Journal of Cleaner Production 252 (2020) 119792
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
A consumer definition of eco-friendly packaging
Anh Thu Nguyen a, *, Lukas Parker b, Linda Brennan b, Simon Lockrey c
a
School of Business and Management, RMIT University Vietnam, Viet Nam
School of Media and Communication, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
c
School of Design, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 12 April 2019
Received in revised form
16 December 2019
Accepted 18 December 2019
Available online 18 December 2019
Consumers are increasingly concerned about the environmental consequences of packaging. Businesses
are under pressure not only from consumers but also from governments to use eco-friendly packaging
for their products. However, what consumers perceive to be eco-friendly packaging is still unclear,
especially in emerging markets. This study examines consumer perceptions of eco-friendly packaging in
the context of packaged food products of Vietnam. The study involved a series of six focus group discussions conducted with a diverse range of consumers. The focus of the discussion was consumer perceptions of eco-friendly packaging, particularly whether or not consumers would adjust their purchase
behaviours to be more environmentally friendly. The data analysis procedure was undertaken using
inductive manual coding principles associated with interpretivist research. The results indicate that
consumer perceptions of eco-friendly packaging can be categorised along three key dimensions: packaging materials, manufacturing technology and market appeal. While consumers have diverse perceptions of eco-friendly packaging, their knowledge is limited and more related to packaging materials (such
as biodegradability and recyclability), and market appeal (such as attractive graphic design and good
price). Consumers show little knowledge about manufacturing technologies but still desire an ecofriendly manufacturing process. Results also suggest that a consumer-defined eco-friendly package for
food products should be visually appealing while satisfying consumers’ environmental expectations
relating to packaging materials and manufacturing process. We therefore propose a consumer-initiated
development of eco-friendly packaging that can be applied for sustainable packaging strategies.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Handling Editor: Yutao Wang
Keywords:
Eco-friendly packaging
Packaging materials
Manufacturing technology
Market appeal
Packaged food products
1. Introduction
This paper contributes deeper understanding to the growing
body of knowledge of consumer behaviour towards eco-friendly
packaging in a unique socio-cultural context: Vietnam. Globally,
the use of plastic packaging for consumer products has steadily
increased. In 2012, the global plastic production volume was 288
million tons (Parker, 2015). In 2015, this figure increased to 448
million tons, 40 per cent of which was single-use plastic (Parker,
2018), mostly applied for food packaging (Ritschel, 2018). Each
year, it is estimated that 90 million tons of plastic waste enters the
world’s oceans from coastal regions (Howard et al., 2018). Plastic
waste can damage the ecosystem of the oceans. There is evidence
that plastic may cause malnutrition or starvation for fish and
eventually lead to plastic ingestion by humans on a large scale. In
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: thu.nguyen@rmit.edu.vn (A.T. Nguyen).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119792
0959-6526/Published by Elsevier Ltd.
2016, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave a warning of
increased risks to human health from micro-plastic pollution in
commercial fish (Trowsdale et al., 2017). Additionally, the European
Parliament has approved the ban of single-use plastics, effective
from 2021 across European Union (EU) member countries (Rankin,
2019). Several governments around the world also pioneer in
banning single-use plastics, including the United Kingdom (UK),
Canada, France, Australia, Taiwan, Kenya and Zimbabwe
(Calderwood, 2018). However, plastic can be a fit-for-purpose and
efficient option to deliver goods to consumers (Verghese et al.,
2015). Plastic is often used as a cost-effective solution by manufacturers to deliver more products to the market with less packaging materials. Hence, a paradox exists between the impacts and
benefits of packaging choices, with industry heads pushing to increase plastic use while governments are increasingly banning or
restricting single-use plastics. The acceptability or otherwise of
these opposing motivations to consumers is still not known.
Although there are emergent studies that aim to address this
(Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019; Herbes et al., 2018), these are
2
A.T. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 252 (2020) 119792
conducted in a Westernised consumption context. Given this
research context, this study elucidates Vietnamese consumers’
perceptions about eco-friendly packaging in a product category
that contributes substantially to packaging waste (Instant Noodles).
1.1. Research context
Vietnam is a rapidly industrialising and increasingly a
consumerist society with a mounting plastic waste problem.
Disposal of packaging has become a major environmental challenge
in the country. In 2013, Vietnam’s largest city, Ho Chi Minh City,
used approximately 120 tons of packaging of all types each day, of
which 72 tons was plastic (Vietnam News, 2013). In 2019, it is
estimated that about 80 tons of plastic waste and bags are thrown
away every day in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City combined (Dan Tri
News, 2019). A report from Ocean Conservancy claims that Vietnam is among five countries e China, Indonesia, the Philippines,
Thailand and Vietnam e which dump as much as 60 per cent of
global plastic waste into the world’s seas (Winn, 2016). As plastic
decomposes slowly, related adverse impacts on the environment
will continue for not only Vietnam but also the entire planet in the
long term. The role of consumers in decreasing packaging waste is a
central one. However, nothing is yet known about consumers’ attitudes towards or perceptions of eco-friendly packaging options in
Vietnam. Accordingly, this study contributes novel information
regarding consumers in a rapidly growing economy, and within a
unique cultural context.
Global consumers are increasingly concerned about the negative environmental impacts of packaging waste. In previous studies,
international researchers have noted growing consumer concern
about packaging and its effects on the environment (e.g., Fernqvist
et al., 2015; Lewis and Stanley, 2012; Lindh et al., 2016a; Magnier
, 2015; Mishra et al., 2017; Prakash and Pathak, 2017;
and Crie
Rokka and Uusitalo, 2008; Taylor and Villas-Boas, 2016). A decade
ago, packaging was rated as the issue of greatest environmental and
ethical concern of UK consumers (Lewis and Stanley, 2012). Several
studies have investigated consumer choice in terms of eco-friendly
packaging in developed market contexts (e.g., Barber, 2010;
Koenig-Lewis et al., 2014; Laforet, 2011; Rokka and Uusitalo,
2008; Steenis et al., 2017, 2018). Koenig-Lewis et al. (2014) explored
consumers’ evaluations of ecological or eco-friendly packaging and
found that purchase intention is significantly affected by consumers’ concerns for the environment. Similarly, Rokka and
Uusitalo (2008) discovered that thirty per cent of surveyed Swedish consumers considered green or eco-friendly packaging as the
most important criterion when buying a beverage product. A
Deloitte study in the United States of America (USA) (2018) also
found that consumers are demanding eco-friendly products as they
become more aware of environmental issues. However, to date,
there is limited research from rapidly developing economies such
as those in Southeast Asia. This study contributes new evidence in
relation to developing, non-Western settings, therefore deepening
the understanding of eco-friendly packaging in a globalising
manufacturing context.
At this stage, there are no studies that examine eco-friendly
packaging in Vietnam although there are some in India (Biswas
and Roy, 2015; Mishra et al., 2017; Prakash et al., 2019; Prakash
and Pathak, 2017) and China (Hao et al., 2019). In the Vietnamese
context, citizens are increasingly concerned about public littering
and packaging disposal because most urban areas are visibly
polluted, commonly with discarded plastic packaging (De Koning
et al., 2015; Vietnam News, 2018). To arrive at a more accurate
understanding of consumer behaviour towards packaging, consumer research could be focused more on studying actual product
choices rather than general environmental attitudes (Rokka and
Uusitalo, 2008) and therefore move towards understanding actual
behaviours within their decision-making contexts (Lockrey et al.,
2018). However, at this stage, a strong theoretical understanding
of consumers’ appreciation of eco-friendly packaging is still lacking
(Prakash and Pathak, 2017). The present study examines consumer
perceptions of eco-friendly packaging within a previously unexamined setting.
