Greene, 2008; Abbato, 2009). To
explain this further, mixed methods research allows researchers to find answers to both
exploratory and confirmatory questions within the research project, and “reveal a fuller
picture of a problem in practise” (Greene, 2008). Mixed methods can be deployed
within one study or across several studies in a research project. To generate greater
insights than a single research method, it is important that a mixed method study has a
clear and “strategic relationship among the methods in order to ensure that the data
coverage or triangulation to produce greater insights” (Lingard, Albert and Levinson,
2008).
The Sage Handbook of Action Research defines action research as “a participatory

process concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile
human purposes. It seeks to bring together action and reflection, theory and practice, in
participation with others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing
concern to people” (Reason and Bradbury, 2008). From the point of this thesis, the
aspects of the definition of Reason and Bradbury most pertinent are action research is
not done on or with participants; research is designed, carried out and integrated by the
39
participants in partnership with the researchers. It is an iterative process in which
researchers and practitioners act together in the context of an identified problem to
discover and effect positive change. In 1948 Kurt Lewin described action research as a
cyclical process of four iterative stages: reflecting, planning, acting and observing. This
action research cycle can be repeated as many times as necessary to answer the research
question. From identifying the issue to disseminating the results it requires extensive
collaboration between researchers and partners. Action research “compels reconsidering
the problem in a more complex way” (Anderson and Herr, 1999) and bridges the link
between industry and academic research (Brown and Tandon, 1983; Herbert et al.,
2002).
MMAR incorporates mixed methods research into the action research cycle by
“synergistically integrating qualitative stakeholders engagement methods with
quantitative outcome based oriented approaches” (Ivankova, 2017; Ivankova and
Wingo, 2018). Ivankova and Wingo (2018) developed the MMAR framework (Figure
3.2) that aims to capture the synergistic combination of mixed methods and action
research. MMAR conceptually follows the research cycle outlined by Lewin (1948). In
each research stage, mixed methods components are adopted to inform and enhance the
corresponding action research stage. The framework consists of six iterative phases:
diagnosing, reconnaissance, planning, acting, evaluating and monitoring.
40
Figure 3.2 Mixed methods action research framework. Solid arrows indicate the
sequence of the phases in the action process, while dashed arrows show other
possible iterations of the research activities within an action research cycle.
*MM=Mixed methods
MMAR research framework helps researchers take advantage of using integrated

conclusions from quantitative and qualitative results to inform each research step.
However, it is arguable that mixed methods may not be required in each research stage.
The use of qualitative, quantitative or combined data sources should be decided by the
study purpose and aim.
3.3.2 Design research methodology

Design Research Methodology (DRM) provides a rigorous design research framework
and facilitates design research from start to finish, as well as evaluating the usability of
the contribution. It was originally proposed for the development of computational
design tools in early research stage (Bracewell et al., 2001). DRM aims to help improve
design practice, management, education and their outcomes. DRM integrates two main
strands of research: the development of understanding and the development of support
(Blessing and Chakrabarti, 2009a).
41
The links between each research stage of DRM are illustrated in Figure 3.3. The figure
also shows the basic means used in each stage and the main outcomes (Blessing and
Chakrabarti, 2009a). Blessing, Chakrabarti and Wallace (1992) identified four stages of
DRM: Research Clarification (RC), Descriptive Study I (DSI), Prescriptive Study (PS)
and Descriptive Study II (DSII). In RC stage researchers try to find evidence to support
their original assumptions and formulate the research goals, which “mainly includes
searching factors in the literature that influence task clarification and product success”
(Blessing and Chakrabarti, 2009a). This is followed by the DSI stage which helps
narrow the research scope and form a deep understanding of the current research topic.
The intention is to detail the description and determine deciding factors for task
clarification. Based on the goals and increased understanding of existing situation, in
the PS stage researchers correct and elaborate their initial assumption of desired
situation. In this stage the researcher attempts to address factors in the current situation
that results in a desired situation. Finally, in the DSII stage researchers evaluate the
impact of its support and “its ability to realise the desired situation” (Blessing and
Chakrabarti, 2009a).
Figure 3.3 Design Research Methodology (Blessing and Chakrabarti, 2009a) The
bold arrows between the stages illustrate the main process flow, the light arrows the
many iterations
As one of the most important design research methodologies, DRM has been applied
widely. It has been tested and improved in the past few decades and is seen as a
42
rigorous research methodology. DRM is different from other methodologies in four

aspects (Bracewell et al., 2001):
I. It aims to help design projects.

II. It provides guidelines for systematic planning of research.
III. It supports the research process in a flexible and opportunistic way to let
the researcher tailor the research process according to the specifics of the
research topic.
IV. It has multiple iterations within each stage and between stages as well as
parallel execution of stages.
DRM is suitable for developing design research project. It is goal oriented and aims to
evaluate the validity of the final design product. It has a thorough research process but
the process is tool development oriented.
3.4 Research design

Mixed Methods Action Research aims to develop theories or models to explain complex
phenomena in social settings while Design Research Methodology facilitates the
development of design products. MMAR and DRM underline the importance of
iterative development.
This research aims to explore sustainable packaging with the focus on plastic reduction
in the FMCG sector. A plastic packaging reduction tool can be viewed as a vehicle to
capture “influencing factors of current situation” (Blessing and Chakrabarti, 2009b) and
hereby develop a thorough understanding of the current issue. While methods such as
literature review and pilot case studies inform the generation of an initial prototype, this
will change through an iterative research cycle to answer the research question
(Ivankova, 2017; Ivankova and Wingo, 2018). The evaluation of the research results can
be done through industrial partner feedbacks both practically and theoretically.
Thus, this research used mixed methods, moved between the theoretical and empirical
worlds, and adopted a non-linear approach throughout the research, in order to expand
the knowledge of plastic packaging reduction in the FMCG sector both theoretically and
empirically.
43
This research combines elements of MMAR and DRM to help develop a plastic
packaging reduction tool, which helps to raise awareness of the plastic packaging issue
in the FMCG sector and encourages improvement in practices. The research process is
illustrated in Table 3.2. It contained five research stages:
I. Stage 1 (Chapter 1 & Chapter2). Problem clarification (i.e. the

Reconnaissance in MMAR and DRI in DRM): this stage started with
diagnosing the current issue in sustainable packaging domain by
conducting the desk research. This stage explored the packaging
sustainability issues with all stakeholders along the packaging value chain.
In addition, this stage narrowed the research down to the plastic reduction
field in sustainable packaging and explored current research on this topic.
Knowledge gaps were identified after a systematic literature review of 587
articles.
II. Stage 2 (Chapter 3). Research Design: the philosophical approach, research
methodology and research stages were identified in this stage.
III. Stage 3 (Chapter 4). Exploratory study (i.e. the Planning in MMAR and
DRI in DRM): seven experts’ and practitioners’ opinions in sustainable
packaging domain were collected through interviews with the duration
between 35 and 55 minutes.
IV. Stage 4 (Chapter 5). Factor mapping grid development (i.e. the Panning in
MMAR and DRI in DRM): plastic packaging reduction mapping grid was
developed based on the knowledge gathered through the literature review
of 73 articles and five expert interviews with the duration between 25 and
45 minutes. A preliminary evaluation was conducted with five researchers
experienced in sustainability and design domain. The results were
reviewed, and changes were made accordingly.
V. Stage 5 (Chapter 6). Execution (i.e. the Acting in MMAR and PS in DRM):
following the initial modification, the mapping grid were deployed in 18
semi structured interviews with practitioners who are experienced in the
plastic packaging reduction practice in the FMCG sector. This process
44
followed the MMAR principles to establish the feasibility, usability and

utility of the tool.
VI. Stage 6 (Chapter 7) Formalization of learning (i.e. the Evaluation in
MMAR and PS in DRM): the mapping grid was refined integrating the
empirical evidence from the previous stages and latest theoretical findings
from literature.
Table 3.2 Research stages of this study
Stage Chapter Objective Description
Problem Chapter 1&2 To define research Reviewing current literature in plastic

Clarification gaps reduction
Identifying knowledge gaps and research

questions
Research Design Chapter 3 To plan the research Identifying the philosophical stances and
research methodology
Exploratory Chapter 4 To understand how Interviewing seven experts

Study sustainable
packaging decision is
made within the
FMCG companies
Factor mapping Chapter 5 To understand what Reviewing current literature in framework

grid factors that influence development
development plastic reduction in
Interviewing five experts
sustainable
packaging Evaluating the mapping grid with five
researchers
Execution Chapter 6 To deploy the factor Interviewing 18 practitioners

mapping grid and
verify the factors
Formalization of Chapter 7 To summarise the Concluding and discussing research findings

learning findings and form the
learning
As explained above, each research stage contains its own specific activities related to
prepare, collect, analyse and share the data. Research methods in each stage are
discussed in corresponding chapter.
45
3.4.1 Evaluation of research design
It is widely recognised that the evaluation of research work can be assessed through
three aspects: validity, reliability, and generalizability (Easterby-Smith, 2002). This
section briefly analyses this research based on these three aspects. The limitations are
discussed at the end of each research stage and summarized at the end of this thesis.
3.4.1.1 Validity
Validity examines if the research findings answer the research question originally
raised. This research ensures validity in the following ways:
• Stating the ontology and epistemology of the issue being studied in this
chapter (Waterman, 2013)
• Stating the choice of the methodology being in the appropriate context for
it to be valid in this chapter (Waterman, 2013)
• Adopting purposeful sampling when interviewees were selected (Becker,
1996; Coyne, 1997; Palinkas et al., 2015)
• Extracting and analysing data with 1st triangulation (of researchers) and
2nd tier triangulation (of resources and theories) (Finfgeld-Connett, 2010)
• Well documented audit trail of materials and processes (Rodgers and
Cowles, 1993)
• Multidimensional analysis with qualitative and quantitative data sources
(Carcary, 2009)
3.4.1.2 Reliability
Reliability is seen as an assessment of whether the same findings would be obtained if
the research process was repeated. This research follows approaches Silverman (2004)
proposed to ensure reliability, i.e. refutational analysis, constant data comparison,
comprehensive data use, inclusive of the deviant case and use of tables.
As data were extracted from original sources, their accuracy of form and context was
verified with constant comparison, either alone or with peers (a form of triangulation)
(George and Apter, 2004). The scope and analysis of data was inclusive with reference
to quantitative aspects (Patton, 1999). Attempts to refute the qualitative and quantitative
data and analytes were performed to assess reliability (Allmark, 2003).
46
3.4.1.3 Generalizability
This research aims to understand plastic packaging reduction practices in FMCG
companies. This is an issue in a particular context; hence generalizability of these
research findings is not an expected attribute (Leung, 2015). Systematic sampling,
triangulation and constant comparison, proper audit and documentation, and multi-
dimensional theory mentioned above can aid assessment of the generalizability of this
research (Finfgeld-Connett, 2010).
3.5 Summary
In this chapter the research methodology combining MMAR and DRM was set out.
Within this, the philosophical foundation was established and the research process was
built. Finally, the evaluation of this research and mitigation for bias was discussed. Next
chapter presents the exploratory study in research stage 3.
47
4 EXPLORATORY STUDY
For significant improvement in sustainable packaging in the FMCG sector, it is essential

that we gain a better understanding of how sustainable packaging decision-making is
situated within FMCG companies. This study seeks to understand the current state of
sustainable packaging in FMCG companies.
Based on the nature of research questions an exploratory study seemed to be the best
possible approach since sustainable packaging in FMCG sector seems to be
insufficiently researched (Farmer, 2013). Seven pilot interviews were conducted by
telephone. This chapter begins with a description of the research scope and research
methods, and this is followed by a summary of results and finally a discussion of
findings. The result of this initial study helps to understand sustainable packaging
decision-making in FMCG companies. This study aims to give a broader input for
further research on plastic reduction in sustainable packaging.
48
Chapter 4: Exploratory study
4.1 Refining the scope of this study

This study aims to understand how sustainable packaging decisions are made within the
FMCG companies and answer the question: Who are the key stakeholders in solving the
plastic reduction issue? As we have seen in chapter 2, it is important firstly to
understand who are responsible for sustainable packaging decision-making. The
knowledge that enables sustainable packaging design and development should also be
investigated. Finally, motivations of supporting sustainable packaging and difficulties
encountered when implementing sustainable packaging knowledge are also important in
meeting the research aim.
4.2 Research methods

This research specifically set out to identify interviewees who are seeking to improve
the sustainability of their packaging and identified these people through their
cooperation with an international non-profit organization--Industry Council for
Packaging and the Environment (INCPEN), which explicitly seeks to provide guidance
49
or help to companies in this area. We also interviewed sustainable design specialists
who had experience in developing tools or methods for use by packaging and FMCG
companies.
As a result, the interviewees were from organisations which were widely geographically
dispersed, and we therefore adopted a telephone interview-based approach as the most
appropriate method for data collection. Telephone interview was chosen as the research
method because interviewees came from different geographic locations around the
world and for the technical reason (i.e. easier to record compared with other methods).
Telephone interview is geographically more flexible.
Interviews were semi-structured and guided using a pre-determined set of questions. As

an exploratory study, this research purely aims to explore the plastic reduction field in
the FMCG sector. Structured interviews can be misleading and not be able to provide
information we need. And we also want to structure questions to cover certain areas and
compare the interview data with each other. Thus, semi-structured interviews were
adopted in this study. Interviews adopted a conversational style to let the discussion
flow naturally to get humanistic answers. All interviews were recorded, with the
permission of the interviewees. After conducting the interview, the audio data was
transcribed and analyzed.
A summary of the firms and interviewees is provided in Table 4.1. Whilst we set out to
interview designers, interviewees also included other stakeholders who have significant
involvement in determining the packaging for their firm’s products. This included
design managers, sustainability managers, technical managers, engineers and
researchers. All respondents were from Research and Development (R&D) departments
and were chosen because their job responsibilities are related to packaging sustainability
decision-making in their companies. Some interviews led to contact suggestions with
other companies and these were also successfully taken up. It was considered that such
companies willing to participate in this research were also companies motivated by
sustainable packaging design and which would like to make changes in the industry.
Table 4.1 Interviewees in this study
50
Company Company type Operation areas Interviewee
Company A Plastic packages UK Design Manager (I1)

Company B Packaging Europe market focused Consumer Sustainability Ma
with global branches nager (I2)
Company C FMCG Global Technical Manager (I3)
Company D FMCG Global Technical Manager (I4)

Company E Sustainable packaging UK Director (I5)
NGO
Company F Sustainable packaging Global Lead Researcher (I6)
NGO
Company G Sustainable packaging Global Senior Engineer (I7)
design software
The interview questions were based on a similar structure for all interviewees but
tailored according to their specific area of expertise. The interview consisted of 4 main
sections:
i. Introduction to this research, the researcher and the research group.

ii. Basic information about interviewees.
iii. Exploration of sustainable packaging decision-making within
interviewees’ area of expertise.
iv. Discussion of sustainable packaging decision-making within
interviewees’ area of expertise.
The questions used to guide the interview are attached in Appendix A. Questions were
planned through a literature review and discussions with six professionals in design
management and sustainable manufacturing. Interviews lasted between 35 and 55
minutes.
Data was analysed using an open coding approach, with support of software
‘MAXQDA’. The transcripts ran through three rounds of coding. For the first round, we
transcribed all interviews verbatim and the segments were coded according to answers
of different questions by the interviewees. Seven themes were emerged during this
coding process. The 2nd round codes were gathered and summarized by themes. For
companies that implement sustainable packaging knowledge, themes include people
responsible for packaging design, the ‘knowledge’ facilitates sustainable packaging
51
design and development process, motivations for supporting sustainable packaging
design and difficulties encountered in implementing sustainable packaging. For
companies that support the implementation of sustainable packaging knowledge, themes
include the ‘knowledge’ produced that facilitates sustainable packaging design and
development process, companies using the knowledge and differences in the knowledge
needed in different types of companies. Results are presented in two sub-sections, the
first focusing on responses from companies implementing sustainable packaging
knowledge and the second from companies supporting such implementation.
4.2.1 Data validity

Four measures were undertaken to ensure the validity and reliability of this study. First,
companies’ annual reports and documents were triangulated with the interview data to
establish “converging lines of enquiry” (Yin, 2017). Second, purposive sampling,
pattern matching, and explanation building techniques were used to enhance the validity
of the results (Marshall, 1996; Mayer, 2015). Purposive sampling followed steps
outlined by (Tongco, 2007). Third, a pre-determined set of questions was adopted in all
the interviews to ensure the transparency and consistency of this study. Finally, a
record-keeping system for interviews, reports, documents and field notes was
established to enhance the reliability of the research findings.
Additionally, to engage the academic discussion on plastic packaging two peer reviewed
academic conference papers have been published. The conference papers introduced
early findings of this research (Ma and Moultrie, 2017, 2018).
4.3 Research results
4.3.1 Companies implementing sustainable packaging knowledge

4.3.1.1 Company A
Company A is a product design and engineering company that produces plastic
packaging components. It has several design centres around the world and has expertise
in designing and producing plastic bottles, including folding, moulding, thermoforming
and injection moulding. The interviewee is the design manager in Company A. He has a
52
team of six people who are in charge of all packaging design and development in
Company A.
People responsible for packaging design: Packaging design happens concurrently with
product development. The design team works closely with the technical and marketing
team to ensure the practicality and sustainability of the packaging. They have a checklist
for assessing the sustainability of packaging from the beginning to the end of the
packaging lifecycle. This checklist helps the design team to consider sustainable design
issues at each stage of the design process with a series of guiding questions. During the
different phases of design, they also refer to those questions to judge whether they are
meeting expectations, and to evaluate any reasons for not doing so.
‘We built sustainable design into the whole process from beginning. It’s
something we started doing very recently but we do have a checklist at
several different stages in the design process. Design process that prompts
us to think of sustainable design at each stage even before we start a
project.’ (I1)
The ‘knowledge’ facilitates sustainable packaging design and development process:

‘Knowledge’ here refers to the knowledge mentioned in chapter 1. With regard to
sustainable packaging design, the design team does not use any specific ‘tool’ and
instead relies mainly on individual knowledge and experience. The design team
members use some creativity tools during the brainstorming stage to help them choose
and prioritise different design concepts. The interviewee also mentioned an online
circular economy toolkit, which has assessment tools available and these are, at times,
used to help the team prioritise and choose generic design tools.
Motivations for supporting sustainable packaging design: Reducing environmental

impacts of the packaging was the company’s first concern. They recognise that some
consumers want designs to be more sustainable and a few large supermarket chains are
encouraging the company to have more sustainable packaging designs.
‘I think one of the big drivers for us is because our customers are wanting
us to do it. We’ve got quite severe push from a couple of the big
supermarket chains certainly saying that if you don’t design with circular
53
economy in mind, we’ll go to someone else who does. So that’s quite a big
driver for us.’ (I1)
However, the interviewee believes that both customers and retailers do not want to pay
extra for sustainable packaging.
Difficulties encountered in implementing sustainable packaging: Increasing price to

enable better sustainability of the packaging was their major concern. They also noted
that some technologies were not mature enough to support sustainable packaging
design. For example, packaging companies have effective technologies for separating
products which increase the shelf life of food, which therefore helps reduce food waste.
However, these products are not necessarily easy to recycle. Another example is that
plastic packs that do not have to be separated or sorted can easily be recycled. However,
to ensure a long shelf-life of products, packaging companies have to use a combination
of different plastics.
The interviewee also highlighted the potential additional costs and difficulties of
realising sustainable packaging designs. He felt that this could lead to a commercial
disadvantage if they were undercut by competitors or if consumers did not buy in the
concept of a certain design.
‘If we propose designs that are circular which may be either more expensive
or more difficult to do while our competitors who don’t do that and can
implement cheaper products, we lose competitive advantage.’ (I1)
4.3.1.2 Company B
Company B is a provider of corrugated packaging in Europe and a specialist in plastic
packaging worldwide. It operates across 36 countries and employs more than 26,000
people. The interviewee is a customer sustainability manager. His major responsibility
is to bridge the gap between technical aspects of sustainability, regulations, and the
political climate, as well as being someone who brings a marketing and commercial
mind-set to try and join things together. He works closely with commercial teams,
including sales, marketing, account directors, and ecommerce innovation.
54
People responsible for packaging design: Company B has a large design network and a
lot of designers. They work closely with psychologists and vision scientists. In the early
stages of design, they consider issues such as how much material needs to be used in a
new piece of packaging. The company has a mock supermarket tool called Impact
Senses in which ‘consumers’ can visit and see all the products. The impact of packaging
as seen on the shelves is analysed by the company’s team of psychologists, vision
scientists and marketing staff. Feedback from this process might influence the shape and
overall design of their packaging. They sometimes outsource their packaging design
work to consultancies.
The ‘knowledge’ facilitates sustainable packaging design and development process: The
company uses an internal tool called ‘the value tool’. This tool enables a qualitative
estimation of environmental impact but does not offer any quantitative analysis. The
company also cooperates with FEFCO (the European Federation of Corrugated Board
Manufacturers), who conduct an industry life cycle assessment once every three years.
As part of this, Company B submits all its data to FEFCO. FEFCO produces a life cycle
assessment for the average corrugated box, which the company uses as its reference
point.
Motivations for supporting sustainable packaging design: The interviewee at Company

B offered three main reasons for supporting sustainable packaging design. Firstly, the
company has four strategic goals and one of them is to be a leader in sustainability.
Secondly, sustainable packaging is seen as a means for the company to save money and
gain more profits (i.e. reduce material). Thirdly, there are legal and reputational reasons:
‘There are legal reasons and reputational reasons. As an industry, I think

it’s an industry that has a negative reputation. So, anything we can do to
change that reputations is important. And then absolutely, it does
differentiate us from our competitors. […] Delivering smarter packaging,
clever packaging, better packaging which is also more sustainable
packaging.’ (I2)
Difficulties encountered in implementing sustainable packaging: A significant problem

is that the company cannot add any costs in order to improve packaging sustainability.
55
If the packaging can reduce, for example, damage to a product or reduce food waste by
one of two percent then the sustainability benefits and the cost savings are bigger. As a
result, an understanding of the relevant trade-offs is required so that people can see the
bigger picture. Another issue is that secondary packaging is often neglected and is not
normally considered until after all other packaging design decisions have been made.
The interviewee believes that this should be given greater attention and consideration by
designers. He recognised that the product contained by the packaging is not likely to
change in order to fit different packaging solutions, however, the primary and secondary
packaging design could be much more integrated.
‘Our company invested huge amounts of money to try to understand the

science of packaging better and understand it all. And some customers are
so cost focused. What is the cost of a cardboard box? They obviously just
want to reduce the cost. They just want to make it more sustainable by
making it smaller. But they don't consider the supply chain—the whole life
cycle approach—from the sustainability point of view.’ (I2)
In addition, overcoming the status-quo is noted as one of the challenges in designing

more sustainable packaging. Customers get used to the packaging they buy, and they are
reluctant to change. The interviewee commented that whilst on a personal level designer
understood the importance of improving packaging sustainability and they generally
wanted to make the right choice, on a professional level they were not always
necessarily rewarded for doing so.
‘I think in our industry it's the status quo. So, we try to do this, we try to
change things and do things differently and try to change ways of buying
packaging that have been the same for probably decades. […] I think that's
a barrier: resistance to change.’ (I2)
4.3.1.3 Company C
Company C is an international FMCG company. Its R&D centres work closely with
factories in the local area and change the design of their products accordingly. To deal
with packaging issues, in some projects it also hires consultancies and packaging
56
companies. The interviewee is responsible for looking after Company C’s beverage
products in the UK.
People responsible for packaging design: The work is done by Company C’s R&D
centres who work with the factories and local packaging technologists.

EcodEX is the major sustainable packaging design tool used. It provides a numeric
‘index’ in order to compare different design concepts in an objective way. Sometimes
the design team conducts a full Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) with the help of external
LCA experts.
Motivations for supporting sustainable packaging design: Global companies such as

Company C are keen to demonstrate their commitment to supporting sustainable design.
The reduction of waste, through sustainable design, in the whole supply chain also
makes good business sense. The commitment also corresponds to an increasing demand
from consumers, who are much more aware of sustainability issues than in the past.
Difficulties encountered in implementing sustainable packaging: One difficulty is linked

to EcodEX--the tool they use for sustainable packaging. It requires a variety of different
inputs and reliable data which is not always easy to collect. For example, frequent
changes to recycling facilities introduced by local authorities cause changes in the data
of recycled materials. As a result, data such as the ‘percentage of recycled material’ may
vary and thus the analysis from EcodEX may not always be reliable. In addition, trying
to obtain this background information regarding material recyclability in different
settings poses significant challenges as the whole area of recyclability is constantly
changing. For instance, there are new materials being produced all the time, different
suppliers make different criteria for the materials’ recyclability and finally the situation
is different in different countries, or even across different areas, for example in the UK.
Another difficulty is maintaining the functionality of the packaging whilst at the same
time increasing its sustainability. For example, in order to make coffee cups waterproof,
the company needs to press the plastic and the paper together and as a result the
packaging is difficult to recycle. In addition, sometimes it is difficult to change from
57
one material that has been used for many years to something that is more sustainable but
new.
4.3.1.4 Company D
Company D is a multinational manufacturer of diverse product ranges including family,
personal and household products. They have senior scientists at the company to monitor
packaging of their products. The company launches sustainability reports for the global
consumers. The interviewee was a senior scientist at R&D in company D and he
oversees packaging for EU regions, and additionally some of the Latin America and
British regions.
People responsible for packaging design: The work is done by Company D’s R&D
centres who work with the factories, packaging companies and consultancies.

