The sustainability of communicative packaging concepts in the food supply chain. A case study: part 1. Life cycle assessment

  • Antonio Dobon
  • Pilar Cordero
  • Fatima Kreft
  • Søren R. Østergaard
  • Mats Robertsson
  • Maria Smolander
  • Mercedes Hortal



In recent years, a new perspective for food packaging has emerged as a result of several issues like quality, safety, competitive prices or providing of useful information to consumers. This new perspective is called communicative packaging. Communicative packaging may influence consumers/companies on purchasing decisions. Since the environmental evaluation of such systems has not yet been performed, this paper is focused on the environmental evaluation of a flexible best-before-date (FBBD) communicative device on a packaging consumer unit and its implications on reducing environmental impacts related to fresh products. This consumer unit consists of a nanoclay-based polylactic acid tray filled with pork chops.


The environmental assessment of the consumer unit was made through life cycle assessment (LCA) using a cradle-to-gate approach. Environmental impacts were assessed according to the Eco-Indicator 99 v 2.1 methodology in Individualist (I) perspective.

Results and discussion

Several results were obtained from the LCA. With regard to environmental impacts of the FBBD, most of them were due to the paper substrate used for the manufacture of this communicative packaging concept as well as to the transports for delivering the components of the FBBD communicative device. On the other hand, when environmental impacts of packaging system with and without FBBD were compared, a large environmental load was detected for the system that has the communicative device affixed as a result of the higher weight of the package. However, the environmental load caused by the use of the FBBD was minimal in comparison with the total environmental load of the whole packaging system. On the contrary, the consumer unit that has the communicative device affixed showed less environmental burden than the consumer unit that has not affixed the device. This was due to the environmental benefits that the communicative device provides by reducing the amount of out-of-date packaged products at retailer outlets.


The use of a FBBD contributes to minimize environmental burdens related to the production, packaging and delivery of pork chops since it facilitates a dynamic control of out-of-date products even though the consumer unit with FBBD weighs 1 g more than the consumer unit that does not use the communicative device.


The results presented in this paper are estimated results of a specific case study for a prototype of communicative packaging device. Consequently, these results must be considered as a first approach according to future developments on communicative packaging.


Communicative packaging Life cycle assessment Packaging Sustainability 



This work has been financed by the European Union integrated project: SUSTAINPACK FP6-2002-NMP-1 IP 500311-2.


  1. Ahvenainen R (2003) Novel food packaging techniques. CRC, Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge. ISBN 1 85573 675 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bovea MD, Vidal R (2004) Increasing product value by integrating environmental impact, costs and consumer evaluation. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 41(2):133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. European Commission. Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection (2006) Labelling: competitiveness, consumer information and better regulation for the EU (report available at:
  4. European Environmental Agency (2005) Household consumption and the environment. EEA Report No 11/2005. ISSN 1725-9177 (report available at:
  5. European Environmental Agency (2009) Generation of packaging waste and GDP in the EU-15. (Accessed date: February 2009)
  6. European Commission. Eurostat (2009) Eurostat statistical books. Sustainable development in the European Union. 2009 monitoring report of the EU sustainable development strategy. ISBN 978-92-79-12695-6Google Scholar
  7. Kantor LS, Lipton K, Manchester A, Oliveira V (1997) Estimating and Addressing America’s Food Losses. FoodReview No. (FR-20-1) August 1997. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural AmericaGoogle Scholar
  8. Kreft F (ed), Zayas JL, Hector KB, van der Heijden C, Dobon A, Ostergaard S, Hortal M, Aucejo S, Wienk I (2006). Set up of case study, consumer acceptance studies and LCC analysis. Deliverable 6.38 of SustainPack projectGoogle Scholar
  9. Kreft F, Wienk I, Hortal M, Zayas JL, Dobón A, Aucejo S (2005) Requirements of communicative packaging concepts. Deliverable 6.13.of SustainPack ProjectGoogle Scholar
  10. Maiti P, Okamoto M, Ueda K, Okamoto K (2002) New polylactide/layered silicate nanocomposites: role of organoclays. Chem Mater 14:4654–4661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. NanoMarkets (2006) LC. Smart Packaging Markets: 2006–2013Google Scholar
  12. Nielsen PH, Nielsen AM, Weidema BP, Dalgaard R, Halberg N (2003) LCA food database. Accessed May 2008
  13. PRé Consultants & Ministerie von Wolkshuisvesting (2001) The Eco-Indicator 99. A damage-oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology report, nr. 1999/36A 3rd editionGoogle Scholar
  14. Roes AL, Marsili E, Nieuwlaar E, Patel MK (2007) Environmental and cost assessment of a polypropylene nanocomposite. J Polym Environ 15(3):212–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schneider F (2007) Considerations on food losses in life cycle approach of food supply chain. 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management. Zurich, 27–29 August 2007Google Scholar
  16. Shina Ray S, Okamoto M (2003) Polymer/layered silicate nano-composites: a review from preparation to processing. Prog Polym Sci 28(11):1539–1641Google Scholar
  17. van der Heijden C, Wienk I, Kreft F (2007) Report on second simulation model that predicts the feasibility of communicative packaging concepts. Deliverable 6.26. SustainPack ProjectGoogle Scholar
  18. Vetter O (2007) Alcan SiOx coating technology. Alcan Packaging Kreuzlingen, March 2007Google Scholar
  19. Wink ETH, Glassner DA, Kolstad JJ, Wooley B, O’Connor RP (2007) The eco-profiles for current and near-future NatureWorks® polylactide (PLA) production. Ind Biotechnol 3(1):58–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Dobon
    • 1
  • Pilar Cordero
    • 1
  • Fatima Kreft
    • 2
  • Søren R. Østergaard
    • 3
  • Mats Robertsson
    • 4
  • Maria Smolander
    • 5
  • Mercedes Hortal
    • 1
  1. 1.Packaging, Transport and Logistics Research Center–ITENEPaternaSpain
  2. 2.Agrotechnology & Food Sciences GroupWageningen University & Research CentreWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Danish Technological InstituteTaastrupDenmark
  4. 4.Acreo ABNorrköpingSweden
  5. 5.VTT Technical Research Centre of FinlandEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations