Journal of Polymers and the Environment

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 1112–1123 | Cite as

A Holistic Approach to Design Support for Bio-polymer Based Packaging

  • J. A. ColwillEmail author
  • E. I. Wright
  • S. Rahimifard
Original Paper


The growing interest in bio-polymers as a packaging material, particularly from companies looking to reduce their environmental footprint, has resulted in wider adoption. Traditionally the selection and specification of packaging materials was based on aesthetic, technical and financial factors, for which established metrics exist. However with bio-polymers, where the primary rationale for their use is environmental, alternative metrics are required. Furthermore, there is a significant strategic element to the decision process that requires a broader range of horizontal and vertical inputs, both within the business and the wider supply chain. It is therefore essential that a holistic approach is taken to the bio-polymer based packaging design process to ensure that the final packaging meets the original strategic intent and overall requirements of the business. Current eco-packaging design tools are generally limited to professional users, such as designers or packaging engineers, and generally provide tactical rather than strategic support. This disconnect, between the need for inclusivity and greater strategic support in holistic design, and the exclusivity and largely tactical support of current eco-design support tools, indicates a clear need for a new decision support tool for sustainable pack design using bio-polymers. This paper proposes a framework for an eco-design decision support tool for bio-polymer based packaging that has been developed using a predominantly qualitative research approach based on reviews, interviews and industrial packaging design experience and is an extension of previously published work. This research investigates further how existing eco-design methods, such as the ‘Balanced Score Card’, can be applied within the tool and how the shortcomings associated with incorporating social and environmental aspects can be partly resolved, through a simplified set of metrics tailored specifically for bio-polymer packaging decisions. The results of this research is a framework for the development of a three tier eco-design tool for bio-polymer packaging that provides decision support at the three critical stages of the design process: strategic fit, Feasibility assessment and concept/pack development.


Biopolymers Sustainable design Packaging Decision support tool Multi criteria decision making Life cycle assessment 


  1. 1.
    Almeida D, Pecas P, Ribeiro I, Teixeira P, Henriques E (2011) Application of life cycle engineering for the comparison of biodegradable polymers injection moulding performance. In: Proceedings of the 18th CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering, May 2–4, Braunschweig, Germany, pp 611–616Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Chemistry Council (2010) How plastics are made. Available online at: Accessed 10 Feb 2012
  3. 3.
    Álvarez-Chávez CR, Edwards S, Moure-Eraso R, Geiser K (2012) Sustainability of bio-based plastics: general comparative analysis and recommendations for improvement. J Clean Prod 23(2012):47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergerson J, Keith D (2006) Life cycle assessment of oil sands technologies. Alberta energy futures workshop May 2006, Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and EconomyGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bieker T (2003) Sustainability management with the balanced scorecard. International Summer Academy on Technology Studies, at the Institute for Economy and the Environment, University of St.Gallen in 2003Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colwill JA, Wright EI, Rahimifard S (2011) Eco-design tool to support the use of renewable polymers within packaging applications. In: Proceedings of the 18th CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering, Braunschweig, Germany, pp 160–165Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colwill J, Wright EW, Clegg AJ, Rahimifard S, Thomas NL, Haworth B (2009) Opportunities for bio-polymer resource conservation through closed loop recycling. In: Proceedings of GPEC 2010 on sustainability and recycling: raising the bar in today’s economy, Orlando, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis G, Song JH (2006) Biodegradable packaging based on raw materials from crops and their impact on waste management. Ind Crops Prod 23(2):147–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dreux-Gerphagnon B, Haoues N (2011) Considering the social dimension in environmental design. In: Proceedings of the 18th CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering, May 2–4, Braunschweig, Germany, pp 130–135Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elkington J (1994) Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California management review 36. No. 2Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Epstein MJ, Wisner PS (2001) Using a balanced scorecard to implement sustainability. Environ Quality Manage 11(2)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Figge F, Hahn T, Schaltegger S, Wagner M (2001) Sustainability balanced scorecard. Wertorientiertes Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement mit der balanced scorecard. Center for Sustainability Management, LüneburgGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Figge F, Hahn T, Schaltegger S, Wagner M (2002) The sustainability balanced scorecard—linking sustainability management to business strategy. Center for Sustainability Management, Lüneburg 2001Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gminder CU, Bieker T (2002) Managing corporate social responsibility by using the “sustainability-balanced scorecard”. In: Presented at the 10th international conference of the greening of industry network, June 23–26, Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldemberg J (2006) The promise of clean energy. Energy Policy 2006(34):2185–2190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Howarth RW, Santoro R, Ingraffea A (2011) Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Clim Change 2011(106):679–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ioannou K, Veshagh A (2011) Managing sustainability in product design and manufacture. In: Proceedings of the 18th CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering, May 2–4, Braunschweig, Germany. pp 213–218Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson SD (1998) Identification and selection of environmental performance indicators, application of the balanced scorecard approach, corporate environmental strategy, vol 5. No. 4. (Summer 1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaplan R, Norton D (1996) Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harv Bus Rev Jan–Feb 1996:75–85Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kondoh S, Mishima H (2011) Proposal of an integrated eco-design framework of products and processes. In: Proceedings of the 18th CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering, May 2–4, Braunschweig, Germany, pp 113–117Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lim LT, Auras R, Rubino M (2008) Processing technologies for poly(lactic acid). Prog Polym Sci 2008(33):820–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Plastics Europe (2009) The compelling facts about plastics 2009. An analysis of European plastics production, demand and recovery for 2008, PlasticsEurope (Association of Plastics Manufacturers), Accessed 10 Oct 2009Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Quieroz AUB, Collares-Quieroz FP (2009) Innovation and industrial trends in bioplastics. J Macromol Sci Part C Polym Rev 49:65–78Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schaltegger S, Dyllick T (2002) Nachhaltig managen mit der Balanced Scorecard [Sustainability Management Using the Balanced Scorecard]. Gabler, Wiesbaden, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shafiee S, Topal E (2009) When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished. Energy Policy 37:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    SIGMA (2002) The SIGMA sustainability scorecard. In: The SIGMA project guidelines, chapter 6.4., Download from the homepage on on 12 March 02
  27. 27.
    The Design Council (2011). The power of packaging design, available online at: Accessed 16 June 2011
  28. 28.
    United Nations General Assembly (2005) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future, transmitted to the general assembly as an annex to document A/42/427—development and international co-operation: environment; our common future, chapter 2: towards sustainable envelopment; paragraph 1. United Nations General Assembly. Available online at: Accessed 1 May 2011
  29. 29.
    Vazquez D, Bruce M, Studd R (2003) A case study exploring the packaging design management process within a UK food retailer. Br Food J 105(9):602–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Sustainable Manufacturing and Reuse/Recycling Technologies (SMART), Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing EngineeringLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations