ABSTRACT
This study investigates if drastic
source reductions achieved through highly efficient packaging solutions could
induce environmental rebound effects. Such a phenomenon has been explored in
several fields, but not packaging. Following a brief literature review, the
investigated effect was first theorized, adapting a well-established product-packaging
environmental model. Then, simulations were carried out feeding this new model with
results from a ketchup and a tuna system life cycle analyses. Results showed
that a relevant rebound effect is probably common, despite of important packaging
source reduction and even with relatively modest sales increase. The main explanation
lies in the overreach of the packaging onto its product larger footprint. In some
conditions, like those involving animal food products with high waste rates in
unstable economies, efficiency gains might even backfire, configuring Jevons
paradoxes. Such effects should thus not be dismissed in certain packaging
environmental assessments. They must not be used, however, as an argument to
limit packaging eco-efficiency developments, even if practically impossible to
counterbalance. At the same time they constitute a warning about
possible drawbacks of packaging source reduction, they stand as an additional
argument on the environmental importance of packaging effectiveness, i.e., the guarantee
of proper product distribution and protection along the supply chains.
Key
words: packaging, flexible packaging, rebound effect, environmental
rebound effect, packaging environmental assessment, sustainable packaging.
1 INTRODUCTION
Packaging is a significant part of Municipal
Solid Waste - MSW. In the European Union, the 2012 average for all 28 countries
was 32% in weight (Bartl, 2015, p. 1) , with some regions exceeding
40% (Rouw & Worrel, 2011, p. 483) . In other
industrialized countries such as the USA, Australia or Canada, packaging waste similarly
represents about a third of MSW (Tencati, Pogutz, Moda, Brambilla,
& Cacia, 2016, p. 35) . In the developing world, littering and
uncontrolled dumping prevent accurate data collection. Although estimates are generally
lower than in more developed countries, they tend to increase over time, as
waste generation evolves with consumption and production patterns (Chaerul,
Fahruroji, & Fujiwara, 2014, p. 509) . At the turn of the
21st century, packaging waste reached 15% of MSW in China (Xie, Qiao, Sun, & Zhang, 2012, p. 627) and probably as much
as 30% in Brazil (Brazil, 2015, p. 77) . In absolute
numbers, global packaging waste reached 420 million tons in 2011, with per
capita generations of about 12 kg a year in China and 160 kg in the European
Union (Qingbin, Jinhui, & Xianlai,
2015, p. 203) .
If only by its sheer size, packaging waste stands as an important environmental
issue. Managing it properly implies prioritizing prevention strategies, notwithstanding
limitations in the traditional waste hierarchy concept (Van Ewijk
& Stegemann, 2016, p. 123) . As it becomes clear
that policies and efforts focused on recycling and recovery are insufficient, prevention
measures are gaining increasing attention (Tencati, Pogutz, Moda, Brambilla,
& Cacia, 2016, p. 36) .
Waste prevention simply means
reducing waste by not producing it. It is often used interchangeably for source
reduction (Qingbin, Jinhui, & Xianlai,
2015, p. 208) .
In a life cycle perspective, however, source reduction is a preferable
expression for it encompasses not only waste generation but also resources
depletion aspects (Genovese, Acquaye, Figueroa, & Koh, 2017, p. 345) . As studies have repeatedly
shown, upstream impact reductions actually often justify waste prevention well
beyond its direct but rather limited benefits (e.g.,
Cleary, 2014, p. 1607; Gentil, Gallo, & Christensen, 2011, p. 2371; Nessi,
Rigamonti, & Grosso, 2015, p. 845). Moreover, waste prevention can also
be misunderstood for complete rather than partial waste elimination.
Proper packaging source reduction initiatives,
either as technical guidance or legal requirements (Nessi,
Rigamonti, & Grosso, 2015, p. 833) , must guarantee new packaging
solutions continue to fulfill their protection, communication and delivery
functions with regard to their product. Failing to do so will likely create self-defeating
burden shifts, as repeatedly shown for food products (Grönman, et al., 2013, p. 187; Verghese, Lewis, Lockrey, & Williams,
2015, p. 603). To sustain its
environmental purpose, packaging needs to enable product distribution
and meet technical requirements such as physical resistance or chemical
barrier, aiming at no waste along the supply
chain, up until the consumption phase (Büsser
& Jungbluth, 2009, p. 90; Williams & Wikström, 2011, p. 48). And
one of the best solutions to secure these important functions while at the same
time promoting source reduction is to combine several polymers in coextruded or
laminated films (Barlow & Morgan, 2013, p.
76; Poovarodom, Ponnak, & Manatphrom, 2015, p. 519; van Sluisveld & Worrell, 2013, p. 135),
i.e., flexible packaging.
Since its appearance in the
industrial boom of the 1950s, and especially over the past ten years, flexible
packaging has stood as one of the fastest growing packaging category (Poovarodom,
Ponnak, & Manatphrom, Impact of production and conversion processes on the
carbon footprint of flexible plastic film, 2015, p. 519) . In the United
States, for example, it has shown a regular market increase of around 3% a year
since 1992, with the only exception of the 2001 and 2009 crises (FPA, 2014, p. 9) . Today, about half
of all retail units worldwide are purchased – directly or not – through a
flexible packaging, with food products leading the way (Poovarodom, Ponnak, & Manatphrom, Impact of
production and conversion processes on the carbon footprint of flexible
plastic film, 2015, p. 519) . The main drivers
for such a success, however, are not environmental. They are primarily but techno-economical.
Synthetic polymers production not only increased more than 100 times since the
1970s (Marcinkowski & Kowalski,
2012, p. 10) ,
but also specialized. From resin manufacturers to converters, materials to machines,
processes to products, the industry continuously improves and innovates. As a
result, plastic packaging are versatile and now often preferred over other
alternatives (Chaerul, Fahruroji, & Fujiwara, 2014, p. 509) . Over time, further
migration from heavier long-established packaging systems, such as metal cans, glass
jars or rigid bottles to new improved flexible packaging is expected (Humbert, Rossi, Margni, Jolliet, &
Loerincik, 2009, p. 105) .
Economic factors are crucial. Flexible packaging is usually not
only much lighter than functional equivalents, but also more affordable (Makanjuola
& Enujiugha, 2015) . Cost reduction enabled by source reduction
is usually envisioned as plain eco-efficiency, a natural win-win environmental-economic
evolution (Huppes & Ishikawa, 2005, p. 43; Ravi,
2015, p. 17). Nonetheless, if more efficient packaging solutions are less
expensive, this can also increase consumer demand, and, consequently, globally lessen
the original environmental benefits. This perverse relationship of cause and
effect is referred to as the rebound effect. Identified since the beginning of
the industrial revolution, this phenomenon has been widely studied in the
energy field and beyond, but Dace et al.
found no previous account in waste management research: "reviewing the
literature on waste management systems, we found no description of the rebound
effect phenomena. We consider its identification as a key finding” (Dace, Bazbauers,
Berzina, & Davidsen, 2014, p. 181) . However, the effect
they identified is not related to a lighter and more affordable packaging
solution, but to a reinforcing loop “where the supply of cheaper recycled
materials in the market […] results in increased total use of packaging
materials” (p. 182). Just as Dace et al.,
we found no mention of a rebound effect applied to packaging. As van Sluisveld
& Worrell´s points out source reduction averaging as much as 85%, though, one might
reasonably suspect a rebound effect (2013, p. 137). Considering the scale of the issue
and the significance of the associated environmental aspects, such a question also
obviously carries some practical relevance.
