9789144117126 by Smakprov Media AB

Greening Logistics

Editors

Maria Bjรถrklund Maria Huge-Brodin

Copying prohibited This book is protected by the Swedish Copyright Act. Apart from the restricted rights for teachers and students to copy material for educational purposes, as regulated by the Bonus Copyright Access agreement, any copying is prohibited. For information about this agreement, please contact your course coordinator or Bonus Copyright Access. Should this book be published as an e-book, the e-book is protected against copying. Anyone who violates the Copyright Act may be prosecuted by a public prosecutor and sentenced either to a fine or to imprisonment for up to 2 years and may be liable to pay compensation to the author or to the rightsholder. Studentlitteratur publishes digitally as well as in print formats. Studentlitteratur’s printed matter is sustainably produced, both as regards paper and the printing process.

Art. No 39476 ISBN 978-91-44-11712-6 first edition 1:1 © The authors and Studentlitteratur 2017 studentlitteratur.se Studentlitteratur AB, Lund Cover design: Francisco Ortega Cover illustration: Shutterstock/Chalalai Atcha Printed by Holmbergs i Malmö AB, Sweden 2017

CONTENTS

About the authors 7 About the editors 8 Preface 11 Introduction 15 References 20 1 Logistics service providers’ environmental management 23 By C h r ist i na M a ack I studied and I found 23 How I built on the knowledge of others 28 How I did it 31 References 33 2 Risk-sharing Green Transport Investments 37 By F r e dr i k E ng -L a r s s on I studied and I found 37 The green transport investment risk 38 Impact of risk-sharing on environmental performance 41 Impact of risk-sharing on financial performance 42 How I built on the knowledge of others 45 How I did it 47 References 49 © T h e au thors an d S t u d e ntlitt e rat u r

Contents

3 Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality? 51 By H e l e na L i n dh I studied and I found 51 The package that protects 52 The package that facilitates handling 54 The package that communicates 55 Consumers on green packaging 56 Brand owners on green packaging 58 Greener packages – far from reality but possible to work for! 59 How I built on the knowledge of others 59 The function to protect 60 The function to facilitate handling 61 The function to communicate 62 How I did it 63 References 65 4 Logistics Service Providers going green – yes, but first … 69 By K a r i n Isa k s s on I studied and I found 69 Suggested approach for service development among LSPs – a green focus 69 The LSP service development framework with a green perspective 71 How I built on the knowledge of others 76 How I did it 78 References 79 5 Developing Sustainable Supply Chains – A Complexity Theory Perspective 83 By M a isa m A bba si I studied and I found 83 Themes in developing sustainable supply chains 83 Challenges in developing sustainable supply chains 84 How I built on the knowledge of others 86 4

Contents

Level of scale and details of description – Investigate the complexity profile 88 Interactions and emergence – Investigate the complexity behaviour 88 Adaptive and self-organizing agents – Investigate the complexity agents 90 Evolutionary properties – Investigate the complexity transformation 91 Co-properties – Investigate the complexity context 92 Trade-offs and paradoxes – Investigate the complexity reality 93 How I did it 94 References 95 6 How local authority personnel can and do work with urban freight transport 99 By M a r i a L i n dhol m I studied and I found 100 How I built on the knowledge of others 104 How I did it 106 References 108 7 Urban freight sustainability – the interaction of urban freight and intermodal transport 111 By S ön k e Be h r e n d s I studied and I found 111 How I built on the knowledge of others 116 How I did it 118 References 119 8 Greening logistics through relationships between logistics service providers and shippers 123 By U n i Sa l l nä s I studied and I found 123 Environmental practices 124

Contents

What affects the coordination of environmental practices? 126 Category 1 – Going grey 129 Category 2 – Force to be green 129 Category 3 – Going green 129 Category 4 – Influence to be green 130 Summing up 131 How I built on the knowledge of others 131 How I did it 133 References 135

CHAPTER 3

Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality? By H e l e na L i n dh

I studied and I found Packaging of goods and products is something, which has a direct impact on the logistics system. The package serves as an interface between the product and the entire logistical system from filling to consumption. However, the role of packaging in logistics systems is multifaceted and often ambiguous, in particular when sustainability is addressed. Packaging has traditionally been regarded as a necessary evil, and minimisations of the same has been encouraged in media and by authorities through legislation. The thinnest and cheapest packaging concepts are often found superior from an environmental perspective, as it minimises material usage. From this perspective the greenest alternative would be no packaging at all. However packaging that is poor or insufficient result in an inability to fulfil both desired and required functions along its journey through the supply chain. For instance, an inability to protect the content during transport and handling or an inability to contribute to efficient logistics does in general on the contrary result in even greater negative environmental effects than the ones caused by the packaging material. I have studied sustainable packaging in a supply chain context, and I found it particularly interesting to study it in relation to organic food. There are high demands and expectations regarding the environmental status of the content and the processing of the content, which awoke questions such as: Are packages for organic food products expected by consumers to be green, like its content? Are there any demands from other stakeholders requiring packages for organic food to be green? Are packages for organic food products selected or developed with particular green precaution?

ÂŠ â&#x20AC;&#x2030;T h e au thors an d S t u d e ntlitt e rat u r

3 Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality?

I found that packaging optimization – a balance between life cycle considerations and supply chain requirements – can preferably take its point of departure in desired and required functions of packaging. A packaging function is what the packaging does. Based on literature I identified three clusters of functions: to protect, to facilitate handling and to communicate. All these three functions influence the environmental impact of the packaging and also play various roles in the logistics system. As such these packaging functions can affect consumption patterns, amount of product and packaging that are wasted, and efficiency in production, handling, storage, transportation and recycling. Green packaging strategy:

Design the packaging system, select material and amount to ensure that it can protect, facilitate handling and communicate in a way that balances and meets essential requirements posed along the supply chain without using excessive amount of materials or energy. Make sure to source material and energy responsibly and preferably from renewable resources.

The package that protects One of the most important functions of packaging is to protect the content from outside damage or influence, but also occasionally its surrounding from the content. The package protects its content along the supply chain from filling until point of consumption. It is the primary (consumer packaging), secondary (retail package) and tertiary (transport package) packaging levels that together provide the appropriate protection. Choosing or developing packaging with sufficient protection of its content requires not only knowledge about the needs of the product, but also about the different hazards it may encounter in its surrounding conditions during handling in production/filling, transportation, storage, usage and recycling. The mechanical properties, barrier properties, thermal properties and sealing properties of the package and its material are decisive for how well it fulfils its function to protect (see Table 3.1).

3 Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality?

Table 3.1 Packaging features related to the function to protect and a selection of examples of environmental effects found particular interesting from a green logistics perspective (Adapted from Lindh et al. 2016). Packaging feature

Description

Examples of environmental effects

Mechanical properties

Mechanical protection against outer physical impacts (shock, vibration, compression, puncture, insects, rodents, theft, pilferage, tampering).

Mechanical properties such as shock absorbing packaging material for fruits can avoid bruising during transportation and handling, so that the fruit is not rejected by consumers and hence wasted.

Barrier properties

Protection against undesired transmission, permeation, migration and absorption of for instance light, gases, moisture, flavour, odour, particles and microorganisms.

Properly selected barriers can maintain desired conditions within the package and thereby retain desired product qualities and hence increases the likelihood of selling the product and also of it being consumed.

Thermal properties

Keeping the product at a desired and even temperature and maintaining the properties of the packaging.

Thermal properties of the package can assist in maintaining conditions that are less favourable for microorganisms and hence enabling safe food products.

Sealing properties

Keeping the packaging tight to avoid product leakage.

A single leaking primary package likely results in one unsold product or the leakage extends to spoil also a few of the neighbouring packages, whereas leaking packages of hazardous products can be severe.

When packaging does not successfully protect its content it can increase the amount of product waste. This is further underlined in a supply chain context, where multiple actors will handle the product by help of various types of equipment. A supply chain context also widens the scope of possible surroundings that the packaged product will encounter and have to sustain. Product waste does in general cause much greater negative environmental effects than the packaging per se. On average, the energy required to produce food packaging is just one tenth to one fifteenth of the energy used to produce

3 Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality?

the product. Although it is context and product specific, in many cases, especially with energy/resource intensive products, the greenest choice can be to invest in better and/or more packaging to reach sufficient protection of the product. A choice towards greener packaging can thus actually be to add packaging material instead of decreasing it if it thereby contributes to product waste reduction by increased protection, maintained properties or prolonged shelf life of the product. From a sustainability perspective this strategy may prove not only green but also financially beneficial for the supply chain actors.

The package that facilitates handling Different features can be included in the packaging design to make the handling easy, convenient and safe. Of the features I studied in my research, I have in this chapter chosen to highlight some of particular interest from a green logistics perspective. These are presented in Table 3.2 together with examples of their environmental effects. When performed successfully, the function facilitating handling can add value and offer convenience to users and other actors in the supply chain. Features that contribute to consumers’ everyday convenience were the ones that the consumers themselves consider the most in their purchase of food products. Although these are selected by consumers for their convenience they can often contribute to positive environmental effects. Packaging that does not facilitate handling of the product can result in greater negative environmental effect. From a logistics perspective the fill rate is one of the most important features, as it is crucial in reaching efficient transportations and thereby keeping the negative environmental effect low. All of the features in Table 3.2 also contribute to reducing the costs in the logistics system. Several examples in previous research highlight not only the environmental but also the economic benefits of a high fill rate. From a consumer point of view, the ability to buy packages with suitable amount related to consumption rate, opening and reclosing devices and the possibility to empty the package completely minimises the amount of food wasted and thereby contributes positively to the environment, as well as to the consumers’ economy.

3 Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality?

Table 3.2 A selection of packaging features related to the function to facilitate handling and examples of environmental effects found particular interesting from a green logistics perspective (Adapted from Lindh et al. 2016b). Packaging feature Description

Examples of environmental effects

Fill rate

The fill rate is a measure of The geometrical shape of the package the volume utilization. such as square instead of round increases the fill rate. A high fill rate means less air transported, handled and stored which saves handling time; may require fewer trucks and less storage space.

Weight

The weight of the product Product and package systems with low package system (i.e. gross weight can make room for more items weight) until loading limits for the transportation vehicle is reached.

Unitization

Grouping of items in larger The grouping of many single units into units a greater package facilitates efficient handling in, for instance, retail and during transportation.

Gripability

The ability to grip a package is dependent on its size, shape, weight, material stiffness, handles and surface.

Good gripability facilitates efficient handling during storage, transportation and usage and reduces the risk of product waste.

Processability

Degree of fulfilment in processing, filling, sealing and loading.

Influences the efficiency in production in energy used, run speed, downtime and product and packaging loss in production. The selected packaging material, shape and graphical design influence its processability.

The package that communicates Communication of product- and packaging-related information is crucial in for instance keeping supply chains efficient and effective. The package can carry information, instructions and inspiration concerning the product, the package but also about the product and package as a unified unit (see Table 3.3). Packaging can through its different levels, communicate along its way through the supply chain with for instance production staff, distributors, warehouse and retail staff and consumers. © T h e au thors an d S t u d e ntlitt e rat u r

3 Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality?

Table 3.3 Packaging features related to the function to communicate and a selection of examples of environmental effects found particular interesting from a green logistics perspective (Adapted from Lindh et al. 2016b). Packaging feature

Description

Examples of environmental effects

Product information Easily accessible information; textually, graphically or electronically readable about the product.

Information about the content such as net weight, volume, manufacturer, quality, potential risks, using and handling instructions can facilitate correct handling and usage of the product.

Package information Easily accessible information; textually, graphically or electronically readable about the package.

Information and instructions how to assemble, open, use, reseal, store and handle the package can facilitate efficient and correct handling and usage of the package.

Product packaging Easily accessible informasystems information tion; textually, graphically or electronically readable about the product and package as a unified unit.

Information and instructions related to the product and packaging together as an entity such as gross weight, shelf life, how to store, how to handle, how to empty, origin, destination, batch number and how to take out product thus facilitate efficient and correct handling, traceability and usage of the product packaging system.

Packaging can through successful communication facilitate, enable and inspire to correct and efficient use, handling, transportation and storage of products and packages. A choice directed towards greener packaging can thus be to spend sufficient efforts on its function to communicate. This can in turn lead to an overall reduction of waste, which according to the discussions above can bring green as well as economic benefits to the system as a whole.

Consumers on green packaging The environmental status of food packaging seems important to and desired by consumers. Most of the consumers claimed that the perceived environmental status of packages influences their selection of food products (see Figure 3.1). Even more consumers reported that they are willing to pay

3 Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality?

more for green packaging, how much more varies. On average the consumers expressed willingness to pay 6% more for green packaging. Green packaging was especially important to consumers that regard themselves as frequent buyers of organic food products and these consumers were also the ones that were willing to pay the most for green packaging. It is however not an easy task for consumers to identify what characterizes green packaging. Consumers tend to think that the environmental performance of packaging is a matter limited to the packaging material. Many consumers perceive paper-based packaging as green and plastics and metal packaging as non-green (see Figure 3.2).

Consumers influenced by green packaging

80 %

Willingness to pay more for green packaging

86 % 0%

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Figure 3.1 Consumers influenced by perceived environmental status of packages in their selection of food products and the willingness to pay for green packaging among Swedish consumers.

Paper-based

79 % 3% 9%

Glass

Perceived as non-green packaging

62 %

Plastic

Perceived as green packaging

7% 30 %

Metal

3% 0%

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Figure 3.2 The perception of what is green and non-green packaging materials among Swedish consumers (adapted from Lindh et al. 2016a).

3 Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality?

This material focus stands in contrast to previous research that has showed that for most products other effects, overlooked by consumers, are far more important than the ones caused by packaging materials per se. This indicates that consumers have difficulties in contributing to a greener society through informed choices based on their perceptions and knowledge regarding green packaging. A surprising result was that every fifth consumer assumed that the package is automatically green when choosing organic food products. This is not the case as the organic labels put on today’s packages signal green values that are in general first and foremost related to the product and not the package. In contrast to the EU organic standard, the Swedish organic standardization organisation KRAV now however, aims to be at the front line concerning regulations aiming for greener packaging. Only time can tell if these new regulations will have an effect.

Brand owners on green packaging Many brand owners face challenges in reaching towards greener packaging. Most of them experience themselves as restrained in their ability to select or develop greener packaging. Many companies especially the small and medium sized ones are directed to available standard packaging concepts offered by their suppliers due to limited power in the supplier relation linked to a weaker position when it comes to company size, limited volumes and packaging expertise. However this power situation is also influenced by the length of the relation and trust that can be used by brand owners to better balance the power situation. Companies with their own packaging lines are often restrained by these in their packaging selection and development due to previous heavy investments and the common lack of flexibility in the lines. Really large brand owners with in-house packaging expertise are important in driving general development towards greener packaging as these are the ones with power and capacity to discuss and collaborate with their suppliers in development of their desired packaging concepts. But also these large brand owners express challenges in moving towards green packaging concepts, such as finding sufficient access to materials with desired properties and fear of not rendering success with new packaging concepts.

3 Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality?

Greener packages – far from reality but possible to work for! Packaging for organic food is today not in general greener than other packages, as most of the brand owners (67%) do not make any particular efforts concerning green values of packaging for organic food, the consumers need guidance on how to use their consumer power towards greener packaging, the organic labelling organizations have until recently not required any change, and authorities even strive in the opposite direction. Despite these challenges my research indicate that it is possible to develop greener packaging stepwise by considering what the package can do, by applying the green packaging strategy in contrast to the traditional view of packaging as a necessary evil and the prevailing packaging minimization strategy. The consumer survey indicated that consumers are willing to pay price premiums for green packaging. This willingness to pay can if consumers act according to their claims, create economic incentives for brand owners and packaging industry to invest in greener packaging. Furthermore, many of the beneficial environmental effects linked to the packaging features brought forward in my research are aligned with economic benefits, i.e. saving the environment in these cases often goes along with saving money.

How I built on the knowledge of others My conviction that packaging has a great potential to contribute to a greener tomorrow is based on findings by several researchers, among these: (Grönman et al., 2013; Svanes et al., 2010; Verghese et al., 2012). The negative views of packaging can stem from how media and governments have focused on and communicated about packaging in the past two decades according to Lewis (2005). I found packaging functions particularly interesting as Simms and Trott (2010) argue that negative views of packaging arise as the important functions of packaging are not known, less fully understood. In previous research related to green packaging by Wever and Vogtländer (2013) I identified a call for research that broadens the horizon of the packaging debate from its present focus on minimization of packaging material and recycling of the same in favour of a more holistic view of the role of packaging to gain its full potential in contributing to a greener society. I found the importance of packaging functions further emphasised by Fitzpatrick et al.

3 Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality?

(2012) who argue that hidden environmental benefits can be revealed by considering the different functions of packaging. Thus my research takes its point of departure in packaging functions and aim to answer the identified call for further research on a more holistic view of sustainable packaging and its functions. Many researchers have mentioned the functions of packaging in different contexts. Some functions are mentioned by researchers in the same or similar ways, whilst others differ. Three clusters of functions were identified and termed ‘protect’, ‘facilitate handling’ and ‘communicate’(Lindh et al., 2016b). These three are regarded as the functions of packaging throughout this chapter.

The function to protect Packaging protects its content from the point of filling to the point of consumption, and the function is carried out by an integrated approach were the primary, secondary and tertiary packaging together offer the appropriate protection of the content (Pålsson et al., 2013; Silvenius et al. 2014). To protect is the most important function of packaging, put forward by the research community (Lindh et al., 2016b). Packaging has a great potential to contribute to sustainable development through its function to protect. This contribution is linked to how well the packaging protects its content and thus prevents the content and packaging from being wasted before they reach the point of consumption (Büsser & Jungbluth, 2009; Silvenius et al., 2014). It is also linked to how well the package protects the surrounding environment, users, workers and others in contact with it, especially in the case of potentially hazardous products. My consumer survey showed that consumers commonly overlook this protective function (Lindh et al., 2016a). One possible reason could be that consumers take it for granted, in line with prior research by Löfgren and Witell (2005) which found it to be regarded as a must-be function. The function to protect the content is claimed to have a great potential to contribute to sustainable development from an environmental perspective but surprisingly enough especially environmentally aware consumers in my survey tend to overlook or down gauge the protective function of packaging, for instance in their selection of unpackaged vegetables. One illustrative 60

3 Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality?

example is that the shelf life of a cucumber can be prolonged from 3 days to up to 14 with a plastic wrap (Turner et al., 2008). This means that the package increases the likelihood of the cucumber getting sold and eaten instead of being wasted. Among the brand owners in my research the function to protect was frequently mentioned especially as means to guarantee that the product last as long as they promise. The function to protect is further one of the things emphasised in the new and expanded regulations by KRAV. The motive behind this inclusion is to decrease the amount of food that is wasted due to insufficient or bad packaging.

The function to facilitate handling A package can through its physical and graphic design influence how it is handled in production, transportation, storage, usage and recycling. Different features can be included to make the handling easy, convenient and safe (Emblem, 2012). The function to facilitate handling is frequently mentioned in prior research, but it is expressed in different ways and from different perspectives, as put forward by Lindh et al. (2016b). It is commonly expressed in prior research as enabling convenience and often reflecting a consumer perspective. In my research I rather regard convenience as a beneficial outcome of successful packaging rather than a function per se. A supply chain perspective is indicated by terms such as ”facilitate distribution”, ”handling”, ”transport”, ”storage”. The function was in my research termed ”facilitate handling”, to be generic and applicable all through the entire supply chain including at consumer as well as recycling stages. Through the following identified twelve features: weight, unitization, apportionment, fill rate, processability, openability, resealability, unpacking/ emptying, gripability, integrated use, second use and recyclability packaging can facilitate the handling of the product inside (Lindh et al., 2016b). When designed successfully, the packaging can increase efficiency during production, transportation, storage, use and recycling. It can reduce the number of products and packages wasted, increase the occupational safety and health, add value and offer convenience to users and other actors along the supply chain, thus contributing to a greener packaging. Most consumers (72%) claim to be influenced by their perception of © T h e au thors an d S t u d e ntlitt e rat u r

3 Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality?

how well the packaging fulfils its function to facilitate the handling of the product they are about to purchase (Lindh et al., 2016a). Although Lindh et al. (2016b) shows that considerations of the function to facilitate handling can contribute to sustainable development, it is commonly matters close to everyday life and features that contribute to convenience that consumers mentioned as motives. Despite this, my research indicate that these choices can although unintentionally contribute to sustainable development. One example is the 27% of the consumers who choose resealable packaging for increased convenience in home storing. As resealability not only facilitates home storage but also better maintain product quality and increases the likelihood of consumption, thus conceivably contributing to reduced food waste (Marsh & Bugusu, 2007; Mena et al., 2011). The KRAV standards bring at present up two of the twelve features: opening/emptying and recycling thus my research indicate a potential for further development of these from a green logistics point of view. The brand owners mentioned actions they taken in packaging selection and development processes to facilitate the handling of their products during such as: filling, transportation, retailing, consumption and recycling. These actions improved the sustainability profile of the packaging. Although most of the brand owners reported economic motives, also environmental motives were mentioned.

The function to communicate The third function of packaging is to communicate with consumers or users and supply chain actors from the point of product production and filling to the end of life (Emblem, 2012; Grönman et al., 2013). The communicative role of packaging is apparent and mentioned frequently by researchers in the field, although it is expressed in different ways and considered from different perspectives (Lindh et al., 2016b). The messages communicated by packaging may regard its content, such as net weight, producer, volume, potential risks, using, handling and disposing instructions. They may also include packaging-related information, such as material, producer, origin and instructions such as how to assemble, open, use and recycle the package. The third kind of communication is related to the product packaging system, such as gross weight, shelf life and instructions as how to store, handle and 62

3â&#x20AC;&#x201A; Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality?

take out products. The communication can have different purposes, such as strictly informative. It can also market the product to sell. My research show that through communication the packaging, if successful, can facilitate, enable and inspire correct and efficient identification, use, handling and storage of the product and package (Lindh et al., 2016b). Communication can prevent incorrect handling, storage or use of products and packages, which can result in increased efficiency and decreased product and packaging waste thus contributing to a green profile of the packaging. Furthermore it has the potential to safeguard human health through prevention of unintentional misuse of products, injuries due to unintentionally incorrect handling of the product or opening of the package. Although, for most brand owners and in most processes, the communicative function of packaging is the easiest function to change towards a greener packaging, there are no KRAV regulations related to the communicative function of packaging in such a direction. Despite the lack of KRAV regulations related to the communication, examples were found were brand owners improved the sustainability profile of the product through communication on the packaging: Such as using the packaging to assist consumers in recognizing the content, opening, and recycling the packaging, but also to assist retailers in their handling of the packaging.

