PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 Published online 31 January 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/pts.993

Packaging Design: General Framework and Research Agenda By A. Azzi,* D. Battini, A. Persona and F. Sgarbossa Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padova, Stradella San Nicola, 336100 Vicenza, Italy

Traditionally, packaging design has had a subordinate role with respect to product design and production systems design; however, its impact on supply chain costs and performances can be devastating. Only in the past few years its strategic role has been recognized both in theory and in practice. Although packaging design research attracted considerable attention in the recent past, the purpose of this article is to broaden the field even further in two main directions. First, an attempt is made to review the status of literature on packaging design: a total of 89 articles published between 1990 and 2011 are reviewed and classified by content. In this contest, related International Standards are also presented and discussed, and a conceptual framework for packaging design is presented. Second, an agenda for future research in this area is provided. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 22 June 2011; Revised 23 December 2011; Accepted 27 December 2011 KEY WORDS: packaging design; integrated packaging logistics; literature review; international standards; concep-

tual framework; research agenda

INTRODUCTION Packaging activities are often perceived as a cost rather than a value added,1–3 and they can have devastating effects on system costs and performance. Many authors emphasize the importance of packaging in business strategy (e.g.4), and the role of packaging in industrial management continues to rise due to increased logistics costs, improved packaging technology and enhanced environmental regulation.5 In the academic world, up to now, the impact of packaging systems on logistic processes is often only implicit and almost overlooked (e.g.6,2,7). The main purpose of the present research is to provide a framework based on literature review to grant a holistic perspective on packaging design that will eventually lead to improved overall supply chain efficiency. The packaging industry is characterized by ever-growing innovation and continuous raise: main drivers of these trends are certainly globalization and increasing distances between point of production and point of consumption,6 increasing number of disposable products, changes in demographics and lifestyles,6,8 improvements in hygiene standards,9 development of self-service distribution6 and increasing of e-commerce and home-delivery services.10 A comprehensive overview of the role of packaging systems in logistics is a must for proper calibration of any supply chain, especially considering constantly new demands from consumers, governments and public opinion, not to mention concerns about environmental sustainability, personal safety and ergonomics.11 The present article aims to review qualitative and quantitative literature on packaging design while exploring the research opportunities in this area and serves as a roadmap for future packaging design studies and research. Five specific aspects that are of high importance for packaging design are * Correspondence to: A. Azzi, Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padova, Stradella San Nicola, 3, 36100 Vicenza, Italy. E-mail: [email protected] Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

436

A. AZZI ET AL.

distinguished: (i) packaging design for safety, (ii) packaging design for ergonomics, (iii) packaging design for sustainability, (iv) packaging design for logistics and (v) packaging design for marketing and communication. All these issues are currently dominating the debate within the packaging sector and populating the pages of journal publications and international standards. In the Methodology section, an overview of the present research results is presented, with focus on the content categories driving packaging design. The State of the Art section summarizes the results and introduces the General Framework: Five Interrelated Aspects section, which provides a general framework to understand and analyze the design of an efficient packaging system with an integrated approach. The Research Agenda section aims to provide suggestions for future developments in this field before moving to the Conclusions section.

METHODOLOGY For a literature review, it is particularly important to define clear boundaries to delimitate the research. Because ‘one problem derives from the challenge that it is impractical to read everything’,12 we limited the search to academic journals in English. Empirical articles on packaging design processes and related technologies and equipment were excluded from the review. A total of 89 articles were identified, all listed in Appendix A. To perform a systematic study, we started from a content analysis conducted13,14 by, first, defining sources and procedures for articles to be analyzed and, second, defining categories instrumental to the classification of the collected articles. First of all, articles related to packaging design were searched, mainly identifying the main drivers that lead packaging design. Key words, databases and search period are listed in Table 1. The search was made on a title, abstract and key word level. After a quick content check (based on abstract reading), all articles pertinent with the investigation were carefully read to create a classification of drivers, methods, industry sectors, type of packaging, and so on. Although this search might not be exhaustive, it is believed that the articles reviewed comprise a reasonably representative body of the research accomplished in this area. The allocation of the publications in the researched period (1990–2011) is illustrated in Figure 1, showing how package design research has grown over the years. This trend can be explained with an increase of interest about this topic and about design practices in general.15 The distribution of articles by research approach is given in Table 2, where it can be observed that most articles (~64%) fall into the empirical category, suggesting an empirical and more practitioner-oriented focus. Theoretical works make up approximately 16% of the total studies, whereas approximately the 20% of the reviewed articles have a theoretical and empirical approach. Table 2 further indicates that literature on packaging design is mostly descriptive, with approximately 83% of the total articles falling into this category. As Saghir and Jönson16 pointed out, packaging design requires a balanced consideration of both qualitative and quantitative aspects. The undertaken literature review reveals that just 25 articles include a quantitative approach (33.7% of the total). Eighty-nine articles are also classified per content. Drivers were formulated by inductive content analysis17: to identify content categories, heading and notes were written down in the margins of the manuscript, then a lists of categories was compiled and organized by grouping similar drivers to reduce the number of categories into a more manageable amount, by collapsing those that are similar into broader higher order categories. Literature review revealed five main drivers to take into account for the successful design of packaging systems: ergonomics, logistics, sustainability, safety and marketing. Table 3 summarizes how the reviewed articles correspond to the contest category classification scheme. Figure 2 summarizes the number of articles dealing with primary packaging design rather than secondary or tertiary. Of course, some articles might address more than one packaging typology, and in some cases, the typology of the packaging system cannot be clearly identified (we adopted the definition of ‘general’, indicating that the article does not deal with any specific typology). As a final point, Appendix A lists the reviewed articles, along with related information like publication date, content, specific research methods (i.e. surveys and case studies), type of package content Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Compendex (Ei Village 2) Inspec (Ei Village 2) OAIster (OCLC) Business Source Premier (EBSCO) SCOPUS, Version 4 (Elsevier) Web of Science (Thomson Scientific/ ISI Web Services) (Cited references were used as a secondary source)

Packag* design Packag* development Packag* design framework Packag* development framework

Packag* AND (Holistic OR comprehensive OR integrated OR systematic OR systemic) AND (approach* OR method* OR survey OR paradigm OR roadmap) Packag* system Design for Packag* Packag* AND (Assess* OR evaluat* OR compar*) AND (performanc* OR function*)

Packag* innovat* Packag* choic* OR Packag* selecti*

Resources and databases

Key words (differently combined with Boolean operators)

Material collection Period of research May 2011 September 2011 (A first research was carried on by two researchers in May 2011. A second check was conducted in September 2011, by one of the authors to guarantee correctness and robustness)

Table 1. Information related to material collection.

ROADMAP FOR PACKAGING DESIGN STUDIES AND RESEARCH 437

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

438

A. AZZI ET AL.

Distribution of articles in the period 1990-2011 10 8 6 4 2

2011

2010

2009

2008

2006

2007

2004

2005

2002

2003

2000

2001

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1992

1990

0

Figure 1. Distribution of the reviewed articles in the period 1990–2011 (it is important to note that the literature review was conducted in 2011, which explains the low number of articles during this year).

Table 2. Distribution of research approaches by types of methodology. Prescriptive

Prescriptive and descriptive

Descriptive

Total

Types of methodology

n

%

n

%

n

%

N

%

Theoretical Theoretical and empirical Empirical Total

3 0 0 3

3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4%

3 8 1 12

3.4% 9.0% 1.1% 13.5%

8 10 56 74

9.0% 11.2% 62.9% 83.1%

14 18 57 89

15.7% 20.2% 64.0% 100.0%

(when not deducible, the definition ‘general’ was adopted) and whether or not the article deals with industrial packagingi and with testing issues. To allow an easier comprehension of the study, procedures and labelling found in the cross tabulation are revealed: • Content categories are marked as soon as there are mentioned as important in the article or evaluated in one of the presented case studies. This does not necessary mean the category and its relation with packaging design are deeply investigated in the article. • ‘Sustainability’ might be discussed from an economic, environmental or social point of view; for this reason, the following codes have been used to identify each point of view: ‘EC’ stands for economics; ‘EN’ stands for environmental and ‘SO’ stands for social. • Surveys deal mainly with data analysis collected through questionnaires and interview processes of different categories of stakeholders, and it is meant to investigate a certain aspect within various packaging design topics. • ‘Testing’ is adopted when studies deal with the testing of particular packaging materials and configurations (e.g.22) as well as the special nature of transport vibrations to achieve realistic simulations to be used in the testing laboratories (e.g.23). i Definition of Industrial packaging: it is packaging that facilitates logistical, production and procurement systems.18,19 In particular, ‘industrial packaging’ refers to secondary, tertiary and full load packaging unit, intended for use within industrial and distribution system with emphasis on product protection, ergonomics and shipping considerations (packaging for protection, alignment, handling of raw materials, semi-finished materials, components and finished industrial goods to permit efficient logistic flows). In other words, packaging is meant to facilitate internal operations or supply chain products exchange, such as assembly line kit containers, returnable containers for parts, supermarket kanban packages, and so on. This includes both packaging used to contain industrial products, such as farm chemicals or raw materials for a manufacturing process, as well as transport packaging used to facilitate the movement of filled primary and secondary packaging. ‘One-way’ packaging material is designed for ‘once-only’ use, whereas reusable packaging can be used more than once in the same form. Because industrial packaging is relatively homogenous, it is often regularly recycled as a matter of business practice to reduce waste disposal costs.20,21

