Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Wicked Problem of Packaging and Consumers: Innovative Approaches for Sustainability Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sustainable Packaging

Abstract

This chapter presents the methodology and consumer insights from a highly impactful research and design project, conducted over two years by the Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre and RMIT University. The project is designed to inform the Australian packaging industry in developing products and services that will reduce food waste. Food waste in Australia is a wicked problem, replete with paradoxes: people hate plastic but plastic saves food. The deep insights gained from the project have already resulted in significant changes to industry practices and new guidelines for packaging design. The methodology developed especially for this project is based on design thinking and ethnographic approaches, combined with quantifiable validation procedures. The study ensures industry actors have the right tools to make packaging decisions that reduce food waste.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. ARCADIS (2019) National food waste baseline: final assessment report. Retrieved from https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/25e36a8c-3a9c-487c-a9cb-66ec15ba61d0/files/national-food-waste-baseline-final-assessment.pdf

  2. Aday MS, Yener U (2015) Assessing consumers’ adoption of active and intelligent packaging. Br Food J 117(1):157–177. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2013-0191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aitsidou V, Michailidis A, Partalidou M, Iakovidou O (2019) Household food waste management: socio-ecological dimensions. Br Food J 121(9):2163–2178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aktas E, Sahin H, Topaloglu Z, Oledinma A, Huda AKS, Irani Z, Sharif AM, van’t Wout T, Kamrava M (2018) A consumer behavioural approach to food waste. J Enterp Inf Manage 31(5):658–673. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeim-03-2018-0051

  5. Amato M, Fasanelli R, Riverso R (2019) Emotional profiling for segmenting consumers: the case of household food waste. Calitatea 20(S2):27–32

    Google Scholar 

  6. Aschemann-Witzel J, Jensen JH, Jensen MH, Kulikovskaja V (2017) Consumer behaviour towards price-reduced suboptimal foods in the supermarket and the relation to food waste in households. Appetite 116:246–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barska A, Wyrwa J (2016) Consumer perception of active and intelligent food packaging. Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej 4(349):134–155. https://doi.org/10.5604/00441600.1225668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Belk RW (2007) Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing. Edward Elgar Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bhattacharya A, Nand A, Prajogo D (2021) Taxonomy of antecedents of food waste - a literature review. J Clean Prod 291:1259102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Blanc S, Massaglia S, Brun F, Peano C, Mosso A, Giuggioli NR (2019) Use of bio-based plastics in the fruit supply chain: an integrated approach to assess environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Sustainability 11(9):2475. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/9/2475

  11. Brennan L, Fry M-L, Previte J (2015) Strengthening social marketing research: Harnessing “insight” through ethnography. Australas Mark J 23(4):286–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brennan L, Previte J, Fry M-L (2016) Social marketing’s consumer myopia. J Soc Mark 6(3):219–239. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSOCM-12-2015-0079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brennan L, Langley S, Verghese K, Lockrey S, Ryder M, Francis C, Phan-Le NT, Hill A (2021). The role of packaging in fighting food waste: a systematised review of consumer perceptions of packaging. J Clean Prod 281:125276

    Google Scholar 

  14. Brooks V (2003) Exploitation to engagement: the role of market research in getting close to niche targets. Int J Mark Res 45(3):337–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brown T (2008) Design thinking. Harvard Bus Rev 86(6):84

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bucci M, Calefato C, Colombetti S, Milani M, Montanari R (2010) Fridge fridge on the wall: what can I cook for us all?: an HMI study for an intelligent fridge. In: Paper presented at the international conference on advanced visual interfaces, AVI 2010, Roma, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  17. Buchanan R (1992) Wicked problems in design thinking. Des Issues 8(2):5–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Buchanan R (2019) Systems thinking and design thinking: the search for principles in the world we are making. She Ji: J Des Econ Innovation 5(2):85–104

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cammarelle A, Lombardi M, Viscecchia R (2021) Packaging innovations to reduce food loss and waste: are Italian manufacturers willing to invest? Sustainability 13(4):1963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen S (2019) The design imperative: the art and science of design management. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cheng CC, Chen JS (2013) Breakthrough innovation: the roles of dynamic innovation capabilities and open innovation activities. J Bus Ind Mark 28(5):444–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chinen K, Endo H, Matsumoto M, Han YS (2021) Embedding a sustainability focus in packaging development processes. In: Kishita Y, Matsumoto M, Inoue M, Fukushige S (eds) EcoDesign and sustainability II. Springer, pp 49–60

