A preliminary decision-making tool for sustainable packaging design
1. Introduction
The design process has been identified as an essential part of the circular economy (Delaney and Liu, 2022; Lindfors, 2021), and is estimated to impact up to 80 % of the entire sustainability of a product (Ahmad et al., 2018; Waage, 2007; Yang and Song, 2006). The increasing environmental apprehensions are fundamentally altering the manner in which companies design and release new products (Choi et al., 2008; Mihelcic et al., 2008; Zhu et al., 2022). Therefore, it is anticipated that designers will face greater responsibilities surrounding the principles of sustainable design, aiming to produce environmentally sustainable products (Delaney et al., 2022; Esslinger, 2011; Noble and Kumar 2010).
Packaging has been identified as an important element when aiming to achieve sustainable development (Xie et al., 2019). In addition, the packaging industry plays a crucial role in the product lifecycle and the supply chain; for example, with the use and selection of packaging materials, especially the prominent polyolefins used in plastic packaging, as these can have a direct impact on the energy usage (Escursell et al., 2021). Package size, transportation and other related packaging processes also affect the overall sustainability impact (Delaney et al., 2022). Polyolefins and their derivatives offer excellent attributes for packaging applications (Rabnawaz et al., 2017). Although the best way to achieve circular economy within packaging design is to ensure that the material selected is recyclable or reusable (Lai et al., 2022; Pearce, 1997; Ross and Evans, 2003), as well as reducing the plastic contents (Czarnecka-Komorowska and Wiszumirska, 2020; Van Asselt et al., 2022; Zhao and Song, 2023), it remains difficult to avoid the use of single-use plastic packaging within industry.
Considering the current status of the packaging industry, greater support is required to aid designers in the development of environmentally sustainable packaging solutions. The design process enables designers to evaluate the product’s life cycle prior to manufacture, which can enable a comprehensive review of environmental sustainability impacts (Go et al., 2015). In previous studies, sustainable product design frameworks and tools have been proposed by researchers (Garcia-Arca et al., 2021; Ling et al., 2022; Pauer et al., 2019). However, previous frameworks have focused on implementing environmental sustainability after the detailed design stage, when sustainability has been suggested to be implemented from the early stages of the design process to be successful (Kim et al., 2014; Lacasa et al., 2016; Nikolaou and Tsalis, 2018). Moreover, the implementations of sustainable design principles and guidance rely heavily on designer’s judgement and prior experience (Ling et al., 2022; Rezaei et al., 2019). Recent studies suggest that sustainability should be considered throughout the entire design process, especially during the early design stage (Ahmad et al., 2018). This study therefore aims to explore a decision-making tool to be applied at early stages of the design process, where companies can conduct early evaluation of conceptual packaging designs prior to the detailed design stages.
2. Theoretical background
The typical design process, as shown in Fig. 1, generally contains six key stages, namely, the preparation stage, concept design, embodiment design, detailed design, design finalization and planning and production (Chiu and Chu, 2012). The product design process enables designers to evaluate the product’s life cycle prior to development and production, which can enable a comprehensive review of environmental sustainability impacts (Go et al., 2015). In addition, people are increasingly aware of the importance of the product design process to environmental sustainability factors, because it can optimize the overall environmental sustainability performance throughout the product life cycle (Brundage et al., 2018).
Fig. 1. The typical design process.
However, although it is already a consensus that sustainability should be considered in design process, it is still unclear at which stage the environmental sustainability should be specified. It is commonly believed in early study that conceptual design stage is emphasized as the lack of necessary information to evaluate the environmental impact of the product. Therefore, it is recommended to focus on environmental sustainability in the detailed design stage, as it has clearer normative and quantitative data that can be used to assess and estimate environmental impacts to locate improvements (Lacasa et al., 2016, Palousis et al., 2008).
More recent studies suggest that sustainability should be considered throughout the entire design process, with particular focus on the decision making within early stages of the design process. Ahmad et al. (2018) suggests that sustainability be considered during early stages of the design using relevant tools and resources, evaluates the performance of the product regarding sustainability and generates a method to track sustainability all whilst meeting user needs and product functions.
2.1. Sustainable packaging design framework
Research on sustainable development has increased greatly over the past decade, primarily driven by social change, environmental degradation, and the ensuing public interest, and sustainability is becoming a key focus for academia, regulators, and businesses. Previous research on sustainability can support companies in the adoption of various sustainable strategies, aiding to meet the expectations of current stakeholders, while protecting, maintaining and enhancing future social assets and natural resources (Deloitte, 1992). Sustainable development should meet today’s needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs, while protecting the Earth ‘s ecosystem and its life support capabilities (Griggs et al., 2013).
Available frameworks and other guidance resources cover a wide range of themes, including policies, systems, practices, institutions, communities, services, programs, projects, transformations, and inter-organizational networks. The following subsections will outline the primary types of frameworks frequently discussed within academia.
2.1.1. Conceptual framework
Previous research has focused on reviewing academic work within the packaging design field and has enabled the summarization of key factors which can affect the overall sustainability of packaging solutions (Bradley and Corsini, 2023; Cinelli et al., 2019; Farrukh et al., 2022; Liliani et al., 2020; Santi et al., 2022; Turkcu et al., 2022, Watson et al., 2018). The conceptual frameworks proposed by the previous studies are predominately developed by reviewing previous literature. The frameworks highlight essential factors or elements that affect the sustainability of packaging designs, which have the potential to influence the packaging design process to aid sustainable development. However, these conceptual frameworks can only indicate the factors that designers should take into consideration but cannot provide good practice or the specific environmental impact of each factor.
2.1.2. Guidance framework
Guidance frameworks are developed utilising findings from previous academic resources, which were then validated with case studies (Battini et al., 2016; Grönman et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2023; Molina-Besch and Palsson, 2016). These guidelines are validated by the good practice demonstrated through case studies, presented within the respective papers. The guidance frameworks provide designers with information on what is required and how to complete specific tasks to enable sustainable packaging development. However, when reviewing the practical design process, it was clear that when designers are faced with a set of prototypes with alternative sustainable options, it becomes difficult to select a final design to process.
2.1.3. Evaluation framework
Evaluation frameworks differ from the previous frameworks detailed, as they integrate Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) within the framework. Evaluation frameworks differ from the previous frameworks detailed, as they integrate evaluation approaches within the framework. LCA method is integrated in sustainable packaging design to develop an objective evaluation framework (Lai et al., 2008; Pauer et al., 2019; Niero and Hauschild, 2017; Singh et al., 2018) The LCA based evaluation framework can provide a quantitative calculation of the packaging environmental impact. AIAD system importing AI technology into CAD system to create an intelligent design environment for design tasks, which also includes the GHG emission in LCA (Chou, 2024). Examples include Autodesk integrating CAD software and AI to achieve the reductions in CO2 emissions necessary to affect climate change in a meaningful way. However, the calculation would take the entire lifecycle of the packaging into account, which can be complex to achieve during the early design stages.
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is another approach to implement complex factors within sustainable design frameworks (Luchs et al., 2012; Ling et al., 2022; Olson, 2013, Rezaei et al., 2019). The evaluation framework can give a comparation of the design prototypes at early design stage; however, the evaluation also must consider the insights of stakeholders or professionals (Xu et al., 2023).
The planetary boundaries (PB) concept provides a robust framework to quantify absolute sustainability accurately, defines a set of ecological thresholds on nine Earth system processes critical for the resilience of the planet (Downing et al., 2019, Wheeler et al., 2021). The concept has been used to evaluate the sustainability in process design. However, this method takes into account sustainability indicator thresholds throughout the entire supply chain process, but it is not applicable to the design of a single product.
Many of the previously outlined frameworks have been developed focusing on specific industries or products, it can therefore be difficult to apply these concepts outside of the original scope. It is important that a framework is developed which adopts a general packaging industry approach.
2.2. Practical design evaluation tool for packaging designers
In the practical packaging design process, several sustainability evaluation tools have already been applied. This research summarizes the features of these evaluation tools, analysing their characteristics from the perspectives of being open-source or not, calculation principles, etc. The specific tools are listed in the Table 1 below. It can be seen that the current tools focus on the sustainability evaluation in the final stages of detailed design. The factors considered only include aspects such as materials and transportation, and the input calculation factors are not those that packaging designers typically focus on in the practical process.
Table 1. Evaluation tools in practical packaging design.
| Evaluation tool | Open source | Design stage | Methodology | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PackageSmart | No | Detailed design | LCA | Focus on material, vehicle consumption, and is based on fixed design templates |
| P-ACT | No | Detailed design | LCA | Focus on material consumption, vehicle consumption, and also can make recommendations for sustainable material selection |
| SW sustainability | No | Detailed design | LCA | Focus on material consumption, vehicle consumption, The factors of recycling, landfill, and reuse rates based on user-defined settings |
| Fusion 360 Sustainability workshop | No | Detailed design | LCA | Focus on material consumption, vehicle consumption |
| Packaging LCI Calculator | Yes | Detailed design | Carbon footprint | Focus on material consumption |
| Gabi | No | Detailed design | LCA | Focus on material consumption, energy consumption |
| OPRL | Yes | Detailed design | recyclability | Asking simple questions about packaging component, such as: the material for your component, single or multiple components |
2.3. Sustainable packaging design evaluation framework for designers
The current sustainability assessment in product design process typically focuses on LCA or MCDM methods. LCA focus on the entire life cycle of the product and generally would be applied after the detailed features of the product are determined at the detailed design stage (Lai et al., 2008; Pauer et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2018). MCDM methods in sustainable design relies on the weight determination from experts and stakeholders, which may result in subjective and biased decision- making process (Niero and Kalbar, 2019; Qi et al., 2013; Rezaei et al., 2019). The information from experts often features with uncertainty and imprecision. The evaluation tools applied in practical design focus on the final stages of design and do not help designers objectively evaluate the sustainability of the design prototypes in the early stages, making it difficult to make adjustments earlier.
Many studies follow the typical design model to address sustainability issues and considerations at each stage of the design process. Attention to specific considerations depends on the designer ‘s judgment and experience, which may result in the oversight of several sustainability issues. More advanced, strategic frameworks are often limited by not being able to provide detailed information on each stage of the design process, with additional tools such as checklists being required (Jiang et al., 2021). These checklists and procedures always specify the requirements for compliance with sustainability principles and are often driven by national and international standards. In design research and practice, there is a gap between sustainability and the design process, with sustainability being considered as an independent factor opposed to being integrated throughout the design process. specifically, during the early stages. This study aims to evaluate and improve packaging environmental sustainability at the early design stage.
4. Decision-making tool development
Participants explained that their experience with previous evaluation-based sustainability tools or frameworks have predominately focused on the GHG emission calculation; however, participants had indicated that carbon footprint was also valued as an environmental sustainability evaluation method.
Carbon footprint is hard to be calculated during the early design stage. The environmental sustainability evaluation in practical packaging design can only be subjectively conducted after the detailed design, a barrier when considering previous academic suggestion of implementing environmental sustainability during the early stages of the design process.
4.1. Initial factor identification
Factors identified by the packaging design participants are summarized below, 13 factors are listed, 9 of which are quantitative, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Quantitative designer’s factors and qualitative designer’s factors.
| Quantitative factors | Qualitative factors |
|---|---|
| Package material | Productivity |
| Package Size | Transportability |
| Package geometry | Ability to protect contents |
| Base color | Disassembly |
| Functional parts | |
| Label type | |
| Label features | |
| Manufacturing customs |
4.2. Preliminary decision-making tool
Following data analysis, a framework has been developed to support packaging designers in the sustainability evaluation of packaging prototypes during the early design stages, to further improve the overall sustainability. A conceptual design sustainability index has been developed to evaluate the sustainability of packaging prototypes, utilizing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission calculation method as it’s widely used in professional practice and easy to understand (Hill et al., 2018). Three types of factors are also developed in the framework. Designers’ factors are quantitative factors summarized by the interviews, which are concerns of practicing designers and reflect the features of package prototype. Calculation factors are parameters that can be directly used during the GHG emission calculation. Correlation factors are intermediate factors related to designers’ factors and can also be easily transmitted into calculation factors. The framework shown in Fig. E.1 contains three stages, transmitting the features of design prototypes into a conceptual design sustainability index. In the first stage, package prototypes, which are input by designers, are featured into designer’s factors. In second stage, designer’s factors are transmitted into correlation factors, and finally converted into calculation factors. In the last stage, sustainability index is calculated based on the GHG emission calculation method (ISO14064-1, 2006, 2018). The form of this equation is shown in Eq. (1):
(1)
4.2.1. Factors correlations
The correlations between three types of factors are supported by previous studies, Non-Profit Organization (NGO) reports and government documents. The following sub-sections describe the factors correlations by the impact flow of designers’ factors. How to take the value of calculation factors will also be discussed.
4.2.2. Package material
As is shown in Fig. B.1, material selection affects the sustainability of the packaging in two flows. Package material decide the base material of the package and determine the material conversion factors during carbon footprint calculating (Department for Business and Strategy, 2021; Olausson, 2020); Material selection also affects the recovery and recycle rate of the packaging (Agency, 2020; ECOMENA, 2019; EURIC, 2020; Europe, 2019; Gopalakrishna and Reddy, 2019). Material conversion factors are valued by regional GHG emission database, and recovery rate is valued by regional recovery data from previous studies, NGO reports or government documents. The list of the materials considered and the material conversion factors are listed in Table B.2 (Department for Business, E. and Strategy, 2021).
4.2.3. Package size
As is shown in Fig. B.2, package size affects the sustainability index in two flows. Package size reflects the material consumption of the package and can be transmitted into material activity data (Verghese et al., 2010; Yokokawa et al., 2020); items larger than 7.5 Ls are commonly unable to be accepted by automatic sorting equipment, and are manually sorted prior to the automatic line, which are then recovered in containers that are sold and processed as Polyethylene (PE). The collection rate should be 0 % if the package is a) larger than 7.5 Ls and b) not PE (Recyclers, 2020)
4.2.4. Base color
The color identification of the packaging is an important process during the recover stage and the identification rate will also affect the package sustainability. As is shown in Fig. B.3, base color of the prototype affects packaging sustainability during color identification, and the recycle rate (Pfeisinger, 2017; Tachwali et al., 2007b; Wang et al., 2019). Black color packages, which are undetectable by Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS), are unable to be identified. The remaining colors of plastic packaging can be divided into 7 color variations (Sung et al., 2016). Color Identification rate is valued by literature on the automatic sorting system for color plastic recycling process.
The Pantone color chart is commonly used color classification by designers during the design process. To visually reflect the impact of color choices on the package sustainability, the colors in the Pantone color chart can be transmitted into CIE color space L*A*B and matched to the 7 color sets (Zhang and Wen, 2014; Zhang et al., 2021). The 7-colour variation and its colour identification rate, L*A*B colour space is shown in Table B.1.The distance to the 7 colours in the L*A*B colour space is calculated by Eq. (2)–(5).
(2)(3)(4)(5)
Each of the seven-colour variation should be calculated and the minimum value represents that the colour belongs to this colour variation. The identification rate can also be decided by Table B.1.
4.2.5. Package geometry
As is shown in Fig. B.4, package geometry affects the storage efficiency during transportation, which can impact the overall sustainability (Department for Business and Strategy, 2021). To quantify the impact, a storage index should be imported. The storage index reflects the number of the package when storing in a 1m3 cubic storage unit V0 (Kong et al., 2003; Yi et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018). Plastic packaging was estimated into a column, and the calculation can be simplified into the storage of package cross-section in a 1 m2 squire, the formula is shown in Eq. (6). Package cross section area is estimated by trapezoidal approach.
The calculation will consider the vertical projected area Sver and the maximum height of the package prototype Hmax, which can be calculated in CAD software. The space occupied during the transportation Vpackage can be estimated by Eq. (6).
(6)
The storage index ρ is calculated by Eq. (7):
(7)
The environmental impact of the transportation Etran can be estimated in Eq. (8). Vload represents the load space of the transportation manner. θtran represents the conversion factor of the transportation manner. L reflects the distance between the manufacturing factory to the market.
(8)
The environmental impact of each package prototype Ep-t is:(9)
4.2.6. Functional units
Functional units on plastic packaging can be sorted into 5 types: spray dispensers, pumps, closures, closure liners, safety seals (Recyclers, 2020). As is shown in Fig. B.5, type of functional units affects material consumption and material type, which finally determine the material conversion factors and material activity data.
The material activity data are valued by CAD software which can calculate the volume of design prototype Vfunc. The environmental impact of the material consumption can be calculated by Eq. (1). θf represents the material conversion factor of functional parts material. The calculation only considers the material consumption, recycling or reusing is not taken into consideration.
(10)
4.2.7. Label type
As is shown in Fig. B.6, label type determines the label removable rate and finally affect color identification (Jiao and Sun, 2016; Liu et al., 2023; Özkan et al., 2015; Tachwali et al., 2007a). A Label Impact Rate was imported to quantify the impact, the formula is shown in Eq. (7). Slabel reflects the exposed area of package label. Spackage reflects the cover area of body package. Label Removal Rate was determined by label type (EPBP, 2019; RecyClass, 2021; Recyclers, 2020). The label removal rate reflects the percentage of surface area that label has been removed after applying the commonly used label removal methods in the recover stage. Label Removal Rate is valued by literature, Slabel and Spackage are valued by CAD software which can calculate the surface area of design prototype and label.
(11)
4.2.8. Label features
As shown in Fig. B.7, label features affect sustainability in two flows (RecyClass, 2021; Verghese et al., 2010). Label material determined the material conversion rate and label size affects material activity data by determine material consumption. Material conversion factor and material activity data are valued by regional GHG emission database.
4.2.9. Manufacturing customs
Subject to corporation supply-chain and regulations, designers developed manufacturing customs. In practical design, designers are aware of and understand the general manufacturing methods of producing packaging, but they are not expected to have a comprehensive understanding of everything in the manufacturing process, especially in the early stages of design. Therefore, in our tool, the manufacturing process will not be considered in precise, step-by-step detail; instead, it will be categorized into several manufacturing methods, treated as an overall process, assigned conversion factors, and then calculated accordingly. As is shown in Fig. B.8, manufacturing customs affect the choice of manufacturing methods and manufacturing conversion factors are the final embodiment. The manufacturing methods considered and calculable in our tool include injection molding, blow molding, stretch blow molding, calendaring, extrusion, polymer foaming and thermoforming. Manufacturing conversion factors are valued by regional GHG emission database (DEZSNZ and BEIS, 2022).
4.2.10. Recycle rate
Recycle rate reflects the ultimate recycle rate of package materials, which is an important calculation factor for the conceptual sustainability index. As is shown in Fig. B.9, recycle rate is valued by the multiplication of related correlation factors. The form of this equation is:
(12)
4.3. Additional checklist
In some cases, the environmental impact of each conceptual design prototype is at a very close level and designers find it difficult to make trade-offs. The qualitative factors could be the ultimate judgements for decision-making. The checklist for the qualitative factors are shown in Table 3 (Emblem, 2012; Han, 2005; Hellström and Olsson, 2017; Lindh et al., 2016).