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

ROADMAP FOR PACKAGING DESIGN STUDIES AND RESEARCH

439

Table 3. Distribution of research approaches by content categories (because some articles can deal with more than one content category, the total sum is greater than 89). Theoretical

Theoretical and empirical

Empirical

Total

Content category

n

%

n

%

n

%

N

%

Ergonomics Logistics Sustainability Safety Communication

4 12 10 12 11

4.5% 13.5% 11.2% 13.5% 12.4%

6 10 12 12 8

6.7% 11.2% 13.5% 13.5% 9.0%

7 26 41 22 31

7.9% 29.2% 46.1% 24.7% 34.8%

17 48 63 46 50

19.1% 53.9% 70.8% 51.7% 56.2%

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

Full load Unit

General

Cushioning

48

26 17

19 12 3

Figure 2. Distribution of the 89 reviewed articles according to packaging system typology. (Because articles can deal with more of one typology, the sum is greater than 89)ii.

STATE OF THE ART This section illustrates the five content categories or packaging design drivers, identified during the research: ergonomics, logistics, sustainability, safety and marketing.

Packaging design for safety Safety in packaging design is mainly related to two factors: 1. Content safety (e.g.24,25), which aims to the proper preservation of the package itself and its content. 2. Ecosystems and human health safety, when hazards are related either to dangerous packaging contents or unsafe packaging components.26,27 Preservation is the most important function of packaging.28–30,22 The increasing attention to this aspect is partly due to economical motivations (such as product recalls, damage to reputation, loss of sales, etc.) and legislation requirements during the distribution process. Many authors highlight the importance of laboratory simulation to test adequacy of packaging systems (e.g.31,29,23). Air temperature, humidity, air (pressure, speed), water (i.e. rain, wetness, other sources), radiation (solar, heat), chemically active substances, mechanically active substances (e.g. dust, sand), flora and fauna (microorganisms, rodents, insects, etc.), vibration (caused by transit, handling, conveying, etc.), shocks, fall, acceleration, load, miscellaneous and electrostatic charging are all possible effects caused by logistic processes and need to be taken into consideration. ii Definition of full load packaging unit (or ‘unit loads’): completed filled transport package, mainly intending the consolidated tertiary package, thus the full load transport unit.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

440

A. AZZI ET AL.

In correlation with packaging safety, various systems and international standards have been developed over the past decades, revealing the importance of proper setup and operation of laboratory tests, to simulate or represent the hazards encountered during distribution and thus to prevent damage. The importance of appropriate laboratory simulation of transport vibrations and hazards is an incomparable tool for packaging optimization, as emphasized in the International Safe Transit Association (ISTA) testing procedures.32–36 These procedures provide guidelines for both general simulations, meant to offer random vibration profiles for a variety of vehicle types and routes, and focussed simulation, assisting in the creation of user-defined tests on the basis of actual field measurements.23 International standards are the basis for preventive laboratory tests, and ISO 418037 is the most important reference in this field. The recent edition of ISO 4180:2009,37 which replaces the prior ISO 4180–1:198038 and ISO 4180–2:1980,39 establishes rules for the compilation of performance test schedules for complete, full transport packages, intended for use within any distribution system, except for the packages used for dangerous material. It provides guidelines for the compilation of appropriate test schedules for a known distribution environment, providing experimental data for a wide array of distribution environments (depending on test specimen mass and forecast destination). This International Standard also gives the elements for assessing the criteria related to acceptance of such packages after they have been subjected to the package performance test schedule.37–52 Some prescriptive contribution can be also found among academic literature (e.g.29,24,53).

Packaging design for marketing and communication It is a widespread belief that packaging has fundamental marketing functions such as attracting attention to the product, reinforcing a product’s image and visibility, providing an attractive method to convey the virtues of the product and persuading costumers.54–58 Especially when addressing primary packaging, there is no doubt that the function is primarily marketing related, with the goal of creating and conveying brand impressions59 and forming consumers’ perceptions of specific products.60,61 Many purchases are influenced to a significant degree by the store environment (e.g.62), and it is believed that approximately two thirds of supermarket purchases are decided at the point of sale;63,60,4,56 thus, package becomes a critical factor in the consumer decision-making process. Many factors have to be taken into account when it comes to packaging consideration. Market variations are frequent and sometimes unpredictable, constantly changing to meet consumer changing needs. Fluctuations in demographics and lifestyles obviously drive these needs (e.g. increased single household requirements for small packs),6 inspiring many authors (e.g.64–66) to indicate the uses of intelligent and active confections as opportunities to create a package design that reflects the communicational, functional and logistical requirements of different products. Lange and Wyser67 identified some consumer trends, such as increasing demand for transparency (i.e. product visibility is required), increasing demand for more convenient packaging, convenient to open and re-close and user-ready especially in case of food-related products (e.g. oven or microwave-ready packaging, heat-resistant pouches, etc.). Holdway et al.10 mentioned how secondary meanings are given to packaging design because of social context and associations embedded in the form and called these factors social engineering attributes. Dangers related to such trend is investigated by Ward et al.,27 who indicated various cases where inappropriate packaging can lead to misuse (e.g. wine-bottle shape is appropriate for holding wine, yet the same vessel filled with acid could lead to misunderstanding and be very dangerous). From a marketing point of view, it is also important to recall the fact that consumers often let their moral views influence their buying decisions:68 evidence can be found in the business success of companies selling documented environmentally and/or socially improved products or consumers’ decisions of boycotting brands or countries that are caught in unethical practices. Of course, designers need to take into account the fact that culture does seem to condition how consumers view specific design details56 and keep abreast with such changes. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

ROADMAP FOR PACKAGING DESIGN STUDIES AND RESEARCH

441

Packaging design for logistics The significance of logistic package system design has been recently demonstrated.22 Thus, packaging logistics is a fairly new concept developed during the last few years and with increased attention from both industry and scientific community.69,18,70 Many authors stress the close relationship between the concepts of ‘packaging’ and ‘logistics’ (e.g.18,5,71,72,7), which focuses on the synergies achieved by integrating packaging and logistics with the potential of increased supply chain efficiency and effectiveness. At the same time, supply chain management stresses and develops methods to study dependencies between levels, between point of origin to point of consumption.73,74 Numerous case studies presented in literature provide empirical evidence of the benefits gained by logistics and packaging design integration (e.g.75,76). Arguments to extend the packaging design theory, by considering aspects of logistics and more widely supply chain management, have been recently proposed by many authors (e.g.77,78,2,7); however, most of the attention has been given to external logistic activities such as transports, container saturation, pallet consolidation, and so on. Most authors seem to ignore the fact that many inefficiencies can be attributed to packaging design (e.g. the need of repackaging to fit in a warehouse shelf or the necessity to leave a packaging unit on the ground instead of a shelf due to size incompatibility). On the basis of this, the conclusion can be drawn that particular attention must be placed over both internal and external logistic activities when designing a packaging unit because logistical packaging innovation requires coordination and readjustment among several parties along the production and distribution lines, meeting each functional requirement.18,2 Thus, a logistics-oriented design can result in much more efficient processing from many points of view: (i) handling, lifting and loading/unloading activities;2,79 (ii) material handling devices;7 (iii) warehousing, stocking and stacking;77,7 (iv) filling, order picking, sorting, kitting, packing and unpacking;21,2,77,79,7 (v) shipping, transportation (inter/ multi-modality) and delivery;2,77 (vi) traceability and re-traceability of information; (vii) re-use and recycle;7 (viii) easiness of inventory controlling;2 and (ix) availability and transparency of different kind of information to prevent random errors (poka-yoke design approach). To accomplish efficiency, it is also important to correctly evaluate whether processes are handled manually or automatically to recognize the constraints related to devices eventually used and to assess the role of packaging within each process.

Packaging design for sustainability The concept of sustainable development is very much in the forefront these days, in many countries and within international institutional communities (including the United Nations, GATT, FAO and OECD). The large-scale literature review offered by Carter and Rogers80 demonstrates that organizational sustainability consists of three components: (i) the natural environment, (ii) society and (iii) economic performance. The ‘triple bottom line’ allows an organization to achieve long-term economic viability and addresses community goals for economic growth, social equity, justice and environmental sustainability. Sustainability in packaging has three elemental components as well, and environmental footprints are by far the most discussed; nonetheless, some consideration for the social equity and economic value generated by innovations in packaging systems should not be dismissed.81–83 Unfortunately, when a sustainable approach towards packaging design is attempted, either much emphasis is put over the economic aspects, with too little focus placed on social and environmental concerns, or traditional social and environmental initiatives fail to address long-term economic impacts, including the effects on businesses and the availability of future funding sources. Because new materials, solutions and configurations are constantly under investigation, packaging sustainability involves a continuous improvement process,19 and even small changes can bring great opportunities in terms of environmental, economic and social improvements. Lewis’s survey stresses the need for a sustainable packaging system, emphasizing how such ‘sustainability journey’ is necessarily complex, because packaging plays such a critical role in distribution, retailing and consumption.84 Sustainable development found in the reviewed articles along with time distribution is depicted in Figure 3. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

442

A. AZZI ET AL. 6%

8 7

29%

21%

6 5 4 3

10%

2

15%

1

13%

4 1% 4%

0 1990 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Economic Sustainability

Environmental Sustainability

Social Sustainnability

Ec

En

So

Ec&En

Ec&So

En&So

Ec&En&So

None

Figure 3. (a) Sustainable development addressed in the articles along with time distribution. (b) Percentage of articles mentioning or not mentioning sustainable dimensions as important. Environmental sustainability. Sustainable packaging design is a challenging topic because environmental issues have come to dominate social concerns,85,86 whereas packaging is perceived as an ancillary activity, with a strong environmental impacts. Throughout their life cycle, packaging systems consume renewable and non-renewable resources and energy, create waste, generate emissions and emit pollutants.19,87 For these reasons, efforts must be made to encourage reduction (i.e. modifying or limiting the way in which packaging is manufactured or used), packaging reuse and recycling of packaging materials. Over the years, considerable work has been made to diminish the environmental impacts of packaging by focussing on issues such as lightweight materials, reusability and material selection,10 but despite all the efforts, nothing has really solved the issue.88 To address environmental concerns related to packaging, many countries have introduced policies and regulations that impose eco-taxes or deposit return, others require companies to take back and recover their packaging, or even promote voluntary product stewardship programmers, to allocate and distribute waste management costs, or shift responsibility onto product manufacturers.19 Directive 94/62/CE89 and its updated version 2004/12/CE90 are meant to regulate materials rationalization and packaging waste reduction in the European market, seeking to enforce producer responsibility and product stewardship by providing standards for recovery and recycling.91,81 In particular, these directives set some important requirements related to source reduction, recovery standards, reuse, heavy metals content limitation and minimization of hazardous substances in packaging. Nevertheless, the environmental improvement of packaging remains a key challenge for most industries.92 The environmental performance of a packaging system can be evaluated by applying the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. LCA is described by ISO 14040,93 with additional updates in ISO 14041, 14042, 14043 and 14044 regarding the structure of LCA.94–97 ISO 14041 sets ‘a systematic set of procedures for compiling and examining the inputs and outputs of materials and energy and the associated environmental impacts directly attributed to the functioning of a product or service system throughout its life cycle’.94 This approach is widely used in literature, and many empirical studies embedded in the review assess the sustainability of particular packaging system configurations using LCA (e.g. 10,92,81,91,98). In this contest, several design and decision support tools have been developed to allow packaging designers and engineers to assess the sustainability of their packaging systems on the basis of LCA. Two interesting examples are PIQET© (Packaging Impact Quick Evaluation Tool)82,99 and COMPASSW (Comparative Packaging Assessment). The first was developed and introduced by the Sustainable Packaging Alliance, Australia, and it permits to compare different packaging format using a Web platform through a series of packaging parameters. The second was developed by the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, USA, and it is an online design software to help packaging designers make more informed material selections and design decisions by providing quick visual guidance on a common set of environmental indicators;100 it also provides analysis charts useful to compare different packaging alternatives, especially those related to component overview and package details, life cycle analysis, packaging attributes and material health. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

ROADMAP FOR PACKAGING DESIGN STUDIES AND RESEARCH

443

Economic sustainability. Because profit is the major industry’s objective, the economic sustainability of innovative packaging solutions is fundamental. From the literature review, some rough and general data about packaging costs were identified: • Labour, equipment and material costs seem to be identified as major components of packaging costs.79 • Approximately 9% of the cost of any product is likely to be the cost of its packaging.101 • Approximately 90% of packaging costs may be attributed to factors other than the packaging material itself.102 • Manufacturing companies’ use and disposal of packaging account for up to approximately 60% of the total production costs, or between 15% and 50% of the selling price of a product.103,104 • Packaging materials constitute as much as 65% of the global solid waste.105 • Hidden costs associated with overpackaging (i.e. related with disposal, increased traffic, pollution and accelerated deterioration of transport infrastructure), in Europe alone, seem to be 20 times higher than the cost of excessive packaging materials, and they have been valued at an estimated €130 billion/year.106 Better packaging can certainly be a way to gain cost efficiencies,107 which depends not only on cost related to materials21 but also on costs related to packaging design by manufacturing processes, logistics processes, supply chain relationships, environmental costs and other hidden costs related to ergonomic performances, lost sales, and so on. Social sustainability. The social sustainability of packaging design well emerges by the ethical dimensions of innovation in packaging identified by Vernuccio et al.58 In particular, we refer to the following aspects: • Facilitating recycling activities (e.g. limiting the use of multi-material packages, providing information about recycling activities, etc.). • Conveying information55 that is honest (it should tell the truth), truthful (it should withhold no facts essential to the proper and safe use of the product), sincere (it should not deliberately confuse the issue), comprehensible (it should not use vocabulary that is too specialized or too vague) and complete (it should explain everything a typical consumer would find useful to an evaluation of the product and its performance). • Considering the disparate needs of several categories of potential consumer (left-handed people, children, elderly people, people with disabilities, immigrants and economically disadvantaged citizens) through a societal orientation approach.108–110 • Guaranteeing maximum levels of safety in use,111 even beyond the legal constraints and regulatory obligations. Social sustainability is even more critical when considering sectors of particular social implication, such as health care, in which any improvement in terms of cost reduction, logistics efficiency and smoothing activities has a great social impact. Thus, innovative packaging design can be seen as a challenging field.107 Packaging plays an important role in promoting hygiene and safety: improvements in standards of hygiene and medical care in hospitals, for example, are in large part related to the use of pre-packed, disposable medical products; the same can be stated about the food industry.3,4 Some authors stress the idea that supporting a more responsible use of packaging through innovative packaging design can also have positive effects to society’s culture, which is today affected by a ‘throw-away mentality’.84 Till and Nowak112 expanded the social aspects related to packaging design to a broader level, talking about social solidarity and using packaging for initiatives that sustain the community (e.g. the diffusion of messages intended to sensitize consumers to specific social causes or public initiatives). Packaging design for ergonomics Many works link productivity with ergonomics and stress the importance of integrating ergonomics aspects with company activities underlining physical-, organizational- and psychological-related improvements.113 Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

444

A. AZZI ET AL.

Production and logistic areas in industrial plants always require different degrees of manual handling/ lifting for different kinds of industrial packages. In these activities, bending and lifting or repetitive joint motion can result in debilitating injuries. The Material Handling Industry of America underlines that, whenever possible, designing the production and logistic system to include equipment (e.g. conveyors) that specifically addresses ergonomics will help to reduce or eliminate worker injuries. However, in many industrial environments (e.g. manual assembly lines, manual warehouses or picking areas), packages of different sizes and weights need to be handled directly by human hands; thus, manually handled packages need to be designed to meet ergonomic weight limits, reach requirements and optimal handhold configurations.1 In these cases, the ergo-quality level of the task performed by workers directly on the package unit are strongly dependent on the following factors: (i) package characteristics—first of all its weight, dimension and material; (ii) frequency and duration of the task in which the package is involved; (iii) workplace design and working environment; (iv) daily work organization; (v) package storage modality; and (vi) package (manual) handle modality. Some authors (e.g.1,79,7) mention the necessity to consider ergonomics issues in packaging design: package opening, emptying and handling need to be designed to improve workers’ productivity as well as to protect their health. International standards can help the designer choose the best packaging design solution according to ergonomics principles. First of all, the standards included in ISO 11228 (parts 1-2-3)114–116 provide information for all those involved in the design or redesign of a packaging system for industrial use and about all manual handling activities as lifting, handling, pushing and pulling. In particular, ISO 11228-1114 specifies recommends limits for manual lifting and carrying while taking into account, respectively, the intensity, the frequency and the duration of the task. ISO 11228-3116 establishes ergonomic recommendations for repetitive work tasks involving the manual handling of low loads at high frequency. It provides guidance on the identification and assessment of risk factors commonly associated with handling low loads at high frequency, and it makes reference in particular to the NIOSH method (developed by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/),117 the OCRA method (developed by the Italian Unit of research in Posture and Movement Ergonomy, http://www.epmresearch.org/),118 which is a successful tool to evaluate the risk of biomechanical overload on the upper extremities, especially caused by repetitive movements of the upper limbs, and to the Strain Index evaluation. The Strain Index was proposed by Moore and Garg119 as a mean to assess jobs at risk for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the distal upper extremities (hand, wrist and elbow). The ISO 11228 often refers to ISO 7250,120,121 which provides ergonomists a description of anthropometric measurements that can be used as a basic comparison of population groups, to ISO 11226,122 which supports the evaluation of static working postures, and to ISO 6385,123 which establishes the fundamental principles of ergonomics as basic guidelines for the design of work systems and defines relevant basic terms. Ergonomic aspects might be related also to accessibility of packaging content,108 that is, openability of consumer packaging as well as transport packaging. These aspects need to be properly studied according to categories of user: operating nurses might seek access to implants or devices as quickly and efficiently as possible;124 in the same way, employees of a company might find advantages in easier and quicker industrial packaging openability. Moreover, the increasing awareness of disabilities offer strong drives to ensure that people with handicaps have equal access to work and leisure. Investigations in this area are developing (e.g.108,125,126), and preferable size and shape especially thought for less able members of our society are being identified.

GENERAL FRAMEWORK: FIVE INTERRELATED ASPECTS Content categories identified by the literature review and discussed in previous sections build up the framework in Figure 4. The presented integrated framework aims to assist packaging Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

ROADMAP FOR PACKAGING DESIGN STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Related to CONTENTS/ENVIRONMENT/USERS 1) Distribution system characteristics: mode of transport, transportation length, infrastructures conditions, geographic area, change of transport modalities, loading/unloading operations. 2) Environmental conditions 3) Package design: mass and shape 4) Materials used: mechanical and chemical characteristics 5) Content characteristics (dangerous/not dangerous) 1) Package weight, dimension and material 2) Tasks performed on the package unit by human operator (i.e. loading, picking,..) 3) Frequency and duration of the task performed by human operators 4) Workplace design and working environment 5) Daily work organization 6) Package storage modality 7) Package handle modality

SAFETY

ERGONOMY

LOGISTICS 1) Handling, Lifting, Loading/unloading activities 2) Material Handling Devices (MHD) 3) Warehousing, stocking and stacking 4) Filling, order picking, sorting, kitting, packing 5) Shipping, transportation and delivery 6) Traceability and re-traceability of information 7) Disposal, reuse and recycle 8) Inventory control 9) Availability and transparency of information

SUSTAINABILITY

445

ECONOMIC dimension 1) Evident and hidden cost related to packaging life cycle ENVIRONMENTAL dimension 1) Package design: mass and shape 2) Type and amount of package material (including cushioning parts) 3) Packaging capacity 4) Packaging conversion and distribution 5) Transportation mode 66) % post-consumer recycled content 7) % of non-certified raw materials SOCIAL dimension 1) Sector in which the package is adopted 2) Recycling activities 3) Honest, comprehensible, truthful, complete information 4) Users’ needs 5) Hygiene and safety standards

MARKETING 1) Product information 2) Market information 3) Costumer testes: fashion and culture 2) Design for end users’ needs (e.g. reusability, openability, child safe packaging etc.) 3) Theft proof design and/or device 4) Demand planning 5) Marketing strategies and effects of promotions 6) Multisensory design approach 7) Intelligent packaging 8) Active packaging

Figure 4. Conceptual framework: drivers to integrated packaging design.

designers by illustrating main drivers and most important aspects related to a successful and innovative packaging solution. As emphasized in Figure 4, the drivers have strong interdependences: changes improving one aspect certainly will bring improvement or worsening of other aspects at the same time. Packaging design needs to take place inside the hearth of the star, where every factor interacts with each other, taking into account standards, regulations, lab testing and procedures supporting each issue.

Intersection and trade off At this point, it seems clear that packaging design needs to compromise between all packaging functions and to consider the role of the packaging itself within a systematic approach. Many are the interdependences between different aspects of the framework, as it is emphasized by the empirical evidence: ergonomics issues might drive to smaller packages, which in contrast bring higher material consumption and material flow complexity; increased protective packaging and cushioning systems reduce hazards related to handling and distributions, but can cause many unnecessary costs and waste if oversized.24,29,23 Many other examples can be provided on this topic: Mollenkopf et al.21 demonstrated the strength of using a systemic approach when deciding between different packaging system configurations, emphasizing how, as changes in one factor occur, interactions with other factors cause the relative cost of the system to change. Many case studies presented in literature make also positive interactions emerge (e.g.4,75,76), demonstrating how often innovation in packaging drive to many benefits among different aspects creating synergies (e.g. improvement in transport space utilization brings to consequent lower costs and environmental Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

446

A. AZZI ET AL.

5 DRIVERS 4 DRIVERS 3 DRIVERS 2 DRIVERS 1 DRIVER 0

10%

20%

30%

TRULY ADDRESSED

40%

50%

60%

70%

MENTIONED

Figure 5. Distribution of the reviewed articles according to the number of topic discussed: comparison between percentage of articles mentioning different drivers as important and percentage of articles truly addressing different drivers.

benefits because less trips are made with a reduction in carbon dioxide and other emissions; improvement in ergonomics and social-related aspects might bring consequent positive influence on marketing issues: population is aging, and studies127 have shown that elderly consumers abandon certain types of packaging altogether if the act of opening them becomes too difficult).

A systemic approach Despite the multi-dimensional nature of packaging, the academic literature tends to analyze dimensions separately. As shown in Figure 5, only few recent works are starting to integrate different perspectives towards a holistic approach: this trend is even more evident if we compare the number of issues truly addressed in a single article, with the number of issues mentioned. Because many areas of concern are common, it is urgent to move towards competitive strategies that integrate all the presented aspects, which was clear since ancient times: Twede128 described protective physical properties of ancient transport amphorae, also recounting their manufacturing process, industry structure and logistical and marketing advantages. From the literature review, it emerges that just few works propose a systematic approach for packaging design, taking into account all five different drivers.129,130,2,7,131,3,132 Despite that, as shown by Figure 5, most mention the importance of aspects related to the framework but do not really investigate or discuss them in the article. Moreover, most of the articles fail in addressing sustainable related drivers and limit their analysis to the environmental dimension of sustainability. Other reviewed articles stress the idea of integrated packaging design, mainly taking into consideration some of the drivers presented by the framework of Figure 5 (e.g.133,72,58,134). Previous work about ‘packaging design framework’ is available, but as far as the authors know, none addressed packaging design drivers in a comprehensive matter. The framework proposed by Lockamy5 emphasizes the integration of finance, resource and customer performance measurement system, although ergonomics and social sustainability are not at all discussed. Olsmats and Dominic129 developed a theoretical framework for a packaging scorecard based on subjective ratings, but none of the social sustainability issues are addressed. Rundh’s4 framework relates function of packaging with function of marketing; thus, besides not addressing the importance of ergonomics and sustainability, it has a strong marketing footprint. Simms and Trott’s3 contribution seem to be one of the most comprehensive: the framework is built over packaging movement through the distribution chain, with a stakeholders perspective, which, despite being a very interesting viewpoint, fails to address specific design drivers and does not provide a roadmap to support packaging design. Finally, Svanes et al.132 proposed several indicators grouped into the following main categories: environmental sustainability, distribution costs, product protection, market acceptance and user friendliness. It is certainly one of the best holistic Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

ROADMAP FOR PACKAGING DESIGN STUDIES AND RESEARCH

447

methodology for sustainable packaging design, although it does not properly address issues related to ergonomic assessment and social and economic sustainability.

RESEARCH AGENDA The advance and scope of the existing research in packaging design illustrates several issues that have not yet been addressed in literature, at least with an integrated approach. This section suggests a research agenda for integrated packaging design: 1. Identification of methods and procedures for an integrated and systemic packaging design. Because there are common areas of concern, the necessity to move towards a strategy that integrates all the main drivers is urgent.7,54,58 The proposed framework emphasizes this need: the development of a multi-criteria approach, able to achieve an optimized packaging configuration considering trade-offs and synergies, which would lead to a finalized packaging that is not only safe, but also communicative, efficient for handling, sensitive to economic, social and environmental matters as well as to ergonomic issues. In this contest, the development of a unique software platform for integrated packaging design seems to be as utopistic at this early stage, as useful and challenging to achieve the definitions of a set of integrated procedures and guidelines for multi-criteria packaging design. Finally, the study of existing packaging configurations as well as de novo design of packaging solutions should be undertaken, in both manufacturing and healthcare sectors.124,107 This should include new smart packaging forms and materials, taking into account every driver of the presented framework as well as new solutions within carton and wood packaging, which seem not to undertake much improvement over the years. 2. Criteria and procedures to take different alternatives into account need to be established.72 Trade-offs create the need to ‘weight’ the different drivers to identify the best possible solution. Of course, the weighting problem involves an element of subjectivity, which may not be completely random or arbitrary; thus, further research is needed to evaluate the role of weighting factors and provide guidelines. 3. Further theoretical works upon packaging logistics, also considering the many drivers emphasized by the framework: more research is needed to identify and describe opportunities and obstacles within supply chain and packaging logistics change processes135,18,76 and to analyze packaging standardization towards supply chain integration, taking into account a system and a holistic design approach.6 Dynamic simulation would be one approach to incorporate multiple organizations across multiple echelons in a supply chain, providing a more realistic analysis of the complexities of a packaging system.21 4. Assessment and development of package configuration performance measures as well as procedures to relate decision variables to the performance measures. Packaging does not have to be conceived as a static element, but rather in a dynamic way, leading to establish a control mechanism based on key performance indicators to ensure the best alternative for packaging available in each moment.72 5. Packaging design for e-business, home shopping and, generally speaking, emerging business and social trends:2,9,10,136 systems will have to be deeply integrated for maximum logistics efficiency. Traditional criteria about on-the-shelf impact and competitive differentiation will recede, and the initial opening-the-box experience will become more important, changing the structural and functional elements of packaging design. The interactions between the packaging system and the end consumers need to be explored to further extend the scope of the traditional packaging engineer.78,7 6. Further research to support integrated laboratory test simulation, such as evaluations of vibrations as a function of location, means of transportations and longitudinal shock levels due to shunts and atmospheric conditions;29 comparison among national security certifications; definition of accelerated life testing to simplify and accelerate the simulation processes; dynamic simulation of logistics flows related to the package life cycle; and Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

448

A. AZZI ET AL.

7.

8.

9.

10.

definition of procedures, test schedule and adoption of motion capture systems for integrated ergonomics assessment. Surveys to investigate within different kinds of stakeholder, end-costumer included, if the importance of interrelation of logistics, ergonomics, marketing, safety and sustainability aspects in packaging design is perceived. Specific typologies of packaging needs further investigation,65,66 with a systemic approach: especially active and intelligent packaging (i.e. capable of inventory monitoring, interaction of the package with home and food service appliances, temperature data screening, enhancing the product sensory attributes such as aroma additions, self-cooling and selfheating packaging, etc.), multi-sensorial packaging and brand recognition and recall during consumer purchase processes.59,57 Packaging ethics and social sustainability issues should be further investigated137 together with challenges and opportunities related to synergies with the other drivers of the framework: great care is needed in exploring cross-cultural differences when dealing with these issues.133 Packaging and its interaction with less able member of society need also further investigation.108,126,125,138 Environment sustainability, with a broader look on every other driver embedded in the presented framework, needs also further investigation. In particular, literature stresses the frequent problem of overpackaging, with related consequences in terms of financial and environmental impact (e.g.24,29,23). Some studies should be conducted to optimize configurations and thickness of packages, in recognition of the fact that current packaging design fails to address the resource reductions needed to support the sustainability agenda.139 Some authors (e.g.140,8) put much effort on investigating the feasibility of developing refillable packaging systems, which appeal to the consumer while reducing the overall sustainability impact. Further research should be performed in this area, and innovative refillable packaging configurations should be created, with particular attention to performance achievement from a sustainable, logistics, ergonomics, safety and marketing point of view. Moreover, additional research is needed to perfect the recycle processes (i.e. contaminantsiii involved in packaging design process): Packaging design should facilitate recycling not inhibit it with complicated material sorting and should encourage reprocessing while building an effective communication with the final consumer for a correct disposal of the packaging system.

CONCLUSION Quoting Hellström and Saghir,7 ‘a packaging decision is a complex process involving different actors to consider, many functions to serve, different requirements to satisfy and conditions to pay attention to. Hence, a packaging decision requires a holistic approach that provides means to manage these complexities’. The present research aimed to provide a literature-based framework to support packaging design with a holistic approach. In addition, related regulations and international standards are discussed. On the basis of the review, a research agenda for packaging design is presented.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful contributions to this manuscript.

iii

As an example, a simple package made by paper should be considered: contaminants can be quite a few (wax coatings, hot-melt adhesives, wet strength resins, ultraviolet-cured inks and coatings, carbon paper, excessive food contamination, radio frequency identification tags, other materials included in the package (e.g. staples, etc.).

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

ROADMAP FOR PACKAGING DESIGN STUDIES AND RESEARCH

449

REFERENCES 1. Rosenau WV, Twede D, Mazzeo MA, Singh SP. Returnable/Reusable Logistical Packaging: A capital Budgeting Investment Decision Framework. Journal of Business Logistics 1996; 17(2): 139–165. 2. Chan FTS, Chan HK, Choy KL. A systematic approach to manufacturing packaging logistics. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2006; 29(9–10): 1088–1101. 3. Simms C, Trott P. Packaging development: a conceptual framework for identifying new product opportunities. Marketing Theory 2010; 10(4): 397–415. 4. Rundh B. The Multi-faceted dimension of packaging: marketing logistic or marketing tool? British Food Journal 2005; 107(9): 670–84. 5. Lockamy A, III A conceptual framework for assessing strategic packaging decisions. International Journal of Logistics Management 1995; 6(1): 51–60. 6. Jahre M, Hatteland CJ. Packages and Physical Distribution - implications for integration and standardization. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 2004; 34(2): 123–139. 7. Hellström D, Saghir M. Packaging and logistics interactions in retail supply chains. Packaging Technology and Science 2007; 20(3): 197–216. 8. Lofthouse VA, Bhamra TA, Trimingham RL. Investigating customer perceptions of refillable packaging and assessing business drivers and barriers to their use. Packaging Technology and Science 2009; 22(6): 335–348. 9. Olsmats C. Future demands in the packaging flow. In Packaging logistics review, Sjöström K (ed). Econpap: Finland, 2000; 91–100. 10. Holdway R, Walker D, Hilton M. Ecodesign and Successful packaging. Design Management Journal 2002; 13(4): 45–53. 11. Cross CS. Sustainable packaging for rent: Volvo Logistics North America serves an entire industry. Industrial Engineer 2007; 39(6): 34–39. 12. Seuring S, Müller M. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 2008; 16(15): 1699–1710. 13. Li T, Cavusgil ST. A classification and assessment of research streams in international marketing. International Business Review 1995; 4(3): 251–277. 14. Seuring S, Muller M, Westhaus M, Morana R. Conducting a literature review—The example of sustainability in supply chains. In Research Methodologies in Supply Chain Management, Kotzab H, Seuring S, Muller M, Reiner G (eds). Physica: Heidelberg, 2005; 91–106. 15. Julier G. The culture of design, 2nd edn. Sage: London, 2008. 16. Saghir M, Jönson G. Packaging handling evaluation methods in the grocery retail industry. Packaging Technology and Science 2001; 14(1): 21–29. 17. Meredith J. Theory building through conceptual methods. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 1993; 13(5): 3–11. 18. Twede D. The process of logistical packaging innovation. Journal of Business Logistic 1992; 13(1): 69–94. 19. Verghese K, Lewis H. Environmental innovation in industrial packaging: a supply chain approach. International Journal of Production Research 2007; 45(18–19): 4381–4401. 20. Twede D. Less waste on the loading dock: Competitive strategy and the reduction of logistical packaging waste. PSWP Working Paper #2. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies: New Haven, CT, 1995. 21. Mollenkopf D, Closs D, Twede D, Lee S, Burgess G. Assessing the Viability of Reusable Packaging: A Relative Cost Approach. Journal of Business Logistics 2005; 26(1): 169–97. 22. Panczel Z. The Significance of Logistic Package system Design. Acta Technica Jaurinensis Series Logistica 2008; 1(2): 247–257. 23. Bernad C, Laspalas A, González D, Núñez JL, Buil F. Transport Vibration Laboratory Simulation: On the Necessity of Multiaxis Testing. Packaging Technology and Science 2011; 24(1): 1–14. 24. Sek M, Kirkpatrick J. Corrugated Cushion Design Handbook. VUT: Melbourne, 2001. 25. Kipp B. Editorial: Environmental Data Recording, Analysis and Simulation of Transport Vibrations. Packaging Technology and Science 2008; 21: 437–438. 26. James K, Fitzpatrick L, Lewis H, Sonneveld K. Sustainable Packaging System Development. In Handbook of Sustainability Research, Leal Filho W (ed). Peter Lang Scientific Publishing: Frankfurt, 2005. 27. Ward JR, Buckle P, Clarkson PJ. Designing packaging to support the safe use of medicines at home. Applied Ergonomics 2010; 41(5): 682–694. 28. Sonneveld K. What drives (food) packaging innovation. Packaging Technology and Science 2000; 13(1): 29–35. 29. Rouillard V, Richmond R. A Novel Approach to Analysing and Simulating Railcar Shock and Vibrations. Packaging Technology and Science 2007; 20: 17–26. 30. Pánczél Z, Mojzes Á. Importance of Package Planning and Laboratory Testing from the Aspect of the Logistic Stresses, During Transportation and Warehousing. 2nd Conference of Management of Manufacturing Systems, Presov, 2006; 64–69. 31. Xiang M, Eschke R. Modelling of the Effects of Continual Shock Loads in the Transport Process. Packaging Technology and Science 2004; 17: 31–35. 32. ISTA 1 Series: Non-Simulation Integrity Performance Tests. 33. ISTA 2 Series: Partial Simulation Performance Tests. 34. ISTA 3 Series: General Simulation Performance Tests. 35. ISTA 4 Series: Enhanced Simulation Performance Tests. 36. ISTA 5 Series: Focused Simulation Performance Tests.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

450

A. AZZI ET AL.

37. ISO 4180. Packaging — Complete, filled transport packages — General rules for the compilation of performance test schedules, 2009. 38. ISO 4180–1. Complete, filled transport packages -- General rules for the compilation of performance test schedules -- Part 1: General principles, 1980. 39. ISO 4180–2. Complete, filled transport packages -- General rules for the compilation of performance test schedules -- Part 2: Quantitative data, 1980. 40. ISO 2233. Packaging — Complete, filled transport packages and unit loads — Conditioning for testing, 2000. 41. ISO 2873. Packaging — Complete, filled transport packages and unit loads — Low pressure test, 2000. 42. ISO 13355. Packaging — Complete, filled transport packages and unit loads — Vertical random vibration test, 2001. 43. ISO 8318. Packaging — Complete, filled transport packages and unit loads — Sinusoidal vibration tests using a variable frequency, 2000. 44. ISO 2234. Packaging — Complete, filled transport packages and unit loads — Stacking tests using a static load, 2000. 45. ISO 12048. Packaging — Complete, filled transport packages — Compression and stacking tests using a compression tester, 1994. 46. ISO 2248. Packaging — Complete, filled transport packages — Vertical impact test by dropping, 1985. 47. ISO 2244. Packaging — Complete, filled transport packages and unit loads — Horizontal impact tests, 2000. 48. ISO 2247. Packaging — Complete, filled transport packages and unit loads — Vibration tests at fixed low frequency, 2000. 49. ISO 8768. Packaging — Complete, filled transport packages — Toppling test, 1987. 50. ISO 2876. Packaging — Complete, filled transport packages — Rolling test, 1985. 51. ISO 10531. Packaging — Complete, filled transport packages — Stability testing of unit loads, 1992. 52. ISO 2875. Packaging — Complete, filled transport packages and unit loads — Water-spray test, 2000. 53. Singh SP, Burgess G, Singh J. Performance comparison of thermal insulated packaging boxes, bags and refrigerants for single-parcel shipments. Packaging Technology and Science 2008; 21: 25–35. 54. Prendergast G, Pitt L. Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: are there trade-offs? International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 1996; 26(6): 60–72. 55. Underwood RL, Ozanne JL. Is your package an effective communicator? A normative framework for increasing the communicative competence of packaging. Journal of Marketing Communications 1998; 4(4): 207–20. 56. Silayoi P, Speece M. The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint analysis approach. European Journal of Marketing 2007; 41(11/12): 1495–1517. 57. Rundh B. Packaging design: creating competitive advantage with product packaging. British Food Journal 2009; 111(9): 988–1002 58. Vernuccio M, Cozzolino A, Michelini L. An exploratory study of marketing, logistics, and ethics in packaging innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 2010; 13(3): 333–354. 59. Orth UR, Malkewitz K. Holistic Package Design and Consumer Brand Impressions. Journal of Marketing 2008; 72(May): 64–81. 60. Schoormans JPL, Robben HSJ. The effect of new package design on product attention, categorization and evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology 1997; 18: 271–287. 61. Venter K, van der Merwe D, de Beer H, Kempen E, Bosman M. Consumers’ perceptions of food packaging: an exploratory investigation in Potchefstroom, South Africa. International Journal of Consumer Studies 2011; 35: 273–281. 62. Solomon MR. Consumer Behavior, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1996. 63. Connolly A, Davidson L. How does design affect decisions at point of sale? Journal of Brand Management 1996; 4(2): 100–7. 64. Meroni, A. Active Packaging as an opportunity to create package design that reflects the communicational, functional and logistical requirements of food products. Packaging Technology and Science 2000; 13: 243–248. 65. Brody AL. What’s active about intelligent packaging. Food Technology 2001; 55(6): 75–79. 66. Brody AL. Active and intelligent packaging: The saga continues. Food Technology 2002; 56(12): 65–66. 67. Lange J, Wyser Y. Recent innovations in barrier technologies for plastic packaging – a review. Packaging Technology and Science 2003; 16: 149–58. 68. Thøgersen J. The ethical consumer. Moral norms and packaging choice. Journal of Consumer Policy 1999; 22: 439–460. 69. Johnsson M. Packaging Logistics -a value added approach. Lund University: Sweden, 1998. 70. Twede D, Parsons B. Distribution Packaging for Logistical Systems: A literature Review. Pira: UK, 1997. 71. Saghir M. Packaging information needed for evaluation in the supply chain: the case of the Swedish grocery retail industry. Packaging Technology and Science 2002; 15: 37–46. 72. García-Arca J, Prado-Prado JC. Packaging design model from a supply chain approach. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 2008; 13(5): 375–380. 73. Lambert DM, Cooper MC, Pagh JD. Supply chain management: implementation issues and research opportunities. International Journal of Logistics Management 1998; 9(2): 1–19. 74. Hakansson H, Snehota I. Developing Relationships in Business Networks. Routledge: London, 1995. 75. García-Arca J, Prado-Prado JC. Antonio-García-Lorenzo, Logistics improvement through packaging rationalization: a practical experience. Packaging Technology and Science 2006; 19: 303–308. 76. Gustafsson K, Jönson G, Smith D, Sparks L. Packaging Logistics and Retailer’s Profitability: An IKEA case. 13th EAERCD Conference, Lund, Sweden, 29 June–1 July, 2005. 77. Ge C. Efficient packaging design in logistics. Packaging Technology and Science 1996; 9: 275–287.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

ROADMAP FOR PACKAGING DESIGN STUDIES AND RESEARCH

451

78. Saghir M. The concept of Packaging Logistics. Proceedings of the second world conference on POM and 15th annual POM conference, Cancun, Mexico, April 30 - May 3, 2004. 79. Lee SG, Lye SW. Design for manual packaging. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 2003; 33(2): 163–89. 80. Carter CR, Rogers DS. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 2008; 38(5): 360–87. 81. Lee SG, Xu X. Design for the environment: Life cycle assessment and sustainable packaging issues. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management 2005; 5(1): 14–41. 82. Sonneveld K, James K, Fitzpatrick L, Lewis H. Sustainable packaging: how do we define and measure it? 22nd IAPRI Symposium, Campinas, Brazil, 2005; 1–9. 83. Madival S, Auras R, Singh SP, Narayan R. Assessment of the environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell containers using LCA methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production 2009; 17(13): 1183–1194. 84. Lewis H. Defining product stewardship and sustainability in the Australian packaging industry. Environmental Science & Policy 2005; 8: 45–55. 85. Labatt S. Corporate Response to Environmental Issues, Packaging. Growth and Change 1997; 28: 67–92. 86. Nordin N, Selke S. Social aspect of sustainable packaging. Packaging Technology and Science 2010; 23: 317–326. 87. Early C, Kidman T, Menvielle M, Geyer R, McMullan R. Informing Packaging Design Decisions at Toyota Motor Sales Using Life Cycle Assessment and Costing. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2009; 13(4): 592–606. 88. Lofthouse VA, Bhamra TA. An investigation into consumer perceptions of refills and refillable packaging. Loughborough University: Loughborough, 2006. 89. Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste. 2004. 90. Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste. 2004. 91. Bovea MD, Serrano J, Bruscas GM, Gallardo A. Application of Life Cycle Assessment to Improve the Environmental Performance of a Ceramic Tile Packaging System. Packaging Technology and Science 2006; 19: 83–95. 92. Keoleian GA, Phipps AW, Dritz T, Brachfeld D. Life cycle environmental performance and improvement of a yogurt product delivery system. Packaging Technology and Science 2004; 17: 85–103. 93. ISO 14040. Environmental management: Life cycle assessment. Principles and guidelines, 1997. 94. ISO 14041. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Goal and scope definition and life cycle inventory analysis, 1998. 95. ISO 14042. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Life cycle impact assessment, 2000. 96. ISO 14043. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Life cycle interpretation, 2000. 97. ISO 14044. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines, 2006. 98. Singh J, Krasowski A, Singh SP. Life cycle inventory of HDPE bottle-based liquid milk packaging systems. Packaging Technology and Science 2011; 24: 49–60. 99. Verghese KL, Horne R, Carre A. PIQET: the design and development of an online ‘streamlined’ LCA tool for sustainable packaging design decision support. International Journal Of Life Cycle Assessment 2010; 15(6): 608–620. 100. SPC, Sustainable Packaging Indicators and Metrics Framework, 2009. https://www.sustainablepackaging.org/resources/ default.aspx [Accessed 02 March 2011]. 101. Làszlo R. Packaging Design: An Introduction to the Art of Packaging. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, 1990. 102. Stern W. Handbook of Package Design Research. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, 1981. 103. Rauch Associates. The Rauch Guide to the US Packaging Industry, 2002–2003. Rauch Associates: Bridgewater, NJ, 2002. 104. Briston JH, Neill TJ. Packaging Management. Pentagon Bureau/Biddles: London/Guildford, 1972. 105. Brody AL, Marsh KS. The Wiley Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, 1997. 106. Oestergaard S. Packaging goals in transport quality. 7th IAPRI World Conference on Packaging, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1991. 107. Kumar S, DeGroot RA, Daewon C. Rx for smart hospital purchasing decisions. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 2008; 38(8): 601–15. 108. Langley J, Janson R, Wearn J, Yoxall A. ‘Inclusive’ design for containers: improving openability. Packaging Technology and Science 2005; 18(6): 285–293. 109. Institute of Grocery Distribution. IDG Tactile Information. Recommendations for Packaging Improvements, 1995. www. igd.com [accessed 03 May 2011]. 110. Winder B, Ridgway K, Nelson A, Baldwin J. Food and drink packaging: who is complaining and who should be complaining. Applied Ergonomics 2002; 33(5): 433–438. 111. Bone PF, Corey RJ. Ethical dilemmas in packaging: beliefs of packaging professionals. Journal of Macromarketing 1992; 12(1): 45–54. 112. Till BD, Nowak LI. Toward effective use of cause-related marketing alliances. The Journal of Product and Brand Management 2000; 9(7): 472–84. 113. Battini D, Faccio M, Persona A, Sgarbossa F. New methodological framework to improve productivity and ergonomics in assembly system design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2011; 41: 30–42. 114. ISO 11228–1. Ergonomics -- Manual handling -- Part 1: Lifting and carrying, 2009. 115. ISO 11228–2. Ergonomics -- Manual handling -- Part 2: Pushing and pulling, 2009. 116. ISO 11228–3. Ergonomics -- Manual handling -- Part 3: Handling of low loads at high frequency, 2009.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

452

A. AZZI ET AL.

117. NIOSH Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ 118. OCRA method Web site: http://www.epmresearch.org/ 119. Moore JS, Garg A. The Strain Index: A proposed method to analyze jobs for risk of distal upper extremity disorders. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 1995; 56: 443–458. 120. ISO 7250–1. Basic human body measurements for technological design -- Part 1: Body measurement definitions and landmarks, 2008. 121. ISO 7250–2. Basic human body measurements for technological design -- Part 2: Statistical summaries of body measurements from individual ISO populations, 2010. 122. ISO 11226. Ergonomics -- Evaluation Of Static Working Postures, 2000. 123. ISO 6385. Ergonomic Principles In The Design Of Work Systems, 2004. 124. Slattery D. Packaging Design: Basic Principles. Medical Device Technology 2007; 18(2): 46–7. 125. Yoxall A, Luxmoore J, Austin M et al. Getting to Grips with Packaging: Using Ethnography and Computer Simulation to Understand Hand–Pack Interaction. Packaging Technology and Science 2007; 20(3): 217–229. 126. Yoxall A, Janson R, Bradbry SR et al. Openability: producing limits for consumer packaging. Packaging Technology and Science 2006; 19(4): 219–225. 127. McConnell V. Pack it in! Just say no to impossible packaging. Yours Magazine 2004; 30 January–27 February, 16–18. 128. Twede D. The packaging technology and science of ancient transport amphoras. Packaging Technology and Science 2002; 15: 181–95. 129. Olsmats C, Dominic C. Packaging scorecard – a packaging performance evaluation method. Packaging Technology and Science 2003; 16: 9–14. 130. Paine FA. The business mission of packaging. Packaging Technology and Science 2003; 16: 131–133. 131. Williams H, Wikstrom F, Lofgren M. A life cycle perspective on environmental effects of customer focused packaging development. Journal Of Cleaner Production 2008; 16(7): 853–859. 132. Svanes E, Vold M, Møller H et al. Sustainable packaging design: a holistic methodology for packaging design. Packaging Technology and Science 2010; 23: 161–175. 133. Bone PF, Corey RJ. Packaging ethics: perceptual differences among packaging professionals, brand managers and ethically interested consumers. Journal of Business Ethics 2000; 24(3): 199–213. 134. Dos Santos JA, Vieira DR, da Silva HA. Integrated Engineering: the case of sustainable development of packaging in the food industry. 14th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising, Costa da Caparica, Lisboa, Portugal, 23–25 June 2008. 135. Saghir M. A platform for packaging logistics development. Doctoral thesis, Division of Packaging Logistics, Lund University, Sweden, 2004. 136. Ahmed A, Ahmed N, Salman A. Critical issues in packaged food business. British Food Journal 2005; 107(10): 760–780. 137. Bone PF, Corey RJ. Ethical packaging: a call for research. Journal of Marketing Management 1992; 2(1): 44–54. 138. Duizer LM, Robertson T, Han J. Requirements for Packaging from an Ageing Consumer’s Perspective. Packaging Technology and Science 2009; 22: 187–197. 139. INCPEN. Towards Greener Households: Products, Packaging and Energy. INCPEN: Reading, 2001. 140. Lofthouse VA. Designing Refillable Packaging: A Qualitative Approach. Design Research Society Conference 2008, Sheffield Hallam University: Sheffield, UK, July 2008; 16–19. 141. Ampuero O, Vila N. Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2006; 23(2): 100–112. 142. Bramklev C. On a Proposal for a Generic Package Development Process. Packaging Technology and Science 2009; 22: 171–186. 143. Garber LL Jr., Hyatt EM, Boya ÜÖ. The Effect of Package Shape on Apparent Volume: An Exploratory Study with Implications for Package Design. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 2009; 19(4). 144. Gelperowic R, Beharrell B. Healthy Food Products for Children: Packaging and Mothers’ Purchase Decisions. British Food Journal 1994; 96(11): 4–8. 145. Gofman A, Moskowitz HR, Mets T. Accelerating structured consumer-driven package design. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2010; 27(2): 157–168. 146. Hicks BJ, Mullineux G, Sirkett D. A Finite Element-Based Approach for Whole-System Simulation of Packaging Systems for their Improved Design and Operation. Packaging Technology and Science 2009; 22: 209–227. 147. Kassaye W, Verma D. Balancing Traditional Packaging Functions With The New ’Green’ Packaging Concerns. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal 1992; 57(4): 15. 148. Klevas J. Organization of packaging resources at a product-developing company. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 2005; 35(2): 116–31. 149. Langley J, Turner N, Yoxall A. Attributes of packaging and influences on waste. Packaging Technology and Science 2011; 24(3): 161–175. 150. Livingstone S, Sparks L. The new German packaging laws: effects on firms exporting to Germany. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 1994; 24(7): 15–25. 151. Lockhart HE. A paradigm for packaging. Packaging Technology and Science 1997; 10(5): 237–252. 152. Lye SW, Yeong HY. An integrated framework for protective packaging design and manufacture. International Journal of Production Research 1994; 32(8): 1837–1856. 153. Lye SW, Lee SG, Chew BH. Virtual design and testing of protective packaging buffers. Computers in Industry 2004; 54(2): 209–221.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