Company D has some internal tools to help it compare different packaging design
concepts, but the interviewee could not give the specific name for these tools. They also
use some generic LCA tools.
Motivations for supporting sustainable packaging design: The company set very clear
guidance about their sustainability goals and there are high standards which departments
have to meet before they can consider externally reporting their sustainability
achievements. Also, the company has targets such as reducing its amount of packaging
use by 20% by 2020. Being innovative is embedded in company D’s core values. The
company attempts to improve on their sustainability innovation all the time. This is
another motivation for supporting sustainable packaging design.
Difficulties encountered in implementing sustainable packaging: Packaging design is a

complex process requiring the consideration of many different factors. Understanding
the whole consumers’ user experience of packaging presents a number of competing
challenges. The packaging must protect the product, be easily producible, be sent
through a supply chain, be delivered from the store to the home safely, and be either
recycled, returned or used correctly afterwards. As a result, there are many competing
considerations for the design team to consider ensuring sustainability of packaging from
cradle to grave. The costs of ensuring sustainability are also another barrier to making
58
sustainability improvements. The company has good intentions regarding sustainability

but recognises that it is always going to be difficult.
4.3.2 Companies supporting the implementation of sustainable packaging

knowledge
4.3.2.1 Company E
Company E is an industry council for research on sustainable packaging. By publishing
sustainable packaging reports and producing sustainable packaging tools, their aim is to
help manufacturers and retailers work together to promote responsible packaging for
resource-efficient sustainable supply chains. It is a non-profit organization which relies
on an annual subscription from its members. The interviewee was the director in
Company E.
The ‘knowledge’ produced that facilitates sustainable packaging design and

development process: Company E operates around the supply chain. They provide data
from hard research such as life cycle assessment and soft research such as consumer
opinions. Tools developed by Company E examine the environmental and social impact
of packaging. No commercial impact is considered. In this sense the Company E is a
more impartial industry body. The major limitation of developing such knowledge is
getting good numerical data. The available data is generic.
‘We are guessing how much packaging there is on the market. The
packaging is incidental to the product. Products are well measured. You
know how many tons of peaches are coming to the country but you don't
know how they are packaged because it's not of interest to people at all.’
(I5)
Companies using the knowledge: Companies using the tools mainly produce consumer
goods. However, they all seek to be leaders in sustainability and want to make changes
to society.
Differences in the knowledge needed in different types of companies: The general

principles are similar for different types of companies as the guidance provided by
Company E is simplistic. With regards to food packaging, which forms over two thirds
59
of sales packaging, there are safety issues to be considered. Electronic packaging is
more sophisticated in terms of design requirements.
‘The general principles are the similar for companies because really it's a
very simplistic guidance. Asking themselves sensible questions: how is this
going to be used, how is this disposed of and those general principles apply
to any sort of product and any sort of packaging.’ (I5)
4.3.2.2 Company F
Company F is a global non-profit organization working to transform the FMCG
industry by partnering with leading companies to define, develop, and deliver more
sustainable products. The interviewee is the lead researcher on packaging in Company
F.

development process: Their users seem only to need generic information. Knowledge
developed by Company F helps the users ask questions about how much of the
packaging content they are designing/using can be recycled and how much is renewably
sourced. This information satisfies most of the users’ needs.
‘From the retailers’ perspective, they need to censor their actions in other
information as well, such as greenhouse gas emissions, water use, worker
health and safety. The packaging questions are something important but it’s
just a few questions and our overall survey will satisfy retailer’s needs.’ (I6)
Companies using the knowledge: Companies using Company F’s tools are mainly
retailers, such as Walmart, their principal user, Amazon, Marks and Spencer and a
number of other European retailers.
Differences in the knowledge needed in different types of companies: The Knowledge

provided by Company F is mainly about recyclable content. In different FMCG industry
sectors the percentage of recyclable content varies considerably. However, this kind of
difference does not influence the advice Company F provides for different sectors. In
the end the interviewee mentioned one important element he considers to be important
60
in sustainable packaging research; namely education. Therefore, he thinks including

education and how to recycle labels on products is also very important.
‘The only other theme was another proponent of what these companies and
retailers are advocating for is the educational component. Especially on the
consumer's standpoint there's a lot that can be done from the packaging
design component but if consumers are fully able to understand how to
actually recycle the product itself or study recycling programs don't support
the different numbers on the different recycled materials then that's another
hurdle to jump over.’ (I6)
4.3.2.3 Company G
Company G produces a streamlined LCA software designed to assess the environmental
impacts and resource consumption profiles of different packaging options. It is designed
to be intuitive and easy to use. Company G allows a complete assessment to be
undertaken in less than 30 minutes. The interviewee is the senior engineer in Company
G.

development process: In most cases, Company G helps designers and managers to
assess their preliminary design concepts. Also, the software Company G developed can
be used for major changes to the packaging such as changing to a different material. The
aim of the software is to help users to think about packaging components and their
environmental impacts. The main advantage of the software is that prior knowledge is
not needed to use the tool. It is designed to be as simple as possible to use. The tool also
includes different packaging types such as primary packaging, secondary packaging and
tertiary packaging, as well as logistics. The designers and engineers of Company G took
packaging technologists’ behaviour into consideration while designing the software.
‘So, the language and structure of the tool oriented to be in the way we
think packaging design as a technologist think so it's aligned to the
language and structure of their thinking.’ (I7)
61
This software is suitable for business to business communication but not business to
consumer. Additionally, it provides generic data so an assessment can be done very
quickly but the data it provides is not comprehensive.
‘We can get 80% of the results for 20% of the effort. We typically say that
it's half an hour to sixty minutes to model your LCA. A real LCA takes
weeks or months, hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, we can get the juicy
bit. The 80% for 20% of the effort but you’re always missing that twenty
percent.’ (I7)
Companies using the knowledge: The tool users covered the whole supply chain in
different industries. Core users were not only food and beverage companies but also
spanned cosmetics, mobile phones, sports apparel, shoes and pharmaceutical
companies.
‘It's broken up into material suppliers, packaging companies and food,

beverage, product manufacturers as well as people in the cosmetics area.
We had L’Oréal, Estée Lauder. We have a couple in the pharmaceutical
area: Bristol-Myers Squibb devices. We have quite a lot in food and
beverage.’ (I7)
Differences in the knowledge needed in different types of companies: The interviewee

recognised that different types of companies have different drivers but was unsure as to
whether this was reflected in the advice Company G provided.
‘Companies have different drivers. So, for L’Oréal you know there is a very
strong internal driver. Their customers expect them to be the best and
assume that they do good things for the environment. For them it's very
much about how they view themselves. So, their driver is very internal.
Maybe for food and beverage sometimes it's more of local regulations and
pressure on food and beverage companies. People focus on waste recycling
purpose item, used bottles of water bottles and coffee cups have a very high,
the public has very high perceptions about things as being problematic so
they, they're driven more by some of those regulatory pressures or customer
pressures.’ (I7)
62
4.4 Discussion
The purpose of this study is to capture key stakeholders in sustainable packaging
decision-making within the FMCG companies. Findings are around people that are
responsible for sustainable packaging, the knowledge that enables sustainable
packaging design and development, motivations for supporting sustainable packaging,
and difficulties encountered when implementing sustainable packaging knowledge.
The discussion of the findings answers the first research question, i.e. Who are the key
stakeholders in solving the plastic reduction issue. This helps understand the
environment in which the sustainable packaging design decision has been made. Once
the sustainable packaging design decision-making process has been established, further
discussion is provided on the plastic reduction in sustainable packaging in these
settings.
4.4.1 People that are responsible for sustainable packaging

Sustainable packaging decision-making happens concurrently with product
development in the R&D stage. The design, technical, marketing and manufacturing
teams work closely to ensure the packaging sustainability.
It is notable that while some of the brand owners go through the sustainable packaging
decision-making process, packaging manufacturers and packaging consultancies that
some brand owners outsource their packaging projects to also take the responsibility for
sustainable packaging decision-making. From chapter 2 we learned that other
stakeholders exist and have certain influence on the packaging supply chain. However,
it is learned from this study that brand owners, consultancies and packaging companies
are the ones more knowledgeable in the plastic reduction field than other stakeholders.
We updated the circular packaging supply chain (Figure 4.2) and identified stakeholders
this research focus on: brand owners, consultancies and packaging companies. In the
following chapters we only focus on these stakeholders.
63
Figure 4.2 Circular packaging supply chain
4.4.2 The ‘knowledge’ enables and barricades sustainable packaging design

and the development process
In the R&D stage, company B and C used software (Value Tool and EcodEX) to
facilitate product and packaging design decision-making. This software is not
specifically for sustainable packaging. The knowledge developed by Company E and F
provides general information for sustainable packaging such as checklists and
guidelines. The areas most mentioned by FMCG companies are methods used in
innovation stages such as brainstorming. These methods are mainly used at the very
beginning of a project and are deemed helpful by all interviewees.
The brainstorming methods are also known as sustainable innovation in the literature.
Charter and Clark (2007) define sustainable innovation as: ‘A process where
sustainability considerations (environmental, social, economic) are integrated into
company systems from idea generation through to R&D and commercialization. This
applies to products, services and technologies, as well as new business and organization
models.’ Interviewed companies use sustainable innovation methods in their R&D
stage. They care about the environment and social impacts of their products as well as
their image in public. They actively use innovative tools at the beginning of the R&D
stage to ensure their products can convey this message to society.
4.4.3 Motivations for and difficulties in implementing sustainable

packaging
All companies expressed that their motivation for designing sustainably stemmed from
commitments they made for corporate environmental and societal responsibilities. In
addition, all companies believed that writing the sustainability aims in their companies’
goals or guidance promoted a positive image among the public.
64
4.4.4 Difficulties encountered in implementing sustainable packaging

All interviewees expressed their concerns regarding the additional costs of
implementing sustainable packaging. In contrast to interviewees’ opinions, some
researchers think differently. For example, Azzi et al. (2012) stated that the cost of
materials as well as costs related to manufacturing processes, logistic processes, supply
chain relationships, environmental costs and other hidden costs would be saved if
companies design packaging sustainably. For example, appropriate sustainable
packaging design saves the cost of materials and prevents product damage. It may be
suggested here education regarding sustainable packaging should be given not only to
consumers, but also the designers and managers. If researchers want to motivate
companies to adopt sustainable packaging design, they may also let them see the
benefits they can get from doing it.
Considerations for the end of life of packaging is another difficulty interviewees

encountered while implementing sustainable packaging. From both interviews and
literature review we learned that packaging has a longer lifecycle than the product it
contains (Svanes et al., 2010; Wever and Vogtländer, 2013). Once the product no longer
requires packaging, the packaging has to go through the disposal and recycle phase,
which are very much related to the design of packaging. This includes the choice of the
materials, the structure of the materials in packaging, the shape of the packaging, and
the instructions on the packaging which lead consumers to recycle it in the right way. It
may be concluded from this argument that it is hard to consider the whole picture during
the design process.
4.5 Summary
This study aims to understand how sustainable packaging decision is made within the
FMCG companies. Seven semi-structured interviews were conducted. It is clear that the
current knowledge in sustainable packaging adopted in the FMCG companies is
fragmented and generic. Different companies in different sectors received similar advice
from companies supporting the implementation of sustainable packaging knowledge.
65
Although their focuses are slightly different, the advice provided is general and
applicable for almost all sectors.
In addition, cost is perceived to be the major barrier to applying sustainable packaging

design in product development and the design process. Also related to the cost is the
difficulty of obtaining useful and readily available packaging data from the current
tools. According to the interviewees the most significant driver for the FMCG
companies to design packaging sustainably was having a positive image among the
public and protecting the environment. However, the cost and the immature packaging
knowledge may make it difficult to realize sustainable packaging design and
development.
It is clear that the interviewees are unaware of any tool/knowledge available specifically
for plastic reduction in sustainable packaging. In the next chapter a mapping grid is
developed to help gather the knowledge in plastic reduction of sustainable packaging.
66
Chapter 5: Preliminary factor mapping grid development
5 PRELIMINARY FACTOR
MAPPING GRID
DEVELOPMENT
This chapter explains the development of the factor mapping grid. Chapter 4 made clear
that little is known about how companies can improve their packaging sustainability and
how companies can make that journey to transition away from high dependency on
plastic packaging towards zero plastic usage. To address this challenge, this research
aims to understand the factors that influence plastic usage in the FMCG sector and is
structured as follows: first, the scope and method of this research, i.e. the desk research
and the five interviews are explained. Second, the theoretical knowledge from literature
and the practical knowledge from interviews is synthesized and a plastic reduction
framework is developed. Finally, I discuss the results from the desk research and
interviews and present the factor mapping grid I developed.
67
5.1 Refining the scope of this research

This research aims to develop a method to facilitate understanding of the factors that
influence plastic reduction in sustainable packaging. As discussed in chapter 4,
sustainable packaging decision-making in FMCG companies happens during the
packaging design and development stage. In addition, in chapter 4 we learned that the
design, technical, marketing and manufacturing teams in companies are responsible for
sustainable packaging decision-making. Therefore, the scope of this research focuses on
the packaging design and development stage and knowledge from the literature and
from practitioners in design, technical, marketing or manufacturing teams is gathered to
meet the research aim.

The plastic reduction framework was built from a combination of a literature survey of
the current knowledge of sustainable packaging and five semi-structured interviews
with experts of the packaging, packaging consultancy and brand owner companies.
68
While the desk research aimed to collect the theoretical knowledge to help the
development of the plastic reduction framework, semi-structured interviews verified
research results from chapter 4 and enriched the empirical knowledge of plastic
reduction in sustainable packaging.
The factor mapping grid was developed based on the plastic reduction framework. The
factor mapping grid was thus created as an iterative process in close cooperation with
leading experts globally. The feedback received from the interviews anchors the
framework and factor mapping grid more closely to the current boundary conditions in
global plastic packaging reduction design.
5.2.1 Desk research to develop the plastic reduction framework

The desk research was conducted in 2018 when the study was conducted. The desk
research aims to help the development of the initial plastic reduction framework. Scopus
was used (the reason was explained previously in chapter 2) to search for the keywords
‘fmcg, sustainable/sustainability/green, packaging, plastics, method, factors, barrier,
difficulties, enabler, motivation, (alternatives)’ in the titles or abstracts of articles,
resulting in 375 papers being identified. The selection of keywords was broadly given
by section 4 in chapter 2. In order to reduce the number of keywords to a manageable
quantity, a subset of keywords that was mostly targeted to the aim of this chapter was
selected. To illustrate the thinking behind the selection of keywords, for example,
policy, legislation and governance were discarded because this chapter focuses on the
packaging design and development stage of FMCGs.
The date range of the papers discovered through this process was from 1947 until 2018,
when the study was conducted. From this initial set of papers, duplicates were removed,
and abstracts were screened to identify those focused on the design and development of
sustainable packaging. In practice, certain aspects/types of content of searched papers
most notably aims, findings and contributions influenced the screening of papers.
This resulted in 73 articles which were selected as being relevant to understanding

influencing factors of reducing plastic usage through the packaging design and
development. Of these, 33 were accessible to the author, either online, in libraries or via
direct requests. Many of this were inaccessible because they were published in a highly
69
specialized and not well-established platform. A snowball approach was then used to
identify any additional references, adding one further paper and four reports (from New
Plastic Economy, Wrap, Plastic Europe, The Industry Council for Research on
Packaging and The Environment (INCPEN)). The advantage of snowball approach is to
identify papers that are not on Scopus, for example grey literature. An example of the
snowball approach is when I approached authors to request papers they published or
researchers/practitioners in seminars and conferences, they sometimes made suggestions
of compatible papers or grey literature.
The selected articles focused on different aspects of reducing plastic usage in the
packaging design and development process. In the following section, the main findings
from the desk research are summarised and combined with the findings from the
interviews, which were then developed as the plastic reduction framework which
contains 12 factors that influence the reduction of plastic usage in packaging.
5.2.2 Expert interviews

We used the research findings from chapter 4 to identify experts in this field.
Companies were identified in reports obtained from a grey literature search. Using
professional networking platforms, individuals from packaging related areas of
organisations were contacted. Five industry experts agreed to participate in this
research. Table 5.1 lists the interviewees and describes their areas of expertise. Because
the interviewees were from organisations widely dispersed geographically and for the
technical reason (i.e. easier to record compared with other methods), a telephone
interview-based approach was adopted as the most appropriate method for data
collection.
Table 5.1 Interviewees in this research
Company Company type Operation areas Interviewee
Company A Packaging Europe market focused with Packaging Engineer (I1)

global branches
Company B Packaging Asia market focused with global Packaging Technician (I2)
consultancy branches
70
Company C FMCG UK market focused with global Marketing Manager (I3a)

branches
Packaging Development Ma
nager (I3b)
Company D FMCG Global Plant Manager (I4)
All interviews were semi-structured using a pre-determined set of questions and were
recorded with the permission of the interviewees, given through verbal consent. This
research aims to explore the plastic reduction field in the FMCG sector. Structured
interviews can be restricted and not be able to provide information we need. And we
also want to structure questions to cover certain areas and compare the interview data
with each other. Thus, semi-structured interviews were adopted in this study.
The questions used to guide the interview are attached in Appendix B and C. The
interview questions were developed by reviewing the literature and discussions with the
professionals in the sustainable design field. The interviews adopted a conversational
style to allow the discussion to flow naturally. After the interview, the audio data were
transcribed and analysed. Data were analysed using an open coding approach, with
support of software ‘MAXQDA’. The quotes added in section 3 have been edited for
intelligibility.
5.2.3 Data validity

Four measures were undertaken to ensure the validity and reliability of this study. First,
companies’ annual reports and documents were triangulated with the interview data to
establish “converging lines of enquiry” (Yin, 2017). For example, some documents
were examined to check how certain interviewees’ assertion was. Second, purposive
sampling, pattern matching, and explanation building techniques were used to enhance
the validity of the results. Third, a pre-determined set of questions was adopted in all the
interviews to ensure the transparency and consistency of this study. Finally, a record-
keeping system for interviews, reports, documents and field notes was established to
enhance the reliability of the research findings.
71
Additionally, to join the academic discussion on plastic packaging one peer reviewed
academic conference paper has been published. The conference paper introduces early
findings of this research (Ma and Moultrie, 2018).
5.3 Factor mapping grid
5.3.1 Plastic reduction framework

This section reviews selected research on sustainable packaging to develop a framework
that guides this study and the obtained knowledge contributes to practice and research.
As we discussed in chapter 2, the majority of plastic packaging reduction literature
focuses on technology development, social aspects and the environment impact. These
are all important elements in reducing plastic packaging however they do not reflect
FMCG companies’ potential and areas they can possibly contribute.
This study focuses on FMCG companies. The FMCG Sustainable Design Factors
Framework (Error! Reference source not found.) developed by Park (2015) was used a
s the initial reference for the development of the plastic reduction framework. This is
one of the few representational frameworks in the field of sustainable design in the
FMCG sector at the time of this research. The FMCG Sustainable Design Factors
Framework is a conceptual framework that explains the iterative relationship of 11
factors that influence the successful implementation of sustainable design at the front-
end of new product development processes within the FMCG sector. These factors are
classified into five categories: organisational factors, possible barriers, managerial
factors, operational factors and short-term and/or long-term goals. It should be noted
that this framework relates to sustainable design in its entirety, where packaging is one
aspect. Thus, it is not tailored specifically to the issues around sustainable packaging
design and development.
Other research also guided the development of this framework as listed in Table 5.2.
Lockamy (1995) examined the packaging logistics decision making and concluded with
a conceptual framework for assessing companies’ strategic packaging decisions.
Underwood and Ozanne (1998) listed factors that influence the marketing of packaging
design. Nilsson, Olsson and Wikström (2011) evaluates the sustainability impacts along
72
the supply chain and summarized the influence factors. The conceptual framework
developed by Azzi et al. (2012) to integrate packaging design in five dimensions
including safety, agronomy, sustainability, logistic and marketing pointed the important
factors in packaging design. Grönman, Soukka, Järvi-Kääriäinen, J. M. Katajajuuri, et
al. (2013) took the entire life cycle of packaging into consideration and introduced a
guiding framework for sustainable packaging design. It is notable that plastic packaging
sustainability is not always the focus of these research and rarely any framework
proposed a supply chain view to help the FMCG company understand current
packaging sustainability issues.
Figure 5.2 FMCG Sustainable Design Factors Framework
Taking the five categorisations as a starting point (organisational factors, possible

barriers, managerial factors, operational factors and short-term and/or long-term goals),
this formed the basis of the interviews with practitioners and a focus for analysing the
extant literature. Furthermore, based on the research results from chapter 4 the
organizational factors category was considered to combine with short term/long term
goals and the managerial factors category as these factors are very similar in the plastic
reduction field. The organizational factors category was merged with short term/long
term goals and the managerial factors category.
73
The plastic reduction framework of the critical factors influencing the transition towards
zero plastic packaging is presented in Table 5.2 and this is further explained in the
following sections by themes.
Table 5.2 Preliminary framework for the reduction of plastic usage in packaging in
FMCG sector
Category Theme Description Reference
Short Sustainable goals The goal of reducing plastic usage, (Azzi et al., 2012)
term/Long term and programmes including increase the recycle of
goal plastic as well as the reduction of
virgin plastic
Managerial Internal Communication between different (Park, 2015)
factors communication departments relevant to the
packaging design and development
Operational Replace, reuse, Methods companies use in the (Nilsson, Olsson and
factors reduce and recycle packaging design and its Wikström, 2011; Grönman,
development phase to reduce Soukka, Järvi-Kääriäinen, J.
plastic usage M. Katajajuuri, et al., 2013)
Logistic This affects the shelf life of a (Lockamy, 1995)
product, which will affect the
packaging design
Possible Packaging Barriers in applying alternatives to
barriers technology plastics
Maturity of external The attitude of suppliers, (Underwood and Ozanne,
contexts consumers, governments as well as 1998)
the support from the recyclers
5.3.1.1 Sustainable goals and programmes

Sustainable goals and programmes are related to corporate sustainability, corporate
social responsibility, environmental management, and sustainable development in
companies, as sustainability shifts from a “nice, right thing to do” to a business-critical
paradigm. Sustainable goals and programmes benefit companies in three aspects:
economic, environmental and social. Sustainable goals and programmes benefit
companies economically for example by having higher stock values, achieving cost
savings and enhancing competitiveness, image and reputation (Lovins, 2010; Lovins,
Lovins and Hawken, 2017). Sustainable goals and programmes help companies
74
environmentally by mitigating environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, climate

change and changes in biogeochemical flows as well as biosphere integrity (Rockström
et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015). Sustainable goals and programmes facilitate
companies socially through contributing to the development of the society and making a
good environment for future generations.
Companies have realized the importance of sustainable goals and programmes. Models
have been developed to set the sustainable goals and programmes in companies (Table
5.3). Models can be split into four categories: corporate social responsibility, corporate
sustainability, environmental management and sustainable development. These models
try to improve sustainable awareness in companies and advocate sustainable
development in management, value chains and business models. However, these models
approach the sustainability problems from a corporate level. Connections/relationships
between sustainable goals and programmes and specific issues such as plastic
reduction/sustainable packaging/plastic packaging were rarely discussed.
Table 5.3 Models for setting sustainable goals and programmes (Landrum, 2017)
Category Authors Stages
Corporate social (Carlisle and Faulkner, Developing awareness; Promoting awareness; Initial
responsibility models 2004) implementation; Mainstreaming
(Zadek, 2004) Defensive; Compliance; Managerial; Strategic; Civil
(Mirvis et al., 2016) Elementary; Engaged; Innovative; Integrated;
Transformative
(Lindgreen, Swaen and Dismissing; Self-protecting; Compliance seeking;
Maon, 2009) Capability seeking; Caring Strategizing Transforming
(Visser, 2009) Defensive; Charitable; Promotional; Strategic; Systemic
Corporate (Dunphy, 2003) Rejection; Nonresponsiveness; Compliance; Efficiency;
sustainability models Strategic Proactivity; Sustaining organization
(van Marrewijk, 2013) Pre-CS; Compliance; Profit; Caring; Synergistic; Holistic
(Roome, 2011) Compliance; Proactive companies; Sustainable
enterprise
(White, 2009) Noncompliance; Compliance; Beyond compliance
Integrated strategy Purpose/mission
75
(Nakagawa, Telles and Compliance as opportunity; Value chain efficiencies and
Guevara, 2013) sustainability; Design sustainable products and services;
Develop new business models; Next practice platforms
(Aggerholm and Trapp,
First generation; Second generation; Third generation
2014)
(Grayson, 2011) Denier; Complier; Risk mitigator; Opportunity
maximizer; Champion (or leader)
(Dyllick and Muff, 2016) Business-as-usual the current economic paradigm;
Business Sustainability 1.0 Refined shareholder value
management; Business Sustainability 2.0 Managing for
the triple bottom line; Business Sustainability 3.0 True
sustainability
Environmental (Winn and Angell, 2000) Deliberate reactive; Unrealized; Emergent active;
management models Deliberate proactive
(Darabaris, 2019) Firefighter; Controller; Innovator; Best of the best
(Jabbour et al., 2013) Functional specialization; Internal integration; External
(strategic) integration
(Jabbour and Santos, 2008) Reactive; Preventive; Proactive
(Ormazabal, Sarriegi and Legal requirements; Responsibility assignment and
Viles, 2017) training; Systemization; ECO; Eco-innovative products
and services; Leading green company
Sustainable (Pearce, 1988, 2002) Cornucopian; Accommodating; Communalist; Deep
development models ecology
(Rydin, 2012) Quasi-cornucopian; Social choice; New economics; Limits
to growth
(Hopwood, Mellor and
Status quo; Reform; Transformation
O’Brien, 2005)
(Yanarella, Levine and Level 0: Environmentalism; Level 1: Smart growth; Level
Lancaster, 2009; Yanarella, 2: Green products, techniques, practices, policies; Level
2012) 3: Weak sustainability; Level 4: Transitional
sustainability; Level 5: Strong sustainability; Level 6:
Existentially realized strong sustainability
The companies interviewed had different goals with regard to plastic packaging. All
companies showed a willingness to cut down plastic usage by a defined (often small)
percentage. Company C has corporate commitments that are threefold: reduce, recycle
and reuse. This includes cutting down by 50% plastic usage per consumer up until 2020,
25% of their plastic should come from recycled sources by 2025 and 100% of their
76
packaging should be recyclable. On the other hand, other companies have goals in
regard to the materials used. For example, Company D is trying to move out of using
PVC (polyvinyl chloride), which is deemed unfriendly to the environment, and replace
it with biodegradable or bio-based plastics or paper. These types of goals motivate
companies to refine their packaging design and find alternative materials.
Thus, whilst companies may have goals to reduce plastics in packaging, they are
typically modest and are based on the identification of either alternative materials or on
more effective recycling on behalf of consumers or users.
5.3.1.2 Internal communication

Internal communication has been the most frequently mentioned theme in research into
green supply chain management and the circular economy. For example, it is well
acknowledged that integrating green supply chain management leads to divergence in
some cross-function teams and internal communication is imperative when the
divergence emerges. Young and Kielkiewicz-Young (2001) argued that to improve the
internal communication the cross functional teams should consist of sales,
environmental personnel, purchasing personnel and personnel from other relevant
departments, all of which could be found in organizations with the most advanced
strategies for sharing sustainability-oriented information.
Indeed, the efficiency of communication between teams during the decision-making

process of sustainable packaging design and development determined how much plastic
packaging the company could reduce. Interviewees all agreed that making sure that all
departments talk to each other and think thoroughly about trade-off situations is vital to
the sustainability of packaging.
On the other hand, although the expertise may exist within an organisation, the
transition to reduce plastic packaging usage requires different departments to
communicate with each other. There may often be an internal struggle that may delay
the process, as reported by Company C. Verhulst and Van Doorsselaer (2015) supported
this and argued that human aspects of implementing sustainability in companies, such as
participation or resistance from employees, are crucial in the implementation process.
They summarized 21 methods and tools which facilitate the internal communication in
77
companies after conducting eight case studies with companies from FMCG, furniture,
chemical and construction sectors (Table 5.4). Even though interviewed companies have
these methods/tools in place, the internal communication is still sometimes a struggle.
Table 5.4 Overview of communication methods and tools
Category Methods/Tools
Empowerment and Believers

participation Core team
Direct communication in internal network
Steering committee
Regular meetings of committee
Ambassadors
Dedicated training
Adapted information or communication style per
department
Dedicated workshop sessions
Process supporting tools Example products or projects
Pilot projects
Guidelines, checklists, templates, etc.
Database
External consultant
Spreading of information Own label
Existing labels and framework
Item in internal firm magazine
Item on intranet
Dedicated mailings
Dedicated presentation or seminars
Dedicated brochure
5.3.1.3 Replace, reuse, reduce and recycle

Some opportunities to replace, reuse, reduce or recycle plastics in packaging through an
improved the packaging design and waste management system have been defined in the
literature. This was discussed in chapters 1 and 2. Finding a suitable plastic-like
material as an alternative to plastics can be difficult. Under this circumstance, reusing,
reducing and recycling (3R) is viewed by companies as the most effective means of
78
reducing the usage of oil-based virgin plastics. This can be achieved by changing the
packaging format, maximising cube utilisation in a pack, optimising the packaging to
product weight ratio as well as the plastic to packaging weight ratio, and increasing the
recycled and renewable content (H. Lewis et al., 2007). Company C believes that
maximising the use-times of plastic packaging as well as eliminating single-use plastic
packaging could be an efficient way to help mitigate plastic pollution. They gave an
example of a ‘laundry bottle’, which is a large and substantially engineered bottle which
is typically used only once:
‘why do we have this big, engineered bottle, and we use it only once. That’s
absurd. We should use it, I mean ten, twenty times, until it’s broken and
make sure that, therefore, we don’t have all of this energy that is spent on
recycling this bottle or burning it, it’s absurd.’ (I3)
In order to develop their plastic reduction strategies, companies often use tools that are
readily available. From the exploratory study it is learned that two types of sustainable
packaging design tools are widely adopted: qualitative tools (guidelines, checklists,
metrics and indicators) and quantitative tools (based on LCA such as the
PIQET(Verghese, Horne and Carre, 2010) and the Pack-In Tool (Envirowise, 2008)).
Company A reported that these tools were usually very costly and required
data/expertise that the organisation did not have. For example, the LCA tools require
data from each life cycle stage, which can be difficult for companies to collect. In
addition, from the literature review, most ‘tools’ available to companies enable
companies to calculate the environmental impact of one stage in the whole packaging
life cycle, i.e. the manufacturing, logistics or recycling of packaging (Leadbitter, 2002;
Gutta, Wan and Kuriger, 2013; Srinivasan and Lu, 2014). However, in order to reduce
the plastic usage in packaging, it is crucial to consider the life cycle as a whole and
think about each stage of the process.
5.3.1.4 Logistics
Logistics are imperative elements in plastic packaging consumption. García-Arca,
Prado-Prado and Gonzalez-Portela Garrido (2014) introduced the concept of
“Sustainable Packaging Logistics” (SPL) and defined SPL as “The process of
79
designing, implementing, and controlling the integrated packaging, product and supply
chain systems in order to prepare goods for safe, secure, efficient and effective
handling, transport, distribution, storage, retailing, consumption, recovery, reuse or
disposal, and related information, with a view to maximising social and consumer value,
sales, and profit from a sustainable perspective, and on a continuous adaptation basis”.
It reinforces the idea of integrating three elements in a logistic system: packaging,
product and supply chains as well as combining logistic packaging design with
economic benefits.
However, there was research focused on changing packaging materials in SPL but that
research rarely investigated how to reduce plastics. Research mainly focused on
understanding the technical and economic challenges of the product-logistic packaging
combination. This included improving the logistic space efficiency by adopting modular
dimensional coordination and simple shapes in packaging, optimizing transport routes,
distance, equipment and cargos and optimizing the return transports and possible
maintenance of the reused packaging (Grönman, Soukka, Järvi-Kääriäinen, J. M.
Katajajuuri, et al., 2013). Environmental challenges were analysed by calculating the
energy consumption, Green House Gases emissions (GHGs) and other air emissions of
transport/haulage (transfers and storage).
The delivery system and supply chain are also believed by companies interviewed to
have a large impact on the reduction of plastic packaging. Companies interviewed noted
that if the time from production to consumption can be reduced, then the need for
plastic packaging might also be reduced as a core function of packaging is often to
increase the ‘life’ of products which might otherwise degrade. By enabling quicker
consumption, this might enable companies to move away from plastics as the preferred
mode of packaging. However this is not desirable for a sustainable future.
With developments in e-commerce, it is possible that this will enable greater choice on
behalf of consumers to specify the types of packaging which they prefer. Consumers
may decide to eliminate the amount of plastic packaging used in their delivery when
purchasing online. Company D thinks e-commerce will change the nature of packaging
delivered to their end consumers:
80
‘Now with progress and increase of e-commerce, we don’t have to do [it,

and] that means we can have closed boxes which are just – you put the toy
in the box; but on the website or on the shelves, you have [a] couple of
pieces, which are displayed. You really don’t have to have a package
because at the end of the day the customers throw the package [away].’(I4)
5.3.1.5 Packaging technology

Current developments in packaging technology are beginning to influence the reduction
of plastics in packaging. However, plastics remain the primary choice of packaging in
many instances, where specific technical requirements may be difficult to achieve using
alternative materials. Coffee sold in company C, for example, contains high levels of
oxygen and water vapour, and the packaging must provide a barrier to light, be sealed
against moisture and prevent contamination by strong odours. Thus, the focus for
company C is on how to ensure the packaging provides the most effective level of
protection and thus, environmental concerns are secondary. A common solution for
coffee packaging is the aluminium layer sandwiched between two polymer layers.
However, this combination of different materials makes the packaging impossible to
recycle. Whilst this technology was developed for specific applications such as primary
food packaging, it is also used for other applications such as secondary logistics
packaging, even though the technical demands might not be so high. Outsourcing of
packaging can result in companies interviewed reusing technologies created for other
applications. Alternatively, having invested in capital equipment on one production line,
this may be reused across different products to ensure return on investment. This sort of
consideration is business as usual consideration.
Both in the desk research and the interviews, the development of new materials is
emphasised in packaging technology to a great extent. To apply new materials,
companies have to overcome one important barrier: the functional properties. Plastic
packaging is very frequently applied because of its functional properties. For example,
flow-pack type packaging that wraps products with a plastic film depends on the
properties of the plastic to keep the product inside dry. Company A stated:
81
‘Many of the food companies, especially the bigger the companies get, [sic]
the more they are focused on having very stable and not changing [the]
quality of their product. Also, over the whole shelf life, they want long shelf
life. They want high barrier requirements, and this guarantees high product
quality over a long period of time, and for this, plastics-based packaging [is
the] standard material.’ (I1)
Bio-based and biodegradable plastics can be a good alternative to plastics, but they have
some issues in practice. Major issues are perceived to be costs, technical performance
and ability to achieve desired production volumes. One interviewee saw paper-based
packaging as a promising alternative to plastics if only they could improve the ‘barrier’
properties such as being water and aroma proof.
Compared to the value of a product, the packaging is relatively cheap. If companies

want to make the recycling/reusing process economically feasible, it is a matter of the
volume of recycled packaging. For example, if companies have standardised types and
materials of plastics for water bottles, it makes business sense to reuse them. The
recyclers could use the same infrastructure to clean the bottle and return it to the
companies for reuse.
5.3.1.6 Maturity of external contexts

External contexts include suppliers, consumers, retailers, recyclers and governments.
Company C thinks that the packaging suppliers have a lot of power with regard to
plastic usage. One company represents only a small market share for the suppliers. If
suppliers do not feel the urge to change plastic usage, there is not much a company can
do.
Changing demands of consumers provides one of the most significant drivers for the
companies interviewed to change the design of their packaging. If consumers do not
demand changes in packaging to reduce the amount of plastics, then companies will not
prioritise this change. However, consumers are a large and varied group and whilst
some may value sustainability, others may be demanding low purchase prices with little
direct concern over the materials used. However, the interviewees acknowledged that
regardless of consumer priorities, packaging should look sustainable from the
82
consumers’ perspectives. This may be based on their experience, their understanding, or

the look and texture of the packaging. Company A stated:
‘This is from one article that I have read; ‘You don’t have to explain [to]
the consumer the sustainability of an egg carton. He just gets it. He just
understands an egg carton is a packaging solution that is environmentally
friendly.’ (I1)
When discussing consumers, the focus is often on ‘end-users’, but for packaging
companies and brand owners, the consumers of concern to them are the buyers in major
retailers (e.g. Walmart, Marks & Spencer and Tesco). These retailers normally have
tools including sustainability scorecards and metrics, which assess the sustainability of
the companies’ products. The retailers’ requirements can have a major influence on
their suppliers’ strategies for packaging. Large retailers like Walmart set their targets to
be environmentally friendly and reduce plastic usage in packaging. They ask companies
to help them achieve the targets by, for instance, reducing the percentage of plastics in
their packaging materials.
Recyclers also play an important role. However, compared to the rest of the value chain,
plastic recycling companies have a minority voice. Perversely, they also have an interest
in retaining some plastics for business growth. Company B pointed out that many of the
recycling companies are small and operate locally rather than nationally. As a result,
they have comparatively little ‘power’ in influencing what original manufacturers may
do. Company A and Company B agreed that the recycling infrastructure is also very
different across different nations or regions, such as Germany, Eastern Europe and
Southern Europe. This makes it more complicated for companies that ship their
products to different countries to adopt design practices that work in all areas. In
addition, as Company B stated, the neglected status of recycling companies hinders the
development of relevant technology, which affects the improvement of material
recyclability in the long run.
Governments potentially have the most significant impact on changing practices

through legislation. These changes have begun, with growing emphasis in the UK on
reusing plastic bottles, banning the sale of some plastic items (e.g. straws) and charging
83
for the use of plastic bags. However, practices vary and are highly dependent on the
values of the governing parties in different nations. As a result, there is no certainty that
legislative pressure will have the desired effect in the long run.
5.3.2 Discussion
This study has developed a preliminary framework of factors influencing companies’
reduction of plastic usage in packaging. Factors are summarized in Table 5.5. This is
just a first approach based on insights from the literature and five exploratory interviews
and as a result, the framework needs further validation. However, some interesting
factors have emerged.
Table 5.5 Preliminary framework of factors influencing the reduction of plastic

usage in packaging in FMCG sector
Category Theme Factors
Short term/Long Sustainable goals and Sustainable goals and programmes running in
term goal programmes companies
Managerial factors Internal All functions in the company communicate with
communication each other and work together effectively; The
current management structure in companies;
Operational factors Replace, reuse, reduce Change the design of packaging to reduce
and recycle plastic usage, e.g. packaging structure and the
use of recyclable plastics; Tools and expertise
to make effective plastic reduction decisions
Logistic New ways of delivering goods which may
change the plastic needed in packaging like e-
commerce, blockchain and localized
manufacturing
Possible barriers Packaging technology Alternative materials and packaging
efficiencies; Functional properties that
packaging need such as protection, marketing,
logistics and transparency
Maturity of external Work with other stakeholders e.g. suppliers, to
contexts explore new possibilities together; Consumer
buying behavior; Suitable infrastructure to
produce as well as recycle packaging;
Legislation
84
Reducing plastic usage in packaging is not a priority for many companies. The
advantages of the functional properties of plastics make it hard for companies to find
alternatives. But growing environmental pressure and public awareness of the damage
created by plastics is pushing the need to change up the agenda. In this research, the
analysis of the literature on plastic packaging and the interviews confirmed that
knowledge of the subject of plastic packaging is still fragmented, and there is a need to
tackle reduced plastic usage in packaging in a more structured way.
Many companies are beginning to understand the need to reduce the amount of plastics
used in packaging and are explicit about this in their company strategies. However,
packaging fulfils a number of different purposes and thus, making changes is not
straightforward.
Evidence from industry also demonstrates how this is a complex systemic issue, with a
range of different stakeholders from sub-contract producers, original designers, supply
chains, end-users, consumers, recycling agencies and government agencies. There is a
danger that each of these is relying upon other stakeholders to take change their
behaviour and as a result, no one wishes to make the first move. Currently, there is
over-reliance on the end-users of packaging changing their behaviour to ensure more is
recycled or reused. As a result, there is arguably, insufficient pressure on the originators
of waste plastics to change methods of production. This will not change without
significant legislation or without substantial changes in consumption behaviour. There
is hope on the horizon, with new materials possibly offering some potential but there is
a risk that these will not be sufficient without complementary changes in consumption
behaviour.
This section presents a framework of the factors that influence the reduction of plastic
usage in packaging for companies. Future work is required to involve more decision-
making practitioners and test the proposed framework. Related to this, it is evident that
in different companies there are complex trade-offs to be made between different
elements through the packaging design. Due to the complicated nature of packaging,
how companies handle the trade-offs during sustainable packaging design might
provide fruitful opportunities for research.
85
Finally, assessing the influencing factors is only part of the story. To be effective, long-
term changes to design processes and practices need to be more formally
institutionalised. There is, therefore, work to be done to better understand how such
changes could be implemented and good practices anchored as part of a company’s
research and development activity.
5.3.3 Factor mapping grid

In the last section, knowledge from the literature review and interviews with
practitioners was gathered. 12 factors that influence plastic reduction in sustainable
packaging were synthesized and the plastic reduction framework was developed. The
purpose of this section is to incorporate the current understanding of plastic reduction in
sustainable packaging to a factor mapping grid tool. This grid is tested in the next
chapter and refined after new knowledge gathered.
This factor mapping grid is designed to answer the question: What are enablers and
barriers of plastic packaging reduction in FMCG companies? Constructing the grid took
place after the exploratory study (chapter 4). The literature survey and interviews
indicated that although there were tools to facilitate the adoption of sustainable
packaging, none of the tools enabled the understanding of whether the transition to zero
plastic usage was possible and how the transition could be made.
There are several grid mapping techniques developed for sustainability development
(DFID, 2002; Walsh and Mitchell, 2005; Mathur et al., 2007). These techniques aided
the understanding of the different aspects of factors such as importance/influence,
impact/priority, power/interest, support/opposition and power/legitimacy/urgency.
Among all these options, the power/impact is potentially very useful for sustainability
development for two reasons. Firstly, rating the companies’ power to influence the
factors can be helpful in identifying the power imbalance and preparing strategies to
address this. Secondly, mapping the impact, i.e. the degree of the impact as an enabler
or a barrier, provides an opportunity to separate the factors based on their impacts. The
realistic possibilities of meaningful engagement within practical constraints can then be
explored. The power/impact grid thus provides an opportunity for the understanding of
potential transition to zero plastic usage in sustainable packaging (Figure 5.3).
86
The grid in this research attempts to enable the understanding of four aspects of factors
that influence plastic reduction in sustainable packaging: the significance of enablers
and barriers, the sequence of these factors, the level of control that companies have over
these factors and stakeholders involved in the decision-making process. The grid plots
the factors that influence plastic reduction on a A2 size print. This grid has two key
attributes of factors as its axes, i.e. the control of the company and the significance of
the enablers and barriers. By placing factors on the grid, the impact of the factors and
the power companies have over the factors can be decided. Interviewees can draw the
sequence between factors on the A2 size grid print using mark pens.
Figure 5.3 Factor Mapping Grid
It is imperative to understand the power and impact of each factor because it brings the
focus on empowering or controlling the impact of the different factors during the plastic
reduction practices. However, the power and impact may be different for different
companies. It may lie in the ability to affect the execution of plastic reduction practices
87
in the short term or to affect its success and acceptance in the long term. The nature of
the power and impact must therefore also be considered.
12 factors were printed in the B5 cards separately (Figure 5.4) and could be placed on
the grid. Duplicates of factors were printed as some factors can be both enabler and
barriers. Blank cards were also provided for additional factors that may emerge during
the interview.
Figure 5.4 Factors
Certain stakeholders were collected during the literature survey and interviews (chapter
2, 4 and 5). These stakeholders were printed on the B5 cards separately (Figure 5.5) and
could be placed on the grid with corresponding factors that these stakeholders can
influence. Blank cards were also prepared for additional stakeholders that may emerge
in the research.
88
Figure 5.5 Stakeholders
Initially, we trialled this approach in our research institute running 5 ‘test-runs’ with
knowledgeable researchers in sustainable design, manufacturing and management. This
enabled us to refine the approach and to ensure it is feasible within an interview
timeframe as well as delivering useful results.
5.4 Summary
This chapter conducted the desk research and interviews to understand the factors that
influence plastic reduction practices. 12 factors were generated, and plastic reduction
framework was developed. A factor mapping grid was developed based on the plastic
reduction framework. As a result, we now have a tool suitable gathering the practice
knowledge. The next challenge is how to put this into practice. In the following chapter
how the mapping grid gathered knowledge in practice is explained.
89
6 ADOPTING FACTOR MAPPING
GRID
In chapter 4 the current sustainable packaging practices were investigated which led to a
good understanding of sustainable packaging decision-making in the FMCG sector.
This was followed by chapter 5 in which the current research on plastic reduction in
sustainable packaging was amplified with literature survey and semi structured
interviews. The plastic reduction framework and factor mapping grid were developed
based on the research results (Figure 6.1).
90
Chapter 6: Adopting factor mapping grid
This chapter describes 18 semi structured interviews which were conducted face to face
with industry experts in packaging, packaging consultancy and FMCG companies. First
there is a description of the research scope and research methods, and this is followed
by research results and finally a discussion of findings. The results of this research help
to understand factors influencing plastic reduction in sustainable packaging in the
FMCG sector.
6.1 Refining the scope of this research

The purpose of this research is to deploy a factor mapping grid and verify the plastic
reduction framework developed in the last chapter. It explores the plastic reduction in
the FMCG sector in-depth and provides a deeper understanding of enablers and barriers
in plastic reduction of sustainable packaging. This leads to a final plastic reduction
framework. This research aims to investigate the following research question:
What are enablers and barriers of plastic packaging reduction in FMCG companies?
This includes four aspects of enablers/barriers that influence plastic reduction in

sustainable packaging: the significance of enablers/barriers, the sequence of these
factors, the level of control that companies have over these factors and stakeholders
involved in the decision-making process.
Following the research design presented in chapter 3, the detailed research methods and
the findings are presented in this chapter. In the following section the research methods
are presented.

Data was collected from a series of semi-structured interviews with 18 respondents
from 12 carefully chosen companies in the FMCG sector. As the nature of this research
on plastic packaging reduction was exploratory, it was felt that this approach offered the
best balance in terms of depth of insights vs. generalisability. Semi-structured
interviews are widely acknowledged as being an effective approach to gather in-depth
knowledge about current practices and gain insights from practitioners regarding
91
possible solutions for the future, especially when the phenomenon being studied is one
that is in its infancy or is still emerging (Basu and Palazzo, 2008). Reduction or
elimination of plastics in packaging is currently a hot topic in many FMCG companies,
but one in which action is in its very early stages. In addition, we adopted this approach
as knowledge on plastic reduction practice is still emerging. Semi structured interviews
also enable the in-depth investigation of a phenomenon within a real contemporary
context. This allows researchers to acquire broad and detailed knowledge of the
phenomenon under investigation.
Alternative research approaches were considered, including focus groups, surveys and
mixed methods. As an exploratory research, it was felt that a survey would not provide
sufficient depth of insight and would be more appropriate at a later stage to validate or
test any factors that emerge from the semi-structured interviews. We were also aware
that the potential number of ‘knowledgeable experts on plastic reduction from FMCG
companies’ is very small and thus, gaining a sufficiently large sample of respondents to
justify a survey would be problematic. Focus groups can provide an efficient means of
synthesising views from a range of participants but run the risk of producing a ‘loudest
voice’ conclusion and this approach inherently limits the depth of insights that can be
generated from each participating company. We considered a single case study in one
company but were aware that this would further limit any potential generalisability. We
also considered mixed methods, combining qualitative and quantitative data (Makrakis
and Kostoulas-Makrakis, 2016). However, in this research we are not seeking to
measure progress or to correlate progress with any specific factors but instead to
uncover perceptions from respondents regarding the enablers and barriers.
We conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with 18 expert representatives from

12 companies. To identify the experts, we adopted an expert sampling approach,
combined with a purposeful sampling strategy (Marshall, 1996). Initially we identified
46 potential experts from plastic packaging reduction projects of sustainable packaging
non-governmental organisations (e.g. WRAP, the British Antarctic Survey and the Ellen
MacArthur Foundation). Emails were sent to each potential interviewee with two
rounds of follow up emails. 18 interviewees from 12 companies responded positively
and ultimately participated in this study. Table 6.1 provides an overview of interviewees
92
and the sample companies. It is notable that most interviewees were from multinational
companies operating in a wide variety of sectors, including personal care, home
appliances, soft drinks, food, toiletries, packaging manufacturing and consultancy.
Naturally, the method here does have limitations, which are explained in chapter 8. To
some extent, the sample was self-selecting in that the companies who responded
positively were more likely to view plastic reduction as an important issue and as a
result had more knowledge to share regarding plastic reduction than companies which
did not respond. We view this self-selection bias as positive in the context of this study,
as we were seeking insights from firms that are actively engaged with the topic and thus
are more likely to be aware of the barriers/enablers that they have encountered.
Table 6.1 Interviewees involved in experts’ interviews
Company Compan Operation Revenue Business focus Occupations of the interviewee

y type areas (2019)
UK market Packaging technician 8years
focused with (C1a)
Company global
Brand Retail £7 billion Personal care & Sustainability manager 10 years
1 branches
owners Medicine (C1b)
Packaging designer 1year (C1c)
Electroni Global €13 billion Home appliances Packaging technician 12 years
Company
c (C2)
2
devices
Company Global US$32 Soft drinks Sustainability manager 21 years
FMCG
3 billion (C3)
European Toiletry Packaging manager-beauty 7
market years (C4a)
Company focused €20 billion Packaging manager-detergent 5
FMCG
4 years (C4b)
Packaging technician 12 years
(C4c)
UK market £2 million Soup Marketing 1 year (C5a)
Company focused
Food Packaging manager 5 years
5
(C5b)
Company Global €51 billion Personal care & Marketing 3 years (C6)
FMCG
6 Food
Global €7 billion Personal care Packaging manager 6 years
Company (C7a)
FMCG
7 Packaging technician 2 years
(C7b)
Packagin UK market N/A Packaging CEO&Founder 6 years (C8)
Packagin
g Company focused
g
compani 8
supplier
es
93
Packagin Global $36.2M Packaging Packaging technician 16 years
Company g machine (C9)
9 machine
supplier
Seconda European £21 Packaging Marketing representation 7 years
ry market million (C10)
Company
packagin focused
10
g
supplier
Consulta Packagin European N/A Consulting CEO&Founder 10 years (C11)
ncies Company g market
11 consulta focused
ncy
European £75 Consulting Consultant 8 years (C12)
Company Consulta
market million
12 ncy
focused
6.2.1 Data collection

Prior to this study, we collected general opinions from industrial experts regarding
factors that may influence the reduction of plastic in packaging (chapter 5). As a result,
the research team had developed a broad understanding of the potential factors which
might influence firms, in addition to the factors identified in the literature, and a factor
mapping grid was developed based on these research findings.
In this research, we sought to examine the challenge in depth and wished to gain more
insight into these factors than just ‘listing them’. To do this, we developed a novel
mapping method (chapter 5), to enable us to both verify the factors that were found in
previous research and capture new factors if there are any, but also to learn more about
their relative importance, the relationships between them and the extent to which the
interviewees felt they were within the company’s control.
The Factor Mapping Grid was deployed to achieve the research aims listed above. It
provides a structure for the interview which enables interviewees to engage directly in
the research topic, whilst providing a framework for their commentary and spoken
evidence. The grid consists of a graphical template onto which different factors can be
‘mapped’ and the relationships between them explored. The interviewees were
encouraged to explain their thinking as they progressed so that their rationale and the
thinking underlying the decisions they made could be captured. The graphical template
in this case is a 2*2 matrix in which one axis represents the extent to which
interviewees feel their firm has ‘control’ over a specific factor and the other axis
94
indicates the extent to which the factor presents a barrier or an enabler to change. Once
the interviewee had placed all of the relevant factors on the grid then they could explore
the priorities, precedence and interrelationships between them.
It is our experience that interviewees engaged with this more graphical approach to the
interview in a very positive way and thus found expressing their views on their factors
more efficient and accurate. This approach also provided the researchers with a richer
data set with both the interview transcripts and the completed maps for analysis (for
further detail, see (Ma and Moultrie, 2018)). This allowed for a much richer set of
insights to be developed than would have been possible by following only a series of
semi-structured verbal questions.
The interview process followed the following steps and at all stages each interviewee
was asked to describe the reasoning behind their choices (the full procedure is described
in Appendix C):
Step 1: At the beginning of each interview, interviewees were asked to share

information about their job responsibilities within their companies, their experiences
regarding the topic of the interview and details about relevant projects they had
encountered.
Step 2: Interviewees were asked to reflect on any possible enablers and barriers
regarding the reduction of plastics in their packaging. Each of the factors identified was
written on a card. This was conducted before showing the interviewees any prepared
cards with predetermined factors in order to ensure their choices were not restricted or
unwanted bias were not introduced.
Step 3: Interviewees were presented with a set of prepared cards (factor cards see Figure
5.4 in chapter 5) to add to the ones which they had produced in step 2. These cards
included a wide range of specific factors that might affect the reduction of plastics in
their packaging.
Step 4: Interviewees were asked to select any factors which they believed to be
important for the reduction of plastics in their firm and map these onto the factor
mapping grid provided (Figure 6.2, note yellow cards represent cards written by
interviewees while white cards represent cards provided by the researcher). The grid
95
was printed in A2 size before the interview and was took to the interview companies by
the research. The grid allowed interviewees to position the factor on the x-axis
depending upon whether they felt it was an enabler or a barrier to change and the y-axis
to indicate the extent to which the respondent felt the company had control over the
factor.
Figure 6.2 An example of the finished grid
Step 5: Once all of the factors were placed on the Grid, interviewees were asked to rate
the importance of each factor by the allocation of ‘dots’. They were provided with 10
dots to allocate across all ‘enablers’ and 10 to allocate to all ‘barriers’. For example, that
96
could mean one dot for each of 10 factors, suggesting they are all equally important; or
10 dots all just for one factor suggesting it is the most significant one. Different colors
represent votes from different interviewees.
Step 6: Having rated the ‘importance’ of each factor, interviewees were asked to
consider the sequence in which they needed to be addressed if their companies were to
reduce the usage of plastic in their packaging. They did this by drawing the sequence
between factors on the A2 size grid print using mark pens.
Step 7: In the last step interviewees were asked to place the stakeholder cards onto the
factors that these stakeholders could potentially influence (stakeholder cards see Figure
5.5 in chapter 5). Throughout this activity, interviewees were asked to comment on and
explain their thinking. This was recorded and subsequently transcribed to add further
depth to the dataset.
6.2.2 Data analysis

All interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the researcher also took notes to
complement the recordings. The transcripts were analysed using the software
MAXQDA 2018. In addition, the researcher took pictures of each grid after the
interview, and these were subsequently turned into digital versions using Adobe
Illustrator CC 2018. For example, Figure 6.3 is the digital version of Figure 6.2. The
photo was put in the Illustrator CC 2018 as the background. The previous location of
each factor card that the interviewee put on the grid was copied from the photo to the
digital grid. In this way each factor card’s location in the grid is recorded in the digital
grid and the style of each grid is aligned. For example the management support card in
the top-left in the photo was copied in the digital version to the same location in the top-
left in the digital grid. The color was yellow to show it is the card written by
interviewees. Furthermore, publicly available documents including information
available on companies' websites, sustainability and corporate social responsibility
reports, and annual reports were used to supplement the interview data and corroborate
research findings.
97
Figure 6.3 An example of the digital version of the grid
The thematic data analysis technique was deployed to analyse the research data and
identify research themes (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). The transcripts ran through
three rounds of coding. For the first round, we transcribed all interviews verbatim and
the segments were coded according to the factors mentioned by the interviewees, and
this resulted in 63 codes. The 2nd round codes were gathered and summarized by a
word or two. For the 3rd round, new codes emerged only if they do not mean the same
thing as in the 2nd round. Codes were synthesized and clustered by factors. 39 enablers
and 37 barriers were generated by the researcher based on the codes (Figure 6.4). As we
can see from the graph, enabler or barrier cards originally put by the interviewees on the
98
grid were now summarized by a word or two. Factors were aligned if they contain the
same meaning. I ranked the importance and summarized the sequences from all
interviews after 3rd round of coding. It was also noted that grouping and analysing
factors by themes can add new perspectives to the analysis, which leads to the next step
– organizing factors by themes.
Figure 6.4 An example of the digital version after 3rd round of coding
These 51 factors were further organized into 16 overarching themes. The discussion of
the results was based on factors and themes synthesized. The factors with the most
connectedness mentioned by interviewees in the interviews were captured, since they
99
were based on multiple views rather than on a single opinion. The factors were put into
themes based on the codes and their segments (Figure 6.5). In this way, factors under
the same theme can be easily identified on the grid. The sequence and importance of
each theme was more straightforward in this graph comparing with the graph after 3rd
round of coding. In summary, all transcripts were coded, and relevant factors were
converted into themes to help the analysis.
Figure 6.5 An example of the digital version after organizing factors by themes
100
6.2.3 Data validity

Five measures were undertaken to ensure the validity and reliability of this research.
First, companies’ annual reports and documents were triangulated with the interview
data to establish “converging lines of enquiry” (Yin, 2017). Second, purposive
sampling, pattern matching, and explanation building techniques were used to enhance
the validity of the results. Third, interview protocols were adopted in all the interviews
to ensure the transparency and consistency of this study. Fourth, a record-keeping
system for interviews, reports, documents and field notes was established to enhance the
reliability of the research findings. Finally, every round was double checked with
interviewees via email/telephone to ensure that the segments were coded by their
original meanings. All interviewees responded during in the 1st round of coding. 10
interviewees responded in the 2nd round of coding after the reminder/follow up. Two
interviewees responded in the 3rd round of coding after the reminder/follow up. The
lack of respond was assumed as an agreement/consent with the current coding methods.
Additionally, to join the academic discussion on plastic packaging one peer reviewed
academic conference paper and one peer reviewed journal paper were published. The
conference paper introduces the Factor Mapping Grid as a research method and early
findings of this research (Ma, Aranda-Jan and Moultrie, 2019). The journal paper
continues the discussion of the method and introduces more detailed findings of this
research (Ma, Park and Moultrie, 2020). Author contributions for this journal paper
were as follows. Ma Xuezi conceived and designed the analysis under the supervision
of James Moultrie; Ma Xuezi collected the data, performed the analysis and wrote the
paper; Curie Park and James Moultrie also contributed to the data analysis and paper
editing.
6.3 Research results

The results were based on three sources of data: the transcripts from the interviews, the
factor mapping grid outcomes and onsite observation notes. Errors in the quotes extract
from interviews have not been corrected. We did not find any significant disagreement
of what interviewees tell and companies’ annual reports and documents.
101
The analysis of the factors indicates that transition from massive usage of plastics to
zero plastics is influenced by a combination of factors: external demands (from
suppliers, retailers, consumers, recyclers and governments), technical improvements (on
material, design or production) and company environment (goals and programmes, and
culture and management structure).
The analysis of the interviews and mapping of the factors and segments revealed
interesting patterns. The factor mapping grid showed the enabler and barrier
characteristics with the 16 themes and their segments mapped out in four sections
according to the perceived level of control each company has.
39 enablers and 37 barriers in plastic reduction practice were identified (Table 6.2).
Overall themes including collaboration consumer and recycling contain most enablers
and barriers. Among 51 factors, 25 factors act as both enabler and barrier.
Table 6.2 Enabler and barriers to plastics packaging elimination*e=enabler;

b=barrier
Factors Themes Score Score Total

(importa (importa
nce) as nce) as a
an barrier
enabler
Environment impact (b1) Environment
Company culture (e1/b2) Culture 1 1 2
Sustainable goals and Goals and programmes 12 12

programmes (e2/b3)
Staff attitudes (b4)
PR (e3/b5) Marketing 1 1
Marketing advantage (e4/b6) 2 2
Communication/Business 2 2
strategies (e5)
102
Management support (e6) Management 1 1
Management structure (e7/b7) 1 3 4
Management targets (b8) 2 2
Knowledge (e8/b9) Tools and expertise 1 2 3
Technology advances (e9/b10) 3 3
Understandable and accessible

(e10)
Design and development Design 5 4 9

(e11/b11)
Innovation (e12)
Labelling (e13)
Standardisation (e14/b12) 2 2
Materials (e15/b13) Alternatives 5 1 6
Functionality barriers (e16/b14) 14 14
Trade-offs (b15)
Supplier availability (e17/b16) Production 4 4
Manufacturing efficiency
(e18/b17)
Changing old ways of production 3 3

(b18)
Changing material flows (b19)
Costs (e19/b20) Costs 5 14 19
Saving (e20)
Pricing (e21/b21)
103
Functions in companies Collaboration 6 3 9
(e22/b22)
Working with other stakeholders 13 9 22

(e23/b23)
Start-ups (e24) 3 3
Industry packaging (e25)
Increased listing with eco-

friendly companies (e26)
Logistics (b24) Logistics
New modes of delivering 5 5

(e27/b25)
Retailer (e28/b26) Retailers
Public awareness (e29/b27) Consumers 6 6
Look and feel (e30/b28) 2 2
Consumer perception (e31/b29) 1 1
Consumer convenience (b30)
Consumer buying behaviour 15 7 22

(e32/b31)
Consumer requirements (b32)
Fail to see the long-term impact 2 2

(b33)
Responsibility for end of life Recycling

consideration (e33)
Waste reduction (e34)
Refill/Reuse concepts (e35) 1 1
Recyclability (b34) 1 1
104
Hygiene (e36)
Suitable infrastructure/system 9 6 15
(e37/b35)
Legislation (e38/b36) Governance 8 4 12
NGO (e39)
Governance (b37)
All Grids are attached in the Appendix D, and the factors are analysed by companies in
the following subsections.
6.3.1 Brand owners

6.3.1.1 Enablers and barriers to reducing plastic packaging
Table 6.3 listed factors voted by brand owners with “important dots”. Themes such as
consumers, collaboration, costs, and alternatives received most votes for the importance
by FMCG companies.

b=barrier

(importanc (importanc
e) as an e) as a
enabler barrier
Working with other Collaboration 13 9 22

stakeholders (e23/b23)
Consumer buying Consumers 15 7 22

behaviour (e32/b31)
Suitable Recycling 9 6 15
infrastructure/system
(e37/b35)
105
Functionality barriers Alternatives 14 14
(e16/b14)

programmes (e2/b3)
Design and development Design 5 4 9

(e11/b11)
Functions in companies Collaboration 6 3 9

(e22/b22)
Materials (e15/b13) Alternatives 5 1 6
Public awareness Consumers 6 6

(e29/b27)
New modes of delivering Logistic 5 5

(e27/b25)
Management structure Management 1 3 4

(e7/b7)
Supplier availability Production 4 4

(e17/b16)
Knowledge (e8/b9) Tools and expertise 1 2 3
Technology advances Tools and expertise 3 3

(e9/b10)
Changing old ways of Production 3 3

production (b18)
Start-ups (e24) Collaboration 3 3
Company culture (e1/b2) Culture 1 1 2
Marketing advantage Marketing 2 2

(e4/b6)
106
Communication/Business Marketing 2 2
strategies (e5)
Management targets (b8) Management 2 2
Standardisation (e14/b12) Design 2 2
Look and feel (e30/b28) Consumers 2 2
Fail to see the long-term Consumers 2 2

impact (b33)
Management support (e6) Management 1 1
Consumer perception Consumers 1 1

(e31/b29)
Refill/Reuse concepts Recycling 1 1

(e35)
Recyclability (b34) Recycling 1 1
The analysis of the factors indicates that transition from massive usage of plastics to
zero plastics is influenced by a combination of factors: external demands (from
consumers, recyclers and suppliers), technical improvements (on material, design or
production) and company settings (goals and programmes, and culture and management
structure).
Factors such as sustainable goals and programmes (e2/b3), functionality barriers

(e16/b14), costs (e19/b20), working with other stakeholders (e23/b23), consumer
buying behaviour (e32/b31), suitable infrastructure/system (e37/b35) and legislation
(e38/b36) received 10 or more votes.
Important barriers and enablers are split equally on the grid for Company 1 (Appendix
D1). The interviewees at Company 1 think they have control over most enablers except
for taxation/legislation (e38/b36) and consumer buying behaviour (e32/b31). In terms of
the most important enabler, i.e. consumer buying behaviour (e32/b31), those
interviewed believe they have limited control. This is followed by the second most
107
important enabler, i.e. working with other stakeholders (e23/b23), over which the
interviewees think they have control. All barriers are beyond the interviewees’ control
except for standardisation (e14/b12), functionality barriers (e16/b14), and costs
(e19/b20). Similarly, the interviewees at Company 1 believe that they have limited
control over consumer buying behaviour (e32/b31). However, communication between
all the functions in the company due to management structure (e7/b7) in company 1 has
proven to be a struggle, which is surprising.
Company 2’s interviewee placed more importance on barriers than enablers (Appendix
D2). The interviewee sees consumer buying behaviour (e32/b31) as an enabler, over
which the interviewee has control. Factors that are out of interviewee’s control, such as
supplier availability (e17/b16), working with other stakeholders (e23/b23) and recycling
technology advances (e9/b10), are seen as enablers or barriers.
The interviewee at Company 3 thinks he has control over the most important enabler,
which is identified as sustainable goals and programmes (e2) (Appendix D3). However,
what can be done to address important barriers such as other materials (e15/b13) as
alternatives to plastics and functionality barrier (e16/b14) is very limited.
Company 4’s interviewees think that the majority of factors are within their control
(Appendix D4). The most significant enabler for them is working with other
stakeholders (e23). Important factors such as functionality barrier (e16/b14), supplier
availability (e17/b16) and suitable infrastructure (e37/b35) that are encountered in the
supply chain are out of their control.
For Company 5, there are important factors that are beyond the interviewees’ control
(Appendix D5). The main barriers are maintaining a good supply in the factory to fulfil
its purpose and having the relative benefits outweigh any disadvantages. Suitable
infrastructure (e37) and consumer buying behaviour (e32) are important enablers, but
the interviewees do not think any changes can be made with regard to these.
Company 6’s interviewee thinks that most factors that can influence the reduction of
plastic in packaging are in its control (Appendix D6). The interviewee is very positive
about being able to change consumer buying behaviour (e32/b31) and believes the
company is in control, and also thinks working with other stakeholders (e23) and some
108
legislation (e38) could help to enable plastic reduction. However, the low cost (b20) for
virgin plastics causes a significant barrier to reducing the use of plastics in packaging.
The interviewees at Company 7 think they have very limited control over most factors
(Appendix D7). The most important enablers are public awareness (e29), start-ups (e24)
and government legislations (e38), while the most important barriers are consumers
failing to see the long-term impact (b33).
6.3.1.2 Connectedness
How each factor connects to other factors is illustrated in Figure 6.6. Factors are listed
on the top and the sequence is shown from the first to the last by companies. Black dots
mean these factors are in control while grey dots mean these factors are out of control.
Dots with dash in the centre represent barriers while dots without dash represent
enablers. Sequences collected from all brand owners were redrafted and are presented in
Figure 6.6. For example, for company 2, e11 is the first factor in the sequence. It is an
enabler/in control of company 2 and belongs to the theme “design”. It enables e15 to
happen. Factor e15 in turn enables e23 and e32 to happen. It is clear that for company 2,
3 and 6 the sequence is fairly straightforward and the majority of factors are enablers
and in control (black dots). Thus it is fair to conclude that company 2, 3 and 6 are more
confident in tackling the plastic reduction problem comparing with other companies
interviewed. 4a, 4b and 4c are from different departments in the same company. They
believe the resistance of implementing plastic reduction solutions comes from cost,
consumer and recycling. The plastic reduction problem is more problematic in company
5 and 7 comparing with other interviewed companies. For company 5 the problem lies
in the supply chain i.e. the logistic, retailer and consumer while for company 7 the
problem lies within the company i.e. the management, alternative, production and cost.
Figure 6.6 is explained further in the following section.
109
Figure 6.6 Connectedness of factors in FMCG companies’ plastic reduction
practices *e=enabler; b=barrier
Company 2 is positive about the path to zero plastic packaging and believes all factors
in the sequence of reducing plastics are in control. The sequence starts from changes in
design and development (e11) of packaging, which enable the adoption of alternative
materials (e15) to plastics and this leads to working with other stakeholders (e23) to
change the whole supply chain and the change of consumer buying behaviour (e32) to
support this new design and development of plastic free packaging.
Similarly, Company 3 thinks all factors in the sequence of reducing plastics are in
control. To achieve zero plastics, sustainable goals and programmes (e2) need to be
embedded in companies and this on the one hand enables companies to deploy new
modes of delivery (e27). On the other hand, this enables changes in management
110
structure (e7) and encourages companies to gain knowledge (e8) in plastic reduction and
employ it in the design and development process of packaging.
Unlike company 3, company 4 has factors that are not in their control in terms of
reducing plastic packaging. Interviewee 4a stated recyclability (e34) and a suitable
infrastructure/system (b35) of recycling were preconditions for company 4 to start
reducing plastics in their packaging. If the recycling capability were not in place,
company 4’s efforts to reduce plastics would be in vain. Interviewee 4b agreed with 4a
and also thought functionality barriers (b14) to alternative materials would need to be
overcome and the functionality barriers to alternative materials would need to be
compatible with plastics before company 4 could replace the current plastic packaging
design. However, interviewee 4c thought changes needed to happen within the company
first. He believed sustainable goals and programmes (e2) in companies help employees
take plastic reduction into consideration in the packaging decision-making process. This
enables functions in companies (e22) to hold the same value and prevent disagreements
in terms of plastic reduction and change the current modes of delivery (e27). Also,
interviewee 4c noted current change in consumer buying behaviour (e32) enables
changes in design and development (e11) of packaging and new modes of delivery
(e27), which further enables improvement in hygiene of recycling and makes a 100%
recycling rate of plastics possible.
Company 5 observed most factors in the sequence were external/out of their control at
the time of speaking. The sequence starts from functions in companies (e22) which
believe all functions in their company collaborate very well. This leads to design and
development (e11) of less plastic packaging as well as new modes of delivery (e27).
These two enablers make increasing listing with eco-friendly companies (e26), retailer
collaboration (e28) and good consumer perception (e31) possible. Retailer collaboration
(e28) and good consumer perception (e31) help increase public awareness (e29) which
enables consumers to change their buying behaviour (e32) and eventually let
stakeholders on the supply chain collaborate (e23) and help functions in companies
(e22) to make real changes.
111
Company 6 commented the sequence is very straightforward. The sequence starts from
company culture (e1) and leads to working with other stakeholders (e23) and retailer
collaboration (e28). At the same time, consumer buying behaviour (e32) leads to
voluntary work from NGOs (39).
Company 7, on the other hand, thought the sequence is very complicated. The sequence
starts from factors that company 7 saw as barriers or being out of control and leads to
factors that are mostly out of company 7’s control or which company 7 saw as barriers.
Overall the barriers/factors that deemed out of control are focused on internal conflicts
such as inefficient management structure (b7), different management targets (b8),
materials (e15), and functionality barriers (b14), manufacturing efficiency (e18),
changing old ways of production (b18) and costs (b20).
Of 51 influencing factors, design and development (e11) and consumers (e32/b31) are
the high crucial factors connected to 11 and 10 factors respectively. This is followed by
the middle connectedness group including sustainable goals and programmes (e2),
management structure (e7/b7), materials (e15), costs (e19/b18), functions in companies
(e22), working with other stakeholders (e23), new modes of delivery (e27), public
awareness (e29), consumer perception (e31/b29) and suitable infrastructure (e37/b35)
that are connected to 9-5 factors. The low connectedness group is connected to 4-1
factors such as company culture (e1), management support (e6), management targets
(b8), knowledge (e8/b9), functionality barriers (e16/b14), manufacturing efficiency
(e18), changing old ways of production (b18), saving (e20), start-ups (e24), increased
listing with eco-friendly companies (e26), look and feel (e30), consumer convenience
(b30), consumer requirements (b32), responsibility for end of life consideration (e33),
refill/reuse concepts (e35), hygiene (e36), recyclability (b34), legislation (e38) and
NGOs (e39). The high, middle and low connectedness groups are grouped in Table 6.4
and discussed respectively in the following section.
Table 6.4 Connectedness groups of enabler and barriers to plastics packaging

elimination.
Factors Themes Connectedness Groups
112
design and development (e11) Design high (connected to 11-10 factors)
consumer buying behaviour (e32/b31) Consumers
sustainable goals and programmes (e2) Goals and middle (connected to 9-5 factors)
programmes
management structure (e7/b7) Management
materials (e15) Alternatives
costs (e19/b18) Costs
functions in companies (e22) Collaboration
working with other stakeholders (e23)
new modes of delivery (e27) Logistic
public awareness (e29) Consumers
consumer perception (e31/b29)
suitable infrastructure (e37/b35) Recycling
company culture (e1) Culture low (connected to 4-1 factors)
management support (e6) Management
knowledge (e8/b9) Tools and expertise
functionality barriers (e16/b14) Alternatives
manufacturing efficiency (e18) Production
changing old ways of production (b18)
saving (e20) Costs
start-ups (e24) Collaboration
increased listing with eco-friendly

companies (e26)
look and feel (e30) Consumers
consumer convenience (b30)
consumer requirements (b32)
responsibility for end of life Recycling

consideration (e33)
refill/reuse concepts (e35)
hygiene (e36)
113
recyclability (b34)
legislation (e38) Governance
NGO (e39)
Consumer buying behavior (e32) is considered as one of the most influential factors
among all the factors listed and mentioned in most interviews. It plays a crucial role
before product design and development, industrial collaboration, and the handling
process in the interviewed companies. Previous plastic research mainly focused on how
to motivate consumers in terms of dealing with plastic waste. The discussions were
mainly around the post-consumer phase (Mwanza and Mbohwa, 2017; McNicholas and
Cotton, 2019; Gong et al., 2020). However, the importance of consumers’ involvement
before the purchase phase should not be ignored. (Heidbreder et al., 2019) concluded
that sociodemographic variables, environmental attitudes, convenience, habits and
diffusion all influence plastic consumption behavior.
‘Consumer buying behaviour can be positive and negative. It’s depending

on which age group you are looking. I think the ones who have been young
and now in their 80s they are reluctant to change and less willing to accept
[zero plastic packaging].’ (C6b)
The above comment suggests that demographic variables play an important role in
consumer behavior change and older people are more reluctant to change their plastic
consumption behavior. Other studies reported in more detail that older participants are
overall more amenable to practices of reusing, reducing and recycling than younger
generations (Kurisu and Bortoleto, 2011). Furthermore, older people are more likely to
participate in a non-plastic bag campaign but in contrast are less willing to give up their
convenience in order to help the environment (Elgaaïed-Gambier, 2016; Afroz et al.,
2017).
All companies believe online and offline plastic information campaigns increasingly
inform consumers about this current issue and therefore change their buying behaviors.
Information campaigns used flyers, posters, TV, websites or broader environmental
campaigns to increase awareness, knowledge, and self-reported disposal behavior
(Pearson et al., 2014; Ofstad et al., 2017; Cheung et al., 2018). Due to the success of the
114
information campaigns, environmental awareness concerning plastics has surged in the

past few years. (Prata et al., 2019) studied the trend for microplastics and microbeads.
The research showed that public attention has increased gradually in the past 15 years
and peaked with the release of relevant articles or videos on social media. In addition,
companies are currently trying to improve consumers’ environmental awareness.
Company 1 and company 4 launched education programmes in schools and local
communities to help consumers be better informed about the current plastic issues:
‘We do a lot of this in [company name] to educate people, it’s investor

program which you might have heard about. Even going to school, start
teaching there. This is a long-term scene. In the end consumer’s going to
decide what we actually do here.’ (C1a)
‘The things that drives us to want to do what we say is just something that
we never get hug amount of the control. Although again we're talking about
education one way and I think either through established [company name]
customers we tried to find ways to reach out and to educate them. Might
influence that by behaviour.’ (C4b)
There are 10 middle connectedness factors: sustainable goals and programmes (e2),
management structure (e7/b7), materials (e15), costs (e19/b18), functions in companies
(e22), working with other stakeholders (e23), new modes of delivery (e27), public
awareness (e29), consumer perception (e31/b29) and suitable infrastructure (e37/b35).
These factors are strategic and managemental factors and influence internal
collaborations such as departmental functions including marketing and R&D, as well as
the external collaborations such as retailers, recyclers and consumers. These factors also
affect the implementation of plastic reduction practice in companies including changing
current design and production, finding alternatives and reducing the cost related issues.
Wang et al. (2016) supported these findings of sustainable goals and programmes (e2)
and management structure (e7/b7) in Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM). They
concluded lack of top management involvement in the adoption of environmental
management concepts is one of the most significant barriers in adopting GSCM
practice. In addition, research conducted by (Bhaskar B. Gardas, Raut and Narkhede,
115
2019) showed that top management commitment is a significant driving force in the
sustainable supply chain management. They argue that top management has the
responsibility to ensure that sufficient knowledge and training has been imparted to all
stakeholders regarding the benefits and functioning of the system before its
implementation. Thus, sustainable goals and programmes (e2) and management
structure (e7/b7) play an imperative role in setting the direction for companies.
‘Without some goals, you don't get anywhere, without some targets, you
don't get anywhere and each company decides their own goals. If they are
ambitious in both and they should be in the enabler for change.’ (C2a)
‘However, other participants argued that sustainable goals and

programmes (e2) come with good intentions, but it would be another story if
they were really implemented. Sustainable goals and programs running in
companies. It's always a mixed picture I would say. You will end up
somewhere in the middle when it comes to defining your goals.’ (C3b)
Similar controversial arguments were stated by interviewees for another factor:

management structure (e7/b7), which is seen both as an enabler (e7) and a barrier (b7).
Some interviewees thought the current management structure could have been more
efficient to help implement plastic reduction strategies while others claimed that thanks
to the current management structure, many green supply chain strategies could be
implemented including redesigning plastic packaging and changing to local sourcing.
(Joseph et al., 2019) supports the importance of management structure by arguing that
in general, better performing organizations are led by managers that hold the integrative
view, whereas poorer performing organizations are more likely to have managers with
an instrumental view of corporate sustainability.
Working with other stakeholders (e23/b23) has been advocated in previous studies to
facilitate waste management. (Rauer and Kaufmann, 2015; Brooks, Wang and Jambeck,
2018b; Wichai-utcha and Chavalparit, 2019) suggested that the implementation of the
3Rs (reduce-reuse-recycle) strategy for plastic debris management requires
collaboration of relevant stakeholders in the plastic value chain. Indeed, plastic
reduction needs everyone on the supply chain to get onboard. It will not only help
116
sustainable strategies such as plastic reduction implementation but also encourage

information exchange between companies and therefore help companies change their
current practices and refine their sustainable strategies.
‘Things like the UK Plastics Pact is a group of 50 companies together,

coming together to explore new possibilities of collaborating on packaging
or design and collection, infrastructure.’ (C2a)
‘I think this one is a bit of a red herring probably. It depends if you're

working with existing suppliers or new suppliers, because existing suppliers,
I think there is a limitation to what they want to do for you. They don't want
to fuck up their business. Sorry. I think it's a very important one, but it
depends if it's with existing or-- yes, we definitely have control over that.’
(C5a)
With the increasing popularity of ecommerce, new modes of delivering (e27) have
become an enabler to reduce plastic packaging. Company 1 tried to deliver the goods
consumers ordered online and recycle the packaging on the spot for their large electric
appliances. Company 3 stated the ecommerce would change the way we design
packaging and reduce the plastic used in packaging.
‘If you go on E-commerce, and there’s a jpeg image in front of you, it

doesn’t matter how big the packaging is as it is on shelf. When products on
shelves they need to standout.’ (C3c)
‘There's another company who makes sort of fresh like kind of porridge,
muesli in breakfast poles and salads Pollan and Grace who ran a condo and
they make everything fresh and they sell directly from their website which I
think makes it a lot more possible for them to use kind of different kinds of
packaging and have shorter shelf life.’ (C4a)
This low connectedness group includes company culture (e1), management support
(e6), management targets (b8), knowledge (e8/b9), functionality barriers (e16/b14),
manufacturing efficiency (e18), changing old ways of production (b18), saving (e20),
start-ups (e24), increased listing with eco-friendly companies (e26), look and feel (e30),
consumer convenience (b30), consumer requirements (b32), responsibility for end of
117
life consideration (e33), refill/reuse concepts (e35), hygiene (e36), recyclability (b34),
legislation (e38) and NGOs (e39). These split across the value chain and have relatively
low influence compared to the factors mentioned above. These factors mainly focus on
technology and knowledge advancement. The interviewees thought advanced
technology and knowledge in materials would help solve current issues in functionality
barriers, design, product end of life consideration, requirements from consumers,
pricing and suitable infrastructure. The above will impact further on consumer
purchasing choices and help consumers buy products with environmentally friendly
packaging.
So, is technology advancement the answer for all the factors listed? Although a number
of technical approaches for alternative materials or infrastructure have been developed
to curb the problem (e.g., the production of biodegradable plastics or appropriate
recycling procedures), there are two major obstacles: First, it is unlikely that technical
approaches will solve the plastic problems comprehensively and in the required time.
Second, there are well-known psychological effects that often undermine technical
solutions, such as increased usage after an intervention (i.e., rebound effects; (Hertwich,
2005)) or increased littering of biodegradable products (Heidbreder et al., 2019). In
addition, a Romanian study indicated that biodegradable plastics (compared to paper,
cardboard, or glass) were rated as the least preferred environmentally friendly
packaging materials (Orzan et al., 2018). Furthermore, the lack of knowledge of
consumers might be further derived from the facts that such materials are both rarely in
use and their environmental effects have been relatively understudied (Rujnić-Sokele
and Pilipović, 2017; Spierling et al., 2018).
6.3.2 Packaging companies

Table 6.5 listed factors voted by interviewees with “important dots”. Themes such as
costs, consumers, and alternatives received most votes for the importance by packaging
companies.

b=barrier
118

(importance) (importance)
as an enabler as a barrier
Functionality barriers (e16/b14) Alternatives 1 4 5
Working with other stakeholders (e23/b23) Collaboration 3 3
Public awareness (e29/b27) Consumers 3 3
Design and development (e11/b11) Design 2 2
New modes of delivery (e27/b25) Logistic 2 2
Consumer buying behaviour (e32/b31) Consumers 2 2
Fail to see the long-term impact (b33) Consumers 1 2
Sustainable goals and programmes (e2/b3) Goals and 1 1

programmes
Management structure (e7/b7) Management 1 1
Knowledge (e8/b9) Tools and 1 1

expertise
Technology advances (e9/b10) Tools and 1 1

expertise
Materials (e15/b13) Alternatives 1 1
Functions in companies (e22/b22) Collaboration 1 1
Consumer perception (e31/b29) Consumers 1 1
NGO (e39) Governance 1 1
119
Company 8 is a British start-up that provides a non-plastic packaging solution for end-
consumers in the food sector. Company 8’s products can be reused and are bio-
degradable. The interviewee is the company’s founding CEO. As a start-up, the major
barrier for Company 8 is costs (b20), including: costs for the material itself and the
costs of developing the new technology itself.
‘Plastic is cheap, very cheap and it's very durable and it's disposable, which
is the biggest problem.’ (C8)
The low cost of plastic can be a major barrier for companies to adopt products company
8 provides. In addition, most plastic packaging in food products is not reused. This
helps to keep the food from contamination. The interviewee commented that for
alternatives to plastics to be adopted, the physical properties of these alternatives needed
to be improved. To do this required further R&D and the company had limited budgets
for this. Therefore, the products that Company 8 could offer were perceived by potential
customers as having lower functionality than plastic at a higher price.
In Company 8, the most significant enabler of plastic use reduction would be the public
awareness (e29), placing demand upon suppliers. In addition, the interviewee believed
that having sustainability as a core goal was essential in order to ensure that this was an
issue taken seriously at a senior level. This is seen through the existence of different
business goals and programmes (e2) which seek to translate this core goal into
actionable results. Whilst the company was not in control of the attitudes of end users,
they did have control over their business core values.
As a subsidiary of an international corporation, Company 9 provides packaging

machines for many FMCG companies across the globe. The interviewee from Company
9 is a senior packaging technician for this company, which supplies packaging
machines.
The costs (b20) of both product development and raw materials were perceived to be the
most significant barrier to reducing plastic usage in Company 9. To adopt new
materials, Company 9’s clients also needed to make changes to their production lines,
which could introduce significant expenditure, including investment in new machinery.
120
The interviewee in Company 9 also noted that costs have the potential to be an enabler
as well as a barrier to plastic reduction. However, this requires the company to ensure
that the processing of new materials can be scaled-up cost effectively. They noted that
their clients were often eager to use new materials to satisfy pressure from their
customers, providing that costs do not increase.
Company 10 is a national distributor of FMCG packaging in the UK. The interviewee is

from the marketing team. The company’s clients are mainly retailers who are in charge
of transferring the products from their warehouses to local stores or end consumers. The
packaging they handle is mainly secondary.
Company 10 saw costs (e19/b20) as the most significant concern. Substitute materials
might not only increase these costs, but also make it difficult to meet the requirements
for secondary packaging. For this type of packaging, efficiency is the critical deciding
factor for material selection and Company 10 was exploring whether new materials
could provide the packing speed needed for secondary packaging.
This interviewee noted that capabilities in the changing design (e11) of new packaging
was a critical enabler if they were to change the status quo and make their business
plastic-free. The interviewee also identified that working with other stakeholders (e23)
to explore different possibilities was essential if it is to happen. Finally, the interviewee
noted that both new modes of delivering goods (e27) in the future and gradually shifting
consumer buying behaviour (e32) were also important enablers.
Factors are categorized into three groups based on their connectedness to other factors:
high, middle and low (Figure 6.7).
121
Figure 6.7 Connectedness of factors in packaging companies’ plastic reduction
The sequence of plastic reduction for company 8 ranges from factors that are out of
control to factors that are in control. It starts from NGOs (e39) to build a platform for
companies and consumers to collaborate as well as organize voluntary work for the
public to participate in, which leads to increasing public awareness (e29) and changing
consumer buying behaviour (e32), and further influences collaboration with other
stakeholders (e23). This advances knowledge (e8) exchange and design and
development (e11) of packaging.
The sequence drawn by company 9 starts from internal (e22) and external (e23)
collaboration. Internally this stimulates the establishment of sustainable goals and
programmes (e2) which helps build the communication/business strategies (e5), and
further develops knowledge (e8) and makes it understandable and accessible (e10).
Externally collaboration helps company 9 improve its design and development (e11) of
packaging and adopt sustainable materials (e15), which leads to fewer functionality
barriers and the costs (e19) of adopting such sustainable materials is reduced.
122
Company 10 thought the change needed to happen from a factor of which they were not
in control: consumer buying behaviour (e32). They stated external factors such as
consumers and other stakeholders enabled the change of internal factors such as design
and development and production.
Of 51 influencing factors, design and development (e11) is the high crucial factor
connected to eight factors. This is followed by the middle connectedness group
including working with other stakeholders (e23), knowledge (e8), sustainable goals and
programmes (e2), functionality barriers (e16) and consumer buying behaviour (e32) that
are connected to five to three factors. The low connectedness group is connected to four
to one factor including the rest. These groups are summarized in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6 Connectedness groups of enabler and barriers to plastics packaging

elimination
Factors Themes Connectedness Groups
design and development (e11) Design high (connected to 8 factors)
sustainable goals and Goals and programmes middle (connected to 5-3

programmes (e2) factors)
knowledge (e8) Tools and expertise
functionality barriers (e16) Alternatives
working with other stakeholders Collaboration

(e23)
consumer buying behaviour (e32) Consumers
understandable and accessible Tools and expertise low (connected to 4-1 factors)
(e10)
functions in companies (e22) Collaboration
public awareness (e29) Consumers
suitable infrastructure (e37) Recycling
NGO (e39) Governance
Changing the design of the packaging (e11) cuts down the cost of the packaging for
packaging companies and improves the convenience of the packaging, Good packaging
123
design helps companies save on material cost and improve the packaging utility. For
convenience for example, the envelope size packaging in which consumers can return
the packaging in a post box for companies to recycle.
Apart from the stakeholders mentioned by FMCG companies, NGOs were also
mentioned by packaging companies in terms of working with other stakeholders (e23).
They thought NGOs helped raise public awareness and build platforms enabling
company collaboration. Knowledge (e8) and consumer buying behaviour (e32) were
seen as strong enablers by packaging companies for very similar reasons as FMCG
companies. Packaging companies need tools and experts to support their plastic
reduction decision-making and support from consumers to sell the end products.
6.3.3 Consultancies
Table 6.7 listed factors voted by interviewees with “important dots”. Themes such as
marketing and consumers received most votes for importance by packaging
consultancies.

b=barrier

(importanc (importanc
e) as an e) as a
enabler barrier
Marketing advantage Marketing 1 1 2

(e4/b6)
Costs (e19/b20) Costs 2 2
Working with other Collaboration 2 2

stakeholders (e23/b23)
Consumer buying Consumers 2 2

behaviour (e32/b31)
124
Suitable infrastructure Recycling 2 2

(e37/b35)

programmes (e2/b3)
Management structure Marketing 1 1

(e7/b7)
Technology advances Tools and expertise 1 1

(e9/b10)
Design and development Design 1 1

(e11/b11)
Standardisation (e14/b12) Design 1 1
Trade-offs (b15) Alternatives 1 1
Public awareness Consumers 1 1

(e29/b27)
Consumer perception Consumers 1 1

(e31/b29)
Legislation (e38/b36) Governance 1 1
Company 11 is a consultancy company specializing in packaging. Company 11 noted

that solving the plastic problem in packaging required every stakeholder in the value
chain to have an equal opportunity for sharing their opinion and being listened to. By
doing so the industry could gather more insights to solve the plastic issue. In many
occasions according to the interviewee it seemed that some companies took the
dominant role and accommodated the working directions towards their needs. In this
process small collaborators might not be able to express their opinions fully because of
the fear of losing clients. A good and diverse collaborative platform is very important.
An equal and open mindset helps to move the discussion in the right direction.
125
Company 11 thought that standardization (e14/b12) acted as an enabler as well as a
barrier. Standardization helps the industry unify the packaging design and make the
supply and recycling easy. Setting a good standard would help companies make
packaging development faster because if companies keep using the same components,
they may have a rough idea of what works and what not. This would help them have a
shorter learning curve compared to the traditional way of developing new packaging.
Standardization helps companies avoid the time-consuming experiments and use the
materials and construction that companies are already familiar with.
However, packaging is a key component of marketing. It represents the branding and

the identity of the company. Standardization may impact companies on this.
Interestingly the interviewee believed companies did not have much control on this
compared to other factors. The interviewee argued that having many choices did not
necessarily mean that companies would be happier and more able to do the right thing.
The interviewee used the example of Mercedes to show that standardization did not
mean companies would lose the freedom of design. The design of the
packaging/product could be attractive in a different way.
Company 12 is a global product development and technology consultancy company.

The interviewee is specialized in sustainability and supply chains and is involved in a
few projects to help clients reduce plastic packaging in their supply chains. The
interviewee emphasized the importance of packaging in marketing for companies.
Marketing includes the Public Relationship (PR) and the eco image. The interviewee
commented that sometimes companies wanted to do things to avoid being seen in a bad
light, or because they wanted to be seen in a good light. The two things were quite
different. Companies set marketing strategies to attract consumers because companies
think consumers would buy something. They were more likely to choose it or they were
more likely to pay a premium if the product has got some kind of environmental benefit
such as an eco-friendly detergent. The interviewee claimed, on the other hand, other
companies such as Starbucks who did not particularly care about the environmental
impact of their products. However, they did not want it to have bad publicity. It was not
about trying to message directly to the consumers. It was about just avoiding getting
into a vicious cycle of a PR disaster.
126
In addition, the interviewee believed that FMCG companies could have the opportunity
to lobby politicians and inform them about what happened and was needed in the
FMCG industry. This would be a strong enabler for all companies. Single used
shopping bags is a good example. After the introduction of a compulsory 5p charge for
single used plastic shopping bags, usage dropped 90%. Governments will be the most
promising stakeholders to make plastic reduction possible overnight.
Factors selected by consultancies have various connectedness to other factors (Figure
6.8). It is difficult to distinguish factors with the highest connectedness as one
interviewee connected all factors to ‘ideal’, i.e. zero plastic. Company 11 believed that
to reach the ideal scenario everyone should stop making excuses and start acting now.
Company 12 drawn the sequence, but it is believed if legislation happened then
everyone else would follow.
Figure 6.8 Connectedness of factors in packaging companies’ plastic reduction

6.4 Summary
This chapter used the factor mapping grid as a means of collecting data from 18 semi
structured interviews to understand the enablers and barriers that influence plastic
reduction in the FMCG sector. The purpose of this stage of research is to generate a
volume and depth of data for new theory in plastic reduction building. Results were
represented individually for each company/study in line with the research design. The
results contribute to the cross-case analysis in the following chapter.
127
51 factors, along with their relationships with each other, were generated by deploying
the Factor Mapping Grid and were discussed by companies. A combination of factors:
external demands (from suppliers, retailers, consumers, recyclers and governments),
technical improvements (on material, design or production) and company environment
(goals and programmes, and culture and management structure) affect the plastic
reduction in the FMCG sector. The outcome of the transformation towards zero plastic
packaging is determined by overcoming barriers and leveraging enablers identified. The
blueprint for this transformation (i.e. the sequences) is presented in this chapter by
companies. In chapter 7 these sequences are synthesized and discussed by themes and
company types.
Seven themes including collaboration, design, alternatives, costs, consumers, recycling

and governance emerged from the analysis of the data to show the greatest influence on
reducing plastic packaging in the FMCG sector. This is also discussed in detail in the
following chapter.
128
Chapter 7: Formalization of learning
7 FORMALIZATION OF
LEARNING
This chapter aims to synthesize findings from previous studies and discuss how
companies could reduce the use of plastics in packaging. This chapter is structured as
follows: first, cross case analysis of the exploratory study, factor mapping grid
development and factor mapping grid execution is presented. Second, a refined plastic
reduction framework is put forward. Figure 7.1 shows the outline of the thesis structure.
129
7.1 Refine the scope of this research
This chapter aims to synthesize the previous findings and understand how FMCG
companies could make the trajectory to zero plastic usage. This chapter attempts to
answer the final research question: What is the order or sequence in tackling plastic
packaging waste?
7.2 Critical themes

The aim of the PhD project is to understand how FMCG companies could
reduce/eliminate the use of plastics in packaging and the factors that are influential in
this. The exploratory study, factor mapping grid development and factor mapping grid
execution were conducted to gather the influencing factors. The research stages are
summarized in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Research stages
Research stage Chapter Objective Method(s) Findings
Exploratory study Chapter 4 To Interviewing seven 1. Decision making is

understand experts during R&D stage. The
how design, technical,
sustainable marketing and
packaging manufacturing team
decision is are responsible for this.
made
2. FMCG companies,
within the
consultancies and
FMCG
packaging companies
companies
are the key
stakeholders in this
field.
3. Innovative tools are

needed in the R&D
stage.
4. Cost is a large hurdle

in implementing
sustainability.
130
Factor mapping grid Chapter 5 To Reviewing 73 Mapping grid with 12

development understand articles; factors and nine
what stakeholders was
Interviewing five
factors that developed.
experts;
influence
plastic Evaluating the
reduction mapping grid with
in five researchers
sustainable
packaging
Factor mapping grid Chapter 6 To deploy Interviewing 18 51 factors and 13

execution the factor practitioners sequence maps were
mapping deploying the factor captured.
grid and mapping grid
verify the
factors
Research findings from each stage fed into the following stage. Responses from all
interviewees are collated and reported in chapter 4, chapter 5 and chapter 6. This
chapter seeks to present a comprehensive overview of seven critical themes, their
relative importance and any major sequencing observations.
The thematic data analysis technique was deployed to analyse the research data and
identify research themes (Creswell, Luketić and Za Pedagogiju, 2017). As we discussed
in chapter 6, the transcripts ran through three rounds of coding. For the first round, we
transcribed all interviews verbatim and the segments were coded according to the
factors mentioned by the interviewees, and this resulted in 63 codes. The 2nd round
codes were gathered and summarized by a word or two. For the 3rd round, new codes
emerged only if they do not mean the same thing as in the 2nd round. Codes were
synthesized and clustered by themes. 16 themes were generated by the researcher based
on the codes. These themes include environment, culture, goals and programmes,
marketing, management, tools and expertise, design, alternatives, production, costs,
collaboration, logistics, retailers, consumers, recycling and governance. The themes
emerged from all interviewees as essential in transitioning towards zero plastic in
packaging. These are all discussed respectively in chapter 4, chapter 5 and chapter 6.
131
Seven themes are emerged as most frequently mentioned/comment by interviewees with
greatest importance ranking by the interviewees. These most significant themes are
discussed in detail below, with reference where relevant to previously existing
knowledge. We grouped design and alternative as one theme here because interviewees
were often associating design with material innovation. For example, good packaging
design can help promote the usage of alternative/more sustainable material. On the other
hand, new material innovation can help packaging overcome the functionality barrier
and designers adopt environmentally friendly design such as packaging shape with more
packaging volume utility rate and thinner packaging wall. When we discuss these
themes, we focus on interesting examples, factors or sequence interviewees agreed on,
and special challenges interviewees encountered. These themes are collaboration,
design, alternatives, costs, consumers, recycling and governance. Note the themes are
corelated and not mutually exclusive.
7.2.1 Collaboration
7.2.1.1 Internal and external collaboration
Collaboration refers to both internal and external collaborations. To achieve efficient
internal collaboration with respect to plastic reduction, employees need to believe in
sustainability ‘from the bottom of their hearts (C9)’ and all departments should have good
communication and support, both mentally and financially, from the higher levels of the
company. Thus, effective internal goals and programmes (e2) are essential.
External collaboration can help companies to obtain resources and support. For
example, collaborating with NGOs and academics can help companies to gain access to
external expertise to solve their technical problems. Collaborations with their partners
along the supply chain can help them to get everyone on board with sustainability topics
and to understand the needs of each other. Communication is as important for external
partners as it is between internal employees.
7.2.1.2 Divided controls

It is interesting to note that after interviewing people from different levels in companies,
the researcher found that people from both the higher and the lower levels are very
132
excited about sustainability ideas and enthusiastic about making changes. Those from
the higher level want to make this change because they know it is the right direction for
the future, while those from the lower level want to make changes because they are
involved in the production process and know that things must change. However, people
in the middle level are not always eager for changes because they are the ones who will
be challenged with implementing new solutions.
This is also reflected in how much control interviewees think they have over factors.
Goals and programmes (e2/b3) were thought to be controllable in Company 8 and
Company 10. However, this was not the case for Company 9 who emphasised that as a
division of an international cooperation they had to compromise most of the time and
were not always in control of initiatives from the head office. This is similar to
collaboration. Companies 8 and 10 both felt in control of collaborations while Company
9 felt that external collaborations were often easier to broker than internal ones.
7.2.1.3 Innovative start-ups

An interviewee at Company 7 (C7a) pointed out that collaborations with start-ups and
small companies are major enablers in reducing plastic packaging. For example, there
are some small start-ups that are more innovative than some of the larger ones such as
large packaging suppliers that operate globally and have hundreds of millions in global
net sales. A start-up can challenge the status quo and have flexible ideas. In addition, the
risks for these start-ups if they invest in something are much lower than the risks for
large companies. Brand owners such as Company 7 try to find these small entrepreneurs
or start-ups and ask for collaborations. This will bring awareness of plastic alternatives
and can serve as ammunition to challenge global players to do something similar.
Having this entrepreneurial mind-set through which people start their own companies
and create bio-based polymers out of, for instance, mushrooms or other biomass is very
important both on the supplier side and on the production side. If Company 7 has a
small volume of pieces to be produced, for example, two or three million pieces, it can
work with a small start-up or a small production centre as opposed to its large suppliers
that require tonnes of millions of pieces to justify their production. For example, C7a
stated:
133
‘I think no start-ups and small companies that were originally came from
pushing larger companies. They are the ones that coming up with
interesting ideas and can become commercialized. You have the start-ups
and small companies that are pushing innovation, challenging the status
quo and pushing the larger companies to adapt and also to be more flexible
on the production side.’ (C7a)
7.2.1.4 Supplier alliances

All interviewees mentioned their collaboration with their suppliers in their plastic
reduction scenarios. This includes suppliers for materials and packaging. Some
companies also buy different parts of the packaging from different suppliers and
combine them. However, if there is to be enough quantity in the packaging for
recycling, this has to be an industry-wide decision. All companies have to accept this
and form supplier alliances.
Some research supported the importance of supplier alliances. Henningsson et al. (2001)
investigated cost savings by having supplier alliances in energy, raw materials,
packaging and consumables. The research showed that on average the payback time for
implementing supplier alliances was 38 months. Leppelt et al. (2013) conducted case
studies with seven European companies and concluded corporate strategy alignment,
risk perception and the listing in sustainability indices as key influential factors in
sustainable supplier relationship management. Thongplew et al. (2014) found that in the
dairy industry environmental initiatives are relevant to the size of the company in
Thailand where green products and environmental product information are mainly
found among small producers for niche markets. Larger producers have only recently
started adopting consumer-oriented environmental strategies.
7.2.1.5 Unpredictable logistics

The logistics process is unpredictable for companies. It is decided by the transportation
company or a third party that is in charge of the logistics in terms of which packaging to
use or whether to transfer the goods by sea or air. C4c referred to Amazon as an
example:
134
‘For example, if you're the consumer, you go to Amazon, you order

something on the shop, with five other items. Amazon is to choose the box.
It's not dedicated for us, yes. There are concepts of which are meant to be or
named [as] shipping in one case, which means that you deliver a box to the
retailer which he's able to forward one to one. [This is] just putting the
label on it, which means you've just ordered the goods, but once you have
basically [assembled] pieces in your box, they're using one box.’ (C4c)
Wikström et al. (2018) also analysed the logistic process and concluded that the trade‐
offs between product protection/preservation and environmental footprint is one of the
main challenges for external partnerships with suppliers and retailers.
7.2.2 Design and alternative

7.2.2.1 Design and material innovation
All respondents acknowledged the importance of investing in packaging design and
noted that collaboration is critical to this. Related to this, although functionality (b14)
can be a barrier to plastic reduction, interviewees also feel that there is a great potential
for new materials (e15/b13) to increase the functionality offered in packaging. This
might then compensate for any increases in raw materials or processing costs.
Materials (e15/b13) refer mainly to the availability of alternatives to and substitutes for
plastics. Whilst this could be seen as an enabler it is also noted as a barrier as all
interviewees mentioned that they are somewhat dubious about the current
environmental and functional properties of alternative materials. Interviewees from
packaging companies were concerned that if these materials consume more energy to
produce and potentially cause more pollution than plastics, then it is hard to justify their
adoptions as alternatives to plastics. These interviewees also mentioned functionality
(b14) as a critical barrier as alternative materials are not perceived to provide the
durability, food safety and water resistance required.
In addition, many of the alternatives to plastic are currently significantly more

expensive to produce and they increase pricing (e21/b21) of packaging. For all
interviewees, further R&D is needed to reduce production costs and increase
135
functionality of these alternatives, and this comes as a different form of cost (e19/b20)
which is also a significant barrier.
Furthermore, all interviewees believed they have control over the design of their
packaging and felt that with better design, packaging could increase packaging
functionality, even if there is a marginal cost increase.
7.2.3 Cost
7.2.3.1 Substantial investment in R&D
Technical testing is crucial in developing new packaging design/materials that will
continue to perform as well as conventional plastic packaging. This involves resources,
costs and a lot of testing. Some more sensitive products like drugs have strict legal
requirements and need many tests to ensure the suitability of their packaging materials
for pharmaceutical usage. For other products, laminating could reduce extra plastics.
However, this requires a large investment in testing and a long development process to
make the laminated packaging perform without causing any performance issues such as
leakages of products contained or breakages of packaging. To reduce the investment,
C7b explained this business as usual phenomena:
‘Instead of us to have to do testing on all of our packaging and tends to test

on all of our packaging. We just say, okay if its food compliant if the resins
are food compliant, then we avoid having to do new testing on anything. I'm
just going to use one more down.’ (C7b)
7.2.3.2 Internal cost resistance

The packaging department at Company 1 attempted to change its packaging materials.
However, because the slightly higher costs did not meet the buying team's target, the
attempt failed:
‘As a company, we have the control. Andrew and I had an interesting

conversation many years ago. We were trying to introduce more recyclable
plastics into our shampoo bottles, but we knew it's slightly more expensive.
We knew it was the right thing for our team which was a corporate social
responsibility team. The buying team worked into their own financial
136
agenda because it was going to cost more money. It didn't make their
targets, so we weren’t allowed.’ (C1b)
7.2.3.3 Innate high cost of non-plastic alternatives

Plastics are less expensive than some of the alternative materials. Petroleum based
plastics production normally consumes less energy and cheaper than for example bio
based plastics. C3 stated the choice of plastics reduced the costs on packaging materials:
‘The less material you use, the better. It's also one of the barriers because
the alternatives to plastic are not normally cheaper. Cost can go on both
sides of your barriers and your enablers but, for example, when we
launched, it's not this bottle, but when we launched the 500 ml [brand
name] bottle, it was about 36 grams and they're now down to less than 20
grams. They've nearly halved in weight. We use less material per bottle that
we make. That was driven primarily by, it makes good business sense to buy
less material. Reducing the cost will help you do it.’ (C3)
Plastics are optimized in terms of their weights, the energy required to produce them
and their functionality. In addition, alternative materials frequently come with a
compromised performance and cost, which is difficult to control.
In fact, one of the reasons why plastics were developed in the first place is the
environment. The cost and energy implications of some materials were high, and
plastics were designed to be the alternative to such materials. Perhaps another material
will appear that changes this again. However, so far, companies are not clear on what
that might be.
7.2.3.4 Potential saving enabler

If Company 4 could reduce the amount of plastics used, they would be able to save
money on plastic purchasing. But Company 4 is not the one that can determine how
much it would save when buying plastics. That is determined by the market price of
plastics. While pricing (e21/b21) can be a change enabler, interviewee C4a at Company
4 thinks they have only half the control because they are aware of the savings but they
can only react according to the market.
137
7.2.4 Consumers
7.2.4.1 Double-edged sword
Consumers are invariably the most frequently mentioned theme, both as the top enabler
for most companies (Company 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10) and second most important
barrier for many companies (Company 1, 3, 7, 9, 11 and 12).
Similar findings were identified in other industrial sectors. Lindh et al. (2016) surveyed
Swedish consumers, and results indicated that consumers are environmentally cautious.
However, the lack of guidance with respect to packaging can make consumers’ choices
unintended counteract environmentally sustainable intentions. Heidbreder et al. (2019)
found that although awareness of the problem of plastics among consumers is high,
action does not follow. Research conducted by Martinho et al. (2015) and Fernqvist et
al. (2015) showed that although consumers value sustainability when they purchase the
products, they may give greater priorities to other factors such as the price. In other
words, consumers are the deciding factor that acts as a double-edged sword, depending
on the consumers’ levels of environmental awareness (Martinho et al., 2015) in terms of
sustainability and their willingness to take actions (Fernqvist et al., 2015). This plays an
important part with respect to the enabler and is also a significant barrier to reducing
plastic packaging.
On the one hand, business takes global consumers’ awareness into consideration. On the
other, the shift in consumer buying behaviour determines companies’ investment
priorities.
7.2.4.2 Enabler through education

It was agreed by all interviewees that if consumers could commit to plastic reduction,
this would provide a significant push for all companies; changes in their packaging
design would be essential. C4b (the packaging manager of the detergent sector) believed
that education and training could affect consumers’ behaviour. Interviewees at all
companies thought that consumer behaviour is changing. Consumers are becoming
more and more conscious of the environmental aspects of the packaging. C8 stated that
company 8 would not have been as successful if it had launched its products five years
ago. The shift in consumers’ opinions towards plastic packaging has had a substantial
138
effect on the supply chain and made companies more willing to consider plastic-free
alternatives. But this still does not seem to be sufficient to overcome the perceived costs
and functionality barriers described above.
In a similar way to setting the trend to influence consumers, companies can nudge
consumers to favour sustainable packaging to plastic-heavy packaging. But, whilst
consumer pressure is having an influence, all companies interviewed agreed that
consumers cannot be relied upon to demand change. Packaging companies can educate
their clients and steer them to change their choices for packaging materials. Through
marketing and enhancing functions that address alternative solutions to plastics,
companies could make their plastic-free packaging more attractive.
7.2.4.3 Barrier with a careless mind

With respect to consumers, companies often view them from two extremes: either they
care a lot about the environment, or they do not care at all. If customers prioritise factors
such as the look and feel of packaging over the sustainability, it is very difficult for
companies to invest in sustainability. C1b saw this as a large risk:
‘The kind of retail strategies that we are just here to make money and we
could take risks to spend more money on our products and hope that our
consumer realizes that we're doing the right thing for the environment, that
is a huge risk that we'd be taking to get that money back.’ (C1b)
Another reason is the market norms. For example, Company 1’s clients (normally
retailers) and consumers have certain expectations with respect to the skincare
packaging. Producing lightweight or less expensive recyclable alternative materials for
an expensive facial cream includes a risk that clients and consumers will think company
1 is reducing quality and question the value of the product.
7.2.4.4 Convenience first

Consumers would like packaging that is convenient: water on the go in a light container
and out-of-season fruit and vegetable supplies in disposable packaging for the after-use
phase. All companies interviewed believe it will be difficult to dissuade people from
139
choosing the things they are used to. C4a gave the example of strawberries to
demonstrate the importance of the convenience of packaging to consumers:
‘I’ll go back to the example of strawberries in January; if that's what

consumers want to have, and people try and respond to that, then they're
going to have some fairly clever packaging to be able to deliver that. You
could argue that you should let [people choose] and dissuade people from
doing those kinds of things; I think, you could argue that way. I don't think
it's that realistic.’ (C4a)
7.2.4.5 Divided controls

Many companies (Company 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9) consider consumers to be outside of
their control. It is interesting that influencing the customer has little to do with the size
of the company or how powerful it is. From our research we found that regardless of the
company size the opinions on whether they have little control over consumers are
divided. Companies for which the interviewee said that this factor is out of their control
were mostly those that had failed to change consumer buying or recycling behaviour.
On the other hand, interviewees at some companies (Company 2 and 6) think they have
control over consumer behaviour. C6 thinks that as an FMCG company it may not be as
powerful as a company in the fashion industry in terms of creating desire, even though
it can still shape the buying trends and desires of consumers in certain ways. Thanks to
the fact that it has a packaging recycling system in place, Company 2 sells large
household appliances such as washing machines and refrigerators. Company 2’s
consumers expect company 2 to install their machines and take away the packaging,
which makes the recycling/reusing of the packaging easier.
7.2.5 Recycling
7.2.5.1 Practicable recycling is out of a company’s control
Practicable recycling such as having sustainable infrastructure in place for packaging
recycling would be the most significant enabler for all companies as companies could
follow the requirements of recycling infrastructure to design packaging and guide their
customers to do the recycling properly. Some interviewees think that their companies
140
have full control over this enabler as their companies provide practicable recycling
infrastructure in factories and retailing stores, while others do not think they have much
control; these views are largely depended on the levels that those interviewed were at.
Company 4 is fully in control when infrastructure relates to what is available in terms of
the recycled presence for production in its factories over the next year. The company
could change the design of its packaging and make this easy to recycle. However, in
terms of its new infrastructure for recycling, there is not much control. If the recycling
infrastructure is not in place, all its efforts, such as for designs for recycling, will be in
vain. C4a stated that the company was only in control of design the packaging,
including the usage of recycled materials in their packaging design:
‘We are not so much in control because this is a recycling industry. If this
relates to design for recycling. Yes, then it's on our side of course. We are
fully in control when it relates to what is available in terms of recycled
presence out there to produce the next year.’ (C4a)
In addition, it is the management levels of companies that have control over the major
enablers such as goals and programmes as well as infrastructure. Although management
could shift its strategy and put the infrastructure in place, it does not act because, at the
moment, this is not the companies’ priority.
7.2.5.2 Potential influence on supply chain

Brand owners usually buy packaging from their packaging suppliers and do not take
responsibility for the recycling process. Packaging companies produce the packaging
for brand owners and tailor the design to brand owners’ needs. However, brand owners
have a lot of power over their suppliers; even if companies do not have infrastructure
for recycling, they can push the market and help the system go towards zero plastic.
7.2.5.3 Economy of scale for recycling

The recycling process is another concern in the reduction of plastics. As stated by C1b:
“Sustainable infrastructure to produce as well as recyclable packaging is very important
for us to reduce plastics in packaging.” We learned from the collaboration section that
recycling needs to be done in large quantities to make it worthwhile. For example, in
Germany there are machines for collecting plastic bottles at the front of retail shops.
141
Having this infrastructure in place makes the recycling process feasible and easy to
achieve. By contrast, in the United Kingdom (UK) where the recycling infrastructure is
not in place people are confused about which bin is for packaging waste, and different
cities around the UK may have different recycling schemes. This may well increase the
recycling difficulties. Companies have very limited control over this, and it is seen as a
large barrier by all companies.
7.2.6 Governance
7.2.6.1 Conflict of interest
So far, legislation and regulations have been the only forces to urge companies to make
moves. As a result, legislation is an absolute enabler; but it is not the most important
one. Although advocacy departments have the power to lobby governments, they have
always been there to protect the interests of industry. Therefore, there may be conflicts
of interest for companies in making changes to the status quo. In addition, NGOs (e39)
were perceived by these interviewees to be an enabler by bringing different stakeholders
together and as a result of lobbying and influencing policy makers.
7.2.6.2 Another double-edged sword

Company 1 has a wide range of products, including food, cosmetics, and
pharmaceuticals for healthcare. For areas that have less legislation, such as food and
cosmetics, there is more flexibility for changing packaging. However, this is not the
case for healthcare, which involves licensed drugs that require complicated testing to
apply alternative materials. In the case of Company 1, the legislation is a barrier to
making any changes for healthcare products:
‘The other thing just to mention is if you think about all the packaging that
we've got in [company name]. If you break it down to food and cosmetics
and pharmaceutical healthcare, that's the three main areas that we play.
The food and the cosmetics, we're more able to probably change those
because there's generally less legislation. Once you get to healthcare, it's
more licensed drugs and there's too much testing involved to go changing
them with those alternative materials.’ (C1a)
142
7.2.6.3 In need of coherency

Lack of coherency is an issue in terms of legislation and regulations. For example, the
collection, sorting and recycling methods are not the same even in London and
Cambridge. Companies make efforts to design packaging for recycling, and although
consumers put the packaging in the recycling bins thinking they have done the right
thing, in reality a substantial amount of the segregated packaging ends up in the landfill.
This is ironic, but it is what happens at the moment.
7.2.7 Summary
This section highlights the complexity of the plastic reduction issue in the FMCG sector
and has pinpointed a number of novel important themes. We have highlighted eight
specific themes and have developed our understanding of these, as summarised in table
7.2.
7.3 Sequence
In prioritising and sequencing the factors which need to be addressed in order for
change to happen, companies typically begin with the factors where they have less
control. The Design is seen as a critical theme connected with most factors in most
sequences drawn by interviewees from brand owners and packaging companies.
Consumers are another theme prioritized by most brand owners interviewed. The
message from consumer to the brand owners is clearly heard by brand owners and they
are seeking changes.
Interestingly, nearly one third of the interviewees believed the change needed to start
from factors that were internal when they drew the sequence (company 2, 3 and 6); the
rest two thirds believed changes needed to happen externally before companies can
make contribution to the plastic issues. In many of these companies, sustainability has
been a major strategy for many years. It was expected that these companies would be
more proactive to tackle plastic issues. However contradictory to this expectation, two
thirds expected this to happen to somewhere else. Three types of sequencing are
summarized here: type one straightforward and optimistic, type two linear without
taking initiative and type three no clear route.
143
Type one: Straightforward and optimistic. Company 2, 3 and 6 were confident with
regard to making the plastic reduction change. They thought the majority of factors
were enablers (black dots) and in their control (Figure 7.2). They believed internal
changes motivate changes externally and eventually reached external stakeholders such
as retailers, consumers, waste management and governments. They agreed that the
change needs to start from the companies themselves (i.e. the company culture, goals
and programmes and design) which leads to changes in other stakeholders along the
supply chain including logistics, consumers and recycling. In addition, the sequence
they drew were less than four factors, which reflects their belief in a straightforward
sequence in reducing plastic packaging.
Figure 7.2 Sequences of company 2, 3 and 6. The themes itemised at the head of the
figure correspond to those used in chapter 6 and explained in 3.1.2 in chapter 6
Type two: Linear without taking initiative. Company 4a, 4b, 8, 10 and 12 considered the
sequences were more linear compared with other companies (Figure 7.3). The
sequences they drew did not have so many splits comparing with other interviewees.
They believe for the change to happen there is only one route. The majority of them
144
believed factors that are either out of their control or factors are barriers that need to
happen first before they could act. When they draw sequences, they always started from
factors that were either out of control or were barriers, and these factors are all external
ones. They agreed that the change needs to happen in governments, recycling and
consumers before they can act. This is considered a more passive way of dealing with
the changes compared to type one.
145
Figure 7.3 Sequences of company 4a, 4b, 8 and 12. The themes itemised at the head
of the figure correspond to those used in chapter 6 and explained in 3.1.2 in
chapter 6
Type three: No clear route. Company 4c, 5, 7 and 9 viewed plastic reduction as a very
complicated issue. The Figure 7.4 reveals the complexity of their explanation. They
thought in the sequences of plastic reduction there was a combination of factors
(enablers, barriers, in/out of control) influenced the plastic reduction. In company 7, for
instance, the sequence moves between enablers that are in control and barriers that are
out of control. It is assumed that they would like to contribute to the plastic reduction as
some of their sequences started from the company internally such as goals and
programmes. However the lack of knowledge and support as collaboration appeared
very frequently as a barrier in sequences and therefore most of them were struggling to
find a route to reduce their plastic usage in packaging.
Overall, companies in type one showed confidence and competency in tracking plastic
reduction problems in packaging while companies in type two reflected a passive
attitude in reducing the plastic usage in packaging. Companies in type three were on the
journey of exploring plastic reduction issues yet were struggling with insufficient
support either internally or externally. This has been very interestingly verified in
practices: company 2, 3 and 6 are famous for their contribution in sustainability and it is
a crucial part of their branding; company 4a, 4b, 8, 10 and 12 are facilitating brand
owners in packaging supply and normally need to compromise their sustainability ideas;
company 4c, 5, 7 and 9 are actively involved in different sustainability forums,
workshops and studies to work out the best way to reduce their plastic usage for their
packaging but they are still at the exploratory phase.
146
Figure 7.4 Sequences of company 4c, 5, 7 and 9. The themes itemised at the head of
the figure correspond to those used in chapter 6 and explained in 3.1.2 in chapter 6
147
7.4 Refined plastic reduction framework
The initial plastic reduction framework was developed as the underpinning concept of
the factor mapping grid, which was designed to capture the current knowledge in plastic
reduction in sustainable packaging. First, it incorporated the current knowledge of
sustainable packaging and plastic reduction in the FMCG sector and served as a
framework to analyze and present the data of the exploratory study. Second, during the
factor mapping grid development and adoption, the plastic reduction framework served
as a basis to develop the factor and stakeholder cards, and to categorize research
findings by themes in order to explore the very nature of the data. Finally, the plastic
reduction framework incorporated the findings from the interview and summarized
them into a graph (Figure 7.5).
The research findings are pulled together in the form of this framework. The framework
highlights the stakeholders in the packaging supply chain and the corresponding
influencing factors that can either be enablers or barriers to their plastic packaging
reduction decision. On the top of the graph three sequencing types were summarized.
As we explained in the previous section type one is more straightforward and optimistic
in resolving plastic packaging issues, type two believes solving the plastic packaging
issue is linear but change needs to happen from other stakeholders rather than brand
owners and type three shows efforts in trying to mitigate the plastic waste problem but
is still exploring.
Themes and factors impact different stakeholders in the supply chain are also presented.
For instance alternative (theme) impacts raw material supplier, packaging manufacturer,
brand owner and distributor in the supply chain. The alternative (theme) contains three
factors: materials (e15/b13), functionality barriers (e16/b14) and trade-offs (b15). The
end goal is towards zero plastic waste however these factors along the supply chain
decide how fast we could achieve this end goal.
148
Figure 7.5 Framework of factors influencing the reduction of plastic usage in

packaging in FMCG sector. Note themes we did not discuss in this chapter are
greyed out
7.5 Discussion
This framework presents the plastic reduction in a novel manner, and lays the
foundation for future research to extend and test. In highlighting these factors, it is
evident that whilst there is a desire to change, not least from the consuming public, the
conflicting pressures faced by manufacturers mean that this is not likely to happen soon.
Many of the drivers for this change lie outside of companies’ control and yet are critical
if change is to happen. These companies face significant challenges, i.e. alternatives
offering higher costs and lower functionalities, existing infrastructure and legislation
being inconsistent and growing demand for change from consumers and pressure
groups.
The research reveals that for one company to act in isolation would be commercially
damaging. As a result, none of the companies will ‘jump first’, and consequently,
companies are all looking for someone else to provide the impetus; what can be
described as a ‘we will if you will’ phenomenon. However, governmental intervention
149
is currently very light touch, broadly assuming that ‘market demand’ will result in
companies adapting. This rather presents an inverse chicken-and-egg situation, in that
progress is needed before progress can be made.
In addition, this research identified management structure in companies as one of the

major enablers and barriers to reducing plastic content, which contributed to the
discussion of organizational change in theory and practice. Globalization enables
companies to sell products all over the world but demands from consumers
internationally and policies from different governments vary greatly. Thus, companies
need to come up with plans that balance the needs of consumers globally. Changing
existing technology (production machines as well as the packaging itself) is costly and
requires significant investment in R&D. Companies will not do this unless the business
case is very well made and there appears to be a significant shortage in both funding
allocated to sustainability as well as professionals with expertise in packaging design.
Thus, unless initiatives are championed at a senior management level, then it is unlikely
that significant changes will be made. Hence, clear support for sustainability and
sustainable goals and programmes must be embedded in the companies’ cultures, to
stimulate sustainability innovation. Innovative ways of reducing plastics, such as
collaborating with start-ups and researching sustainable alternatives to plastics have the
potential to make a significant impact in the longer term. But, unless these alternatives
provide equivalence to plastics in terms of costs and functionalities, there will always be
a financial pressure to resort to the cheapest option.
This research also finds a plastic packaging trap phenomenon. Whilst there are many
factors which influence the decisions that companies make in eliminating plastics from
packaging, they operate in an internationally competitive environment. Companies are
not willing to be the first to take the plunge if this means higher prices or lower margins
for their products. We are thus caught in a plastic packaging trap, where all stakeholders
are waiting for others to act. Companies will not act without either legislative pressure
or consumer demand. Governments are reluctant to intervene in the market and impose
solutions on companies. Consumers will not act whilst there are cheaper solutions
available. Whilst this impasse remains, progress in eliminating plastics will progress
much more slowly than it needs to.
150
This research also contributes to the existing knowledge from a different perspective.
Findings indicate that the focus in other research such as technology may not be the
deciding factor in plastic reduction in the FMCG sector. Other soft factors such as
management in companies and the consumer buying behaviour are crucial in tackling
plastic waste problems. As listed in chapter 6 the highest connectedness factor themes
are consumers, goals and programmes, management and collaborations. Thus, it is
arguable that plastic reduction practices are more influenced by consumers and
strategies and collaborations in companies than plastic technology development such as
new materials.
The identified gaps in existing literature were two-fold and this project aimed at filling
these gaps in knowledge, namely:
Gap 1. There is a lack of understanding of current plastic reduction practices in the