    Google Scholar 

  23. Chu W, Williams H, Verghese K, Wever R, Glad W (2020) Tensions and opportunities: an activity theory perspective on date and storage label design through a literature review and co-creation sessions. Sustainability 12(3):1162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Clune SJ, Lockrey S (2014) Developing environmental sustainability strategies, the double diamond method of LCA and design thinking: a case study from aged care. J Clean Prod 85:67–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Corradini MG (2018) Shelf life of food products: from open labeling to real-time measurements. Ann Rev Food Sci Technol 9:251–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Davis SM, Gourdji J (2018) Making the healthcare shift: the transformation to consumer-centricity. Morgan James Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  27. de Almeida Oroski F (2020) Exploring food waste reducing apps—a business model lens. In: Food waste management. Springer, pp 367–387

    Google Scholar 

  28. Deutsch CP (1981) The behavioral scientist: insider and outsider. J Soc Issues 37(2):172–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Devin B, Richards C (2018) Food waste, power, and corporate social responsibility in the Australian food supply chain. J Bus Ethics 150(1):199–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Diaz-Ruiz R, Costa-Font M, Gil JM (2018) Moving ahead from food-related behaviours: an alternative approach to understand household food waste generation. J Clean Prod 172:1140–1151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. do Canto NR, Grunert KG, De Barcellos MD (2021) Circular food behaviors: a literature review. Sustainability 13(4):1872

    Google Scholar 

  32. Druckman J, Bayes R, Bolsen TA (2020) Research agenda for climate change communication and public opinion: the role of consensus messaging and beyond. Environmental Communication 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  33. Durose C, Perry B, Richardson L (2021) Co-producing research with users and communities. In: Loeffler E, Bovaird T (eds) The Palgrave handbook of co-production of public services and outcomes. Springer, pp 669–691

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. EC Sustainable (2020) Boroondara council food wastre bin audit and analysis partnering with EC sustainable. Retrieved from https://www.ecsustainable.com/audit-and-analysis/

  35. Edwards J, Othman M, Crossin E, Burn S (2018) Life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impact of seven contemporary food waste management systems. Bioresour Technol 248:156–173

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Engeström Y (2005) Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice, vol 12, Lehmanns Media

    Google Scholar 

  37. Esteban-Bravo M, Vidal-Sanz JM (2021) Marketing research methods: quantitative and qualitative approaches. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Farr-Wharton G, Foth M, Choi JH-J (2014) Identifying factors that promote consumer behaviours causing expired domestic food waste. J Consum Behav 13(6):393–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Faulkner GP, Livingstone MBE, Pourshahidi LK, Spence M, Dean M, O’Brien S, Kerr MA (2017) An evaluation of portion size estimation aids: consumer perspectives on their effectiveness. Appetite 114:200–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fausset CB, Baranak A, Farmer SK, Mann EL, Harrington CN, Price CE, Ray JB (2014) Developing a scoring matrix to evaluate the usability of consumer packaging: a pilot study. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Fernández-Serrano P, Tarancón P, Besada C (2021) Consumer information needs and sensory label design for fresh fruit packaging: an exploratory study in Spain. Foods 10(1):72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Field B, Booth A, Ilott I, Gerrish K (2014) Using the knowledge to action framework in practice: a citation analysis and systematic review. Implementation Sci 9(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Food and Agriculture Organisation (2019) The state of food and agriculture: moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf

  44. Fraser A (2018) The influence of package design on consumer purchase intent. In: Pascall MA, Han JH (eds) Packaging for nonthermal processing of food. John Wiley & Sons, pp 225–249

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Ganglbauer E, Fitzpatrick G, Comber R (2013) Negotiating food waste: using a practice lens to inform design. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 20(2):1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/2463579.2463582

  46. Gardien P, Rincker M, Deckers E (2015) Innovating Innovation: Introducing the rapid cocreation approach to facilitate breakthrough innovation. In: Paper presented at the 11th European Academy of Design Conference

    Google Scholar 

  47. Gilfillan G (2018) Characteristics and use of casual employees in Australia. Statistics and mapping, parliamentary services, Canberra, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hall-Phillips A, Shah P (2017) Unclarity confusion and expiration date labels in the United States: a consumer perspective. J Retailing Consum Serv 35:118–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hamby A, Pierce M, Daniloski K (2019) Co-creating social change using human-centred design. In: Macro-social marketing insights: systems thinking for wicked problems, 110

