Eco-Friendliness Assessment Of Primary Food Packaging : A case study to assess relevant criteria and evaluate packaging options for sustainable development.

Eco-friendliness

assessment of primary

food packaging

PAPER WITHIN: Industrial Engineering & Management AUTHOR: Abdul Wahab & Carl Kessler

TUTOR: Marco Santos

JÖNKÖPING June 2021

A case study to assess relevant criteria and evaluate

packaging options for sustainable development.

We would like to thank our thesis supervisor, Marco Santos from School of Engineering at Jönköping University and also, we would like to thank all our family and friends who have been very supportive during this whole process. A special thanks to GREENFORCE for letting us investigate this case, especially to Nick Helleberg, and Umut Ölmez for giving us this opportunity and providing deep insights and support when times were busy.

This bachelor thesis work has been carried out at the School of Engineering in Jönköping within the area of Sustainable Supply Chain Management. The authors take full responsibility for opinions, conclusions and findings presented.

Co-assessor: Denis Coelho Supervisor: Marco Santos Scope: 15 credits

Mailing address: Visiting address: Telephone:

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to investigate how food start-ups (FS) can make their

primary food packaging (PFP) more eco-friendly by identifying and evaluating the performance of suited packaging alternative. The purpose was fulfilled by answering the three research questions:

RQ1) How to assess the eco-friendliness of PFP?

RQ2) Which are areas of improvement in environmental performance? RQ3) What are the differences in performance across similar PFP’s?

Methods: To answer the research questions both the literature review and empirical data was

required. The literature study was conducted to gather relevant theories about primary food packaging in food start-ups. To get the required empirical data, a single case study was conducted at a case company that suited the subject. The case study consisted of multiple interviews and document study. This enabled for an analysis in the form of pattern matching in order to answer the research questions and achieve the purpose.

Findings: The Study found that to assess the PFP that have direct impact on the environment

the functional features and the environmental framework play a central role in the eco-friendliness of PFPs which analyzed the requirements for the PFP and a multi criteria decision making approach for the environmental assessment for the Green-PE. The stakeholder expectations were found by analyzing the criterion for the PFP. In addition, a comparison for an eco-friendlier alternative was analyzed with the current Green-PE to justify the performance for the PFP in FS.

Implications: The study results present practical implications with assessing the current

Green-PE and evaluating the gaps for improvement areas, while also comparing similar PFP which is an eco-friendlier option for food packaging start-ups. As there has been no general theoretical implications, the findings of the thesis can be used as a basis for deeper insights into the subject through more extensive research.

Delimitations & Scope: The focus was to identify and evaluate the current PFP

environmental impact and not the other aspects of the life cycle assessment since the scope was limited. Also, a single case study was used rather than multiple case studies to analyze the eco-friendliness for PEPs.

Keywords: Sustainable food packaging, Primary food packaging (PFP), Functional

aspects, Environmental assessment framework, food startups (FS)

List of Abbreviations: SC- Supply chain

PFP- Primary food packaging FS- Food start-ups

SD- Sustainable Development RQ- Research Question

Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

Introduction ... 1

1.1PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 2

1.2DELIMITATIONS ... 2

1.3OUTLINE ... 3

2.

Theoretical background ... 4

2.1 SUSTAINABILITY IN FOOD PACKAGING ... 4

2.1.1TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ... 4

2.1.2SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT &ACTORS ... 5

2.1.3SUSTAINABILITY IN FOOD PACKAGING’S LIFE CYCLE ... 5

2.2 REVERSE ENGINEERING ... 6

2.2.1DEFINITION ... 6

2.2.2ASSESSING CRITERIA FOR PFP ... 6

2.2.3FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS (REQUIREMENTS AND EXPECTATIONS) ... 7

2.2.4ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ... 8

2.2.5MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING ... 10

2.3. PACKAGING MATERIAL INNOVATION FOR ECO-FRIENDLINESS ... 11

2.3.1MATERIALS ... 11

2.3.2WASTE END-OF-LIFE CYCLE ... 11

2.3.3CLARIFICATION ON MORE SUSTAINABLE PLASTICS ... 13

3.

Methods and Implementation ... 14

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN ... 14

3.2 DATA COLLECTION ... 18

3.3 DATA ANALYSIS ... 21

3.4 DATA QUALITY ... 23

4.

Findings & Analysis ... 25

4.1.1FULFILLING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR GREENFORCE ... 25

4.1.2FULFILLING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FRUTAROM ... 26

4.1.3ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ... 28

4.2WHICH ARE AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE? ... 33

4.2.1IDENTIFICATION OF THE STAKEHOLDER’S EXPECTATIONS ... 33

4.2.2ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORK RESULTS ... 34

4.2.3SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS AREAS ... 35

4.3WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE ACROSS SIMILAR PFP’S? ... 37

4.3.1FULFILLING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REPAQ ... 37

4.3.2ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORK ASSESSMENT ... 40

5.

Discussion ... 44

5.1 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND CONTRIBUTIONS ... 44

5.1.1. HOW TO ASSESS THE ECO-FRIENDLINESS OF PFP? ... 44

5.1.2. WHICH ARE AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE? . 45 5.1.3. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE ACROSS SIMILAR PFP’S? ... 47

5.2 DISCUSSION OF METHOD ... 49 5.3 CONCLUSIONS ... 51 5.3.1FURTHER RESEARCH: ... 51

References ... 52

Appendices ... 56

Contents

Table of Figures:

Figure 1. Triple bottom line of sustainability for food industry ... 4

Figure 2. Simplified framework for food packaging environmental criteria by Molina‐Besch & Pålsson (2020) ... 9

Figure 3. The Waste Hierarchy by DEFRA (2011) ... 12

Figure 4. Connection between methods and research questions ... 14

Figure 5. Pattern matching approach for data analysis ... 22

Figure 6. Criteria weighting for environmental framework ... 30

Figure 7. Score comparison between Green-PE and REPAQ ... 42

List of Tables: Table 1. Keywords ... 15

Table 2. Interviews ... 19

Table 3. Document studies ... 20

Table 4. Criteria 1 requirements fulfilled of GREENFORCE ... 26

Table 5. Criteria 2 requirements fulfilled of GREENFORCE ... 26

Table 6. Green-PE assessed through the quantitative eco-friendliness framework .... 28

Table 7. Score revision of Green-PE ... 31

Table 8. Requirements fulfilled for REPAQ ... 37

1. Introduction

In recent years, the human population has had a massive growth, and consequently, did the consumption of food (Roer et al., 2013). Alongside, imbalances in the natural environment are causing numerous global impacts which confronts our current lifestyle and growth. These challenges are arising because of unsustainable human activities like harmful emissions and waste and destruction of natural habitats and ecosystem (Hall et al., 2009).

The food industry accounts for about 26% of global GHG emissions, of which 18% are directly related to the supply chain (Ritchie & Roser, 2020). On top of that food loss and waste accounts for about 6% of the global GHG emissions, and this is not the end of the story as other limited natural resources like water and land are largely claimed from the food industries activities and therefore taken out of its natural lifecycle (Ritchie & Roser, 2020). The inefficiency of our system is flagrant as almost 20% of food that is still usable, and consumable is thrown away (Guillard et al., 2018). While this continuously growing sector is therefore challenged to reduce its impact while striving to satisfy society´s demand of quality standards, safe products, affordable prices and the use of plastic packaging in food sector to be reduced as it is causing great impact on the environment and natural habitat.

One part of the packaging used throughout the product life cycle is the primary food

packaging (PFP). It is in direct contact with the food and plays therefore a central role for the preservation and safety of food, which also implies the minimalizing of food loss and waste (Grönman et al., 2013; Barlow and Morgan, 2013; Guillard et al., 2018). While costumers are driving the demand for food products through consumption, food start-ups (FS), which are emerging companies bringing new products or services to the food market, play a major role in product innovation and therefore in the evolution of customer consumption (Ionica and Leba, 2017; Cantamessa et al., 2018). Therefore, while a central element of FS is growth, they are also of primary importance for sustainable development (Ionica and Leba, 2017). To tackle the increasing environmental issues and transitioning towards sustainable practices, which requires holistic supply chain improvements, it is important for FS to be able to assess carefully the eco-friendliness of available alternatives (Vilarino et al., 2017). Thus, the identification of relevant PFP features and the assessment of alternative option is trivial for improvements in the environmental performance of FS.

Introduction

1.1 Purpose and research questions

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate how food start-ups (FS) can make their primary food packaging (PFP) more eco-friendly by identifying and evaluating the performance of suited packaging alternative.

RQ1) How to assess the eco-friendliness of PFP?

RQ2) Which are areas of improvement in environmental performance? RQ3) What are the differences in performance across similar PFP’s?

1.2 Delimitations

This study has been done entirely digitally without any possibility to interact physically due to the on-going Covid-19 pandemic, therefore limiting the possibility to gather data in person and making access to primary data limited. The information is mainly gathered through the FS and their packaging manufacturer as they were the representative party the authors judged to best represent and be informed about the product packaging in question. Even though other SC actors have been considered, customer opinions for example have also been collected, from which the data was nevertheless secondary. Additionally, information from other relevant SC stakeholders have not been collected such as producers and transporting actors due to the difficulty and time consumption of reaching these customers.

The use of quantitative measurements has therefore also been limited to certain criteria which were judged to be representative to draw reasonable conclusions instead of a full life-cycle analysis which requires more extensive information. As, the focus of this study is to investigate the eco-friendliness of current PFP and explore the improvements in FS,

delimitations have been made which consists of the impact of packaging on the economic and social pillar of sustainability. Those are not fully covered as this would exceed the scope of the study. The study will also not cover other improvement areas within the SC like the lifecycle of the product as this would outreach the means of the thesis and take away the focus from the packaging. Nevertheless, the impact on product waste could not be ignored due to its importance.

The primary packaging is the only one considered in this paper as considering the other ones would exceed the scope of this thesis. Also, the main focus will be on packaging materials as it had the most impact on the environment rather than production of product packaging.

1.3 Outline

The report has been structured through the following chapters: Chapter 1 Introduction:

This chapter brings the background to the study and describes the problem area for the study. Furthermore, the study’s purpose and research questions are presented. In addition, the scope and delimitations are described.

Chapter 2 Theoretical background:

Introduces the reader to the literature review of sustainable packaging focusing on concepts related to sustainable development and the triple bottom line. Additionally, relevant

functional aspects for primary food packaging and environmental impact theories will be presented. Finally, some alternative options for sustainable packaging will be presented and innovation terms.

Chapter 3 Methodology and Implementation:

This chapter describes the research design and approach along with data collection methods through interviews and document study and an evaluation of the research quality.

Chapter 4 Findings and Analysis:

The chapter shows the results from the empirical data and an analysis in connection with the literature review.

Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusion:

This chapter discusses and concludes the study. The research questions are answered, and the methodology is discussed. Finally, the conclusions and recommendations are provided for further research.

Theoretical Background

2. Theoretical background

In this section a light will be shed on the previous theories and knowledge that are related with primary food packaging. As the purpose of this study is to investigate how food start-ups (FS) can make their primary food packaging (PFP) more eco-friendly with assessing the current performance as well as for new sustainable solutions therefore, literature review holds great importance to justify the framework used and support the evaluations. The first section will include the concept of sustainability including the Triple Bottom Line, sustainable supply chain actor’s considerations as well as sustainability throughout food packaging´s lifecycle. The second section will introduce the concept of Reverse Engineering and present both the functional considerations and relevant environmental assessment criteria. The last section will present an overview of current PFP practices as well as ecofriendly innovation terms.

2.1 Sustainability in food packaging 2.1.1 Triple Bottom Line

The term triple bottom line (TBL) and sustainability were first introduced by John Elkington in 1994 and the purpose was to make food businesses more sustainable according to (Kenton, 2021). The concept of triple bottom line contains three dimensions an economic, an

environmental and social aspect. The three dimensions of TBL when combined together contribute to the natural environment and the society with a long-term economic advantage (Rezaei et al., 2019). Furthermore, sustainability is a wide concept and basically it means creating a better future for generations to come with reducing the carbon footprint and also making social and economic contributions that adds value.

2.1.2 Sustainable supply chain Management & Actors

In the 1980s, Seuring & Muller, (2008) started the concept of sustainable supply chain management which is management of materials, communication flows and investment flows through the supply chain by improving the environmental, social and economic aspects that are of value for the end customers and also the stakeholders. This concept was further developed by Carter & Roger defining SSCM as:

“a strategic integration and achievement of an organizations social, environmental and economic goals in a systematic coordination in business processes for improving the long-term economic performance within their supply chain”.

Therefore, to connect this, sustainability in supply chain has an important position since it sets a direction for organizations to be more eco-friendly. Thus, it is important to consider as the main Supply chain actors in FS consist of suppliers, retailers and consumers whereby the other SC actors are also important which will be also highlighted but not discussed.

2.1.3 Sustainability in food packaging’s life cycle

Sustainability in food-packaging industries started in the 19th _{century which holds}

improvements for the quality and safety of the food and also the companies which were doing this were gaining competitive advantage by digging deeper in their packaging life cycle (Rezaei et al., 2019). Life cycle is a framework which aims to “evaluate the resource consumption and environmental impacts of a certain product or process”. It links raw materials, production, processing, packaging, use and end of life (Heller & Keoleian, 2003). Most industrial food products, fresh or shelf-stable, come in a packaging nowadays. The one directly around the product is called primary packaging. This is the most known as it is the one reaching to the customer. There is also secondary packaging and tertiary packaging, used for grouping the products within the supply chain and at the retailer level. This paper will focus on the primary food packaging (PFP). The packaging can be defined by its material(s) and its design.

Product packaging key features are to limit food spoilage, be designed for user in quantity and ease emptying, as well as show relevant packaging information (Heller et al., 2019). When looking at improving certain packaging characteristics, isolated modifications can have overall benefits on the product performance, but only when the tradeoffs don´t outweigh the benefits (D. Russell, 2014; Grönman et al., 2013; Barlow and Morgan, 2013). Therefore, the influence of factors within the whole lifecycle of the product has to be taken into account when assessing alternatives. Therefore, it is worth noticing that life cycle holds an important position when designing a product and also making the packaging features suitable for the consumers. So, in the next section concepts related to those functions in a supply chain that run-in a opposite flow will be presented.

Theoretical Background

2.2 Reverse Engineering

2.2.1 Definition

Reverse engineering is a method that can be used to meet the set properties goals by defining which are the prerequisites needed (Thomopoulos et al., 2019). In food packaging it is quite crucial to find the best properties of an end product as it relies on various factors and sources which include safety, preservation of food, hygiene, environmental impacts, customer expectations and other factors such as cost Thomopoulos et al. (2019) so, for any type of modification within the design of product or services this method helps to identify the right option by evaluating the identified output performance levels. It is the customer demand that is taken into consideration rather than supply to set requirement specifications. For defining the standards within these requirements, it is important that the stakeholders take actions to improve certain aspects in their supply chain that help them to become more efficient and effective.

In this study, for aiming at improving environmental performance of PFP, the functions stated in 2.1.3 must be further developed as well defining accurately what Eco friendliness means for PFP. In the next section, requirements and expectations from different stakeholders will be identified for functional aspects of PFP and a general assessing framework for the eco-friendliest criteria relevant for PFP will be presented as well as a suited multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method will be proposed for case-specific application.

2.2.2 Assessing criteria for PFP

The main aspects to consider, for both the functions and the overall impact of a product through its lifecycle are product features, information flows, Functional aspects,

environmental impact and economic considerations (Marsh & Bugusu, 2007). In an ideal world, the packaging would support the functional requirements in terms of quality and safety. It would also correspond to the customer satisfaction, functional aesthetic and informational expectations. The whole lifecycle of the product material would be circular while optimizing resources and reducing all types of waste or pollution. The overall cost would also be reduced (Marsh & Bugusu, 2007). SC actors can help to identify and judge the corresponding aspects of their product as they are the stakeholders that are in primary contact with products lifecycle and influence its flows.

2.2.3 Functional Aspects (Requirements and Expectations)

First of all, to look for the functional aspects of primary food packaging in FS it is to consider the package design, the materials used as well as the over life cycle of the product packaging. Primary packaging function accounts for the protection which is achieved by packaging that is impact-resistant and less fragile. The next function of PFP is product handling that consists of keeping the products well contaminated and reducing the solid wastes. Moreover, hygiene is another function of PFP that relates mostly to the customers, and it is of importance that the product is safe and well protected as well as helps from odors to escape for example using multi-layer bags that are recyclable (Barlow & Morgan, 2013).

The Preservation criteria control the shelf life of food products by avoiding light, heat, bacteria and mineral oil and gases from occurring (Schmidt & Godwin Schmidt, 2019). Also connected with this another criterion of primary packaging is containment of food to be of better quality as well as saves it from damages therefore it is important to package products with the right properties. Furthermore, it is worth noticing that the design and labels on the packaging can also contribute to information flow which are linked with customers and these functionalities include the identification of product, nutrient value, transparency and

manufacturers information that is another role that leads to product packaging life cycle (Marsh & Bugusu, 2007). The functional barriers mainly consist of food safety for the user, protection and contamination of the product and also that the legislations are fulfilled with certifications which are according to the European council standards (Hänsch et al., 1995). The roles of food packaging play an important part in the overall supply chain as well with the different stakeholders including the primary stakeholders, suppliers and also customers. According to the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC, 2021) sustainable packaging should cover certain aspects such as meeting the right market requirements, is safe and healthy to consume and also based on renewable practices being biologically in a closed loop according to (Verghese et al., 2010). The common way to assess the functional aspect of packaging is through using some set requirements and also following them up using an expectation that suits the different stakeholders needs (Grönman et al., 2013).

These set requirements from the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC, 2021) form key performance indicators in terms of a checklist that show the relationship that is either

approved or not approved (Kishita et al., 2010). The aim for this is to show the importance of certain criteria that is fit for use and can therefore be used to assess the functional aspects for PFP. For judging the PFP functions the life cycle of the product design is taken into

consideration also and thus using this checklist format that will answer the current situation of PFP in FS can be formed. So according to Grönman et al. (2013) a tool is proposed in a form of a table where a comparison can be performed using the key performance indicators that fall under the criteria of food packaging for the current situation. Furthermore, for indicators that require more detail can be followed by a set of questions that can be qualitatively approached which could include expectations like improvements for future

Theoretical Background

which form certain arguments and by doing so evaluations for the current performance can be highlighted.

Another framework proposed by Olsmats & Dominic, (2003) shows the way criteria can be analyzed and the different SC actors can contribute such can be obtained through customers, retailers and packaging supplier knowledge using a interviews where these stakeholders can be questioned for functional criteria mentioned earlier so that they can highlight the important factors within PFP design and also, using a data set from previously done surveys that show quantitative information from the customers perspective to identify the gaps and compare what the customers actually want to see in future packaging FS by benefiting the customers with cost effective products and hence, minimizing the environmental impact (Marsh & Bugusu, 2007). So, to sum it up it becomes a challenge for FS that customers are satisfied with the product and more importantly the SC actors, by making continues improvements to become eco-friendly as well as cutting costs from unnecessary waste produced with

packaging materials.

2.2.4 Environmental Impact Assessment

For judging how changes in operations affect the overall environment, it is necessary to keep in mind the interrelation of all factors. This means the best use of resources throughout the entire life cycle with minimal emission of wastes (D. Russell, 2014). Under other, it is also primary to consider the function packaging plays in reducing food loss and waste, which can outweigh the reduction in packaging´s environmental impact (Grönman et al., 2013; Barlow and Morgan, 2013). The most common practice to assess the environmental practice of packaging is through a LCA (life-cycle assessment) screenings, which require expertise and extensive case-knowledge to be used effectively (Molina‐Besch & Pålsson, 2020). To keep a wholistic perspective. it is important to take into consideration three main environmental impact areas of packaging: the packaging’s direct impact through its lifecycle, the indirect impact on food loss and or waste, and the circularity of the packaging resources (Pauer et al., 2019).