FMCG companies from a supply chain view.
Gap 2. There is a lack of a blueprint for the FMCG companies to understand how to
transfer from current massive plastic usage to zero plastic usage.
The refined plastic reduction framework presented the results for this project which
constitutes 15 themes, 51 influential factors and three sequencing types in the
transformation from massive plastic usage to zero plastic usage along the supply chain.
These results contribute to the understanding of plastic reduction from a supply chain
view. These results were emerged from the analysis of the data from each stakeholder in
the supply chain to reveal the variables that contribute to the plastic reduction in the
FMCG sector.
The enablers and barriers represent the forces that progress or hinder plastic reduction in
the FMCG supply chain while three sequencing types indicate possible routes for brand
owners at different phases of tackling plastic problem. In the nature of plastic reduction,
brand owners are interconnected with its network of customers and suppliers, and
overall environment in the supply chain. The transformation of plastic usage needs
efforts from all stakeholders that brand owners interconnected.
Furthermore, the findings also reveal the complex nature of transferring to zero plastic.
The observed change has multiple aspects (i.e. enabler, barrier, in control, out of
151
control, sequencing) and spreads across the packaging supply chain. It leads to new
forms of culture, collaboration, communication, process and behavior. In addition, it
affects the entire packaging supply chain and requires new type of relationships and
governance mechanisms among stakeholders.
In summary this research moved forward current discussion in plastic reduction and
extended knowledge on the nature of plastic reduction as a transformation. It also
contributed to suggesting possible routes for brand owners to tackle plastic problem
from a supply chain perspective.
7.6 Summary
This chapter highlights the complexity of the plastic reduction issue in the FMCG sector
and has pinpointed a number of novel important themes. We have highlighted seven
specific themes and have developed our understanding of these, as summarised in Table
7.2. Plastic reduction framework in Figure 7.5 was developed which incorporates the
influencing factors of plastic packaging reduction decisions in the FMCG sector.
Here, we see that while the route of eliminating plastics is controversial and different
participants have different understanding of who should initiate the change, seven key
themes are commonly agreed between all participants. Collaboration, design,
alternative, cost, consumers, recycling and governance are key factors to drive the
change and help companies reduce plastics. Table 7.2 listed all the themes with
descriptions.
Figure 7.5 Framework of factors influencing the reduction of plastic usage in packaging
in FMCG sector. Note themes we did not discuss in this chapter are greyed out shows
the connection between different factors and the stakeholders in the FMCG value chain.
These connections help in identifying key factors that can potentially influence plastic
usage in the FMCG sector.
Discussion was presented around the value of the research results and their contribution
to the existing knowledge.
Table 7.2 Summary of themes influencing plastic reduction/elimination in firms
152
Themes Description
Collaboration Internal and external collaboration--united by common goals, programmes and

communication
Divided controls—related to positions in companies
Innovative start-ups – collaborations especially for new materials and technologies
Supplier alliances – are critical
Unpredictable logistics – which are often outside of the companies’ control
Design and Design innovation—new materials

alternative
Cost Substantial investment in R&D-- meaning investment needs to be justified
Internal cost resistance-- firms are very reluctant to add costs to products
Innate high cost of non-plastic alternatives
Potential saving enabler – depending on the market price of plastic
Consumers Double edged sword – both a barrier and an enabler
Can be a strong enabler through better education of consumers
Is a barrier where consumers act ‘with a careless mind’
Divided controls – many firms do not feel in control of this
Recycling Recycling infrastructure is outside of a company’s control
Potential influence on the supply chain – where packaging is outsourced, companies

have less control
Economy of scale for recycling – requires regional/national infrastructure to be

feasible
Governance Conflict of interest – companies are conflicted in seeking to protect their business
interests as well as make changes for the greater good
Double edged sword – in some sectors, there is much more legislations.
In need of coherency – regional and national differences mean it is hard to act

unilaterally
153
8 DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the contributions and limitations of this
research. Moreover, this chapter includes some general observations as well as some
directions for future study.
This research has focused on plastic reduction because of the increasing discussion in
plastic pollution and protection in the public. FMCG as one of the sectors that
contributes the most to plastic pollution was a good starting point to address this
challenge. When studies in the literature proposed that the plastic reduction in FMCG
was an emerging field and the actual knowledge gaps were detected, it was seen as a
perfect topic. The primary literature research indicated plastic packaging reduction was
under researched. Moreover, it was not possible to take into account all industries.
Based on the literature research I decided to focus on the FMCG sector.
This research has aimed to explore packaging sustainability with the focus on plastic
reduction in the FMCG sector. It began by capturing who are the key stakeholders in
solving the plastic reduction issue? This aided understanding of the environment in
which the sustainable packaging design decisions were made. An exploratory study was
conducted which was followed by developing and executing the factor mapping grid to
understand ‘What are the enablers and barriers to plastic packaging reduction in branded
FMCG companies?’.
The responses to this question also helped to identify the interrelationships of these
enablers and barriers, which led onto the final research question, i.e. what is the order or
sequence in tackling plastic packaging waste?
154
Chapter 8: Discussion and conclusions
For the first research question sustainable packaging decision-making happens

concurrently with product development in the R&D stage. The design, technical,
marketing and manufacturing teams work closely to ensure the packaging sustainability
based on the research results in chapter 4. For the second research question I find that
enablers and barriers to plastic packaging reduction in branded FMCG companies are
dynamic and interlinked. 51 factors, along with their relationships with each other, were
generated by deploying the Factor Mapping Grid and were discussed by different
company types in chapter 6. The factors and sequences appear in different combinations
in different company types. Nevertheless they can be generalized into a descriptive
Framework of factors influencing the reduction of plastic usage in packaging in FMCG
sector which is presented in chapter 7. This answered the third research question by
presenting three sequencing types in tackling plastic packaging waste along with the
influential themes and factors in the plastic reduction journey.
155
8.1 Contribution to knowledge
8.1.1 Core contributions

This research contributes to and extends the evolving research into plastic reduction
practices by putting the focus on brand owners in the FMCG sector. This research
adopted a strategy of engaging industrial collaborator and stakeholders to obtain
perspectives which in turn contributed to the building of qualitative framework. The
engagement with participants from industry deploying the factor mapping grid provides
a rich set of insights into the complex changes that plastic reduction brings to a brand
owner and its context. The core contributions are as following:
1. A key set of internal and external enablers and barriers influence plastic
packaging elimination practices were identified and detailed. These factors
coexist and mutually influence each other to positively enable plastic reduction
or negatively form barriers to it.
2. A key set of themes were developed which defined areas of transformation
during plastic reduction. Four themes in brand owners and 11 themes in brand
owners’ network along the supply chain including environment, supplier,
packaging manufacturer, distributor, retailer, consumer, local government and
recycler.
3. Three sequencing types were identified. They were classified into three types:
straightforward and optimistic, linear not take initiative and no clear route.
4. The combination of enablers, barriers, themes and sequencing types led to the
formation of the plastic reduction framework (Figure 8.2). This framework
represents a novel way of examining and managing ways of reducing plastic
packaging and is explained in detail in the following section.
5. This research also contributes to the identification of plastic reduction as a
transformation process. The transformation stretches beyond the boundaries of
one company and creates new links and dependencies between brand owners
and other stakeholders on supply chain.
156
Figure 8.2 Framework of factors influencing the reduction of plastic usage in

packaging in FMCG sector
8.1.2 Primary research contributions

The primary contribution of this study is to the field of plastic reduction. This research
makes a significant contribution of addressing the plastic reduction from a supply chain
perspective. It also strengthens the theoretical foundation of the plastic reduction
literature, which is found to be rich in niche areas (i.e. technical aspects) but lighter in
holistic views (i.e. supply chain perspective).
The research uncovers the complex characteristics of the transformation of plastic

reduction that brand owners confront when they attempt to become sustainable with
their packaging. It provides the plastic reduction framework with an original synthesis
of factors (barriers and enablers) which cover the supply chain and facilitate companies
in the decision-making process when reducing plastics in packaging is considered
(Figure 8.2).
8.1.2.1 Factor Mapping Grid

This research has introduced the Factor Mapping Grid as a novel method of data
collection. It helps identify influencing factors in plastic packaging reduction
157
quantitively and qualitatively. Quantitatively it helps identify the relevant distance and
value for each factor to gain a better understanding of dynamics between factors.
Qualitatively it helps interviewees express their specific demands and difficulties in
reducing plastics considering the position they hold as well as the size and nature of
their companies.
The Factor Mapping Grid has enabled the understanding of four aspects of factors that
influence plastic reduction in sustainable packaging: the significance of enablers and
barriers, the sequence of these factors, the level of control that companies have over
these factors and stakeholders involved in the decision-making process.
The research also contributes to a wide field of literature related to plastic packaging
reduction in the FMCG sector. These streams in the literature include packaging
sustainability and packaging operations management.
8.1.3 Secondary research contributions

The secondary contribution of this research is to the research in design management and
circular supply chain. The study firstly identifies the plastic reduction as a change
phenomenon which has not been previously adequately researched in this body of
knowledge. Secondly the research builds upon concepts from circular supply chain and
stakeholder theory to create a comprehensive understanding of plastic packaging
reduction. Thirdly the research resulted in the plastic reduction framework which is a
novel framework depicts stakeholders, factors, themes and sequencing types of
transformation of plastic reduction in FMCG sectors. Finally this framework can be
used as a plastic reduction management tool to facilitate the management of
transformation of brand owners in the FMCG sector towards zero plastic packaging
usage.
8.2 Limitations and future research

The current study has several limitations, and avenues for future research need to be
identified. First, it is important to note the company types of the sample. The study
sampled companies operating in a wide variety of sectors, including personal care,
158
home appliances, soft drinks, food, toiletries, packaging manufacturing and

consultancy. Whilst we took steps to engage with knowledgeable experts, we cannot
claim that the research results represent the FMCG industry as a whole. Although there
are no large differences in packaging sustainability judgments between these samples
and research that uses samples globally, caution is still advised in terms of generalizing
to the whole FMCG industry.
Second, this study focuses on how brand owners could reduce the use of plastics in
packaging. It does not conduct inclusive research into how other stakeholders such as
retailers could influence the elimination of plastics in packaging. Stakeholders’ attitudes
have an enormous influence on company decision making and further research should
be carried out in this area.
Third, this research surveyed literature in English. Although English is the dominant
language in publication, this study does not take into account the growing number of
publications in other languages in the plastic reduction domain. In addition, research on
plastic packaging reduction both in English and in other languages is overall scanty.
The potential bias caused by this should be noted.
Finally, this study focused mainly on the retail environment. Purchases are increasingly
being made online, and this often affects the use of plastics in packaging (e.g., because
of the presence of additional secondary packaging or different interactions with the
packaging of products), future research could look into whether plastic packaging and
its environmental concerns vary as a result of such contextual factors.
8.3 Implications and future work

The aim of the research project has been to advance academic research and to enlighten
industry; hence, this study holds implications for theory and practice. The findings in
the thesis and the plastic reduction framework can be used for both theoretical and
practical purposes. The audience targeted are similar to stakeholders identified in this
research who seeks answers for plastic packaging pollution problems. Specifically, this
research is relevant to the following groups: industry practitioners, academics, research
funders and policy makers.
159
As a practical implication the findings of this research and the understanding gained
through this research allowed the formalization of the framework of factors influencing
the reduction of plastic usage aiming to support industry practitioners to make plastic
reduction decisions. For example, the plastic reduction framework is offered as a new
method for executives of brand owners in the FMCG sector to gain a holistic view of
the plastic packaging problem in the supply chain and understand the scale and the
scope of plastic reduction. It can help a brand owner to understand the numerous and
complex concepts associated with reducing plastics in their packaging; to start a debate
as to which extent of plastic reduction can be considered as an option for the company;
to generate new ideas; to get references of good practices and to expand the discussion
within the management teams. The management teams can also relate to enablers,
barriers and sequencing types to understand their readiness and availability of resources
to implement methods of plastic packaging reduction.
In addition, the characteristics of the framework foster the practical understanding of

plastic reduction in FMCG sector. It provides detailed information about the factors that
influence plastic reduction and stakeholders involved in the supply chains. This
supports brand owners in adopting plastic reduction approach with resources they have.
For instance, the barriers and enablers can be translated into a company level action
plan for moving towards zero plastic packaging. Each enabler should be anticipated,
managed or utilized for positive outcome while each barrier should be identified and
tackled in the manufacturing process.
The plastic reduction framework can be also used by academics for research and
education purposes. This study enhances cross-disciplinary research with significance
for practice, and can instigate discussion among academics from individual disciplines.
The plastic reduction framework can form a common ground for understanding current
plastic issues in the FMCG sector and invoke discussions and research about the plastic
reduction of FMCG companies.
Furthermore, it saves time for researchers and practitioners and they could directly
adopt the tool developed in this research. In fact, this has been applied in the Institute
for Ecological Economy Research (IÖW) in Heidelberg, Germany. I was approached by
160
the researchers in this institute to introduce the Factor Mapping Grid. The tool was
successfully adopted in their project which aims to develop innovative packaging
solutions for commerce in a real-world laboratory in the city of Heidelberg. This tool
helped them to conduct interviews with their praxis partners in order to determine
drivers and barriers of innovative packaging solutions within the supply chain.
Funding bodies can use this research to identify key topics that need to be investigated
further in this area and allocate funding accordingly. This could be one or more barriers,
enablers or themes in the plastic reduction framework. It can also be testing and
refinement of current plastic reduction framework.
As we discussed in chapter 4, 5, 6 and 7, policy makers play a critical role in the

transformation to zero plastic. They can use the plastic reduction framework to
understand current challenges in reducing plastic packaging and support the
transformation to a sustainable future.
There are a number of different directions for future research. The primary one would
be dealing with the limitations of this research, i.e. extending this study to other fields
of industry and implementing other regions outside Europe to see whether the findings
are generalizable.
To extend the plastic reduction knowledge two valuable topics for the future PhD
studies were detected:
• The future research could explore how the plastic reduction framework
could be adopted in a product R&D process in order to improve the
sustainability and competitiveness of their products.
• It would be valuable to research how the framework could be improved
with the development of ecommerce, especially with the retail roles
rewritten because of the COVID19 situation.
161
162
Chapter 9: References
9 REFERENCES
Abbato, S. (2009) ‘Book Review: Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating

Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences’,
Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 9(2), pp. 60–63. doi:
10.1177/1035719X0900900213.
Abejón, R., Bala, A., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Aldaco, R. and Fullana-i-Palmer, P. (2020)
‘When plastic packaging should be preferred: Life cycle analysis of packages for fruit
and vegetable distribution in the Spanish peninsular market’, Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 155(December 2019), p. 104666. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104666.
Accorsi, R., Cascini, A., Cholette, S., Manzini, R. and Mora, C. (2014) ‘Economic and
environmental assessment of reusable plastic containers: A food catering supply chain
case study’, International Journal of Production Economics, 152, pp. 88–101. doi:
10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.014.
Ackoff, R. L. (1974) ‘The social responsibility of operational research’, Operational

Research Quarterly, 25(3), pp. 361–371. doi: 10.1057/jors.1974.71.
Afroz, R., Rahman, A., Masud, M. M. and Akhtar, R. (2017) ‘The knowledge,
awareness, attitude and motivational analysis of plastic waste and household perspective
in Malaysia’, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(3), pp. 2304–2315.
doi: 10.1007/s11356-016-7942-0.
Agamuthu, P. (2018) ‘Marine debris, plastics, microplastics and nano-plastics: What

next?’, Waste Management and Research, 36(10), pp. 869–871. doi:
10.1177/0734242X18796770.
Aggerholm, H. K. and Trapp, N. L. (2014) ‘Three tiers of CSR: an instructive means of
163
understanding and guiding contemporary company approaches to CSR?’, Business
Ethics: A European Review, 23(3), pp. 235–247. doi: 10.1111/beer.12050.
Albrecht, S., Brandstetter, P., Beck, T., Fullana-I-Palmer, P., Grönman, K., Baitz, M.,
Deimling, S., Sandilands, J. and Fischer, M. (2013) ‘An extended life cycle analysis of
packaging systems for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe’, International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, 18(8), pp. 1549–1567. doi: 10.1007/s11367-013-0590-4.
Allmark, P. (2003) ‘Popper and nursing theory’, Nursing Philosophy, 4(1), pp. 4–16.
doi: 10.1046/j.1466-769X.2003.00114.x.
Anderson, G. and Herr, K. (1999) ‘The New Paradigm Wars: Is There Room for
Rigorous Practitioner Knowledge in Schools and Universities?’, Educational
Researcher, 28(5), pp. 12–40. doi: 10.3102/0013189X028005012.
Auras, R. A., Singh, S. P. and Singh, J. J. (2005) ‘Evaluation of oriented poly(lactide)

polymers vs. existing PET and oriented PS for fresh food service containers’,
Packaging Technology and Science, 18(4), pp. 207–216. doi: 10.1002/pts.692.
Auta, H. S., Emenike, C. U. and Fauziah, S. H. (2017) ‘Distribution and importance of

microplastics in the marine environment: A review of the sources, fate, effects, and
potential solutions.’, Environment international, 102, pp. 165–176. doi:
10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.013.
Azzi, A., Battini, D., Persona, A. and Sgarbossa, F. (2012) ‘Packaging Design: General
Framework and Research Agenda’, Packaging Technology and Science, 25(8), pp. 435–
456. doi: 10.1002/pts.993.
Badi, S. and Murtagh, N. (2019) ‘Green supply chain management in construction: A

systematic literature review and future research agenda’, Journal of Cleaner
Production, 223, pp. 312–322. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.132.
Balasubramanian, M. and Raiyani, S. (2014) ‘Biodegradable packaging: Competitor and

technology landscape report’, in Society of Plastics Engineers - Flexible Packaging
Conference, FlexPackCon 2014. Myrtle Beach, pp. 233–299.
Barnes, D. K. A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C. and Barlaz, M. (2009) ‘Accumulation

and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments’, Philosophical Transactions
164
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), pp. 1985–1998. doi:

10.1098/rstb.2008.0205.
Barron, A. and Sparks, T. D. (2020) ‘Commercial Marine-Degradable Polymers for

Flexible Packaging’, iScience, 23(8). doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2020.101353.
Basu, K. and Palazzo, G. (2008) ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: A Process Model of

Sensemaking’, Academy of Management Review, 33(1), pp. 122–136. doi:
10.5465/amr.2008.27745504.
Battini, D., Calzavara, M., Persona, A. and Sgarbossa, F. (2016) ‘Sustainable Packaging
Development for Fresh Food Supply Chains’, Packaging Technology and Science,
29(1), pp. 25–43. doi: 10.1002/pts.2185.
Battulga, B., Kawahigashi, M. and Oyuntsetseg, B. (2019) ‘Distribution and

composition of plastic debris along the river shore in the Selenga River basin in
Mongolia’, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, pp. 14059–14072. doi:
10.1007/s11356-019-04632-1.
Becker, H. S. (1996) ‘The epistemology of qualitative research’, in Ethnography and

human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, pp. 53–71.
Benavides, P. T., Dunn, J. B., Han, J., Biddy, M. and Markham, J. (2018) ‘Exploring
Comparative Energy and Environmental Benefits of Virgin, Recycled, and Bio-Derived
PET Bottles’, ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering, 6(8), pp. 9725–9733. doi:
10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b00750.
Bernstad Saraiva, A., Pacheco, E. B. A. V., Gomes, G. M., Visconte, L. L. Y.,

Bernardo, C. A., Simões, C. L. and Soares, A. G. (2016) ‘Comparative lifecycle
assessment of mango packaging made from a polyethylene/natural fiber-composite and
from cardboard material’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 139, pp. 1168–1180. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.135.
Besen-Cassino, Y. and Cassino, D. (2017) ‘Introduction to Research Methods’, in

Social Research Methods by Example. New York, NY : Routledge, 2017.: Routledge,
pp. 1–19. doi: 10.4324/9781315212791-1.
165
Blanca-Alcubilla, G., Bala, A., de Castro, N., Colomé, R. and Fullana-i-Palmer, P.
(2020) ‘Is the reusable tableware the best option? Analysis of the aviation catering
sector with a life cycle approach’, Science of The Total Environment, 708, p. 135121.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135121.
Blessing, L. T. M. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009a) ‘DRM: A Design Reseach

Methodology’, in DRM, a Design Research Methodology. Springer London, pp. 13–42.
doi: 10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1_2.
Blessing, L. T. M. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009b) ‘Introduction’, in DRM, a Design

Research Methodology. London: Springer, pp. 1–12. doi: 10.1007/978-1-84882-587-
1_1.
Blessing, L. T. M., Chakrabarti, A. and Wallace, K. M. (1992) Some issues in

engineering design research, OU/SERC Design Methods Workshop. Milton Keynes.
Bortolini, M., Galizia, F. G., Mora, C., Botti, L. and Rosano, M. (2018) ‘Bi-objective
design of fresh food supply chain networks with reusable and disposable packaging
containers’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, pp. 375–388. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.231.
Boyle, E. (2007) ‘Scoring the Scorecard’, Paper, Film and Foil Converter, 81(9), pp.
34–35.
Boz, Z., Korhonen, V. and Koelsch Sand, C. (2020) ‘Consumer Considerations for the
Implementation of Sustainable Packaging: A Review’, Sustainability, 12(6), p. 2192.
doi: 10.3390/su12062192.
Bracewell, R. H., Shea, K., Langdon, P. M., Blessing, L. T. M. and Clarkson, P. J.

(2001) ‘A methodology for computational design tool research’, in Design research -
theories, methodologies, and product modelling. Glasgow : Professional Engineering
Publishing, pp. 181–188.
Briassoulis, D., Pikasi, A. and Hiskakis, M. (2019) ‘End-of-waste life: Inventory of

alternative end-of-use recirculation routes of bio-based plastics in the European Union
context’, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(20), pp. 1835–
1892. doi: 10.1080/10643389.2019.1591867.
166
Brooks, A. L., Wang, S. and Jambeck, J. R. (2018a) ‘The Chinese import ban and its
impact on global plastic waste trade’, Science Advances, 4(6), pp. 1–8. doi:
10.1126/sciadv.aat0131.
Brooks, A. L., Wang, S. and Jambeck, J. R. (2018b) ‘The Chinese import ban and its
impact on global plastic waste trade’, Science Advances, 4(6), pp. 1–8. doi:
10.1126/sciadv.aat0131.
Brown, L. D. and Tandon, R. (1983) ‘Ideology and Political Economy in Inquiry:

Action Research and Participatory Research’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 19(3), pp. 277–294. doi: 10.1177/002188638301900306.
Bruge, A., Barreau, C., Carlot, J., Collin, H., Moreno, C. and Maison, P. (2018)
‘Monitoring Litter Inputs from the Adour River (Southwest France) to the Marine
Environment’, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 6(1), pp. 24–30. doi:
10.3390/jmse6010024.
Büsser, S. and Jungbluth, N. (2009) ‘The role of flexible packaging in the life cycle of
coffee and butter’, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14(SUPPL. 1), pp.
80–91. doi: 10.1007/s11367-008-0056-2.
Calleja, D. (2019) ‘Why the “new plastics economy” must be a circular economy’, Field
Actions Science Report, 2019(Special Is), pp. 22–27. Available at: https://journals-
openedition-org.ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/factsreports/5123#quotation.
Carcary, M. (2009) ‘The research audit trial - enhancing trustworthiness in qualitative

inquiry’, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 7(1), pp. 11–24.
Carl, K., Michael, B., Emel, A. and Heather, S. (2019) ‘How does servitisation affect
supply chain circularity? – A systematic literature review’, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 33(4), pp. 703–728. doi: 10.1108/JEIM-01-2019-0024.
Carlisle, Y. and Faulkner, D. (2004) ‘Corporate social responsibility: a stages

framework’, European Business Journal, 16(4), pp. 143–151.
Charter, M. and Clark, T. (2007) Sustainable Innovation: Key conclusions from

Sustainable Innovation Conferences 2003-2006 organized by The Centre for
Sustainable Design, Innovation. London.
167
Chekima, B., Syed Khalid Wafa, S. A. W., Igau, O. A., Chekima, S. and Sondoh, S. L.
(2016) ‘Examining green consumerism motivational drivers: does premium price and
demographics matter to green purchasing?’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, pp.
3436–3450. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.102.
Cheung, T. Y., Fok, L., Cheang, C. C., Yeung, C. H., So, W. M. W. and Chow, C. F.
(2018) ‘University halls plastics recycling: a blended intervention study’, International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(6), pp. 1038–1052. doi:
10.1108/IJSHE-10-2017-0175.
Chiba, S., Saito, H., Fletcher, R., Yogi, T., Kayo, M., Miyagi, S., Ogido, M. and
Fujikura, K. (2018) ‘Human footprint in the abyss: 30 year records of deep-sea plastic
debris’, Marine Policy, 96, pp. 204–212. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.022.
Clark, P. A., Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1981) ‘Sociological Paradigms and

Organizational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life’, The British
Journal of Sociology, 32(3), p. 455. doi: 10.2307/589304.
Coelho, P. M., Corona, B., ten Klooster, R. and Worrell, E. (2020) ‘Sustainability of
reusable packaging–Current situation and trends’, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling: X, 6(March), p. 100037. doi: 10.1016/j.rcrx.2020.100037.
Cole, A. (2003) ‘Envirowise: One government’s approach to green industry’,

International Ceramics, (1), p. 3.
Coyne, I. T. (1997) ‘Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical

sampling; merging or clear boundaries?’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(3), pp. 623–
630. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.t01-25-00999.x.
Creswell, J., Luketić, D. and Za Pedagogiju, O. (2017) Research Desing: Qualitative,

Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. London: SAGE Publications Inc.
Crossan, F. (2003) ‘Research philosophy: Towards an understanding’, Nurse

Researcher, 11(1), p. 46.
Dahlbo, H., Poliakova, V., Mylläri, V., Sahimaa, O. and Anderson, R. (2018)
‘Recycling potential of post-consumer plastic packaging waste in Finland’, Waste
Management, 71, pp. 52–61. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.10.033.
168
Dahlén, L., Vukicevic, S., Meijer, J.-E. and Lagerkvist, A. (2007) ‘Comparison of
different collection systems for sorted household waste in Sweden’, Waste
Management, 27(10), pp. 1298–1305. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.06.016.
Darabaris, J. (2019) ‘Environmental Management Assessment’, in Corporate

Environmental Management. Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 9–11. doi:
10.1201/9780429029264-2.
Das, S. and Prasad, N. (2014) ‘An initiative towards curbing the usage of plastic bags in
supermarkets: a case study in Chennai, India’, in Handbook on Waste Management.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 238–255. doi:
10.4337/9780857936868.00016.
Dauvergne, P. (2018) ‘Why is the global governance of plastic failing the oceans?’,
Global Environmental Change, 51, pp. 22–31. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.002.
Degnan, T. and Shinde, S. L. (2019) ‘Waste-plastic processing provides global

challenges and opportunities’, MRS Bulletin, 44(06), pp. 436–437. doi:
10.1557/mrs.2019.133.
Delidovich, I., Hausoul, P. J. C., Deng, L., Pfützenreuter, R., Rose, M. and Palkovits, R.
(2016) ‘Alternative Monomers Based on Lignocellulose and Their Use for Polymer
Production’, Chemical Reviews, 116(3), pp. 1540–1599. doi:
10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00354.
DFID (2002) Tools for Development: A Handbook for Those Engaged in Development
Activity. Londres: Department for International Development.
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. E. (1995) ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation:

Concepts, Evidence, and Implications’, Academy of Management Review, 20(1), pp.
65–91. doi: 10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992.
Dunphy, D. (2003) ‘Corporate Sustainability: Challenge to Managerial Orthodoxies’,

Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 9(1), pp. 2–11.
doi: 10.5172/jmo.2003.9.1.2.
Dyllick, T. and Muff, K. (2016) ‘Clarifying the Meaning of Sustainable Business’,

Organization & Environment, 29(2), pp. 156–174. doi: 10.1177/1086026615575176.
169
Easterby-Smith, M. (2002) Management Research: An Introduction SAGE series in
Management Research: Amazon.co.uk: Easterby-Smith, Mark, Thorpe, Richard, Lowe,
Andy: Books. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Elgaaïed-Gambier, L. (2016) ‘Who Buys Overpackaged Grocery Products and Why?

Understanding Consumers’ Reactions to Overpackaging in the Food Sector’, Journal of
Business Ethics, 135(4), pp. 683–698. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2491-2.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2016) The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future
of plastics, Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Available at:
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/EllenMacArthurFoundatio
n_TheNewPlasticsEconomy_Pages.pdf (Accessed: 29 December 2020).
Engler, R. E. (2012) ‘The Complex Interaction between Marine Debris and Toxic
Chemicals in the Ocean’, Environmental Science & Technology, 46(22), pp. 12302–
12315. doi: 10.1021/es3027105.
Envirowise (2008) Packaging design for the environment: reducing costs and
quantities. Oxford: Envirowise.
Espinoza-Orias, N., Stichnothe, H. and Azapagic, A. (2011) ‘The carbon footprint of

bread’, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(4), pp. 351–365. doi:
10.1007/s11367-011-0271-0.
Espinoza-Orias, Namy, Stichnothe, H. and Azapagic, A. (2011) ‘The carbon footprint of

bread’, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(4), pp. 351–365. doi:
10.1007/s11367-011-0271-0.
Farmer, N. (2013) ‘The future: global trends and analysis for the international
packaging market in relation to the speed of impact of packaging innovation and likely
material changes’, in Trends in Packaging of Food, Beverages and Other Fast-Moving
Consumer Goods (FMCG). London: Elsevier, pp. 288–312. doi:
10.1533/9780857098979.288.
Farooque, M., Zhang, A., Thürer, M., Qu, T. and Huisingh, D. (2019) ‘Circular supply
chain management: A definition and structured literature review’, Journal of Cleaner
Production. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 882–900. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.303.
170
Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2010) ‘Generalizability and transferability of meta-synthesis

research findings’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(2), pp. 246–254. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05250.x.
Freeman, R. E. (2010) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Friedrich, D. (2020) ‘How regulatory measures towards biobased packaging influence

the strategic behaviour of the retail industry: A microempirical study’, Journal of
Cleaner Production, 260, p. 121128. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121128.
Galbis, J. A., García-Martín, M. D. G., de Paz, M. V. and Galbis, E. (2016) ‘Synthetic

Polymers from Sugar-Based Monomers’, Chemical Reviews, 116(3), pp. 1600–1636.
doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00242.
Galloway, T. S. (2015) ‘Micro- and Nano-plastics and Human Health’, in Marine

Anthropogenic Litter. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 343–366. doi:
10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_13.
García-Arca, J., Prado-Prado, J. C. and Gonzalez-Portela Garrido, A. T. (2014)

‘“Packaging logistics”: promoting sustainable efficiency in supply chains’,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 44(4), pp.
325–346. doi: 10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0112.
García-Arca, J. and Prado, J. C. P. (2008) ‘Packaging design model from a supply chain
approach’, Supply Chain Management, 13(5), pp. 375–380. doi:
10.1108/13598540810894960.
Gardas, Bhaskar B., Raut, R. D. and Narkhede, B. (2019) ‘Identifying critical success
factors to facilitate reusable plastic packaging towards sustainable supply chain
management’, Journal of Environmental Management, 236(October 2018), pp. 81–92.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.01.113.
Gardas, B.B., Raut, R. D. and Narkhede, B. (2019) ‘Identifying critical success factors
to facilitate reusable plastic packaging towards sustainable supply chain management’,
Journal of Environmental Management, 236, pp. 81–92. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.01.113.
171
Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D. and Evans, S. (2018) ‘Sustainable business model
innovation: A review’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, pp. 401–416. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.240.
Genovese, A., Acquaye, A. A., Figueroa, A. and Koh, S. C. L. (2017) ‘Sustainable

supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and
some applications’, Omega (United Kingdom), 66, pp. 344–357. doi:
10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.015.
George, M. and Apter, A. J. (2004) ‘Gaining insight into patients’ beliefs using
qualitative research methodologies’, Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical
Immunology, 4(3), pp. 78–93.
Geueke, B., Groh, K. and Muncke, J. (2018) ‘Food packaging in the circular economy:
Overview of chemical safety aspects for commonly used materials’, Journal of Cleaner
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R. and Law, K. L. (2017) ‘Production, use, and fate of all
plastics ever made’, Science Advances, 3(7), p. e1700782. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1700782.
Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (2009) Research Methods for Managers. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Golsteijn, L., Menkveld, R., King, H., Schneider, C., Schowanek, D. and Nissen, S.
(2015) ‘A compilation of life cycle studies for six household detergent product
categories in Europe: the basis for product-specific A.I.S.E. Charter Advanced
Sustainability Profiles’, Environmental Sciences Europe, 27(1), pp. 1–12. doi:
10.1186/s12302-015-0055-4.
Gong, Y., Putnam, E., You, W. and Zhao, C. (2020) ‘Investigation into circular
economy of plastics: The case of the UK fast moving consumer goods industry’,
Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, p. 118941. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118941.
Gordon, H. S. (2002) The History and Philosophy of Social Science, The History and
Philosophy of Social Science. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203423226.
Grayson, D. (2011) ‘Embedding corporate responsibility and sustainability: Marks

& Spencer’, Journal of Management Development, 30(10), pp. 1017–1026. doi:
172
10.1108/02621711111182510.
Greene, J. C. (2008) ‘Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry’, Journal of Mixed Methods

Research, 2(2), pp. 190–198.
Groh, K. J., Backhaus, T., Carney-Almroth, B., Geueke, B., Inostroza, P. A., Lennquist,
A., Leslie, H. A., Maffini, M., Slunge, D., Trasande, L., et al. (2019) ‘Overview of
known plastic packaging-associated chemicals and their hazards’, Science of The Total
Environment, 651, pp. 3253–3268. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.015.
Grönman, K., Soukka, R., Järvi-Kääriäinen, T., Katajajuuri, J. M., Kuisma, M.,
Koivupuro, H. K., Ollila, M., Pitkänen, M., Miettinen, O., Silvenius, F., et al. (2013)
‘Framework for sustainable food packaging design’, Packaging Technology and
Science, 26(4), pp. 187–200. doi: 10.1002/pts.1971.
Grönman, K., Soukka, R., Järvi-Kääriäinen, T., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Kuisma, M.,
Koivupuro, H.-K., Ollila, M., Pitkänen, M., Miettinen, O., Silvenius, F., et al. (2013)
‘Framework for Sustainable Food Packaging Design’, Packaging Technology and
Science, 26(4), pp. 187–200. doi: 10.1002/pts.1971.
Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994) ‘Competing paradigms in qualitative research’, in

Handbook of qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 105–117.
Guercini, S. (2014) ‘New qualitative research methodologies in management’,

Management Decision, 52(4), pp. 662–674. doi: 10.1108/MD-11-2013-0592.
Guide, V. D. R. and Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2006) ‘Closed-loop supply chains: An

introduction to the feature issue (part 1)’, Production and Operations Management,
15(3), pp. 345–350. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-5956.2006.tb00249.x.
Gutta, R., Wan, H. Da and Kuriger, G. (2013) ‘Packaging materials selection tool
considering environmental sustainability’, in IIE Annual Conference and Expo 2013,
pp. 3706–3715.
Hage, O. and Söderholm, P. (2008) ‘An econometric analysis of regional differences in

household waste collection: The case of plastic packaging waste in Sweden’, Waste
Management, 28(10), pp. 1720–1731. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2007.08.022.
173
Hanssen, O. J., Vold, M., Schakenda, V., Tufte, P.-A., Møller, H., Olsen, N. V. and
Skaret, J. (2017) ‘Environmental profile, packaging intensity and food waste generation
for three types of dinner meals’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, pp. 395–402. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.012.
Hao, Y., Liu, H., Chen, H., Sha, Y., Ji, H. and Fan, J. (2019) ‘What affect consumers’
willingness to pay for green packaging? Evidence from China’, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 141, pp. 21–29. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.001.
Heidbreder, L. M., Bablok, I., Drews, S. and Menzel, C. (2019) ‘Tackling the plastic
problem: A review on perceptions, behaviors, and interventions’, Science of the Total
Environment. Elsevier B.V., pp. 1077–1093. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437.
Hellström, D. and Nilsson, F. (2011) ‘Logistics-driven packaging innovation: A case

study at IKEA’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 39(9), pp.
638–657. doi: 10.1108/09590551111159323.
Herbert, A., Stephen, K., Robin, M. and Ortrun, Z. (2002) ‘The concept of action
research’, The Learning Organization, 9(3), pp. 125–131. doi:
10.1108/09696470210428840.
Hertwich, E. G. (2005) ‘Consumption and the rebound effect: An industrial ecology

perspective’, in Journal of Industrial Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 85–98. doi:
10.1162/1088198054084635.
Holden, M. T. and Lynch, P. (2006) ‘Choosing the Appropriate Methodology:

Understanding Research Philosophy’, The Marketing Review, 4(4), pp. 397–409. doi:
10.1362/1469347042772428.
Hong, M. and Chen, E. Y. X. (2017) ‘Chemically recyclable polymers: a circular

economy approach to sustainability’, Green Chemistry, 19(16), pp. 3692–3706. doi:
10.1039/C7GC01496A.
Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R. and Kosior, E. (2009) ‘Plastics recycling: challenges and
opportunities’, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 364(1526), pp. 2115–2126. doi:
10.1098/rstb.2008.0311.
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M. and O’Brien, G. (2005) ‘Sustainable development: mapping
174
different approaches’, Sustainable Development, 13(1), pp. 38–52. doi: 10.1002/sd.244.
Humbert, S., Rossi, V., Margni, M., Jolliet, O. and Loerincik, Y. (2009) ‘Life cycle
assessment of two baby food packaging alternatives: Glass jars vs. plastic pots’,
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14(2), pp. 95–106. doi:
10.1007/s11367-008-0052-6.
Hunter, J. (2007) ‘Sustainpack shows and tells’, PPI Pulp and Paper International,
49(8), pp. 19–21.
Hurley, R. A., Randall, R., O’Hara, L., Tonkin, C. and Rice, J. C. (2017) ‘Color
harmonies in packaging’, Color Research & Application, 42(1), pp. 50–59. doi:
10.1002/col.22049.
Ilgenfritz, E. M. (1975) ‘Plastics waste handling practices in solid waste management’,

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 4(2), pp. 191–199. doi: 10.1007/BF00160445.
Ivankova, N. V (2017) ‘Applying mixed methods in community-based participatory

action research: a framework for engaging stakeholders with research as a means for
promoting patient-centredness’, Journal of Research in Nursing, 22(4), pp. 282–294.
doi: 10.1177/1744987117699655.
Ivankova, N. and Wingo, N. (2018) ‘Applying Mixed Methods in Action Research:

Methodological Potentials and Advantages’, American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), pp.
978–997. doi: 10.1177/0002764218772673.
Jabbour, C. J. C., Jabbour, A. B. L. de S., Govindan, K., Teixeira, A. A. and Freitas, W.

R. de S. (2013) ‘Environmental management and operational performance in
automotive companies in Brazil: the role of human resource management and lean
manufacturing’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, pp. 129–140. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.010.
Jabbour, C. J. C. and Santos, F. C. A. (2008) ‘The central role of human resource

management in the search for sustainable organizations’, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 19(12), pp. 2133–2154. doi:
10.1080/09585190802479389.
Jerzyk, E. (2016) ‘Design and Communication of Ecological Content on Sustainable
175
Packaging in Young Consumers’ Opinions’, Journal of Food Products Marketing,
22(6), pp. 707–716. doi: 10.1080/10454446.2015.1121435.
Jia, L., Evans, S. and Linden, S. van der (2019) ‘Motivating actions to mitigate plastic
pollution’, Nature Communications, 10(1), p. 4582. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-12666-9.
Johansson, C., Bras, J., Mondragon, I., Nechita, P., Plackett, D., Šimon, P., Svetec, D.
G., Virtanen, S., Baschetti, M. G., Breen, C., et al. (2012) ‘Renewable fibers and bio-
based materials for packaging applications - A review of recent developments’,
BioResources, 7(2), pp. 2506–2552. doi: 10.15376/biores.7.2.2506-2552.
Johnson, A. (2009) ‘Sustainability: How can we help spur innovation in recycling?’,

Converting Magazine, p. 33.
Jones, T. M. and Wicks, A. C. (1999) ‘Convergent Stakeholder Theory’, The Academy

of Management Review, 24(2), p. 221. doi: 10.2307/259075.
Joseph, J., Orlitzky, M., Gurd, B., Borland, H. and Lindgreen, A. (2019) ‘Can business-
oriented managers be effective leaders for corporate sustainability? A study of
integrative and instrumental logics’, Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(2), pp.
339–352. doi: 10.1002/bse.2238.
Jung, C. H., Matsuto, T. and Tanaka, N. (2006) ‘Flow analysis of metals in a municipal
solid waste management system’, Waste Management, 26(12), pp. 1337–1348. doi:
10.1016/j.wasman.2005.11.018.
Kapoor, S. and Kumar, L. N. (2019) ‘Does packaging influence purchase decisions of

food products? A study of young consumers of India.’, Academy of Marketing Studies
Journal, 23(3), pp. 1–16. Available at: https://www.abacademies.org/articles/Does-
packaging-influence-purchase-decisions-of-food-products-A-study-of-young-
consumers-of-india-1528-2678-23-3-219.pdf.
Ken, W. (2017) The Circular Economy: A Wealth of Flows. London: Ellen MacArthur
Foundation Publishing.
Van Keuren, P. (1993) ‘State legislative issues relating to plastics packaging’, in Anon
(ed.) Proceedings of the Plastics Recycling Conference. Schaumburg: Soc of Plastics
Engineers, pp. 129–139.
176
Kliaugaite, D., Varžinskas, V., Baikauskienė, A., Miliūnas, V. and Stasiškienė, Ž.

(2018) ‘Greenhouse gas emission reduction in frozen food packaging’, Environmental
Engineering and Management Journal, 17(12), pp. 2977–2990. doi:
10.30638/eemj.2018.298.
de Koeijer, B., de Lange, J. and Wever, R. (2017) ‘Desired, Perceived, and Achieved
Sustainability: Trade-Offs in Strategic and Operational Packaging Development’,
Sustainability, 9(10), p. 1923. doi: 10.3390/su9101923.
Krah, S., Todorovic, T. and Magnier, L. (2019) ‘Designing for Packaging

Sustainability. The Effects of Appearance and a Better Eco-Label on Consumers’
Evaluations and Choice’, in Proceedings of the Design Society: International
Conference on Engineering Design. Cambridge, pp. 3251–3260. doi:
10.1017/dsi.2019.332.
Kuhlman, T. and Farrington, J. (2010) ‘What is Sustainability?’, Sustainability, 2(11),

pp. 3436–3448. doi: 10.3390/su2113436.
Kunz, N., Mayers, K. and Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2018) ‘Stakeholder Views on

Extended Producer Responsibility and the Circular Economy’, California Management
Review, 60(3), pp. 45–70. doi: 10.1177/0008125617752694.
Kurisu, K. H. and Bortoleto, A. P. (2011) ‘Comparison of waste prevention behaviors

among three Japanese megacity regions in the context of local measures and socio-
demographics’, Waste Management, 31(7), pp. 1441–1449. doi:
10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.008.
Kye, D., Lee, J. and Lee, K. D. (2013) ‘The perceived impact of packaging logistics on
the efficiency of freight transportation (EOT)’, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, 43(8), pp. 707–720. doi: 10.1108/IJPDLM-08-
2011-0143.
Lacasse, K. (2016) ‘Don’t be satisfied, identify! Strengthening positive spillover by

connecting pro-environmental behaviors to an “environmentalist” label’, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 48, pp. 149–158. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.09.006.
Lam, C.-S., Ramanathan, S., Carbery, M., Gray, K., Vanka, K. S., Maurin, C., Bush, R.
177
and Palanisami, T. (2018) ‘A Comprehensive Analysis of Plastics and Microplastic
Legislation Worldwide’, Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 229(11), p. 345. doi:
10.1007/s11270-018-4002-z.
Landrum, N. E. (2017) ‘Stages of Corporate Sustainability: Integrating the Strong

Sustainability Worldview’, Organization & Environment, 31(4), pp. 287–313. doi:
10.1177/1086026617717456.
Leadbitter, J. (2002) ‘PVC and sustainability’, Progress in Polymer Science, 27(10), pp.
2197–2226. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6700(02)00038-2.
Leja, Katarzyna and Lewandowicz, G. (2010) ‘Polymer biodegradation and

biodegradable polymers - A review’, Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 19(2),
pp. 255–266.
Leja, K. and Lewandowicz, G. (2010) ‘Polymer biodegradation and biodegradable

polymers - A review’, Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 19(2), pp. 255–266.
Leung, L. (2015) ‘Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research’,

Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 4(3), p. 324. doi: 10.4103/2249-
4863.161306.
Levi, M., Cortesi, S., Vezzoli, C. and Salvia, G. (2011) ‘A Comparative Life Cycle
Assessment of Disposable and Reusable Packaging for the Distribution of Italian Fruit
and Vegetables’, Packaging Technology and Science, 24(7), pp. 387–400. doi:
10.1002/pts.946.
Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving social conflicts; selected papers on group dynamics.,

Resolving social conflicts; selected papers on group dynamics. Oxford: Harper.
Lewis, H., Fitzpatrick, L., Verghese, K., Sonneveld, K., Jordon, R. and Alliance, S. P.
(2007) Sustainable Packaging Redefined, Sustainable Packaging Alliance. Boston.
Lewis, R., Menardi, C., Yoxall, A. and Langley, J. (2007) ‘Finger friction: Grip and
opening packaging’, Wear, 263(7–12), pp. 1124–1132. doi:
10.1016/j.wear.2006.12.024.
Li, Z. and Zhao, F. (2017) ‘An analytical hierarchy process-based study on the factors
178
affecting legislation on plastic bags in the USA’, Waste Management and Research,
35(8), pp. 795–809. doi: 10.1177/0734242X17705725.
Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V. and Maon, F. (2009) ‘Introduction: Corporate Social

Responsibility Implementation’, Journal of Business Ethics, 85(S2), pp. 251–256. doi:
10.1007/s10551-008-9732-1.
Lingard, L., Albert, M. and Levinson, W. (2008) ‘Grounded theory, mixed methods,
and action research’, BMJ, 337(73), p. 567. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39602.690162.47.
Lockamy, A. (1995) ‘A Conceptual Framework For Assessing Strategic Packaging

Decisions’, The International Journal of Logistics Management, 6(1), pp. 51–60. doi:
10.1108/09574099510805251.
Lovins, A. B., Lovins, L. H. and Hawken, P. (2017) ‘A road map for natural
capitalism’, in Corporate Environmental Responsibility. Cambridge: Harvard Business
School Press, pp. 3–15.
Lovins, L. H. (2010) ‘Climate Capitalism: The Business Case for Climate Protection
Essay’, Pace Environmental Law Review, 27(3), pp. 735–782. Available at:
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/penv27&i=743.
Ma, X., Aranda-Jan, C. and Moultrie, J. (2019) ‘Development of a Preliminary

Framework for the Reduction of Plastics in Packaging’, in Smart Innovation, Systems
and Technologies. Berlin: Springer, pp. 251–262. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-04290-5_26.
Ma, X. and Moultrie, J. (2017) ‘What Stops Designers from Designing Sustainable
Packaging?—A Review of Eco-design Tools with Regard to Packaging Design’, in
Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies. Berlin: Springer, pp. 127–139. doi:
10.1007/978-3-319-57078-5_13.
Ma, X. and Moultrie, J. (2018) ‘UNDERSTAND SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING

DESIGN IN PRACTICE’, in Proceedings of International Design Conference,
DESIGN. Dubrovnik: Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, pp.
2693–2704. doi: 10.21278/idc.2018.0175.
Ma, X., Park, C. and Moultrie, J. (2020) ‘Factors for eliminating plastic in packaging:
The European FMCG experts’ view’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, p. 120492.
179
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120492.
MacArthur, E. (2017) ‘Beyond plastic waste’, Science, 358(6365), pp. 843–843. doi:
10.1126/science.aao6749.
Mackenzie, N. and Knipe, S. (2006) ‘Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and

methodology’, Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), pp. 193–205.
Magnier, L. and Crié, D. (2015) ‘Communicating packaging eco-friendliness’,

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 43(4/5), pp. 350–366. doi:
10.1108/IJRDM-04-2014-0048.
Magnier, L. and Schoormans, J. (2015) ‘Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging:

The interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental concern’, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 44, pp. 53–62. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.09.005.
Magnier, L. and Schoormans, J. (2017) ‘How Do Packaging Material, Colour and

Environmental Claim Influence Package, Brand and Product Evaluations?’, Packaging
Technology and Science, 30(11), pp. 735–751. doi: 10.1002/pts.2318.
Majumdar, J., Verghese, K. and Fitzpatrick, L. (2009) ‘PIQET: A life cycle

management tool for plastics packaging’, in Society of Plastics Engineers - Global
Plastics Environmental Conference, GPEC 2008. Salford, pp. 1085–1125.
Makrakis, V. and Kostoulas-Makrakis, N. (2016) ‘Bridging the qualitative-quantitative

divide: Experiences from conducting a mixed methods evaluation in the RUCAS
programme’, Evaluation and Program Planning, 54, pp. 144–151. doi:
10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.07.008.
Mao, C. (2014) ‘Research on Undergraduate Students’ Usage Satisfaction of Mobile

Learning’, Creative Education, 05(08), pp. 614–618. doi: 10.4236/ce.2014.58072.
van Marrewijk, M. (2013) ‘Concepts and Definitions of CSR and Corporate

Sustainability: Between Agency and Communion’, in Citation Classics from the
Journal of Business Ethics. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 641–655. doi:
10.1007/978-94-007-4126-3_32.
Marshall, M. N. (1996) ‘Sampling for qualitative research’, Family practice, 13(6), p.
180
522—525. doi: 10.1093/fampra/13.6.522.
Martinho, G., Balaia, N. and Pires, A. (2017) ‘The Portuguese plastic carrier bag tax:
The effects on consumers’ behavior’, Waste Management, 61, pp. 3–12. doi:
10.1016/j.wasman.2017.01.023.
Mathur, V. N., Price, A. D. F., Austin, S. and Moobela, C. (2007) ‘Defining, identifying
and mapping stakeholders in the assessment of urban sustainability’, in International
Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its Assessment. Glasgow:
Loughborough University, pp. 1–18.
Mayer, I. (2015) ‘Qualitative research with a focus on qualitative data analysis’,

International Journal of Sales, Retailing & Marketing, 4(9), pp. 53–67. Available at:
http://www.ijsrm.com/ijsrm/Current_&_Past_Issues_files/IJSRM4-9.pdf#page=57
(Accessed: 30 December 2020).
Mayer, J. M. (1990) ‘Degradation Kinetics of Polymer Films in Marine and Soil

Systems under Accelerated Conditions’, in Novel Biodegradable Microbial Polymers.
Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 469–471. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-2129-0_49.
McCarthy, J. E. (1993) ‘Recycling and reducing packaging waste: How the United
States compares to other countries’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 8(3–4), pp.
293–360. doi: 10.1016/0921-3449(93)90027-D.
McNicholas, G. and Cotton, M. (2019) ‘Stakeholder perceptions of marine plastic waste

management in the United Kingdom’, Ecological Economics, 163, pp. 77–87. doi:
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.04.022.
Meherishi, L., Narayana, S. A. and Ranjani, K. S. (2019) ‘Sustainable packaging for

supply chain management in the circular economy: A review’, Journal of Cleaner
Production, 237, p. 117582. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.057.
Meys, R., Frick, F., Westhues, S., Sternberg, A., Klankermayer, J. and Bardow, A.
(2020a) ‘Towards a circular economy for plastic packaging wastes – the environmental
potential of chemical recycling’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 162(July), p.
105010. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105010.
Meys, R., Frick, F., Westhues, S., Sternberg, A., Klankermayer, J. and Bardow, A.
181
(2020b) ‘Towards a circular economy for plastic packaging wastes – the environmental
potential of chemical recycling’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 162, p.
105010. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105010.
Milios, L., Holm Christensen, L., McKinnon, D., Christensen, C., Rasch, M. K. and
Hallstrøm Eriksen, M. (2018) ‘Plastic recycling in the Nordics: A value chain market
analysis’, Waste Management, 76, pp. 180–189. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.03.034.
Mirvis, P., Herrera, M. E. B., Googins, B. and Albareda, L. (2016) ‘Corporate social
innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good’, Journal of Business
Research, 69(11), pp. 5014–5021. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073.
Mkansi, M. and Acheampong, E. A. (2012) ‘Research Philosophy Debates and

Classifications: Students’ Dilemma: EJBRM’, Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methods, 10(2), pp. 132–140.
Mohanty, A. K., Misra, M., Drzal, L. T., Selke, S. E., Harte, B. R. and Hinrichsen, G.
(2005) Natural Fibers, Biopolymers, and Biocomposites, Natural Fibers, Biopolymers,
and Biocomposites. Boca Raton: CRC Press. doi: 10.1201/9780203508206.
Mondal, K., Ghosh, T., Bhagabati, P. and Katiyar, V. (2019) ‘Sustainable

Nanostructured Materials in Food Packaging’, in Dynamics of Advanced Sustainable
Nanomaterials and their Related Nanocomposites at the Bio-Nano Interface. London:
Elsevier, pp. 171–213. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-819142-2.00008-2.
Mongeon, P. and Paul-Hus, A. (2016) ‘The journal coverage of Web of Science and
Scopus: a comparative analysis’, Scientometrics, 106(1), pp. 213–228. doi:
10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.
Moñivas, J. R., Benton, T. and Craib, I. (2005) ‘Philosophy of Social Science: The
Philosophical Foundations of Social Thought’, Reis, (112), p. 270. doi:
10.2307/40184720.
Monk, D. W. (1972) ‘Biodegradability of Packaging Films’, Textile Research Journal,

42(12), pp. 741–743. doi: 10.1177/004051757204201208.
Moula, E. M., Sorvari, J. and Oinas, P. (2017) Constructing a green circular society,
Constructing a green circular society. Helsinki: Faculty of Social Sciences, University
182
of Helsinki. doi: 10.31885/2018.00002.
Mwanza, B. G. and Mbohwa, C. (2017) ‘Drivers to Sustainable Plastic Solid Waste

Recycling: A Review’, Procedia Manufacturing, 8, pp. 649–656. doi:
10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.083.
Nakagawa, M., Telles, B. M. and Guevara, A. D. H. (2013) ‘Inserting the topic of

sustainability in the business strategy of 20 model companies in Brazil’, Journal on
Innovation and Sustainability. RISUS ISSN 2179-3565, 4(2), p. 15. doi: 10.24212/2179-
3565.2013v4i2p15-30.
Narayan, R. (2007) ‘Bioplastics: Technology principles and exemplars’, in Society of

Plastics Engineers - Global Plastics Environmental Conference, GPEC 2007 -
Environmental Innovation: Plastics Recycling and Sustainability. Romania: Curran
Associates Inc, pp. 1–19.
Nelson, K., Retsina, T., Iakovlev, M., van Heiningen, A., Deng, Y., Shatkin, J. A. and
Mulyadi, A. (2016) ‘American process: Production of low cost nanocellulose for
renewable, advanced materials applications’, in Springer Series in Materials Science.
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp. 267–302. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-
23419-9_9.
Nemat, B., Razzaghi, M., Bolton, K. and Rousta, K. (2019) ‘The Role of Food
Packaging Design in Consumer Recycling Behavior—A Literature Review’,
Sustainability, 11(16), p. 4350. doi: 10.3390/su11164350.
Nguyen, A. T., Parker, L., Brennan, L. and Lockrey, S. (2020) ‘A consumer definition
of eco-friendly packaging’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, p. 119792. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119792.
Nilsson, F., Olsson, A. and Wikström, F. (2011) ‘Toward sustainable goods flows: A
framework from a packaging perspective’, in 23rd Annual NOFOMA Conference.
Harstad, p. 17. doi: 0c3dddd8-41d6-4f5f-9f41-317971d99355.
Nishida, H. (2011) ‘Development of materials and technologies for control of polymer

recycling’, Polymer Journal, 43(5), pp. 435–447. doi: 10.1038/pj.2011.16.
Nwafor, N. and Walker, T. R. (2020) ‘Plastic Bags Prohibition Bill: A developing story
183
of crass legalism aiming to reduce plastic marine pollution in Nigeria’, Marine Policy,
120, p. 104160. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104160.
Ofstad, S., Tobolova, M., Nayum, A. and Klöckner, C. (2017) ‘Understanding the
Mechanisms behind Changing People’s Recycling Behavior at Work by Applying a
Comprehensive Action Determination Model’, Sustainability, 9(2), p. 204. doi:
10.3390/su9020204.
Oliveira, M. and Magrini, A. (2017a) ‘Life Cycle Assessment of Lubricant Oil Plastic
Containers in Brazil’, Sustainability, 9(4), p. 576. doi: 10.3390/su9040576.
Oliveira, M. and Magrini, A. (2017b) ‘Life Cycle Assessment of Lubricant Oil Plastic
Containers in Brazil’, Sustainability, 9(4), p. 576. doi: 10.3390/su9040576.
Ormazabal, M., Sarriegi, J. M. and Viles, E. (2017) ‘Environmental management

maturity model for industrial companies’, Management of Environmental Quality: An
International Journal, 28(5), pp. 632–650. doi: 10.1108/MEQ-01-2016-0004.
Orzan, G., Cruceru, A. F., Balaceanu, C. T. and Chivu, R.-G. (2018) ‘Consumers’
behavior concerning sustainable packaging: An exploratory study on Romanian
consumers’, Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(6). doi: 10.3390/su10061787.
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N. and Hoagwood,
K. (2015) ‘Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed
Method Implementation Research’, Administration and Policy in Mental Health and
Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), pp. 533–544. doi: 10.1007/s10488-013-0528-
y.
Pan, S. Y., Du, M. A., Huang, I. Te, Liu, I. H., Chang, E. E. and Chiang, P. C. (2015)
‘Strategies on implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular
economy system: a review’, Journal of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 409–421.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.124.
Panainte, M., Caraman, I., Nedeff, V., Inglezakis, V., Venetis, C., Coutsikos, P., Lazar,
G. and Barsan, N. (2014) ‘Green market: A comparative study in Romania’, Fresenius
Environmental Bulletin, 23(11A), pp. 2870–2875.
Park, C. (2015) Influencing factors for sustainable design implementation in the front-
184
end of new product development process within the Fast-Moving-Consumer-Goods

sector. Cranfield University. Available at:
http://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/9267 (Accessed: 29 December 2020).
Pathirage, A. and CPPathirage, R. (2008) ‘The role of philosophical context in the

development of research methodology and theory Title The role of philosophical
context in the development of research methodology and theory The Role of
Philosophical Context in the Development of Theory: Towards Methodological
Pluralism’, The Built & Human Environment Review, 1(1), pp. 1–10.
Patton, M. Q. (1999) ‘Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis.’,