1.2. The concept of eco-friendly packaging
Eco-friendly packaging has great potential to contribute to
€ m et al.,
sustainable development (Lindh et al., 2016a; Wikstro
2018). Although packaging is a social and political concern, there
has been only limited research into consumer perceptions of ecofriendly packaging. Indeed, eco-friendly packaging has never
been a clear concept in the consumer behaviour literature (Magnier
, 2015). Furthermore, researchers have used different terms
and Crie
to indicate eco-friendly packaging, such as environmentally
friendly packaging, eco-packaging, ecological packaging, green
packaging, sustainable packaging, eco-design, design for the environment, and environmentally conscious design (Boks and Stevels,
, 2015), causing
2007; Koenig-Lewis et al., 2014; Magnier and Crie
confusion when undertaking research. In practice, eco-friendly
packaging is often referred to as sustainable packaging. Many initiatives have been introduced to promote the concept of sustainable packaging in industry. A widely accepted definition of
sustainable packaging is given by the Sustainable Packaging Coalition® (SPC) (2011):
Sustainable packaging is beneficial, safe and healthy for individuals
and communities throughout its life cycle; meets market criteria for
performance and cost; is sourced, manufactured, transported, and
recycled using renewable energy; maximises the use of renewable
or recycled source materials; is manufactured using clean production technologies and best practices; is made from materials
healthy in all probable end of life scenarios; is physically designed
to optimise materials and energy; and is effectively recovered and
utilised in biological and/or industrial cradle-to-cradle cycles.
The SPC definition embraces functional as well as environmental and technological dimensions of sustainable packaging and
€ m et al., 2014,
is well recognised (Verghese et al., 2015; Wikstro
2018). Sustainable packaging is expected to protect the product
and communicate its features, embracing material reuse and waste
reduction throughout a packaging life cycle from production to
consumption, disposal and after disposal (Dominic et al., 2015).
With regard to packaged food products, packaging fulfils many
purposes. The primary purpose of packaging is to protect products
€ m et al., 2014). Packaging is also a way to communicate to
(Wikstro
consumers (Rundh, 2005; Silayoi and Speece, 2007). Packaging can
influence how consumers evaluate products prior to purchase
(Becker et al., 2011). Moreover, packaging can generate emotional
responses (Liao et al., 2015) and motivate consumers to purchase a
product (Murray and Delahunty, 2000). However, these functions
always come with both monetary and environmental costs (Simms
and Trott, 2010). In food packaging, a majority of materials used are
slowly degradable petroleum-based plastic polymer materials,
which impart serious problems to the environment (Kirwan et al.,
2011) but which may be abundantly available to consumers. To
manufacturers and marketers of packaged food products, consumers’ expectations in relation to packaging are important in
defining the overall acceptability and marketability of the product.
There are criteria consumers consider when making food
product choices related to packaging. Health-conscious consumers
pay attention to label information (Coulson, 2000) whereas others
A.T. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 252 (2020) 119792
place priority on eco-friendly characteristics of the package (Rokka
and Uusitalo, 2008). Furthermore, consumers may believe that
packaging is wasteful, and may also consider the product negatively
as they throw packaging away (Roper and Parker, 2013). Therefore,
what consumers perceive to be eco-friendly packaging is an
important question to address before businesses can successfully
implement eco-friendly packaging strategies in order to remain
sustainably competitive.
Considerable research has been undertaken into consumer
environmental considerations in terms of eco-friendly packaging
(e.g., Barber, 2010; Davies and Gutsche, 2016; Koenig-Lewis et al.,
2014; Laforet, 2011; Rokka and Uusitalo, 2008; Van Birgelen et al.,
2009). For instance, environmental concern is found to be positively associated with purchase intention for eco-friendly packaging (Magnier and Schoormans, 2015; Martinho et al., 2015;
Prakash and Pathak, 2017), whilst price may affect consumer
intention to buy eco-friendly packaging (Martinho et al., 2015;
til, 2019). While there appears to be a growing
Pícha and Navra
interest in consumer behavioural responses to eco-friendly packaging, there are not many studies reported on what consumers
perceive to be eco-friendly packaging. Some studies have been
directed at consumer perceptions towards eco-friendly packaging,
(2015);
such as Koenig-Lewis et al. (2014); Magnier and Crie
Magnier and Schoormans (2015). These previous studies mostly
focus on developed markets. Knowledge of what consumers in
emerging markets perceive to be eco-friendly packaging is still
lacking. This should be addressed as economic growth in emerging
markets rapidly increases packaging waste into the environment
(Engel et al., 2016). On the other hand, several researchers have
introduced the concept of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), taking into
account the packaging manufacturing process as well as food
packaging, transport and disposal stages (e.g., Bertolini et al., 2016;
Grant et al.,2015; Verghese et al., 2015). However, the question
remains whether consumers ever think through the packaging life
cycle process when it comes to buying packaged products. The
main aim of this research is therefore to address this deficiency.
Knowledge of consumers’ perceptions towards eco-friendly packaging for food products will provide useful input for manufacturers
and marketers designing and specifying packaging.
As shown in Section 1.1, in addition to not comprehending
consumer perceptions, existing studies are heavily weighted to
developed markets. Vietnam, an emerging market, has had recent
rapid growth in consumption of packaged foods. Urbanisation and
busier lifestyles lead Vietnamese consumers to make more purchases for convenience (Euromonitor, 2017). Packaged food product
categories are expected to grow as modern lifestyle trends increase
demand for convenience foods. Therefore, the food sector provides
a novel context in which to examine consumer perceptions of ecofriendly packaging in Vietnam.
Our study explores Vietnamese consumers’ perceptions of
packaging for a common fast-moving consumer good, the Instant
Noodle (IN) product category. This is because IN is a very frequently
bought packaged food product in Vietnam. IN buying decisions are
made on a daily basis for many consumers because they are relatively cheap and convenient. Vietnamese people consume 55 IN
packets per capita per year, the second highest average personal
consumption in the world after China (World Instant Noodles
Association, 2018). In terms of size, Vietnam’s IN market had a
value of 27 trillion VND (1.19 billion USD) in 2017 and was expected
to gain steadily increasing consumption volumes (Vietnam
Investment Review, 2017). This indicates that INs maintain strong
growth, which may be attributed to low price and strong demand of
a large young population for whom convenience is important
(Euromonitor, 2017). As a consequence, Vietnamese consumers are
regularly exposed to the various packaging types available for the
3
IN product category.
This study seeks to understand Vietnamese consumers’ perceptions of eco-friendly packaging for a common fast-moving
consumer good by addressing the following research questions
(RQs):
RQ1: What are consumer expectations for food packaging to be
considered eco-friendly?
RQ2: What dimensions of eco-friendly packaging are important
to consumers when it comes to purchase behaviour?
2. Material and methods
In this study, a phenomenological approach was employed, to
gain an appreciation of individuals’ experiences through the consciousness of the experiencer (Giorgi, 2009). This approach has
been widely used in sustainable consumption research (Davies and
, 2015; Ritch, 2015). PhenomenoGutsche, 2016; Magnier and Crie
logical approaches can gain insights into the actuality of phenomena, deepen understanding and provide rich authentic empirical
data (Denzin, 2019). Phenomenology follows an interpretivist
research tradition whereby research is conducted in naturalistic
settings (Creswell, 2009). Focus groups were used to obtain data
from research participants with deep probing to assist them in
making sense of their perspectives (Brinkmann, 2014; Guest et al.,
2017). Focus groups encourage free flowing discussions among
small groups of participants and facilitate the sharing of perceptions in an open and tolerant environment (Creswell, 2009).
Moreover, the subject of eco-friendly packaging is not individually
sensitive, allowing participants to freely share their own perspectives and experiences (Saunders et al., 2012). When conducting the
focus groups, we used open-ended questions to encourage participants to share opinions. Probing questions are useful to encourage
participants to express more detail (Strang et al., 2015). Hence, the
focus group moderator used several probing questions to identify
where individuals might have different experiences and perceptions of eco-friendly packaging so as to encourage elaboration.
We conducted six focus group interviews with a total of 36
participants. No new viewpoints were raised after four focus
groups, indicating saturation in data collection (Mason, 2010). We
used purposive sampling because this type of sampling seeks
relevant information from knowledgeable participants for the
research’s purposes (Elo et al., 2014). Participants were aged from
20 to 55 years and had purchased INs within the last 3 months at
the time of the focus group interviews. Participants were recruited
from a consumer panel of a commercial market research provider
and drawn from a cross section of Vietnamese demographic segments. Participants were given a nominal incentive for their
participation. Ethical clearance was provided by the institutional
ethics committee.
The focus groups were arranged in relevant age groups so that
participants would be comfortable to share experiences and express their opinion with their age peers. Each focus group had six
participants. Three focus groups were conducted in Ho Chi Minh
City and three in Hanoi. These sites were chosen because they are
the first-tier largest consumer markets of INs (Vietnam Investment
Review, 2017). The study was limited to major cities in Vietnam.
Rural and regional areas were not included.
Table 1 summarises participants’ profiles. Participants came
from diverse occupational backgrounds, such as office workers,
students, homemakers, traders, doctors, and the self-employed.
There were more female participants (58.5 per cent), reflecting a
greater female influence in purchasing household products
4
A.T. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 252 (2020) 119792
Table 1
Participant profile.
Focus group name (purposive
target)
Occupation
Age
range
Mean
age
Gender split
(f:m)
Group 1. Middle-aged 1 Ho Chi Minh
City
Group 2. Young adults 1 Ho Chi
Minh City
Group 3. Young adults 2 Ho Chi
Minh City
Group 4. Middle-aged 2 Hanoi
Group 5. Young adults 3 Hanoi
Group 6. Young adults 4 Hanoi
Trader (2), Tailor (2), Homemaker (2)
36e45
40
6:0
30.5
3:3
23
2:4
46e54
26e30
20e25
49
27.5
23
6:0
4:2
2:4
20e54
32
23:13
Combined
Security staff (1), Shop owner (1), Office worker (1), Homemaker (1), Customer service staff (1), 26e35
Accountant (1)
College student (4), Accountant (1), Information Technology (IT) technician (1)
20e25
Office worker (1), Homemaker (2), Fashion trader (1), Craftsperson (1), Doctor (1)
Office workers (3), Sales staff (1), Accountant (1), Homemaker (1)
Fashion trader, Mobile phone sales staff, Electric biker trader, Office worker, Bank clerk,
Accountant
e
N ¼ 36.
(Nielsen, 2016). A majority of participants (66.6 per cent) were aged
between 21 and 35 years old, with a mean age of 32. This reflects
Vietnam’s relatively young population, where the median age is 31
(Central Intelligence Agency US, 2018).
All focus groups were conducted in Vietnamese and the transcripts were translated into English by a professional translator. In
order to decrease the potential for bias, the documents were
backwards-translated into Vietnamese by a bilingual researcher.
Both versions were then double checked by another bilingual
researcher to ensure equivalence in the meaning (Brennan et al.,
2015a).
As the objective of our study is to obtain insights into the experiences of the research participants in their own words, in the
data analysis, we used inductive manual coding principles associated with interpretivist research as suggested by Basit (2003). Fig. 1
illustrates the data analysis procedures.
Qualitative data were systematically analysed in order to “understand and interpret the meanings and experiences of the informants” (Spiggle, 1994, p. 492), using the qualitative analysis
process described by Creswell (2009). Themes were constructed
using an iterative process of data analysis and interpretation
(Clarke and Braun, 2014). The main themes extracted and interpreted were based on Boks and Stevels (2007) work, which identified three different categories of eco-friendliness characteristics of
eco-friendly packaging: governmental, scientific and consumer.
The assignment of data to constructed themes was undertaken by
multiple researchers independently. Where disagreement
occurred, discussions were facilitated to ensure agreement
(Spiggle, 1994). In the data analysis, focus was given to the consumer category, which addresses consumers’ perceptions of the
eco-friendliness of packaging and their expectations of eco-friendly
packaging.
In the data analysis process, transcripts were analysed to identify key themes using the key-words-in-context method (Creswell,
2009). Firstly a list of themes emerged with 22 concepts labelled as
items. We reviewed each of the items carefully by re-examining the
context in which participants expressed their perceptions of ecofriendly packaging to identify themes. Next, we thoroughly
reviewed the codes and coded data to identify similarity and
overlap (i.e., patterns of similar semantic meanings) among items.
In case of overlap (i.e., items with similar semantic meanings), we
removed overlapping items in order to reach a refined list of
distinct items relating to constructed themes. In total, ten overlapping items were removed to create a refined list of twelve
discrete items or topics.
The twelve topics that emerged from the analysis were categorised into three main themes/dimensions: packaging materials,
manufacturing technology and market appeal. This classification of
eco-friendly packaging dimensions is considered as new, compared
to prior studies such as Lindh et al. (2016a); Magnier and Crie
(2015); Scott and Vigar-Ellis (2014). For example, Magnier and
(2015) have identified two dimensions of eco-friendly packCrie
aging in terms of perceived consumer benefits and perceived
consumer costs. Scott and Vigar-Ellis (2014) have focussed more on
how consumers interpreted labels, logos and material cues to
assess if a package is or is not eco-friendly. Alternatively, Lindh et al.
(2016a) have explored consumer perceptions of packaging for
organic food products with regard to three themes e perceived
packaging functions and materials, perceived environmentally
sustainable packaging, and perceived importance of environmentally sustainable packaging. In our study, content analysis identified
and categorised consumer perceptions of eco-friendly packaging
into three key dimensions, which reflect a holistic approach in
gaining a practical understanding of eco-friendly packaging from a
consumer perspective.
3. Results and discussion
Fig. 1. Data analysis procedures (Adapted from Creswell, 2009).
The twelve topics emerging from the analysis were grouped
under three main themes, namely, (1) packaging materials, i.e.
characteristics of materials used to manufacture eco-friendly
packaging, (2) manufacturing technology, i.e. characteristics of
the eco-friendly package manufacturing process and (3) market
A.T. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 252 (2020) 119792
appeal, i.e. characteristics related to how eco-friendly packaging
can appeal to consumers. The themes were then labelled as dimensions of eco-friendly packaging. Table 2 illustrates how the
three themes were interpreted from the twelve items/topics that
were identified and extracted from the coding process.
The following sections discuss the three main dimensions and
the related important attributes of eco-friendly packaging in consumer perceptions.
3.1. Packaging materials
The most prominent dimension of eco-friendly packaging from
a consumer perspective relates to packaging materials. In the focus
groups, participants associated eco-friendly packaging with their
expectations for packaging materials. Most were aware of ecofriendly packaging and stated that eco-friendly packaging was not
as abundantly available in the market as they expected, despite the
focus of media attention on plastic packaging and plastic waste.
This was demonstrated in comments such as:
I know about eco-friendly packaging from media. Sadly, there are
not many eco-friendly packages in the market. (Female, sales staff)
Participants also described eco-friendly packaging as non-toxic,
easily decomposed at disposal, and best if biodegradable. These
characteristics partly form a consumer definition of an eco-friendly
package:
An eco-friendly package does not pollute the environment, can be
easily treated after use and is biodegradable. (Female,
craftsperson)
Eco-friendly packaging should be safe and non-toxic to humans.
(Female, trader)
These consumer views are consistent with Lindh et al. (2016b)
who found that sustainable packaging development starts with
packaging materials. Consumers in our study evaluated packaging
materials when shopping and assessed whether a package was ecofriendly based on material cues. Prior studies have also indicated
that consumers strongly rely on material cues to form judgements
on packaging eco-friendliness (Lindh et al., 2016a; Magnier and
, 2015).
Crie
Recyclability was another criterion participants perceived as
important to eco-friendly packaging. Many focus group participants stated that recyclability made packaging less harmful to the
environment because this attribute helped reduce packaging waste.
This is consistent with Young’s (2008) finding that consumers
across developed and developing countries (the UK, the USA, Germany and China) associate eco-friendly packaging mostly with
5
recycling.
Participants suggested that materials in eco-friendly packaging
should be able to be reused as well as recycled. Reusability can be in
two ways: some materials are reused in the home in their entirety
as packages, and parts of the packaging can also be developed for a
second use (Lindh et al., 2016b). Participants assumed that ecofriendly packaging must be reused for another purpose, such as
reproduction or construction. One participant gave a short definition of eco-friendly packaging as follows:
First, eco-friendly packaging must be biodegradable. Second, it
must be reusable. Third, it must not contain toxic substances.
(Female, bank clerk)
The idea that packaging can be reduced, reused or recycled is
not new and the responses of participants in this study echo studies
undertaken in other parts of the world. For example, Lewis and
Stanley’s (2012) study in the UK revealed that consumer perceptions of eco-friendly packaging reflect packaging disposal issues,
and hence consumers desire packaging with the characteristics of
biodegradability, recyclability and reusability. Similarly, Magnier
(2015) found that most consumers associate eco-friendly
and Crie
packaging with perceived recyclability and biodegradability. Scott
and Vigar-Ellis (2014) also found that for South African consumers, the most commonly associated benefits with eco-friendly
packaging are recyclability and reusability. Thus, it is reassuring
that Vietnam, despite being a rapidly developing country, has a
similar attitude towards eco-friendly packaging.
With regard to packaging materials, many participants cited
paper as the most eco-friendly material, for example:
First thing comes to my mind about eco-friendly packaging is that it
is made from paper. (Male, electric bike trader).
No doubt, the most eco-friendly packaging material must be paper.
(Female, office worker).
Participants considered paper as easily decomposable,
compared to other types of packaging materials. To their knowledge, paper might cause fewer negative environmental impacts,
such as:
I believe paper is most eco-friendly because it can decompose itself.
(Female, accountant)
To me, paper packaging is the most eco-friendly because it is easily
decomposed, leaving less negative impact on the environment.
(Female, office worker)
Consumers’ perceptions of paper as the most eco-friendly
Table 2
Key dimensions of eco-friendly packaging.
Item/topic
Theme/dimension
Biodegradable
Non-toxic
Easily decomposed
Reusable
Recyclable
Paper-based
Production causing no harm to the environment
Natural and organic sources of materials used in production
New and advanced technology for production
Good price
Visually attractive graphic design
Protective performance
Packaging Material
Packaging Material
Packaging Material
Packaging Material
Packaging Material
Packaging Material
Manufacturing technology
Manufacturing technology
Manufacturing technology
Market appeal
Market appeal
Market appeal
6
A.T. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 252 (2020) 119792
packaging material is consistent with earlier studies. For example,
Allegra et al. (2012) and Lewis and Stanley (2012) found that consumers regard paper as one of the most eco-friendly materials.
Likewise, according to Lindh et al. (2016a), consumers consider
paper-based packaging as having the least negative environmental
impact, and thus being the most environmentally advantageous.
Dilkes-Hoffman et al. (2019) and Steenis et al. (2017) also report
that consumers judge paper-based packaging as more sustainable
than plastic packaging. In practice, consumers’ environmental
awareness is driving the demand of paper packaging for food
because it is both economically and environmentally appealing
(Furlong, 2015).
The fact that consumers perceive paper-based packaging to be
eco-friendly could be a paradox, if we consider the Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) of a paper packaging product’s life. The development of LCA in assessing environmental impacts of packaging
takes into account the package manufacturing process, the food
packaging process, the transport phases, and the end-of-life management of different types of packaging (Bertolini et al., 2016). If
tested by LCA, packaging of any type is considered to be environmentally damaging primarily for its material use and disposal issues at the end of its life (Grant et al.,2015). However, paper and
cardboard can be worse for the environment compared to plastic,
because of the amount of materials required to make packaging fitfor-purpose (Verghese et al., 2015), and associated impacts driven
by agricultural processes and end of life degradation (Boesen et al.,
2019). There is a discrepancy between what consumers perceive
and what is scientifically measured in terms of eco-friendly packaging. As pointed out by Steenis et al. (2017), a study on consumer
perceptions and LCA indicates that consumers hold inaccurate beliefs about packaging. One of the reasons may be that consumers’
relationship with packaging is only for short periods. The desire is
for the product that the packaging contains, not with the package
itself (Grant et al.,2015). Furthermore, consumers pay attention to
the environmental effects of the end of packaging life (Herbes et al.,
2018) because they are visible. Nevertheless, the consensus among
consumers relating to paper-based packaging in our study could be
considered as an important input for strategists who wish to
educate consumers about the environmental characteristics of
different types of packaging materials.
Some participants preferred plastic packaging even though it
might be regarded by many others as less eco-friendly. One
participant (participant 14, college student) said that he preferred
plastic packages, even when he knew they were not eco-friendly.
This is because to most consumers, plastic provides convenience,
hygiene and ease of use. A few participants still stated that plastic
could be eco-friendly, for instance:
I still think that plastic packaging is eco-friendly. (Female, tailor)
According to LCA, plastic can be more eco-friendly than paper
packaging in some impact categories, such as water and energy
consumption, given the raw materials required for production
(Boesen et al., 2019). However, this fact may be unknown to this
participant and to most consumers. Our study shows that there are
consumer groups who give preference to plastic packaging for food
products although they are not fully aware about the environmental impacts of different types of packaging materials. This
triggers a question about why consumers hold preference for
plastic packaging. The analysis of market appeal characteristics of
packaging in Section 3.3 serves to explain why plastic packaging is
more appealing to some consumers, as well as to provide useful
input for eco-friendly packaging marketers to enhance the attractiveness of their products.
Overall, the inconsistencies in consumer perceptions of different
types of packaging materials, such as paper and plastic, reveals that
consumers cannot clearly distinguish between less and more ecofriendly packaging materials. This might be because there are
several different types of plastic materials and it is often difficult to
rank them according to their environmental indicators (Orset et al.,
2017). Whilst LCA is the most comprehensive and complete tool for
quantitatively assessing environmental impacts of different types
of food packaging (Barros et al., 2018; Morris, 2005; Vignali, 2016),
it is often used as an in-house tool, and its results are not available
to the public. When made public, LCA results can simply confuse
consumers due to the complexity of such data. Without access to
these data or an understanding of what they mean, consumers
cannot accurately know what is and is not environmentally sustainable through these metrics.
In Vietnam, about 90 per cent of packaged instant noodles are in
plastic bag-type (Dong, 2016). The dominance of plastic packaging
in the packaged instant noodle market of Vietnam might produce
effects on consumer preference that mean the more abundantly
available and therefore more familiar the type of packaging, the
more welcome it is. This indicates a need for research into the
commonly used packaging materials for packaged foods and the
effects on consumer preferences and purchase decisions, which is
not covered in our study.
3.2. Manufacturing technology
Manufacturing technology emerged as the second dimension
relating to eco-friendly packaging in the focus groups. In consumer
views, eco-friendly packaging should come from an eco-friendly
manufacturing process, and favourably from the use of natural
and organic sources of raw materials. This could again be a paradox
based on LCA measurements of synthetic versus natural material
production (Boesen et al., 2019), which might be unknown to
consumers. In the focus groups, there were several opinions about
sources of materials used to produce packaging that could reduce
negative impacts on the environment, for example:
Eco-friendly packaging should come from a good choice of raw
materials: materials used to produce eco-friendly packaging must
be eco-friendly. (Male, office worker)
Consumer concerns about raw materials used to produce
packaging correlate with findings from Palombini et al. (2017),
which showed that packaging materials are often associated with
environmental issues. Furthermore, most focus group participants
stressed that the manufacturing process should be improved to
minimise negative environmental impacts. They declared that the
responsibility for providing eco-friendly packaging should lie with
manufacturers, rather than leaving it to consumers to demand such
packaging. They also underlined the need to implement an ecofriendly manufacturing process, such as:
The manufacturing process must be simplified, to reduce costs and
minimise adverse consequences to the environment. (Female, sales
staff)
Our findings fit Scott and Vigar-Ellis’ (2014) results, which show
that consumers expect packaging manufacturers to adopt an ecofriendly manufacturing process. In addition, consumers in our
study verbally expressed their expectations about the
manufacturing process, specifically:
Of course, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to ensure the
packaging manufacturing process is eco-friendly. To me, the three
most important things about eco-friendly packaging are: first, use
A.T. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 252 (2020) 119792
7
materials which take shorter time for decomposition; second,
simplify the manufacturing process to not pollute the environment
and third, make good use of natural and organic materials like
paper, bamboo and banana leaves. (Female, accountant)
seen as lesser quality than plastic. As reported by Magnier and
’s (2015), eco-friendly packaging is often perceived as less
Crie
appealing by consumers, because of its simplicity and lack of colours. Our study recorded several negative comments on the low
attractiveness of biodegradable and paper packaging. For instance:
These consumer opinions represent a dilemma in terms of
cleaner production. That is, whose job is it to be environmentally
responsible - the consumer or the manufacturer? (Brennan et al.,
2015b). Although participants emphasised that the role of manufacturers is to ensure an eco-friendly manufacturing process, they
could not clearly discuss technological terms and only used general
terms such as ‘advanced’ and ‘new technology’:
A biodegradable package is not attractive at all to buyers. (Female,
craftsperson)
Manufacturers have to apply new advanced technology for ecofriendly packaging. (Male, IT technician)
Overall, consumer understanding of manufacturing technology
seemed to be limited and they struggled to share what they knew
about technology. The technological aspects of packaging production might be beyond an average consumer’s knowledge (Esbjerg
et al., 2016), and therefore, consumers’ limited understanding of
manufacturing technology is not unique to the Vietnamese market.