How I did it My research was originally driven by a personal interest, and it can be described as an iterating process between theory and practice. The research builds upon a holistic approach which includes the packaged product and its packaging as one unit: a product packaging system. The research results referred to in this chapter build upon four main studies: one review of packaging regulations in organic food standards, one consumer survey, one interview study of brand owners within the organic food segment, and one literature review on packaging functions and features. My empirical research started out with a review of packaging regulations in organic food standards. This study was initiated by a visit to local stores, representing main retail chains in Sweden. The occurrence of different organic food labels was studied. The identified labels were compared to ÂŠ â&#x20AC;&#x2030;T h e au thors an d S t u d e ntlitt e rat u r

3 Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality?

the ones found in literature. Background information was sought on the identified labels. The organic labelling by EU and KRAV were the most dominant ones in Sweden and were therefore put in focus of the study. These standards were studied, and in particular the regulations regarding packaging were analysed. The study was complemented with interviews with key informants within KRAV. Thereafter I conducted an Internet based consumer survey with 157 responding consumers in Sweden. The study was conducted to explore consumers’ perception of food packaging in general, and from an environmental perspective in particular. The survey rendered both motives and explanations in text answers as well as quantifiable responses. In parallel with the survey I started an interview study among brand owners. 20 brand owners within the organic food segment in Sweden with a national distribution of their products were included. The interviews were conducted to find out how they select or develop packaging concepts for their organic products; covering the process, challenges met, desired functions and features and environmental considerations. Finally, a theoretically based study with packaging functions was carried out related to sustainable packaging. Within the frame of this study a literature review of packaging functions and features was conducted to acquire and enhance the terminology and articulate important functions, features and examples of their environmental effects. In total, 39 references contributing to the understanding of packaging functions were included in the review. The packaging functions identified from literature were analysed and grouped into categories. Further packaging features were identified from previous research and the literature grouped under the three packaging functions and complemented with descriptions based on the interpretation of the meaning of the feature. The Swedish organic food standardization organization, KRAV, has a long tradition and is well established with a particular high recognition rate among consumers. KRAV, along with the strong growth of awareness and interest in organic values and sustainable development among Swedish consumers is why the Swedish context was selected.

3 Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality?

References Büsser, Sybille & Jungbluth, Niels (2009). ‘The role of flexible packaging in the life cycle of coffee and butter’, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14 (1), 80–91. Emblem, Anne (2012). Packaging technology fundamentals, materials and processes. Anne Emblem & Henry Emblem (eds.) (Woodhead Publishing in materials; Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Ltd). Fitzpatrick, Leanne, Verghese, Karli & Lewis, Helen (2012). ‘Developing the Strategy’. In: Karli Verghese, Helen Lewis & Leanne Fitzpatrick (eds.), Packaging for Sustainability (London, UK: Springer), 1–39. Grönman, K. et al. (2013). ‘Framework for Sustainable Food Packaging Design’, Packaging Technology and Science, 26 (4), 187–200. Lewis, H. (2005). ‘Defining product stewardship and sustainability in the Australian packaging industry’, Environmental Science & Policy, 8 (1), 45–55. Lindh, Helena, Olsson, Annika & Williams, Helen (2016a). ‘Consumer Perceptions of Food Packaging: Contributing to or Counteracting Environmentally Sustainable Development?’ Packaging Technology and Science, 29 (1), 3–23. Lindh, Helena et al. (2016b). ‘Elucidating the Indirect Contributions of Packaging to Sustainable Development: A Terminology of Packaging Functions and Features’, Packaging Technology and Science, 29 (4–5), 225–246. Löfgren, Martin & Witell, Lars (2005). ‘Kano’s theory of attractive quality and packaging’, Quality management journal, 12 (3), 7–20. Marsh, K. & Bugusu, B. (2007). ‘Food packaging – Roles, materials, and environmental issues’, Journal of Food Science, 72 (3), R39–R55. Mena, Carlos, Adenso-Diaz, B. & Yurt, Oznur (2011). ‘The causes of food waste in the supplier–retailer interface: Evidences from the UK and Spain’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55 (6), 648–658. Pålsson, H., Finnsgard, C. & Wanstrom, C. (2013). ‘Selection of Packaging Systems in Supply Chains from a Sustainability Perspective: The Case of Volvo’, Packaging Technology and Science, 26 (5), 289–310. Silvenius, Frans et al. (2014). ‘The role of household food waste in comparing environmental impacts of packaging alternatives’, Packaging Technology and Science, 27 (4), 277–292. Simms, C. & Trott, P. (2010). ‘Packaging development: A conceptual framework for identifying new product opportunities’, Marketing Theory, 10 (4), 397–415. Svanes, E. et al. (2010). ‘Sustainable packaging design: A holistic methodology for packaging design’, Packaging Technology and Science, 23 (3), 161–175. Turner, J. et al. (2008). ‘Packaging in perspective’, (Advisory Committee on Packaging).

