Eco‐efficient Value Creation: An Alternative Perspective on Packaging and Sustainability

The classical sustainability perspective on packaging is to reduce the environmental impact or eco burden of the packaging, using life cycle assessment to evaluate different design alternatives. Simultaneously, the classical marketing perspective on packaging is to generate value through differentiation, for instance, by providing additional convenience. These two perspectives often conflict. In business reality, there is currently no established method to deal with these conflicts. Life cycle assessment is methodologically incapable of incorporating the difference in convenience. This article uses the eco-costs/value ratio (EVR), as a method for dealing with the environmental assessment of packaging design alternatives with such unequal ‘soft’ functionality. The article reviews the current debate on packaging and sustainability, highlighting some of the shortcomings of the methods currently applied. Subsequently, the EVR model is introduced and applied to five examples. These examples consist of pairs of products, where the product, the amount, the brand and the retail outlet are identical and only the packaging design and the value differ. The examples illustrate how the EVR model fits better to design decision making in business reality than classical life cycle assessment.

[1]  Susan Selke,et al.  Social aspect of sustainable packaging , 2010 .

[2]  Magnus Bengtsson,et al.  Weighting in LCA – approaches and applications , 2000 .

[3]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  On the limitations of life cycle assessment and environmental systems analysis tools in general , 2000 .

[4]  Tracy Bhamra,et al.  Investigating customer perceptions of refillable packaging and assessing business drivers and barriers to their use , 2009 .

[5]  Kees Sonneveld.  The role of life cycle assessment as a decision support tool for packaging , 2000 .

[6]  R. Wever,et al.  The Social Component of Sustainable Packaging , 2008 .

[7]  Ole Jørgen Hanssen,et al.  Sustainable packaging design: a holistic methodology for packaging design , 2010 .

[8]  Casper Boks,et al.  Influence of packaging design on littering and waste behaviour , 2010 .

[9]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  The Revision of ISO Standards 14040-3 - ISO 14040: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework - ISO 14044: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines , 2005 .

[10]  Joost G. Vogtländer,et al.  The EVR model for sustainability – A tool to optimise product design and resolve strategic dilemmas , 2001 .

[11]  Alaster Yoxall,et al.  Attributes of packaging and influences on waste , 2011 .

[12]  Not Indicated,et al.  International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance , 2010 .

[13]  Renee Wever,et al.  Design for volume optimization of packaging for durable goods , 2011 .

[14]  J. Last.  Our common future. , 1987, Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique.

[15]  Bryan Hattingh,et al.  The competitive advantage , 2007 .

[16]  María D. Bovea,et al.  Application of life cycle assessment to improve the environmental performance of a ceramic tile packaging system , 2006 .

[17]  Joost G. Vogtländer,et al.  The virtual eco-costs ‘99 A single LCA-based indicator for sustainability and the eco-costs-value ratio (EVR) model for economic allocation , 2001 .

[18]  Helen Lewis,et al.  Evaluating the sustainability impacts of packaging: the plastic carry bag dilemma , 2010 .

[19]  Han Brezet,et al.  Communicating the eco-efficiency of products and services by means of the eco-costs/value model , 2002 .

[20]  Arianne Bijma,et al.  The ‘Virtual Pollution Prevention Costs ‘99’ , 2000 .

[21]  Casper Boks,et al.  Increasing the benefits of product‐level benchmarking for strategic eco‐efficient decision making , 2007 .

[22]  Jay Singh,et al.  Life cycle inventory of HDPE bottle‐based liquid milk packaging systems , 2011 .