3.3. Market appeal
The third dimension of eco-friendly packaging which emerged
from the focus groups is market appeal. In our study, market appeal
is defined as the ability of a packaged food product to attract consumers’ attention at the point of purchase. Market appeal is interpreted in consumer terms, embracing three attributes: visual
presentation, functional performance and price.
3.3.1. Visual presentation
Participants stated that product packages should be visually
appealing. Most participants said that regardless of whether
packaging was eco-friendly or not, it should be attractively
designed and affordable. Many emphasised that they made purchase decisions in store outlets based on the attractive appearance
of packaging. Colour and images were found to be used on packaging in order to attract consumer attention, and proved to be
effective. For example:
Nice design of graphics on packaging strongly influences my decision to buy a packaged food product. (Female, office worker)
Attractive design of packaging in the form of graphic images was
highly favoured by participants. This observation contradicts
Martinho et al. (2015) who found that packaging design is not an
important factor to consumers; and that low price is more important. However, others have found, in alignment with our study, that
aesthetically appealing packaging designs can increase desire for a
product (Norman, 2005), encourage willingness to pay a premium
(Bloch et al., 2003), increase preference over well-known brands
(Reimann et al., 2010), and enable more direct comparison of alternatives, as well as attract the consumer’s attention (Venter et al.,
2011). Our study supports the findings of Tait et al. (2016) who
found that graphic images impacted on consumer choice of packaged food products. Mueller et al. (2010) also reported that a
graphic label format was the second most important attribute after
price. Hence, aesthetic appeal of packaging is an important criterion in consumers’ buying consideration.
In this study, most research participants stated that eco-friendly
packaging was not aesthetically pleasing. In consumer perceptions,
eco-friendly packaging, either biodegradable or paper-based, was
I do not like paper packages because they are so plain and uglylooking. (Female, tailor)
Focus group participants gave positive comments about the
appealing characteristics of plastic packaging in the market. Most
stated that buying INs in plastic packaging was undeniably a
common behaviour because the usual packaging for INs was plastic
bag-type with colourful graphic designs. Many indicated the likelihood of choosing plastic packaging over other types of packaging,
citing the reasons of abundant availability in the market and the
attractive graphic design. For example:
Plastic packaging for instant noodles is so abundantly available and
we buy them. (Female, fashion trader)
I choose plastic packaging. It is eye-catching and very attractive
with colourful images. (Female, sale staff)
In addition to attractive graphic design, participants highlighted
brand name as another determinant attribute. Many said that a
well-known brand indicated quality. Hence, a good graphic design
of the package, combined with a well-known brand, would affect
their choice. For instance:
Eco-friendly packaging such as paper packaging is boring. Paper
packages are boring with dull colours and poor graphic images. At
the point of purchase, a nice graphic design of the package plus a
well-known brand will absolutely affect our buying decisions.
(Female, accountant)
When asked about the most well-known brand of IN in the
market, most participants mentioned Hao Hao. Hao Hao is a brand
of Acecook, a Japanese-owned instant noodle company operating in
Vietnam. The brand itself occupies 25 per cent market share while
Acecook as a whole accounts for 43 per cent of the market (Vietnam
Investment Review, 2017). To many participants, a well-known
brand was influential at the point of purchase:
When it comes to instant noodles, we will say Hao Hao. We choose
Hao Hao products as this brand is so famous. (Female, accountant)
According to Schuitemai and De Groot (2015), consumers tend
to focus on egoistic product attributes (i.e. to fulfil self-serving
motives such as a nice design and a well-known brand), before
attending to green product attributes. While some participants
expressed willingness to buy eco-friendly packaging, other product
attributes - nice design and well-known brand - were emphasised
by many participants as being more important. This indicates a
complexity in consumer behaviour towards eco-friendly packaging.
Consumers desire eco-friendly packages which have aesthetic appeal of the design reinforced by a well-known brand.
3.3.2. Functional performance
In this study, only a few participants raised concerns about the
protective performance of packaging. They stated that packaging
must be able to protect the product and that this attribute would
8
A.T. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 252 (2020) 119792
also influence their purchase intentions. Specifically, IN packaging
should ensure that the noodles were tasty, easy to access, not
broken or degraded, and easy to prepare and eat ‘instantly’. All
other considerations were secondary to the motivation of taste,
convenience and ‘instantaneous’ availability. This is expressed as
being fit-for-purpose by Verghese and Lewis (2007), who state that
packaging materials should be selected to provide sufficient protection to the contents inside, while maintaining the effective use of
materials with the lowest environmental impact. Additionally,
some participants said they would trade off the eco-friendly characteristics of the package against functional attributes. While
expressing views that paper packaging could be the most ecofriendly, some also commented that paper packages were not as
effective in protecting the quality of instant noodles as plastic ones:
I do not think a paper package can protect the product. It is easily
torn out and can damage the product quality. Plastic packaging
provides better protection. (Female, sales staff)
Other than these few participants expressing concerns for protective performance of paper packages, most participants did not
even mention the functions of packaging. This awareness (or lack
thereof) is contrary to concepts suggested by Verghese et al.’s
(2015) study, which highlights the core functional attributes of
packaging as a major contribution to sustainability. This research
finding might imply that Vietnamese consumers consider market
appealing attributes of a package design as more important than
functional attributes of the package.
3.3.3. Price
Regarding price, most focus group participants were very
insistent that eco-friendly packaging must be reasonably priced.
Eco-friendly packaging was perceived to be more expensive, leading to increased consumer costs. Hence, the decision to buy INs
packaged environmentally was driven by affordability and
convenience:
No matter how attractive the package is, the product price should
be affordable to encourage a trial. (Male, IT staff)
Previous studies have also reported that eco-friendly packaging
is perceived by consumers to be more expensive, and so many
, 2015). Likeconsumers are not willing to pay (Magnier and Crie
wise, Martinho et al. (2015) found that price is one of the most
important criteria in consumers’ purchasing consideration. In
contrast, consumers in South Africa seemed to have long-term
perspectives as they believed that eco-friendly packaging would
save money because it was reusable (Scott and Vigar-Ellis, 2014). In
our study, most participants were not willing to pay extra or to
invest in eco-friendly packaging for long-term environmental
benefits. While only a few expressed their willingness to pay a
premium for INs packaged environmentally, many stressed that
they would only pay extra once they were satisfied with the market
appeal characteristics of the product or package. Krystallis and
Chryssohoidis (2005) similarly reported that unless consumers
are entirely convinced that the product satisfies the market appeal
criteria at the point of purchase, they are not willing to pay a premium price. Thus, market appeal characteristics of the product or
the package seem to be the most important criteria for many
Vietnamese consumers when it comes to purchase behaviour.
4. Conclusions
This is the first study on the topic of consumer perceptions of
eco-friendly packaging in the Southeast Asian emerging market of
Vietnam. This study identifies three key dimensions of eco-friendly
packaging from a consumer perspective. These categories will be of
practical use for manufacturers and marketers of packaged food
products in designing packaging options acceptable to consumers.
What is new in this study is the classification of three key dimensions reflecting consumers’ characterisations of eco-friendly
packaging, namely, packaging materials, manufacturing technology, and market appeal.
The first dimension identified in our study is that of packaging
materials. Consumers use their evaluation of different types of
packaging materials to determine what an eco-friendly package
should be. Plastic is perceived as the least eco-friendly material
whereas paper or biodegradable materials are both considered
environmentally friendly. Plastic is viewed negatively with regard
to its environmental impact. However, consumers acknowledge the
increased protective performance of plastic packaging, compared to
paper-based packaging. Consumers pay more attention to material
properties in respect of environmental effects of packaging materials. Hence, LCA application in assessing materials for packaging
could be used to enhance consumers’ and manufacturers’ comparison of the environmental performance of plastic versus paper,
which would in turn result in a more precise evaluation of ecofriendly packaging. Still, it must be noted that consumers
consider that the responsibility for eco-friendly packaging should
lie with the manufacturer as the consumer merely buys what is
available. This insight provides an opportunity for major brands to
take a lead in decreasing the environmental impacts of their
products. This will be especially important as the Vietnamese
economy shifts from centrally planned to a more market and
consumer-based demand economy. Moving towards a completely
consumer demand system may increase environmental costs of
packaging, particularly if the key criterion for selecting a product is
price.
