Packaging attributes framework

This section of the research justifies the questionnaire items chosen to classify reusable packaging attributes. Many attributes have been identified based on an intensive literature review in order to identify suitable reusable packaging attributes. Previous research identified specific materials such as glass, plastic, cardboard and paper (Lofthouse et al., 2009; Langley et al., 2011), but in this research material has been considered as one attribute, such as material type, which provides a comprehensive perspective due to the importance of discovering general reusable attributes of materials. The material should be safe to use, sustainable, easy to handle, ergonomic and suitable for users. In addition, the Azzi et al. (2012) study considered safety of packaging as an independent criterion; however, in this research besides safety of packaging, ergonomics and sustainability will also be included. Moreover, Langley et al.’s study (2011) found that the consumers were concerned about the contents of packaging and the degree of cleanliness of the packaging from its contents. Whatever the packaging’s contents are, if the packaging is easy to clean, then it can be reused. This means the packaging meets consumers’ needs concerning its contents whereas the other study found that the packaging content had safety issues (Azzi et al., 2012). The research presented here has considered the packaging contents under ergonomic aspects such as: ability to be cleaned, holding contents safely and hygiene. Moreover, Azzi et al.’s study considered material handling devices, traceability of information, and availability and transparency of information in terms of logistics (Azzi et al., 2012); however, the current research excluded these attributes because they do not really describe packaging design attributes related to consumers but instead represent the logistics process.

From the general packaging attributes studies, the research included some attributes that are useful to consider during designing reusable packaging, such as accessibility of packaging for disabled users and elderly people, meeting consumers’ requirements, post-consumer recycling after reuse, safe materials and instructions. This does not mean that the other attributes from general packaging attributes studies cannot be considered when designing reusable packaging but these attributes need more attention during

104

designing reusable product packaging and need some amendments to fulfil the reusable concept. Moreover, in this part the research only concentrated on attributes that attract people to use reusable packaging in various dimensions such as geometry/ergonomics, sustainability and marketing communication. The research did not investigate any attributes related to logistics or factors such as material handling devices, handling, lifting and loading activities in logistics, warehouses, stacking and stocking, filling, picking and sorting packaging, shipping, transportation and delivery, inventory control, traceability and transparency of information. Packaging capacity cannot be considered as one attribute, as the author observed during an intensive literature review that people reuse packaging of various dimensions, from small to large. Hence, this research identified 71 packaging attributes in the literature in various dimensions. These packaging attributes were assessed by the author on their relevance for considering re- usability during the design phase in terms of consumers’ perspective, after which only 23 were found to be significant for further investigation through experts’ opinion in various dimensions, as shown in Table 5-1. The next section will conduct an empirical study to develop and test the relationship between these packaging attributes and reusable packaging attributes.

105

Table 5-1: Packaging attributes from extant literature

Attribute

Derived from Attribute

Sources

Attribute Derived from Attribute Sources

Geometry/

Ergonomics Sustainability

Self-dispense packaging*

Refill ability with other product

(Langley et al., 2011) ; (Lofthouse et al., 2009) ;

(Azzi et al., 2012)*

Material characteristics and design Packaging design and materials type (Langley et al., 2011) ; (Azzi et al., 2012) Packaging is easy

to clean Clean ability (content)

(Lofthouse et al., 2009) ; (Langley et al., 2011)

Clear labelling on the packaging on how to deal with waste. Environment communication (labels, instruction for post-consumer) (Langley et al., 2011) ; (Azzi et al., 2012) Preservation of

packaging Hold content safety (Langley et al., 2011) Price incentive Costs

(Lofthouse et al., 2009) ; (Azzi et

al., 2012)

Ease of restore Restore ability (Lofthouse et al., 2009) ; (Azzi et al., 2012) Facilitating recycling activities Post-consumer recycling (Langley et al., 2011) ; (Azzi et al., 2012)

Ease of reseal Re-seal ability (Langley et al., 2011) Health care Hygiene or easy to disinfected

(Azzi et al., 2012) Convenient to

open and re-close

Easy ability to open and re-close (quick to use)

(Lofthouse et al., 2009) Recycling packaging Recycling contents

(Azzi et al., 2012)

Durable Endurance (Langley et al., 2011) Less packaging or product

waste and no mess Less waste

(Langley et al., 2011) ; (Azzi et

al., 2012)

Packaging format Packaging characteristics

(Lofthouse et al., 2009) ; (Azzi et al., 2012)

Accessibility of packaging for disabled users and elderly people Meet consumers’ needs (Lofthouse et al., 2009) Dangers related to inappropriate packaging Packaging content had safety issues

Packaging mass and shape

Safe materials

(Lofthouse et al., 2009)

(Langley et al., 2011) ; (Azzi et al., 2012)

106

Attribute

Derived from Attribute Sources

Marketing and communication Clear instructions and conveying information Instructions (product and marketing information) (Azzi et al., 2012) Good quality of packaging and good value

Quality and value of packaging

(Lofthouse et al., 2009) ; (Langley et al., 2011) Concerns over

how long refill will be available

Availability of support

or services (Azzi et al., 2012) Perception of the

higher value which is returned to the consumers

Incentives/rewards for

use (Lofthouse et al., 2009) Increasing

demand for more convenient packaging

Convenience to use (Lofthouse et al., 2009)

*The consumers take a reusable packaging back to store and then refill it with the same product. * Reference (Azzi et al., 2012) is a comprehensive framework on packing design.

107

5.3 An empirical study on the relationship between packaging design and