ROADMAP FOR PACKAGING DESIGN STUDIES AND RESEARCH

453

154. Nancarrow C, Wright LT, Brace I. Gaining competitive advantage from packaging and labelling in marketing communications. British Food Journal 1998;100(2): 110–118. 155. Oki Y, Sasaki H. Social and environmental impacts of packaging (LCA and assessment of packaging functions). Packaging Technology and Science 2000; 13: 45–53. 156. Olsson A, Györei M. Packaging throughout the value chain in the customer perspective marketing mix. Packaging Technology and Science 2002; 15: 231–239. 157. Rokka J, Uusitalo L. Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices – Do consumers care? International Journal of Consumer Studies 2008; 32: 516–525. 158. Silayoi P, Speece M. Packaging and purchasing decisions: an exploratory study of the impact of involvement level and time pressure. British Food Journal 2004; 106(8): 607–28. 159. Singh SP, Chonhenchob V, Singh J. Life Cycle Inventory and Analysis of Re-usable Plastic Containers and Display-ready Corrugated Containers Used for Packaging Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. Packaging Technology and Science 2006; 19: 279–293. 160. Svoboda S, Hart S. McDonald’s: Case B1: The clamshell controversy. National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI, 1995. 161. Twede D, Clarke R. Supply chain issues in reusable packaging. Journal of Marketing Channels 2005; 12(1): 7–26. 162. Underwood RL, Klein NM, Burke RR. Packaging communication: attentional effects of product imagery. The Journal of Product and Brand Management 2001; 10(7): 403–422. 163. Lewis H, Verghese K, Fitzpatrick L. Evaluating the sustainability impacts of packaging: the plastic carry bag dilemma. Packaging Technology and Science 2010; 23: 145–160. 164. Wells LE, Farley H, Armstrong GA. The importance of packaging design for own-label food brands. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 2007; 35(9): 677–690. 165. Wever R. Design for volume optimization of packaging for durable goods. Packaging Technology and Science 2011; 24: 211–222. 166. Yiangkamolsing C, Bohez ELJ, Bueren I. Universal design (UD) principles for flexible packaging and corresponding minimal customer requirement set. Packaging Technology and Science 2010; 23(5): 283–300. 167. Young DE. Testing and evaluation of transport packaging: a view to the future. Packaging Technology and Science 2000; 13: 3–6.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

Ahmed et al.136 Ampuero and Vila141 Bernad et al.23 Bone and Corey133 Bovea et al.91 Bramklev142 Chan et al.2 Duizer et al.138 Early et al.87 Garber et al.143 García-Arca and Prado-Prado72 García-Arca et al.75 Ge77 Gelperowic and Beharrell144 Gofman et al.145 Gulaid et al.120 Hellström and Saghir7 Hicks et al.146 Holdway et al.10 Jahre and Hatteland6 Kassaye and Verma147 Keoleian et al.92 Kipp25 Klevas148 Kumar et al.107 Labatt85 Lange and Wyser67 Langley et al.108 Langley et al.149 Lee and Lye79 Lee and Xu81

References

APPENDIX A

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

X

X

X

X X

X

X X X X X X

X X

EC-EN EN EN SO EN-SO EC EC-EN-SO

SO EN EN EC-EN-SO EN EN-EC EC-SO

EN EC-EN EC

X X X

X

X X

EC-EN-SO SO EN EC-EN EN EC-EN-SO EC-EN

X

X

X X

X

X

X X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X X

X X X

X

X

X X X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X X

X X

X X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X X

X

(Continues)

X

Ergonomics Logistics Sustainability Safety Marketing Survey Case study Food/Beverage NON-Food General Industrial P Testing

454 A. AZZI ET AL.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

Lewis Livingstone and Sparks150 Lockamy5 Lockhart151 Lofthouse et al.8 Lye and Yeong152 Lye et al.153 Madival et al.83 Meroni64 Mollenkopf et al.21 Nancarrow et al.154 Nordin and Selke86 Oki and Sasaki155 Olsmats and Dominic129 Olsson and Györei156 Orth and Malkewitz59 Paine130 Panczel22 Prendergast and Pitt54 Rokka and Uusitalo157 Rosenau et al.1 Rouillard and Richmond29 Rundh4 Rundh57 Saghir and Jönson16 Saghir71 Schoormans and Robben60 Sek and Kirkpatrick24 Silayoi and Speece158 Silayoi and Speece56 Simms and Trott3 Singh et al.159 Singh et al.53 Singh et al.98

84

References

(Continued)

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X X X X

X X X

X

X

X X X

X X X

X

X X

EN

EC-EN-SO EN

EC

X

X

X X

X

SO EC-EN-SO

X X

X X X

X

X

X X

X X X X

X X X

EN EN-SO EC-EN

EN

EC-EN-SO EC-EN-SO EC-EN EC

EC-EN

EN EN

EC-EN-SO

EC-EN-SO EN EC-EN

X X X

X

X X

X X

X X X X X X X

X

X X X X X

X

X

X X X

X X

X

X

X X

X

X X X X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X X X X

X X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X X X X

X

X

X X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

(Continues)

X

X

X

X

X X

Ergonomics Logistics Sustainability Safety Marketing Survey Case study Food/Beverage NON-Food General Industrial P Testing

ROADMAP FOR PACKAGING DESIGN STUDIES AND RESEARCH 455

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts

Slattery124 Sonneveld28 Svanes et al.132 Svoboda and Hart160 Thøgersen68 Twede and Clarke161 Twede18 Underwood and Ozanne55 Underwood et al.162 Venter et al.61 Verghese and Fitzpatrick163 Verghese and Lewis19 Verghese et al.99 Vernuccio et al.58 Ward et al.27 Wells et al.164 Wever165 Williams et al.131 Winder et al.110 Xiang and Eschke31 Yiangkamolsing et al.166 Young167 Yoxall et al.126 Yoxall et al.125

References

(Continued)

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

EC-EN EN-SO SO

X X EN-SO SO SO

X X

X

EC-EN-SO EC-EN EN EC-EN-SO SO

EN EC-EN-SO EN EN EC-EN EC SO

X X

X X

X X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X X X X

X X X

X

X

X X X X

X

X X X

X X X

X

X X

X

X X X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Ergonomics Logistics Sustainability Safety Marketing Survey Case study Food/Beverage NON-Food General Industrial P Testing

456 A. AZZI ET AL.

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012; 25: 435–456 DOI: 10.1002/pts