The second dimension of eco-friendly packaging concerns
manufacturing
technology.
Consumer
understanding
of
manufacturing technology seems to be limited. One of the challenges to acceptance of new products is consumers’ limited understanding of technologies. Consumers are unable to evaluate
manufacturing processes or account for the use of energy and
materials in order to estimate which product or packaging is the
least harmful to the environment. Making the findings of the LCA
public, simple and understandable, is one way this could be
addressed, by linking manufacturing inputs to environmental impacts. Nevertheless, the technological aspects of the manufacturing
process might be beyond an average consumer’s capacity to engage
with, because most processes are not visible to consumers. Therefore, educating consumers about the packaging life cycle might be a
good start to make them fully aware of related environmental effects. However, given the nature and rate of change in Vietnam’s
rapidly developing market, keeping up with information flows
about technology might be beyond the consumer’s capacity to
assimilate. Consequently, a more product driven approach to
decreasing environmental impacts is suggested. That is, an
approach that does not leave it to the consumer to make informed
demands for eco-friendly packaging when they cannot understand
the technological or manufacturing implications for packaging
design, or the implications for food waste.
The third dimension of eco-friendly packaging is related to
market appeal. Consumers have their expectations for eco-friendly
packaging related to attractive graphic design, functional performance and price. With regard to graphic design, consumers are
attracted by colourful images on the package. Furthermore, consumers are dissatisfied with the poor appearance of paper-based
packages (which they considered to be eco-friendly in the current
A.T. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 252 (2020) 119792
study). This is something that manufacturers can take into account
when it comes to designing an eco-friendly package that can also
catch the attention of shoppers.
In terms of functional performance, most consumers do not
really take the functions of packaging into account. Consumers in
Vietnam give more weight to market appealing attributes whereas
the functional performance of packaging does not receive the same
level of consideration. Still, consumers want a package that can
protect the product. Hence, the minimum requirement for a package is to protect the product, ensuring the package is fit-forpurpose. In practice, the main function of packaging (regardless
of what types of packaging) is to protect the product throughout its
shelf life. This re-emphasises the functional role that eco-friendly
packaging should play in order to gain acceptance of some consumer segments while also satisfying aesthetic needs of other
consumer segments. Importantly, function precedes aesthetic appeal and consumers will purchase ‘ugly’ packaging if they understand its purpose, but not if there is a product available that satisfies
both functional and aesthetic appeals at the same price point.
As far as price is concerned, Vietnamese consumers desire ecofriendly packaging that is priced equal to or even cheaper than
conventional packaging. Price is therefore a barrier to purchase
behaviour towards eco-friendly packaging. This might push manufacturers of packaged food products to consider cost-effective
solutions for eco-friendly packaging alternatives to stay competitive in the market and to decrease their environmental footprint.
This may require governments and industries to become more
involved in setting guidelines for packaging designs that ensure a
minimum standard for environmental impacts. Relying on consumers to demand eco-friendly packaging and to pay a premium
price is not a workable solution.
In summary, our study shows that consumers are aware of
plastic pollution and have some perceived knowledge of ecofriendly packaging. Consumers are also able to express their perceptions of the main dimensions of eco-friendly packaging. Their
expectations of eco-friendly packaging are primarily associated
with packaging materials (such as biodegradability and recyclability), and to market appeal (such as attractive graphic design and
good price). In addition, consumer perceptions towards current
package manufacturing technologies appear to convey a desire to
have more advanced eco-friendly technologies to reduce adverse
impacts of the manufacturing process. Our study indicates that
businesses could be better off if consumer-defined dimensions
(packaging materials, manufacturing technology and market appeal) are considered in production and marketing practices of
packaged food products.
This paper adds to the literature on consumer perceptions of
eco-friendly packaging in an emerging economy. It provides an indepth analysis from a consumer perspective and identifies three
major dimensions relating to eco-friendly packaging, namely,
packaging materials, manufacturing technology and market appeal.
Thus, it builds a practical understanding of consumer expectations
for eco-friendly packaging, which can provide useful input to
manufacturers and marketers of packaged food products. For ecofriendly packaging to be accepted in the market, it must satisfy
not only the environmental attributes of packaging materials and
manufacturing processes, but also the market appeal attributes of
the package which should be aesthetic, fit-for-purpose, and
reasonably priced. Practically, this knowledge provides an opportunity for brands to engage with consumers directly, whether that
is to use consumers to help specify packaging, or to communicate to
consumers the ways packaging can play a role in sustainability as
Verghese et al. (2015) suggest.
Packaging managers can use the key dimensions identified in
this paper as practical input for their packaging design strategy.
9
Consumers are concerned with disposal issues of packaging materials, but they are more interested in the market appeal of packaging. Therefore, in packaging strategy, manufacturers should take
into account not only consumer concerns for environmental impacts of packaging materials but also market appeal in terms of
aesthetics, price and protection. By considering these dimensions
collectively, businesses will have a better chance of engaging consumers to purchase food products packaged in an environmentally
conscious way.
Future research could extend this study by focusing on products
with a higher level of purchase involvement. Further research on
consumer perceptions of eco-friendly packaging could also take the
effects of brand image into consideration. As consumers may be
influenced by well-known brands at the point of purchase,
knowledge of brand image and its effects on consumers’ purchase
intentions for eco-friendly packaging could help explain the
complexity in green consumer behaviour. Moreover, exploring relationships between brand image and corporate social responsibility with consumer perceptions of eco-friendly packaging
could shed more light on proposed practices of packaging strategies
of manufacturers, the legislation practices of the government sector
in sustainable production, and ultimately consumer behaviour that
results.
Funding
This work was supported by RMIT University Vietnam (Grant
number 05-2014).
Two of the Investigators are supported by the Fight Food Waste
Cooperative Research Centre https://fightfoodwastecrc.com.au/.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Anh Thu Nguyen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Writing original draft. Lukas Parker: Supervision, Methodology, Validation,
Writing - review & editing. Linda Brennan: Supervision, Funding
acquisition, Validation, Writing - review & editing. Simon Lockrey:
Visualization, Writing - review & editing.
References
Allegra, V., Zarba, A.S., Muratore, G., 2012. The post-purchase consumer behaviour,
survey in the context of materials for food packaging. Ital. J. Food Sci. 24 (4),
160e164.
Barber, N., 2010. Green wine packaging: targeting environmental consumers. Int. J.
Wine Bus. Res. 22 (4), 423.
Barros, M.V., Salvador, R., Piekarski, C.M., de Francisco, A.C., 2018. Mapping of main
research lines concerning life cycle studies on packaging systems in Brazil and
in the world. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1e15.
Basit, T.N., 2003. Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data
analysis. Educ. Res. 45 (2), 143e154.
Becker, L., van Rompay, T.J., Schifferstein, H.N., Galetzka, M., 2011. Tough package,
strong taste: the influence of packaging design on taste impressions and
product evaluations. Food Qual. Prefer. 22 (1), 17e23.
Bertolini, M., Bottani, E., Vignali, G., Volpi, A., 2016. Comparative life cycle assessment of packaging systems for extended shelf life milk. Packag. Technol. Sci. 29
(10), 525e546.
Biswas, A., Roy, M., 2015. Green products: an exploratory study on the consumer
behaviour in emerging economies of the East. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 463e468.
Bloch, P.H., Brunel, F.F., Arnold, T.J., 2003. Individual differences in the centrality of
visual product aesthetics: concept and measurement. J. Consum. Res. 29 (4),
551e565.
Boesen, S., Bey, N., Niero, M., 2019. Environmental sustainability of liquid food
10
A.T. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 252 (2020) 119792
packaging: is there a gap between Danish consumers’ perception and learnings
from life cycle assessment? J. Clean. Prod. 210, 193e1206.