    Google Scholar 

  50. Hanssen OJ, Møller H, Svanes E, Schakenda V (2012) Life cycle assessment as a tool in food waste reduction and packaging optimization: packaging innovation and optimization in a life cycle perspective. In: Curran MA (ed) Life cycle assessment handbook: a guide for environmentally sustainable products. John Wiley & Sons, pp 345–367

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  51. Hebrok M, Boks C (2017) Household food waste: drivers and potential intervention points for design – an extensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production 151(380–392). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.069

  52. Hennink M, Hutter I, Bailey A (2020) Qualitative research methods. Sage

    Google Scholar 

  53. Hoyer WD, Chandy R, Dorotic M, Krafft M, Singh SS (2010) Consumer cocreation in new product development. J Serv Res 13(3):283–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hunter A, Brewer JD (2015) Designing multimethod research. In Hesse-Biber SN, Burke Johnson R (eds) The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. Oxford Publishing, pp 185–205

    Google Scholar 

  55. IDEO (2015) The field guide to human centered design

    Google Scholar 

  56. INCPEN, WRAP (2019) Key findings report: UK survey 2019 on citizens’ attitudes & behaviours relating to food waste, packaging and plastic packaging. Retrieved from https://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Citizen-attitudes-survey-food-waste-and-packaging.pdf

  57. Keller A, Wyles KJ (2021) Straws, seals, and supermarkets: topics in the newspaper coverage of marine plastic pollution. Mar Pollut Bull 166:112211

    Google Scholar 

  58. Kokotovich V (2008) Problem analysis and thinking tools: an empirical study of non-hierarchical mind mapping. Des Stud 29(1):49–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Lake D, McFarland A, Vogelzang J (2020) Creating resilient interventions to food waste: aligning and leveraging systems and design thinking. In: Närvänen E, Mesiranta N, Mattila M, Heikkinen A (eds) Food waste management: solving the wicked problem. Springer, pp 193–221

    Google Scholar 

  60. Lame G (2019) Systematic literature reviews: an introduction. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the design society: international conference on engineering design

    Google Scholar 

  61. Langley J (2016) Participatory design: co-creation|co-production|co-design combining imaging and knowledge. In: Knowledge utilisation colloquium, Llandudno, Wales, June 2016. (Unpublished). Retrieved from http://shura.shu.ac.uk/14631/.

  62. Langley S, Francis C, Ryder M, Brennan L, Verghese K, Lockrey S (2020) Consumer perceptions of the role of packaging in reducing food waste: baseline industry report. Retrieved from https://fightfoodwastecrc.com.au/project/consumer-perceptions-of-the-role-of-packaging-in-reducing-food-waste/

  63. Laurel B (2003) Design research: methods and perspectives. MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Lewrick M, Link P, Leifer L (2018) The design thinking playbook: mindful digital transformation of teams, products, services, businesses and ecosystems. John Wiley & Sons

    Google Scholar 

  65. Licciardello F (2017) Packaging, blessing in disguise: review on its diverse contribution to food sustainability. Trends Food Sci Technol 65:32–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.05.003

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Lindh H, Williams H, Olsson A, Wikstrom F (2016) Elucidating the indirect contributions of packaging to sustainable development: a terminology of packaging functions and features. Packag Technol Sci 29:225–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lockrey S, Verghese K, Crossin E, Young G (2020) Development of an environmental impact reduction strategy for Australia’s Antarctic infrastructure. J Ind Ecol 24(4):804–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lockrey S, Verghese K, Danaher J, Newman L, Barichello V (2019) The role of packaging for Australian fresh produce. Australian Fresh Produce Alliance

    Google Scholar 

  69. Lu S, Liu A (2016) Innovative design thinking for breakthrough product development. Procedia CIRP 53:50–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ludwig T, Wang X, Kotthaus C, Harhues S, Pipek V (2017) User narratives in experience design for a B2B customer journey mapping. In: Burghardt M, Wimmer R, Wolff C, Womser-Hacker C, (eds) Mensch und Computer 2017 - Tagungsband. Regensburg: Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V.., pp 193–202. https://doi.org/10.18420/muc2017-mci-0108

  71. Lune H, Berg BL (2017) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson

    Google Scholar 

  72. Lusk JL, Roosen J, Bieberstein A (2014) Consumer acceptance of new food technologies: causes and roots of controversies. Ann Rev Resour Econ 6:381–405. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Lydekaityte J (2019) Smart interactive packaging as a cyber-physical agent in the interaction design theory: a novel user interface. In: Paper presented at the IFIP conference on human-computer interaction