The main objective of this study is
to establish a theoretical framework for the assessment of packaging environmental
rebound effects associated to drastic source reduction initiatives. It is
divided into three parts. The origins of the rebound effect and its academic development
into different fields are first briefly presented. After analyzing the
specifics of its application to packaging, a basic mathematical model is then proposed
and two cases simulated, all based on previous research data. Finally, the
intensity of the phenomenon, as well as its main theoretical outcomes, are discussed.
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Origins of the rebound effect
The Jevons paradox has been traditionally
used to qualify situations in an energy context where an improvement in
efficiency causes an absolute increase in consumption. From a broader environmental
perspective, this means that a relative reduction of the impacts associated
with a particular product or service can cause an absolute increase in these
same impacts (York, 2006, p.
143) .
The origin of this concept is attributed to William Stanley Jevons, a British 19th-century
economist. He showed that technological advances in steam engines increased
coal consumption (Alcott, 2005) . Yet, the Jevons
paradox is just the extreme embodiment of a much more common occurrence, the
rebound effect. This more general phenomenon can be defined as an increase in
total consumption caused by systemic socioeconomic responses to efficiency
gains (Vivanco & van
der Voet, 2014, p. 1934) . In a Jevons paradox, the rebound
effect exceeds the initial benefit; the phenomenon needs not be that severe to merit
consideration.
In its simplest analysis, the rebound
effect usually receives two explanations, both grounded in economics. The first
and most common is a simple application of the supply and demand law: a reduction
in the price of a good or service causes a quantitative increase in its demand,
which can counteract or even exceed the initial qualitative gain (York, 2006, p. 143) . The second
explanation comes from a macroeconomic standpoint: specific but significant
efficiency gains often generate overall economic gains and, thus, a general increase
in demand for goods and services (Alcott, 2005, p. 10; Amado
& Sauer, 2012, p. 2; Saunders, 1992, p. 131; York, 2006, p. 143).
2.2 Application in the energy arena and beyond
Since Jevons, economists and
environmentalists copiously revisited the rebound effect. Expanded from its
original industrial coal to several other energy resources and contexts, the
concept truly established itself as an economic theory in the 1980s (Vivanco
& van der Voet, 2014, p. 1933) . The transportation field
is particularly rich in examples. York wrote: “an examination of recent trends
in the fuel consumption of motor vehicles suggests a paradoxical situation
where improvements in efficiency are associated with increases in fuel consumption”
(York, 2006, p. 144) . Studying trucks in Portugal, Matos
& Silva concluded that increasing the fleet energy efficiency by 1% reduced
energy consumption by just 0,76%, i.e., a 24% rebound effect (Matos & Silva, 2011, p.
2841) .
In a European study spanning from 1990 to 2005, researchers found that, even if
they pollute relatively less than their gasoline counterparts, car diesel
engines increased total CO and NO emissions through a rebound effect induced by
its lower price (Vivanco, Kemp, Voet, & Heijungs, 2014, p. 380) .
Even if most studies focused on
energy issues, other fields of application have been investigated for at least
twenty years. The environmental rebound effect, which first usage is credited to
Goedkoop et al. (1999), is an application of the original concept to a wider
range of environmental aspects (Vivanco & van der Voet, 2014, p. 1939) . Climate change is
an obvious candidate because of its close association with energy footprints: “although
there is no scientific consensus about its magnitude, there is a consensus
about its existence and in acknowledging the harmful effects it has on achieving
energy or climate targets" (Freire-González & Puig-Ventosa, 2015, p. 69) . Some other
applications are less obvious. For example, using 2002 data, York showed that
the advent of the digital age did not reduce office paper consumption: “there
may be a direct causal link between the rise of electronic mediums of data
storage and paper consumption” (York, 2006, p. 145) . Starting its argument from the same broken
‘paperless office’ promise from the 1980s, Abukhader broadens the perspective
stating that the “rebound effects represent one of the primary issues in
determining that eco-efficiency is not the sole strategy […] for forecasting
and reducing the environmental damages due to E-commerce” (Abukhader, 2008,
p. 802) .
Another curious paradox establishes that an increase in road capacity can cause
an indirect increase in the number of cars and, therefore, in traffic (Mogridge,
1990) .
Following a similar rationale, Grabs reassessed the benefits of a vegetarianism
diet by estimating “the indirect environmental rebound effect related to the
re-spending of expenditure saved during the initial behavioral shift” (Grabs, 2015, p.
270) .
Even lamps that are more efficient can backfire, provoking an indirect increase
in light pollution: “the artificial lightscape will change considerably over
coming decades with the drive for more cost-effective […] solutions and growth
in the artificially lit area” (Gaston, Davies, Bennie, & Hopkins, 2012, p. 1256) . However, rebounds do
not necessarily occur in all situations. For example, studying the
modernization of Spanish irrigation systems, Dumont et al. found that "it can
be conceptually misleading when applied to water, since it reinforces a myth
about saving considerations and water efficiency, and can be too restrictive
"(2013, p. 64). To our knowledge, the rebound effect has not yet been
investigated for packaging.
3 METHOD
Whetten makes a distinction between two
main types of theoretical contributions: using a proven theory to guide a new
academic work or, at the contrary, using an academic work to formulate a new
theory (Whetten, 2009, p.
218) .
This work consists of the first type as it tests a well-established theory in a
new context. In doing so, however, it also proposes a new concept by which the
environmental benefits of very light packaging might be at least partially
overset by its own efficiency. As the first paper to investigate such a topic,
it cannot escape some explorative quality (Yin, 1994) . As such, it follows
a mixed method approach, broadly consisting of a simple quantitative analysis followed
by a short qualitative discussion (Creswell, 2003, p.
208) .
The quantitative part can be
described as a hypothesis-testing research based on existing case studies (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 532) . To quantify a potential
rebound effect when migrating to a much lighter packaging solution, three steps
were followed. Reflections guided by a brief literature review and some
quantitative references first allowed determining the main parameters of
interest, making it clear that the product environmental impacts could not be
left out of the equation. Then, a basic mathematical model was constructed, adapting
an existing model for environmental packaging assessments (Wikström & Williams,
Potential environmental gains from reducing food losses through development of
new packaging: a life-cycle model, 2010) . Finally, this new
model was tested by simulating migration scenarios. Data from two previous life
cycle assessments (LCA) on ketchup (Andersson, Ohlsson, & Olsson, 1998) and tuna (Poovarodom, Ponnak, & Manatphrom,
Comparative Carbon Footprint of Packaging Systems for Tuna Products, 2012) were used. Although simulations were performed
on the new overarching model and not on the LCA models themselves, this technical
approach does characterize a type of sensitivity analysis, “a systematic
procedure for estimating the effects on the outcome of a study of the chosen
methods and data” (Björklund, 2002) , with the rebound
effect itself being the tested parameter. Nonetheless, one might prefer naming it
‘consequential modeling’ (Vivanco & van
der Voet, 2014, p. 1945) . It is worth noting that similar
model-based approaches fed with previous LCA results have already been used in
previous studies aimed at assessing product-packaging system environmental
impacts (Barlow & Morgan, 2013, p. 77; Williams
& Wikström, 2011, p. 44).
Results showed that, due to the indirect
influence of packaging on the much larger environmental footprint of its
product, even source reduction projects causing relatively small sales increases
could have relevant rebound effects. So, adapting the accumulated knowledge of past
rebound effect research to a specific packaging context, three points were
discussed: its intensity, its challenges on eco-efficiency, and proposed offset
mechanisms.
4 MODEL
4.1 Conceptualization
Flexible packaging replacing steel
cans, glass jars or blown plastic bottles, bring very significant source reduction.
Analyzing 131 cases in the Netherlands between 2005 and 2010, van Sluisvel and
Worrell concluded "the flexible packaging (such as sachets) offered the
greatest potential for source reduction (85 ± 11%)" among the 15 solutions
they mapped (van Sluisveld & Worrell, 2013, p. 137) . Practical examples
are common. A leading Brazilian cosmetics company wrote in its 2011 sustainability
reports that "the new sachets for body moisturizers […] reduced the use of
plastic by 83% and waste generation by 97%" (Natura, 2011, p. 34) . The same year,
“Coca Cola reported savings of US$ 180 million from reducing its packaging” (Qingbin,
Jinhui, & Xianlai, 2015, p. 204) . Even if this large
overall reduction did not involve much migration to lighter packaging, it
proves the potential is great. New packaging solutions make previous ones look
overpackaged, constantly raising critics against what appear to be “vast
quantities of products that are over dressed for no other reasons than to
please the eye […], excessive packaging that necessitates more materials, more
resources to manufacture, so entailing more costs” (Qingbin,
Jinhui, & Xianlai, 2015, p. 203) . As a more recent
example, a large fast-moving consumer goods company declared it launched a mayonnaise
"sachet of 550 grams with plastic consumption up to 70% lower compared to
the same product in PET plastic pots" (Unilever, 2014,
p. 29) and
a new line of refill for liquid soap representing "70% less plastic than
regular packaging" (Unilever, 2015, p. 19).
Besides reducing costs, ultralight packaging
solutions like sachets or stand up pouches appear as new marketing tools that increase
sales with added benefits such as higher convenience and visual appeal (Poovarodom,
Ponnak, & Manatphrom, Impact of production and conversion processes on the
carbon footprint of flexible plastic film, 2015, p. 250) . One well-known business
objective with refills, for instance, is greater customer loyalty. The environmental
impact reduction brought about by flexible packaging, thus, could be partially
counterbalanced by sales increase. Such a possibility has already been
identified in a broad sense: “although LCAs can be used to estimate the
potential net environmental gains from package substitutions, they can be
misleading if one’s interpretation and extrapolation of the results lacks an
appropriate context” (Cleary, 2013, p. 150). To avoid such a
pitfall, Cleary undertakes packaging LCAs at a municipal scale, thus
aggregating specific consumer changes. However, he does not specifically
mentions a packaging rebound effect.
The amount of information necessary
to prove a rebound effect generally exceeds available data. If evidencing a
correlation is often possible, proving a cause and effect relationship is much
more complex and authors remain prudent (Saunders, 1992, p 131; Vivanco et al,
2014, p 380; York, 2006, p. 145). Strictly speaking, it would require a
comparison between what happened and what would have happened. In a dynamic
market, such virtual comparison is practically impossible. For this reason, rebound
effects are generally established empirically (Berkhout,
Muskens, & Velthuijsen, 2000; Matos & Silva, 2011). Packaging is no exception. The
following two food samples must be apprehended from this perspective.
The international Capri Sun brand
probably best represents the revolution that sachets brought to the juice concentrate
market targeted at children. If all pouches annually discarded in the USA were
lined up end to end, they would go around the Earth nearly five times (MacKerron, 2015,
p. 32) .
The sachet low cost and convenience undoubtedly created a higher demand for
these drinks than when previously sold in glass or rigid plastic bottles. Although
it is still technically challenging, pureed baby food might follow the same
path in a near future. A European cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment compared
traditional baby food Nestlé glass jars with their new plastic alternative (Humbert, Rossi, Margni, Jolliet, & Loerincik,
2009) .
Greenhouse gases reduction was estimated at 30% and primary energy consumption
between 14 and 27%. The authors concludes that, “as food distribution plays an
important role in the overall life cycle burdens […], it is important to avoid
additional transportation of the packaged food in order to maintain or even
improve the advantage of the plastic pot system” (p 96). The concern is that
the operational gains coming from lighter and less fragile packaging may cause
an increase in trade, and thus, some kind of packaging rebound effect. Assessing
a migration from a glass jar to a high-barrier plastic rigid packaging, this
examples shows that the rebound effect may apply not only to flexible packaging,
but also in other significantly source reduction situations.
If a particular packaging increases
consumption, demand will grow not only for this packaging, but also for the
packaged product; and it has been repeatedly shown that the environmental impacts
related to the product are generally much higher. This is especially true for
animal products, but not only. Beef, bread, butter, cheese, coffee, ketchup, laundry
detergents, manual dishwashing and milk are good examples (Büsser &
Jungbluth, 2009; Golsteijn, et al., 2015; Meneses, Pasqualino, & Castells,
2012; Williams & Wikström, 2011).
The argument goes for any packaged
product, but it is probably easier to demonstrate and more convincing for food.
The vast majority of primary packaging are food packaging. According to a
survey by the World Packaging Association, more than half of primary packaging
are for food and almost a fifth for beverage (World Packaging Organisation, 2008, p. 38) . Moreover, food environmental
profiles are usually more available and reliable than for items such as pharmaceuticals,
home or personal care products. Food typically carry larger footprints that its
packaging. In “a typical food supply chain, 50% of the energy is used in food
production, 10% in commercial transport to shops and retailing, 10% for
packaging and 30% by consumers transport to shops, storing and cooking food” (Barlow &
Morgan, 2013, p. 75) . If carbon and energy footprints
usually follow a similar ratio pattern in the 1 to 10 range, water footprint data
are still scarce, but a value as low as 1% has been estimated for tomato sauce
in a glass jar (Manzardo, et al.,
2016, p. 4662) .
Thus, a rather small increase in
sales triggered by more efficient food packaging can have a significant environmental
impact via the packaged product. Several authors already stressed the
importance of food products in packaging environmental assessments. For Grönman
et al., for example, food loss prevention should be the primary criteria in sustainable
food packaging design (Grönman, et al.,
2013) .
A recent literature review conducted by Lindh et al. confirmed the protective function of packaging as its most
important environmental contribution (Lindh, Olsson, &
Williams, 2015) .
However, this food-packaging relationship has not been analyzed yet from a rebound
effect standpoint, calling for some quantitative investigation.
4.2 Modelling
To analyze the investigated rebound
effect, we adapted an environmental impact model initially developed by Wikström
and Williams for any product-packaging system (Wikström & Williams, Potential environmental gains from reducing
food losses through development of new packaging: a life-cycle model, 2010) . Slightly modified
versions of this model have already been developed in other publications
involving the same authors (Wikström, Williams, Karli, & Clune, 2013, p.
102; Williams and Wikström, 2011, p. 44). The 2013 version, for example, poses the
environmental impact of a specific packaged food item (E) equals the sum of the
environmental impact of purchased food (BF), packaging (P), and waste handling
of packaging (WP) and food (WBL), i.e., 
.
.
Since waste is not our primary issue,
and to avoid unnecessary complications, waste handling impacts will here be included
in the packaging and product main variables. So, 
standing for the packaging impact, 
the product impact and 
the product losses, we get 
. As in the original model (Wikström & Williams, 2010, p. 404), consumer-based
product waste was kept as a specific variable because of its evitability, yet significance
in so many food systems (Porpino, Parente, &
Wansink, 2015, p. 619; Verghese, Lewis, Lockrey, & Williams, 2015, p. 603).
Although significant in absolute terms, other kind of losses along the supply
chain are not modeled as a specific variable, because they increase impacts equally
from both the product and the packaging sides. Moreover, the goal of this study
is not to test more effective packaging, but more efficient ones. Two additional
important parameters are included in the model: 
, to characterize packaging
efficiency gain and 
, additional sales. It is worth
noting that additional sales imply additional production, consumption and waste.
Although directly proportional, additional sales are distinguished from the
environmental rebound effect itself, measured in terms of environmental impact
changes in the system. This study main
interest, however, lies not in this rebound effect, but in the system footprint
variation between the incumbent solution and the most efficient packaging with
additional sales.
standing for the packaging impact, the product impact and the product losses, we get . As in the original model (Wikström & Williams, 2010, p. 404), consumer-based
product waste was kept as a specific variable because of its evitability, yet significance
in so many food systems (Porpino, Parente, &
Wansink, 2015, p. 619; Verghese, Lewis, Lockrey, & Williams, 2015, p. 603).
Although significant in absolute terms, other kind of losses along the supply
chain are not modeled as a specific variable, because they increase impacts equally
from both the product and the packaging sides. Moreover, the goal of this study
is not to test more effective packaging, but more efficient ones. Two additional
important parameters are included in the model: , to characterize packaging
efficiency gain and , additional sales. It is worth
noting that additional sales imply additional production, consumption and waste.
Although directly proportional, additional sales are distinguished from the
environmental rebound effect itself, measured in terms of environmental impact
changes in the system. This study main
interest, however, lies not in this rebound effect, but in the system footprint
variation between the incumbent solution and the most efficient packaging with
additional sales.
As shown in the third column of the following
table, the impact of packaging decreases from to when migrating to a more efficient packaging, but the
product impact remains the same, namely. Differently, and as shown in the
last column, an increase in sale influences both the packaging and the product impacts
by a factor.
Environmental
Impact
|
Incumbent
packaging |
More efficient packaging
|
More efficient packaging,
with additional sales
|
Packaging
|
 |
||
Product
|
|||
Product-packaging system
|
 |
 |
 |
Table
1. The
environmental impacts of a more efficient packaging and its rebound effect on
the product-packaging system.
Source: Author, 2017.
5 SIMULATION AND RESULTS
The main objective is to compare the overall
environmental impact of two systems, one based on a traditional relatively
heavy packaging and the other on a new ultralight solution. The conclusions
would be rather obvious if the second option did not cause an increase in sales
(besides being usually less recycled, a situation considered in the LCA data,
but that not directly discussed in this paper). Such a comparison requires a
couple of quite complete life cycle data sets including not only the packaging
itself, but also its product. Ideally, the only parameter should be additional
sales. Unfortunately, such complete studies are still scarce. Until recently, environmental
packaging assessments usually focused on comparing different packaging types or
packaging waste treatments, typically leaving out almost any aspect related to the
product. Studies “going beyond this narrow view on the packaging itself, like
the consumption and production of packed goods, are often neglected” (Büsser & Jungbluth, 2009, p. 81) .
Two case studies are sufficient to
test the potential significance of a packaging rebound effect. The first one evaluates
the energy footprint of a ketchup system. Since the original bottle-based study
lacked comparative pouch data, two different source reductions were simulated.
The second one assesses the carbon footprint of a tuna system. Since data are
more recent and complete, the only tested parameter could have been increased
sales, but the influence of product losses at a consumer level were also tested.
5.1 Ketchup system energy footprint
This first set of simulations relies
on data compiled by Williams and Wikström on the energy footprints of a ketchup
product-packaging system (2011, p. 45). They original come from a life cycle
assessment study that considered PP and EVOH ketchup blown bottles with PP caps
and LDPE seals as primary packaging, as well as steel drums, stretch film and
wooden pallets as tertiary packaging (Andersson, Ohlsson, & Olsson, 1998) . Lacking similar
footprint data for an alternative ultralight ketchup packaging, we capped packaging
reduction simulations between two extremes (van Sluisveld
& Worrell, 2013, p. 138) : a 70% reduction for
a simple but necessarily high-barrier sachet (scenarios pouch 2, 5 and 6) and a
30% reduction for a sophisticated spouted pouch (scenarios pouch 1, 3 and 4). Ketchup
waste was set to 20%, as in the Williams and Wikström´s 2011 model, since studies
indicated it is “a reasonable level of food losses in the consumer phase” (Williams & Wikström, 2011, p. 45) . As far as sales increase, a minimum of 5% and a maximum of 30%
were used, based on the minima and maxima generally found in rebound studies
(Berkhout, Muskens & Velthuijsen, 2000, p 431; Gillingham, Kotchen, Rapson, & Wagner, 2013). The following table summarizes the
resulting six scenarios.