Boks, C., Stevels, A., 2007. Essential perspectives for design for environment: experiences from the electronics industry. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45 (18e19),
4021e4039.
Brennan, L., Parker, L., Nguyen, D., Aleti Watne, T., 2015a. Chapter 6: design issues in
cross-cultural research: suggestions for researchers. In: Strang, K. (Ed.), Palgrave
Handbook of Research Design in Business and Management. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 81e101.
Brennan, L., Binney, W., Hall, J., Hall, M., 2015b. Whose job is that? Saving the
biospheres starts at work. J. Nonprofit & Public Sect. Mark. 27 (3), 307e330.
Brinkmann, S., 2014. Interview. In: Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. Springer,
New York, pp. 1008e1010.
Calderwood, I., 2018. 16 times countries and cities have banned single-use plastics.
Global Citizen. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/plastic-bans-aroundthe-world/. (Accessed 18 December 2018).
Central Intelligence Agency US, 2018. The World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/
library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vm.html. (Accessed 14 June
2018).
Clarke, V., Braun, V., 2014. Thematic analysis. In: Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and
Well-being Research. Springer, New York, pp. 6626e6628.
Coulson, N.S., 2000. An application of the stages of change model to consumer use
of food labels. Br. Food J. 102 (9), 661e668.
Creswell, J.W., 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method
Approaches, third ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
Dan Tri News, 2019. Ho Chi Minh City campaign calls for joint actions to reduce
plastic waste. http://dtinews.vn/en/news/017/61144/hcm-city-campaign-callsfor-joint-actions-to-reduce-plastic-waste.html. (Accessed 11 April 2019).
Davies, I.A., Gutsche, S., 2016. Consumer motivations for mainstream ‘ethical’
consumption. Eur. J. Market. 50 (7/8), 1326e1347.
De Koning, J.I.J.C., Crul, M.R.M., Wever, R., Brezet, J.C., 2015. Sustainable consumption in Vietnam: an explorative study among the urban middle class. Int. J.
Consum. Stud. 39 (6), 608e618.
Deloitte, 2018. Deloitte Resources 2018 Study. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/
dam/insights/us/articles/4568_Resource-survey-2018/DI_Deloitte-Resources2018-survey.pdf. (Accessed 3 January 2019).
Denzin, N.K., 2019. The Qualitative Manifesto: A Call to Arms. Routledge, New York.
Dilkes-Hoffman, L.S., Pratt, S., Laycock, B., Ashworth, P., Lant, P.A., 2019. Public attitudes towards plastics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 147, 227e235.
€
Dominic, C.A., Ostlund,
S., Buffington, J., Masoud, M.M., 2015. Towards a conceptual
sustainable packaging development model: a corrugated box case study.
Packag. Technol. Sci. 28 (5), 397e413.
Dong, Nguoi Lao, 2016. Thi truong mi goi - instant noodle market in Vietnam.
http://nld.com.vn/thi-truong-mi-goi.html. (Accessed 20 January 2016).
€€
€lkki, T., Utriainen, K., Kyng€
Elo, S., Ka
ari€
ainen, M., Kanste, O., Po
as, H., 2014. Qualitative Content Analysis: a Focus on Trustworthiness, vol. 4. Sage Open, pp. 1e10.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633 (1).
Engel, H., Stuchtey, M., Vanthournout, H., 2016. Managing waster in emerging
markets.
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/ourinsights/managing-waste-in-emerging-markets. (Accessed 15 March 2019).
Esbjerg, L., Burt, S., Pearse, H., Glanz-Chanos, V., 2016. Retailers and technologydriven innovation in the food sector: caretakers of consumer interests or barriers to innovation? Br. Food J. 118 (6), 1370e1383.
Euromonitor, 2017. Packaged food in Vietnam. http://www.euromonitor.com/
packaged-food-in-vietnam/report. (Accessed 1 July 2017).
Fernqvist, F., Olsson, A., Spendrup, S., 2015. What’s in it for me? Food packaging and
consumer responses, a focus group study. Br. Food J. 117 (3), 1122e1135.
Furlong, H., 2015. Trending: sustainability demand spurs new packaging innovations.
http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/packaging/
hannah_furlong/trending_sustainability_demand_spurs_new_packaging_
innovatio. (Accessed 2 May 2017).
Giorgi, A., 2009. The Descriptive Phenomenological Method in Psychology: A
Modified Husserlian Approach. Duquesne University Press.
Grant, T., Barichello, V., Fitzpatrick, L., 2015. Accounting the impacts of waste
product in package design. Procedia CIRP 29, 568e572.
Guest, G., Namey, E., McKenna, K., 2017. How many focus groups are enough?
Building an evidence base for nonprobability sample sizes. Field Methods 29
(1), 3e22.
Hao, Y., Liu, H., Chen, H., Sha, Y., Ji, H., Fan, J., 2019. What affect consumers’ willingness to pay for green packaging? Evidence from China. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 141, 21e29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.001.
Herbes, C., Beuthner, C., Ramme, I., 2018. Consumer attitudes towards biobased
packaging - a cross-cultural comparative study. J. Clean. Prod. 194, 203e218.
Howard, B.C., Gibbens, S., Zachos, E., Parker, E., 2018. A running list of action on
plastic pollution. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/07/
ocean-plastic-pollution-solutions/?user.testname¼none.
(Accessed
10
November 2018).
Kirwan, M.J., Plant, S., Strawbridge, J.W., 2011. Plastics in food packaging. In:
Coles, R., Kirwan, M. (Eds.), Food and Beverage Packaging Technology. WileyBlackwell Publisher, UK, pp. 157e293.
Koenig-Lewis, N., Palmer, A., Dermody, J., Urbye, A., 2014. Consumers’ evaluations of
ecological packaging - rational and emotional approaches. J. Environ. Psychol.
37, 94e105.
Krystallis, A., Chryssohoidis, G., 2005. Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic
food: factors that affect it and variation per organic product type. Br. Food J. 107
(5), 320e343.
Laforet, S., 2011. Brand names on packaging and their impact on purchase preference. J. Consum. Behav. 10 (1), 8e30.
Lewis, H., Stanley, H., 2012. Marketing and communicating sustainability. In:
Verghese, K., Lewis, H., Fitzpartrick, L. (Eds.), Packing for Sustainability. @
Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729988-8_3.
Liao, L.X., Corsi, A.M., Chrysochou, P., Lockshin, L., 2015. Emotional responses towards food packaging: a joint application of self-report and physiological
measures of emotion. Food Qual. Prefer. 42, 48e55.
Lindh, H., Olsson, A., Williams, H., 2016a. Consumer perceptions of food packaging:
contributing to or counteracting environmentally sustainable development?
Packag. Technol. Sci. 29 (1), 3e23.
€m, F., 2016b. Elucidating the indirect
Lindh, H., Williams, H., Olsson, A., Wikstro
contributions of packaging to sustainable development: a terminology of
packaging functions and features. Packag. Technol. Sci. 29 (4e5), 225e246.
Lockrey, S., Brennan, L., Verghese, K., Staples, W., Binney, W., 2018. Enabling employees and breaking down barriers: behavioural infrastructure for proenvironmental behaviour. In: Wells, V.K., Gregory-Smith, D., Danae Manika, D.
(Eds.), Research Handbook on Employee Pro-environmental Behaviour. Edward
Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 313e348.
, D., 2015. Communicating packaging eco-friendliness: an exploMagnier, L., Crie
ration of consumers’ perceptions of eco-designed packaging. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 43 (4/5), 350e366.
Magnier, L., Schoormans, J., 2015. Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging: the
interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental concern.
J. Environ. Psychol. 44, 53e62.
Martinho, G., Pires, A., Portela, G., Fonseca, M., 2015. Factors affecting consumers’
choices concerning sustainable packaging during product purchase and recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 103, 58e68.
Mason, M., 2010. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews, in: forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 11 (3)
https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.3.1428.
Mishra, P., Jain, T., Motiani, M., 2017. Have green, pay more: an empirical investigation of consumer’s attitude towards green packaging in an emerging economy. In: Essays on Sustainability and Management. Springer Singapore,
pp. 125e150.
Morris, J., 2005. Comparative LCAs for curbside recycling versus either landfilling or
incineration with energy recovery. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 10 (4), 273e284.
Mueller, S., Lockshin, L., Louviere, J.J., 2010. What you see may not be what you get:
asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose. Mark. Lett.