Health services research, 34(5 Pt 2), pp. 1189–208. Available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10591279 (Accessed: 30 December 2020).
Pearce, D. (1988) ‘Economics, equity and sustainable development’, Futures, 20(6), pp.
598–605. doi: 10.1016/0016-3287(88)90002-X.
Pearce, D. (2002) ‘An Intellectual History of Environmental Economics’, Annual

Review of Energy and the Environment, 27(1), pp. 57–81. doi:
10.1146/annurev.energy.27.122001.083429.
Pearson, E., Mellish, S., Sanders, B. and Litchfield, C. (2014) ‘Marine wildlife
entanglement: Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and relevant behaviour in the Australian
community’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 89(1–2), pp. 136–148. doi:
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.014.
Penca, J. (2018) ‘European Plastics Strategy: What promise for global marine litter?’,
Marine Policy, 97, pp. 197–201. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.06.004.
Perugini, F., Mastellone, M. L. and Arena, U. (2005) ‘A life cycle assessment of

mechanical and feedstock recycling options for management of plastic packaging
wastes’, Environmental Progress, 24(2), pp. 137–154. doi: 10.1002/ep.10078.
Petljak, K., Naletina, D. and Bilogrević, K. (2019) ‘Considering ecologically

sustainable packaging during decision-making while buying food products’, Ekonomika
poljoprivrede, 66(1), pp. 107–126. doi: 10.5937/ekoPolj1901107P.
Plastics Europe (2017) An analysis of European plastics production, demand and waste
185
data 2017, Plastics – the Facts. Available at:
https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/5715/1717/4180/Plastics_the_facts_20
17_FINAL_for_website_one_page.pdf.
Prata, J. C., Silva, A. L. P., da Costa, J. P., Mouneyrac, C., Walker, T. R., Duarte, A. C.
and Rocha-Santos, T. (2019) ‘Solutions and Integrated Strategies for the Control and
Mitigation of Plastic and Microplastic Pollution’, International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(13), p. 2411. doi:
10.3390/ijerph16132411.
Rabnawaz, M., Wyman, I., Auras, R. and Cheng, S. (2017) ‘A roadmap towards green
packaging: The current status and future outlook for polyesters in the packaging
industry’, Green Chemistry, 19(20), pp. 4737–4753. doi: 10.1039/c7gc02521a.
Ragossnig, A. M. and Schneider, D. R. (2017) ‘What is the right level of recycling of

plastic waste?’, Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable
Circular Economy, 35(2), pp. 129–131. doi: 10.1177/0734242X16687928.
Rauer, J. and Kaufmann, L. (2015) ‘Mitigating external barriers to implementing green

supply chain management: A grounded theory investigation of green-tech companies’
rare earth metals supply chains’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(2), pp. 65–
88. doi: 10.1111/jscm.12063.
Ravi, V. (2015) ‘Analysis of interactions among barriers of eco-efficiency in electronics

packaging industry’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 101, pp. 16–25. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.002.
Raynaud, J. (2014) Valuing Plastics: The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and
Disclosing Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry, United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP). Available at:
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/25302/Valuing_Plastic_ES.pdf?
sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed: 29 December 2020).
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2008) ‘Editorial’, Action Research, 6(1), pp. 5–6. doi:
10.1177/1476750308089760.
Resat, H. G. and Unsal, B. (2019) ‘A novel multi-objective optimization approach for
186
sustainable supply chain: A case study in packaging industry’, Sustainable Production

and Consumption, 20, pp. 29–39. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2019.04.008.
Rhodes, C. J. (2018) ‘Plastic Pollution and Potential Solutions’, Science Progress,

101(3), pp. 207–260. doi: 10.3184/003685018X15294876706211.
Rhodes, C. J. (2019) ‘Solving the plastic problem: From cradle to grave, to

reincarnation’, Science Progress, 102(3), pp. 218–248. doi:
10.1177/0036850419867204.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F.,
Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., et al. (2009) ‘A safe
operating space for humanity’, Nature. Nature Publishing Group, pp. 472–475. doi:
10.1038/461472a.
Rodgers, B. L. and Cowles, K. V. (1993) ‘The qualitative research audit trail: A

complex collection of documentation’, Research in Nursing & Health, 16(3), pp. 219–
226. doi: 10.1002/nur.4770160309.
Roome, N. (2011) Looking Back, Thinking Forward: Distinguishing Between Weak and
Strong Sustainability, The Oxford Handbook of Business and the Natural Environment.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199584451.003.0034.
Rujnić-Sokele, M. and Pilipović, A. (2017) ‘Challenges and opportunities of

biodegradable plastics: A mini review’, Waste Management and Research, 35(2), pp.
132–140. doi: 10.1177/0734242X16683272.
Rydin, Y. (2012) Governing for Sustainable Urban Development, Governing for

Sustainable Urban Development. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781849775083.
Saibuatrong, W., Cheroennet, N. and Suwanmanee, U. (2017) ‘Life cycle assessment

focusing on the waste management of conventional and bio-based garbage bags’,
Journal of Cleaner Production, 158, pp. 319–334. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.006.
Sarfraz, J., Gulin-Sarfraz, T., Nilsen-Nygaard, J. and Pettersen, M. K. (2021)

‘Nanocomposites for food packaging applications: An overview’, Nanomaterials, 11(1),
pp. 1–27. doi: 10.3390/nano11010010.
187
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009) Research Methods for Business
Students - Surrey Research Insight Open Access. London: Pearson Education. Available
at: http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/816026/ (Accessed: 29 December 2020).
Schnepp, G. J. and Bowen, H. R. (1954) ‘Social Responsibilities of the Businessman’,

The American Catholic Sociological Review, 15(1), p. 42. doi: 10.2307/3708003.
Schrenk, W. J. (1974) ‘Multilayer plastic films’, Appl Polym Symp, (2), pp. 9–12.
Seem, J., Nachmias, D. and Nachmias, C. (1988) ‘Research Methods in the Social
Sciences’, Teaching Sociology, 16(2), p. 217. doi: 10.2307/1317432.
Setiadi, V. (2018) ‘The empowerment of sustainable design in food packaging as

designer responsibilities’, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
106(1), p. 012014. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/106/1/012014.
Shekdar, A. V. (2009) ‘Sustainable solid waste management: An integrated approach

for Asian countries’, Waste Management, 29(4), pp. 1438–1448. doi:
10.1016/j.wasman.2008.08.025.
Shen, J., Fatehi, P. and Ni, Y. (2014) ‘Biopolymers for surface engineering of paper-
based products’, Cellulose, 21(5), pp. 3145–3160. doi: 10.1007/s10570-014-0380-6.
Shogren, R., Wood, D., Orts, W. and Glenn, G. (2019) ‘Plant-based materials and
transitioning to a circular economy’, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 19, pp.
194–215. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2019.04.007.
Sieti, N., Rivera, X. C. S., Stamford, L. and Azapagic, A. (2019) ‘Environmental

impacts of baby food: Ready-made porridge products’, Journal of Cleaner Production,
212, pp. 1554–1567. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.009.
Silvenius, F., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Grönman, K., Soukka, R., Koivupuro, H.-K. and
Virtanen, Y. (2011) ‘Role of Packaging in LCA of Food Products’, in Towards Life
Cycle Sustainability Management. Springer Netherlands, pp. 359–370. doi:
10.1007/978-94-007-1899-9_35.
Silverman, D. (2004) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, Qualitative

Research. London: Sage.
188
Simms, C., Trott, P., Hende, E. van den and Hultink, E. J. (2020) ‘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 Production, 244, p. 118792. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118792.
Singh, J. and Cooper, T. (2017) ‘Towards a Sustainable Business Model for Plastic
Shopping Bag Management in Sweden’, Procedia CIRP, 61, pp. 679–684. doi:
10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.268.
Singh, M. K. P., Rajendran, S. D. and Wahab, S. N. (2019) ‘Malaysian consumers’

preference for green packaging’, International Journal of Society Systems Science,
11(4), p. 312. doi: 10.1504/IJSSS.2019.10025067.
Sonneveld, K., James, K., Fitzpatrick, L. and Lewis, H. (2005) ‘Sustainable Packaging:
How do we Define and Measure It?’, Symposium A Quarterly Journal In Modern
Foreign Literatures, (April), pp. 1–9. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228737738 (Accessed: 29 December 2020).
Spierling, S., Knüpffer, E., Behnsen, H., Mudersbach, M., Krieg, H., Springer, S.,
Albrecht, S., Herrmann, C. and Endres, H. J. (2018) ‘Bio-based plastics - A review of
environmental, social and economic impact assessments’, Journal of Cleaner
Srinivasan, S. and Lu, W. F. (2014) ‘Development of a Supporting Tool for Sustainable

FMCG Packaging Designs’, Procedia CIRP, 15, pp. 395–400. doi:
10.1016/j.procir.2014.06.079.
Steenis, N. D., van Herpen, E., van der Lans, I. A., Ligthart, T. N. and van Trijp, H. C.
M. (2017) ‘Consumer response to packaging design: The role of packaging materials
and graphics in sustainability perceptions and product evaluations’, Journal of Cleaner
Steenis, N. D., van der Lans, I. A., van Herpen, E. and van Trijp, H. C. M. (2018)
‘Effects of sustainable design strategies on consumer preferences for redesigned
packaging’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 205, pp. 854–865. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.137.
189
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M.,
Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A., et al. (2015) ‘Planetary
boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet’, Science, 347(6223), p.
1259855. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855.
Susman, G. I. and Evered, R. D. (1978) ‘An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of

Action Research’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), p. 603. doi:
10.2307/2392581.
Sustainable Packaging Coalition (2016) 2015-2016 Centralized study on avaliablity of

recycling. Available at: https://brandfolder.com/s/oaxcu2-bas1yg-3fee1l.
Svanes, E., Void, M., Møller, H., Pettersen, M. K., Larsen, H. and Hanssen, O. J. (2010)
‘Sustainable packaging design: A holistic methodology for packaging design’,
Packaging Technology and Science, 23(3), pp. 161–175. doi: 10.1002/pts.887.
Taufik, D., Reinders, M. J., Molenveld, K. and Onwezen, M. C. (2020) ‘The paradox
between the environmental appeal of bio-based plastic packaging for consumers and
their disposal behaviour’, Science of The Total Environment, 705, p. 135820. doi:
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135820.
Tessnow-von Wysocki, I. and Le Billon, P. (2019) ‘Plastics at sea: Treaty design for a
global solution to marine plastic pollution’, Environmental Science and Policy, 100, pp.
94–104. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.06.005.
Thom, E. (2018) Elizabeth Thom 13011271 Independent Institute of Education

Bachelor of Commerce Honours in Management Stakeholder theory: A qualitative,
cross-sectional study describing customer perceptions of Fast Moving Consumer Goods
(FMCG) companies’ sustainability i. The IIE. Available at:
http://iiespace.iie.ac.za/handle/11622/311 (Accessed: 29 December 2020).
Thompson, R. C., Swan, S. H., Moore, C. J. and vom Saal, F. S. (2009) ‘Our plastic
age’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
364(1526), pp. 1973–1976. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0054.
Toffel, M. W. (2004) ‘Strategic management of product recovery’, California

Management Review, 46(2), pp. 120–141. doi: 10.2307/41166214.
190
Tongco, M. D. C. (2007) ‘Purposive Sampling as a Tool for Informant Selection’, in

Ethnobotany Research and Applications. Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa, pp.
147–158. Available at: https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/227
(Accessed: 30 December 2020).
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003) ‘Towards a Methodology for Developing
Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review’, British
Journal of Management, 14(3), pp. 207–222. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Tua, C., Biganzoli, L., Grosso, M. and Rigamonti, L. (2019) ‘Life Cycle Assessment of
Reusable Plastic Crates (RPCs)’, Resources, 8(2), p. 110. doi:
10.3390/resources8020110.
Ülgen, Björklund, Simm and Forslund (2019) ‘Inter-Organizational Supply Chain

Interaction for Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review’, Sustainability, 11(19),
p. 5488. doi: 10.3390/su11195488.
Underwood, R. L. and Ozanne, J. L. (1998) ‘Is your package an effective

communicator? A normative framework for increasing the communicative competence
of packaging’, Journal of Marketing Communications, 4(4), pp. 207–220. doi:
10.1080/135272698345762.
Verghese, K. L., Horne, R. and Carre, A. (2010) ‘PIQET: the design and development
of an online “streamlined” LCA tool for sustainable packaging design decision support’,
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(6), pp. 608–620. doi:
10.1007/s11367-010-0193-2.
Verghese, K. and Lewis, H. (2007) ‘Environmental innovation in industrial packaging:

a supply chain approach’, International Journal of Production Research, 45(18–19), pp.
4381–4401. doi: 10.1080/00207540701450211.
Verhulst, E. and Van Doorsselaer, K. (2015) ‘Development of a hands-on toolkit to

support integration of ecodesign in engineering programmes’, Journal of Cleaner
Visser, W. (2009) Corporate Social Responsibility in Developing Countries, The Oxford

Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:
191
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199211593.003.0021.
Wagner, T. P. (2020) ‘Policy Instruments to reduce consumption of expanded

polystyrene food service ware in the USA’, Detritus, 9(9), pp. 11–26. doi:
10.31025/2611-4135/2020.13903.
Wakefield-Rann, R. (2017) ‘More Than Skin Deep: A Service Design Approach to

Making the Luxury Personal Care Industry More Sustainable’, in Environmental
Footprints and Eco-Design of Products and Processes. London: Springer, pp. 211–231.
doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-2917-2_10.
Walsh, G. and Mitchell (2005) ‘Demographic characteristics of consumers who find it

difficult to decide’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(1), pp. 281–295.
Wang, H. (2014) ‘Study on Extended Producer Responsibility’, Advanced Materials

Research, 962(1), pp. 2067–2071. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.962-965.2067.
Wang, J., Zheng, L. and Li, J. (2018) ‘A critical review on the sources and instruments
of marine microplastics and prospects on the relevant management in China’, Waste
Management and Research, 36(10), pp. 898–911. doi: 10.1177/0734242X18793504.
Wang, T., Hsu, C.-L., Huang, C.-H., Hsieh, Y.-K., Tan, C.-S. and Wang, C.-F. (2016)
‘Environmental impact of CO2-expanded fluid extraction technique in microalgae oil
acquisition’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, pp. 813–820. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.179.
Waterman, A. S. (2013) ‘The humanistic psychology-positive psychology divide:

Contrasts in philosophical foundations’, American Psychologist, 68(3), pp. 124–133.
doi: 10.1037/a0032168.
Wever, R. and Vogtländer, J. (2013) ‘Eco-efficient Value Creation: An Alternative

Perspective on Packaging and Sustainability’, Packaging Technology and Science,
26(4), pp. 229–248. doi: 10.1002/pts.1978.
White, P. (2009) ‘Building a sustainability strategy into the business’, Corporate

Governance: The international journal of business in society. Edited by G. Lenssen,
9(4), pp. 386–394. doi: 10.1108/14720700910984936.
192
Wichai-utcha, N. and Chavalparit, O. (2019) ‘3Rs Policy and plastic waste management
in Thailand’, The Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 21(1), p. 10. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0781-y.
Wiek, A. and Lang, D. J. (2016) ‘Transformational Sustainability Research

Methodology’, in Sustainability Science. Springer Netherlands, pp. 31–41. doi:
10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_3.
Wijen, F., Zoeteman, K., Pieters, J. and van Seters, P. (2012) A Handbook of
Globalisation and Environmental Policy, National Government Interventions in a
Global Arena. Hague: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781849805773.
Winn, M. L. and Angell, L. C. (2000) ‘Towards a Process Model of Corporate

Greening’, Organization Studies, 21(6), pp. 1119–1147. doi:
10.1177/0170840600216005.
Wollny, V., Dehoust, G., Fritsche, U. R. and Weinem, P. (2001) ‘Comparison of plastic
packaging waste management options: Feedstock recycling versus energy recovery in
Germany’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5(3), pp. 49–63. doi:
10.1162/108819801760049468.
Worm, B., Lotze, H. K., Jubinville, I., Wilcox, C. and Jambeck, J. (2017) ‘Plastic as a
Persistent Marine Pollutant’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42, pp. 1–
26. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060700.
Wright, S. L. and Kelly, F. J. (2017) ‘Plastic and Human Health: A Micro Issue?’,
Environmental Science & Technology, 51(12), pp. 6634–6647. doi:
10.1021/acs.est.7b00423.
Xevgenos, D., Papadaskalopoulou, C., Panaretou, V., Moustakas, K. and Malamis, D.

(2015) ‘Success Stories for Recycling of MSW at Municipal Level: A Review’, Waste
and Biomass Valorization, 6(5), pp. 657–684. doi: 10.1007/s12649-015-9389-9.
Yanarella, E. (2012) ‘Does Sustainable Development Lead to Sustainability?’, in The

City as Fulcrum of Global Sustainability. London: Anthem Press, pp. 3–22. doi:
10.7135/UPO9780857284006.003.
Yanarella, E. J., Levine, R. S. and Lancaster, R. W. (2009) ‘Research and Solutions:
193
“Green” vs. Sustainability: From Semantics to Enlightenment’, Sustainability: The
Journal of Record, 2(5), pp. 296–302. doi: 10.1089/SUS.2009.9838.
Yin, R. K. (2017) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods 6th
Edition. London: Sage.
Young, A. and Kielkiewicz-Young, A. (2001) ‘Sustainable Supply Network

Management’, Corporate Environmental Strategy, 8(3), pp. 260–268. doi:
10.1016/S1066-7938(01)00122-1.
Zabaniotou, A. and Kassidi, E. (2003) ‘Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging
made from polystyrene and recycled paper’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(5), pp.
549–559. doi: 10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00076-8.
Zadek, S. (2004) ‘The Path to Corporate Responsibility’, in Corporate Ethics and

Corporate Governance. Berlin: Springer, pp. 159–172. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-70818-
6_13.
Zhao, G., Liu, S., Chen, H., Lopez, C., Hernandez, J., Guyon, C., Iannacone, R.,
Calabrese, N., Panetto, H., Kacprzyk, J., et al. (2019) ‘Value-Chain Wide Food Waste
Management: A Systematic Literature Review’, in Lecture Notes in Business
Information Processing. London: Springer Verlag, pp. 41–54. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-
18819-1_4.
Zhu, Y., Romain, C. and Williams, C. K. (2016) ‘Sustainable polymers from renewable
resources’, Nature, 540(7633), pp. 354–362. doi: 10.1038/nature21001.
194
Chapter 10: Appendices
10 APPENDICES
APPENDIX A INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .............................................................................. 196
APPENDIX B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .............................................................................. 198
APPENDIX C INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .............................................................................. 199
APPENDIX D GRIDS ........................................................................................................ 201
195
APPENDIX A INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Hi my name is Xuezi. I am doing a PhD in Institute for Manufacturing, the University

of Cambridge. My research focuses on how to help companies reduce the plastic usage
in packaging. Thank you for taking part in this research.
This interview will take roughly 40 minutes. If I may, I’ll record our conversation
during this interview. (Turn on the recorder) I’ll take some pictures during our interview
if it’s okay. All data collected will be confidential and if desired, any company
participating will remain anonymous in any future publications. Where publications
might include anonymised evidence, we will give the company an opportunity to verify
that they are content before the publication proceeds. In the end of this research, we’ll
analyse results with all companies we interviewed, we’ll send the report to all
companies.
Questions for companies implementing sustainable packaging knowledge:
Could you please briefly introduce yourself?
Who is responsible for packaging design? Are they part of the product design team?
At what stage of the development process are you using sustainable tools for packaging
design? Does it happen concurrently with product development, or does it happen after
product development?
What type of knowledge do you use to support sustainable packaging design?
Have you encountered any difficulties in accessing/deploying these knowledge?
Why are you deploying these knowledge to support sustainable packaging design?
What are the barriers to designing more sustainable packaging?
How difficult is it to implement new packaging ideas in production?
What are the advantages of designing more sustainable packaging?
How might current knowledge be improved?
Can you put me in touch with any firms who you know are doing a good job?
196
Questions for companies supporting the implementation of sustainable packaging

knowledge:
How do companies use the knowledge/tools or advice that you produce?
What are the advantages of the knowledge/advice that you produce in comparison with
others?
What are the limitations in the knowledge/advice that you currently offer?
What kind of companies use your knowledge/advice?
I am interested specifically in FMCG firms (e.g. bottles, food packaging). Is there a

difference in the advice/support needed in different types of firm?
Do you have any case examples of packaging in this sector which is excellent from a
sustainability perspective?
Can you put me in touch with any firms who you know are doing a good job?
197
APPENDIX B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

companies.
Before we start, please let me know if you have any questions.
How dependent upon plastics in packaging are companies currently?
What are the major barriers to reducing the amount of plastics in packaging?
How aware are companies about the alternatives?
To what extent are companies currently exploring alternatives to plastics?
What are the current alternatives and what alternatives might be available in the near
future?
What is the potential for eliminating plastic (i.e. are there easy improvements and harder
improvements)?
How does the wider system of consumption influence the amount of plastics used in
packaging?
What is the impact of consumer pull vs company push on potential changes to

packaging?
This is the end of this interview. Many thanks for your participation. Would you mind
us keeping you updated about the research?
198
APPENDIX C INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

companies.
Before we start, please let me know if you have any questions.
First of all, I’d like to ask you to think possible enablers and barriers for the plastic
reduction in packaging in your company. Please write down each of them on the post-it
notes.
(Check if the participant finished) I’ll give you a grid. As you can see, the y-axis shows
how much control you have for the enablers and barriers while x-axis shows how strong
is the enabler or barrier. Please place the enablers and barriers you just wrote on the grid
wherever you think are suitable, and explain why you place it there. For example: (give
an example).
(Check if the participant finished) I have some enablers and barriers. You can use them
and place them on the grid if you agree with them. You don’t have to use all of them.
(Check if the participant finished) Does this make you think of any other enablers or
barriers? Would you like to write them down?
(Check if the participant finished) Now I’ll give you 20 dots in total. 10 for enablers
another 10 for barriers. Please vote for enablers or barriers that are important for your
business. You can stick more than one dote on one enabler or barrier based on the
199
importance. You don’t have to use all dots. Please explain why you think it’s important.
This includes all enablers and barriers you placed on the grid.
(Check if the participant finished) Please let me know the sequence of these enablers,
e.g. if B needs to happen, then A needs to happen first. You can use the mark to drawn
arrows on the grid.
(Check if the participant finished) In each enabler or barrier, there are stakeholders
involved. Some are obvious, and I can roughly guess which stakeholder involved. But
are there any exceptions you think maybe surprise for me to know?
This is the end of this interview. Many thanks for your participation. Would you mind
us keeping you updated about the research?
200
APPENDIX D GRIDS
Figure 10.1 Grid of Company 1
201
Figure 10.3 Grid of Company
Figure 10.4 Grid of Company 4 C4a
202
Figure 10.5 Grid of Company 4 C4b
Figure 10.6 Grid of Company 4 C4c
203
204
205
206
207

PHD Xuezi e

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHD Xuezi e

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLASTIC PACKAGING ELIMINATION IN THE

Institute for Manufacturing

This thesis is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

1 UNDERSTANDING PLASTIC PACKAGING CHALLENGES IN

TABLE 2.1 BIODEGRADABILITY OF SELECTED PLANT-BASED POLYMERS IN DIFFERENT

TABLE 2.2 INSTRUMENTS ADOPTED TO IMPROVE THE PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT

TABLE 2.3 METHODS CONSIDER A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT PACKAGING COMPONENTS ... 23

TABLE 2.4 SELECTED ARTICLES ON THE ASSESSMENT OF CONSUMER ASPECTS AND

TABLE 3.2 RESEARCH STAGES OF THIS STUDY ................................................................. 45

TABLE 4.1 INTERVIEWEES IN THIS STUDY......................................................................... 50

TABLE 5.1 INTERVIEWEES IN THIS RESEARCH................................................................... 70

TABLE 5.2 PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK FOR THE REDUCTION OF PLASTIC USAGE IN

TABLE 5.4 OVERVIEW OF COMMUNICATION METHODS AND TOOLS .................................. 78

TABLE 5.5 PRELIMINARY FRAMEWORK OF FACTORS INFLUENCING THE REDUCTION OF

TABLE 6.1 INTERVIEWEES INVOLVED IN EXPERTS’ INTERVIEWS....................................... 93

TABLE 6.2 ENABLER AND BARRIERS TO PLASTICS PACKAGING ELIMINATION*E=ENABLER;

TABLE 6.3 ENABLER AND BARRIERS TO PLASTICS PACKAGING ELIMINATION*E=ENABLER;

TABLE 6.4 CONNECTEDNESS GROUPS OF ENABLER AND BARRIERS TO PLASTICS

TABLE 6.6 CONNECTEDNESS GROUPS OF ENABLER AND BARRIERS TO PLASTICS

TABLE 6.7 ENABLER AND BARRIERS TO PLASTICS PACKAGING ELIMINATION*E=ENABLER;

TABLE 7.1 RESEARCH STAGES........................................................................................ 130

TABLE 7.2 SUMMARY OF THEMES INFLUENCING PLASTIC REDUCTION/ELIMINATION IN

FIGURE 1.1 THE FOUR DIMENSIONS OF A DEFINITION OF SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING

DASHED LINES SHOW PROJECTIONS OF HISTORICAL TRENDS TO 2050. ............................ 5

FIGURE 1.3 THESIS STRUCTURE.......................................................................................... 8

FIGURE 2.1 THESIS STRUCTURE........................................................................................ 10

FIGURE 2.3 CIRCULAR PACKAGING SUPPLY CHAIN ........................................................... 14

FIGURE 2.4 DISTRIBUTION OF ARTICLES PER YEAR........................................................... 18

FIGURE 3.1 THESIS STRUCTURE........................................................................................ 35

SHOW OTHER POSSIBLE ITERATIONS OF THE RESEARCH ACTIVITIES WITHIN AN ACTION

RESEARCH CYCLE. *MM=MIXED METHODS ............................................................ 41

FIGURE 3.3 DESIGN RESEARCH METHODOLOGY (BLESSING AND CHAKRABARTI, 2009A)

FIGURE 4.1 THESIS STRUCTURE........................................................................................ 49

FIGURE 4.2 CIRCULAR PACKAGING SUPPLY CHAIN ........................................................... 64

FIGURE 5.1 THESIS STRUCTURE........................................................................................ 68

FIGURE 5.2 FMCG SUSTAINABLE DESIGN FACTORS FRAMEWORK.................................. 73

FIGURE 5.3 FACTOR MAPPING GRID ................................................................................ 87

FIGURE 5.5 STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................. 89

FIGURE 6.1 THESIS STRUCTURE ........................................................................................ 90

FIGURE 6.2 AN EXAMPLE OF THE FINISHED GRID .............................................................. 96

FIGURE 6.3 AN EXAMPLE OF THE DIGITAL VERSION OF THE GRID ..................................... 98

FIGURE 6.5 AN EXAMPLE OF THE DIGITAL VERSION AFTER ORGANIZING FACTORS BY

FIGURE 6.6 CONNECTEDNESS OF FACTORS IN FMCG COMPANIES’ PLASTIC REDUCTION

FIGURE 6.7 CONNECTEDNESS OF FACTORS IN PACKAGING COMPANIES’ PLASTIC

FIGURE 6.8 CONNECTEDNESS OF FACTORS IN PACKAGING COMPANIES’ PLASTIC

FIGURE 7.1 THESIS STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 129

CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................. 144

3.1.2 IN CHAPTER 6................................................................................................. 146

IN CHAPTER 6 ......................................................................................................... 147

FIGURE 7.5 FRAMEWORK OF FACTORS INFLUENCING THE REDUCTION OF PLASTIC USAGE IN

ARE GREYED OUT ................................................................................................... 149

FIGURE 8.1 THESIS STRUCTURE ...................................................................................... 155

FIGURE 10.1 GRID OF COMPANY 1 ................................................................................. 201

FIGURE 10.2 GRID OF COMPANY 2 ................................................................................. 201

FIGURE 10.3 GRID OF COMPANY .................................................................................... 202

FIGURE 10.4 GRID OF COMPANY 4 C4A ......................................................................... 202

FIGURE 10.5 GRID OF COMPANY 4 C4B ......................................................................... 203

FIGURE 10.6 GRID OF COMPANY 4 C4C ......................................................................... 203

FIGURE 10.7 GRID OF COMPANY 5 ................................................................................. 204

FIGURE 10.8 GRID OF COMPANY 6 ................................................................................. 204

FIGURE 10.9 GRID OF COMPANY 7 ................................................................................. 205

FIGURE 10.10 GRID OF COMPANY 8 ............................................................................... 205