Energy footprint
(MJ/kg) |
Originalplastic bottle
|
Simulations
|
|||||
Pouch 1
|
Pouch 2
|
Pouch 3
|
Pouch 4
|
Pouch 5
|
Pouch 6
|
||
Ketchup waste
|
20%
|
20%
|
20%
|
20%
|
20%
|
20%
|
20%
|
Packaging reduction
|
0%
|
30%
|
70%
|
30%
|
30%
|
70%
|
70%
|
Sales increase
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
5%
|
30%
|
5%
|
30%
|
Ketchup
|
11,0
|
11,0
|
11,0
|
11,6
|
14,3
|
11,6
|
14,3
|
Ketchup waste
|
2,2
|
2,2
|
2,2
|
2,3
|
2,9
|
2,3
|
2,9
|
Packaging
|
5,7
|
4,0
|
1,7
|
4,2
|
5,2
|
1,8
|
2,2
|
System
|
18,9
|
17,2
|
14,9
|
18,0
|
22,3
|
15,7
|
19,4
|
Table
2. Energy footprints of a ketchup system
simulating two different packaging reduction (30 and 70%) and sales increase (5
and 30%).
Source: Author, 2017.
The new system energy footprint is
obviously always higher than it would with no sales increase; but it actually exceeds
the incumbent´s in both pouch scenarios with the 30% sales increase (4 and 6),
thereby setting a Jevons paradox. A mere 11% sales increase would actually already
be sufficient for that in the case of a 30% more efficient packaging (pouch 4 scenario).
These results emphasize the relative importance of food versus packaging
impacts. Williams and Wikström already concluded “it is probably just as
important to find packaging systems with less environmental impact as it is to
develop packaging that lead to lower losses of ketchup” (p. 46). This statement
becomes all the more meaningful when considering a rebound effect.
5.2 Tuna system carbon footprint
The second set of rebound effect simulations
is based on a complete carbon footprint cradle-to-grave product-packaging
system study comparing tuna packaged in a metal can, a retort pouch and a
retort cup (Poovarodom,
Ponnak, & Manatphrom, 2012). Since the can showed the highest
footprint and the cup the lowest, the pouch option was not considered in this
paper. It is worth noting that, although the packaging footprint is 68% lower with
the cup than with the can, the tuna footprint is 25% higher due to a 60% lower
batch capacity in the particular retort cup process that was assessed (p. 255).
Carbon footprint
(CO2e/kg) |
Metal
can |
Retort
pouch |
Scenario
1 |
Scenario
2 |
Packaging reduction
|
0%
|
68%
|
68%
|
68%
|
Sales increase
|
0%
|
0%
|
5%
|
30%
|
Product
|
176,0
|
220,0
|
231,0
|
286,0
|
Product losses (5%)
|
8,8
|
11,0
|
11,6
|
14,3
|
Packaging
|
104,0
|
33,0
|
34,7
|
42,9
|
System
|
288,8
|
264,0
|
277,2
|
343,2
|
Table
3. Carbon footprints of a tuna
product-packaging system with two different simulated sales increase (5 and
30%).
Source: Author, 2017.
As shown in the last column, even
with a packaging carbon footprint almost 70% lower, a 30% increase in sales
would increase the overall system carbon footprint by about 20% in the retort
cup option. Actually, less than 10% increase in sales would already be
sufficient to configure a Jevons paradox, a similar result to the 11% found in
the previous ketchup simulation.
Poovarodom et
al.´s system boundary did not include the consumption phase
and no product loss were taken into account. Following a conservative approach,
figures compiled in the table above considered a minimal 5% loss rate.
Simulations performed at different rates naturally showed that the higher the
loss rate, the higher the rebound effect. Figure
1 shows that increasing food waste from 5% to 20% brings the Jevons Paradox
tipping point from a 10% down to a 6% sales increase. Note it also makes
consumer-based tuna losses more impactful than the packaging. Although different
packaging solutions can influence consumer behavior and indirectly provoke different
waste rates, specific data are still rare (Wikström, Williams, Karli,
& Clune, 2013) .
This particular case is not different: there is no evidence that the retort cup
or the metal would cause higher food losses.
Fig.
1. Carbon footprints of a tuna retort cup system as a
function of additional sales (from 0 to 30%) and at two different consumer
waste levels (d = 5 and 20%).
Source: Author, 2017.
6 DISCUSSIONS
6.1 Rebound intensity
Empirical evidence in energy studies
indicate a relatively small rebound effect, with estimates ranging from 0 to
30% depending on the object, but usually restricted to 15% (Berkhout, Muskens, &
Velthuijsen, 2000, p. 431) . “Studies and simulations
indicate that behavioral responses shave 5-30% off intended energy savings,
reaching no more than 60% when combined with macroeconomic effects” (Gillingham, Kotchen, Rapson, & Wagner, 2013, p.
476) .
These figures might constitute interesting references, but packaging is a
different subject.
First, packaging generally only represents
a fraction of the total product price. Thus, even with packaging weight reductions
reaching 70% or more, relative cost reductions of the packaged product will
likely remain small. Moreover, packaging cost and weight are not directly
proportional. For example, flexible packaging are generally more expensive than
other solutions per weight unit, because of their higher technical complexity. Furthermore,
industry costs and consumer prices are not directly proportional either. In
business situations that results in cost savings through eco-efficiency, only
part of the savings cascade down to consumers (Pelton, Li, Smith, & Lyon, 2016, p. 5911) . In any packaging reduction
project, it is fair to expect that the converting industry, the product
manufacturer and the retailer will adjust prices to guarantee their share, leaving
out only a residual fraction to consumers. On the other hand, this might lead
to a similar outcome, incentivizing not a consumer-driven, but a supply-driven
increase in more eco-efficient packaging. In general, although each case will
bring different results, consumer price reductions are generally much smaller
than packaging reductions.
Sales increase, however, are not only
nor directly induced by price reductions. Consumers might just migrate to cheaper
options, without necessarily consuming more, or vice versa. Increased
consumption depends on the price elasticity of demand, “a dimensionless construct
referring to the percentage change in purchased quantity or demand with a 1%
change in price”, which main influencing factors are “availability of
substitutes, household income, consumer preferences, expected duration of price
change, and the product’s share of a household’s income” (Andreyeva, Long,
& Brownell, 2010, p. 217) . For example,
compiling studies on prices of 16 food categories in the USA between 1938 and
2007, Andreyeva et al. reported
elasticities ranging from 0,27 for eggs to 0,81 for eating out (Andreyeva, Long,
& Brownell, 2010, p. 219) . The rebound effect caused
by a more efficient food packaging, thus, is likely to be greater for elastic
products such as soft drinks (0,79) or juices (0,76) than 'inelastic' ones such
as eggs or sugar (0,34). It is worth noting beef (0,76), for it not only
displays a high elasticity, but also bear the environmental characteristics of the
highly impactful animal products mentioned above. However, even for
low-elasticity products, savings on a particular product might end up being
spent on a different one, i.e., used as additional expandable income (Burns, Cook, & Mavoa, 2013) that can indirectly
lead to an increase in packaging. In 1980, Khazzom already applied a similar
reasoning to the energy efficiency of household appliances: “an improvement in
the efficiency of one appliance influences not only the demand for own end-use,
but also the demand for other end-uses. This follows from the fact that end-uses
compete for the same overall budget” (Khazzom 1980 apud Alcott, 2005, p. 14).
One must also consider that “economic
shocks […] can lead to changes in purchasing behavior that are not necessarily
predicted by elasticity estimates […] under normal market conditions” (Andreyeva, Long, & Brownell, 2010, p. 221) . In the stable market
economy of a developed country such as the USA, the rebound effect of energy
efficiency tends to be small because consumption patterns already largely meet
population needs (Greening, Greene,
& Difiglio, 2000, p. 399) . The same logic
probably applies to packaging efficiency. In times of crisis, economic or
political instability, or in an emerging country such as Brazil, the context
can be conducive to an increase in the consumption of more efficient, less
expensive products and packaging.
Finally, a price discount is not the
only reason that explain the increase in sales of packaged product. “Whenever
technology becomes more efficient, this improvement is usually accompanied by
an increase in its use in order to improve the quality of life and make it more
comfortable” (Abukhader, 2008, p. 802) . Packaging
aesthetics, convenience and ease of use are important aspects to consider. As
shown in the kids drink juice pouch example, they might go hand in hand with flexible
packaging efficiency.
Although the relationship is complex,
dependent on a vast array of different factors, drastic packaging source
reduction most certainly increases consumption, possibly amounting to Jevons
paradoxes under certain specific conditions. As such, and although “the
inclusion of the rebound effect into LCA-based studies is still one of the most
relevant unresolved issues in the field” (Vivanco & van
der Voet, 2014, p. 1933) , this effect should not be neglected in
environmental packaging assessments involving drastic source reductions, and
especially with highly valuable products or unstable economies. Such a
conclusion might lead some to think higher packaging eco-efficiencies are not
to be pursued. Such expected reasoning, in turn, demands some examination.
6.2 Rebound vs eco-efficiency
Recognition of the Jevons paradox are
frequently accompanied by strong political, economic or philosophical criticism.
York, for example, wrote that “the search for increased profits inherent in
capitalist modes of production lead producers both trying to reduce costs […] and
increase revenues”, i.e., that “the association between efficiency and total
consumption is primarily due to […] profit seeking behavior by capitalists” (York,
2006, p. 143). Under Alcott´s words (2005, p.9), "twentieth-century
economic growth theory sees technological change as the main cause of increased
production and consumption”, whereas Amado & Sauer argue that the Jevons effect
might be used as a “laboratory test to compare the ability of neoclassical and
ecological economic paradigms to describe the social appropriation of nature” (Amado &
Sauer, 2012, p. 2) .
Such generic criticism towards technological
efficiency must first be nuanced within a packaging-specific context. Under a
broader sustainability perspective, even packaging efficiency gains overset by larger
rebounds effects are not necessarily negative. Cheaper packaging means greater
access to products, i.e., important socio-economic benefits to more people, be
it through better nutrition or better hygiene. Following the dynamic
relationships of social impacts (UNEP/SETAC, 2009,
p. 43) ,
such socioeconomic gains can then positively affect other dimensions like education
or quality of life. More affordable packaging can also make products less
susceptible to inflation in case of crisis or even help avoid shortages, a
benefit that has already been evidenced, incidentally, for example, with oil (Hirsch, Bezdek,
& Wendling, 2006, p. 4) .
More broadly, adopting the view that
eco-efficiency gains are useless because they worsen the overall environmental
balance is dangerous. Such an idea might not only justify conformism and
inaction, but also serve as a disguised argument to defend conservative interests.
Following this argument, a group of renowned scientists wrote in Nature that
the rebound effect has become a damaging distraction to the improvement of the
energy sector (Gillingham,
Kotchen, Rapson, & Wagner, 2013, p. 475) . They argue that
many practical issues such as lack of investment or delays in the dissemination
of technological innovations already sufficiently hinder the implementation of
energy efficiency measures, not needing additional theoretical discussions to
limit its advances. The same could be argued about packaging efficiency. Some actions
could be taken, however, to try to mitigate the impacts of possible rebound
effects.
6.3 Offsetting rebounds
Compensation mechanisms that would offset
rebound effects have already been proposed. Most of them, if not all, imply government
interventions. They are rarely implemented into public policies, though, even within
the multibillion-dollar energy sector or global warming mitigation strategies (Freire-González
& Puig-Ventosa, 2015, p. 69) . Their establishment
within the packaging sector is thus very unlikely.
A classic option would consist in
creating additional fees to counteract price discounts related to higher efficiency.
Back in 1997, Wackernagel and Rees answered their own question: “Can we afford
cost-saving energy efficiency? The answer is 'yes' only if efficiency gains are
taxed away or otherwise removed from further economic circulation (p. 20)”. Notwithstanding
good intentions, the practical challenges to implement such regulations in a
fair and consistent manner have already been highlighted (Freire-González &
Puig-Ventosa, 2015, p. 76) . In order to ensure
its environmental benefits, a complex additional tax system on more efficient packaging
may be conceived. The impracticality of such a measure, though, would quickly
become apparent. For example, in countries with waste or landfill reduction targets,
this tax would create paradoxical situations, somehow promoting source
reduction and taxing lighter packaging at the same time. Plus, beyond the practical
difficulties of establishing a proper taxation, lies a more complex reality
yet: "even taxes on fuel or CO2 will be compensated by
efficiency increases, and moreover they face the problem that tax revenue also
gets spent on material and energy” (Alcott, 2005, p. 19) . The same could be
said on the ubiquitous packaging.
Another option to make up for the
rebound effect would be policies governing resource usage and waste generation.
Methods involving rationing or quotas prevail. However, besides being certainly
as complex as corrective taxation schemes, politicians will most likely avoid
such measures. Alcott concluded his article writing that, “politically unfashionable
though they may be – Jevons himself denied that the consumption of coal can be
kept down in our free system of industry –, ecological economics should once
again take resource rationing seriously (2005, p 20). Wackernagel and Rees concluded
in a similar fashion. "This is our present dilemma: while politically
acceptable policies [...] would be ecologically ineffective, environmentally
significant policy would be politically impossible (if not heretical)" (1997,
p 22). If such measures were to be taken with fast-moving consumer goods, they
would first address the products, not their packaging.