While there have been tools proposed, such as the one by Pauer et al. (2019) which identifies suiting Key Performance Indicators (KPI) that can be analyzed qualitatively. The KPI that are most relevant to the specific have to be identified and data such as FTP ratio needs to be calculated for promising results which implies extensive data on both food and packaging environmental impact which is not always available (Pauer et al., 2019). An alternative assessment framework has been proposed by Molina‐Besch & Pålsson, (2020) which includes a step-by-step guide of how to quantitatively assess the performance of food packaging through 4 main categories (see Figure 2). Packaging material and transport efficiency both relate to the direct impact of food packaging. The packaging end-of-life relates to the circularity while the food waste is also included which supports therefore all aspects to include for a wholistic perspective on the environmental impact. Even though this framework aims to include all food packaging aspects, only the PFP has been evaluated as the

material to be used is only the PFP material and the scope of this study has been limited in order to find relevant conclusion for the impact of the PFP.

Figure 2. Simplified framework for food packaging environmental criteria by Molina‐Besch & Pålsson (2020)

Firstly, the Packaging material includes material carbon footprint, non‐hazardous materials, renewable content and recycled content. Secondly, the transport efficiency includes Inbound transport distance and mode, Inbound transport load efficiency, Outbound transport weight efficiency, Outbound transport volume efficiency with an influence on food waste that includes both design and information characteristics depending on the identified criteria relevant to the product type. The design relates to containing the desired quantity, being easy to open, grip, dose and empty as well as being resealable.

Thirdly, the information is clear and visible, information about correct storage conditions, clear and visible information about right product dosage, clear and visible information about food safety. Finally, the Packaging end-of-life includes separation and sorting, Circular economy value, Amount of non‐recycled waste, Impact in waste incineration, littering likelihood, Littering impact. Each of these criteria can be graded from 0 until 4,

corresponding to the performance of the food packaging on the scale in the Appendix. While this simplified tool presents a visual solution, it offers little space for quantitative decision making and comparison with other options.

Theoretical Background

2.2.5 Multi-Criteria Decision Making

There are numerous tools presented in the area of interest. For example, the Best Worst Method for food product-package design application (Rezaei et al., 2019) or even

automatized digital software-oriented decision support systems (DSS) such as EcoBioCAP available online (Thomopoulos et al., 2019). These tools either imply expertise and advanced analysis methods or do not cover the studied industry of this research.

Nevertheless, a tool presented by (Olsmats & Dominic, 2003) was found which presents a multi-criteria decision method found to be effective for performance evaluation from SC actors. First, one assigns each individual criteria a weight on a scale of 0 to 100 and a score of 0 to 4. Then, the normalized weight is calculated by dividing the criterion weight by the sum of all weight assigned. Finally, an overall score is calculated by multiplying the normalized weight and score of each individual criterion and summing them up (Olsmats & Dominic, 2003). This calculation method results in a final score that can also be applied to the presented criteria which gives the opportunity to result in a quantitative score that can be compared between alternatives (Olsmats & Dominic, 2003). For evaluating alternatives only, the score is changed, the weighting assigned needs to remain the same as this is not

dependent on the option but on the case evaluated. This tool includes both a holistic view as well as the aim of to satisfy the customer needs which is of primary importance to the SC in order to be viable (Olsmats & Dominic, 2003).

2.3. Packaging material innovation for eco-friendliness

First, some suited materials will be presented, where plastic is identified as a prominent area for SD. Then, some emerging alternatives will be presented in terms of relative

environmental performance.

2.3.1 Materials

There are a variety of PFP used depending on the content and the product requirements in terms of protection, preservation, customizability and more. The most common ones are plastic, glass, paper (including cardboard), metal (including aluminum and tins), as well as combinations of the following (Marsh & Bugusu, 2007; Rangappa et al., 2020). The eco-friendliness of these packaging materials varies. One main area of concern is plastic as it is a non-renewable resource based on fossil fuels which causes end-of-life issues (Rangappa et al., 2020). They can take thousands of years to decompose and create both pollution problems as well as impacting natural ecosystems (Rangappa et al., 2020). Unfortunately, 70% of all plastic collected will end up in landfills or burnt, and as the food packaging industry accounts for the usage of 40% of all produced plastic, it is a main area where improvements are not only beneficial, but necessary (Rangappa et al., 2020). As plastic polymers are greatly suited for the food preservation and safety while presenting financial and functional diversity, they are the primary choice for various type of foods (Rangappa et al., 2020). To find viable and more eco-friendly alternatives, similar benefits as plastic are of importance in alternatives. Some main categories of potential plastic replacing materials will be presented in the following section.

2.3.2 Waste end-of-life cycle

As seen in the environmental assessment section (2.2.4.), resources are used and waste is created directly through the food packaging material as well as through production SC, by its impact on the food waste and through its end-of-life cycle. It is important to know the type of impact that can result from each of these impact areas before discussion of new possibilities. The first three sections are quite easy to understand. The material can relate to aspects such as renewability and availability of resources. The direct impact of the production chain relates to both resource usage, such as air, water, land etc. and to emissions such as greenhouse gases, CO2 (being the most common one), methane, etc. The food wastage relates to the indirect function the packaging plays in using most efficiently the resources brought to the customer so that there is as little waste as possible as often the food content has a much higher direct environmental impact compared to its packaging. The last section is worth to explore a bit further. Food packaging can be sorted into different groups depending on their waste management. The waste hierarchy below is an adaption of the EU Commission Waste Hierarchy by DEFRA (2011) illustrating the main option of end-of-life options in order of environmental preference.

Theoretical Background

Figure 3. The Waste Hierarchy by DEFRA (2011)

The best choice is not to use any, but when manufacturing food products, that is often not an option as quality and safety standards wouldn´t be met. Everything that is not minimized, should as best as possible be integrated in a circular loop to prevent waste (Rangappa et al., 2020). A way of doing that could be to reduce the product packaging material or have multi-serving instead of individual-multi-serving products. When packaging sizes are bigger, significant reduction in GHG emissions were found, as the packaging has added benefits for easy to close and clean when emptied and food content can be divided into separate sections for disposal after use (Fresán et al., 2019).

The degree of efficiency to which the packaging resource is used with minimal effort will define the next steps of the pyramid. Re-usable packaging is the next best alternative that is viable in this sector as materials can often be transformed with minimal processing and as closely to the customer as possible. It consists in a packaging that has a higher utility than being food packaging and can be utilized and different ways afterwards (Rangappa et al., 2020; DEFRA, 2011). Recycling comes next, it often requires governmental infrastructure and well-organized systems to be a feasible option. It consists in the material going through a looped cycle by either industrial or natural processes to result in a new material. When packaging materials are mixed or used together, they often become unrecyclable as each material undergoes different methods (Rangappa et al., 2020). Composting is often a preferred approach because it involves no harmful effects on its environment and closes its lifecycle by turning into natural particles again (DEFRA, 2011).