    Google Scholar 

  74. Males J, Van Aelst P (2021) Did the blue planet set the agenda for plastic pollution? An explorative study on the influence of a documentary on the public, media and political agendas. Environ Commun 15(1):40–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Malone L (2019). Desire lines: a guide to community participation in designing places. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  76. Masson M, Delarue J, Blumenthal D (2017) An observational study of refrigerator food storage by consumers in controlled conditions. Food Qual Prefer 56:294–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Mazzucchelli A, Gurioli M, Graziano D, Quacquarelli B, Aouina-Mejri C (2021) How to fight against food waste in the digital era: key factors for a successful food sharing platform. J Bus Res 124:47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. McCarthy B, Liu H-B (2017) Waste not, want not. Br Food J 119(12):2519–2531. https://doi.org/10.1108/bfj-03-2017-0163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. McKeown M (2008) The truth about innovation. Pearson Education India

    Google Scholar 

  80. McNess E, Arthur L, Crossley M (2015) ‘Ethnographic dazzle’ and the construction of the ‘Other’: revisiting dimensions of insider and outsider research for international and comparative education. Compare: J Comp Int Educ 45(2):295–316

    Google Scholar 

  81. Millen DR (2000) Rapid ethnography: time deepening strategies for HCI field research. In: Paper presented at the 3rd conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, New York City, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/347642.347763

  82. Møller H, Hagtvedt T, Lødrup N, Andersen JK, Madsen PL, Werge M, Aare AK, Reinikainen A, Rosengren Å, Kjellén J (2016) Food waste and date labelling: issues affecting the durability. Nordic Council of Ministers

    Google Scholar 

  83. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2020) A national strategy to reduce food waste at the consumer level. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25876

  84. Nemat B, Razzaghi M, Bolton K, Rousta K (2019) The role of food packaging design in consumer recycling behavior—a literature review. Sustainability 11(16):4350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Nguyen AT, Parker L, Brennan L, Lockrey S (2020) A consumer definition of eco-friendly packaging. J Clean Prod 252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119792

  86. Otten JJ, Diedrich S, Getts K, Benson C (2018) Commercial and anti-hunger sector views on local government strategies for helping to manage food waste. J Agric Food Syst Commun Dev 8(B):55–72

    Google Scholar 

  87. Parashar S, Sood G, Agrawal N (2020) Modelling the enablers of food supply chain for reduction in carbon footprint. J Clean Prod 275:122932

    Google Scholar 

  88. Pellegrini G, Sillani S, Gregori M, Spada A (2019) Household food waste reduction: Italian consumers’ analysis for improving food management. Br Food J 121(6):1382–1397. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2018-0425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Pereira de Abreu DA, Cruz JM, Paseiro Losada P (2012) Active and intelligent packaging for the food industry. Food Rev Int 28(2):146–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/87559129.2011.595022

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Pink S, Morgan J (2013) Short-term ethnography: intense routes to knowing. Symb Interact 36(3):351–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Porat R, Lichter A, Terry LA, Harker R, Buzby J (2018) Postharvest losses of fruit and vegetables during retail and in consumers’ homes: quantifications, causes, and means of prevention. Postharvest Biol Technol 139(C):135–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2017.11.019

  92. Porpino G, Parente J, Wansink B (2015) Food waste paradox: antecedents of food disposal in low income households. Int J Consum Stud 39(6):619–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Quested T, Parry A (2017) WRAP Household food waste in the UK, 2015. Retrieved from https://wrap.org.uk/resources/report/household-food-waste-uk-2015

  94. Redmond EC, Griffith CJ (2005) Consumer perceptions of food safety education sources. Br Food J 107(7):467–483. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700510606882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Reeves S, Peller J, Goldman J, Kitto S (2013) Ethnography in qualitative educational research: AMEE Guide No. 80. Med Teach 35(8), e1365–e1379. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.804977

  96. Rhein S, Schmid M (2020) Consumers’ awareness of plastic packaging: more than just environmental concerns. Resourc Conserv Recycl 162:105063

    Google Scholar 

  97. Richter B (2017) Knowledge and perception of food waste among German consumers. J Clean Prod 166:641–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Rittel WJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Rodgers PA, Galdon F, Bremner C (2020) Design research-in-the-moment: eliciting evolutive traces during the Covid-19 crisis. Strategic Des Res J 13(3):312–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Rodgers PA, Milton A (2013) Research methods for product design. Laurence King

    Google Scholar 

  101. Romani S, Grappi S, Bagozzi RP, Barone AM (2018) Domestic food practices: a study of food management behaviors and the role of food preparation planning in reducing waste. Appetite 121:215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Rosenbaum MS, Otalora ML, Ramírez GC (2017) How to create a realistic customer journey map. Bus Horiz 60(1):143–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.09.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Rønnow HN (2020) The effect of front-of-pack nutritional labels and back-of-pack tables on dietary quality. Nutrients 12(6):1704

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Searchinger T, Waite R, Hanson C, Ranganathan J (2019) Creating a sustainable food future: a menu of solutions to feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050. Retrieved from https://www.wri.org/publication/creating-sustainable-food-future.

  105. Sedlacko M, Martinuzzi A, Røpke I, Videira N, Antunes P (2014) Participatory systems mapping for sustainable consumption: discussion of a method promoting systemic insights. Ecol Econ 106:33–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Sibley K, Li L, Abbott JH (2016) Increasing the impact of peer-reviewed publications through tailored dissemination strategies: perspectives for practice feature in JOSPT. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 46(7):500–501. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2016.0110

  107. Simms C, Trott P, van den Hende E, Hultink EJ (2020) Barriers to the adoption of waste-reducing eco-innovations in the packaged food sector: a study in the UK and the Netherlands. J Clean Prod 244:118792

    Google Scholar 

  108. Siricharoen WV (2021) Using empathy mapping in design thinking process for personas discovering. In Vinh PC, Rakib A (eds) Context-aware systems and applications, and nature of computation and communication. ICCASA 2020, ICTCC 2020. Lecture notes of the institute for computer sciences, social informatics and telecommunications engineering, vol 343. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67101-3_15

  109. Spang ES, Achmon Y, Donis-Gonzalez I, Gosliner WA, Jablonski-Sheffield MP, Momin MA, Tomich TP (2019) Food loss and waste: measurement, drivers, and solutions. Annu Rev Environ Resour 44:117–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Stewart B (2012) Packaging design and development. In: Emblem A (ed) Packaging technology: fundamentals, materials and processes. Elsevier, pp 411–440

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  111. Stewart DW, Shamdasani P (2017) Online focus groups. J Adv 46(1):48–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Swink M (2006) Building collaborative innovation capability. Res Technol Manage 49(2):37–47

    Google Scholar 

  113. Szaky T (2019) The future of packaging: from linear to circular. Berrett-Koehler Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  114. Technopolis Group (2015) Innovation by design: how design enables science and technology research to achieve greater impact. Retrieved from https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/report/innovation-design

  115. Temkin BD, McInnes A, Zinser R (2010) Mapping the customer journey: best practices for using an important customer experience tool. Retrieved from http://crowdsynergy.wdfiles.com/local--files/customer-journey-mapping/mapping_customer_journey.pdf

  116. Thompson B, Toma L, Barnes AP, Revoredo-Giha C (2018) The effect of date labels on willingness to consume dairy products: implications for food waste reduction. Waste Manage 78:124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.05.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Trivedi RH, Patel JD, Acharya N (2018) Causality analysis of media influence on environmental attitude, intention and behaviors leading to green purchasing. J Clean Prod 196:11–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Tueanrat Y, Papagiannidis S, Alamanos E (2021) Going on a journey: a review of the customer journey literature. J Bus Res 125:336–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. van Geffen L, van Herpen E, van Trijp H (2020) Household food waste—how to avoid it? an integrative review. In: Närvänen E, Mesiranta N, Mattila M, Heikkinen A (eds) Food waste management: solving the wicked problem. Springer, pp 27–55

    Google Scholar 

  120. van de Grift TC, Kroeze R (2016) Design thinking as a tool for interdisciplinary education in health care. Acad Med 91(9):1234–1238

    Google Scholar 

  121. van Holsteijn F, Kemna R (2018) Minimizing food waste by improving storage conditions in household refrigeration. Resour Conserv Recycl 128:25–31

    Google Scholar 

  122. Velasco C, Spence C (2019) Multisensory product packaging: an introduction. In: Velasco C, Spence C (eds) Multisensory packaging: designing new product experiences. Springer, pp 1–18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  123. Verghese K, Lewis H, Lockrey S, Williams H (2015) Packaging’s role in minimizing food loss and waste across the supply chain. Packag Technol Sci 28:603–620. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Verghese K, Lockrey S (2019) National food waste baseline-Final assessment report. Retreived from https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/25e36a8c-3a9c-487c-a9cb-66ec15ba61d0/files/national-food-waste-baseline-final-assessment.pdf

  125. Verhulst N, Vermeir I, Slabbinck H, Lariviere B, Mauri M, Russo V (2020) A neurophysiological exploration of the dynamic nature of emotions during the customer experience. J Retail Consum Serv 57:102217

    Google Scholar 

  126. WRAP (2017) Labelling guidance: best practice on food date labelling and storage advice. Retrieved from https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-08/Development%20of%20best%20practice%20on%20food%20date%20labelling%20and%20storage%20advice.pdf

  127. Wikström F, Verghese K, Auras R, Olsson A, Williams H, Wever R, Soukka R (2018) Packaging strategies that save food: a research agenda for 2030. J Ind Ecol 23(3):532–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Wikström F, Williams H, Trischler J, Rowe Z (2019) The importance of packaging functions for food waste of different products in households. Sustainability 11(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092641

  129. Williams H, Wikström F, Otterbring T, Lfgren M, Gustafsson A (2012) Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. J Clean Prod 24:141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Williams H, Lindström A, Trischler J, Wikström F, Rowe Z (2020) Avoiding food becoming waste in households–the role of packaging in consumers’ practices across different food categories. J Clean Prod 121775

    Google Scholar 

  131. Wilson NLW, Rickard BJ, Saputo R, Ho ST (2017) Food waste: the role of date labels, package size, and product category. Food Qual Prefer 55:35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Wisdom J, Creswell JW (2013) Mixed methods: integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis while studying patient-centered medical home models. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville. Retrieved from https://pcmh.ahrq.gov/page/mixed-methods-integrating-quantitative-and-qualitative-data-collection-and-analysis-while.

  133. Witell L, Kristensson P, Gustafsson A, Löfgren M (2011) Idea generation: customer co-creation versus traditional market research techniques. J Serv Manage 22(2):140–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Woolley K, Risen JL (2021) Hiding from the truth: when and how cover enables information avoidance. J Consum Res 47(5):675–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Wurster S, Schulze R (2020) Consumers’ acceptance of a bio-circular automotive economy: explanatory model and influence factors. Sustainability 12(6):2186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Young W, Russell SV, Robinson CA, Barkemeyer R (2017) Can social media be a tool for reducing consumers’ food waste? A behaviour change experiment by a UK retailer. Resour Conserv Recycl 117:195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.10.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Young CW, Russell SV, Robinson CA, Chintakayala PK (2018) Sustainable retailing – Influencing consumer behaviour on food waste. Bus Strat Environ 27(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Yuille J, Varadarajan S, Vaughan L, Brennan L (2014) Leading through design: developing skills for affinity and ambiguity. Des Manage J 9(1):113–123

    Google Scholar 

  139. Yun B, Bisquert P, Buche P, Croitoru M, Guillard V, Thomopoulos R (2018) Choice of environment-friendly food packagings through argumentation systems and preferences. Ecol Inf 48(March):24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2018.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the funding of the Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre for Project 1.2.2 and our partners Woolworths and Sustainability Victoria. The Cooperative Research Centre Program supports industry-led collaborations between industry, researchers and the community. The Fight food Waste Cooperative Research Centre gratefully acknowledges the Australian Government Cooperative Research Centre Program financial contribution through the Cooperative Research Centres program as well as the participants of this project. We would also acknowledge the editorial support of Dr Eloise Florence.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Media and Communication, RMIT University, 124 La Trobe St, Melbourne, Vic, 3000, Australia

    Linda Brennan, Lukas Parker, Shinyi Chin, Nhat Tram Phan-Le, Michaela Jackson, Anouk Sherman, Ella Chorazy & Natalia Alessi

  2. School of Design, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

    Simon Lockrey, Karli Verghese, Sophie Langley, Allister Hill, Caroline Francis & Maddison Ryder

Authors
  1. Linda Brennan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lukas Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simon Lockrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karli Verghese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shinyi Chin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sophie Langley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Allister Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Nhat Tram Phan-Le
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Caroline Francis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Maddison Ryder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Michaela Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Anouk Sherman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Ella Chorazy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Natalia Alessi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lukas Parker .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Head of Sustainability, SgT and API, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Subramanian Senthilkannan Muthu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Brennan, L. et al. (2021). The Wicked Problem of Packaging and Consumers: Innovative Approaches for Sustainability Research. In: Muthu, S.S. (eds) Sustainable Packaging. Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4609-6_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation