See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348579623
Influence of Sustainable Packaging Design on Product Evaluation and
Purchase Intention
Thesis · August 2020
CITATIONS
READS
0
2,776
1 author:
Marie Gaiser
University of Southern Denmark
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Marie Gaiser on 20 October 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Bachelor Thesis
in International Business Management
Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht Berlin
Berlin School of Economics and Law
Influence of Sustainable Packaging Design on
Product Evaluation and Purchase Intention
Carolin Marie Gaiser
Matrikel No. 528029
First Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Sabine Haller
Second Supervisor: Dipl-Kfm. Martin Dastig
Date of Submission: 28.08.2020
Number of words: 18 732
Table of Content
Table of Content
I
List of Figures
III
List of Abbreviations
III
1. Introduction
1
1.1 Knowledge Gap
2
1.2 Research Aim
3
2. Packaging
4
2.1 Packaging Functions
4
2.2 Marketing Function of Packaging
5
2.3 Packaging Design
7
3. Sustainable Packaging
9
3.1 Packaging Life Cycle Assessment
10
3.2 Sustainable Packaging Design
11
3.3 Consumer Perception of Sustainable Packaging
14
4. Consumer Perception, Cue Utilization and Product Evaluation
18
4.1 Consumer Perception and Cue utilization
19
4.2 Cue-Utilization and Inference making
20
4.3 Cue utilization and Inference making with regard to Sustainable Packaging
26
4.4 Product Evaluation and Sustainable Packaging
29
4.5 Purchase Intention
31
4.6 Summary and Model Integration
32
5. Design of the study and Research Method
33
5.1 Research Model and Hypothesis
33
5.2 Data Collection
35
5.3 Stimuli
35
5.4 Measurements
37
5.5 Procedure
38
5.6 Analysis of the Conceptual Model and Hypothesis Testing
40
6. General Discussion of Findings
6.1 Discussion of Findings and Implications
47
47
I
6.2 Limitations
53
7. Conclusion
55
List of References
56
Appendix
81
Affidavit
107
II
List of Figures
Figure 1: Model Integration……………………………………..………………...……29
Figure 2: Conceptual Model……………………………….……………………………34
Figure 3: Visual Stimuli…………………………………...……………………………37
Figure 4: Analysis of Conceptual Model, neutral packaging……………………………41
Figure 5: Analysis of Conceptual Model, packaging with claim………………..………43
Figure 6: Analysis of Conceptual Model, sustainable colored packaging………………44
List of Abbreviations
APCO
Australian Packaging Covenant
CGs
Consumer Goods
EC
Environmental Concern
FMCGs
Fast-Moving Consumer Goods
LCA
Life-Cycle-Assessment
PA
Packaging Attractiveness
PI
Purchase Intention
PPS
Perceived Product Sustainability
PS
Perceived Packaging Sustainability
PQ
Perceived Quality
SPA
Sustainable Packaging Alliance
SPC
Sustainable Packaging Coalition
III
1. Introduction
The role of packaging with regard to Fast-moving Consumer Goods (FMCGs) is related
to various benefits, ranging from product protection, facilitation of transport and
handling, to effective promotion of the product at the point of sale (Magnier et al., 2016).
FMCGs can be defined as low priced, daily-use products, such as foods or household
detergents, which are intended for single or limited use, which are often already
prepacked (Steenis, 2019). Hence, the packaging is the consumer’s first point of contact
with the product before a purchase is made (Brassington & Pettit, 2013). Thus. in such
low-involvement purchases, the packaging often serves as an extrinsic visual cue to infer
about the products’ intrinsic attributes and qualities (Underwood & Klein, 2002; Kapoor
& Kumar 2019). Therefore, the packaging occupies a key role in point-of-sale marketing
and firms invest a considerable amount of resources into packaging development and
design (Dickson, 1994; Héroux et al., 1988).
However, due to the high consumption of FMCGs, a lot of packaging waste is generated
within a short period of time. With growing concerns about climate change,
environmental damage and finiteness of nonrenewable resources, the subject of
sustainability has gained increased awareness of consumers (Magnier et al., 2016). To
make products more environmentally friendly, manufacturers can either change the
intrinsic attributes, for instance how the product is produced, and the extrinsic attributes
of the product, for example the packaging. However, specifically environmental
sustainability of product packaging has become a decisive purchase criterion for many
consumers and has put the packaging industry under a lot of pressure (Magnier &
Schoormans, 2015). Bringing sustainable packages to the market might therefore add
value to a company's products, since consumers often value a company's efforts to make
consumption more sustainable, especially within the context of FMCGs, where actual
patterns of consumption are rather unsustainable (Koenig-Lewis et al., 2014; Magnier
& Schoormans, 2017).
As a response, many firms started to develop more sustainable packaging alternatives,
to reduce the environmental impact of consumption (Magnier & Schoormans, 2015).
The concept of sustainable packaging takes into account environmental aspects during
1
the design and realization process to promote sustainable and ecological efficiency
through reduction of the packaging’s environmental impact (Boks & Stevels, 2007).
Therefore, the term “sustainable packaging” is used interchangeably with “environmentally friendly” or “eco-friendly” packaging for the purpose of this study.
From the consumer point of view, a sustainable packaging is regarded as a package that
explicitly or implicitly signals its eco-friendliness via its structure, its graphical/
iconographic elements or its informational elements (Magnier & Crié, 2015).
Consequently, consumers primarily utilize specific packaging design elements, for
instance eco-labels and environmental claims, packaging color and material, as signals
or cues, to evaluate a packaging’s environmentally-friendliness (Atkinson & Rosenthal,
2014). By primarily judging a packaging sustainability based on its design features, the
remaining aspects of environmental sustainability are disregarded and important aspects
relating to the environmental costs of production, the origin of materials, transport and
distribution, are often neglected in consumers evaluations (Boz et al., 2020; Herbes et
al., 2018; Steenis, 2019; Herbes et al., 2020; Magnier & Crié, 2015).
1.1 Knowledge Gap
As of today many studies have extensively studied how sustainable product attributes
influence consumers product perception, whereas only a limited number of studies has
focused on how environmental friendly packaging design impacts consumer response
(Magnier & Schoormans, 2015; Magnier et al., 2016; Magnier & Schoormans, 2017;
Luchs et al., 2010; Steenis et al., 2017). Findings indicate that changes in the production
process of products (e.g. organic production) positively influence consumers perceived
product quality, however, existent literature with regard to alterations in the product’s
extrinsic attributes , namely the packaging, is still an under-researched area (Magnier et
al., 2016). This highlights the need to better understand the determinants of consumers’
perception of and response to sustainable packaging (Pancer et al., 2017). Research on
packaging design implies that consumers often draw on the visually identifiable
packaging attributes, to evaluate the packaged content. That is, consumers form
inferential and informational beliefs and evaluations about the contained product, based
on the packaging appearance. Therefore, it is expected that a noticeably sustainable
packaging is likely to be inferred to product sustainability. Thus, it seems relevant to
study how consumers identify packaging environmental friendliness, and if sustainable
2
packaging indeed influences product perception and choice (Steenis et al., 2017;
Magnier & Crie, 2015; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). With the increasing number of
products which are marketed as sustainable, it is important to understand how
consumers recognize and evaluate sustainable packaging, and how specifically
environmental cues on product packaging influence consumers evaluation of the
contained product (Pancer et al., 2017; Wells et al., 2007).
1.2 Research Aim
The aim of this research is to empirically test how verbal and visual packaging design
elements that convey sustainability influence consumers' perception of the packaging
and product and subsequent purchase intention.
Thus, the questions this study aims to answer are:
1. What kind of cues do consumers use to assess the environmental sustainability
of a packaging option?
2. How does perceived packaging sustainability influence consumers evaluation of
product sustainability, perceived product quality and purchase intention?
To answer these questions, a theory-based model was developed and tested in an online
survey, where the packaging of a FMCG was manipulated, to either verbally or visually
communicate sustainability. The results of the study should help to better apprehend
consumer product evaluations triggered by the perception of sustainability conveying
packaging cues, and how perception thereof influences subsequent product attitudes and
purchase intentions. The findings might on one hand aid companies to effectively design
sustainable packages which are recognizable as such for consumers (Magnier & Crié,
2015), and may also generate helpful insights for policy makers, to more effectively
counteract deceptive practices due to misleading packaging designs (Herbes et al., 2020;
Orzan, 2018; Pancer et al., 2017).
In the following sections, the underlying theories, chosen research methods and the
conceptual model will be further outlined, and a sample and data analysis process will
be presented. The theoretical framework is based on a combination of insights from
models related to cue utilization and inference-making. Central to those processes is the
formation of evaluations and beliefs about the packaged product, through implicit
3
inferential routes (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Steenkamp,1990; Olson,1978; Olson &
Jacoby,1972; Steenis, 2019; Pancer et al., 2017).
2. Packaging
In marketing literature, the sales packaging is often regarded as an important part of the
product offering, and serves various purposes, which are on one hand related to the
branch of logistics and distribution management, and on the other hand closely
connected to marketing communications and branding (Silayoi & Speece, 2007).
According to the German Packaging Ordinance VerpackG (2017, §3), a packaging is
defined as “any product derived from any material for the reception, protection,
handling, supply or presentation of goods which may range from the raw material to the
processed product, and are passed on from the manufacturer to the distributor or end
user.” Resultantly, the term packaging comprises all the activities of designing and
producing the container for a product, by taking into account functional, technical and
promotional aspects (Kotler & Keller, 2009, p.339).
2.1 Packaging Functions
Extant literature mentions four functions that a packaging should essentially fulfil.
These are to contain and protect the product, to facilitate storage, transport and
distribution, to provide convenience of use, and to communicate information about the
content (Robertson 2012, p.2). The primary function of packaging is to contain products
of various sizes and shapes, to protect the good from damage of the external
environment (Yam et al., 2005), and to ensure preservation of the product from the point
of production until it reaches the end consumer (Benachenhou et al., 2018). Protection
of the product needs to be ensured at each stage after it has been packed at the plant and
includes aspects related to the prolonging of the shelf life, reduction of product damage
and waste due to external influences, breakage, spillage or spoilage of the content, or
other negative impacts on ingredients (Abdalkrim & AL-Hrezat, 2013). Therefore,
packaging is vital to protect the product’s quality, maintains its usefulness and improves
its durability until its consumption (Ramme & Heimann, 2015), while facilitating
storage, transport and distribution of the product during its movement through the
supply chain and distribution channels (Silayoi & Speece, 2007).
4
Convenience is important in the transportation and storage of the products, as smart
packaging solutions can enhance transport efficiency and reduce costs, due to better
stackability, a reduction in weight, or in space, the packaging takes up (Ramme &
Heimann, 2015). Furthermore, for consumers, convenience is related to aspects
regarding packaging variations in size and shape, facilitation of storage and use, easiness
to handle, open or close the packaging, as well as availability of options to dispose or
reuse the package (Dibb et al., 1991). Incorporating such considerations into the
packaging design process could lead to a positive user experience and enhance
attractiveness and utility of a product (Ramme & Heimann, 2015).
Furthermore, packaging occupies a key role in communication of product information,
such as ingredients and composition of the product, its handling and usage, certificates
on production, and other legal requirements, within the context of product disclosure
(Hellström & Saghir, 2007). Communication of product information enables consumers
to identify the packaged goods and makes the product's intrinsic qualities visually
discernible (Agariya et al., 2012; Wyrwa & Barska, 2016).
2.2 Marketing Function of Packaging
Next to the practicalities the packaging offers, it also serves promotional purposes.
Consumers primarily use the packaging to identify, categorize and differentiate products
(Magnier & Schoormans, 2017). Since the packaging is usually the first thing a
consumer sees about the product (Brassington & Pettit, 2013), it is often coined the
“silent salesman of the shelf” (Silayoi & Speece, 2004). Packaging is especially
important in product differentiation, specifically in the case of FMCGs, where an
abundance of comparatively similar products is offered to consumers (Rettie & Brewer,
2000).
For such products, it is essential that the marketing focus is strongly directed towards
on point of sale communication and promotions, since for low-involvement products,
only limited effort is put into seeking information about the offered brands and
evaluation of competing products. Convenience often takes priority in the buying
decision and consumers are likely to choose an alternative product, if the one they are
looking for, is inexplicably unavailable within the store (Brassington & Pettit, 2013).
Moreover, consumers have been found to increasingly make their purchase decisions
5
based on aesthetic value of the packaging (Wells et al., 2007), and thus buy products
due to the characteristics and attractiveness of their packaging, instead of the
characteristics of the enclosed content (Grundey, 2010).
However, when consumers are standing in front of the shelf, they are inevitably
confronted with different marketing messages, which are communicated by the
packages. Prior research has found that almost three-quarters of purchase decisions are
made directly in front of the shelf, therefore the packaging must convey the right signals
about the product, in order to grab and hold consumers attention. Moreover, this is the
last and most important opportunity, to influence product choice and persuade the
consumer to buy the product, before the final purchase decision is made (Ampuero &
Vila, 2006). Therefore, packaging takes on a decisive part in the selling process,
especially as impulse buying has found to be increasing, while the time taken to make
the purchase decision has decreased (Rettie & Brewer, 2000). The packaging is the
biggest communication tool as it has the unique ability to reach nearly all consumers
willing to purchase a product of the specific category. Furthermore, it is present at the
crucial moment when consumers are making their purchase decision and is therefore
responsible to attract and hold consumers attention, and to involve them with the
product, when they actively scan the packaging to obtain product information (Peters,
1994).
At the point of sale, consumers usually rapidly look at the different packages presented
on the shelf. Under such conditions of rapid perception, the design of the package must
stand out besides the many other offerings and instantly draw a consumer's attention
towards the product, to be included in the decision-making process. Thus, it is vital that
marketers consider the package and its design as an integral part of the product offer
(Rettie & Brewer, 2000). Moreover, consumers often blend packaging and product and
perceive it as “one and the same” (Klimchuk & Krasovec, 2006, p.16). Therefore,
packaging represents an important means to communicate the product's value and
attributes directly to the consumer, and could change their product perceptions (Rundh,
2005). Hence, the packaging is often regarded as a representation of the qualities of the
contained product and communicates either favorable or unfavorable implied meanings.
Resultantly, the appearance of the packaging influences how consumers perceive,
experience and evaluate the product, as it establishes an image of the product in
6
consumers’ minds, which may ultimately impact their purchase choice (Maffei et al.,
2017; Silayoi & Speece, 2007). Therefore, packaging occupies a key role in product
growth and product survival (Meyers & Gerstmann, 2005).
Although packaging ultimately creates a barrier between the consumer and the
consumable goods, this hindrance may actually increase desire for the product (Maffei
et al., 2017). Even in low-involvement purchase settings, packaging can generate
involvement of the consumer through its communication of information and values and
incentivize consumers to buy (Rettie & Brewer, 2000). Consequently, a product’s
packaging may be a competitive advantage as it could influence consumers' purchase
decisions (Rundh, 2005).
2.3 Packaging Design
The design of a packaging consists of various packaging attributes, which can be
separated in visual and verbal design elements. Those elements are responsible to
communicate about the contained product to the consumer (Rettie & Brewer, 2000).
Visual design elements encompass structural elements, for instance size, shape and
material, as well as graphical elements, such as colors, logos, font styles, images and
product photography. They are usually unconsciously and automatically processed and
are among the first things the consumer notices about the package, which helps to
quickly categorize the product (Silayoi & Speece, 2007; Rettie & Brewer, 2000;
Magnier & Schoormans, 2015). In addition, they affect emotions and relate more to the
affective side of decision-making. In low-involvement purchases, highly apparent visual
elements are more impactful in the decision-making process, as they are quickly
observable and can be easily recalled. Hence, they are often decisive in whether a
consumer identifies or neglects the product, since consumers instinctively shop by color,
shape and familiarity of the packaging (Rettie & Brewer 2000; Silayoi & Speece, 2004).
Furthermore, packaging helps consumers to differentiate the products belonging to the
same category and aids brands to position their product through the use of specific
design elements, such as colors, haptics and graphics, that convey a certain meaning
(Möller, 2006). Moreover, visual elements also enhance the attractiveness of the
packaging and may attract consumers' interest, since graphical elements on the package
can stimulate imagination about the packaged product (Silayoi & Speece, 2004; 2007).
7
An attractive packaging is able to establish associations between the value of content
and the packaging’s visual performance and may evoke favorable attitudes towards the
product (Maffei & Schifferstein, 2017).
Verbal design elements include claims, brand and product names as well as descriptions,
and explicitly express information about the packaging and/or product. Packaging is
legally required to provide a range of information on product specific properties, its
origin, usage instructions, warnings, nutritional and health related information or
environmental compatibility of the product (Nikolaus & Lipfert, 2012). Thus, verbal
elements identify the product, the brand and producer and provide necessary
information about the quantity, ingredients, nutritional value or country of origin of the
content (Maffei & Schifferstein, 2017). Therefore, verbal elements rather affect the
cognitive side of decision-making, since they require more intentional cognitive
processing in order to be understood (Silayoi & Speece, 2007; Rettie & Brewer, 2000).
Hence, an important task in packaging design is to reconcile the legal requirements on
product disclosure, and the visual attractiveness of the package, with the overall aim, to
evoke positive attitudes towards the product (Nikolaus & Lipfert, 2012).
Consequently, the way different packaging design elements are selected, used and
arranged, enables consumers to establish a certain imagery and positioning of the
product in their minds. The constellation of those elements is influencing how and which
kind of message the package communicates and how the product will be perceived.
Moreover, the appearance of the packaging creates initial impressions about the
packaged product and may thus have a lasting impact on consumers' product experience,
since consumers use the packaging to make inferences about the products' attributes
(Bloch, 1995; Silayoi & Speece, 2007). That is, purchase choice is largely influenced
by consumers' perception of the packaging, as they unconsciously assign other, more
subjective values to packages, based on the color, shape or materials used. Hence,
consumers tend to connect the characteristics of the packaging to the contained product
(Gershman, 1987). If a packaging conveys high quality, consumers are likely to infer
that the product is also of higher quality (Underwood et al., 2001).
8
3. Sustainable Packaging
For the purpose of this study, sustainable packaging will be defined as a packaging that
has, compared to conventional packaging, a reduced environmental impact (APCO,
2019; Steenis et al., 2017). Generally, sustainable packaging can be regarded as a form
of "Design for Environment" and foresees the integration of environmental
considerations into the production and design process. That is, all relevant and
ascertainable environmental considerations and constraints should be integrated in the
product realization process. Moreover, packaging sustainability can be regarded from
three different points of views: governmental, scientific and social (Boks & Stevels,
2007).
Governments have established legal requirements for packaging with regard to
recycling targets, available systems for disposal, use of environmentally friendly
materials and closed loop systems for recovery of resources, with the objective, to make
environmentally friendly packaging a binding requirement. Scientifically, packaging
sustainability is usually concerned with life-cycle assessments (LCAs) and studies the
environmental impact from sourcing to disposal through quantitative, objective
assessment of each stage and determines in a quantifiable manner the sustainability of
production, distribution and disposal (Magnier & Crié, 2015). In contrast, the social
perspective is mostly concerned with the visual appearance of the packaging, to make it
identifiable as more sustainable for consumers. Thus, it focuses on the combination of
structural, graphical and verbal design elements that signal environmental friendliness
(Magnier & Crié, 2015; Lindh et al., 2016; Magnier & Schoormans, 2015; Pancer et al.,
2017; Steenis et al., 2017). That is, from the consumer point of view, sustainable
packaging is a packaging that explicitly or implicitly evokes eco - friendliness through
the use of visual and verbal design elements, such as for instance the material, color or
textual information (Magnier & Crié, 2015; Magnier & Schoormans 2015). Thus, the
packaging design must provide relevant signals, or cues, for consumers, that they can
use to identify the packaging as sustainable based on their subjective knowledge
(Steenis et al., 2017).
9
3.1 Packaging Life Cycle Assessment
The most precise and advanced method of assessing a packaging's objective
environmental impact, is a fully executed Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study, carried
out in accordance with the internationally accepted ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards
(Tacker, 2017). A quantifiable approach to sustainable packaging is especially
important, as it allows to assess the relative sustainability of one package compared to
another (Boz et al., 2020). LCAs have become an important decision-supporting tool in
the case of packaging design, as they help to identify opportunities for improvement of
the environmental performance of a packaging at different points in its life cycle.
Importantly, LCAs do not address the economic or social aspects of packaging (Pauer
et al., 2019; ISO 14040:2006, p.1).
A LCA is a compilation and quantification of the inputs, outputs and the potential
environmental impacts of a packaging throughout its life cycle, and aims at
understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of potential environmental
impacts occurring with each stage. A full LCA begins with the extraction and
acquisition of raw materials, considers energy consumption in material production,
process of manufacturing and use, as well as the treatment at the end of life, recycling
and its final disposal. Since each stage in the value chain is considered individually, the
risk of shifting the burden that occurs in one stage to another is minimized (Tacker,
2017; ISO 14044:2006, p.1). The Assessment allows to evaluate actual and potential
environmental burdens (e.g., environmental consequences) by “quantifying the energy
and materials used and the wastes and emissions released over the entire life cycle”
(Pauer et al. 2019, p. 5).
Carrying out a full LCA is highly complex and cost-intensive and is therefore most
appropriate, when a product is already well established and readily designed (Tacker,
2017; Boks & Stevels, 2007). Consequently, simplified LCA tools are commonly used
in the packaging industry as they require less input data and allow for quick and
inexpensive assessments. However, the use of different assessment tools by different
actors in the packaging value chain may reduce comparability and reliability of results
(Tacker, 2017). In addition, simplified LCAs do not properly address all environmental
aspects and could lead to suboptimal solutions (Boks & Stevels, 2007). Furthermore,
LCA studies solely focus on the packaging’s environmental impact while disregarding
10
the contained product. Thus, they ignore the basic function of packaging, to protect the
product (Silvenius et al. 2011). Product damages and losses due to packaging
inefficiencies, which also have considerable environmental impacts, are not considered
in LCAs, as well as consumer-related aspects, such as pre-purchase to post-consumption
behaviors (Boz et al., 2020, Licciardello, 2017). Resultantly, LCAs lack a holistic
system perspective by neglecting market mechanisms and social considerations (Boks
& Stevels, 2007).
3.2 Sustainable Packaging Design
Every decision taken in the design process of a packaging may either negatively or
positively impact its environmental impact (SPC, 2006). Generally, the packaging’s
physical appearance is the outcome of functional and aesthetical design processes and
their respective goals with regard to packaging sustainability. The functional design
encompasses the production processes of packaging, which focuses on reducing its
actual environmental impact through technological and functional changes, whereas the
aesthetic design processes are involved with the overall appearance of the package
(Steenis, 2019; Lindh et al., 2016a).
Two sets of different criteria that a sustainable packaging design should meet, have been
developed by the Sustainable Packaging Alliance (SPA) and the Sustainable Packaging
Coalition (SPC). Both aim to provide a frame of reference for the packaging industry,
to evaluate current efforts, identify opportunities for innovation and develop strategies
for more environmentally friendly packaging materials and systems (SPC, 2006; SPC,
2011; Lewis et al., 2007). According to the criteria developed by the SPA, a sustainable
packaging must be effective, efficient, cyclic and clean (Lewis et al., 2007). Thus, a
packaging must perform all its essential functions effectively, the use of resources and
energy must be as efficient as possible during its entire life cycle, and once the
packaging has fulfilled its primary purpose and is discarded, the packaging materials
will stay in the cycle and will be reused or recycled. Through employment of clean
production methods, the use of toxic or hazardous ingredients is avoided. Resultantly,
at all stages of the packaging process - from sourcing the materials for production until
disposal of the packaging - all packaging elements carry minimal risk to the environment
and humans (Lewis et al., 2007).