Recovery is another way to extract, at least partially, resources from the packaging, such as energy. It does not remain in a closed cycle and there might be emissions or residues harmful to the environment (DEFRA, 2011). The last, and least-favored option is landfill, which is the disposal without any type of resource recuperation undergone. And very often, with the

long-time issue of creating waste that through its accumulation, pollutes the environment and disturbs the balance of earth´s ecosystem (DEFRA, 2011). As previously stated, plastic can be recyclable but is not a material that can fully decompose and is therefore neither

biodegradable nor compostable, on top of that, most plastic nowadays will enter the two least favored stage in the waste hierarchy (Rangappa et al., 2020; DEFRA, 2011). In the next section, some general innovation for decreasing the use of plastic will be presented.

2.3.3 Clarification on more sustainable plastics

There is a wide range of ways to reduce plastic. While it can be replaced by materials such as the ones from section (2.3.1), at least when the related food packaging requirements are not compromised, there are material alternatives which are physically closer to regular plastic. The first of 2 main areas of interest are biopolymers (also called bio-based polymers or Green PE), which are made out of natural resources such as plant, animal and microbial material. While their functional properties might be criticized, their renewability is favorable for a circular material cycle and superior to fossil-fuels in that aspect. They are majorly made of polysaccharides and protein molecules (Rangappa et al., 2020; Ashger et al., 2020).

Secondly, biodegradable materials offer end-of-life advantage as they decompose when they are put under the right atmospherically conditions. This has also been extended to

compostable materials which decompose entirely and in a natural environment in much shorter time than alternatives. (Rangappa et al., 2020; Ashger et al., 2020).

It is relevant to note that, while biopolymers are renewably sourced compounds, they are not always biodegradable (Sudesh & Iwata, 2008). These variants also support further whole packaging design innovation, in which the whole packaging concept can be redesigned to suit the product and the seeked Eco friendliness performance. One example could be edible coating which might be suited for the replacement of some type of fresh food plastic foils (Rangappa et al., 2020).

Methodology & Implementation

3.

Methods and Implementation

The study approach and strategy will be described which consists of a case study will be presented first, and then the corresponding case company will be described along with the data collection methods. Also, data analysis and data quality will be discussed.

3.1.1. Link between Research Questions & Methods

To answer the study’s purpose and research questions mixed methods were used in

combination. In figure 4 the link between the methods and research questions is presented. The arrows represent which method is used to answer each research question. Also, a systematic logic why the methods used to answer the research questions is handled in the analysis section below.

Figure 4. Connection between methods and research questions

3.1.2. Research Approach

Within the topic of primary food packaging there are many previous theories but there is a lack of deeper understanding when it comes to requirements and expectations that influence the environmental and functional aspects which makes this case study an exploratory research. So, this case study focuses on displaying a connection that highlights assessing criterion within PFP and also comparing similar improved solutions rather than finding the best packaging options. The fact that this case study is based on previous theories which makes it deductive approach (Yin, 2006). Also, the way the data collected use frameworks from the literature review also show that it’s a deductive approach. Qualitative data can be described as non-numerical data (Wallén, 1993). In order to explore a question, the benefits are that it relies on interviews and observations. The quantitative data is expressed with numbers which is helped with mathematical formulas proposed by Dahmström, (2005) and declares improvement opportunities with an in-depth analysis for the problem. The case study complied both qualitative and quantitative data with interviews that shows the current

situation which were compared with the secondary data from the literature study and document studies to draw patterns for accurate conclusions.

3.1.3. Literature Study

The literature study provides understanding of the topic for the authors and the reader thus, it allows to gather and evaluate the scientific sources to provide unbiased research (Winchester & Salji, 2016). The benefits of using a Literature study are basically to systematically collect and synthesizing previous research (Snyder, 2019). Literature study has been used as a secondary data for the assessment of PFP in FS. This is to get a deeper understanding of the case field and explore the preliminary theory in connection with the primary data collected (Yin, 2006). Hence, this method is chosen to closely look into the different frameworks already in practice and then use those to analyze the situation with the case.

The type of literature collected includes textbooks, dissertations, websites and scientific articles. There were several databases used to search for relevant literature. The main sources were taken from the online library of Jönköping University. The dissertations regarding the subject area were found through further advanced literature search. There was use of databases such as Primo, Scopus, Pro-Quest central, Google Scholar, Science Direct which were used to retrieve the scientific articles. It was possible to find many different articles mostly peer-reviewed with the advance search. Also, keywords that were used in the search can be seen in Table 1, which show the main area and the combinations of words.

Methodology & Implementation

3.1.4 Case-study

The research design used within this paper is a case study which was introduced by Dyer and Wilkins, (1991) as an approach which focuses to get deeper insights into a case company that is being analyzed while also elaborating on existing theories. Also, to add more, Williamson, (2002) considers case study to be a good approach for the development of a concept and also to explore the theories. Thus, the structure for this study is based on the literature and then deploying the concepts into the case company.

For our exploratory research, a single case study was chosen as it provides the practical setting for the application of theoretically gathered knowledge while also suiting the limited scope of this study. This is considered as a suitable design as it provides a specific context to investigate the area of primary food packaging, as the packaging criteria and options impact are very case-specific which makes the quantitative data for this study to be difficult to generalize for a sample. The main issue with a single case study is that it limits the possibility to create generalizations to the population. However, it can be relatable, with generalizing qualitative data where others to take guidance and do further research and extend the theories for a bigger population (Mills et al., 2009).

This study evaluates packaging options in the case study through the gathered and interpreted knowledge of current literature. The company selected was

GREENFORCE, as it was corresponding to the criteria of being a food start-up, as well as being engaged and working towards sustainable development in the area of interest which facilitated both communication with the stakeholders as well as topic related knowledge. The assessment criteria will include both general requirements and expectation functions, but the main focus will be on evaluating the wholistic environmental impact to analyze the current performance as well as highlight the important factors and compare them with innovative alternative. The study includes both input from the studied company, their manufacturer, packaging suppliers and their customers as the main supply chain actors. A comparison will be made with REPAQ which is a similar PFP and was mentioned by GREENFORCE as an alternative solution. REPAQ is a compostable packaging made of a combination of solely natural resources (REPAQ, 2021a). REPAQ has a range of food packaging offerings ranging from thin foils for cheese to stand-up pouches like the one used by GREENFORCE. All their packaging is made of the same material which will be adapted to the specific customer needs in order to both, assure the protection of the food product while also offering an optimal option in terms of eco-friendliness.