7 CONCLUSIONS
Grounded on its occurrence in other
fields, the possibility of an environmental rebound effect with drastic packaging
source reduction was first illustrated and discussed. A simple mathematical
model allowed the construction of several scenarios based on two previous life
cycle studies dataset. As it applies to both the packaging and its products, moderate
environmental rebound effects are probably common, especially under conditions conducive
to high rebound intensities. Some extreme cases could even ignite Jevons
paradoxes. As such, this effect should at least be considered in environmental
packaging studies assessing situations prone to the phenomenon. It should not,
however, invalidate packaging eco-efficiency efforts, even if policies trying
to offset such indirect effects would most likely be unpractical.
At the same time it stands as a
warning about the possible drawback of increased packaging efficiency, this rebound
effect appears as one more argument to the importance of its main function,
i.e., product protection. In this regard, the packaging effectiveness towards
its product deserves as much or even more environmental attention as its efficiency
as an industrial object (Sustainable Packaging
Coalition, 2011) .
The main limitations of this study
lie in in a well-known recurring problem, the difficulty of directly measuring
the rebound effect. One remaining academic challenge is thus to determine the
extent and the conditions under which this particular phenomenon can occur.
Specific detailed case studies are probably the only way out. The central issue
is environmental, but the underlying mechanisms are mostly social and economic.
It is a 'socio-ecological paradox' (York, 2006, p.
143) .
A multidisciplinary approach would therefore be essential.
Written by Teddy Lalande - April, 2017.
REFERENCES
Abukhader, S. M.
(2008, June). Eco-efficiency in the era of electronic commerce - Should
'Eco-Effectiveness' approach be adopted? Journal of Cleaner Production,
801-808.
Alcott, B. (2005). Jevons´s paradox. Ecological
economics, 54(1), 9-21.
Amado, N. B.,
& Sauer, I. L. (2012). An ecological economic interpretation of the Jevons
effect. Ecological Complexity, 9, 2-9.
Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., & Olsson, P. (1998).
Screening life cycle assessment (LCA) of tomato ketchup: a case study. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 6, pp. 277-288.
Andreyeva, T., Long, M. W., & Brownell, K. D. (2010).
The Impact of Food Prices on Consumption: A Systematic Review of Research on
the Price Elasticity of Demand for Food. American Journal of Public
Health, 100(2), 216-222.
Barlow, C. Y., & Morgan, D. C. (2013, 78). Polymer film
packaging for food: an environmental assessment. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, pp. 74– 80.
Bartl, A. (2015, August). Withdrawal of the circular
economy package: A wasted opportunity or a new challenge? Waste
Management, 44, pp. 1-2.
Berkhout, P. H., Muskens, J. C., & Velthuijsen, J. W.
(2000, Jun). Defining the rebound effect. Energy policy, 28(6),
425-432.
Björklund, A. E. (2002). Survey of approaches to improve
reliability in LCA. International
Journal of LCA, 7(2),
64-72.
Brazil. (2015,
November). BRAZIL. Acordo setorial para implementação do sistema de
logística reversa de embalagens em geral. Brasília, DF. Disponivel em:
<http://www.abiplast.org.br/site/meio-ambiente/coalizao-embalagens-texto-assinado-do-acordo-setorial-de-embalagens>.
Brasília.
Burns, C., Cook, K., & Mavoa, H. (2013, Sept.). Role of
expendable income and price in food choice by low income families. Apetite,
209-217.
Büsser, S., & Jungbluth, N. (2009). The role of
flexible packaging in the life cycle of coffee and butter. International
journal of life cycle assessment, 14, 80-91.
Chaerul, M., Fahruroji, A. R., & Fujiwara, T. (2014,
October). Recycling of plastic packaging waste in Bandung City, Indonesia. Journal
of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 16, pp. 509-518.
Cleary, J. (2013, January). Life cycle assessments of wine
and spirit packaging at the product and the municipal scale: a Toronto,
Canada case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 44, pp. 143-151.
Cleary, J. (2014). A life cycle assessment of residential
waste management and prevention. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 19, pp. 1607-1622.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design - Qualitative,
quantitative and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Dace, E., Bazbauers, G., Berzina, A., & Davidsen, P.
(2014, Maio). System dynamics model for analysing effects of eco-design
policy on packaging waste management system. Resources, conservation &
recycling, 87(1), 175-190.
Dumont, A., Mayor, B., & López-Gunn, E. (2013). Is the
rebound effect or Jevons paradox a useful concept for beterr management of
water resources? Insights from the irrigation modernisation process in Spain.
Aquatic procedia, 1, 64-76.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989, Oct.). Building theories from case
study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
FPA. (2014). US Flexible Packaging - State of the
Industry Report. Linthicum, MD: FPA.
Freire-González, J., & Puig-Ventosa, I. (2015). Energy
Efficiency Policies and the Jevons Paradox. International Journal of
Energy Economics and Policy, 5(1), 69-79.
Gaston, K. J., Davies, T. W., Bennie, J., & Hopkins, J.
(2012). Reducing the ecological consequences of night-time light pollution:
options and developments. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(6), pp.
1256-1266.
Genovese, A., Acquaye, A., Figueroa, A., & Koh, S. L.
(2017, June). Sustainable supplychainmanagementandthetransitiontowards a
circular economy: evidence and some applications. Omega, 66, pp.
344-357.
Gentil, E., Gallo, D., & Christensen, T. (2011).
Environmental evaluation of municipal waste prevention. Waste management,
31, pp. 2371-2379.
Gillingham, K., Kotchen, M. J., Rapson, D. S., & Wagner,
G. (2013, Jan.). The rebound effect is overplayed. Nature, 493,
475-476.
Goedkoop, M. J., van Halen, C. J., te Riele, H. R., &
Rommens, P. J. (1999). Product service systems, ecological and economic
basics. Amersfoort, the Netherlands: Dutch ministries of Environment and
Economic Affairs.
Golsteijn, L., Menkveld, R., King, H., Schneider, C.,
Schowanek, D., & Nissen, S. (2015). A compilation of life cycle studies
for six household detergent product categories in Europe: the basis for
product‑specific A.I.S.E. Charter Advanced Sustainability Profiles. Environmental
Sciences Europe, 27(1), 1-12.
Grabs, J. (2015, May 19). The rebound effect of switching
to vegetarianism. A microeconomic analysis of Swedish consumption behavior. Ecological
economics, 116, 270-279.
Greening, L. A., Greene, D. L., & Difiglio, C. (2000).
Energy effciency and consumption - the rebound effect - a survey. Energy
Policy, 28, 389-401.
Grönman, K., Soukka, R., Järvi-Kääriäinen, T., Katajajuuri,
J.-M., Kuisma, M., Koivupuro, H.-K., & Ollila, M. (2013). Framework for
Sustainable Food Packaging Design. Packaging Technology and Science, 26(4),
187-200.
Hirsch, R. L., Bezdek, R., & Wendling, R. (2006).
Peaking of world oil production and its mitigation. AIChE Journal, 52(1),
2-8.
Humbert, S., Rossi, V., Margni, M., Jolliet, O., &
Loerincik, Y. (2009, Jan.). Life cycle assessment of two baby food packaging
alternatives: glass jars vs. plastic pots. The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, 14(2), 95-106.
Huppes, G., & Ishikawa, M. (2005, October).
Eco-efficiency and its terminology. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(4),
pp. 43-46.
Lewis, D. (1977). Estimating the influence of public policy
on road traffic levels in greater London. Journal of Transport Economics
and Policy, 11(2), pp. 155-168.
Lindh, H., Olsson, A., & Williams, H. (2015, Nov.).
Consumer Perceptions of Food Packaging: Contributing to or Counteracting
Environmentally Sustainable Development? Packaging Technology and Science,
29, 3-23.
MacKerron, K. B. (2015). Waste and Opportunity 2015:
Environmental Progress and Challenges in Food, Beverage and Consumer Goods
Packaging. Oakland, EUA: Natural Resources Defense Council and As You
Sow.
Makanjuola, S. A., & Enujiugha, V. N. (2015). How consumers
estimate the size and appeal of flexible packaging. Food quallity and
preference, 39, 236-240.
Manzardo, A., Mazzi, A., Loss, A., Butler, M., Williamson,
A., & Scipioni, A. (2016, August). Lessons learned from the application
of different water footprint approaches to compare different food packaging
alternatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 4657-4666.
Marcinkowski, A., & Kowalski, A. M. (2012, September).
The problem of preparation the food packaging waste for recycling in Poland. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 69, pp. 10-16.
Matos, F. J., & Silva, F. J. (2011). The rebound effect
on road freight transport: Empirical evidence from Portugal. Energy
Policy, 39(5), 2833-2841.
Meneses, M., Pasqualino, J., & Castells, F. (2012,
May). Environmental assessment of the milk life cycle: The effect of
packaging selection and the variability of milk production data. Journal
of Environmental Management, 107, 76-83.
Mogridge, M. J. (1990). Travel in towns: jam yesterday,
jam today and jam tomorrow? Londres: Macmillan Press.
Natura.
(2011). Relatório de sustentabilidade. São Paulo, Brasil.
Nessi, S.,
Rigamonti, L., & Grosso, M. (2015). Packaging waste prevention
activities: a life cycle assessment of the effects on a regional waste
management system. Waste Management & Research, 33(9), pp.
833-849.
Pelton, R. E., Li, M., Smith, T. M., & Lyon, T. P.
(2016, June). Optimizing eco-efficiency across the procurement portfolio. Environmental
Science & Technology, 50(11), pp. 5908-5918.
Poovarodom, N., Ponnak, C., & Manatphrom, N. (2012,
July). Comparative Carbon Footprint of Packaging Systems for Tuna Products. Packaging
Technology and Science, 25, 249-257.
Poovarodom, N., Ponnak, C., & Manatphrom, N. (2015).
Impact of production and conversion processes on the carbon footprint of
flexible plastic film. Packaging technology and science, 28, 519-528.
Porpino, G., Parente, J., & Wansink, B. (2015). Food
waste paradox: antecedents of food disposal in low income households. International
journal of consumer studies, 39, 619-629.
Qingbin, S., Jinhui, L., & Xianlai, Z. (2015).
Minimizing the increasing solid waste through zero waste strategy. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 104, pp. 199-210.
Ravi, V. (2015, April). Analysis of interactions among
barriers of eco-efficiency in electronics packaging industry. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 101, pp. 16-25.
Rouw, M., & Worrel, E. (2011, v. 55). Evaluating the
impacts of packaging policy in the Netherlands. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, pp. 483-492.
Saunders, H. D. (1992). The Khazzoom-Brookes postulate and
neoclassical growth. The energy journal, 13(4), 131-148.
Sustainable Packaging Coalition. (2011). Definition of
sustainable packaging. Version 2.0. Sustainable Packaging Coalition,
Charlottesville, VA.
Tencati, A., Pogutz, S., Moda, B., Brambilla, M., &
Cacia, C. (2016, June). Prevention policies addressing packaging and
packaging waste: Some emerging trends. Waste management, 56, pp.
35-45.
UNEP/SETAC. (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle
assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Drik in de
weer.
Unilever. (2014).
Relatório de Sustentabilidade. São Paulo, Brazil.
Unilever.
(2015). Relatório de Sustentabilidade. São Paulo, Brazil.
Van Ewijk, S., & Stegemann, J. (2016). Limitations of
the waste hierarchy for achieving absolute reductions in material throughput.
132, pp. 122-128.
van Sluisveld, M. A., & Worrell, E. (2013). The paradox
of packaging optimization – a characterization of packaging source. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, pp. 133-142.
Verghese, K., Lewis, H., Lockrey, S., & Williams, H.
(2015, April). Packaging’s Role in Minimizing Food Loss and Waste Across the
Supply Chain. Packaging Technology and Science, 28, pp. 603-620.
Vivanco, D. F., & van der Voet, E. (2014). The rebound
effect through industrial ecology’s eyes: a review of LCA-based studies. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(12), 1933 -1947.
Vivanco, F. D., Kemp, R., Voet, E., & Heijungs, R.
(2014). Using LCA‐based decomposition analysis to study the multidimensional contribution
of technological innovation to environmental pressures. Journal of
industrial ecology, 18(3), 380-392.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1997). Perceptual and
structural barriers to investing in natural capital: economics from an
ecological footprint perspective. Ecological Economics, 20(3), 3-24.
Whetten, D. (2009). Modeling theoretic propositions. In A.
S. Huff, Designing research for publication (pp. 217-250). California:
Sage.
Wikström, F., & Williams, H. (2010, May). Potential
environmental gains from reducing food losses through development of new
packaging: a life-cycle model. Packaging Technology and Science, 23,
403-411.
Wikström, F., Williams, H., Karli, V., & Clune, S.
(2013, Vo. 73). The influence of packaging attributes on consumer behaviour
in food-packaging LCA studies - a neglected topic. Journal of Cleaner
Production, pp. 100-118.
Williams, H., & Wikström, F. (2011). Environmental
impact of packaging and food losses in a life cycle perspective: a
comparative analysis of five food items. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19,
43-48.
World Packaging Organisation. (2008). Market Statistics
and Future Trends in Global Packaging. São Paulo, Brazil.
Xie, M., Qiao,
Q., Sun, Q., & Zhang, L. (2012, October). Life cycle assessment of
composite packaging waste management - a Chinese case study on aseptic
packaging. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, pp.
626-635.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Introduction. In R. K. Yin, Case study
research: design and methods (pp. 1-16). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications, Inc.
York, R. (2006). Ecological paradoxes: William Stanley
Jevons and the paperless office. Human ecology review, 13(2), 143-147.
No comments:
Post a Comment