11
In addition to the criteria developed by the SPA, the SPC set out eight criteria which
blend sustainability and industrial ecology objectives with economic considerations and
business strategies (SPC, 2011). The criteria take into account social, economic and
environmental considerations and focus on sustainable production methods and the
realization of sustainable development principles (Boz et al., 2020; Van den Elzen,
2016). According to the criteria, a sustainable packaging is safe, beneficial and healthy
for individuals and communities throughout its life cycle; it meets market criteria for
performance and cost; is responsibly sourced, manufactured, transported, and recycled
using renewable energy; optimizes the use of renewable or recycled source materials; is
manufactured using clean production technologies and best practices; is physically
designed to optimize materials and energy and once used it can be effectively recycled
and subsequently utilized in biological and/or industrial closed loop cycles (SPC 2011,
p.1).
On a packaging level, implementation of the criteria primarily refers to the functionaltechnical design of a packaging. The starting point for the design process should be the
existing resource loops and the waste management systems, to extract the materials to
produce the packaging and to recover the materials after useful life of the packaging.
Thereby, the focus is on how actions taken in one stage, such as production with less
energy or use of renewable resources and non-toxic chemicals, can have a positive effect
on following stages of the life cycle, reducing the overall environmental impact (Nordic
Ecolabelling, 2018). The core of this concept is based on the idea to use raw materials
longer and more frequently by extending the life cycle of packaging (materials) through
recycling, reuse, dismantling and reprocessing. Resultantly, the packaging materials are
used more efficiently and over a longer period of time, as employed resources can
ideally be fully recycled or reused at the end of life (Bovensiepen et al., 2018).
Resultantly, the value retained in the economy depends largely on the availability of
possible applications where the materials can be recovered or recycled, which determine
the number of possible future life cycles (APCO, 2019). However, in order to realize
sustainable packaging along these criteria, the packaging must be designed to have
positive effects on consumer behavior (Magnier & Crié, 2015; Nordin & Selke, 2010).
That is, success of recycling and the circularity of materials is largely influenced by the
behavior of consumers. Thus, it is essential that the packaging provides relevant
information about its environmental properties (SPC, 2006). Sustainability of a
12
packaging is depending on consumers' ability to recognize such packages and choose
environmentally friendly packaged products over conventional alternatives (Steenis,
2019).
Consequently, the aesthetic design is of importance, as it is concerned with the visual
appearance of packaging, namely, the specific design elements that express the
environment-friendliness of the package. The signals, or cues, that convey
environmentally-friendliness of the packaging are the outcomes of functional and
aesthetic design processes, and may be intentionally or unintentionally integrated
(Steenis, 2019). Nowadays, technologies enable firms to produce sustainable packages
which look very much the same as conventional packaging options. That is, many
packages are already easily recyclable, or made out of recycled, renewable or
biodegradable materials or have been optimized through a change in adhesive or the
label material (Der Grüne Punkt, 2019). Also, using more efficient logistics and energypreserving production methods does significantly reduce the environmental impact but
won’t necessarily affect the packaging’s physical appearance. Thus, not all determinants
responsible for the environmental impact of packaging are directly ascertainable
through the packaging design. Impacts related to production, transportation and
recycling processes, or prevention of product losses are often invisible for consumers
(Steenis, 2019). Consequently, environmental-friendly packages are not always
identifiable as such by consumers, and could be easily categorized as conventional due
to their appearance. Hence, to make such pro-environmental changes visually
recognizable for consumers and to ensure that the packaging is visually differentiable at
the point of sale, companies put much effort into designing packages that have an
ecological look (Magnier & Schoormans, 2015). Therefore, it is necessary to consider
the consumer beliefs with regard to sustainable packaging next to the technical
guidelines during the design process (Van Dam, 1996).
During design and production processes, functional and aesthetic design goals can be
considered independently from each other. However, sometimes packaging aesthetics
and functionalities are intertwined. For instance, the packaging material ensures
protection of the product and significantly impacts a packaging’s environmental
footprint and is usually related to technical/functional design processes. However, the
material also gives a certain visual appearance to the packaging (Magnier &
13
Schoormans, 2017). Resultantly, it may be that changes in the functional design, for
instance changes in the material, in size, shape or color of a packaging, may affect the
aesthetic appearance. Consequently, some functional packaging design goals to reduce
the packaging's environmental impact, cannot be implemented without changing the
packaging’s physical form. Therefore, it is necessary to consider that changes in the
functional design processes, may lead to (un)intended changes in the packaging’s
appearance, which could in turn have implications for the messages the respective
design elements convey, ultimately impacting consumer perception, evaluation and
choice of such packaged products. Likewise, intentionally changing a packaging’s
appearance through nature related imagery or colors does not have to be related to
improvements in the functional design but may lead consumers to perceive the
packaging as sustainable (Steenis et al., 2017).
3.3 Consumer Perception of Sustainable Packaging
Extant consumer research has found that consumers still have limited knowledge on the
environmental impacts of packaging (Herbes et al., 2020), and usually lack knowledge
on the concept of packaging sustainability (Lindh et al., 2016). Thus, for consumers it
is often difficult to determine a difference between sustainable and conventional
packaging alternatives (Magnier & Schoormans, 2015; Lindh et al., 2016).
Consumers predominantly rely on their own beliefs, existing knowledge and opinions,
in order to evaluate a packaging’s environmental friendliness, which is mostly based on
subjective processing of informational signals conveyed by the packaging features
(Steenis et al., 2017). Furthermore, perceived packaging sustainability is also highly
dependent on which aspects of sustainability consumers take into account, for instance
the packaging material, or its reusability/ recyclability, and their assessment of how the
packaging performs on those aspects. Resultantly, discrepancies occur between
consumers’ subjective judgments of a packaging’s environmental impact and the
‘objective’ sustainability assessed through LCAs. Moreover, sustainability is a credence
attribute which cannot be reliably assessed and validated by consumers. Thus, they need
to rely on the implicit and explicit signals conveyed by the packaging in order to identify
a packaging as sustainable (Steenis et al., 2017; Herbes et al., 2020). More precisely,
the packaging must implicitly or explicitly provide consumers with information,
signaling its environmentally friendly orientation, since they cannot verify or assess
14
specific environmental attributes of the packaging (Magnier & Schoormans, 2015).
Thus, to enable consumers to differentiate conventional and sustainable packages, the
packaging must visually or verbally communicate that it is sustainable through its design
elements (Magnier & Schoormans, 2015; Atkinson & Rosenthal, 2014). Thus,
consumers usually evaluate packaging environment-friendliness based on specific cues
embedded in the packaging, which can be broadly separated into three main categories:
structural, graphical and informational / verbal (Magnier & Crié, 2015).
Structural cues refer to material and size/shape of the packaging and are directly related
to the physical characteristics of the packaging. Therefore, they are on one hand
designed to meet functional requirements (e.g. certain types of materials /shape to
protect the product) and/or for aesthetic appeal, as they give a certain appearance to the
packaging (Steenis, 2019). Prior research implies that consumers' judgments about a
packaging’s environmental impact are often based on material-related considerations
(Lindh et al., 2016; Magnier & Schoormans, 2015; Steenis et al., 2017), and aspects
related to the reduction in the amount and weight of packaging through smart packaging
shapes or packaging lightweight, absence of packaging or over-packaging, as well as
the amount of post-consumption packaging waste (Magnier & Crié, 2015; van
Dam,1996). At the material level, organic, paper or fiber-based materials, as well as
glass, are likely to positively influence consumers' perceived packaging sustainability,
since such materials are generally believed to be more sustainable than plastics (Magnier
& Crié, 2015; Steenis, 2019). Thus, the use of materials which are perceived as being
environmentally friendly may directly evoke associations about packaging
sustainability (Lindh et al., 2016a). Furthermore, enhanced recyclability, reusability or
degradability are important packaging features consumers relate to sustainable
packaging solutions (PWC, 2010).
Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that sometimes, the areas of cues which are
indicating attributes, and the packaging attributes themselves, seem to melt into each
other. Thus, recycled materials are an attribute of the packaging, that can be indicated
by other cues, such as a claim or label, whereas paper-based or fiber-based materials are
often more obvious and comparatively easy to recognize without additional hints
(Herbes et al., 2020). Since material related aspects are not always visually recognizable
or understandable for consumers, graphical and textual cues are important to
15
communicate about the packaging's environmentally-friendliness (Magnier &
Schoormans 2017).
Graphical cues include color, images, photos, logos, as well as eco-labels.
Environmental-friendliness is usually conveyed through the use of nature-related colors,
imagery and graphics, to trigger an implicit visual association with nature. Thus, this
type of graphical cues may serve as an associative claim, leading consumers to infer that
the packaging is positively connected to the environment (Parguel et al., 2015). Colors
form an integral part of nonverbal communication and consumers have been found to
be highly influenced by certain color associations, specifically in low involvement,
frequent purchases and under time pressure (Silayoi & Speece, 2004). Extant literature
argues that green, natural and earthy dull colors, such as beige and brown tones, are
often intuitively associated with nature and might evoke associations with sustainability,
highlighting environmental friendliness of the packaging (Magnier & Crié, 2015; Scott
& Vigar-Ellis, 2014; Pancer et al., 2017; Petersen & Brockhaus, 2017). In addition, the
less ink or colors are used on a package, the greater is the sustainability attributed to that
package (Scott & Vigar-Ellis, 2014). Thus, the color is often decisive in whether the
packaging is evaluated as sustainable or not (Becker et al., 2011; Magnier &
Schoormans, 2017). Eco-labels are also important indicators to graphically highlight
environmental orientation of packaging and significantly impact consumers’ perception
and judgement of packaging environmental friendliness (Herbes et al., 2020; Atkinson
& Rosenthal, 2014, Scott & Vigar-Ellis, 2014). Environmental labelling usually refers
to labels accredited by an independent third party, such as governments or private noncommercial entities, to highlight that a product fulfills a specific set of criteria (Ertz et
al., 2017; Pancer et al., 2017), and act as “a proof of certification that demonstrates
compliance with specific requirements” (Larceneux et al., 2012, p.86). Labels are a
certification mark that may give consumers evidence of the environmental performance
of a product. However, label effectiveness is highly dependent on consumers'
knowledge and their understanding thereof. Nevertheless, despite limited knowledge,
consumers usually perceive labeled products and packages as being superior to
unlabeled alternatives (Drexler et al., 2017).
Lastly, explicit verbal cues in the form of general environmental claims (e.g. environmentally friendly), or scientific or environmental assertions about the packaging's
16
attributes (e.g. Microplastic Free) can also directly inform about the environmental
orientation of the package. Such claims on product packaging are usually self-declared
claims made by the manufacturer or retailer (Ertz et al., 2017; Magnier & Crié, 2015).
Generally, environmental claims can be separated into four categories. Hence, they're
either product oriented (e.g. This package is recyclable), process oriented (e.g. This
packaging has been produced from 100% recycled materials), image oriented (e.g. This
packaging is committed to preserve the environment), or may represent an
environmental fact (e.g. environmental pollution due to packaging waste is expected to
increase twofold until 2025) (Carlson et al.,1993). Product and process oriented
environmental claims are substantive claims, as they provide concrete and specific
information how the packaging contributes to reduced environmental impact. Image
oriented claims and environmental facts are regarded as associative claims, as they are
less tangible and do not provide direct information on how the packaging actually
contributes to enhanced environmental friendliness. Substantive environmental claims
are generally more effective and thus preferred by consumers as they provide
understandable, detailed and supported information on a product’s environmental
benefits (Chan et al., 2006). However, it must be highlighted, that environmental claims
are a sensitive topic. Vague or unspecific claims may raise skepticism, and could be
perceived as not credible, which may lead to perceived deceptiveness (Magnier &
Schoormans, 2017). In addition, if there are great incongruencies between the visual
appearance of the packaging and the claim, consumers might question its credibility,
which could negatively affect perception of the product (Magnier & Schoormans, 2015).
To overcome skepticism and negative claim associations, the promoted environmental
benefits of the packaging should be visually identifiable by consumers (Davis, 1993).
In such cases, the aesthetic design should complement explicit sustainability
communication, to increase consumers' trust in the credibility of the claim, which could
in turn positively impact the affective attitude towards the package (van Ooijen et al.,
2017; Magnier & Schoormans, 2015).
Recapitulating, from the consumer perspective, the actual environmental impact is
usually represented in structural cues, whereas graphical and verbal cues are mostly used
by manufacturers to signal packaging sustainability. Structural and Graphical cues both
non-verbally communicate information to consumers and are implicit because
consumers interpret the cues themselves with a meaning (Steenis, 2019). Thus, the onus
17
is on consumers to situate the packaging within their broader environmental schema
(Pancer et al., 2017), and evaluation of the packaging is done through an “inferential
belief formation process’’ (Steenis, 2019, p. 10). This type of implicit communication
is especially useful in everyday purchase contexts, where consumers may lack the ability
or motivation to process verbal information (van Ooijen et al., 2017). Verbal cues are
considered as explicit since they contain literal information. The beliefs consumers form
based on the perceived cues are considered as descriptive (informational). However,
verbal cues may also be implicit when consumers infer the claim to other, unobservable
product characteristics, for instance product sustainability (Steenis, 2019). With regard
to sustainable packaging design, some of the above outlined cues are more prevalent
than others, for example the use of specific colors and environmental claims made by
the manufacturer. Therefore, this study will specifically focus on these cues and their
influence on product perception and subsequent purchase intentions (Pancer et al.,
2017).
However, it should be noted that consumers may have difficulty to correctly categorize
a packaging which only shows one isolated environmental cue. Even though it may
activate an environmental schema in consumers’ memory, consumers usually search for
several cues to support their categorization. However, if there are no supporting cues,
this categorization process is inhibited which leads to category ambiguity, due to
insufficient validation. Therefore, it can be assumed that using isolated environmental
cues, for instance an environmental claim, may have a negative impact on consumers’
perception, relative to packaging alternatives with no such environmental cue. This
effect will be mitigated when the isolated environmental cue is supported by additional
environment-related cues, such as a claim and sustainability signaling color. Therefore,
companies should first identify which types of environmental cues are likely to be
perceived as sustainable by consumers so that supplementary cues can be embedded, to
support the environmental schema and subsequent categorization (Pancer et al., 2017).
4. Consumer Perception, Cue Utilization and Product Evaluation
Consumers commonly use the packaging to identify, categorize and differentiate
products (Magnier & Schoormans, 2017). When consumers are confronted with
different product packages on the shelf, they often use the packaging as an extrinsic
visual cue to make inferences about the product’s intrinsic attributes and qualities
18
(Kapoor & Kumar, 2019). Resultantly, consumers' response to packaging design is the
result of a cue-inference-making process, wherein consumers draw on the cues
embedded in the design to form perceptions and evaluative judgments about the
packaged content. This subconscious process ultimately influences consumers' product
impressions, attitudes and subsequent purchase choice (Underwood & Klein, 2002;
Kapoor & Kumar, 2019). The following sections will further outline these processes and
corresponding theories.
4.1 Consumer Perception and Cue utilization
For the purpose of this study, the design of the packaging is the starting point of the
conceptual framework. The packaging design is the objective outcome of various design
processes and contains numerous cues perceptible through the senses (Steenkamp, 1990,
Steenis, 2019). Perception can be defined as the process, by which consumers select,
organize, and interpret the various informational messages of their environment, and is
influenced by previous experiences and existing attitudes (Brassington & Pettit, 2013).
How the packaging design is perceived and evaluated thus depends on consumers'
subjective processing of the cues embedded in the physical design (Steenis, 2019).
Before the packaging design can be evaluated and categorized accordingly, consumers
must first perceive the cues (Olson, 1978; Steenkamp, 1990). However, consumers’
attention is limited and only a small number of salient cues are taken into account. Thus,
how consumers perceive a packaging is largely dependent on cue salience, which is the
tendency of the cues to be noticed, and how the acquired cues are mentally processed
and interpreted (Steenis et al., 2017). In the classic Cue-Utilization Theory, consumers
first perceive, and then evaluate several cues of the packaging, based on the cues’
predictive and confidence values. The predictive value is the degree, to which the cues
are believed to be associated with a specific attribute, whereas the confidence value
refers to the degree, to which consumers are confident about the accuracy of their
judgment of the cue (Olson & Jacoby, 1972). Therefore, the judgment about a
packaging, and later on about the product, is on one hand based on the objectively
designed features of the packaging, and on the other hand on consumers’ subjective
perception thereof (Steenkamp, 1990).
19
Resultantly, whether consumers perceive the packaging as environmentally friendly is
closely related to cue salience, and how the acquired cues are categorized and
interpreted. It is therefore assumed, that if a packaging displays the previously outlined
structural, graphical or verbal environmental cues, and these cues are salient for
consumers, it is likely that the packaging will be perceived as environmentally friendly.
Even though such cues are objective elements, consumer processing thereof is highly
subjective. In addition, consumers may not perceive all cues embedded in the packaging
design and might also interpret the same cues differently (Steenkamp, 1990; Steenis,
2019). In some cases, these cues may be theoretically diagnostic for the true
environmental impacts, such as the packaging material, however consumers also draw
on cues which are not related to the true environmental impacts, but primarily serve as
signals, for instance nature-related packaging colors/ imagery, to implicitly trigger
inferences about sustainability. Consequently, consumers may perceive and evaluate the
same packaging quite differently or might even have conflicting perceptions of the same
design (Herbes et al., 2020; Steenis et al., 2017).
The physical representation of environmental cues on the product packaging is decisive
in whether consumers will categorize the packaging as either sustainable or
conventional. Hence, which design elements are ultimately incorporated plays a key role
in implicitly cueing sustainability (Magnier & Schoormans, 2015; Pancer et al., 2017).
That is, based on the cue-inference-making literature, the structural, graphical and
verbal elements of the packaging design also act as cues for consumers, to implicitly
draw inferences about the packaged product (Steenis et al., 2017; Magnier &
Schoormans, 2017).
4.2 Cue-Utilization and Inference making
Initial categorization of the packaging has critical implications for consumers'
subsequent product evaluation, since consumers response to environmentally friendly
packaged products is based on their perceptions of the extent to which the packaging is
sustainable. Thus, consumers must first be able to clearly identify and categorize the
package as sustainable before they proceed to evaluate the packaged content, relative to
others within the same category. Thus, the use of environmental cues on the packaging
influences how consumers will categorize and evaluate the packaged product (Pancer et
al., 2017).
20
In supermarkets, consumers are confronted with an abundance of different packages,
which ultimately cause an information overload. When making everyday purchase
decisions, consumers often lack the time, motivation or willingness, to deal with
complex informational processing and thus rely on simple heuristics, in order to make
a purchase choice. To reduce complexity of decision-making, consumers search for
relevant signals, or cues, to first, identify and categorize the packages, and secondly, to
comprehend and evaluate the packaged content (Herbes et al., 2020). Therefore, a cue
is considered as “any informational stimulus about or relating to the product”
(Steenkamp, 1989, p. 60).
Packaging can be viewed as an array of product-related cues, whereby each cue may
provide a basis for consumers to form impressions of the product itself (Acebrón &
Dopico, 2000; Steenkamp, 1989). Even though the packaging is not directly related to
the content, its appearance provides consumers with implicit salient cues. Thus, the cues
embedded in the packaging design are often used by consumers to infer about the
characteristics of the packaged product, since cues are assumed to potentially signal
some property of the packaged product (Steenis, 2019). In other words, consumers will
draw inferences from the perceived characteristics of the packaging to form impressions
about the product, which are mainly based on their own personal beliefs and associations
(Becker et al., 2011; Huber & McCann, 1982; Magnier & Schoormans, 2017).
It is important to highlight that a distinction is made between cues of the product and
cues of the packaging. Resultantly, product cues relate to characteristics of the packaged
product, whereas packaging cues refer to the characteristics of the packaging (Steenis,
2019). However, as the intrinsic product characteristics are difficult to assess at the point
of purchase, consumers rather look for extrinsic indicators signaling intrinsic product
characteristics, to derive an overall assessment of the product from the evaluation of
these individual indications (Oude Ophuis & van Trijp, 1995). In the case of packaged
goods, the packaging acts as a bundle of cues that are assumed to indicate specific
intrinsic product attributes (Herbes et al., 2020). Hence, consumers may use the
perceived packaging cues to infer about the packaged products’ attributes (Fenko et al.,
2018).
This cue-inference making process has been further investigated by Steenkamp (1989),
who separated the cue utilization process into three different process steps consisting of
21
cue acquisition and categorization, attribute belief formation and integration of beliefs.
In the first phase, consumers visually search for relevant indicators or cues and
categorize them based on prior experience and pre-existing mental schemata. Based on
the acquired cues, the consumer derives ideas about the product properties or product
attributes. The individual beliefs about the product attributes are then integrated into an
overall picture (Steenkamp, 1989). Product attributes are therein defined as intrinsic or
extrinsic cues that signal specific product properties to consumers (Pezoldt et al., 2014).
Intrinsic cues (e.g., ingredients) are related to inherent characteristics of the product
itself and cannot be changed without altering the physical characteristics of the product.
Extrinsic cues (e.g. packaging) are in turn only product-related and can be changed
without altering the inherent characteristics of the product. According to results of past
research, intrinsic cues are usually more reliable indicators of product properties
compared to extrinsic cues and are more dominant in influencing consumers’ product
evaluation (Olson & Jacoby, 1972; Pezoldt et al., 2014). However, in purchase
environments, where it is difficult to reliably assess intrinsic product attributes or when
making low involvement purchase decisions, consumers may pay greater attention to
extrinsic product packaging cues (Olson & Jacoby, 1972).
In addition, Fishbein & Ajzen (1975) identified two ways of forming an opinion about
a product property, which are informational and inferential belief formation. Descriptive
or informational beliefs are based on directly observable properties, such as on-package
claims or information about the contained product on the packaging. Implicit inferential
beliefs are in turn based on acquisition of visual cues, such as colors or shape, which
first have to be interpreted with a meaning that goes beyond what is explicitly
communicated, to derive beliefs about product properties (Engelage, 2002). In
inferential belief formation, consumers usually use prior knowledge to form an opinion
about the perceived relationship between the packaging cues and product attributes in
order to make inferences about the product (Vos, 2017).
Inference-making can therefore be defined as "a process of filling in missing
information” (Graeff & Olson, 1994, p.201). During this inference making process, the
clearly accessible and visible attributes are used to make inferences about other,
unobservable product characteristics. Preference or rejection of the product is
determined through a combination of the visible attributes and the inferred attributes.
22
Resultantly, product judgments are often backed on inferences (Huber & McCann,
1982). That is because consumers' evaluative processes are mostly based on incomplete
product information. Thus, missing information about product attributes is then
substituted by inferences, which enable consumers to construct meaning that goes
beyond what is explicitly available of information (Ford & Smith, 1987).
According to Graeff & Olson (1994, p.202) inference making is an integral part of the
product comprehension process and involves interpreting and making sense of product
information, even in situations when there is no obviously "missing information."
Product comprehension can be regarded as a "constructive process of interpretation"
(Graeff & Olsen, p.202), whereby an individual interprets (new) product information
through activation of prior knowledge from memory, to construct new product-related
knowledge in the form of meanings and beliefs. The meanings individual’s construct
during comprehension are inferences and therefore go beyond the information initially
given. Furthermore, the created meanings during comprehension may be integrated with
prior knowledge structures in memory and then influence subsequent comprehension
and inference processes. Consequently, the meanings / beliefs formed during
comprehension are highly influenced by the knowledge that gets activated in consumers
memory. Product knowledge can be concrete and may refer to physical characteristics,
features or concrete attributes of the product. However, product knowledge can also be
more abstract, relating to product benefits or consequences of product use. During
product comprehension, consumers therefore may construct inferential beliefs that
certain product attributes could lead to product benefits (Graeff & Olsen, 1994).
However, an important distinction must be made between experience and credence
attributes. While experience attributes can be assessed on the basis of the actual
experience of the product, such as taste and smell, credence attributes, for instance
healthiness or sustainability, cannot be reliably ascertained even after regular
consumption of the product (Steenkamp, 1989). Thus, credence attributes remain purely
cognitive (Oude Ophuis & van Trijp, 1995), because consumers cannot validate and
modify beliefs about the inferential relationships between the attributes and perceived
cues (Steenkamp, 1989). The process of inferential belief formation is governing the use
of cues in the formation of experience and credence attribute perceptions. That is,
individuals infer product attribute beliefs based on the cues that are acquired and
23
categorized (Steenkamp, 1989). The effect of a certain cue in influencing inferential
belief formation with respect to a certain attribute is positively affected by several
factors: First, the consumer's perceived strength of the relationship between the cue and
specific attribute, namely the predictive value of the cue with respect to that attribute.
The higher the predictive value of a cue, the more important is the cue in the formation
of a judgement about a perceived product attribute. Secondly, the confidence value of
the cue, which refers to the consumer's confidence in his/her ability to accurately
perceive and categorize the cue. The effect of a certain cue in influencing inferential
belief formation with regard to a certain attribute, is usually greater for an intrinsic cue
than for an extrinsic cue. However, in the case of pre-packaged consumer goods,
extrinsic cues are more influential in inferential belief formation (Steenkamp, 1989).
Consequently, consumers purchase choices are sometimes mostly based on extrinsic
packaging cues while hoping that intrinsic product attributes will meet their expectations
(Oude Ophuis & van Trijp, 1995).
This effect were shown in various studies with regard to the influence of packaging
design elements on consumer product perception (Becker et al., 2011; Magnier et al.,
2016; Underwood, 2003; Orth & Malkewitz, 2008). According to van Rompay & Fenis
(2019), especially subtle cues on product packaging can enact a strong influence on
consumers' product evaluation, while they are mostly unaware of such effects. Intense
color or verbal claims referring to product properties were shown to influence product
evaluations and subsequent taste experiences in the case of food products (van Rompay
et al., 2016). This highlights the importance of packaging design elements in not only
forming product impressions, but that impressions from one sense modality, for instance
visually perceiving something as strong or intense, may transfer to another sense
modality, for instance evaluating subsequent taste experience as intense in flavor
(Schifferstein & Spence, 2008 in van Rompay et al.,2016). Further findings in this field
of consumer research support that consumers commonly utilize packaging
characteristics to draw inferences about the product. For instance, packaging color can
affect consumers’ ability to correctly identify the flavor of a product and studies found
that products are often unconsciously chosen because of the packaging color as it
strongly influences consumers' perceptions of the contained product and subsequent
product experiences (Becker et al., 2011; Magnier & Schoormans, 2017).
24
Color saturation may affect consumers' potency perceptions. Thus, highly saturated
colors intensify the perceptions of a stimulus (Schifferstein & Tanudjaja, 2004; Valdez
& Mehrabian, 1994), and increases in color saturation may evoke potency-related
perceptions that subsequently impact the taste experience (Becker et al., 2011).
Moreover, a healthy packaging appearance positively influences consumers' perceptions
of food healthiness (van Rompay et al., 2016), whereas a matte packaging surface affects
consumers' perception of product naturalness, specifically for food products that
consumers usually consider as being rather artificial. The perceived higher product
naturalness also positively influenced taste expectations and purchase intentions
(Marckhgott & Kamleitner, 2019).
This inference-making process whereby packaging cues are used to infer about product
attributes can be explained by the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) developed by
Petty and Cacioppo (1981). According to the Model, there exist two different routes, the
central and peripheral route to persuasion, which describe how people form an opinion
about or evaluate a product (Petty et al., 2005). Therein the consumer’s level of
involvement with the product is decisive for the product evaluation process and which
route the consumer will take. The level of involvement is linked to the relevance a
product has for the consumer and is therefore decisive for the cognitive effort a
consumer will put into the purchasing process. Consequently, consumers with a high
level of involvement will put more cognitive effort into their purchase decision and
process the information through the central route, which involves systematic and
elaborative cognitive processing of information (Behe et al., 2015; Petty et al., 2005, p.
83). Likewise, the peripheral route involves less cognitive effort and relies on a
relatively simple and low- effort decision strategy. Taking the peripheral route to
persuasion implies relying on simple cues and shortcuts/heuristics instead of elaborative
cognitive processing of information. Hence, to evaluate the informational message, a
particular decision rule might be retrieved from memory (Petty et al., 2005, p. 88).
Resultantly, subsequent product evaluation is based on simple inferences and heuristics
with respect to the categorization of the perceived packaging cues such as colors,
materials or claims (Parguel et al., 2015). Specifically purchase decisions for low
involvement FMCGs, induce processing of information through a peripheral route
where consumers evaluate the product based on superficial but salient cues, regardless
of whether these cues are actually related to the packaged content (Behe et al., 2015).
25
Resultantly, the likelihood of elaborating the information in the communication is
determined by a consumer's motivation and ability to carefully analyze and evaluate the
message (Petty et al., 2005, p. 88).
Recapitulating, how consumers perceive and evaluate packaged products is the result of
a cue-inference making process. Therein consumers first form evaluative judgments
about the packaging, and secondly, about the packaged product by drawing on the cues
embedded in the packaging design. Evaluations of the packaged product may vary
among consumers, as they rely on salient cue perceptions and perceive the same
packages differently (Steenis, 2019).
4.3 Cue utilization and Inference making with regard to Sustainable
Packaging
This cue-inference-making process is specifically of interest with regard to sustainable
packaging design, since consumers are likely to relate the sustainability cues on the
packaging to the contained product (Steenis, 2019). Thus, the way consumers process
and evaluate the cues and categorize the packaging, affects how consumers will perceive
and evaluate the contained product (Magnier & Crié, 2015; Herbes et al., 2020; Orzan,
2018; Steenis et al., 2017).
That is because the representation of environmental cues on product packaging impacts
whether consumers categorize the contained product as either sustainable or
conventional. A category is a mental collection of objects that are assumed to be related
in some way. People tend to first categorize products into specific categories, before
evaluating the product's characteristics. Central to the categorical inference is that
consumers prefer to categorize products within a single category to make inferences
about the product based on existing category-based knowledge. This single-category
inference strategy is usually the default strategy, even in contexts when they are
presented with a product that is difficult to put into a single category, such as a
conventional product in sustainable packaging. Thus, the way in which a product is
categorized is decisive in how consumers will evaluate the product, since the
information from that category will be assigned to the product. This is particularly
important since consumers hold different knowledge structures about what it means to
26
be a part of a conventional or a sustainable category (Pancer et al., 2017; Gershoff &
Frels, 2015).
Using specific design elements that have been found to signal sustainability for
consumers, may consequently trigger the impression that the contained product is
sustainable, which may cause inferences to other product related benefits they associate
with sustainability (Pancer et al., 2017; Steenis, 2019). Resultantly, consumers create
an impression of the product in their mind, based on the visual appearance of the
package and the inferred product attributes (Steenis et al., 2017; Magnier &
Schoormans, 2017). Such impressions may originate solely because of the packaging’s
appearance and are initiated by marketers through specific design decisions, or they may
be based on direct information provided on the packaging (Steenis, 2019).
Consumer evaluations based on explicit information such as a verbal claim about
packaging sustainability are quite straightforward. However, verbal claims referring to
the packaging can also cause implicit inferences about product attributes, when the
claim is inferred to unobservable characteristics. That is, given that consumers evaluate
the cues as being predictive of the environmental friendliness of the packaging, the
acquired cues might also be used to infer about the sustainability of the contained
product. These effects are important because packaging cues are external to the product
and non-diagnostic for the characteristics and qualities of the contained product
(Steenis, 2019). With regard to the theoretical framework, it is therefore assumed that
sustainable packaging cues will influence consumers’ evaluation of product
sustainability, which is in turn inferred to other product characteristics, since
sustainability is a credence attribute, which consumers cannot reliably assess before and
after consumption. Therefore, sustainability is usually related to other product
characteristics, such as product naturalness (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006; Steenis, 2019).
Thus, for this study three different types of inference making processes are relevant.
First, some packaging design cues can directly lead consumers to perceive the packaging
as environmentally friendly. The process of cue utilization is inferential if the evaluation
of packaging sustainability is based on implicit cues such as packaging material or color,
which may activate an environmental schema in the consumers' mind that leads to
associations with sustainability. Hence, sustainability perceptions arising from
packaging design cues may not be accurate and do not have to reflect the true
27
environmental impact of a packaging. In addition, evaluations of packaging
sustainability are descriptive, when they are based on an environmental claim (Steenis,
2019).
The second type of inference-making is concerned with more incidental belief
formations, which are based on mental associations with regard to a specific attribute.
Sustainable packaging cues can directly inform consumers about (verifiable)
characteristics of the packaging, however consumers may also form inferential beliefs
based on the environmental cues, that go beyond what is explicitly communicated. For
instance, a cue signaling the sustainability of the packaging, may induce the inferred
belief that the contained product is also sustainable (Ertz et al.,2017). The categorization
of the packaging as sustainable in consumers mind, may lead consumers to incidentally
relate the perceived sustainability of packaging to the contained product and thus, to
perceive the product within as being sustainable (Steenis, 2019). How a product is
categorized influences consumers' evaluation of other product characteristics, because
information commonly related to the category will be inferred to the product (Pancer et
al., 2017).
Third, consumers may use sustainable packaging cues to make inferences about other
product attributes, besides sustainability. Since sustainability is a credence attribute and
cannot be validated by consumers before and after consumption, the concept of
sustainability is cognitively associated with other product characteristics (Luchs et al.,
2010; Steenis, 2019). For instance, Magnier et al. (2016), found that a sustainable
packaging triggered inferences about higher product quality and naturalness for food
products. Since sustainable products are subject to careful production, they also cause
associations with greater health benefits (Magnier & Crié, 2015; Steenis, 2019).
Therefore, the sustainability signals provided by the packaging may be used as a hint to
infer about desirable intrinsic product attributes (Ertz et al., 2017). Such incidental
inferences about beneficial product characteristics are especially important as they may
impact perceived product quality and thus have a greater influence on consumers
purchase choice than the perceived sustainability benefits (e.g. environmentally friendly
packaging) alone (Steenis 2019; Luchs et al., 2010).
28
Fig.1: Model Integration. Own Illustration, based on Steenis (2019, p.16)
4.4 Product Evaluation and Sustainable Packaging
Based on extant literature, it is presumed that environmental packaging cues are likely
to induce inferences about product sustainability (Magnier& Schoormans, 2017).
Findings of prior studies imply that consumers mainly react positively to sustainability
signals, especially in the case of food products. That is because sustainable products are
often associated with beneficial product characteristics, such as enhanced naturalness,
healthiness, freshness, and tastiness (Tobler et al., 2011; Magnier et al., 2016; Magnier
& Schoormans, 2015). In addition, the above outlined product attributes may also serve
as evaluation criteria for consumers to assess a food products overall quality before a
purchase decision is made. Thus, perceived product sustainability may act as a quality
cue for consumers and could induce inferences about higher perceived product quality
(Engelage, 2002).
Perceived Naturalness is related to the way food was grown and processed. Sustainable
products are often regarded as more natural due to environmentally friendly production
methods, where less chemicals are used. In addition, perceived healthiness is usually
based on health-related attributes, such as perceived better nutritional value and
avoidance of artificial ingredients, which both ultimately stem from perceived product
naturalness (Liñán et al., 2019). In addition, consumers have been found to implicitly
relate also better and more genuine taste to sustainably produced products due to
enhanced product naturalness (Naspetti & Zanoli, 2009). Consequently, product
naturalness is often used as a proxy for sustainability (Tobler et al., 2011; Magnier et
al., 2016; Magnier & Schoormans, 2015). The above outlined beneficial product
characteristics are likely to come to mind, when consumers perceive a product as
sustainable. Thus, it is suggested that consumers are likely to draw inferences about
29
product naturalness and environmentally friendly production when the packaging
displays environmental cues. Perceived superior performance of sustainable products
on those product attributes, may lead consumers to evaluate such products as being of
higher overall quality (Magnier et al., 2016; Steenis et al., 2017; Engelage, 2002).
Sustainably produced products are also believed to be subject to higher quality
standards, which reinforces perceptions of higher product quality (Bosna &
Gebresenbet, 2018; Tobler et al., 2011; Magnier et al., 2016). Perceived Product
sustainability is therefore assumed to positively influence a product's perceived quality,
due to previously made inferences about desirable product attributes, stemming from
perceived product naturalness due to the sustainable production under perceived higher
quality standards. Resultantly, perceived product sustainability acts as a mediator
between perceived packaging sustainability and perceived product quality (Magnier et
al., 2016; Tobler et al., 2011).
Thus, the underlying assumption is, that a packaging that is perceived as sustainable,
will impact product evaluations in terms of perceived product sustainability, which will
itself act as a quality cue for consumers. Sustainable benefits stemming from central
attributes, in other words the packaged product itself, are usually evaluated higher than
the sustainable benefits that come from peripheral attributes, thus the packaging
(Gershoff & Frels, 2015). When consumers use the sustainability cues on the packaging
to assess the product, it is assumed that perceived packaging sustainability may trigger
perceptions of intrinsic product sustainability. Consumers will then infer from the
perceived sustainability of the product about higher product quality (Magnier et al.,
2016).
The production management approach usually defines quality as an objective property
inherent to the product, that is objectively measurable with certain product
characteristics. However, from the consumer perspective, the assessment of product
quality is highly subjective, and is therefore regarded as 'perceived quality' in literature
(Steenkamp,1989). According to Zeithaml (1988), the concept of perceived quality is
defined as an individual’s subjective judgment that the product is superior compared to
product alternatives and is therefore dependent on an individual's perceptions.
Furthermore, consumers need cues of quality to form quality perceptions, which are
usually extrinsic to the product, such as for instance packaging, price or brand name.
30
The effect of cues is in turn also influenced by personal and situational characteristics
(Steenkamp,1989). Therefore, perceived overall quality represents the consumers’
perceptions of individual attributes (Zeithaml,1988), and is based on inferences that a
consumer makes when presented with an extrinsic cue to form subjective judgments of
the overall product quality beyond its environmental impact (Ertz et al. 2017).
Steenkamp (1989), further makes a distinction between quality cues and quality
attributes. While quality cues can be determined through the senses prior to consumption
(e.g. environmental claim, packaging appearance), quality attributes are in turn benefitgenerating product aspects and cannot be assessed prior to consumption (e.g. flavor,
taste). He assumes that consumer's overall quality judgments are based on perceived
quality attributes. Quality cues are important as they are predictive of quality attributes.
As direct information about the quality attributes is not accessible at the point of
purchase, consumers usually use quality cues to make a purchase choice (Steenkamp
1989).
Prior studies for instance have shown that environmental claims positively influence
perceived quality of the product and inferences about product-level benefits (Magnier
et al., 2016). According to literature, consumers evaluate overall quality of a product as
better, even when the ecological cue didn't refer to the product but to the packaging's
environmental sustainability (Kovačević et al., 2019; Magnier et al., 2016).
Furthermore, a number of studies also supported that presence of an eco-label may lead
to enhanced taste perceptions for food products (Kovačević et al., 2019; Hemmerling et
al., 2013; Sörqvist et al., 2013), and nutritional evaluations (Lee et al., 2013). Based on
results of previous studies, it is therefore suggested that the presence of environmental
cues about packaging sustainability may positively influence consumers' perceptions of
product sustainability and thus, product quality (Ertz et al., 2017; Larceneux et al.,
2012).
4.5 Purchase Intention
Purchase intention is a measure to assess the tendency of a consumer to consider
purchase of a given product and is the result of consumer’s general evaluation of the
product and the attitudes formed through perception (Ririn et al., 2019). Therefore, the
intention to purchase a product is influenced by consumers' attitude towards the
packaging and product. Attitude towards the packaging refers to consumers positive
31
evaluation of packaging attributes or features (Magnier & Schoormans, 2015), whereas
attitude towards the product is in turn based on how consumers perceive the visual and
verbal packaging cues, as they tend to form perceptions of product benefits, such as
perceived product sustainability and enhanced perceived product quality, based on those
signals (Ririn et al., 2019). For consumers, a product is a bundle of attributes with
different levels of desirability. Attitude towards a product is reflected to what extent a
consumer believes that the product possesses the desired attributes and by the
importance that is given to each of them (Wilkie & Pessemier, 1973).
In the case of sustainably packaged products, it can be assumed that product attitudes
are formed through packaging design, whereby the perceived product benefits are
generally determinants of consumers’ attitudes towards the product. Consequently,
product choice is influenced by consumers' attitude towards the product, which is
formed during the evaluation of the packaging and product and the perceived product
benefits consumers expect to obtain (Ajzen, 1991; Steenis et al., 2017). Purchase
intention could thus be regarded as a function of perceived direct packaging benefits,
and perceived indirect packaging benefits, which are related to the product. Resultantly,
consumers will form attitudes based on the packaging’s provision of direct or indirect
salient cues which may influence purchase intention (Steenis et al., 2017).
In order to predict a specific behavior, it is important to measure the individual’s attitude
towards performing that behavior, more precisely, the attitude towards purchasing the
good, rather than just the attitude towards the product in question (Brassington & Pettit,
2013). Therefore, it can be assumed that the perceived sustainability of a packaging
should increase perceived product benefits, and thus evokes a favorable attitude towards
the product. Hence, it is suggested that a positive attitude towards the product might
lead to higher purchase intentions (Hassan et al., 2015; Vos, 2017).
4.6 Summary and Model Integration
Based on the different concepts outlined in the literature review, a framework is
proposed, which consists of four phases. First, consumers will acquire and process
salient environmental packaging cues and subjectively process them. Second, these
packaging-based cue perceptions might lead to sustainability inferences of the packaged
product, such as more environmental-friendly production and product naturalness.
32
Third, perceived product sustainability will in turn trigger perceptions of higher product
quality, which will influence consumers' attitude towards the product. Lastly, favorable
product evaluations should positively contribute to purchase intention.
5. Design of the study and Research Method
5.1 Research Model and Hypothesis
Following the literature review, a conceptual framework is proposed. As previously
outlined, perceived packaging sustainability can be influenced by graphical and verbal
design cues. Moreover, specifically natural brown and earthy colors have numerous
times shown to be associated with sustainability (Magnier & Schoormans, 2015; Parguel
et al., 2015, Scott & Vigar-Ellis, 2014). Thus, a brown packaging is expected to be
perceived as more sustainable compared to a blue one. In addition, it is assumed that if
a blue packaging is displaying an environmental claim about the package, it will be
perceived as more sustainable than a blue package that does not display any claim.
Consequently, the assumption is made that the presence of an environmental claim about
the packaging, as well the brown color of the packaging, significantly influence
perceived packaging sustainability (Magnier & Schoormans, 2017). Thus, an alteration
in the color of the packaging and the presence (vs. absence) of an environmental claim,
are expected to influence consumers' evaluation of packaging’ environmental
friendliness. Since consumers are assumed to make inferences about the products
characteristics based on its packaging design, perceiving the packaging as sustainable is
proposed to predict inferences about product sustainability (Magnier & Schoormans,
2017), which might in turn influence consumers perception of product quality (Magnier
et al., 2016). Therefore, the relationship between perceived packaging sustainability and
perceived quality is likely to be mediated by the perceived sustainability of the product.
Hence, it is assumed that perceived product sustainability and resultantly perceived
quality will mediate the relationship between the perceived packaging sustainability and
purchase intentions. That is, the effects of perceived packaging sustainability go beyond
influencing perceptions of product sustainability and product quality to also have a
meaningful indirect influence on purchase intentions (Pancer et al., 2017).
33
Therefore, a serial mediation is expected to occur: Perceived product sustainability and
perceived quality are expected to be the main mediators for the relationship between the
exogenous variable perceived packaging sustainability and the endogenous variable
purchase intention. Perceiving the packaging as sustainable will influence evaluations
about product sustainability, which will in turn influence perceived quality and
indirectly purchase intention. Hence, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1: Perceived packaging sustainability predicts inferences about product sustainability.
H2: Perceived product sustainability influences perceived quality of the product.
H3: Perceived packaging sustainability indirectly influences purchase intention.
Fig.2: The proposed conceptual model for the influence of perceived packaging
sustainability on consumers purchase intention. Complete lines illustrate the mediation
effects. Dotted lines illustrate indirect effects. (Own Illustration)
34
5.2 Data Collection
To test the conceptual model, a between-subject online experiment was conducted,
using a randomized online questionnaire in which participants were asked to evaluate a
Muesli package. To investigate the influence of packaging design elements on
consumers’ responses, two factors were manipulated in the experiment. The first factor
was the color of the package (brown vs. blue), the second factor was the presence (vs.
absence) of an environmental claim on the blue packaging. The survey was administered
online via social media networks to ensure distribution among a broad variety of
individuals, diversified in terms of age, country of residence and education. Evaluation
of the packages by a great number of individuals helps to obtain substantive data about
the perception of ecological cues and the attitudes and behaviors formed during their
processing. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions and had
to answer questions, measuring their perceived packaging sustainability, perceived
product sustainability, perceived quality , perceived packaging attractiveness, and their
purchase intention. In addition, participants answered questions assessing their
Environmental concern.
5.3 Stimuli
The product category chosen in this study was Muesli, as it is a frequently purchased,
low involvement product that is commonly found in supermarkets. The stimuli were
based on an existing package of the small French brand "Marlette", which is not
available for sale in the country where the study took place, nor is it sold in regular
supermarkets. Since consumers’ reliance on a packaging’s appearance is specifically
enhanced when there is no knowledge about the product or the brand, it was important
for this study to choose a packaging which is not commonly known and found in
supermarkets but nevertheless a real example of a package (Magnier et al., 2016). Thus,
to avoid prior knowledge, brand familiarity and biases, the name of the brand and any
other signs relating to the brand, were removed from all three stimuli (Orth et al., 2010).
As indicated by prior research, the effect of packaging design on consumers response is
stronger when it is visually provides relevant information in the form of graphical or
verbal cues (Magnier & Schoormans, 2015). Consequently, the appearance of the
packaging was altered to create either a conventional or sustainable condition.
35
Thus, three different packages were created by modifying the visual appearance. In the
conventional (neutral) condition, the package was presented as a bright blue cardboard
packaging, whereas in the first sustainable condition the blue packaging displayed a
verbal claim indicating the recyclability of the package. A cardboard packaging has been
chosen, since consumers usually believe that cardboard is one of the most
environmental-friendly packaging materials (Magnier & Crié, 2015) To avoid potential
confounding effects with the graphical dimension, the environmental claim was
accompanied by a corresponding recycling sign and displayed on the bottom of the main
packaging label.
In the second sustainable condition, the packaging was shown in a brown, textured
cardboard color but did not display any claim. All other packaging elements (shape,
image, product name, description) were kept the same (Magnier et al., 2016). The blue
color was chosen to contrast the textured brown colored package. Results of prior
studies imply that the color blue is not intuitively associated with the concept of
sustainability, in contrast to green and earthy colors. Thus, the brown color was chosen
to graphically represent sustainability (Ertz et al., 2017). The use of a green color has
been avoided since it has already been subject to prior studies and to prevent
greenwashing associations, which may be induced by this color (Praguel et al., 2015;
Magnier & Schoormans, 2017). Any pricing information was omitted as it could be used
by participants to infer about product quality and could influence purchase intention,
thereby detracting from the packaging appearance (Olson, 1977).
36
Fig.3: Visual Stimuli. Neutral, claim and color (left to right). Own Illustration, based
on Marlette.fr (2020).
5.4 Measurements
In total 537 individuals (Female= 401; Male = 136) fully completed the questionnaire.
The majority of respondents were located in Germany, aged between 20-29 years and
were either students or employed and already hold a bachelor’s or master's degree. The
exact socio demographics are displayed in Table 1, Appendix.
To measure the constructs of the conceptual model, items were adapted from previous
studies. Cronbach's alpha was used in order to estimate the reliability of scales
composed. All items, measuring their respective factor, describing the answer format
and original source are listed in Table 2, Appendix. Reliability of the scales was very
good for all three stimuli with all Cronbach's alphas above 0.80, the results are displayed
in Table 3, Appendix. All Items were measured on 7- point Likert scales or 7-point
semantic differential scales, since they are the most suitable scales in order to measure
perceptions (Magnier et al., 2016; Magnier & Schoormans, 2017; Krah et al., 2019).
Therefore, some items had to be adapted from 5-point Likert scales to fit the
measurement scales of this study. First, participants were asked to evaluate the
sustainability of the packaging to check whether the visual manipulation was successful.
To test the influence of perceived packaging sustainability on the independent variable,
participants had to answer questions about their perceptions of product sustainability.
37
Items of the measurement scale were related to environmentally friendly production and
perceived naturalness of the product. Next, respondents rated their perceptions of
product quality and were asked to indicate their likelihood to purchase the good.
To control for potential confounding effects and alternative explanations of the effects
of the color and the presence of the environmental claim on the dependent variable,
packaging attractiveness and Environmental concern were measured. Prior research
indicates that packaging attractiveness may influence consumers’ expectations about a
product and thus their evaluation of product quality. Since consumer research also
shows that Environmental concern represents an influencing variable when individuals
evaluate environmental-friendly packages, respondent’s level of Environmental concern
was assessed. That is, knowledge about an environmental issue, such as the
consequences of packaging waste, may influence how people react to sustainably
packaged products, which are intended to tackle this problem. Therefore, it seems
necessary to take those individual influences into account, when studying the responses
of individuals towards sustainably packaged products. It is expected, that perceived
sustainability of the packaging may affect the behavior of consumers with a high level
of Environmental concern (Magnier & Schoormans, 2015; Magnier et al., 2019) since
those individuals may be more likely to buy environmentally friendly packaged products
(Koenig-Lewis et al., 2014). Hence, packaging attractiveness and Environmental
concern were included as covariates in the model (Magnier & Schoormans, 2017,
Magnier et al., 2016).
5.5 Procedure
All statistical analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS v.26, IBM Amos v.26 and
PROCESS Macro for SPSS v. 3.5 (Hayes, 2020). Items which were either very similar
to each other or not relevant for the purpose for this study, were excluded before the
data analysis took place. All the procedures were applied three times, once for each
Stimuli. First, the inter-correlations of the respective factors to measure the conceptual
model were determined in order to avoid multicollinearity problems in regression
analyses, complete results are shown in Table 4, Appendix (Zainodin et al., 2011). Next,
the conceptual model was estimated in the structural equation modelling (SEM)
framework with the maximum likelihood (ML) method, using SPSS Amos v.26. The fit
of the conceptual model was investigated using the ratio of the χ2-value to its degrees
38
of freedom (χ2/df), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and incremental measures of
adjustments (comparative fit index (CLI)), and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI). Target
values for the indices are based on West et al. (2012), the results can be found in Table
5, Appendix. Next, unstandardized regression/ path coefficients of the conceptual model
were computed. If the key variables in an empirical model are based on similar
measurement scales, reporting unstandardized coefficients gives a better interpretation
to all coefficients and effect sizes as opposed to the standardized coefficients (Hayes,
2013; Hayes, 2017). To do so, the SPSS PROCESS Macro was used, which provides
results of the regression, as well as the direct effect, the specific indirect effects, the total
indirect effect and the total effect for the exogenous variable (Perceived Packaging
Sustainability) and mediating variables (Perceived Product Sustainability and Perceived
Product Quality) on the endogenous variable (Purchase Intention). All effects were
calculated with bias-corrected 95% bootstrap confidence intervals (CI) based on 5000
bootstrapped samples, to determine for statistical inference. In addition, the PROCESS
macro for serial mediation analysis (Model 6) also allows to control for covariates,
therefore age, gender, education, country of residence, packaging attractiveness and
environmental concern were included as covariates in the analysis. However, the
analysis revealed that age, gender, education and country of residence did not influence
any of the variables of the model and were therefore excluded from further analysis. To
demonstrate support of the mediating effects of perceived product sustainability and
perceived quality, the upper and lower bounds of the bias corrected bootstrapped 95%
CI of this indirect effect must not contain zero. Only then the indirect effect is considered
to be significant. The magnitude of the direct effect size is indicated through Beta
weights (Hayes, 2018). As the assumption of equality of variances was violated, WelchANOVAs were performed. Welch-ANOVA and Games-Howell Post-hoc pairwise
comparisons of the three groups (neutral, claim and color) allow to assess how
consumers' responses vary in terms of perceived product sustainability, product quality
and purchase intention with regard to the presented stimuli.
Manipulation checks
In order to check whether the manipulated sustainable appearances of the packaging’s
were perceived as significantly more sustainable than the conventional appearance,
39
Welch-ANOVA and Games-Howell Post hoc were performed to determine differences
in mean values of the three groups. The analysis indicated a significant difference
between the three groups (F (2,359.90) = 35,308, p<.001). The package with the claim
was perceived as more sustainable than the neutral package without a claim (Mneutral=
4,9598, SD=1,093 vs. Mclaim= 5,779, SD=.903, p<.001, 95% CI [0.5686,1.0689]). The
brown cardboard colored packaging was also perceived as more sustainable compared
to the neutral packaging, (Mcolor= 5.764, SD=.996, p< 0.001, 95% CI [0.542, 1.067]).
There was no significant difference between the brown package and the packaging with
the claim. Thus, the manipulations were successful.
5.6 Analysis of the Conceptual Model and Hypothesis Testing
The conceptual model proposes that perceived product sustainability and perceived
quality mediate the relationship between perceived packaging sustainability and
purchase intention. At the same time packaging attractiveness and consumers’ level of
Environmental concern could potentially influence respondent's product evaluation and
behavioral intentions. Therefore, the analysis of the model was carried out for each
Stimuli, respectively, following the Model 6 of the PROCESS analysis tool developed
by Hayes (2013). The complete results of the analysis of each respective Stimuli can be
found in Tables 6-8, Appendix.
1. Neutral Stimuli
When the blue packaging was displayed without an environmental claim, perceived
packaging sustainability (b=0,637, t (169) =12,532, p<.001) as well as packaging
attractiveness (b=0,148, t (169) =3.276, p<.005) both significantly predicted
perceived product sustainability. Thus, when the packaging was perceived as
sustainable, inferences about product sustainability were likely to be made. In
addition, a significant interaction was found between perceived product sustainability
and perceived quality (b=0,338, t(168)= 4,698, p<.001) Furthermore, packaging
attractiveness also influenced respondents perceived quality of the product (b=0,380,
t(168)= 8,732, p<.001), whereas Environmental concern did not influence perceived
product sustainability (b=0,003, t(169) =0,062, p = 0,951), nor perceived quality of
the product (b=-0,078, t (168) = -1,732, p=0,085). There was also no significant
interaction between perceived packaging sustainability and perceived product quality
40
(b=0,087, t (168) = 1,323, p=0,188). Moreover, there was no direct impact of
perceived packaging sustainability (b=0,139, t (167) =1,476, p=0,142) and also
no significant direct effect of perceived product sustainability (b=0.204, t (167) =
1,888, p =0.061) on purchase intention. However, packaging attractiveness
(b=0,243, t (167)=3,273, p<.005) and perceived product quality (b=0,506,
t(167)=4,639,p<.001) had a significant impact on consumers intention to purchase
the product, whereas Environmental concern did not influence respondent’s
behavioral intentions (b= -0,025,t (167) = -0,383, p =0.702). However, the total
effect of perceived packaging sustainability (b=0.422, t (169) = 5,738, p<.001) and
packaging attractiveness (b=0, 492, t (169) = 7.519, p<.001) on purchase intention
were significant, whereas the total effect of environmental concern on purchase
intention remained insignificant (b=-0,063, t (169) =-0.904, p=0,367). When both
mediators were included in the model, the analysis of indirect effects revealed that
the relationship between perceived packaging sustainability and purchase intention
was mediated via perceived product sustainability and perceived quality (Ind.=0,109,
SE=0,078, 95% CI [,.044;0,187]).
Fig.4: Serial mediation model for the neutral Packaging. Numbers in brackets indicate
the total effects. (Own Illustration)
41
2. Stimuli with Claim
When a verbal claim was presented on the packaging, perceived packaging
sustainability predicted perceived product sustainability (b=0,515,t(181)=6,160,
p<.001), whereas consumers evaluation of packaging attractiveness (b=0,045,
t(181)=0,669,p=0,504)and
their
level
of
Environmental
concern
(b=0,027,t(181)=0,366,p=0,715 ) had no impact on perceived product sustainability. A
significant interaction was also found between perceived packaging sustainability and
perceived quality (b=0,149, t (180) = 2,485, p=0,014) as well as between perceived
product sustainability and perceived quality, (b= 0,303, t (180) = 6,254, p<.001). Packaging attractiveness also influenced perceived quality (b=0,362, t (180) =8,345,
p<.001) as opposed to Environmental concern (b=0,007, t (181) =0,156, p=0,877).
Thus, when the packaging was perceived as sustainable, respondents on one hand
inferred that the product within is sustainable and also directly perceived the product as
being of higher quality. Purchase intention was directly influenced by perceived packaging sustainability (b=0,271, t (179) =3,2295, p<.005), perceived product quality
(b=0,663, t(179)=6,459, p<.001), packaging attractiveness (b=0,207, t(179)=2,944,
p<.005), as well as respondents level of Environmental concern (b=0,296,
t(179)=4,543, p<.001). The total effect of perceived packaging sustainability (b=0,495,
t (181) =5,802, p<.001), packaging attractiveness (b=0,458, t (181)=6,750, p<.001),
and environmental concern (b=0,307, t(181)=4,151, p<.001) on purchase intention,
were significant.
Analyzing the total indirect effects of the model, two mediating effects took place
simultaneously: First, the relationship between perceived packaging sustainability and
purchase intention was mediated by perceived product quality (Ind 2 = 0,099,
SE=0,049, 95% CI [0.013, 0.203]). Second, even when the mediating variable
perceived product sustainability was added to the model, this indirect effect remained
significant. Hence, the overall relationship between perceived packaging sustainability
and purchase intention was also mediated by perceived product sustainability and
perceived product quality (Ind. = 0,103, SE=0,038, 95% CI [0.063; 0.191]). Therefore,
a complementary partial mediation occurred, implying that respondents either directly
assumed that the product is of higher quality when they perceived the packaging as
sustainable. In addition, perceived packaging sustainability also triggered inferences
42
about product sustainability, which in turn influenced perceived quality and thus
purchase intention.
Fig.5: Serial mediation model for the Packaging with claim. Numbers in brackets
indicate the total effects. Own illustration.
3. Stimuli Color
When the color of the packaging was altered, perceived product sustainability was
significantly influenced by perceived packaging sustainability (b=0,366, t (174) =
6,350, p<.001). Packaging attractiveness (b=0,081, t (174) = 1,347, p=0,180) and
respondents’ level of Environmental concern (b=0,023, t (174) =0,429, p=0,669) did
not influence perceived product sustainability. A significant interaction was observed
between perceived product sustainability and perceived quality (b=0,407, t (173) 6,468,
p<.001) as well as between packaging attractiveness and perceived quality (b=0,174, t
(173) =3,456, p<.001). Perceived packaging sustainability had no effect on perceived
quality (b=0,030, t (173) = 0,568, p=0,571) as well as environmental concern (b=0,014,
t (173) = 0,311, p=0,756). Furthermore, perceived product quality (b=0,512, t (172)
=0,506, p<.001), and packaging attractiveness (b=0,373, t (172) =4,777, p<.001) both
influenced purchase intention. Perceived packaging sustainability (b=0,064, t (172)
=0,803, p=0,423), perceived product sustainability (b=0,120, t (172) = 1,146, p=0,253)
43
and environmental concern (b=0,121, t (172) = 1.784, p= 0,076) had no direct effect on
purchase intention. However, the total effect of perceived packaging sustainability
(b=0,200, t (174) =2,573, p<.05) and packaging attractiveness (b=0,489, t (174) =
6,006, p<.001) on purchase intention were significant. Analyzation of the indirect
effects implied that the relationship between perceived packaging sustainability and
purchase intention was mediated via perceived product sustainability and perceived
quality (Ind.: b= 0,0763, SE=0,036, 95%CI [0,024; 0,163]).
Fig.6: Serial mediation model for the brown colored Packaging. Numbers in brackets
indicate total effects. Own Illustration.
Next, Welch-ANOVAs were performed, to assess the influence of the different environmental cues on consumers' response.
Influence of packaging color / presence of environmental claim on perceived packaging
sustainability
As already shown in the Manipulation Check, presence of an environmental claim as
well as the color of the packaging significantly influenced perceived sustainability of
the packaging (F (2, 350.899) = 35.308, p<.001). When no claim about the packaging
recyclability was present, respondents rated the environmental sustainability of the
packaging lower compared to the one displaying a claim (Mneutral= 4,9598, SD=1,093
44
vs. Mclaim= 5,779, SD=.903, p<.001, 95% CI [0.5686;1.0689]). However, an alteration
in the color of the packaging had the same effect as adding an environmental claim.
Thus, the brown colored packaging was also perceived as more environmentally
friendly than the neutral packaging (Mcolor= 5.764, SD=.996, p<0.001, 95% CI [0.542;
1.067]).
Influence of packaging color / presence of environmental claim on perceived product
sustainability
Next, significant differences in terms of perceived product sustainability were found (F
(2,351.4) = 15.26, p<.001). The Muesli was rated as more sustainable when it was
presented in the brown colored packaging compared to the neutral package
(Mcolor=5.393, SD=0.840 vs. Mneutral= 4.94, SD= 1.025, p<.001, 95%, CI [0.213;
0.684]) and when the packaging displayed an environmental claim (Mcolor=5.393,
SD=0.840 vs. Mclaim=4.92, SD=1.052, p<.001; 95%CI[0.239;0.708]). Thus, when the
product was packaged in the brown packaging, respondents were more likely to infer
that the product is sustainable. There was no significant difference whether an
environmental claim about the packaging sustainability was present (vs. absent) on the
neutral packaging with regard to perceived product sustainability. Thus, for consumers
the color of the packaging was more decisive in their evaluation of product
sustainability.
Influence on Perceived Product Quality
In addition, a significant difference was also found in respondents' evaluation of
perceived product quality (F (2,349.62) =11.454, p<.001). When the Muesli was shown
in the brown colored packaging, it was rated as being of higher quality compared to the
neutral blue version (Mcolor=5.267, SD= 0.750 vs. Mneutral = 4.919, SD=0.990, p<0.005,
95% CI [0.127;0.569]). In addition, the Muesli in the brown packaging was also
perceived as being of better quality compared to the packaging displaying an
environmental claim (Mclaim= 4,90, SD=0.897, p<.001, 95% CI [0.163;0.572]). There
was no significant difference between the packaging with and without an environmental
claim in terms of perceived product quality.
45
Influence on Purchase Intention
Lastly, the influence of an environmental claim about the packaging and the color of the
packaging on purchase intentions were compared. A significant difference was found (
F(2, 354.10)=7.619, p<.05), indicating that respondents expressed a stronger likelihood
to purchase the Muesli when it was packaged in the brown packaging compared to the
neutral package (Mcolor= 5.025, SD= 1.186 vs. Mneutral= 4,596, SD=1.320, p<.05, 95%
CI [0.11;0,.744]) as well as compared to the packaging with the claim (Mclaim= 4.573,
SD=1.313, p<.05, 95% CI [0.143; 0.761]). There was no significant difference between
the packaging with or without an environmental claim. Thus, the brown colored package
evoked more favorable purchase intentions compared to the two other groups.
Influence of Packaging Attractiveness and Environmental Concern
As indicated by the analysis of the conceptual model, packaging attractiveness played a
key role in consumers’ evaluation of product sustainability, perceived quality and
purchase intention. Welch- ANOVA supports that the packages were evaluated quite
differently in terms of attractiveness among the three conditions (F (2,352.255) =
28,093, p<.001). Specifically the brown packaging was perceived as more attractive
compared to the neutral version (Mcolor=5.810, SD=1.015 vs. Mneutral=5.009, SD=1.289,
p<.001, 95% CI0.5186; 1.0849)) as well as to the packaging with an environmental
claim (Mclaim=5.135, SD=1.150, p<.001, 95% CI [0.4079, 0.9438]). There was no
significant difference between the groups which received the neutral packaging with or
without a claim.
Moreover, a significant difference was also observed with regard to respondents' level
of Environmental concern (F (2, 352,88) =492.504, p<.001). Respondents who received
the packaging displaying an environmental claim indicated a higher level of
Environmental concern compared to the group which received the same packaging
without a claim (Mclaim=5.587, SD=0.969 vs. Mneutral=2.499, SD=1.070, p<.001, 95%
CI [2.834, 3.342]). Likewise, respondents who were presented with the brown colored
packaging also expressed a higher level of Environmental concern compared to the
neutral group (Mcolor=5.544, SD=1.126, p<.001, 95% CI [2.769, 3.321]). There was no
significant difference between the two groups that were presented with the sustainability
signaling packages.
46
6. General Discussion of Findings
6.1 Discussion of Findings and Implications
Even though the importance of packaging design in marketing of consumer goods has
been extensively researched, only a limited number of studies has specifically
investigated how sustainability conveying packaging design elements might influence
consumers’ perception of the packaging and product. This thesis contributes to existing
literature on consumer cue-perception and inference-making processes, specifically
with regard to sustainable packaging design (e.g. Pancer et al.,2017; Koenig-Lewis et
al.,2014; Scott & Vigar-Ellis, 2014; Magnier & Schoormans, 2015; Magnier &
Schoormans, 2017; Steenis et al., 2017; Herbes et al.,2020; Steenis, 2019; Lindh et al.,
2016).
The present research provides new insights by empirically determining how visual and
verbal design elements that communicate sustainability, influence consumers attitudes
and behaviors toward a product. It was demonstrated, that the design of a packaging can
readily give rise to associations about sustainability, whereby the utilized elements have
been shown to impact consumer perceptions differently. Moreover, results imply that
packaging color and attractiveness are important variables to take into account with
regard to sustainable packaging design as both had a significant impact on consumers’
packaging perception and product evaluation.
Starting with the analyzation of the conceptual model, results show that perception of
packaging sustainability affected consumers' perception of product sustainability and
product quality, and ultimately their purchase intention. For all three stimuli the
relationship between perceived packaging sustainability and purchase intention was
mediated by perceived product sustainability and perceived quality. All of the
previously made hypotheses are therefore supported. The findings highlight that
consumers make inferences about product sustainability when implicit as well as when
explicit packaging sustainability information is given, which support results of prior
studies in this area. Thus, packaging design elements lead consumers to make inferences
about the packaging and packaged product, which are then integrated to establish an
image of the product as a whole (Luchs et al., 2011; Steenis et al., 2017; Steenis, 2019).
Hence, the extent to which the packaging is perceived as sustainable is likely to
47
influence the extent, to which the product is perceived as being sustainable. Thus,
consumers perceive packaging and product rather as one and the same, instead of
considering packaging and product individually. In addition, it was shown that
consumers form mental associations about other product characteristics when the
packaging signals sustainability, in this case perceived product naturalness and higher
product quality. Sustainability signals about the packaging lead to inferences about
product sustainability and thus impacted evaluation of the packaged product’s quality.
Recapitulating, the above outlined results support existing literature that packaging
design significantly influences consumers' evaluations of the packaged product through
a cue- inference-making process, wherein product attributes are inferred based on
perceived packaging cues (Becker et al., 2011; Magnier & Schoormans, 2017; Magnier
et al., 2016; Steenis et al., 2017; Steenis, 2019). Moreover, results indicate that
specifically packaging attractiveness is an important factor to consider during the design
process of a sustainable packaging, as it impacts nearly all respective variables of the
model. Thus, is it assumed that an attractive packaging may increase the packaging's
persuasive impact (Luchs et al., 2012; Magnier et al., 2016; Magnier & Schoormans,
2015; Magnier & Schoormans, 2017; Rokka & Uusitalo, 2008; Steenis et al., 2017).
Furthermore, analysis of the model revealed that individuals' environmental concern
only significantly influenced purchase intention, when an environmental claim was
presented on the packaging. This finding contradicts those of prior research. For
instance, van Birgelen et al. (2009), found that environmental-friendly purchase and
disposal decisions for beverages are related to consumers' environmental concern and
their environmental-friendly attitude. In addition, Koenig-Lewis et al. (2014), have
studied consumers' emotional and rational evaluations of sustainable packaging and
revealed that purchase intention was not influenced by rational evaluations of perceived
benefits but was rather significantly influenced by consumers general environmental
concern.
Comparative analyzation of the three groups revealed, that the sustainable color was
more impactful in triggering inferences about product sustainability and perceived
product quality, which led to higher purchase intentions. Furthermore, it can be assumed
that consumers' ability to recognize sustainable packaging is highly dependent on the
visual and verbal cues the packaging provides. Associations with packaging
48
sustainability were specifically evoked when the packaging was readily observable as a
paper-based package (brown color), as well as when the blue packaging displayed a
claim that indicated its recyclability. In contrast, when the blue colored packaging was
presented without a claim, it did not readily lead to associations with sustainability.
Thus, the sustainable color had a similar effect on consumers' perception of packaging
sustainability like an environmental claim about the packaging and intuitively led to
inferences about packaging environmental friendliness. This validates findings of prior
studies, that first, consumers use verbal claims to assess packaging environmental
friendliness, and second, that claims are especially important when the packaging’s
visual appearance does not convey eco-friendliness. Results confirm that the blue color
did not spontaneously give rise to thoughts about sustainability. In addition, an
environmental claim about the package has shown to positively impact perceived
packaging environment-friendliness, even when it is self-declared by the producer.
Therefore, this study contributes to extant literature that it is possible to implicitly and
explicitly convey packaging sustainability through the use of different design features
(Magnier et al., 2016; Magnier & Schoormans, 2015; Pancer et al., 2017; Magnier &
Schoormans, 2017).
In addition, respondents not only held different perceptions of the packaging but also
about the product. When the Muesli was presented in the brown packaging, respondents
were more likely to implicitly infer that the packaged product is sustainable. There was
no difference between the neutral package and the one displaying an environmental
claim in terms of perceived product sustainability. Thus, for consumers the color of the
packaging was also a cue to infer about product sustainability. This supports findings of
Magnier & Schoormans (2017) who showed that consumers are more likely to draw
inferences about product sustainability through their evaluation of the packaging color
but not based on the environmental claim about the packaging. Since the claim referred
only to the packaging, it did not influence consumers' perception of product
sustainability. Resultantly, it can be assumed that the color of a packaging is more likely
to be used as a cue to make inferences about product attributes, due to its implicit nature.
Therefore, it is recommended that packaging designers and product managers should
particularly pay attention to packaging color. Interpretation of the color is based on
consumer’s subjective processing thereof and the evoked associations. This is especially
important to highlight, since the information about the product and image on the
49
packaging were the same for all three conditions. It is therefore important to gather more
and better understanding of how color is perceived in the case of sustainable packaging
design, as it plays a key role in the formation of mental associations and consumer
product evaluation. Moreover, contrary to prior studies, material choice had no effect
on perceived sustainability, and consumers were more affected by the graphical and
verbal influences of the packaging (Steenis et al., 2017; Magnier & Schoormans, 2017).
Therefore, it is necessary to consider that changes in the functional design processes of
the packaging, which may lead to changes in the graphical design elements of the
package (e.g. color), might have implications for the messages the respective design
elements convey. In addition, the study demonstrated that different design elements
communicate different levels of sustainability to consumers. That is, the claim that
declares the recyclability of the packaging material proved to be a reasonable way to
increase the perceived sustainability of a package. However, the color also impacted
consumers' overall product perception, as the perceived sustainability of the packaging
spilled over to the content, resulting in enhanced perceived product sustainability and
product quality. A more sustainable looking packaging could therefore positively
complement important product characteristics, such as enhanced product naturalness
and quality (Steenis et al., 2017).
However, this effect has positive as well as negative managerial implications. On one
hand, graphical aspects and verbal claims can underline the sustainability of the
packaging and make a company's sustainability efforts recognizable for consumers. On
the other hand, this also leaves room for exploitation: Some companies might draw on
the subtle effects of sustainability signaling design elements, such as the packaging
color, and could intentionally mislead consumers to form overly positive beliefs with
regard to the environmental performance of the packaging or product. The regulations
aiming to prevent deceptive marketing suggest that what counts as misleading
communication depends on how individuals interpret the particular messages and
information. That is, marketing of packaged products could be regarded as misleading,
if an exposed group holds more false beliefs than a comparison group. Such deceptive
communication may have far reaching consequences for the producing firm and the
product, as it creates consumer distrust and skepticism once detected. Therefore, it is
necessary that policy makers also pay attention to such package designs that implicitly
50
convey eco-friendliness and may mislead consumers to falsely associate the packaging
and/or product with sustainability (Lyon & Montgomery, 2015).
Also graphical elements could potentially act as associative claims, and may even have
a greater influence on consumer product perception than explicit verbal claims. Such
implicit communication elements leave more room for consumers to make inferences
about product characteristics, as opposed to the verbal claim which explicitly refers to
the packaging (Parguel et al.,2015). In this study, the brown color might have activated
an environmental schema in respondents mind, reinforcing that the product is positively
connected to the environment as opposed to the verbal claim. Further research is still
needed to test whether other sustainability signaling colors might have a similar effect
on product evaluation (Magnier & Schoormans, 2017).
Furthermore, the perceived product sustainability affected perceived quality of the
product. That is, in all three conditions a significant interaction between the perceived
sustainability of the product and perceived quality was found. Since the Muesli in the
brown packaging was perceived as more sustainable, respondents also rated it as being
of higher quality. This effect did not occur when it was presented in the blue packaging,
regardless of the presence of a verbal claim. In addition, packaging attractiveness also
affected perceptions of product quality. Therefore, evaluation of product quality could
be partially explained by the perceived attractiveness of the packaging next to the
inferred characteristics of the product. The results support findings of prior studies in
this field, that the sustainable appearance of a package (Magnier & Schoormans, 2017;
Magnier et al., 2016; Steenis,2019), as well as the overall attractiveness of the package
(Underwood et al., 2001), both have a positive influence on perceived quality.
Therefore, a company may enhance perceived product quality by designing sustainable
packages, which are recognizable as such by consumers (Magnier et al., 2016). This
also underlines the importance of the packaging's visual appearance, as consumers
evaluate the packaged product based on their perception of the packaging (Steenis et al.,
2017; Magnier & Schoormans, 2017).
Consequently, perceived packaging sustainability and the subsequent inferences about
product sustainability and perceived quality influenced consumers purchase intentions.
The likelihood to purchase the product was greatest for the brown packaging, which
51
might be based on consumers' more favorable overall evaluation of packaging and
product. There was no significant difference in respondents' purchase intention whether
the blue packaging displayed a verbal claim or not. In addition, it was found that
perceived packaging attractiveness again played an influential role in respondents'
considerations to purchase the product. As the effect of packaging attractiveness on
purchase intention was strongest for the brown colored packaging, it is assumed that an
attractive appearance of the packaging is more likely to stimulate consumers to purchase
a good and has a greater persuasive impact (Benachenhou et al., 2018). Therefore, it is
suggested that product attitudes are indeed affected by the packaging design, more
precisely, the attitudes toward the packaging. The higher perceived packaging
sustainability generated favorable attitudes towards the packaging, whereas perceived
product sustainability and perceived enhanced product quality might have evoked
favorable attitudes toward the product, which are both important determinants of
consumers purchase intentions. Perceived packaging sustainability can positively
influence consumers product attitudes and thus, product choice, since the packaging
design proved to lead to infer about other favorable product characteristics. Hence,
perceived packaging sustainability can indirectly influence purchase intentions.
The present study provides support that consumers have difficulty to correctly
categorize a product which only shows one isolated environmental cue, which led to
less favorable product attitudes (Pancer et al., 2017). The blue packaging without a
claim only showed one sustainability cue (paper-based packaging material), whereas the
blue packaging with a claim displayed two environmental cues, which enhanced the
chances of categorization as sustainable packaging. However, the blue color may have
led to perceived incongruence among environmental packaging cues for consumers,
since the blue color is not intuitively associated with sustainability (Vos, 2017). The
environmental packaging cues, in this case the verbal claim and packaging color, have
to be perceived as congruent to positively influence consumers' attitude towards the
product. Hence, the visual appearance of the packaging should therefore reflect what
consumers associate with packaging sustainability to be effective. Otherwise it is likely
that the packaging might lead to increased skepticism, which could lead to a decrease in
affective attitudes towards the package and product, as well as behavioral intentions
(Magnier & Schoormans, 2015).
52
Interestingly, when respondents' level of environmental concern was compared among
the three groups, results showed that when the packaging clearly communicated about
its sustainability, consumers showed a higher level of' environmental concern. However,
when there was no indication of environmental sustainability, respondents' level of
environmental concern was significantly lower. Thus, it could be assumed that the
explicit and implicit indication of environmental sustainability, as expressed by the
packaging design, also subtly appeals to consumers' level of environmental concern,
whereas a conventional packaging appearance does not trigger such an effect. This
provides an interesting avenue for further research, as it could be investigated if a proenvironmental stimuli might indeed trigger pro-environmental attitudes.
6.2 Limitations
Lastly, there also exist several limitations of the current study, which could provide
interesting avenues for future research.
First, the study was realized online, and the stimuli were represented by images.
Especially for the assessment of the material (cardboard), the online context of the study
may represent a bias since sensory aspects, such as haptics, could influence product and
packaging evaluations. Results could therefore be different, when the stimuli would be
presented in a real purchase setting and consumers would have been able to see and feel
the texture of the material. In addition, price also plays a key role in consumers' purchase
choice for sustainable products and was not considered in this study Also contextual
factors, such as the retail environment, may significantly impact packaging and product
perception. Since a hypothetical setting was analyzed, this study is not representative of
a true purchase setting (Magnier & Schoormans, 2017; Steenis, 2019).
In addition, women were overrepresented in the sample used for this study. This could
be explained by the fact that respondents were randomly recruited online, and the
experiment was not conducted in a controlled setting. Future research should try to
achieve greater diversity in terms of gender, as it might have a significant effect on the
results of the study. Furthermore, most of the respondents were currently located in
Germany and predominantly students, therefore, the experiment should be replicated in
different countries and contexts, to be generalizable.
53
The current study focused on the food product category, more precisely Muesli, and
thus the results are possibly limited to some context specificities. Prior research
indicates that sustainability cues might have a negative impact on product effectiveness,
when consumers search for strength-related attributes, for instance with regard to
household detergents (Luchs et al., 2010). Although Muesli represents an interesting
category because so far, most packaging research has used other food product packages,
the results of this study are therefore limited and the study should be replicated with the
same specific settings across other product categories in order to make claims about
generalizability (Magnier & Schoormans, 2015).
Moreover, the stimuli could have been manipulated differently. In this study, only the
color was manipulated. Instead of only manipulating one visual design element, also the
material, the size or the presence of over-packaging could have been altered. Likewise,
other graphical elements such as photographs, nature-inspired images or logos could
have been presented on the packages. The environmental claim about the package was
manipulated by presenting either no claim or a claim on the package, which stated that
the package is recyclable. Further research could test the influence of more specific
messages consisting of figures presenting the carbon footprint of the package or more
scientific arguments. Moreover, the environmental claim was not certified by a thirdparty organization. This could have impacted the influence of the claim on the
evaluation of the packaging and/or product. Instead of a verbal environmental claim, an
ecological brand name could have been displayed. Future studies could investigate if
the message communicated by the claim or brand name are likely to influence
consumers' product evaluations.
The packages did not show a brand in order to avoid prior knowledge about the brand
and possible biases in consumers’ responses. However, as shown by prior studies in this
field, brand equity has an effect on the evaluation of sustainable packaging. For instance,
it has been demonstrated that an organic label has no effect on perceived quality when
brand equity is high, whereas it greatly influences perceived quality when consumers'
level of brand equity is low (Larceneux et al., 2012). It could be researched whether
knowledge of the brand influences consumers responses to the sustainability cues in
terms of perceived packaging and product sustainability as well as subsequent purchase
intentions.
54
Next, the evaluation of the perceived product sustainability was based on items related
to environment-friendly production and perceived product naturalness. However,
sustainability is also often related to aspects such as health, or betterer taste, which are
not reflected in this study. Further research could study how the perception of packaging
design may influence evaluations of perceived health or taste with regard to sustainable
packaging.
7. Conclusion
The model proposed aimed to explain how sustainable packaging indirectly influences
purchase intention with perceived product sustainability and perceived quality as the
mediating factors between the sustainable packaging cues and purchase intention. A
clear relationship was found between the color of the packaging and environmental
claim on the perceived packaging sustainability and consumers in this study relied
predominantly on packaging color, followed by the verbal claim to identify the
packaging as sustainable. In addition, packaging attractiveness seems to be a major
determinant in consumers packaging and product evaluation and purchase intention.
Besides these packaging cues directly related to the packaging option in question,
consumers also make inferences about the product based on their perception of the
packaging. Therefore, the study adds to the literature on cue utilization and inference
making and generates further insights how impressions, which are formed based on the
packaging, might transpose to the product as a whole. In addition, the findings support
that consumers tend to relate the concept of sustainability to other product benefits, such
as perceived product naturalness and higher product quality (Magnier et al., 2016;
Steenis et al., 2017). Perceived Packaging Sustainability (mis)lead to the assumption
that the contained product is sustainable which resulted in enhanced product quality
evaluations and higher intentions to purchase the product. Therefore, more research is
necessary to understand via which cues individuals recognize sustainability of the
packaging and their influence on product evaluation.
55
List of References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes.Vol.50. pp.179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Adam, M.A. (2014) Impact of Visual Elements of Packaging of Packaged Milk on
Consumer Buying Behaviour. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in
Business. Vol 5. No.11. March 2014.
Agariya, A., Johari, A., Sharma, H.K., Chandraul, U.N.S. & Singh, D. (2012). The
Role of Packaging in Brand Communication. International Journal of Scientific &
Engineering Research, Volume 3, Issue 2, February 2012. ISSN2229-5518
<https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/07cc/9f2d4f18914a5bbf4bc22c58c6418e0d3acb.
pdf>
Ampuero, O., Vila, N. (2006). Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 100-112.
<https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760610655032>
Ampuero, O., Vila, N. (2007). The Role of Packaging in Positioning an Orange Juice.
Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 13(3) 2007, p.21-48. doi:
10.1300/J038v13n03_02. < http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J038v13n03_02>
Amin, M., Imran, M., Abbas, N. & Rauf, U. (2015). Impact of the Product Packaging
on the Consumer Buying Behavior. Journal of Marketing and Consumer Research
Vol.16, 2015, www.iiste.org, ISSN 2422-8451.
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315830425_Impact_of_the_Product_Packa
ging_on _the_Consumer_Buying_Behavior >
Aslam, M. M. (2006). Are You Selling the Right Colour? A Cross-cultural Review of
Colour as a Marketing Cue. Journal of Marketing Communications.Vol.12, Issue 1,
pp.15-30.
Atkinson, L., Rosenthal, S. (2014). Signaling the Green Sell: The Influence of EcoLabel Source, Argument Specificity, and Product Involvement on Consumer Trust.
Journal of Advertising, Vol.43, Issue 1, pp. 33-45.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2013.834803
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.834803>
Ares, G., Deliza, R. (2010). Studying the influence of package shape and colour on
consumer expectations of milk desserts using word association and conjoint analysis.
Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 21, Issue 8, December 2010, pp. 930-937.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.03.006>
Armstrong, G., Kotler, P. (2013). Marketing: An introduction.11th edn. Boston,
London: Pearson.
56
Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) (2019) Sustainable packaging
guidelines 2019- SPGs. Published by
https://www.packagingcovenant.org.au.Publisher: Australian Packaging Covenant.
Published 2019. Updated June 2020.
<https://www.packagingcovenant.org.au/documents/item/1091> (accessed 19 July
2020)
Bagwell, Dr. T. (2014). Packaging attributes and consumers purchase behaviour
towards bread products in abia state. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.16, Special
Issue 1, 2014. pp.12-21
Behe, B.K., Bae, M., Huddleston, P.T. & Sage, L. (2015). The effect of involvement on
visual attention and product choice. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
Vol.24 (2015), pp. 10–21. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.01.002>
Bello Acebrón, L., Calvo Dopicon, D. (2000). The importance of intrinsic and
extrinsic cues to expected and experienced quality: an empirical application for beef.
Food Quality and Preference, Vol.11, Issue 3, (2000), pp.229-238.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00059-2>
Benachenhou, S., Guerrich, B., Moussaoui, Z. (2018). The effect of packaging
elements on purchase intention: Case study of Algerian customers. Management
Science Letters. 8. pp.217-224. doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2018.2.004.
Becker, L., van Rompay, T.J.L., Schifferstein, H.N.J. & Galetzka, M. (2011). Tough
package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions and
product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference. Vol.22, Issue 1, January 2011, pp.
17–23. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.06.007>
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, Vol.107, No.2, pp. 238–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
BEUC (2017) The EU Ecolabel- Factsheet. Published by The European Consumer
Organisation. Document No.: Beuc-x-2017-056-May-2017. Published May 2017.
Brussels. <http://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2017-056_ecolabel_factsheet.pdf>
Binninger, A-S., Robert, I. (2005). Les produits labellisés et le développement durable
dans la perspective du consommateur: une étude exploratoire. Actes du XXI° Congrès
AFM – 18- 20 Mai 2005, NANCY, pp. 26. cited in Jeddi, N., Zaiem, I. (2010) The
Impact of Label Perception on the Consumer’s Purchase Intention: An application on
food products. IBIMA Publishing. IBIMA Business Review, Vol.2010, Article ID
476659, pp.1-14.
<https://ibimapublishing.com/articles/IBIMABR/2010/476659/476659.pdf>
57
Bloch, P.H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response.
Journal of Marketing, Vol .59, July 1995, pp.16-29.
<http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/~jzelek/teaching/syde361/bloch.pdf>
Boks, C., Stevels, A. (2007). Essential Perspectives for Design for Environment,
Experiences from the Electronics Industry. International Journal of Production
Research, Volume 45, Issue 18 & 19, September 2007, pp.4021 - 4039.
<https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540701439909>
Borgman, I., Mulder-Nijkamp, M., de Koeijer, B. (2018). The Influence of Packaging
Design Features on Consumers' Purchasing & Recycling Behaviour. Conference: 21st
IAPRI World Conference on Packaging at Zhuhai, China. June 2018.
doi:10.12783/iapri2018/24397.
Bosona T., Gebresenbet, G. (2018). Swedish Consumers' Perception of Food Quality
and Sustainability in Relation to Organic Food Production. Foods,2018. Vol.7, 54.
doi:10.3390/foods7040054
Bovensiepen, G., Fink, H., Schnück, P., Rumpff, Dr.S. & Raimund, S. (2018).
Verpackungen im Fokus. Publisher: PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) GmbH
Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft. February 2018, pp. 1–40. PDF. Available from
<https://www.pwc.de/de/handel-und-konsumguter/pwc-studie-verpackungen-imfokus- februar-2018-final.pdf>
Boz, Z., Korhonen, V., Koelsch Sand, C. (2020). Consumer Considerations for the
Implementation of Sustainable Packaging: A Review. Sustainability 2020, Vol. 12,
Issue 6, 2192. Published 12 March 2020, pp.1-34.
<https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062192>
Brassington, F., Pettit, S. (2013). Principles of marketing (3rd ed). Pearson Education,
Harlow, UK. ISBN 978-0-273-72764-4.
Brockhaus, S., Petersen, M., & Kersten, W. (2016). A crossroads for bioplastics:
exploring product developers' challengers to move beyond petroleum-based plastics.
Journal of Cleaner Production,Vol. 127, pp. 84-95.
Brécard, D. (2014). Consumer confusion over the profusion of eco-labels: Lessons
from a double differentiation model. Resource and Energy Economics, Vol. 37,
August 2014, pp. 64-84. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2013.10.002>
Butkeviciene, V., Stravinskien, J., Rutelion, A. (2008). Impact of Consumer Package
Communication on Consumer Decision Making Process. Inzinerine EkonomikaEngineering Economics, Vol.56, No.1, 2008, pp.57-65. ISSN 1392-2785.
Carneiro, J.D.S., Minim, V.P.R., Deliza, R., Silva, C.H.O., Carneiro, J.C.S. &Leão,
F.P. (2005). Labelling effects on consumer intention to purchase for soybean oil. Food
58
Quality and Preference, Vol. 16, Issue 3, April 2005, pp.275-282.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.05.004>
Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Kao, C.F. and Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and
peripheral routes to persuasion: an individual difference perspective. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 1032-43.
Carlson, L., Grove, S.J. and Kangun, N. (1993). A content analysis of environmental
advertising claims: a matrix method approach. Journal of Advertising, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 27-39.
Carlson, L., Grove, S.J., Kangun, N. and Polonsky, M.J. (1996a). An international
comparison of environmental advertising: substantive versus associative claims.
Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 57-68.
Carlson, L., Grove, S.J., Laczniak, R.N. and Kangun, N. (1996b). Does environmental
advertising reflect integrated marketing communications? An empirical investigation.
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 37, pp. 225-32.
Chan, R.Y.K. (1999). Environmental attitudes and behavior of consumers in China:
survey findings and implications. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol.
11 No. 4, pp. 25-52.
Chan, R.Y.K. (2000). The effectiveness of environmental advertising: the role of claim
type and the source country green image. International Journal of Advertising, Vol.
19, pp. 349-75.
Chan, R.Y.K. and Lau, L.B.Y. (2002). Explaining green purchasing behavior: a
cross-cultural study on American and Chinese consumers. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14 Nos 2/3, pp. 9-40.
Chan, R., Leung, T.K.P., Wong, Y.H. (2006). The effectiveness of environmental
claims for services advertising. Journal of Services Marketing.Vol. 20. pp.233-250.
doi:10.1108/08876040610674580.
Chang, H.-C.; Huang, K.-L.; Chen, H.-Y.; Huang, C.-I. (2018) Evaluation of
Packaging Form Regarding Consumers’ Sentimental Response to Bottled Beverage
Containers. Applied System Innovation, Vol.1, Issue 2, Article Nr. 16. Published 29
May 2018. doi:10.3390/asi1020016
Choi, Y., Lockton, D., Brass, C. & Stevens, J. (2015). Opportunities for Sustainable
Packaging Design. Conference: Sustainable Innovation 2015 State of the Art.
Sustainable Innovation & Design. Towards sustainable Product design 20th
Conference 09-10 November 2015. University of the Creative Arts. Published 09
November 2015. Epsom, Surrey, UK. Available at:
59
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284633395_Opportunities_for_Sustainable
_Packa ging_Design>
Coelho, P.M., Corona, B., ten Klooster, R. & Worrell, E. (2020) Sustainability of
reusable packaging–Current situation and trends. Resources, Conservation &
Recycling: X, Vol. 6, 2020, Article:100037, ISSN 2590-289X.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcrx.2020.100037>
Cox, D.F. (1967). The sorting rule model of the consumer product evaluation process.
In: D.F. Cox (ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior,
Boston: Harvard University Press, pp.324-369.
Consumer Goods Forum (2011). Global Protocol on Packaging Sustainability 2.0.
The Consumer Goods Forum: Issy-les-Moulineaux, France, 2011.
<https://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CGFGlobal- Protocol-on-Packaging.pdf>
Davis, J.J. (1993). Strategies for environmental advertising. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 19-36.
Dawar, N., Parker, P. (1994). Marketing universals: Consumers' use of brand name,
price, physical appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of product quality.
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 2 (Apr. 1994), pp. 81-95.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1252271
De Koeijer, B., Wever, R., & Henseler, J. (2017). Realizing product-packaging
combinations in circular systems: Shaping the research agenda. Packaging
Technology and Science, Vol.30, Issue 8,pp. 443-460.
Denkstatt GmbH (2017). Specific examples from Austrian stakeholder projects,
including carbon footprint assessments in How Packaging Contributes to Food Waste
Prevention. Denkstatt: Vienna, Austria, 2017.
Der Grüne Punkt (2019). Design4Recycling (Version 1.1). Editor: Norbert Völl
(responsible for content). Publisher: DSD – Duales System Holding GmbH & Co. KG,
September 2019.Cologne, Germany. Brochure downloaded from:
<https://www.gruener-punkt.de/en/sustainable-packaging/aboutdesign4recycling.html> (26. April 2020)
Dickson, P.R. (1994). Marketing management. Forth Worth (TX): The Dryden Press.
Dibb, S., Lyndon, S. Pride, W.M., Ferrell, O.C. (1991). Marketing Concepts and
Strategies. European Edition, Haughton Mifflin Company, Boston London, 1991, pp.
226-230.
60
Dodds, W.B. (2002). The Effects of Perceived and Objective Market Cues on
Consumers’ Product Evaluations. Marketing Bulletin, Vol. 13,2002, Article 2.
Drexler, D., Fiala, J., Havlíčková, A., Potůčková, A. & Souček, M. (2017). The Effect
of Organic Food Labels on Consumer Attention. Journal of Food Products Marketing.
Vol.24. pp.1-15. doi: 10.1080/10454446.2017.1311815.
East, R., Singh, J., Wright, M., Vanhuele, M. (2017). Consumer behaviour:
Applications in marketing (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Engelage, A. (2002). Qualitätswahrnehmung bei Lebensmitteln das Verbraucherbild
in Rechtsprechung und Wissenschaft. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades
eines Doktors der Veterinärmedizin an der Freien Universität Berlin, Journal-Nr.:
2642, published 22 October 2002. <http://www.diss.fuberlin.de/2002/201/index.html>
European Commission (2006) The European Ecolabel - Better by Nature. General
Factsheet. Published by European Commission. Document No. KH-74-06-807-EN-D.
Published 2006. <https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/documents/general.pdf>
European Commission (2009) Sustainable consumption and production. Factsheet.
Published by European Commission. Document No. KH-78-09-729-EN-C. Published
June 2009.
<https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/sustainable_consumption.pdf>
European Commission (2015). Closing the loop – An EU action plan for the circular
economy. COM/2015/0614 final. European Commission: Brussels, Belgium.
Published: 2 December 2015
<https://eurlex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:8a8ef5e8-99a0-11e5-b3b7-01aa75
ed71a1.0012.02/DOC_1&format=PDF>
Ertz, M., François, J., Durif, F. (2017). How Consumers React to Environmental
Information: An Experimental Study. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing,Vol. 29, Issue 3,pp. 162-178, doi:10.1080/08961530.2016.1273813
Fenko, A., de Vries, R., van Rompay, T. (2018). How Strong Is Your Coffee? The
Influence of Visual Metaphors and Textual Claims on Consumers’ Flavor Perception
and Product Evaluation. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol.9 (2018). Published 5 February
2018. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00053
Ford, A., Moodie, C., Hastings, G. (2012). The role of packaging for consumer
products: Understanding the move towards ‘plain’ tobacco packaging. Addiction
Research & Theory. Vol. 20, Issue 4. Published 26th June 2012. ISSN: 1606-6359
print/1476-7392 online. doi: 10.3109/16066359.2011.632700.
61
Garaus, M., Halkias, G. (2019). One color fits all: product category color norms and
(a)typical package colors. Review of Managerial Science (2019).
<https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0325-9>
Gershoff, A. D., Frels, J. K. (2015). What Makes It Green? The Role of Centrality of
Green Attributes in Evaluations of the Greenness of Products. Journal of Marketing,
Vol.79, Issue 1, pp. 97-110. <https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.13.0303>
Gershman, M. (1987) Packaging: Positioning Tool of the 1980s. Management
Review, Vol. 76, Issue. 8, pp. 33-42.
Giese, J.L.; Malkewitz, K.; Orth, U.R.; Henderson, P.W. (2014). Advancing the
aesthetic middle principle: Trade-offs in design attractiveness and strength. Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 67, Issue 6, June 2014, pp. 1154-1161.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.018>
Gordon, A., Finlay, K., and T. Watts (1994). The Psychological Effects of Colour in
Consumer Product Packaging. Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.13, pp.311.
Gökirmakli, Ç., Bayram, M., Tigan, E. (2017). Behaviours of consumers on eu ecolabel: A case study for Romanian consumers. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural
Science. Vol.23, Issue 3, June 2017, pp. 512-517.
Graeff, T.R., Olson, J.C. (1994). Consumer inference as part of product
comprehension. Advances in Consumer Research 1994; Vol.21, eds. Chris T. Allen
and Deborah Roedder John, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp.201207. <https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/7585/volumes/v21/NA%20-%2021>
Grundey, D. (2010). Functionality of product packaging: Surveying consumers'
attitude towards selected cosmetic brands. Economics & Sociology, Vol. 3, pp.87103. doi: 10.14254/2071-789X.2010/3-1/9
Grunert, K.G., Baadsgaard, A., Larsen, H. & Madsen, T. (1996). Market Orientation
in Food and Agriculture. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9780792396499.
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4613-1301-4.
Grunert, K.G., Hieke, S., Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food products:
Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy. Vol. 44, February 2014,
pp. 177-189. < https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001>
Hassan, S.H., Yee, L. & Ray, K. (2015). Purchasing Intention towards Organic Food
among Generation Y in Malaysia. Journal of Agribusiness Marketing, Vol.7. pp. 1632.
62
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2015). An Index and Test of Linear Moderated Mediation. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, Vol.50, Issue 1, pp. 1–22.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
Hayes, A.F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, Second ed. Guilford Publications, New
York, NY.
Hayes, A. F. (2020). The PROCESS Macro for SPSS and SAS.
<http://processmacro.org/index.html> (Accessed 2 July 2020)
Hayes, A. F., Preacher, K. J. (2010). Quantifying and Testing Indirect Effects in
Simple Mediation Models When the Constituent Paths are Nonlinear. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, Vol. 45, Issue 4, pp. 627–660.
Hayes, A. F., Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical Mediation Analysis with a
Multicategorical Independent Variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical
Psychology, Vol.67, Issue 3, pp. 451–470.
Hayes, A. F., Scharkow, M. (2013). The Relative Trustworthiness of Inferential Tests
of the Indirect Effect in Statistical Mediation Analysis: Does Method Really Matter?
Psychological Science, Vol. 24, Issue 10, pp. 1918–1927.
Hemmerling, S., Obermowe, T., Sidali, K.L., Stolz, H., Spiller, A. & Canavari, M.
(2013). Organic food labels as a signal of sensory quality-insights from a crosscultural consumer survey. Organic Agriculture, Vol.3, Issue 1, pp.57-69.doi:
10.1007/s13165-013-0046-y
Herbes, C., Beuthner, C., Ramme, I. (2018). Consumer attitudes towards biobased
packaging—A cross-cultural comparative study. Journal of Cleaner Production,
Volume 194,1 September 2018, pp. 203– 218.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.106>
Herbes, C., Beuthner, C., Ramme, I. (2020). How green is your packaging - A
comparative international study of cues consumers use to recognize environmentally
friendly packaging. International Journal of Consumer Studies. Vol.44, Issue 3, May
2020, pp.258-271.doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12560.
Héroux, L., Laroche, M., McGown, K. L. (1988). Consumer product label information
processing: an experiment involving time pressure and distraction. Journal of
63
Economic Psychology, Vol.9, Issue 2, pp.195- 214.
<https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:9:y:1988:i:2:p:195-214>
Hise, R.T., McNeal, J.U. (1988). Effective packaging management. Business
Horizons, Vol. 31, Issue 1, January–February 1988, pp.47–51.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(88)90040-7>
Huber, J., McCann, J. (1982). The Impact of inferential Beliefs on Product Evaluation.
Journal of Marketing Research. Vol XIX. August 1982, pp. 324-333.
ISO 14044:2006: Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements
and guidelines. Publication date: July 2006. 1st Edition, pp.1-46. Technical
Committee: ISO/TC 207/SC 5; Life cycle assessment, ICS: 13.020.10; Environmental
management 13.020.60
Javed, S.A., Javed, S. (2015). The impact of product’s packaging color on customers’
buying preferences under time pressure. Marketing and Branding Research. Vol. 2,
pp.4-14. doi :10.19237/MBR.2015.01.01.
Jeddi, N., Zaiem, I. (2010). The Impact of Label Perception on the Consumer’s
Purchase Intention: An application on food products. IBIMA Business Review, Vol.
2010, Article ID 476659, pp.1-14.
<https://ibimapublishing.com/articles/IBIMABR/2010/476659/476659.pdf>
Irfan, S., Khurshid, N., Shahnawaz, M. (2014). Packaging Design and Perceived
Healthiness: A Case of Processed Food and Beverage Products. Publisher: LAP
LAMBERT Academic Publishing, Germany, ISBN: 978-3-659-59085-6
Jerzyk, E. (2016). Design and Communication of Ecological Content on Sustainable
Packaging in Young Consumers’ Opinions. Journal of Food Products Marketing,
Vol.22, June 2016, pp. 1-10. doi: 10.1080/10454446.2015.1121435.
Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. (2004). Colours as non-verbal signs on packages.
Publications of the Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration Nr.
139. Distributor: Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration.
Yliopistopaino, Helsingfors 2004. ISBN 951-555-862-X (PDF), ISSN 0424-7256
<https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10227/111/139-951-555-862-x.pdf?sequenc
e=2>
Kauppinen-Räisänen, H., Luomala, H. (2010). Exploring consumers' product-specific
colour meanings. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 13, June
2010, pp. 287-308. doi:10.1108/13522751011053644.
Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. (2014) Strategic use of colour in brand packaging.
Packaging Technology and Science, 2014, Issue 27, pp. 663– 676. doi:
10.1002/pts.2061
64
Khan, M., Waheed, S., Ahmad, N. (2018). Product Packaging and Consumer
Purchase Intentions. Market Forces College of Management Science, Vol.13, Issue 2,
December 2018, pp. 97-114.
Keller, K.L. (1998). Strategic Brand Management. Upper Saddle River: N.J.: Prentice
Hall. in Klimchuk, M.R., & Krasovec, S.A. (2006). Packaging design: Successful
product branding from concept to shelf. New Jersey: Wiley.
Koenig-Lewis, N., Palmer, A., Dermody, J. & Urbye, A. (2014). Consumers’
evaluations of ecological packaging – rational or emotional? Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol.37, March 2014, pp.94-105. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.009
Koffka, K. (1922). Perception: An Introduction to the Gestalt- Theories.
Psychological Bulletin, Vol.19 (October), pp.531–85.
Kong, W., Harun, A., Sulong, R.S. & Lily, J. † (2014). The Influence of Consumers'
Perception of Green Products on Green Purchase Intention. International Journal of
Asian Social Science, 2014, Vol. 4, Issue 8, pp. 924-939. ISSN(e): 2224-4441
<http://www.aessweb.com/pdf-files/ijass-2014-4%288%29-924-939.pdf>
Koloba, H. (2020). Purchase Intention towards environmentally friendly products
among consumers in South Africa. Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior.
International Journal of Business and Management Studies. Vol.12, No.1, January
2020. ISSN:1309-8047 (Online).
Kotler, P., Keller K.L. (2009) Marketing Management.13th Ed. Pearson Education
Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. ISBN 978-0-13-6000998
Kovač, A., Kovačević, D., Bota, J., Brozović M. (2019). Consumers’ preferences for
visual elements on chocolate packaging. Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design,
Vol. 10, Issue 1, 2019. pp.13-18. doi: 10.24867/JGED-2019-1-013
Kovačević, D., Brozović, M., Itrić Ivanda, K. (2019). Eco-mark on product packaging
and its effect on the perception of quality. Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design,
Vol.10, Issue 2, December 2019, pp.17-24. doi: 10.24867/JGED-2019-2-017
Krah, S., Todorovic, T., Magnier, L. (2019). Designing for Packaging Sustainability.
The Effects of Appearance and a Better Eco-Label on Consumers’ Evaluations and
Choice. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design
(ICED19), Delft, The Netherlands,5-8 August 2019.doi:10.1017/dsi.2019.332.
Kumar, N., Kapoor, S. (2019). Does Packaging Influence Purchase Decisions of Food
Products? A Study of Young Consumers of India. Academy of Marketing Studies
Journal. Vol.23, Issue 3, October 2019. pp. 1-16. ISSN:1528-2678-23-3-219.
65
Kundu, S.C., Sehrawet, M. (2004) Chapter 28: Package as a marketing tool: a study.
In book: Emerging Trends in International Business and Financial Services. First
Edition. Chapter: 28. MS Turan, SC Kundu (Eds.), Excel Books, New Delhi, pp. 287298.
Lange, P., Boe Kjeldsen, U., Tofteng, M., Krag, A. & Lindgaard, K. (2014). The
coexistence of two Ecolabels – The Nordic Ecolabel and the EU Ecolabel in the
Nordic Countries. Nordic Council of Ministers. www.norden.org. TemaNord 2015:
525. ISSN 0908-6692; ISBN 978-92-893-2765-7. ISBN 978-92-893-2766-4 (EPUB)
<http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2014-525>
Lamb, C. W., Hair, J. F. & McDaniel, C. (2004). Marketing. (7th edition). Thomson,
South-Western, Canada.
Larceneux, F., Benoît-Moreau, F., & Renaudin, V. (2012). Why Might Organic Labels
Fail to Influence Consumer Choices? Marginal Labelling and Brand Equity Effects.
Journal of Consumer Policy. Vol. 35. pp. 85-104. doi: 10.1007/s10603-011-9186-1.
Lee, W., Shimizu, M., Kniffin, K. & Wansink, B. (2013). You taste what you see: Do
organic labels bias taste perceptions?. Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 29, pp. 33–
39. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.01.010.
Lewis, H.; Fitzpatrick, L.; Verghese, K.; Sonneveld, K. & Jordon, R. (2007).
Sustainable Packaging Redefined DRAFT, Sustainable Packaging Alliance, November
2007, pp. 1-26.
<http://nbis.org/nbisresources/packaging/sustainable_packaging_guidelines.pdf>
Licciardello, F. (2017) Packaging, blessing in disguise. Review on its diverse
contribution to food sustainability. Trends Food Sci. Technol.2017, Vol. 65, pp. 3239.
Lin, Y.C., Chang, A. (2012). Double Standard: The Role of Environmental
Consciousness in Green Product Usage. Journal of Marketing, Vol.76, No.5,
September 2012, pp.125-134. doi: 10.2307/41714513.
Liñán, J., Arroyo, P., Carrete, L. (2019). Conceptualizing Healthy Food: How
Consumer’s Values Influence the Perceived Healthiness of a Food Product.
Journal of Food and Nutrition Research, Vol.7, No.9, pp. 679-687.
doi:10.12691/jfnr-7-9-10.
Lindh, H. & Olsson, A. & Williams, H. (2012). Consumer perceptions of sustainable
packaging-Limited by lack of knowledge?. Conference Paper. Conference: Nordic
Retail and Wholesale Conference at Lund, Sweden, November 2012.
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266620885_Consumer_perceptions_
of_sustainable_packaging-Limited_by_lack_of_knowledge>
66
Lindh, H., Olsson, A., & Williams, H. (2016). Consumer perceptions of food
packaging: Contributing to or counteracting environmentally sustainable
development? Packaging Technology and Science, Vol. 29, Issue 1, pp.3-23.
<https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2184>
Lindh, H., Williams, H., Olsson, A., Wikström, F. (2016a). Elucidating the indirect
contributions of packaging to sustainable development: A terminology of packaging
functions and features. Packaging Technology and Science, Vol.29, Issue 4-5, pp.
225-246. doi:10.1002/pts.2197.
Littel, S., Orth, U. R. (2013). Effects of package visuals and haptics on brand
evaluations. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, Issue 1-2, pp. 198-217.
doi:10.1108/03090561311285510
Lu, L., Gargallo, S., Munar, M. (2007). Packaging as A Strategic Tool. Master Thesis,
Halmsted University.
<http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:238021/FULLTEXT01.pdf>
Luchs, M. G., Brower, J., & Chitturi, R. (2012). Product choice and the importance of
aesthetic design given the emotion-laden trade- off between sustainability and
functional performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.29, No.6,
pp-903–916.
Luchs, M. G., Kumar, M. (2017) ‘‘Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works
Better’’: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs Between Sustainability and Other
Valued Attributes?. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.140, No.3, 2017, pp- 567-584.doi:
10.1007/s10551-015-2695-0.
Luchs, M. G., Swan, K. S. (2011). Perspective: The Emergence of Product Design as
a Field of Marketing Inquiry. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.28,
No.3, pp. 327- 345. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00801.x
Luchs, M. G., Swan, K. S., Creusen, M. E. H. (2016). Perspective: A review of
marketing research on product design with directions for future research. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 33, No.3, pp. 320-341.
<https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12276>
Luchs, M. G., Walker Naylor, R., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The
sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference.
Journal of Marketing, Vol.74, No.5, pp. 18-31.doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.5.18.
Luo, S.J., Fu, Y.T., Korvenma, P. (2012). A preliminary study of perceptual matching
for the evaluation of beverage bottle design. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics. Vol. 42, Issue 2, March 2012, pp. 219-232.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2012.01.007>
67
Logkizidou, M., Bottomley, P., Angell, R. (2019). Why Museological Merchandise
Displays Enhance Luxury Product Evaluations: An Extended Art Infusion Effect.
Journal of Retailing. Vol.95. Issue 1 (2019), pp.67-82. doi:
10.1016/j.jretai.2018.11.001.
Lyon, T.P., Montgomery, A.W. (2015). The Means and End of Greenwash.
Organization & Environment, Vol. 28, Issue 2, pp. 223–249. doi:
10.1177/1086026615575332
Ma, X., Moultrie, J. (2018). Understand sustainable packaging design in practice.
Conference Paper.15th International Design Conference. Published January 2018, pp.
2693-2704. doi: 10.21278/idc.2018.0175. <https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0175>
Marckhgott, E., Kamleitner, B. (2019). Matte matters: when matte packaging
increases perceptions of food naturalness. Marketing Letters, 12 April 2019.
doi:10.1007/s11002-019-09488-6
Maffei, N. P., Schifferstein, H.N.J. (2017). Perspectives on food packaging design.
International Journal of Food Design, Vol. 2, No. 2, October 2017, pp. 139–152. doi:
10.1386/ijfd.2.2.139_2
Magnier, L., & Crié, D. (2015). Communicating packaging eco-friendliness: An
exploration of consumers' perceptions of eco-designed packaging. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol.43, May 2015, pp.350-366. doi:
10.1108/IJRDM-04-2014-0048.
Magnier, L., Schoormans, J., Mugge, R. (2016). Judging a product by its cover:
Packaging sustainability and perceptions of quality in food products. Food Quality
and Preference, Vol. 53, October 2016, pp.132-142.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.06.006
Magnier, L., Schoormans, J. (2015). Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging:
The interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental concern. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, Vol.44, September 2015, pp.53-62.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.09.005.
Magnier, L., Schoormans, J. (2017). How Do Packaging Material, Colour and
Environmental Claim Influence Package, Brand and Product Evaluations? Packaging
Technology and Science, Vol. 30, No. 11, pp. 735-751.
<https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2318>
Magnier, L.; Mugge, R. & Schoormans, J. (2019). Turning ocean garbage into
products – Consumers’ evaluations of products made of recycled ocean plastic.
Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol.215. pp.84-98. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.246.
68
Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Hursti, U.-K. K., Åberg, L., & Sjödén, P.-O. (2003).
Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to
environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite.Vol.40, Issue 2, February 2003, pp. 109117. <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00002-3>
Marlette.fr (2020) < https://www.marlette.fr>
Martinho, G., Pires, A., Portela, G., Fonseca, M. (2015). Factors affecting consumers’
choices concerning sustainable packaging during product purchase and recycling.
Resource, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 103, October 2015, pp. 58–68.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.07.012>
Mertens,M. (2019). Sustainable Packaging Analyser. CSCP Fact Sheet. Collaborating
Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production. www.scp-centre.org. Wuppertal,
Germany. Published July 2019. <https://www.scp-centre.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/07/CSCP_Factsheet_Sustaina ble_Packaging_Analyser.pdf>
Meyers, H., Gerstman, R. (2005) The visionary package: using packaging to build
effective brands, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN
978-0-230-28691-7.
Meyers, H.M., Lubliner, M.J. (1998). The Marketer’s Guide to Successful Package
Design. Chicago, IL: NTC Business Books
Meyers-Levy, J., Peracchio, L. (1995). Understanding the effects of colour: how the
correspondence between available and required resources affects attitudes. Journal of
consumer research, Vol.22, Issue 2, pp.121-139.
Mohebbi, B. (2014). The art of packaging: An investigation into the role of color in
packaging, marketing, and branding. International Journal of Organizational
Leadership.Vol. 3, December 2014, pp.92-102. doi:10.33844/ijol.2014.60248.
Möller, K.K. (2006). Comment on: The marketing mix revisited: Towards the 21st
century marketing. Journal of Marketing Management,Vol. 22,Issue 3, pp. 439–450.
doi: 10.1362/026725706776861181.
Moosbrugger,H. Kelava,A. (2012). Qualitätsanforderungen an einen psychologischen
Test. Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion. Springer.
Mugge,R., Schoormans,J.P. (2012). Product design and apparent usability. The
influence of novelty in product appearance. Applied Ergonomics, Vol.43, Issue 6,
pp.1081–1088. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.03.009>
Mugge, R., Massink, T., Hultink, E.J., van den Berg-Weitzel, L. (2014). Designing a
premium package: some guidelines for designers and marketers. The Design Journal,
Vol.17, Issue 4, pp.583–605. <https://doi.org/10.2752/175630614X14056185480140>
69
Munzinger, U., Musiol, K. G., (2009). Markenkommunikation. Wie Marken
Zielgruppen erreichen und Begehren auslösen. Munich: mi~Wirtschaftsbuch in:
Nikolaus, Ulrich & Lipfert, Denise (2012) The emotional impact of packaging design.
An eye tracking analysis. Advances in Printing and Media Technology, Vol. XXXIX.
Proceedings of the 39th International Research Conference of Iarigai, Ljubljana 2012.
pp.337-346.
Naspetti, S., R. Zanoli (2009). Organic Food Quality and Safety Perception
Throughout Europe. Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 15, Issue 3, April 2009,
pp.249-266.doi: 10.1080/10454440902908019.
Newman, G. E., Gorlin, M., Dhar, R. (2014). When going green backfires: How firm
intentions shape the evaluation of socially beneficial product enhancements. Journal
of Consumer Research, Volume 41, Issue 3, 1 October 2014, pp. 823–839.
<https://doi.org/10.1086/677841>
Nikolaus, U., Lipfert, D. (2012). The emotional impact of packaging design. An eye
tracking analysis. Advances in Printing and Media Technology, Vol. XXXIX.
Proceedings of the 39th International Research Conference of Iarigai, Ljubljana 2012.
pp.337-346. <http://www.fh-stuttgart.de/fh-stuttgart/fhstuttgart/drucktechnik/veranstaltungen/druck
erstammtisch/archiv/Nikolaus_Eyetracking_Vortrag.pdf>
Nordic Ecolabelling (2018) The Nordic Swan Ecolabel promotes circular economy.
www.nordic-ecolabel.org. Nordic Swan Ecolabel, printed matter, 5041 0936.Published
August 2018. Sweden. <https://www.ecolabel.dk/en/why-chooseecolabelling/~/media/BE47775382D8415FBC783B6 6C3AAAFFF.ashx>
Nordin N., Selke,S.(2010). Social aspect of sustainable packaging. Packaging
Technology and Science Vol.23, Issue 6, pp. 317–326.
<https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.899.>
Noseworthy, T.J., Di Muro, F., Murray, K.B. (2014). The Role of Arousal in
Congruity-Based Product Evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research,Vol.
41,December 2014, pp.1108-1126. doi: 10.1086/678301
Olson, J. C., Jacoby, J. (1972). Cue utilization in the quality perception process. In
Venkatesan, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the Association
for Consumer Research, pp. 167-179. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research.
<http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=11997>
Olson, J. C. (1977).Price as an Informational Cue: Effects in Product Evaluation.
Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior. New York [u.a.]: North-Holland Publ. Co.,
ISBN 0-444-00230-8. - 1977, pp. 267-286.
70
Olson, J. C.(1978). Inferential belief formation in the cue utilization process. Paper
presented at the Advances in Consumer Research, Aann Arbor, MI.
Oude Ophuis,P.A.M., VanTrijp,H.C.M. (1995). Perceived quality: A market driven
and consumer oriented approach. Food Quality and Preference, Vol.6, Issue 3,
pp.177–183. <http://doi.org/10.1016/0950-3293(94)00028-T>
Orth,U.R. Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic Package Design and Consumer Brand
Impressions. Journal of Marketing Vol. 72 (May 2008), pp. 64–81. American
Marketing Association. ISSN: 0022-2429 (print), 1547-7185 (electronic)
<https://ticamericas.net/Download/bootcamp/PackDes.pdf>
Orth, U. R., Campana, D., Malkewitz, K. (2010). Formation of consumer price
expectation based on package design: Attractive and quality routes. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 8, Issue 1, pp. 23-40.
<https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679180102>
Orth, U. R., Crouch, R. C. (2014). Is beauty in the aisles of the retailer? Package
processing in visually complex contexts. Journal of Retailing, Vol.90, Issue 4, pp. 524537. < https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2014.05.004>
Orzan, G., Cruceru, A., Bălăceanu, C. & Chivu, R. (2018). Consumers’ Behavior
Concerning Sustainable Packaging: An Exploratory Study on Romanian Consumers.
Sustainability. Vol. 10. Published: 29 May 2018. doi: 10.3390/su10061787
Pancer,E., McShane, L., Noseworthy, T.J. (2017). Isolated Environmental Cues and
Product Efficacy Penalties: The Color Green and Eco-labels. Journal of Business
Ethics Vol.143, Issue 1, June 2017, pp.159–177. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2764-4.
Pauer, E., Wohner, B., Krauter, V. & Tacker, M. (2019).Assessing the Environmental
Sustainability of Food Packaging: An Extended Life Cycle Assessment including
Packaging-Related Food Losses and Waste and Circularity Assessment.
Sustainability, Vol.11, 925, Published February 2019. doi: 10.3390/su11030925
Parguel,B., Benoit-Moreau,F., Russell,C.A.(2015). Can evoking nature in advertising
mislead consumers? The power of ‘executional greenwashing. International Journal of
Advertising, Vol.34, Issue 1, pp.107–134.
<https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.996116>
Peters, M. (1994). Good packaging gets through to fickle buyers. Marketing (Jan 20),
10.
Petersen, M., Brockhaus, S. (2017). Dancing in the dark: Challenges for product
developers to improve and communicate product sustainability. Journal of Cleaner
Production. Vol.161. pp 345-354. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.127.
71
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and
contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion:
Application to advertising. In: Percy, L., Woodside, A.E. (Eds.), Advert. Consum.
Psychol. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 3–23.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to
argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.46, pp. 69-81.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion: Central and
peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The elaboration likelihood model of
persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol.
19, pp. 123-205. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a
determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 847-55.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes
to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol.10, pp. 135-146.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Strathman, A. J., & Priester, J. R. (2005). To Think or
Not to Think: Exploring Two Routes to Persuasion. In T. C. Brock & M. C. Green
(Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives. Sage Publications, Inc.
pp. 81-116.
Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (Eds.) (1981). Cognitive responses in
persuasion. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Petzold, K., Michaelis, A., Roschk, H., Geigenmueller, A. (2014). The Differential
Effects of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Cue-utilization in Hedonic Product Consumption-An
Empirical Investigation. Journal of Business and Economics, ISSN 2155-7950,
Volume 5, No. 8, August 2014, pp. 1282-1293. doi: 10.15341/jbe(21557950)/08.05.2014/009
Popovic, I., Bossink, B.A.G., van der Sijde, P.C. (2019). Factors Influencing
Consumers’ Decision to Purchase Food in Environmentally Friendly Packaging:
What Do We Know and Where Do We Go from Here? Sustainability 2019, Vol.11,
7197; Published: 16 December 2019, pp.1-22. Doi :10.3390/su11247197
72
Prakash, G., & Pathak, P. (2017). Intention to buy eco-friendly packaged products
among young consumers of India: A study on developing nation. Journal of Cleaner
Production,Vol.141, pp. 385-393.
Prakash, G., Choudhary, S., Kumar, A., Garza-Reyes, J-A., Khan, S.A.R. & Panda,
T.K. (2019). Do altruistic and egoistic values influence consumer's attitudes and
purchase intentions towards eco-friendly packaged products? An empirical
investigation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, Vol. 50 (2019),
pp. 163-169.doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.011.
PWC (2010) Sustainable packaging: threat or opportunity? Published by
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. 2010. United Kingdom. Available as PDF: <
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/forest-paper-packaging/pdf/sustainable-packaging-threatopportunity.pdf> (accessed 24 March 2020)
Qing, H., Kai, Z., Zhang, C.-F., Chen, M.-R. (2012). Packaging Design Research and
Analysis Based on Graphic Visual. IPCSIT, Vol. 28 (2012). IACSIT Press, Singapore.
pp. 148-153. <http://www.ipcsit.com/vol28/028-CoimbatoreConferences-T009.pdf>
Rajendran, S., Wahab, S. (2017). Purchasing Intention towards Green Packaged
Products: An Exploratory Study among Malaysian Consumers. Conference Paper. 3rd
International Conference on Advanced Research in Business and Social Sciences,
March 2017, at: Aseania Resort & Spa Langkawi, Malaysia.
Ramme, I., Heimann, Dr. R. (2015). Green Packaging from a Company’s Perspective:
Determining Factors for Packaging Solutions in the German Fruit Juice Industry.
Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Umwelt Nürtingen-Geislingen, published on 14 July
2015. MPRA Paper No. 65632. <https://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/65632/1/MPRA_paper_65632.pdf>
Reimann, M., Zaichkowsky, J., Neuhaus, C., Bender, T., & Weber, B. (2010).
Aesthetic package design: A behavioral, neural, and psychological investigation.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 20, Issue 4, pp 431-441.
Rettie, R., Brewer, C. (2000). The verbal and visual components of package design.
The Journal of Product and Brand Management. Vol.9, Issue 1, pp. 56-68. doi:
10.1108/10610420010316339.
Revermann, C., Petermann, T., Poetzsch, M. (2015). TAB-Bericht Chancen und
Kriterien eines allgemeinen Nachhaltigkeitssiegels. Endbericht zum TA-Projekt. Büro
für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag(TAB). Published: 24.
April 2015. ISSN-Print: 2364-2599. ISSN-Internet: 2364-2602.
<https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/421084/dea8a13dac10c6cb3283ab98bdb3
b403/Nachhaltigkeitssiegel-data.pdf>
73
Ririn, Y., Rahmat, S.T.Y., Rina, A. (2019). How Packaging, Product Quality and
Promotion affect the Purchase Intention ?. RJOAS, Vol.8, No.92, August 2019, pp.
46-55. doi:10.18551/rjoas.2019-08.06.
Robertson,G.L.(2013). Food Packaging: Principles and Practice. Third Edition.
Published by Taylor & Francis Inc; Third edition (18. January 2013) ISBN-13: 9781439862414
Rokka, J., Uusitalo, L. (2008). Preference for green packaging in consumer product
choices - Do consumers care?. International Journal of Consumer Studies,Vol. 32, No.
5, 2008, pp. 516-525.<https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00710.x>
Rundh, B. (2005). The multi-faceted dimension of packaging: Marketing logistic or
marketing tool?. British Food Journal, Volume 107, Issue 9, September 2005. pp.
670–684. doi: 10.1108/00070700510615053
Sanyé-Mengual, E., Lozano, R., Oliver-Solà, J., Gasol, C. & Rieradevall, Joan (2014).
Eco-Design and Product Carbon Footprint Use in the Packaging Sector. Chapter 14.
pp. 221-245. DOI:10.1007/978-981-4560-41-2_9 from book Muthu, Subramanian
Senthilkannan (2013) Assessment of Carbon Footprint in Different Industrial Sectors,
Volume 1. Published 30 December 2013.Publisher: Springer. ISSN: 2193-4614.ISBN:
978-981-4560-40-5. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-4560-41-2
Schifferstein, H. N. J., Spence, C. (2008). Multisensory product experience. In
Schifferstein, H.N.J., Hekkert, P.P.M.(Eds.) Product experience (pp. 133–161).
Amsterdam: Elsevier
Simmonds, G., Woods, A. & Spence, C. (2017). Show me the Goods: Assessing the
Effectiveness of Transparent Packaging vs. Product Imagery on Product Evaluation.
Food Quality and Preference. Vol. 63. pp. 18-27. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.07.015.
Schoormans, J.P.L., Robben H.S.J. (1997). The effect of new package design on
product attention, categorization and evaluation. Journal of Economic Psychology,
Vol. 18, Issue 2–3, pp. 271–287.doi: 10.1016/S0167-4870(97)00008-1
Scott, L., Vigar-Ellis, D. (2014). Consumer understanding, perceptions and
behaviours with regard to environmentally friendly packaging in a developing nation.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, Volume 38, pp. 642–649.
<https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12136>
Shimp, T, A. (2001) Advertising, promotion: supplemental aspects of integrated
marketing communications. Fort Worth, Tex.: Dryden; London: Harcourt Brace, cop.
Sigurðardóttir,I. (2018). “Just trash, me and you. It's in everything we do"
Environmental concern and consumer behavior in relation to food packaging. Final
thesis for MSc degree in Marketing and International Business. Department of Social
74
Sciences, University of Iceland. May 2018. Available at:
<https://skemman.is/bitstream/1946/29901/1/Ingunn%20Sigurðardóttir.pdf>
Singh,S. (2006).Impact of color on marketing. Management Decision, Vol. 44 Issue 6,
pp.783-789. <https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740610673332>
Silayoi, P., Speece,M. (2004) Packaging and purchase decisions: An exploratory
study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure. British Food Journal.
Vol.106, Issue 8, pp. 607-628. doi: 10.1108/00070700410553602
Silayoi, P., Speece, M. (2007). The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint
analysis approach. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 11/12, pp. 1495-1517.
< https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560710821279>
Silvenius, F., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Grönman, K., Soukka, R., Koivupuro, H.-K. &
Virtanen, Y. (2011) Role of Packaging in LCA of Food Products. Towards Life Cycle
Sustainability Management. pp. 359-370. Doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1899-9_35.
Chapter in: Baumann, H., Berlin, J., Brunklaus, B., Lindkvist, M., Löfgren, B. &
Tillman, A.-M. (2013). The Usefulness of an Actor's Perspective in LCA. Published:
July 2013. ISBN 978-94-007-1898-2. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1899-9.
Siripuk, R., Nopadon, S. (2012). Package design determining young purchasers
buying decision: A cosmetic packaging case study on gender distinction. ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences,Vol. 38, 2012, pp.373-379.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.359>
Sörqvist, P., Hedblom, D., Holmgren, M., Haga, A., Langeborg, L., Nöstl, A. &
Kågström, J. (2013). Who Needs Cream and Sugar When There Is Eco-Labeling?
Taste and Willingness to Pay for “Eco-Friendly” Coffee. PloS one.Vol. 8. Article
e80719. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080719.
Spence, C., Levitan, C.A., Shankar, M.U. & Zampini, M. (2010). Does Food Color
Influence Taste and Flavor Perception in Humans?. Chemosensory Perception.Vol. 3
Issue 1, pp.68-84. doi: 10.1007/s12078- 010-9067-z.
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. Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol.162, pp.286-298. doi :10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.036
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.
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.205, December 2018. pp. 854-865.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.137>
75
Steenis, N.D. (2019). Consumer response to sustainable packaging design. PhD
Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands (2019). ISBN: 978-946395-140-1. <https://doi.org/10.18174/501664>
Steenis, N. D., van Herpen, E., van der Lans, I. A. & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2019).
Partially green, wholly deceptive? How consumers respond to (in)consistently
sustainable packaged products in the presence of sustainability claims. PhD Thesis,
Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands (April 2019). Chapter 4 in
ISBN: 978-94-6395-140-1. pp. 79-112
<https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f686/08474a2653d1c0dce3da7012d7e4137158b6.
pdf>
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. (1989) Product Quality:
An Investigation into the Concept and how it is Perceived by Consumers. An Gorcum
Assen/Maastricht, ISBN 978902322415
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1990). Conceptual model of the quality perception process.
Journal of Business Research, Vol.21, Issue 4, pp.309-333.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(90)90019-A>
Steenkamp,J.-B.E.M., Van Trijp, H.C.M., Ten Berge, J.M.F.(1994). Perceptual
mapping based on idiosyncratic sets of attributes. Journal of Marketing Research,Vol.
31, Issue 1, pp.15-27.<https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379403100102>
Subramanian, Dr.K.R. (2017). Impact of Packaging in Self Service Marketing.
International Journal of Scientific Progress and Research (IJSPR). Issue 93, Volume
33, Number 02, 2017, pp.60 -66. ISSN: 2349-4689
Suresh Kumar, J. (2017) The Psychology of Colour Influences Consumers’ Buying
Behaviour – A Diagnostic Study.Ushus-Journal of Business Management 2017, Vol.
16, No. 4, pp.1-13 .ISSN 0975-3311.<https://doi: 10.12725/ujbm.41.1>
SPC (2006). Design guidelines for sustainable packaging. Version 1.0, The Green
Blue Institute (GreenBlue), December 2006. Charlottesville, Virginia.
<https://s3.amazonaws.com/gb.assets/SPC+DG_1-8-07_FINAL.pdf> (accessed 20
July 2020)
SPC (2011) Definition of Sustainable Packaging. www.sustainablepackaging.org ,
Sustainable Packaging Coalition, A project of Green Blue. Version 2.0, Revised
August 2011 < https://sustainablepackaging.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/Definition-of-Sustainable-Packaging.pdf > (accessed 5 May
2020)
Tacker, M. (2017). Methods for the assessment of environmental sustainability of
packaging: a review. IJRDO-Journal of Agriculture and Research, Vol.3, Issue 6,
June, 2017, Paper-3, pp. 33-62. ISSN: 2455-7668
76
Taufik,D., Reinders,M.J., Molenveld,K., Onwezen,M.C.(2020).The paradox between
the environmental appeal of bio-based plastic packaging for consumers and their
disposal behaviour. Science of the Total Environment. Vol. 702, Article 135820.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135820>
Tobler, C., Visschers, V.H., Siegrist, M. (2011). Eating green. Consumers’ willingness
to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite, Vol.57, Issue 3,December
2011, pp.674–682. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.010.>
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood
factor analysis. Psychometrika, Vol.38, No.1, pp.1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170
Underwood, R., Klein, N., Burke, R. (2001). Packaging communication: attentional
effects of product imagery. Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 7,
pp. 403-422. <https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420110410531>
Underwood, R. L., Klein, N. M. (2002). Packaging as brand communication: effects
of product pictures on consumer responses to the package and brand. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol.10, pp.58-68.
<https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2002.11501926>
Underwood, R. L. (2003). The communicative power of product packaging: creating
brand identity via lived and mediated experience. Journal of Marketing Theory &
Practice, Vol.11, No.1, pp.62-77. <https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2003.11501933>
Van Birgelen, M., Semeijn, J., Keicher, M. (2009). Packaging and proenvironmental
consumption behavior: Investigating purchase and disposal decisions for beverages.
Environment and Behavior, Vol. 41, Issue 1, pp. 125-146.
Van Dam, Y.K. (1996). Environmental assessment of packaging: The consumer point
of view. Environmental Management. Vol.20, September 1996, pp.607–614.
<https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01204134>
Van den Elzen, J. (2016) Consumers’ perception regarding sustainable packaging.
Thesis for the Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Wageningen University,
Netherlands. 19 August 2016. <https://edepot.wur.nl/392347> (accessed 19 May
2020)
Van Dam, Y.K., Van Trijp,C.M. (1994). Consumer perceptions of, and preferences for
beverage containers. Food Quality and Preference, Vol.5, Issue 4, pp. 253-261.
doi:10.1016/0950-3293(94)90050-7.
Van der Laan L.N., De Ridder D.T.D., Viergever M.A., Smeets P.A.M. (2012).
Appearance Matters: Neural Correlates of Food Choice and Packaging Aesthetics.
PLoS ONE Vol.7, Issue 7. July 2012, e41738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041738
77
Van Jaarsveld, K. ( 2010 ). Intention to purchase online: The Effect of the senses on
the perception of a brand. Dissertation presented in fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Commerce at Stellenbosch University. February 2010.
<https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/37323738.pdf> (accessed 26 May 2020)
Van Ooijen, I., Fransen, M.L., Verlegh, P.W.J., Smit, E.G. (2017). Signaling product
healthiness through symbolic package cues: Effects of package shape and goal
congruence on consumer. Appetite Vol.109, 2017, pp.73-82.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.021>
Van Rompay, T., Fennis, B. (2019). Full-Bodied Taste: On the Embodied Origins of
Product Perception and Sensory Evaluation: Designing New Product Experiences. pp.
163-190. Chapter in Book: Multisensory Packaging: Designing New Product
Experiences, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham (2019), Eds: Velasco, C.; Spence, C., Print
ISBN: 978-3-319-94976-5. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-94977-2_7.
<https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94977-2>
Van Rompay, T. J. L., Deterink, F., Fenko, A. (2016). Healthy package, healthy
product? Effects of packaging design as a function of purchase setting. Food Quality
and Preference, Vol.53, October 2016, pp.84-89. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.06.001.
Vermeir, I., Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the
consumer "attitude-behavioral intention" gap. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, Vol 19, Issue 2, pp. 169-194.
VerpackG (2017) Gesetz über das Inverkehrbringen, die Rücknahme und die
hochwertige Verwertung von Verpackungen (Verpackungsgesetz - VerpackG,
Verpackungsgesetz vom 5. Juli 2017 (BGBl. I S. 2234), Ausfertigungsdatum:
05.07.2017. <http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/verpackg/VerpackG.pdf>
Vilnay-Yavetz, I., Koren, R. (2013). Cutting through the clutter: purchase intentions
as a function of packaging instrumentality, aesthetics, and symbolism. The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol.23, No.4,
pp. 394-417. doi:10.1080/09593969.2013.792743.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2013.792743>
Vos, G. (2017). The effects of packaging cue congruency on the perceived
sustainability and purchase intention of sustainable packaging alternatives. MSc
Thesis in Marketing and Consumer Behavior. Wageningen University
<https://edepot.wur.nl/410353> (accessed 10 July 2020)
Vladić, G., Kasikovic, N., Dedijer, S., Stančić, M. & Đurđević, S. (2015). Influence of
packaging shape on a price presumption. International Joint Conference on
Environmental and Light Industry Technologies 19-20 November 2015 Budapest,
Hungary.Obuda University. Published November 2015.
78
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313860819_Influence_of_packaging_shap
e_on_a_price_presumption>
Vyas, H., Bhuvanesh V. (2015). Packaging Design Elements and Users Perception: A
Context in Fashion Branding and Communication. Journal of Applied Packaging
Research, Vol. 7, No. 2, Article 5. doi: 10.14448/japr.04.0005.
Wang, Y. J., minor, M.S., Wei, J. (2011). Aesthetics and the online shopping
environment: Understanding consumer responses, Journal of Retailing, Vol.87, No.1,
pp.46–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2010.09.002.
Wang, R.W.Y., Chou, M. (2010). The Comprehension Modes of Visual Elements:
How People Know About the Contents by Product Packaging. International Journal of
Business Research and Management (IJBRM), Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. 1-13.
<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.301.413&rep=rep1&type=
pdf>
Wee, C.S., Ariff, M.S.B.M., Zakuan, N., Tajudin, M.N.M., Ismail, K. & Ishak, N.
(2014). Consumers perception, purchase intention and actual purchase behavior of
organic food products. Review of Integrative Business & Economics Research, Vol. 3
, Issue 2, pp.378–397. ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online)
Wells, L.E., Farley, H., Armstrong, G.A. (2007). The importance of packaging design
for own-label food brands. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 35. July 2007. pp. 677-690. doi:10.1108/09590550710773237
West, S.G., Taylor, A.B., Wu, W (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural
equation modeling. In: Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling.
Guilford, New York, NY, pp. 209–231.
Westerman, S. J., Sutherland, E. J., Gardner, P. H., Baig, N., Critchley, C., Hickey, C.,
Mehigan, S., Solway, A. & Zervos, Z. (2013). The design of consumer packaging:
Effects of manipulations of shape, orientation, and alignment of graphical forms on
consumers’ assessments. Food Quality and Preference, Vol.27, Issue 1, pp. 8-17.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.05.007>
Wilkie,W., Pessemier, E. (1973). Issues in Marketing's Use of Multi-Attribute Attitude
Models. Journal of Marketing Research. Vol.10, Issue 4, November 1973, pp. 428440. doi: 10.2307/3149391.
Wu, P., Bao, Z., Song, W., Hu, Z. (2009). Research on semantics of packaging design.
Conference Paper. 10 th International Conference on Computer-aided Industrial
Design & Conceptual Design, pp. 316-318. IEEE Catalog Number: CFP0949B-PRT,
ISBN: 978-1-4244-5266-8. <http://toc.proceedings.com/06991webtoc.pdf>
79
Won, S. (2015). Colour Information in Design: Understanding Colour Meaning In
Packaging Design. Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy. School of Design: The University of Leeds, UK.
October 2015.
<http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/12472/1/Won_S_Design_PhD_2015.pdf>
Wong, S.-L., Hsu, C.-C., Chen, H.-S. (2018) To Buy or Not to Buy? Consumer
Attitudes and Purchase Intentions for Suboptimal Food. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health. Vol.15, Issue 7, July 2018, Article 1431.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph15071431.
Worrell,E., Allwood,J., Gutowski,T. (2016).The role of material efficiency in
environmental stewardship. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 41,
2016, pp. 575-598. < https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085737>
Wyrwa, J., Barska, A. (2016). Packaging as a Source of Information about Food
Products. Procedia Engineering, Vol. 182 (2017). pp. 770-779.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.199>
Wyrwa, J., Barska, A. (2017). Innovations in the food packaging market – intelligent
packaging - a review. Czech Journal of Food Science. Vol.35, pp.1-6.doi:
10.17221/268/2016-CJFS
Yam, K. L., Takhistov, P. T., Miltz, J. (2005). Intelligent Packaging: Concepts and
Applications. Journal of Food Science.Vol. 70 , Nr. 1.
Zainodin, H.J., Noraini, A., Yap, S.J., (2011). An Alternative Multicollinearity
Approach in Solving Multiple Regression Problems. Trends in Applied Sciences
Research, Vol. 6, Issue 11, pp. 1241-1255. doi: 10.3923/tasr.2011.1241.1255.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and value: A MeansEnd Model and Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, Issue 3, pp. 222.
80
Appendix
Table 1: Socio- Demographics / Descriptive Analysis
* N: Neutral=174; Claim=185 ; Color= 178
Gender
Age
Education
Occupation
Mean
Neutral
Claim
Color
1,26
1,25
1,25
2,40
2,41
2,38
5,90
5,89
5,76
2,39
2,44
2,38
SD
Neutral
Claim
Color
0,442
0,433
0,433
0,911
0,911
0,876
1,489
1,351
1,320
0,766
0,751
0,803
Variable
Neutral
Total
Logo
%
Total
Color
%
Total
Total
%
Total
%
Gender
Male
Female
46
127
26,4%
73,6%
46
139
24,9%
75,1%
44
134
75,3%
24,7%
136
401
25,3%
74,7%
5
126
25
7
9
2
2,9%
72,4%
14,4%
4,0%
5,2%
1,1%
4
135
25
11
7
3
2,2%
73,0%
13,5%
5,9%
3,8%
1,6%
5
130
25
9
7
2
2,8%
73,3%
14,0%
5,1%
3,9%
1,1%
14
391
75
27
23
7
2,6%
72,5%
13,9%
5,0%
4,3%
1,3%
Age
< 20
20-29 years
30-39 years
40 to 49 years old
50 to 59 years old
60 years or older
81
Education
Neutral
Total
Still in school
4
Finished school with
no qualification
-
Claim
%
2,3%
Total
Color
%
Total
Total
%
Total
%
2
1,1%
2
1,1%
8
1,5%
1
0,5%
1
0,6%
2
0,4%
3
1,7%
5
0,9%
Secondary schoolleaving certificate /
Mittlere Reife
2
1,1%
(Fach-)Abitur/Alevels/ International
Baccalaureate /
subject-related
higher education
entrance
qualification
32
18,4%
37
20,0%
35
19,7%
104
19,3%
Vocational training
(Berufsausbildung)
5
2,9%
5
2,7%
6
3,4%
16
3,0%
Bachelor's degree
75
43,1%
85
45,9%
86
48,3%
246
45,5%
Master's degree
40
23,0%
42
22,7%
35
19,7%
117
21,7%
University Diploma
10
5,7%
8
4,3%
9
5,1%
27
5,0%
Doctorate / PhD
6
3,4%
5
2,7%
1
0,6%
12
2,2%
School student
8
4,6%
1
0,5%
4
2,2%
13
2,4%
Student
106
60,9%
118
63,8%
121
68,0%
345
63,9%
Employee
50
8,7%
58
31,4%
44
24,7%
152
28,4%
Unemployed
4
2,3%
1
0,5%
2
1,1%
7
1,3%
Self-employed
6
3,4%
5
2,7%
4
2,2%
15
2,8%
Retired
-
2
1,1%
3
1,7%
5
0,9%
-
Occupation
82
Country
Germany
123
70,7%
Australia
2
1,1%
1
0,5%
3
1,7%
6
1,1%
Austria
6
3,4%
10
5,4%
2
1,1%
18
3,3%
Belgium
-
2
1,1%
-
2
0,4%
Brazil
-
-
1
1
0,2%
Chile
1
0,6%
-
-
1
0,2%
China
1
0,6%
1
-
2
0,4%
Denmark
1
0,6%
-
-
1
0,2%
Egypt
-
1
0,5%
-
1
0,2%
Finland
-
1
0,5%
-
1
0,2%
France
2
2
1,1%
Greece
-
India
3
Ireland
1,1%
122
65,9%
0,5%
126
70,8%
0,6%
371
68,9%
4
2.2%
8
1,5%
-
2
1,1%
2
0,4%
1,7%
-
-
3
0,6%
2
1,1%
5
2,7%
-
7
1,3%
Italy
3
1,7%
1
0,5%
1
0,6%
5
0,9%
Luxembourg
-
1
0,6%
1
0,2%
Malaysia
1
0,6%
3
-
4
0,7%
Myanmar
1
0,6%
-
-
1
0,2%
Namibia
1
0,6%
-
1
0,2%
Netherlands
2
1,1%
3
1,6%
5
2.8%
10
1,9%
Pakistan
-
1
0,5%
1
0,6%
2
0,4%
Portugal
1
2
1,1%
-
3
0,6%
Russia
-
1
0,5%
-
1
0,2%
Scotland
-
-
2
1,1%
2
0,4%
Serbia
-
-
1
0,6%
1
0,2%
Slovakia
-
1
0,5%
-
1
0,2%
Sweden
-
1
0,5%
-
1
0,2%
Switzerland
-
Taiwan
1
Thailand
-
0,6%
1,6%
-
-
1
0,6%
1
0,2%
-
2
1,1%
3
0,6%
-
-
1
0,6%
1
0,2%
Turkey
-
1
1
0,2%
UAE
1
0,6%
UK
19
10,9%
19
10,3%
Ukraine
1
0,6%
1
0,5%
-
US
2
1,1%
6
3,2%
5
0,6%
0,5%
-
1
0,6%
2
0,4%
19
10,7%
57
10,6%
2
0,4%
13
2,6%
2,8%
83
Table 2: Variables, Items and Measurement scales
Variable
Perceived
Packaging
Sustainability
Items
PPS1: This packaging is environmentally
friendly.
PPS2: This packaging is made with
environmental responsible materials.
Answer Format
Based on
7 Likert
(1=strongly
disagree; 7=
strongly agree)
Krah, Todorovic &
Magnier (2019); Taufik
et al. (2020); Kong et al.
(2014)
7-point semantic
differential scale
Magnier & Schoormans
(2017)
Schoormans & Robben
(1997)
7 Likert
(1=strongly
disagree; 7=
strongly agree)
Pancer et al. (2017)
Larceneux et al.(2012)
Magnier & Schoormans
(2017)
Hassan et al. (2015)
Wee et al. (2014)
PPS3: This packaging is recyclable.
PPS4: This is a good example of an
environmentally friendly packaging.
Packaging
Attractiveness
PA1: unaesthetic/aesthetic
PA2: displeasing/pleasing
PA3: unattractive/attractive
PA4: does not confer quality/confers quality
Perceived Product
Sustainability
PS1: This product is environmentally
friendly.
PS2: This product has been produced
following an environmentally friendly
process.
PS3: This is a good example of an ecological
product.
PS4: This product is sustainable.
PS5: This product is natural.
PS6: This product is made with natural
ingredients.
84
Perceived Product
Quality
PQ1: This product is of good quality.
PQ2: I trust the quality of this product.
7 Likert
(1=strongly
disagree; 7=
strongly agree)
PQ3: This product provides me with an
impression of quality.
Vos (2017)
Ertz,François & Durif
(2017)
Boulding, W., &
Kirmani, A. (1993)
PQ4: This is a superior product.
PQ5: much lower than average quality/much
higher than average quality
7-point semantic
differential scale
PQ6: low quality/high quality
Purchase Intention
PI1: If I were going to buy Muesli, there
would be a high probability of choosing this
product.
7 Likert
(1=strongly
disagree; 7=
strongly agree)
Vos (2017)
Krah, Todorovic &
Magnier (2019)
7 Likert
(1=strongly
disagree; 7=
strongly agree)
Prakash et al. (2019)
Magnier & Schoormans
(2017)
PI2: It is very likely that I would consider
buying this product.
PI3: This is an attractive product to buy.
PI4: There is a strong likelihood that I will
buy this Muesli.
Environmental
Concern
EC1: I make additional efforts to purchase
plastic and paper products that are made
from recycled material.
EC2: I have shifted to other products due to
ecological concerns.
EC3: When I have need to choose between
two equal products, I buy the one which is
less harmful for other people and the
environment.
EC4: I am very concerned about the
environment.
EC5: I would be willing to reduce my
consumption to help protect the environment
85
Table 3: Pearson Correlations among Variables
Correlations of model variables for Neutral (first rows), Claim (second rows) and Color (third rows) Stimuli,
respectively.
Correlation
Perceived
Packaging
Sustainability
Perceived
Packaging
Sustainability
Perceived
Product
Sustainability
Perceived
Quality
Purchase
Intention
Packaging
Attractiveness
Environmental
Concern
-
Neutral
Claim
Color
-
Perceived
Product
Sustainability
Neutral
Claim
Color
0,747**
0,462**
0,456**
-
Perceived
Quality
Neutral
Claim
Color
0,55**
0,498**
0,290**
0,640**
0,530**
0,520**
-
Purchase
Intention
Neutral
Claim
Color
0,537**
0,511**
0,258**
0,595**
0,414**
0,352**
0,704**
0,699**
0,512**
86
-
Packaging
Attractiveness
Neutral
Claim
Color
0,394**
0,396**
0,164**
0,445**
0,277**
0,182**
0,679**
0,605**
0,334**
,605**
0,575**
0,496**
0,137**
0,059
0,178*
0,121**
0,057
0,144*
0,215**
0,117
0,185**
0,176**
0,315**
0,321**
Environmental
Concern
Neutral
Claim
Color
0,159**
0,172**
0,390**
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)
Table 4: Descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alpha
Stimuli 1: Neutral
Variable
Item
M
SD
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Perceived
Packaging
Sustainability
PPS1
PPS2
PPS3
PPS4
5,04
4,84
5,17
4,79
1,184
1,116
1,260
1,396
0,905
Packaging
Attractiveness
PA1
PA2
PA3
PA4
5,02
5,02
4,84
5,15
1,379
1,299
1,472
1,419
0,906
Perceived
Product
Sustainability
PS1
PS2
PS3
PS4
PS5
PS6
5,02
4,74
4,55
4,79
5,26
5,31
1,150
1,151
1,324
1,179
1,298
1,248
0,914
87
Perceived
Product
Quality
PQ1
PQ2
PQ3
PQ4
PQ5
PQ6
5,11
4,87
4,98
4,45
5,00
5,10
0,990
1,216
1,315
1,341
1,020
1,065
0,922
Purchase
Intention
PI1
PI2
PI3
PI4
4,61
4,74
4,68
4,36
1,315
1,478
1,410
1,520
0,941
Environmental
Concern
EC1
EC2
EC3
EC4
EC5
2,72
2,78
2,30
2,40
2,29
1,183
1,337
1,385
1,189
1,192
0,903
Note: N=174; M, SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation , respectively
Stimuli 2: Claim
Variable
Item
M
SD
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Perceived
Packaging
Sustainability
PPS1
PPS2
PPS3
PPS4
5,72
5,41
6,51
5,49
1,087
1,308
,767
1,221
0,823
Packaging
Attractiveness
PA1
PA2
PA3
PA4
5,15
5,23
4,98
5,18
1,296
1,221
1,369
1,425
0,844
Perceived Product
Sustainability
PS1
PS2
PS3
PS4
PS5
PS6
5,11
4,54
4,73
4,95
5,05
5,16
1,278
1,306
1,340
1,131
1,271
1,366
0,901
88
Perceived Product
Quality
PQ1
PQ2
PQ3
PQ4
PQ5
PQ6
4,95
4,88
5,05
4,49
4,97
5,05
,991
1,128
1,201
1,327
,952
,948
0,898
Purchase Intention
PI1
PI2
PI3
PI4
4,59
4,69
4,69
4,32
1,385
1,409
1,452
1,475
0,936
Environmental
Concern
EC1
EC2
EC3
EC4
EC5
5,33
5,31
5,76
5,75
5,79
1,240
1,398
1,241
1,051
1,069
0,860
Note: N=185; M, SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively
Stimuli 3: Color
Variable
Item
M
SD
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Perceived
Packaging
Sustainability
PPS1
PPS2
PPS3
PPS4
5,86
5,72
5,83
5,65
1,103
1,041
1,051
1,231
0,920
Packaging
Attractiveness
PA1
PA2
PA3
PA4
5,95
5,76
5,70
5,83
1,141
1,095
1,297
1,176
0,883
Perceived Product
Sustainability
PS1
PS2
PS3
PS4
PS5
PS6
5,45
5,07
5,27
5,34
5,63
5,60
1,052
1,130
1,102
,997
1,103
1,091
0,869
89
Perceived Product
Quality
PQ1
PQ2
PQ3
PQ4
PQ5
PQ6
5,31
5,18
5,52
4,85
5,33
5,42
,921
1,020
1,015
1,150
,815
,861
0,866
Purchase Intention
PI1
PI2
PI3
PI4
5,10
5,07
5,24
4,70
1,301
1,417
1,193
1,433
0,909
Environmental
Concern
EC1
EC2
EC3
EC4
EC5
5,28
5,24
5,70
5,66
5,84
1,336
1,447
1,364
1,258
1,240
0,901
Note: N=177; M, SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation , respectively.
Table 5: Model fit Indices
Fit Indices
χ2/df
RMSEA
SRMR
CFI
TLI
Target Value
≤ 3.00
≤0.080
≤0.080
≥ 0.95
≥ 0.95
Neutral
N=174
1.998*
0.076
0,0666
0.916
0.906
Claim
N=185
2.115*
0.078
0.0636
0.893
0.880
Color
N=177
2.207*
0.083
0.0739
0.875
0.860
*Note: χ2: neutral =723.3; claim = 765.8; color= 799 ; df= 362
90
Table 6: Total Indirect and Direct Effects for Neutral Stimuli
OUTCOME VARIABLE: PPS
R
R-sq
MSE
F
df1
df2
p
0,765
0,585
0,444
79,509
3,0
169,0
0,000
Path
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
constant
1,035
0,316
3,278
0,001
0,412
1,658
PS-> PPS
0,637
,051
12,532
0,000
0,537
0,738
PA->PPS
0,148
0,045
3,276
0,001
0,059
0,237
EC->PPS
0,003
0,048
0,062
0,951
-,092
0,098
OUTCOME VARIABLE: PQ
R
R-sq
MSE
F
df1
df2
p
0,784
0,615
0,388
67,171
4,0
168,0
0,000
Path
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
constant
1,109
0,304
3,644
0,000
0,508
1,709
PS->PQ
0,087
0,066
1,323
0,188
-0,043
0,218
PPS->PQ
0,338
0,072
4,698
0,000
0,196
0,480
PA->PQ
0,380
0,044
8,732
0,000
0,294
0,466
EC->PQ
-0,078
0,045
-1,732
0,085
-0,167
0,11
91
OUTCOME VARIABLE: PI
R
R-sq
MSE
F
df1
df2
p
,752
,566
,777
43,535
5,0
167,0
,000
Path
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
constant
-0,756
,447
-1,690
,093
-1,638
0,127
PS->PI
0,139
0,094
1,476
0.142
-0,047
0,324
PPS->PI
0,204
0,108
1,888
0.061
-.009
,418
PQ->PI
,506
,109
4,639
.000
0,291
,722
PA->PI
0,243
0,074
3,273
0,001
,097
0,390
EC->PI
-0,25
0,64
-0,383
0,702
-0,152
0,102
TOTAL EFFECT MODEL
Outcome Variable: PI
R
R-sq
MSE
F
df1
df2
p
0,689
0,475
0,930
50,874
3,0
169,0
0,000
Path
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
constant
0,194
0,457
0,426
.671
-.707
1,095
PS->PI
0,433
0,074
5,738
0,000
0,277
0,567
PA->PI
0,492
0,065
7,519
0,000
0,362
0,621
EC->PI
-0,063
0,070
-0,904
0,367
-0,201
0,075
92
TOTAL, DIRECT, AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y
Total effect of PS on PI
Effect
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
C ps
C cs
,422
,074
5,738
0,000
0,277
0,567
0,320
0,349
Direct effect of PS on PI
Effect
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
c’ps
c’cs
0,139
0,094
1,476
0,142
-0,047
0,324
0,105
0,115
Indirect Effects of PS on PI
Indirect Effects
Effect
SE
LLCI
ULCI
Total
0,238
0,070
0,133
0,410
PS -> PPS ->PI
0,130
0,070
-0,020
0,257
PS->PQ->PI
0,044
0,038
-0.020
0,126
PS->PPS->PQ->PI
0,109
0,037
0,044
0,187
Note: Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output: 95%
Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals: 5000
93
Table 7: Total Indirect and Direct Effects for Stimuli with Claim
OUTCOME VARIABLE: PPS
R
R-sq
MSE
F
df1
df2
p
0,465
0,216
0,879
16,6575
3,00
181,00
0,000
Path
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
constant
1,571
0,592
2,655
0,009
0,403
2,738
PS-> PPS
0,515
0,084
6,160
0,000
0,350
0,680
PA->PPS
0,045
0,067
0,669
0,504
-0,087
0,176
EC->PPS
0,027
0,073
0,366
0,715
-0,117
0,170
OUTCOME VARIABLE: PQ
R
R-sq
MSE
F
df1
df2
p
0,738
0,545
0,373
53,833
4,00
180,00
0,000
Path
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
constant
0,646
0,0393
1,643
0,102
-0,130
1,421
PS->PQ
0,149
0,060
2,485
0,014
0,031
0,267
PPS->PQ**
0,303
0,048
6,254
0,000
0,207
0,398
PA->PQ*
0,362
0,043
8,345
0,000
0,277
0,448
EC->PQ
0,007
0,047
0,156
0,877
-0,086
0,101
94
OUTCOME VARIABLE: PI
R
R-sq
MSE
F
df1
df2
p
0,774
0,599
0,707
53,473
5,000
179,000
0,000
Path
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
constant
-3,168
0,545
-5,813
0,000
-4,243
-2,093
PS->PI
0,271
0,084
3,229
0,001
0,105
0,436
PPS->PI
0,042
0,074
0,575
,566
-0,103
0,187
PQ->PI
0,663
0,103
6,459
,0000
0,460
0,865
PA->PI
0,207
0,070
2,944
0,004
,068
,346
EC->PI
0,296
0,065
4,543
0,000
0,167
0,425
TOTAL EFFECT MODEL
Outcome Variable PI
R
R-sq
MSE
F
df1
df2
p
0,690
0,476
0,915
54,752
3,0
181,0
0,000
Path
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
constant
-2,358
0,603
-3,908
0,000
-3,549
-1,168
PS->PI
0,495
0,085
5,802
0,000
0,326
0,663
PA->PI
0,458
0,068
6,750
0,000
0,324
0,592
EC->PI
0,307
0,074
4,151
0,000
0,161
0,454
95
TOTAL, DIRECT, AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y
Total effect of PS on PI
Effect
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
0,495
0,085
5,802
0,000
0,326
0,663
Direct effect of PS on PI
Effect
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
0,271
0,084
3,229
0,001
0,105
0,436
Indirect Effects of PS on PI
Indirect Effects
Effect
SE
LLCI
ULCI
Total
0,224
0,071
0,103
0,377
PS -> PPS ->PI
0,022
0,045
-,057
0 ,119
PS->PQ->PI
0,099
0,049
0,013
0,203
PS->PPS->PQ->PI *
0,103
0,038
0,046
0,191
Note: Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output: 95%
Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals: 5000
96
Table 8: Total Indirect and Direct Effects for Color Stimuli
OUTCOME VARIABLE: PPS
R
R-sq
MSE
F
df1
df2
p
0,469
0,220
0,559
16,372
3,0
174,0
0,000
Path
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
constant
2,681
0,448
5,985
0,000
1,797
3,565
PS-> PPS
0,366
0,058
6,350
0,000
0,252
0,480
PA->PPS
0,081
0,061
1,347
0,180
-0,038
0,201
EC->PPS
0,023
0,055
0,429
0,669
-0,084
0,131
OUTCOME VARIABLE: PQ
R
R-sq
MSE
F
df1
df2
p
0,575
0,331
0,385
21,393
4,0
173,0
0,000
Path
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
constant
1,808
0,408
4,428
0,000
1,002
2,614
PS->PQ
0,030
0,053
0,568
0,571
-,075
0,135
PPS->PQ**
0,407
0,063
6,468
0,000
0,283
0,531
PA->PQ*
0,174
0,050
3,456
0,001
0,075
0,274
EC->PQ
,014
0,045
0,311
0,756
-,075
0,104
97
OUTCOME VARIABLE: PI
R
R-sq
MSE
F
df1
df2
p
0,636
0,405
0,862
23,383
5,0
172,0
0,000
Path
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
constant
-1,528
0,644
-2,371
0,019
-2,800
-0,256
PS->PI
0,064
0,079
0,803
0,423
-0,093
0,221
PPS->PI
0,120
0,105
1,146
0,253
-0,087
0,327
PQ->PI
0,512
0,114
4,506
0,000
0,288
0,737
PA->PI
0,373
0,078
4,777
0,000
0,219
0,527
EC->PI
0,121
0,068
1,784
0,076
-0,013
0,255
TOTAL EFFECT MODEL
Outcome Variable: PI
R
R-sq
MSE
F
df1
df2
p
0,541
0,292
1,013
23,942
3,00
174,00
0,000
Path
b
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
constant
0,280
0,603
0,465
0,643
-0,910
1,470
PS->PI
0,200
0,078
2,573
0,011
0,046
0,353
PA->PI
0,489
0,081
6,006
0,000
0,328
0,650
EC->PI
0,136
0,073
1,850
0,066
-0,009
0,281
98
TOTAL, DIRECT, AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y
Total effect of PS on PI
Effect
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
C ps
C cs
0,200
0,078
2,573
0,011
0,046
0,353
0,168
0,167
Direct effect of PS on PI
Effect
SE
t
p
LLCI
ULCI
c’ps
c’cs
0,064
0,079
0,803
0,423
-0,093
0,221
0,054
0,054
Indirect Effects of PS on PI
Indirect Effects
Effect
SE
LLCI
ULCI
Total
0,136
0,060
0,041
0,276
PS -> PPS ->PI
0,044
0,048
-0,043
0,147
PS->PQ->PI
0,015
0,028
-0,036
0,077
PS->PPS->PQ->PI *
0,076
0,036
0,023
0,165
Note: Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output: 95%
Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals: 5000
99
Questionnaire
Page 01
Dear participant!
Hello and welcome to my survey.
I'm conducting this questionnaire as a part of my Bachelor thesis for completion of my
studies at the HWR Berlin.
With this survey I will examine the influence of packaging design on purchase
intention.
Average processing time will take about 5-7 minutes of your time.
The survey is completely anonymously and the Data will only be processed for the
purpose of this study.
Thank you very much for your support and for taking the time to complete my survey.
Carolin Marie Gaiser
Page 02
1. Please carefully evaluate the packaging shown in the picture above.
[01] This packaging is environmentally friendly.
[02] This packaging is made with environmental responsible materials.
[03] This packaging is recyclable.
[04] This is a good example of an environmentally friendly packaging.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = somewhat disagree
4 = neither agree nor disagree
5 = somewhat agree
6 = agree
7 = strongly agree
2. Please rate the packaging on the following dimensions:
[01] unaesthetic/aesthetic
1 = unaesthetic
7 = aesthetic
100
[02] displeasing/pleasing
1 = displeasing
7 = pleasing
[03] unattractive/attractive
1 = unattractive
7 = attractive
[04] does not confer quality/confers quality
1 = does not confer quality
7 = confers quality
3.Please indicate to which extent you agree with the following statements about the
contained product in the packaging.
[01] This product is environmentally friendly.
[02] This product has been produced following an environmentally friendly process
[03] This product is more environmentally friendly than similar products.
[04] This is a good example of an ecological product.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = somewhat disagree
4 = neither agree nor disagree
5 = somewhat agree
6 = agree
7 = strongly agree
4. Please indicate to which extend you agree with the following statements about
the contained product in the packaging.
[01] This product is sustainable.
[02] This product is natural.
[03] This product is made with natural ingredients.
[04] This product tastes good.
[05] This Product offers a good nutritional value.
[06] This product contains less additives compared to similar alternatives.
[07] This product is healthy
[08] This product is beneficial for health.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = somewhat disagree
4 = neither agree nor disagree
5 = somewhat agree
6 = agree
7 = strongly agree
5. How much do you agree with the following statements ?
[01] This product is of good quality.
[02] I trust the quality of this product.
[03] This product provides me with an impression of quality.
101
[04] This is a superior product.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = somewhat disagree
4 = neither agree nor disagree
5 = somewhat agree
6 = agree
7 = strongly agree
6. Compared to other products, what is the likely quality of this product ?
[01] much lower than average quality/much higher than average quality
1 = much lower than average quality [-3]
7 = much higher than average quality [+3]
2 = [-2]
3 = [-1]
4 = [0]
5 = [+1]
6 = [+2]
7. Please rate the product on the following dimensions
This Muesli is of
[01] low quality/high quality
1 = low quality [-3]
7 = high quality [+3]
2 = [-2]
3 = [-1]
4 = [0]
5 = [+1]
6 = [+2]
Page 03
8. Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements.
This product...
[01] left a favorable impression.
[02] makes me interested in trying.
[03] is appealing.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = somewhat disagree
4 = neither agree nor disagree
5 = somewhat agree
6 = agree
7 = strongly agree
102
9. Please indicate your overall impression of this product.
-3
[01] Bad/Good
1 = Bad [-3]
7 = Good [+3]
2 = [-2]
3 = [-1]
4 = [0]
5 = [+1]
6 = [+2]
[02] Unfavorable/Favorable
1 = Unfavorable [-3]
7 = Favorable [+3]
2 = [-2]
3 = [-1]
4 = [0]
5 = [+1]
6 = [+2]
[03] Dislike/Like
1 = Dislike [-3]
7 = Like [+3]
2 = [-2]
3 = [-1]
4 = [0]
5 = [+1]
6 = [+2]
[04] Negative/Positive
1 = Negative [-3]
7 = Positive [+3]
2 = [-2]
3 = [-1]
4 = [0]
5 = [+1]
6 = [+2]
[05] Uninteresting/Interesting
1 = Uninteresting [-3]
7 = Interesting [+3]
2 = [-2]
3 = [-1]
4 = [0]
5 = [+1]
6 = [+2]
10. Please indicate the extend you agree with the following statements.
[01] If I were going to buy Muesli, there would be a high probability of choosing this
product
[02] It is very likely that I would consider buying this product.
103
[03] This is an attractive product to buy.
[04] There is a strong likelihood that I will buy this Muesli.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = somewhat disagree
4 = neither agree nor disagree
5 = somewhat agree
6 = agree
7 = strongly agree
11. Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:
[01] I make additional efforts to purchase plastic and paper products that are made from
recycled material
[02] I have shifted to other products due to ecological concerns.
[03] When I have need to choose between two equal products, I buy the one which is
less harmful for other people and the environment
[04] I am very concerned about the environment.
[05] I would be willing to reduce my consumption to help protect the environment
1 = strongly agree
2 = agree
3 = somewhat agree
4 = neither agree nor disagree
5 = somewhat disagree
6 = disagree
7 = strongly disagree
Page 04
12. What is your gender?
1 = female
2 = male
13. How old are you?
1 = younger than 20 years old
2 = 20 to 29 years old
3 = 30 to 39 years old
4 = 40 to 49 years old
5 = 50 to 59 years old
6 = 60 years or older
104
14. Which is the country, you’re currently living?
Country : (Open end)
15. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
1 = Still in school
2 = Finished school with no qualification
3 = Secondary school-leaving certificate / Mittlere Reife
4 = (Fach-)Abitur /A-levels/ International Baccalaureate / subject-related higher
education entrance qualification
5 = Vocational training (Berufsausbildung)
6 = Bachelor's degree
7 = Master's degree
8 = University Diploma
9 = Doctorate / PhD
10 = Other
16. What is your current occupation ?
1 = School student
2 = Student
3 = Employee
4 = Unemployed
5 = Self-employed
6 = Retired
Thank you for completing this questionnaire!
Last Page
I would like to thank you very much for helping me.
Your answers were transmitted, you may close the browser window or tab now.
105
Original Packages
Source: Marlette.fr (2020)
Manipulated Packages
Neutral, Color, Claim (Left to right)
106
Affidavit
I declare that I wrote this thesis independently and on my own. I clearly marked any
language or ideas borrowed from other sources as not my own and documented their
sources. The thesis does not contain any work that I have handed in or have had graded
as a Prüfungsleistung earlier on.
I am aware that any failure to do so constitutes plagiarism. Plagiarism is the presentation
of another person's thoughts or words as if they were my own - even if I summarize,
paraphrase, condense, cut, rearrange, or otherwise alter them. I am aware of the
consequences and sanctions plagiarism entails. Among others, consequences may include
nullification of the thesis, exclusion from the BA program without a degree, and legal
consequences for lying under oath. These consequences also apply retrospectively, i.e. if
plagiarism is discovered after the thesis has been accepted and graded.
My name: Carolin Marie Gaiser
Title of my thesis: “ Influence of Sustainable Packaging Design on Product Evaluation
and Purchase Intention”
Date: 28.08.2020
Signature:
________________________________
107
View publication stats