3.1.5 GREENFORCE

GREENFORCE is a food retail company that offers a range of different meat-alternative products in the form of powders that can be prepared by mixing the product with water and a drizzle of oil. These include vegan chicken, minced-meat, burgers, etc. They also offer protein powders and other supplements. The meat replacements are packaged in a stand-up pouch made of kraft paper (PAP) on the outside, has an inner lining of polyethylene (PE – plastic) and a resealable opening made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) called a zipper. Their packaging is currently being replaced by green PE made from plant-based raw materials instead of petroleum, which is non-renewable resource and an environmentally heavy fossil-fuel.

A reason for this is internal corporate engagement to be a pioneer of green practices and lead by example. One of their aims is to be carbon neutral. External motivators are already

increasing the requirements such as having recyclable packaging by 2025. They work with a manufacturer called Frutarom who sources and packages their products through a copacker. They work together closely to transition together to more environmentally friendly options and their main contact is a packaging specialist. Right now, the packaging has a thin inner layer of plastic that prevents the packaging from being a sustainable option as it will most likely end up in landfills and cannot be recycled. Green Force has a strong strive to reduce its environmental impact as much as possible and would want an alternative that makes this aspect of their supply chain more circular. The waste reduction of the food supply chain can be a major improvement for the products environmental impact and thus green packaging solutions is way for them to move forward.

Methodology & Implementation

3.2 Data Collection

3.2.1 Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were chosen as a data collection method to get a holistic view of the current state of primary food packaging at GREENFORCE. Semi-structured interviews were performed with a predefined and open-ended set of questions but with the possibility to dive further into areas of interest (Yin, 2009). It was selected as the authors of this paper aimed to gather new knowledge through the interviews and saw each interview as an

empirical learning process, which semi-structured supports well. The informality was also a potential advantage to fixed interviews as it allowed to maintain a relaxed atmosphere and had the potential for the interviewees to open up. Also adding to this Patel and Davidson (2011) argues that it gives the respondents freedom and flexibility to design the answers themselves. The interview method was also held digitally due to the COVID pandemic which was seen as an opportunity to be creative with ideas but at the same time took a lot of time to get the primary source of data that was required to carry out this study.

When using interviews, there is a chance that some information is overseen, due to much new information, inattention of the interviewees or even misunderstanding due to connection problems for example. To handle this issue, the interviews were kept semi structured and a lot of emphasize was put on forming the questionnaires and transcribing the important aspects into transcripts. Thanks to this, the interviewees were able to have more concise dialogue and get the information needed.

So, for this research, four main interviews were conducted with the stakeholders of

GREENFORCE and one interview with an alternative packaging REPAQ. The first interview was with the Chief commercial officer & Head of product management. It was done in an unstructured manner as this left the most space for the interviewees to freely share their thoughts on the problem, situation and goals of the study and the unstructured way follows a direction with the respondent’s responses that is an advantage (Corbin & Morse, 2003). In this way, the authors have the largest possible vision of the research problematic and also get general information regarding the case company. Also, there was a second part to this which was done in a semi structured way where, they were the main contact providing information regarding the product features and giving insights for their supply chain. The second

interview was conducted with the field expert who is a packaging supplier at (Frutarom) for GREENFORCE which was regarding the sourcing of GREENFORCES products and legislative requirements from a manufacturer’s perspective. Also, the authors conducted an interview with the marketing and business development team for the customer requirements and expectations for GREENFORCES products. Finally, an interview with chief technical officer for an alternative packaging was conducted called REPAQ which was to compare the results for PFP in a semi-structured way and answer the third research question.

For all the Semi-structured interviews a set of requirements were given for the PFP assessment which were in a form of specific questions and for stakeholder expectation improvements they were more open-ended questions. Once the interviews were conducted transcripts were rewritten from the note taking which were summarized and presented in the findings section.

Below in Table 2 the interviews performed are presented.

Methodology & Implementation

3.2.2 Document study

Document studies are used as a secondary data collection method to answer the research questions. Documents are considered very important for mapping the activities of the

stakeholders and strengthen the interviews (Patel & Davidson, 2011). Also, according to Yin (2006) documents are a written form of references which highlight a lot of relevance for a case study to support the primary data collected. All the documents were provided by the case company GREENFORCE. All the documents were sent as an PDF from which the authors filtered out the most relevant information that suited the purpose of this study. Documented studies were mainly used to complement the empirical data and to look into the other similar food packaging alternative. In table 3, the used documents from both GREENFORCE and the compared option REPAQ are presented.

Table 3. Document studies

Author Date Name

GREENFORCE 08.03.2021 Nachhaltigkeits Umfrage Ergebnisse GREENFORCE 12.04.2021 Verpackungen

GREENFORCE 10.03.2021 Verpackung Standup Pouch

REPAQ 27.05.2021 Agrarflächen für Biokunstoffe und Biofolien

REPAQ 2020 Konformitätserklärung RPQ-PA-CBST

REPAQ 29.03.2021 Statement MOSH / MOAH / POSH

REPAQ 01.2020 SDG assessment Superseven Imug

REPAQ 2020 Technisches Datenblatt RPQ-PA-CBST

REPAQ n.d. ZERO WASTE FOLIENVERPACKUNGEN

The first document from GREENFORCE is the customer survey results on the topic of sustainability, including customer opinions and vision. The second one is a more elaborate presentation comparing Green-PE with two alternative packaging options, including REPAQ, and analyzed through a variety of factors. The third on provides a primary illustration of the composition of the currently being implemented PFP compared to normal PE in terms of recyclability. The first REPAQ document gives an insight into their sourcing and vision on the future feasibility and opportunities provided by natural resource utilization for the

packaging industry. The second and fourth one is specifications and suitability information to standards. The third one is a certification on the protection provided of the packaging through the barrier function of mineral oil gases. The last one is extensive presentation of the business activities of REPAQ, and in-depth explanations of the advantages provided by their offerings.

3.3 Data Analysis

Collection of data has been analyzed throughout the thesis work. The empirical data gathered from each interview and document study was analyzed directed afterwards to ensures that no data has been forgotten.

For the interviews a template was created beforehand that included a questionnaire for the different SC actors including the current PFP features and also a set of requirements and expectations they were looking for which was done through software’s like Excel for environmental assessment and Microsoft word for the functional aspect. The answers from the interviews were then summarized and put under each question categories. The secondary data of the document studies was retrieved and compared with the external data from the literature study such as frameworks which answer the first and second research questions. The results from this were applied to the third research question, together with the

documented study and the literature study. The way document study was analyzed by the authors incorporated a theme approach similar to transcribing the interview (Bowen, 2009). Thus, the combination for analyzing the data collection using this approach is also called patten matching (Yin, 2006).

The key individuals for the interviews were chosen based on their expertise and company position, to make sure that they possess the knowledge required to answers the questions. Although there could have been a use of other methods like focus groups and the benefits of such an alternative would be contribution of more data and even expand the topic to more participants. This alternative was not ideal to use since the purpose was quite specific and there were not enough participants with the relevant knowledge in the subject. Also, there were some troubles conducting the interviews, due to the ongoing COVID pandemic the interviews were taken over by Teams call which took a lot of restructuring and delayed the initial plan. Despite this the interviews generated valuable data, which is complimented by the literature study and document studies.

For the analysis of the secondary data the authors carefully evaluated and the reduced the unnecessary raw data. Although it would have been ideal to collect primary quantitative data, rather than secondary data as this sets the foundation for the analysis of the research. This was however not possible, due to the time limitation and nature of the thesis. Therefore, it was used as a bases for the qualitative primary data when possible. For the case study the analysis consists of a multi criteria decision making tool that was used to answer the environmental assessment of the current PFP for GREENFORCE which was done quantitatively using a weighted criteria approach and for the functional aspect a set of

requirements table and expectations was made which related to the different stakeholders and on top of that the documents were taken into account to match the food packaging

expectations for FS as a qualitative approach. The figure below shows the process for data analysis.

Methodology & Implementation

Figure 5. Approach for data analysis

3.4 Data Quality

In order to measure the quality of this research design, credibility is a way of measuring the case study design. With the help of valid and reliable information from the case company, the overall quality can be measured (Yin, 2006). Both the validity and reliability of this research are dependent on transparency and trustworthiness of the report and data presented.

3.4.1 Validity

Validity is a form of measure and there are two types internal and external. The internal validity includes that what was meant to be measured was actually measured (Patel & Davidson, 2011). The external validity is described as to what extent you can generalize the result and apply it to different situations (Yin, 2014). For this study’s internal validity, it was crucial to carefully select the right research methods including qualitative and quantitative, to make sure the findings were relevant and answered the correct research questions. To further strengthen the internal validity planning was done for secondary data with specific documents and procedures. Semi structured interviews with well thought out questions were conducted, this ensured that uncertainties were pointed out. Also, the authors believe that the five

interviews conducted entirely online enhanced the internal validity as contradictions between information sources could be identified and verified through the study documents provided which was a great source of information considering the factual, concise and always available data source.

The study also had external validity, however not in a traditional way since not a lot of data was shared from the case company and the quantitative generalization could not be made as there was only a single case study used. But analytical generalization is possible, since the focus was on FS which can be expanded to similar fields. Thus, the findings in the report can be used to support theory with the help of existing literature and secondary sources from the case company like documents but generalizing to a population would require larger

quantitative data and references. However, one might argue that the issue regarding only one case company, the external validity of the research would certainly improve if several

companies would have been studied side by side. Since the purpose was to explore the eco-friendliness of PFP one might argue that multiple case studies would have benefited to achieve overall reliable results but as mentioned earlier the authors feel due to lack of time and the complex nature of this thesis one case study was a balanced approach to fulfill the problem description.

Methodology & Implementation

3.4.2 Reliability

The goal of measuring and controlling reliability is basically to minimize mistakes and have un-biased information with the study (Yin, 2014). Reliability is basically how well a study is remade with similar results (Patel & Davidson, 2011). The interviews were done in

connection of a timeframe but different time periods to ensure that information stays within the parameters. The answers were analyzed and compared by looking into the document studies which showed GREENFORCES previous data and also other similar FS. According to Patel & Davidson (2011), this helps to improve the reliability.

For the environmental impact assessment each criterion was tested by statistical calculations and the supervisor’s feedback was taken into account which also improves the reliability. The interview answers were reviewed by both authors to see that the purpose and aim was being fulfilled. Also, to check the reliability of these semi-structured interviews notes were taken to minimize the risk of losing important information from case company. Hence, this results in higher reliability (Patel & Davidson, 2011). The data quality for this study was improved as a mix method approach of qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection was used. This ensures that the analysis is not based on a single source of data and is more complex phenomenon. Even though according to Patel & Davidson, (2011) argue, that along with interviews and document study, observations could be made to provide triangulation for better information and deeper understanding as it complements the theoretical and practical relevance at the same time and not limits the study to one primary data collection method. The reader will be able to judge the validity and reliability of the study themselves, since the report is presenting a systematic research process and the raw data is found in the

appendences, as a substitute to the information in the findings & analysis section.

4. Findings & Analysis

The results obtained through the combination of literature review and the case specific findings can be combined to answer the research questions set for this study.

4.1 How to assess the eco-friendliness of PFP?

For being able to assess the functional aspect, a basic checklist with the identified, criteria have been judged sufficient tool for assessment. The functional requirements have been gathered with the help of interviews conducted with the main SC stakeholders and the

analysis of the documents provided from GREENFORCE. For assessing the eco-friendliness, a combination of a multicriteria decision-making framework by Olsmats & Dominic, (2003) explained in section 2.2.5, has been used in combination with a set of food packaging sustainability criteria identified Molina‐Besch & Pålsson, (2020) explained in section 2.2.4, and the weights attributed to the criteria by the case company GREENFORCE to assess the eco-friendliness in interview 2.

To answer, the performance of the currently being implemented PFP, being Green PE, has been assessed through the requirements of the main SC stakeholders. As it was already tested and decided that the transition to this PFP will be done from the regular PE used before-hand. The information on the packaging was gathered through both interviews with GREEFORCE and the manufacturers as well as the extra documentation on the current packaging transition and on the internal assessment of the alternatives provided by GREENFORCE.

4.1.1 Fulfilling the requirements for GREENFORCE

Firstly, to answer the functional assessment for the PFP of GREENFORCE a set of

requirement checklist was obtained through the interviews from the main SC actors working with GREENFORCE. In Table 4 the answers for the PFP features for criteria 1 which consists of questions like the preservability with protection, food safety, contamination and shelf life are displayed that was gathered through the chief commercial officer and head of product management in interview 2. The authors mainly analyzed the seven requirements that were answered by the case company which were currently being followed. As seen in the table 4 below:

Findings & Analysis

Table 4. Criteria 1 requirements fulfilled of GREENFORCE

Ensuring preservability (Protection, food safety,

contamination, shelf life) Current PFP Compliance (YES/NO)

Does the current packaging offer 18 months or more

shelf-life protection? Yes

Does the overall current mechanical strength of the

package preserve the food? Yes

Is the current packaging material maintaining food

leakage and flavors? For the inside plastic film Yes Does the current material fulfill the water, gas, Light,

heat Barrier? Yes

Is the current packaging of flexible design and can be

flattened when emptied for disposal? Yes

Is it easy to close and use the package again and again

considering the quality of food? Yes

Is the product hygiene standard respected for product

preservation currently? Yes

4.1.2 Fulfilling the requirements for Frutarom

The answers for the criteria 2 which consists of questions that relate to the manufacturer and sourcing includes paper packaging, recycling, renewable, composable ability, the size of the pouch and also zipper are displayed that were gathered from the supplier of GREENFORCE called Frutarom in interview 3. The four requirements which were important for the

packaging supplier and can be seen in the table 5 below: Table 5. Criteria 2 requirements fulfilled of GREENFORCE

So, for the criteria 1 and criteria 2 the requirement answers were solely based on

GREENFORCE and its packaging supplier Frutarom. The results that are shown in the tables are to their specific interests considering their current PFP and the transition to Green-PE. To analyze the results checklist method for these requirements was taken from Olsmats &

Producing and sourcing requirements Current PFP Compliance

(YES/NO)

Is packaging made of paper material?

Yes

Is it recyclable, renewable, compostable? _Yes

The packaging size is (195mm x 130mm)? _Yes

in FS with YES/NO options. Thus, these requirements highlight that importance regarding the roles of PFP. However, to gain more deeper insights the other SC actor’s involvement could have been important to consider which lacks as the timeframe was limited.

Next, the eco-friendliness of PFP will be assessed through the framework build through the literature review.

Findings & Analysis

4.1.3 Environmental Assessment

The result of the environmental assessment can be seen in table 6. The obtention and interpretation of the presented data will here under be explained in further depth: Table 6. Green-PE assessed through the quantitative eco-friendliness framework

Main category Criteria Weight (0 - 100) Normalized Weight (%) Score Green-PE (0-4) Packaging material Material carbon footprint 70 17 0 Non‐hazardous materials 0 0 Renewable content 30 7 4 Recycled content 30 7 0 Transport efficiency Inbound transport

distance and mode 10 2 2

Inbound transport load

efficiency 15 4 3 Outbound transport weight efficiency 10 2 4 Outbound transport volume efficiency 15 4 4 Influence of food waste

Easy to: open, grip, dose

and empty 15 4 3 Resealability 0 0 Packaging end-of-life

Separation and sorting 40 10 4

Circular economy value 70 17 1

Amount of non‐recycled waste 60 15 0 Impact in waste incineration 30 7 4 Littering likelihood 5 1 2 Littering impact 10 2 0 Total 410 100 1,68 4.1.3.1 CRITERIA SELECTION

Of the 4 main criteria categories proposed by Molina‐Besch & Pålsson, (2020), 3 will always be included and have already set criteria and according to scales. These can be seen in the Appendix 2, 3 and 6. Nevertheless, “Influence on Food Waste” is an optional main category depending on the balance between packaging and food contained. A ratio between the packaging’s emission impact and the food’s impact will reveal its environmental importance (Molina‐Besch & Pålsson, 2020). This can be seen in Appendix 4. Unfortunately, this

information could not be obtained from interview 4 and the importance could therefore not be assessed. It could be discussed that it is more food-dense because of its dry and high caloric content, but it could also be less relevant as the plant-based food has an already reduced production impact compared to other regular meat products according to interview 1. The

authors have nevertheless decided to include this section in order minimize the risk of excluding potentially relevant information. The criteria to be included within this section have been decided upon according to Appendix 5, which presents the relevant criteria to include for the respective food type. Through interview 1, the product could be categorized into the “powder-type food product” which made the relevant criteria “Easy to open, grip, dose and empty” as well as “Resealability”.

4.1.3.2 CRITERIA WEIGHTING

The criteria weighting has been solely based on the interview with GREENFORCE as the results should reflect their set of priorities in terms of SD goals. Throughout the second interview with GREENFORCE, the two internal representatives have made up their mind based on relevance to their specific product and aimed areas of improvement. Each criterion was given a weight between 0 and 100. The weight attributed for each criterion can be seen in Table 6 under Weight. Criteria 2 and 10 have been given a weight of 0. This equals to

ignoring these criteria in the weighting. The justification for these decisions is based on the following justification from interview 2. The first criteria “No hazardous materials” is a requirement for any packaging on the market. This justification seemed coherent as including these criteria will not add any value to the results but rather disguise the other values

obtained. Regarding the criteria “Resealability”, there is according to interview 2 and 3, already an implementation of a new sealing method in process and is therefore not relevant to the assessment of PFP as it should be compatible with any of the options. This seems

coherent as it would also disguise the other areas of interest if attributed weight. The main weight was put on material carbon footprint and on circular economy value, accounting each for 17% of the total score. They account both for a measure of production impact and for the end-of-life material flow (Molina‐Besch & Pålsson, 2020). Following closely is the amount of non-recycled waste, which will end-up in landfills or burnt and has been attributed a weight of 15%, considering as well that 70% of plastic will not be recycled (Rangappa et al., 2020). Separation and sorting are next with 10% weighting closely followed by recycled and renewable content of the packaging, being 7% each. The other criteria have a relatively small importance but are representing transportation aspects, important to consider for the direct impact of the packaging, with 12% in total according to table 6 (Molina‐Besch & Pålsson, 2020). The only criteria considered for the impact on food waste was “Easy to open, grip, dose and empty” with a low weighting of 4% as this section has been less relevant in this case as stated in section 4.1.3.1, All factors included have been illustrated in the Figure 6 here below.

Findings & Analysis

Figure 6. Criteria weighting for environmental framework 4.1.3.3 SCORE ATTRIBUTION

For each of the 16 eco-friendliness assessment criteria identified in the literature review from section 2.2.4, a score was attributed according to the information provided primarily through the interview with the packaging concept responsible. These scores ranging from 0 until 4 were then verified with the 2 document studies containing information about the Green-PE currently used, to verify that the information is in agreement with the interview answers. Some answers given in the interview have been complemented with the information found in the document studies, others are solely relying on the interviewees. In the table below the interview results will be presented while also the corresponding information from related document studies. 70 70 60 40 30 30 30 15 15 15 10 10 10 5 0 0 Ma te ri al c ar bo n fo ot pr in t Ci rc ul ar e co no m y va lu e Am ou nt o f no n‐ re cy cl ed wa st e Se pa ra ti on a nd s or ti ng Re ne w ab le c on te nt Re cy cl ed c on te nt Im pa ct in w as te in cin er atio n In bo un d tra ns po rt lo ad ef fi ci en cy Ou tb ou nd tr an sp or t vol um e ef fi ci enc y Ea sy to : o pe n, g ri p, d os e an d em pt y In bo un d tra ns po rt di st anc e and m ode Ou tb ou nd tr an sp or t we ig ht e ff ic ie nc y Li tt er in g im pa ct Li tt er in g li ke li ho od No n‐ ha za rd ou s m at er ia ls Re se al ab il it y Cr ite ri a sc or e 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%