3 Greener packaging of organic food: A way towards becoming reality?

Verghese, K. et al. (2012). ‘Life cycle assessment (LCA) of food and beverage packaging’. In: Kit L., Yam & Dong Sun Lee (eds.), Emerging Food Packaging Technologies (Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition; Cambridge, UK Woodhead Publishing Ltd), 380–408. Wever, R. & Vogtländer, J. (2013). ‘Eco-efficient Value Creation: An Alternative Perspective on Packaging and Sustainability’, Packaging Technology and Science, 26 (4), 229–248.

Selection of my publications relevant for this chapter Lindh, H. (2016). Sustainable Packaging of Organic Food: Myth or Reality? Doctoral thesis, Division of Packaging Logistics, Lund University, Lund. Lindh, H., Olsson, A. & Williams, H. (2012). Consumer perceptions of sustainable packaging: Limited by lack of knowledge? The 3rd Nordic Retail and Wholesale Conference. Lund. Lindh, H., Olsson, A. & Williams, H. (2016). Consumer Perceptions of Food Packaging: Contributing to or Counteracting Environmentally Sustainable Development? Packaging Technology and Science. 29(1): p. 3–23. Lindh, H., Williams, H., Olsson, A. & Wikström, F. (2016). Elucidating the indirect contributions of packaging to sustainable development: A terminology of packaging functions and features. Packaging Technology and Science. 29(4–5): 225–246. Olsson, A., Lindh, H. & Bertoluci, G. (2011). Packaging design in organic food supply chains – A case study in Sweden. 20th International Conference on Engineering Design ICED´ 11. Copenhagen, Denmark.

The editors Maria Björklund (Associate professor of Logistics Management) and Maria Huge-Brodin (Professor of Green Logistics Management) are researchers and lecturers on the environmental impact of logistics system design and logistics management, business models supporting more sustainable logistics, and green logistics innovations. Both work at the Division of Logistics and Quality Management, Linköping University, Sweden.

Greening Logistics The emerging awareness of climate threats and other environmentally related problems creates challenges for logistics. Greening logistics introduces various avenues to understand and improve logistics systems from an environmental perspective. Freight transport is part of, as well as a consequence of, the logistics system, where the environmental challenges cannot, and should not, be met at the cost of efficiency and competitiveness. During the last decade, research into green logistics has expanded and matured dramatically. From being in the outskirts of the logistics field, environmental considerations have become a more natural part of logistics research. This book provides examples of research performed by Swedish PhD students, and illuminates parts of the multifaceted area of green logistics research. The PhD students have each contributed with one chapter, in which they present their research in their own words. Greening logistics is aimed at various audiences: for students and teachers in universities and professional programmes – to facilitate the understanding of a complex, important, and emerging area; for business – to demonstrate green logistics’ important role, and provide inspiration and guidance for further development; for funding bodies – to demonstrate the strength of a joint funding initiative: the development of research competence at various universities; and for researchers – as inspiration and introduction to the area of green logistics. Art.nr 39476

studentlitteratur.se