1
Table of content
1. Introduction ... ..3
1.1 Research Problem ... 5
1.2 Aim of the Study ... 7
2. Theory ... 8
2.1 Packaging within the supply chain: the three packaging levels ... 8
2.1.1 Primary package (product package) ... 9
2.1.2 Secondary package ... 9
2.1.3 Tertiary package ... 9
2.1.4 Transportation package/ transit packaging ... 10
2.2 The negative impact of packaging ... 10
2.3 Green Packaging development ... 11
2.3.1 Maximum fill rate in green packaging ... 12
2.3.2 Optimizing unitization in packaging ... 14
2.3.3 Drivers and barriers for green packaging development ... 14
2.4 Management of packaging development ... 15
3. Method ... 16
3.1 Research strategy ... 16
3.2 Semi-structured interviews ... 16
3.3 Case selection ... 17
3.3.1 Limitations of the study ... 17
3.4 Procedure ... 18
3.4.1 Analysis ... 18
3.5 Authenticity and Trust ... 18
4. Results and Analysis ... 19
4.1 Initial findings ... 19
4.2 Maximizing fill rate in packaging and transportation vessels ... 22
4.3 Drivers and Barriers ... 24
4.4 Theory versus practice ... 25
5. Conclusion ... 27
6. Discussion ... 28
7. Future research ... 29
Sources ... 31
Appendix ... 33
Interview guide ... 33
2
Abstract
The growing e-commerce industry and online shopping is increasing the demand for transportation services world-wide. This expanding industry is beneficial for the economic aspects of society, but the transportation of packages is also causing major environmental impacts along the supply chain.
The environmental impact of waste and emissions attributed to the manufacturing and shipment of packages are concluded by many scholars, stressing the importance of sustainable alternatives and innovations. Environmental concerns perceived by customers, governments and other stakeholders are increasingly pressuring companies to develop sustainable products, packaging and shipping. And yet, many customers still demand low-cost and fast shipping, making the development of green packaging and shipping uncertain as an investment. New legislations entering in effect year 2021 will successfully reduce the plastic waste in world-oceans and landfill, but at the same time limit the use of effective fit-to-use packaging which will inevitably result in larger packages occupying more space in transportation vessels. This study will examine the daily practice of e-commerce companies in Sweden, studying their knowledge and thoughts regarding green packaging development with an emphasis on the maximum fill rate of the secondary transit packaging level. Interviews with five companies were conducted, studying their daily practices. The analysis of the empiric data was conducted using transcriptions, to minimize bias, all analysis was collectively interpreted by the researchers. Our result show that companies consider low-cost, protected and fast shipping to be the most important demands of their customers, the companies view sustainability as a bonus rather than a competitive advantage. The results also suggest that air in packaging is viewed as extra protection for the goods, and the negative impacts are overseen. The available studies and prior works
describing green packaging development actions are quite clear, however, the companies neglect the opportunities to develop green packaging due to economic barriers and perceived customer demands, thus creating a gap between practice and theory.
3
1. Introduction
In a relatively short amount of time e-commerce has grown to be an integral part of everyday life in Sweden, with 94 percent of the population using the internet on a regular basis and online shopping being one of the most common activities online (Svenskarna och internet, 2017).
E-commerce has grown to be one of the most important distribution channels in several industries (Svensk handel, 2018), thus making the impact of e-commerce substantial on both a consumer and business level. The expanding e-commerce has drastically increased the volumes of freight and shipment of goods worldwide (Shi, Xiao, Chen, Mclaughlin and Li., 2018). In present time during the Covid-19 outbreak of 2020, many logistics companies are experiencing explosive growth and increased service demands (Dagens Industri, 2020; Mats Bråstedt, 2020). According to Shi et al.
(2018) the shipments of goods is vital for societal as well as economic development and growth, but harmful for animals, humans and the environment (Nguyen, Parker, Brennan and Lockrey, 2020; Shi et al., 2018; Parviainen, Lehikoinen, Kuikka and Haapasaari, 2017). The implication of this
economically beneficial rise in business to consumer (B2C) online shopping has created even greater environmental impacts due to the need for additional transport vessels making more frequent trips.
Attributing to air- and water pollution as well as emissions released from transportation fuels (Windmark, Jakobsson, Segersson and Andersson. (2016); Parviainen et al., 2017), global warming (Shi et al., 2018) and damaged ecosystems (Nguyen et al., 2020). Alongside the expanding shipping industry, legislation and public demand concerning environmentally friendly manufacturing,
shipping and green packaging has driven the development of innovative solutions, reducing global emissions (Shi et al., 2018) and waste (Nguyen et al., 2020). The European Parliament has
successfully pushed the banning of single-use plastic packaging, this legislation will be effective within the EU from year 2021 (Nguyen et al., 2020). The current Swedish government climate policy is to eradicate the use of fossil-based fuels by the end of 2030 (Projektet Fossilfritt 2030, n.d).
Sustainability and environmentally friendly solutions have become increasingly important for consumers in many industries due to the growing threat of climate change (Rokka and Uusitalo, 2008; Nguyen et al.,2020). Lumsden, Stefansson and Woxenius (2019) shares this view and further argues that companies could benefit from environmentally friendly and sustainable alternatives by showcasing keywords such as eco-friendly, green or sustainable in their marketing, thus gaining consumer favor, the scholars also stress the necessity to offer swift and cheap shipping. Shi et al.
(2018) suggests that these green alternatives and government actions stem from a growing concern regarding climate changes from the general population. Parviainen et al. (2017) suggests in their study of stakeholders along the supply chain (SC) that customers, media and the general opinion
4 holds a strong stakeholder power and influence over the shipping industry. They call this phenomena multistakeholder pressure.
The notion that packaging in many ways is contributing to environmental issues along the SCs has been around for a long time (Shi et al., 2018). Several studies have examined and concluded the negative impact of air pollution in the form of carbon dioxide, sulfur and other emissions associated with transportation and packaging (Windmark et al., 2016; Parviainen et al., 2017), water and landfill pollutions connected to shipping and packaging waste (Shi et al., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2020; Zhang and Zhao, 2012), plastic materials entering the oceans (Lamb, Willis, Fiorenza, Couch, Howard, Rader, True, Kelly, Ahmad, Jompa, Harvell, 2018) as well as the role of packaging life cycle assessment (LCA) and manufacturing (Verghese and Lewis, 2007). Nguyen et al. (2020) explores customer definition and understanding of eco-friendly packaging in their recent study and concludes that the general knowledge is rather limited and heavily focused on the material and recyclability of packages. Nguyen et al. (2020) also concludes that customers are unaware of a large portion of the issues relating to packaging and therefore their perception of environmentally friendly packaging is generally incorrect or inconclusive. The impact of huge volumes of unnecessary air being shipped daily due to badly designed and oversized packages is yet to be explored in any major studies. Jill Bederoff (2020) writes in a news article that airy packages in e-commerce is a major issue,
transportation vessels are filled, but the packages are filled with air. Packaging within the supply chain is divided into three main categories, primary-, secondary- and tertiary packaging. The primary packaging is often associated with the packaging showcased on the shelf of stores, the tertiary
packaging is mainly used in B2B shipment protecting goods during transportation between
manufacturer and warehouse, and lastly the secondary packaging level is mainly used to protect the primary packaging during transportation and is often used in e-commerce shipments (Bramklev, 2007). Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015) suggests that the maximum fill rate in packaging is essential for cost minimalization and when developing environmentally friendly packaging, the fill rate affects every part of the supply chain. The fit between the levels of packaging is vital for minimizing air, since each layer of protective secondary packaging is increasing the amount of excess air (Molina-Besch and Pålsson, 2015). Large packages with excess air demand more space in transportation vessels, additional trips are required, and the weight of the packages is increased (Molina-Besch and Pålsson, 2015). The volumes of empty spaced, air filled packages occupying useful space in vessels such as airplanes, trains, trucks etc. seems to be a less studied, although major environmental issue.
5
1.1 Research Problem
The European Parliaments banning of single-use plastic packaging is meant to reduce the plastic materials entering oceans and landfill, thereby protecting eco-systems and minimizing the ingestion of micro-plastics by humans and animals (Nguyen et al., 2020).
Nguyen et al. (2020) however, describes a troubling paradox occurring between the benefits of banning the single-use plastic and the negative impact of future packaging development limited to other materials. Single-use plastic packaging is indeed ending up in the oceans and landfill (Shi et al., 2018), polluting and damaging eco-systems and sea life (Nguyen et al., 2020). Recent studies by Trowsdale, Golder, Fisher and Brierley (2017) have also shown that the consequences of plastic waste could be exponentially harmful to humans. In this sense the reduction in waste associated to single-use plastic will benefit both the environment and humans. However, Nguyen et al. (2020) concludes that single-use plastic packages are light weight, easy and cost-effective to manufacture, the material is also ideal for fit-to-purpose packaging. The fit-to-purpose abilities of plastic makes the maximum fill rate of packages a possibility. This is the paradox Nguyen et al. (2020) explains, where reducing plastic waste impedes the best possible way to maximizing fill rate in both packaging and transportation vessels, while maintaining cheap manufacturing. Researchers fear that the
unnecessary air in packaging will increase as the new legislation get in effect during 2021. By putting out one fire these governments efforts are fueling another, the banning enlarges the issue of air in packaging, resulting in the need for additional transportation vessels and trips. Nguyen et al.
(2020) discusses the acceptability of customers regarding this paradoxical and opposing change in the packaging development and concludes that it is not yet studied nor known.
With this unfortunate paradox in mind and the negative aftermath of this large scale banning of fit- to-purpose single-use plastic, we would argue that more research should be directed towards the very core issue of maximizing fill rate, mainly the unnecessary air in packaging which affects the entirety of the supply chain in a time of growing e-commerce shipping. In March of 2020 the covid-19 virus spread globally, and many Swedish companies struggles to survive, however, Dagens Industri (2020) claims in their recent article that e-commerce and logistic firms are blossoming during the quarantine and the need for logistic services are significantly increasing. Mats Bråstedt (2020) describes in his article that the online shopping of foods is explosively increasing during the Covid-19 outbreak, he adds that this trend is visible on the global market.
In this study we will explore the major issue of excess air affecting shipping in a time of growing environmental concern. Since every shipment includes at least one package, each often protected by
6 a larger secondary- or transit packaging the negative impact is colossal. In the works of Molina- Besch and Pålsson (2015) their suggestions for green packaging development are, among others, maximizing the fill rate of packages and minimizing material weight. They, as well as Simms and Trott (2010) and Shi et al. (2018), conclude from their studies that cost-effective packaging is highly important for companies.
With the growth of e-commerce world-wide, satisfying customer demands is hard. As mentioned earlier, scholar such as Rokka and Uusitalo (2008) argues that customer to a high degree demand sustainable alternative, however other scholar such as Lumsden, Stefansson and Woxenius (2019) found in their study an unwillingness by customer to wait long periods of time for deliveries or pay high prices. Low-cost shipping and packaging are difficult to associate with sustainability, since the investments needed to change the current practice is considered to be costly (Shi et al., 2018).
Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015) suggest that postponing of shipments in order to create maximum vessel fill rate is an important action for sustainable shipments and therefore fast shipments are not compatible with sustainability.
The theoretical requirements for green packaging development described by Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015) could benefit the environment by minimizing manufacturing and waste but also be cost-effective by minimizing materials. We have found that there is an obvious gap in the academic literature regarding the fit between packaging levels and the impact of air in secondary packaging, studies and information concerning secondary packaging within e-commerce is even scarcer.
Scholars such as Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015), Bramklev (2007), Bertoluci, Leroy and Olsson (2013), Demir, Bektas, and Laporte (2013), Grönman et al. (2010) and Wever (2011) have all
mentioned maximizing fill rate as a green packaging development action, yet only Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015) and Grönman et al. (2010) graces the topic of the fitting between the packaging levels, sadly without deeper exploration or clarification from their interviews and results. The
concept of maximizing fill rate is often mentioned in green packaging development studies, but prior studies fail to explore the air between the layers of packaging. To date no study has exclusively narrowed the focus on the fit between the packaging levels and air in packaging, drivers and barriers for this exact development nor companies' daily practices or thought on the matter.
7
1.2 Aim of the Study
In this study we examine the role of air in packaging and Swedish e-commerce companies packaging practice with a focus on maximum fill rate in secondary packaging, studying the gap between green packaging development theory and practice.
RQ1: Do companies have sufficient knowledge regarding green packaging development to uphold established methods, standards and guidelines derived from prior research in the field of green packaging development?
RQ2: What barriers and drivers affect e-commerce companies and their green packaging development?
RQ3: To what extent do companies uphold the theoretical standards of green packaging development in their daily practice?
8
2. Theory
In this chapter we present the analytical framework of the study and use prior research to create an overview of packaging within the shipping industry and green packaging development.