21, 335e350.
Murray, J.M., Delahunty, C.M., 2000. Mapping consumer preference for the sensory
and packaging attributes of Cheddar cheese. Food Qual. Prefer. 11 (5), 419e435.
Nielsen, 2016. News Release: Vietnamese just love convenient cleanliness. http://
www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/vn/docs/PR_EN/Vietnam_Home%
20Care%20PR_EN.pdf. (Accessed 2 June 2017).
Norman, D.A., 2005. Emotional Design: Why We Love (Or Hate) Everyday Things.
Basic Books, New York.
Orset, C., Barret, N., Lemaire, A., 2017. How consumers of plastic water bottles are
responding to environmental policies? Waste Manag. 61, 13e27.
Palombini, F.L., Cidade, M.K., de Jacques, J.J., 2017. How sustainable is organic
packaging? A design method for recyclability assessment via a social perspective: a case study of Porto Alegre city (Brazil). J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2593e2605.
Parker, L., 2015. Eight million tons of plastic dumped in ocean every year. http://
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150212-ocean-debris-plasticgarbage-patches-science/. (Accessed 26 February 2019).
Parker, L., 2018. We made plastic. We depend on it. Now we’re drowning in it.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/06/plastic-planet-wastepollution-trash-crisis/. (Accessed 10 November 2018).
til, J., 2019. The factors of lifestyle of health and sustainability
Pícha, K., Navra
influencing pro-environmental buying behaviour. J. Clean. Prod. 234, 233e241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.072.
Prakash, G., Pathak, P., 2017. Intention to buy eco-packaged products among young
consumers in India: a study on developing nation. J. Clean. Prod. 141, 385e393.
Prakash, G., Choudhary, S., Kumar, A., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Khan, S.A.R., Panda, T.K.,
2019. Do altruistic and egoistic values influence consumers’ attitudes and
purchase intentions towards eco-friendly packaged products? An empirical
investigation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 50, 63e169.
Rankin, J., 2019. Single-use plastics ban approved by European Parliament. The
Guardian 27 March 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/
mar/27/the-last-straw-european-parliament-votes-to-ban-single-use-plastics.
(Accessed 24 November 2019).
Reimann, M., Zaichkowsky, J., Neuhaus, C., Bender, T., Weber, B., 2010. Aesthetic
package design: a behavioural, neural and psychological investigation.
J. Consum. Psychol. 20 (4), 431e441.
Ritch, E.L., 2015. Consumers interpreting sustainability: moving beyond food to
fashion. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 43 (12), 1162e1181.
Ritschel, C., 2018. Why is plastic bad for the environment and how much is in the
ocean?
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/plastic-bad-environmentwhy-ocean-pollution-how-much-single-use-facts-recycling-a8309311.html.
(Accessed 20 June 2019).
Rokka, J., Uusitalo, L., 2008. Preference for green packaging in consumer product
choices e do consumers care? Int. J. Consum. Stud. 32 (5), 516e525.
Roper, S., Parker, C., 2013. Doing well by doing good: a quantitative investigation of
A.T. Nguyen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 252 (2020) 119792
the litter effect. J. Bus. Res. 66 (11), 2262e2268.
Rundh, B., 2005. The multi-faceted dimension of packaging: marketing logistic or
marketing tool? Br. Food J. 107 (9), 670e684.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., 2012. Research Methods for Business Students,
sixth ed. Pearson Education Limited.
Schuitemai, G., De Groot, J.I.M., 2015. Green consumerism: the influence of product
attributes and values on purchasing intentions. J. Consum. Behav. 14, 57e69.
Scott, L., Vigar-Ellis, D., 2014. Consumer understanding, perceptions and behaviours
with regard to environmentally friendly packaging in a developing nation. Int. J.
Consum. Stud. 38, 642e649.
Silayoi, P., Speece, M., 2007. The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint
analysis approach. Eur. J. Market. 41 (11/12), 1495e1517.
Simms, C., Trott, P., 2010. Packaging development: a conceptual framework for
identifying new product opportunities. Mark. Theory 10 (4), 397e415.
Spiggle, S., 1994. Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer
research. J. Consum. Res. 21 (3), 491e503.
Steenis, N.D., van der Lans, I.A., van Herpen, E., van Trijp, H.C., 2018. Effects of
sustainable design strategies on consumer preferences for redesigned packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 205, 854e865.
Steenis, N.D., van Herpen, E., van der Lans, I.A., Ligthart, T.N., van Trijp, H.C., 2017.
Consumer response to packaging design: the role of packaging materials and
graphics in sustainability perceptions and product evaluations. J. Clean. Prod.
162, 286e298.
Strang, K., Brennan, L., Vajjhala, R., Hahn, J., 2015. Gaps to address in future research
design practices. In: Strang, K. (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Research Design
in Business and Management. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
Sustainable Packaging Coalition, 2011. Definition of sustainable packaging. http://
sustainablepackaging.org/uploads/Documents/Definitionper
cent20ofper
cent20Sustainableper cent20Packaging.pdf. (Accessed 20 March 2016).
Tait, P., Saunders, C., Guenther, M., Rutherford, P., Miller, S., 2016. Exploring the
impacts of food label format on consumer willingness to pay for environmental
sustainability: a choice experiment approach in the United Kingdom and Japan.
Int. Food Res. J. 23 (4), 1787e1796.
Taylor, R., Villas-Boas, S.B., 2016. Food store choices of poor households: a discrete
choice analysis of the national household food acquisition and purchase survey
(FoodAPS). Am. J. Agri. Econ. 98 (2), 513e532.
Trowsdale, A., Housden, T., Meier, B., 2017. Seven charts that explain the plastic pollution
problem.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42264788.
11
(Accessed 10 November 2018).
Van Birgelen, M., Semeijn, J., Keicher, M., 2009. Packaging and proenvironmental
consumption behaviour: investigating purchase and disposal decisions for
beverages. Environ. Behav. 41 (1), 125e146.
Venter, K., van der Merwe, D., de Beer, H., Kempen, E., Bosman, M., 2011. Consumers’
perceptions of food packaging: an exploratory investigation in Potchefstroom,
South Africa. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 35 (3), 273e281.
Verghese, K., Lewis, H., 2007. Environmental innovation in industrial packaging: a
supply chain approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45 (18e19), 4381e4401.
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 (7),
603e620.
Vietnam Investment Review, 2017. Vietnam’s instant noodle giants. http://www.vir.
com.vn/vietnams-instant-noodle-giants-54058.html. (Accessed 14 June 2018).
Vietnam News, 2013. Vietnam steps closer to green production. http://Vietnam.
News.vn/economy/245115/viet-nam-steps-closer-to-green-production.html.
(Accessed 24 February 2016).
Vietnam News, 2018. Heavy fines fail to stop littering. https://vietnamnews.vn/
society/462834/heavy-fines-fail-to-stop-littering.html#f6ieeitlej8ICkYy.97.
(Accessed 28 March 2019).
Vignali, G., 2016. Life-cycle assessment of food-packaging systems. In: Muthu, S.
(Ed.), Environmental Footprints of Packaging. Environmental Footprints and
Eco-Design of Products and Processes. Springer, Singapore.
€m, F., Williams, H., Verghese, K., Clune, S., 2014. The influence of packaging
Wikstro
attributes on consumer behaviour in food-packaging life cycle assessment
studies - a neglected topic. J. Clean. Prod. 73, 100e108.
€m, F., Verghese, K., Auras, R., Olsson, A., Williams, H., Wever, R.,
Wikstro
€ nman, K., Kvalvåg Pettersen, M., Møller, H., Soukka, R., 2018. Packaging
Gro
strategies that save food: a research agenda for 2030. J. Ind. Ecol. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12769.
Winn, P., 2016. Five countries dump more plastic into the oceans than the rest of the
world. Public Radio Int. https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-01-13/5-countriesdump-more-plastic-oceans-rest-world-combined. (Accessed 25 April 2019).
World Instant Noodles Association, 2018. Global demand for instant noodles.
https://instantnoodles.org/en/noodles/market.html. (Accessed 10 November
2018).
Young, S., 2008. Packaging and the environment: a cross-cultural perspective.
Desig. Manag. Rev. 19, 41e48.