2.1 Packaging within the supply chain: the three packaging levels
There are three core packaging levels within the packaging system: primary, secondary and tertiary.
The main objective of packaging along the SC is to protect the product and minimize losses during shipping, storing etc. (Bramklev, 2007), but packaging should also communicate product features (Nguyen et al., 2020), such as instructions and information regarding the content (Bertoluci, Leroy and Olsson, 2013). In marketing literature, the main objective of packaging is to raise customer expectations and to improve the acceptability and marketability of the product and brand (Nguyen et al., 2020). Packaging development could either be managed by the companies themselves or by outside packaging companies (Bramklev, 2007). Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015) finds in their study that most companies, for marketing reasons, are taking measures to create attractive and modularized packaging in the primary packaging level (product packaging), therefore the primary packaging level is not the most pressing issue within the supply-chain in the context of transportation of air. Demir, Bektas, and Laporte (2013) concludes that tertiary packaging is mainly used in B2B transportation, and often showcase a maximum fill rate due to logistics experts aiming to minimize costs. They also find that larger manufacturers often have a logistics team on staff, as to create efficiency in the transportation of goods. In this study we will focus on the secondary level of packaging since the level is frequently used in B2C e-commerce shipping, often without modularization to the primary packaging level.
9
2.1.1 Primary package (product package)
Bertoluci, Leroy and Olsson (2013) have studied the levels of packaging used within the SC. They explain that the primary packaging is the sales unit, the product packaging required in the B2C relations. This level is the bearer of information, instructions and displays social functions. The primary level is often designed for the attractiveness on the shelfs. This packaging level is protecting the product and the design of the unit is often influenced by the marketing departments as to create a brand identity and product attractiveness, it is also referred to as consumer packaging by Bramklev (2007), used as a means to market companies and their products. One example of primary packaging could be a bottle of whiskey, the primary package is the glass bottle holding the product (the liquid spirit), which will be displaying quantity, brand name and other information.
2.1.2 Secondary package
The secondary packaging level is often used as a distribution unit (Bramklev, 2007), but could in some cases be the package customers encounter on the shelfs. This could be true for expensive alcoholic beverages such as wine or whiskey, where the primary packaging is the glass bottle holding the liquid substance and the secondary packaging is the paper box holding the bottle and the general information. It is mainly used as protection during transportation for the primary packaging and often holds more than one primary product package (Bramklev, 2007). This packaging level is the main antagonist for this paper, the fit between the primary- and secondary packaging should be as slim as possible as to create maximum protection and reduce the amount of air (Molina-Besch and Pålsson, 2015), but according to Jill Bederoff (2020) excess air in e-commerce packaging is a major issue.
Secondary packages used in B2B transportation is often designed to hold a high number of primary packages, and in turn fit perfectly in the tertiary packaging level. However, the secondary packages used in B2C e-commerce context rarely hold more than one primary package, since the customers decides the content of the shipment, thus creating the issue described by Jill Bederoff (2020); air in e-commerce packaging.
2.1.3 Tertiary package
The third level of packaging is often described as the loading unit, designed to carry a number of secondary packages effectively on pallets (Bramklev, 2007). This level is mainly used by B2B manufacturers transporting goods from the production facilities to the warehouses of the distributors, agents or stores (Bertoluci, Leroy and Olsson, 2013). The tertiary packages are often designed to fit
10 as many units as possible on the Euro pallet. Euro pallets are standardized pallets with fixed
measurements (Molina-Besch and Pålsson, (2015).
2.1.4 Transportation package/ transit packaging
The secondary packaging is not always the transit package and could as mentioned earlier function similar to the primary package, therefore we should mention a fourth packaging level, often referred to as transportation-, distribution- or transit packaging. These packages are solely used as a
protecting layer for the product, primary- or in some cases the secondary packaging. These transit packages are often cardboard boxes and free of any logos or information besides the shipping labels.
In this study we will not place any stock in differentiating between the transit and secondary packaging, but instead combine the two under the following definition; an outer packaging layer used to protect e-commerce companies' goods during transportation. This layer will henceforth be referred to as secondary packaging in this study.
2.2 The negative impact of packaging
The negative impact of packaging is connected to several variables such as:
• The manufacturing of packaging materials is resulting in the exhausting of resources and the release of harmful emissions (Verghese and Lewis, 2007).
• Packaging waste ending up in oceans and landfill polluting are damaging eco-systems and the environment due to poorly managed transportation and recycling (Shi et al., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2020).
• Airy packaging within the SC is also occupying space in transportation vessels (Jill Bederoff, 2020), contributing to unnecessary vessel trips and therefore increasing fuel consumption in transportations (Molina-Besch and Pålsson, 2015).
All of these issues relating to packaging could in various degrees be favored by maximizing fill rate in packaging.
According to Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015) the impact of packaging has caused governments globally to issue legislations to tackle the growing problem of global warming and pollution. They argue that packaging is one of the most contributing factors in water, air and landfill pollution, but with green packaging development it could also be viewed as the potential solution in reducing solid waste and other pollutions. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, packaging comes in three levels.
This means that the product is often packaged in several layers before shipping, thus collectively
11 requiring considerable resources to manufacture which creates large amounts of waste. According to Zhang and Zhao (2012) packaging creates a substantial amount of solid waste, annually
approximately 10 million tons of solid waste enters the oceans and landfill, a third of which is attributed to packaging. Residues of dangerous substances in packaging materials risks polluting water and soil, potentially resulting in the contamination of plants and livestock (Zhang and Zhao, 2012). Nguyen et al. (2020) describes a number of severe environmentally harmful consequences of plastic packaging, mainly plastic degenerations and the large amounts of microplastic currently polluting the world oceans, resulting in deteriorating eco-systems. Verghese and Lewis (2007) concludes that the manufacturing of packaging and packaging material is also resulting in emissions such as CO2 and sulfur. These emissions are according to Shi et al. (2018) giving rise to global warming.
The additional space required in transportation vessels is also contributing to harmful emissions attributed to transportation. Jill Bederoff (2020) describes some of the issues with e-commerce shipping in the Swedish market, where unnecessary large and airy packages is one of these major issues.
2.3 Green Packaging development
With the works of Katrin Molina-Besch and Henrik Pålsson (2015) and Simms and Trott (2010) as our main guides in this section we will present important theoretical actions for successful green packaging development, drivers for green packaging development, as well as the issues and barriers relating to the management and development of new packaging innovations.
Researchers frequently use different terms when studying green packaging. Other terms for green packaging are ecological packaging, sustainable packaging, environmentally friendly packaging, eco-packaging, eco design, environmentally conscious design (Nguyen et al., 2020). The many terms describing eco-friendly packaging is causing confusion among researchers in the field (Nguyen et al., 2020). The term green packaging is defined by Zhang and Zhao (2012) as packaging completely created from natural materials with inherent recyclability properties, the units must be prone to degradation in landfill and water mass as well as promote future sustainable innovations. During the package's entire lifecycle, it should be harmless to the environment as well as humans and livestock (Zhang and Zhao, 2012). Green packaging development is simply the efforts and actions taken by companies in order to reduce the negative impact of packaging by applying certain theoretical actions.
12 There are many theoretical actions that could be taken to create environmentally friendly packages and to make safe green packaging development (Molina-Besch and Pålsson, 2015). In the scope of this paper we focus mainly on the maximum fill rate of packages, which according to Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015) is one of the most important aspects of green packaging development. However, the most common strategy when implementing green packaging development is to focus on the recyclability and minimization of packaging materials (Molina-Besch and Pålsson, 2015).
There are several eco-labels related to packaging such as; Greenrate, GreenPla, Global Recycle Standards, Svanen and etc. (Ecolabel Index, 2020). All these labels are focusing on the sustainability of packages and the criteria often include maximizing fill rate and the use of recyclable materials. A company could therefore be granted a prestigious eco-label certifying their green primary packaging, and then use an eco-labelled shipping company, thus gaining the approval of the environmentally concerned customers as Lumsden, Stefansson and Woxenius (2019) suggested. However, the maximum fill rate between the packaging levels is not a criterion for eco-labelling of sustainable packaging nor -shipping, the shipment of unnecessary air in this fictive example is labelled and certified as completely green.
2.3.1 Maximum fill rate in green packaging
The holy grail in our study of green packaging development actions is the maximization of packaging fill rates. In order to minimize packaging material companies should gather specific product data to better adjust their packaging to the product, creating modularized packages
(Grönman, Soukka, Järvi‐Kääriäinen, Katajajuuri, Kuisma, Koivupuro, Ollila, Pitkänen, Miettinen, Silvenius and Thun, 2010). This effort would help minimize losses and damages during
transportation as well as minimizing material consumption and manufacturing (Grönman et al., 2010). Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015) argues that by creating protective packages with minimum empty space, the environmental impact along the supply chain would be reduced due to the
minimization of required transportation vessels (less fuel consumption and emissions). Maximizing fill rate is defined as packaging with as little additional weight and volume as possible, while still offering the sufficient protection to the products (Molina-Besch and Pålsson, 2015). In theory, the additional weight and volume created by unnecessary materials and empty space is negative in every aspect of the supply chain (Molina-Besch and Pålsson, 2015). Packaging should minimize the use of transport vessels in the supply chain, as the environmental impact of transportation is equally high or higher than the direct impact of packaging waste and manufacturing (Grönman et al., 2010; Molina- Besch and Pålsson, 2015). If products are durable, studies show that there is a high potential of
13 packaging minimization and volume optimization (Wever, 2011). Wever (2011) also suggest that weight minimalization is one of the most important factors in volume optimization, as carriers have a limit on how much weight they are allowed to ship. This means that heavier products and heavier packaging run the risk of exceeding weight limits without reaching the maximum fill rate of the carrier. It is therefore easier to optimize shipping volume of a carrier with smaller packaging and products (Wever, 2011). Fill rate in carriers are influenced by the product volume and weight, dimensions of carriers as well as transport planning (e.g. frequency and size of shipments) (Molina- Besch and Pålsson, 2015).
Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015) explain that all packages should be as light as possible with a maximum fill rate within and between each packaging level for maximum protection and in order to be economical and environmentally sustainable along the SC, in other words, the perfect sized primary packages transported within the perfectly modularized secondary packages. If these two levels of packages do not fit perfectly the benefits are eradicated, increasing the weight, cost, manufacturing and waste, contributing to the current environmental issues along the SC.
According to Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015), an effective action to maximize vessel fill rate is to postpone shipments to enable bulk transportation, this, however, is inconvenient for e-commerce companies due to high pressure from customers demanding swift deliveries as Lumsden, Stefansson and Woxenius (2019) suggests. Furthermore, Molina-Besch and Pålsson’s (2015) study shows that maximum fill rate also reduces the energy output in stationary logistics facilities since the storage space is better utilized.
There is no current legislation regarding the use of unnecessary large secondary packages, and limited attention from society and customers regarding this part of the SC, from a stakeholder perspective the secondary packaging level is not a legislated or controlled aspect of business, nor is the multistakeholder pressure present.
Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015) presented a list of theoretical actions companies could take in order to maximize the fill rate in packages and vessels. This list includes the following actions.
• Postponing packaging process/bulk transportation
• Maximize the fill rate in all levels of the packaging system
• Adopting the packaging system to transport vehicle dimensions
• Developing modularized packaging to combine a variety of different products on one load carrier.
• Developing stackable packaging
14
2.3.2 Optimizing unitization in packaging
The Euro pallets could be used to explain the use of optimization action within packaging. Tertiary packages are often created to fit a standardized Euro pallet (Bramklev, 2007). If the package is too large, the shipping company won't accept the pallet (Fedex, 2020). The unitization of the package is also vital in warehouse stack-ability, the optimal packaging unitization is well connected with the maximum fill rate (Molina-Besch and Pålsson, 2015). With smaller packages, the number of stackable units increase both in warehouses and in transportation, lowering the cost of electricity, transportation space and fuel consumption as well as manufacturing and manpower (Molina-Besch and Pålsson, 2015)
2.3.3 Drivers and barriers for green packaging development
Some researchers such as Shi et al. (2017) suggest that the main driver for companies' development of sustainable packaging (green packaging development) and shipping is the growing concern regarding global warming and the threat of greenhouse effects. They further suggest that green shipping alternatives offered by logistics companies is a response to the public opinion rather than legislation. Nordin and Selke (2010) concluded in their older study that one of the biggest drivers of green packaging is consumer demand. Developing green packaging from environmental and
economic aspects can only be successful in balance with the consumers demands for convenience, performance and price sensitivity (Nordin and Selke, 2010). Lumsden, Stefansson and Woxeniu’s (2019) study show that some customers will strictly demand certain kinds of alternatives or else they will use a different service, creating a customer driven pressure. These suggestions are aligned with the conclusion of Parviainen et al.’s (2017) study of stakeholders along the SC, where the authors suggest that customers, media and the general opinion sways a strong stakeholder power and influence over the industry, creating a strong multistakeholder pressure and driver for the green packaging development. Companies with dedicated eco-friendly employees and strict environmental guidelines will be far more prone to adapt green packaging development theories and practices (Simms and Trott, 2010), creating a strong driver for green packaging development. In the section 3.4 we will describe the management of packaging at a deeper level.
In many cases the investments needed to apply the theoretical actions are immense (Simms and Trott, 2010; Shi et al., 2018). Therefore, the economic barriers have been and still is the main barrier for applying the theoretical green actions within the shipping industry according Lumsden,
Stefansson and Woxenius (2019). Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015) suggest that one of the most effective ways in reducing emissions is to optimize the fill rate of transportation vessels by
15 postponing shipments until the vessel is filled. Sadly, the study of Lumsden, Stefansson and
Woxenius (2019) suggests that consumers ordering products online are demanding swift deliveries, thus, with an emphasis on fast delivery, the decelerated environmentally friendly shipping might not be the most profitable action for the companies. Thus, the practice of swift deliveries is a barrier for sustainable transportation and green packaging development. In this situation, according to the theory of customer pressure suggested by Parviainen et al. (2017) the pressure from customers on swift deliveries are creating a barrier from developing and applying the necessary actions for environmentally friendly shipping. Rokka and Uusitalo (2008) concludes in contrast to Lumsden, Stefansson and Woxenius (2019) that customers are ever more concerned with the sustainability of the product, packaging and shipping rather than low-cost and fast deliveries and that companies should market themselves as green to gain public approval, in this case the driver would be the green labelling.
2.4 Management of packaging development
Simms and Trott (2010) studied the management aspects of packaging development, concluding that most firms are lacking the commitment and skills required to develop sustainable and innovative packaging. Furthermore, the investments needed to promote green packaging development is halting the process, resulting in cheap skin-deep adjustments and a singlemindedness towards the exterior design of the packaging (Simms and Trott, 2010). The absence of what Simms and Trott (2010) calls a “packaging champion” is halting the development process, according to the findings of Simms and Trott (2010), companies needs to have a packaging champion on staff, constantly pushing for new solutions, this individual require the support from the other departments. The marketing benefits from an attractive packaging is well studied and concluded by many scholars, but the focal point in marketing literature is the exterior of the packages, excluding the impact of materials, manufacturing and size (Simms and Trott, 2010). Low-cost orientation is common in companies operating in
industries embodied by price-based competition (Simms and Trott, 2010), e-commerce is a most competitive marketplace, as is the shipping industry according to Parvainen et al. (2017).
Environmental and social questions have led to a change in consumption patterns of consumers in developed and increasingly developing countries (Sheikh and Beise‐Zee, 2011). These questions are heavily affecting companies regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR). Corporate social responsibility is an internal part of a company and dictates how the company should plan their actions so that they respect civil society (Nalband and Al-Amri, 2013). The social responsibilities of businesses include legal, ethical, economical and other expectations society may have at a given
16 point in time (Nalband and Al-Amri, 2013). Environmental responsibility is according to Hałasik and Kulczycka (2016) one of the key aspects of CSR. Green packaging development from an
environmental and economic standpoint can only be achieved with a balance between consumer demands for convenience, performance and price sensitivity (Nordin and Selke, 2010).
3. Method
In this chapter we present and discuss the research method, strategy and design used in this study.
The data analysis method will also be presented.
3.1 Research strategy
This study will be examining the role of air in packaging to see if there’s any gap between theory and practice. For this reason, a qualitative approach was chosen as it allows for greater discussion with participants and enables a deeper understanding of the experiences and practices within the
companies. Qualitative methods are appropriate when the aim of the study is to understand
phenomenon's at a deeper level (Bryman and Bell, 2017), as the aim of the study is to see if there is a gap between theory and practice, this qualitative approach allows the researchers to examine not only if there is a gap but also understanding why there is a gap. Since we are studying the underlying thoughts and reasoning behind the practices rather than the execution of the practices, the qualitative research strategy is crucial to fulfil the aim of the study and to answer the research questions in a subjective manner.
3.2 Semi-structured interviews
Semi-structured interviews were used, meaning that we used an interview guide while interviewing.
The interview guide was used as a tool to structure the interview enabling us to properly formulate the central questions based on the aim of this study, while also allowing follow up questions.
Interviews are an effective way to understand phenomenon's at a deeper level as the discussion enable the participants to reflect and answer freely, which promote more detailed answers, they also give more flexibility to the interviewers by allowing follow up questions and the possibility to contact the participants at a later occasion if necessary (Bryman and Bell, 2017).
The interview guide consists of 15 questions, 12 open questions which served as the basis of discussion and follow-up questions. 3 closed questions were also included to gather specific
information regarding the companies practice and operation. The theoretical framework was used to
17 formulate the questions with a heavy emphasis on packaging development and air in the secondary packaging. The aim of this study is to examine the role of air in packaging to see if there’s any gap between theory and practice, for this we need to understand the role of air in packages of the
companies we interview but also understand their packaging development, as the packaging practice may hinder maximizing fill rate and thereby creating unnecessary air.
3.3 Case selection
In this paper the industry criteria were Swedish e-commerce companies. We choose to study the e- commerce industry because of the high amount of parcels shipments to online shoppers, with no physical stores these companies often rely solely upon the logistics companies’ services. The e- commerce companies included in this study were chosen as they were readily available to the
researchers due to already established personal connections within these companies, making it easier to find participants for the interviews and saving time. These companies could influence the design and packaging development making them vital for this study. The information gathered from the interviews could be viewed as sensitive, since this study will examine their practices with
environmental questions. All companies and respondents were allowed to be anonymous. We choose to present the results without naming the specific companies because otherwise the respondents might be prone to embellish the answers for better publicity or social pressure.
We define small businesses as companies with fewer than 49 employees, medium businesses with 50–149 employees and large businesses as companies with 150 or more employees.
Respondent number Title Size of their company
Respondent 1 CEO Small business
Respondent 2 Global Retail Manager Large business
Respondent 3 CEO Small business
Respondent 4 Product development and
industrial designer
Large business Respondent 5 Administration and economic
manager
Small business Table 1; Table of respondents
3.3.1 Limitations of the study
As this was a qualitative study there are limitations concerning the generalizability, as there were only 5 respondents representing a huge industry. To counter this, we could have used some
quantitative methods to complement the interviews thereby achieving better generalization of the e- commerce business. There are also limitations regarding the sample, as the companies were chosen
18 because of their availability to the researchers, thus not making the sample randomized which means that the sample does not represents the e-commerce business.
This study faced several difficulties starting off. During the study the Covid-19 virus outbreak made it difficult to find companies willing to participate, as many of their employees were on work leave and social distancing of paramount important. This study could probably have gathered data from a wider array of companies should the pandemic not been present. Furthermore, the Covid-19 outbreak made physical meetings undesirable which created technical difficulties when interviewing through zoom or by phone. Physical meetings would have provided more insight than online interviews, as these allows the participants to better explain what they mean, as information like body language is lost when interviewing by phone (Bryman and Bell, 2017).
3.4 Procedure
Five (5) e-commerce companies were interviewed; the researchers approached the companies by e- mail and phone. The interviews were conducted by phone or online with zoom (online chatroom) and took place between April 2020 until May 2020. This approach was necessary as there was an
outbreak of the Covid-19 virus not allowing for physical interviews. The interviews were recorded and later transcribed, allowing the researchers to carefully listen to the interviews afterwards, thus, minimizing the risk of misinformation in the analysis (Bryman and Bell, 2017). The interviews began with the researcher first explaining the terms green packaging development and secondary packaging. This allowed the respondents to better understand the following questions, opening up for greater discussion. All the interview questions were asked in Swedish and both questions and
answers were translated to English. The interviews were around the 30-minute mark.
3.4.1 Analysis
The analysis of the empiric data collected started with transcription of the interviews. By listening to the recording, the researchers carefully transcribed each interview separately. The transcriptions and the analysis were conducted by both researchers to minimize bias. Recordings, transcripts and notes were the foundation of the analysis. The analysis was based on the theoretical framework presented in this study.
3.5 Authenticity and Trust
To fulfil the requirements of authenticity, detailed descriptions of the research process is needed (Bryman and Bell, 2017). To meet this requirement, we chose to describe those details that we found
19 to be the most essential for this study to make this paper as transparent as possible. Although this means that less important details are withheld in this paper as they were considered not relevant to answer the purpose of this study. There are of course risks with this approach as what’s considered essential is subjective. This means that there is a risk that the reader may feel that there are relevant details missing. As the interviews were conducted in Swedish and translated to English there is a risk that information may be misinterpreted or lost in translation. To counter the translation issues, the analysis was conducted by both researchers and if disagreement arose, a third unbiased party was called upon to settle the dispute. Bryman and Bell (2017) presents a possible solution to
interpretation issues, by sending the answers to the participants and letting them confirm or deny if their answers were correctly interpreted. This, however, was not possible as many of the respondents were pressed for time with their work and other responsibilities. The use of the interview guide, recordings and the effort of making the analysis as unbiased as possible were all actions taken to improve this study. The recordings enable the researchers to continuously relisten to the interviews several times, thus, minimizing misinterpretation.
4. Results and Analysis
4.1 Initial findings
The results show that all respondent companies purchase their secondary packaging from external B2B manufacturers, collectively and unanimously suggesting that B2B manufactured packaging is readily available, cheaper than producing packaging on-site and that the size options are sufficient.
Some B2B packaging manufacturers offers the option to add the company logo on the packaging, but only one of the respondents finds it favorable. We found that the primary requirements of the
packaging were cost-effectiveness and protection of the products as Shi et al. (2018) and Molina- Besch and Pålsson (2015) suggested.
‘’standard packages are made in many sizes; they are made with one to two centimeters interval.
So, there are quite many to choose from and we’ve found ones that are feasible to the product’’
- Respondent 2
One respondent claim that they build and design the secondary packaging for one of their products, using corrugated paper as material. The motivation for creating this modularized packaging was that the delicate nature of the particular product required customization to uphold the protective
20 requirements of safely shipping said product. When asked why they couldn't modularize the
packaging of other products as well, they answered:
‘’No, it would be too much trouble. We don’t sell much of that product and it’s quite expensive for the customer. Because of that we can build the packaging ourselves but we cannot do that for the
other products as it would be too much work... (..) “I don’t think the customer would be more satisfied if they receive specially designed packaging with our logo on it’’
- Respondent 1
These modularizations align with the suggestions by Grönman et al. (2010) who claims that
companies should gather specific product data to create maximum protection. However, our results show that none of these companies calculate the exact measurements of their products, the fit between packaging levels, nor do they gather specific data in order to minimize unnecessary air in the packaging. Thus, losing the opportunity Grönman et al. (2010) shows and minimize the environmental impact and cost of packaging.
The connection between the maximum fill rate of packaging and the waste, manufacturing emissions and space in transportation vessels is generally lost on the responding companies. A reoccurring opinion about the excess air in packaging was that it functions as extra protection, beneficial to the transportation of their product.
“...we are constantly working to get a high degree of filling, but some products must have a certain amount of air in them, otherwise they will break because they cannot handle the pressure. We can't
ship broken products in case we get returns.”
- Respondent 3
The majority of the respondents suggested, in contrast to many scholars such as Rokka and Uusitalo, (2008), that customers do not care about sustainable packaging. An interest in using green packaging and shipping was present, but only if it meets their primary requirements for protection, swiftness and low-cost.
“I think primarily that it should be cheap and that it should go fast, if it is environmentally friendly that will also be fine, but ultimately, I believe that the price is the deciding factor, it does, of course, choose faster shipping, but it is often more expensive, I think that the cheapest is what determines”
- Respondent 4
21 Zhang and Zhao (2012) writes that sustainable packaging could drastically minimize the amount of solid waste produced by the packaging and shipping industry. As the companies does not have any special environmental requirements on the packages, they are contributing to very same problem Zhang and Zhao (2012) describes. Packaging materials were chosen mainly from a protection point of view as well as cost point of view. As all packages must be able to provide protection for the products during the entirety of the shipping process or else the companies would face return shipments of broken goods. Respondent 2 says when asked if the protection aspect was the most important:
‘’Yes, it is important, it must also be able to minimize weight and size. Or else we will get higher shipping cost.’’
- Respondent 2
This indicates that cost is the biggest barrier in implementing green packaging as Shi et al. (2018) suggested, but also paradoxically the driver for certain green packaging development actions which happen to be both cost-effective and part of the green packaging development theoretical actions.
Maximizing fill rate was considered beneficial due to the lower shipping cost, the action however is also beneficial to the environmental aspect of packaging even if this was not the intention. Most companies display a general understanding that minimizing packaging materials could have positive effects in cost minimization as Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015) concludes, but the environmentally beneficial reduction of waste also mentioned by Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015) is not expressed by the respondents. Many scholars conclude that major environmental impacts are connected to packaging, literature concerning sustainable packaging development is filled with theoretical actions for companies to apply in their efforts to reduce these negative and environmentally harmful aspect of packaging. Our results show that companies are foremost striving for cost-minimalization as Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015), Shi et al. (2018) and Simms and Trott (2010) suggested, showing that the orientation towards cost-effectiveness remains year 2020, sustainability and green
alternatives are secondary motivations. As prior mentioned, some scholars have even created precise lists of desirable approaches and actions for developing green packaging, maximizing fill rate is frequently mentioned as a key action in this green packaging development. The development process of green secondary packaging is not conducted by the companies themselves, but rather outsourced to other firms and therefore the desirable actions describes in literature is not in the control of the companies we studied. The lack of commitment regarding the measurements and calculations of the product and packaging fit is enlarging the issue. The impact of packaging along the SC is also well
22 studied in certain areas, the issues relating to packaging materials, recyclability, and manufacturing of packages have been the focal point for the last decades (Shi et al., 2018). These impacts seem to be overseen and even ignored to a high degree and the perceived customers' demands are focused on fast and low-cost shipping, in contrast to the conclusion of Rokka and Uusitalo (2008) and other scholars.
4.2 Maximizing fill rate in packaging and transportation vessels
The actions taken by the companies' studied to maximize the fill rate between the packaging levels were connected to the cost of shipments rather than the green development requirements, all
respondents argued that the volume and weight should be as small as possible for economic benefits as Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015) suggested. The secondary packaging was also viewed as a vital part of the protection of the products, the excess air was considered to be necessary in order to lower the loss of goods due to damages in freight, the empty space was often filled with stuffing such as bubble wrap, a plastic material. All respondent companies purchased their secondary packages from a B2B manufacturer, this may not be due to lack of knowledge but rather from an economic
standpoint as the alternative (on-site manufacturing) were seen as expensive.
The maximum fill rate between the primary and secondary packaging could therefore not be
optimized, creating unnecessary air in each shipment. The calculations necessary to maximize the fill rate was not conducted by the companies, hence, the packaging choice, fit and practice was often based on gut feeling.
“there is no ongoing work, but this is very individual […], it is about a feeling for the packaging”
-Respondent 5
All respondents verified that they do ship unnecessary amounts of air in transportation, far more air than perceived necessary to protect the product. When asked about maximum fill rate in packaging, respondent 5 answered:
“No, far too much air in packaging. “ - Respondent 5
Grönman et al. (2010) writes that the main objective of packaging is to protect the product and minimize product losses. Maximizing fill rate can be achieved by gathering specific product data and adjusting the packaging to minimize losses and minimize materials used (Grönman et al., 2010). All
23 of the companies purchased standardized secondary packaging from a B2B manufacturer thereby not applying precise product data in order to minimize air and maximizing fill rate.
‘We are working on keeping shipping costs down […]
- Respondent 1
Postponing shipments is one of the most effective ways in optimizing fill rate in vessels and reducing emissions (Molina-Besch and Pålsson, 2015). This was not done by any of the companies as they all focused on low-cost and swift shipments.
‘’I believe that it should be cheap and fast shipping, of course it can be environmentally friendly, but I believe in the end that price is the deciding factor’’
- Respondent 4
The efforts to minimize air in packages was described by the respondents as laborious because of the difference in product dimensions and also due to the fact the requirement of protective secondary packaging was most important. The respondents also noted that shipping multiple products in the same package is making it impossible to minimize air as the products themselves may have different dimensions, thus, not allowing modularization of the packaging. They also note that it would be inconvenient for the customer to receive two different packages instead of one, as consumers are sensitive to shipping cost and two packages would result in higher shipping cost. They also explain that there is a risk that one of the packages is sent direct to the consumer and the second one sent to the post office. Therefore, the respondents conclude that air in the packages are unavoidable unless they want to send several packages.
“[…] the customer doesn’t want to go to the post office twice to pick up their delivery’’
- Respondent 1
Air in packaging is, as previously mentioned, needed for protection purposes according to the respondents.
‘’Some products need to be sent with some air or else they will break’’
- Respondent 2
Wever (2011) concludes that if products are durable there is a high potential of packaging minimization and volume optimization. The importance of weight cannot be underestimated
24 according to the respondents, as heavier packages lead to higher shipping costs. This mindset is not only beneficial from an economic standpoint but also when maximizing fill rate. Wever (2011) writes that weight maximization is important for volume optimization as carriers have a limit on how much weight they are allowed to ship. Heavy packaging run the risk of exceeding these weight limits before maximum fill rate is achieved. None of the respondents calculated or kept data of their fill rate, or volume of air needed to provide efficient protection
‘’We haven’t calculated but we’ve used trial and error, sometimes we have taken a gamble and as a result some products have been damaged’’
- Respondent 2
4.3 Drivers and Barriers
The companies indicated that if there was demand for green packaging, they would use green packaging despite the cost as this could be potentially profitable.
‘’Of course, we would choose more costly environmentally friendly options if there was a consumer demand for it’’
- Respondent 3
Nordin and Selke (2010) writes that customer demand is one of the biggest drivers in implementing green packaging and that this must be done in balance with customer demands of price sensitivity and convenience, such as fast shipping. The respondents also concluded that striving toward green packaging would be too costly, causing packaging costs to rise, which would be transferred to the customers, thereby losing a competitive advantage. Shi et al. (2018) writes that low-cost packaging is difficult to associate with sustainability because the investments needed to change current practice is considered expensive. The respondent companies collectively suggest that low-cost and fast shipping are competitive advantages, creating a barrier from pursuing a sustainable approach. When we asked the respondents whether the marketing of sustainable products and packaging was beneficial, all respondents suggested that eco-friendly labelling was the least important aspect.
“I believe it would be slightly beneficial, but I do not think it would be proportionate to the financial losses, there would not be any major financial gain versus the loss.”
- Respondent 4
25 Our results show that the environmental actions taken by the companies stem from a win-win
situation, where economic benefits are prioritized, and the environmental actions are only justified if there is profitability. Devoting manpower, time and money is not feasible if there is no financial gain.
The respondents all agreed that cost was the biggest barrier from green packaging development.
Lumsden, Stefansson and Woxenius (2019) states that customers online demand low prices and fast shipping. If two companies have identical products, they will choose the cheaper and faster
alternative. Rokka and Uusitalo (2008) however suggests that customers are concerned with sustainability rather than fast shipping.
Although not stated expressively in any interview there seemed to be a lack of in-house expertise concerning logistics. Two of the respondents answered that they do not have logistic staffing in the organization. Only one company employed a logistic expert on site, the remaining companies did not have logistics experts on the site, but rather at the factory or warehouse.
‘’We have a logistics expert at the factory, at one of our factories that position exists, but that isn’t overall in the organization’’
- Respondent 5
This indicates that there may be a lack of knowledge regarding logistics in many companies. Two companies with logistic experts on staff suggested that the primary objective of these employees was to find cost-effective solutions in packaging and shipping as Bramklev (2007) suggested. With this emphasis on cost-effectiveness, even within the logistics department, the green packaging
development is clearly overseen as an important action in modern e-commerce.
Simms and Trott (2010) concludes that green packaging development is benefiting from a
“packaging champion” responsible employee interested in the packaging system. In this study we found that this champion is not present and therefore, from Simms and Trotts (2010) point of view, the packaging development won't be pushed forward.
4.4 Theory versus practice
Our findings indicate that companies lack sufficient knowledge in regard to green packaging development theory and the negative impacts created by the industry as a whole, the respondents' perception of the pressing issues of packaging correlates with the conclusions made by Nguyen et al.
(2020), where customers knowledge was very limited, and focused on the recyclability and materials
26 of packaging. The term maximum fill rate was not fully understood by the respondent, the interview guide included a question regarding the maximum fill rate in packaging. One respondent answered:
“Yes, it will be difficult, there is always air and so on. Then I think, what would the maximum filling rate mean then? Is it no air?”
- Respondent 4
To protect the products, and to fill the empty space in packaging, all respondent companies use stuffing materials such as bubble wrap, a plastic material. This use of plastic materials is together with the unnecessary large packaging contributing to waste and pollution. The manufacturing of these materials is in turn contribution to even more emissions as Verghese and Lewis (2007) concluded.
The list of theoretical actions in green packaging development described by Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015) was not followed by any of the respondent companies.
• Maximize the fill rate in all levels of the packaging system: The maximum fill rate in each packaging level was not achieved, and the excess air was considered to be good protection.
• Adopting the packaging system to transport vehicle dimensions: The only adaptations made regarding transportation was that of sufficient protection.
• Developing modularized packaging to combine a variety of different products on one load carrier: The modularization of packaging was not achieved and could not have been due to the use of standardized packaging dimensions.
• Developing stackable packaging:
• Postponement of shipment: The companies were driven by customer demand, and the perceived demands were cost-effective and fast shipment, therefore the postponing of goods was not used as to create sustainability.
27
5. Conclusion
E-commerce companies and their packaging choices impact on the environment is yet to be explored in major studies. Green packaging development literature is comprehensive and distinct in its
guidelines for the innovation of better and sustainable solutions in packaging, these theoretical actions concerning green packaging development could be applied worldwide to every company striving towards environmentally friendly and cost-effective shipping and packaging. However, the economic barriers, lack of knowledge concerning the environmental impact of packaging and the absence of stakeholder pressure allows for the neglection of present theories to continue. Few of the theoretical actions are applied in practice, these green packaging development actions, such as maximizing fill rate in packages are desired for economical purposes, attempting to lower the transportation and material costs. However, little to no efforts are made to create sustainable green packaging solely for environmental benefits. The companies with logistic expertise suggest that the primary objectives of the logistic team are cost minimalization. Some scholars have suggested that customers are strictly demanding sustainable green alternatives, creating a beneficial driver for green packaging development, whilst others claim that customers mainly demand easy, cheap and swift alternatives.
The results in this study clearly concludes that companies do not believe or perceive sustainability as important to customers, but rather that low-cost, swift and protective packages and shipments are the most important demands and competitive advantages. In this study we explored the e-commerce companies packaging practice with a focus on maximum fill rate in the secondary packaging level, studying the differences in green packaging development theory versus practice as well as the reasons for this renunciatory regarding green packaging development. All companies conclude that they ship far too much air and that the maximum fill rate of packages is far too troublesome and expensive to achieve, they further argue that cost-effective options and the protection of products are far more important than the environmental impact of air in packaging. Furthermore, the majority of respondents states that customers does not notice nor care about the secondary packaging, as long as the product is safe and the shipment cheap and swift.
This study concludes that the economical aspect of business is reigning supreme, cost-effective packaging is clearly the first priority, by ordering standardized packages from packaging companies in large shipments the cost is minimized, but the opportunity to create modularized packaging is lost.
Protection of the product is the second priority and demand regarding secondary packaging, well- fitting packaging levels is viewed as desirable, but since the standardized packages are not
modularized to the products the packages are often filled with varying volumes of excess air. Air is
28 perceived as extra protection and the empty space is often filled with stuffing materials such as bubble wrap. Thirdly, the speed of shipments is considered to be of great importance. Lastly, the environmental aspect of packaging is viewed by all respondents as a bonus or a fortunate win-win resulting from an effort made to cut costs in packaging, meaning, if the effects of a cost-
minimalization effort is resulting is environmentally beneficial packaging development then its perceived as positive. The negative environmental impact of unnecessary air in packaging is perceived as mild or non-existing, non-sustainable packaging material is however mentioned as potentially harmful. The growing environmental concern visible throughout media, our society and suggested in many prior studies does not incuse the e-commerce companies' daily practice, since the negative impact of packaging is not viewed as a present issue, and the perception that customers does not particularly care about green packaging is shared by all respondents. There is clearly a gap between the green packaging development theories and the current practice within the e-commerce industry.
6. Discussion
The inconsistency of the customer demand is causing confusion among the companies on which way to develop their packaging and shipping, scholars are not unanimous on the best way to gain
customer favor. With this in mind, this study did find that companies lack sufficient knowledge regarding green packaging. The absence of current regulation, legislation and perceived public attention seem to have created a somewhat laidback culture in companies along the supply-chain when it comes to air in packaging, since the beneficial extra protection is considered well worth the disadvantage. The unwillingness to develop sustainable packaging could also be a result of improper management and the lack of logistics experts on staff, a packaging champion as Simms and Trott (2010) would call them.
We have found that the theoretical actions presented by the likes of Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015) and Wever (2011) specifies the actions needed to fulfil these green packaging developments is conclusive and present; however, these practical application and drivers are obviously halted due to a number of practical barriers. Thereby making the companies implementation of green packaging limited or non-existent. The results in this study suggest that there is gap between theoretical
guidelines provided by scholar in the field of green packaging development, such as Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2015), and current practice regarding air in packaging, creating a laidback approach to the excess air in packaging. A recent Swedish article by Jill Bederoff (2020) describes the current