Table 3. Qualitative factors checklist.
| Productivity |
|---|
| Manufacturability of packaging |
| Production qualification rate |
| Transportability |
|---|
| Ability to withstand external impact |
| Withstand the storage during transportation |
| Ability to prevent spillage of the contents from the packaging |
| Ability to protect contents (maintain product life cycle) |
|---|
| Ability to protect its contents against environmental effects |
| Ability to increase shelf life |
| Ability to prevent spillage of the contents from the packaging |
| Ability to protect its contents against environmental effects |
| Disassembly |
|---|
| Ability to be easily disassembled |
4.4. Pilot Casse Study
A pilot case study was conducted to examine the functionality of the tool. A 500ml plastic bottle was used as a typical example to study. The travel distance between manufacturer and market is defined as 100km. Four initial prototypes have been developed at the conceptual design stage (Table C.1). These prototypes have been developed to showcase a variety of typical functions and use cases within the packaging industry. By including diversity within these prototypes, such as the inclusion of a pump feature in Prototype 1, has enabled the testing of the ‘function unit’ factor within the decision-making tool. The detailed design features are listed in the Table C.1 below. Factors are valued by the open-source database (DEZSNZ and BEIS, 2022).
The final conceptual design sustainability index for initial prototypes is calculated through the tool. In Table 4 the results are presented. Prototype 3 is the prototype with the lowest sustainability index, which indicates the lowest practical GHG emission. The sustainability impact of designer’s factors can also be calculated under the principles shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Sustainability impact of designer’s factors.
| Design factors | Sustainability impact calculation |
|---|---|
| Package Material | Conversion factors of each material after recover |
| Package Size | Environmental impact of the package material consumption |
| Package Geometry | Environmental impact in transportation affected by the package geometry |
| Base Colour | Environmental impact increased because of the colour selected |
| Functional Unit | Environmental impact of the functional unit (material and manufacturing) |
| Label Type | Environmental impact increased because of the label type selected |
| Label Feature | Environmental impact of the Label |
| Manufacturing customs | Environmental impact of the total manufacturing process of the package |
In Table C.1 and Fig. C.1 the sustainability impact of designer’s factors for 4 initial design prototypes are presented. Designers can clearly compare the sustainability impact of designer’s factor among 4 prototypes and improve according to the results. Prototype 3 has been identified as being the optimal selection out of the 4 prototypes and has the lowest environmental impact due to material selection, package volume, transportation, manufacturing, as well as overall shape and design.
5. Action research
Company Q is a top 10 television shopping channel broadcast from the United Kingdom (UK) and operates within the UK and Ireland. The company organizes its product range into nine distinct categories: Beauty, Fashion, Shoes & Accessories, Jewelry, Home & Kitchen, Electronics, Garden & Leisure, Health & Wellbeing, Gifts. The delivery of their products involves packaging in plastic, paper, glass, and mixed-material packaging. The participant, an experienced packaging manager with a background of design and quality assurance, is the head of the packaging design team in the company Q. The initial design prototypes created by the design team were collected in the action research.
5.1. Decision-making tool delivery process
The study began with an introduction of the primary functions and aims of the decision-making tool, with the key computing and calculation methods also outlined. The participant was then given time to ask questions to clarify any uncertainties regarding the tool. After the introduction, the participant was encouraged to apply the decision-making tool by using practical design prototype data from a previous design project to validate the effectiveness of decision-making tool. Finally, the participant was then asked to provide insights and feedback on the decision-making tool.
5.2. The validation
This study takes a design brief of 30 ml spray bottle as the research aim. The bottle was designed for a travel toiletry container kit, which was previously created by the design team led by the participant. The data of 5 initial prototypes are collected from the conceptual design stage. The data is listed in Table D.1.
From the data collected, the calculation results are shown in Fig. D.1. The results identify Initial Prototype 1 as having the best sustainability performance. The label of this design is small compared to the package size, so the sustainability impact of label is reduced. Package material, package geometry and manufacturing method are the most important factors to affect the packaging sustainability. The company selected initial prototype 5 in the practical design, which only considered the sustainability of material consumption despite some economic and social factors contributing to this choice. However, if considering all factors that will affect sustainability during conceptual design stage, the best solution should be initial prototype 1.
5.3. Decision-making tool usability
Although the factors were easily understood by the participant, they also presented several areas for improvement in relation to the overall usability of the tool.
Firstly, the action research participant highlighted that the tool should “be careful about the Pantone Colors because they do change, and there are quite a few different Pantone books and codes that are different.” The participant suggested that the Pantone code should be carefully updated or match the version utilized by the partner company. Secondly, the factors related to transportation should be explained more clearly. There is a need to add further detail regarding the ‘distance’ component of the decision-making tool, which would explain that the distance reflects the distance between the manufacturing facility and the intended distribution location, whether that be to a store-based distributor or direct to consumer. Thirdly, the decision-making tool should expand the depth and breadth of the factors. The list of materials should be expended in the future and additional materials should also be provided within future developments of the tool.
5.4. Decision-making tool utility
Overall, action research participant described the decision-making tool as useful and usable, but also provided suggestions on the evaluation process and outputs. One suggestion focused on the inclusion of the consideration of shipment in the transportation process. The action research participant believed that the consideration of transport efficiency via package geometry is unique, it will also be more comprehensive if the consideration of the shipping via the same calculation method was included. Participant also commented on the calculation of sustainability of material consumption and recycling, explaining that the materials in packages are not 100 % flow into the recovery flow after use. In this case, the design team leader showed an estimation form which estimates the recyclable content (%) of the package. The data outlined in the form was determined through experiments conducted by the technical departments within their company and was used when reporting the GHG emission to Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) of the UK.
6. Discussion
The development of the decision-making tool was motivated following the identification of the gap between sustainable design and practical design process, and through action research has been proved to be usable, useful, and effective.
GHG was identified by participants as the key indicator for sustainability evaluation within current practices, as ID-8 explaining, ‘we monitor the CO2 output of every piece of packaging that we use, put this into a CO2 calculator which is regulated by Defra, so then what we can measure how much CO2 we are saving’. The factors that are commonly considered when calculating GHG emission includes material consumption, material activity factor, material recycle rate, transportation distance, transportation emission factor. All of these are complex, require high levels of data, and would be unrealistic for the designer to complete during the early design stage. In comparison, our tool includes factors such as packaging material, packaging size, geometry, base colour, and label feature; all of which contribute to packaging sustainability and the designer will be able to determine/identify these during the early design stage. As sustainability impacts are suggested to be determined during early design stage, its vital to equip designers with the appropriate tools (and therefore factors) to support them.
Utilizing the literature review and interview results, the package sustainability decision-making tool for early design stage was developed. As shown in Fig. E.1, the tool is compiled of three stages. The first stage aims at providing designers with understandable input options, featuring design prototypes into designer’s factors. The second stage focuses on the three types of factors, transmitting designers’ factors into calculation factors which can directly evaluate prototype sustainability through the correlation factors. The final stage calculates the conceptual design sustainability index, aiding designers to make trade-offs and put forward targeted changes to improve. The framing of the tool developed in this study aligns with the typical design process, enabling a more intuitive understanding of the environmental impact of each identified factor to support environmentally sustainable packaging design. Unlike typical LCA-based tools, this tool allows designers to make real-time comparisons and adjustments during the early design stage, a key stage for reducing sustainable impact (Kim et al., 2014; Lacasa et al., 2016).
Through the two rounds of interviews, interview participants have shown a great awareness of environmental sustainability within packaging design and supported the need for sustainability evaluation. Interview participants indicated that within their packaging design processes they put a “strong emphasis on environmental sustainability” (ID-8), as well as including a “sustainability aim” during every design project (ID-1). However, designers remain unaware of the calculation methods in relation to sustainability, and the impact of completing these calculations during their design processes. This was further highlighted when interview participants predominately focused on factors which could be related to their design process, opposed to those which would contribute to the calculation of environmentally sustainable impact. This may suggest that further education is needed to support practicing designers with some of the more complex calculation methods, to ensure that the decision-making tool developed are effectively utilized within industry. It is also important to consider the visual nature of the design discipline, and to provide solutions with strong visualization components. The decision-making tool developed in this study has aimed to accommodate these limitations, with simplified calculation methods as well as showing the sustainability impact visually.
To ensure accessibility of the decision-making tool within professional design practice, it is important to consider the balance between accuracy and usability. Considering package geometry as an example, the space between each package unit, caused by the shape of the package and the size of secondary packaging, is not considered in the computing process because the complex calculating methods. To have an accurate result of environmental impact (such as GHG emission), a complicated computing process is needed and will greatly increase in the demands of the designer. Furthermore, as this tool is designed to be implemented within the early stages of the design process, it would require GHG related information to be available early within the innovation process, which is not always possible.
6.1. Research limitations
Reviewing some of the factors previously identified within the checklist, has identified some factors which would be difficult to implement within the decision-making tool. For example, the factor of ‘disassembly’ was previously identified as having potential sustainable impacts, as the separation of components at the end-of-life of the product can have a direct effect on the waste management and recyclability. However, it is difficult to determine this factor during early-stage prototypes, and more detail is often required such as labor, tools required, and overall packaging geometry, and is therefore unable to be included within the tool developed in this study.
Interview results identified that large companies focus on the environmental impact of materials. The aim of sustainable design projects requires new knowledge and technologies, making collaboration among various stakeholders essential. Participant (ID-5) explained that “plastic is a perfect material in packaging field, can meet nearly all needs in packaging. It is a good material, and the problem is that how we use it.”. Furthermore, many companies are trying to work on the sustainable design in packaging, “where you’re looking at is the sustainability of the primary part of packaging and a lot of companies now are doing the same, for example, they are building a box around the product as it goes” mentioned by the action research participant. The decision-making tool should also consider these insights in future development.
This research focused on testing the usability and utility of the tool. Due to trade-offs made regarding relevant design factors during the tool development process, in future studies, it is necessary to compare the results obtained from the evaluation tool with current sustainability evaluation tools (such LCA tools) to verify the tool’s accuracy and further validate its feasibility. Furthermore, this research focused on the GHG emission in design stage. In sustainable design, however, there were still other indicators, such as freshwater, toxicity and land use, that can be used to evaluate sustainability should also be considered, under the condition that designers can understand and accept these.
7. Conclusion
This study demonstrated the development of a preliminary tool for sustainable packaging design decision-making. The tool contains three stages to developed to support designers in the evaluation and improvement of environmental sustainability of plastic package design prototypes during conceptual design stages. This tool summarizes the factors that designers focus on during the practical design stage such as materials, packaging size, colors, and so on. By transforming these qualitative, non-quantifiable factors into quantifiable ones that can be easily calculated, it enables the evaluation of the environmental impact of design prototypes in the early stages. This helps designers make decisions regarding packaging sustainability in early design stage. The case study conducted has demonstrated the effectiveness of the decision-making tool. The development of the tool has fulfilled the need of an early design stage decision-making, supporting practicing packaging designers in the identification of sustainable solutions of early prototypes. This research has provided valuable insights, into the current status of the packaging design industry, the packaging design process, and how practicing packaging designers implement and evaluate environmental sustainability. In addition, this study has utilized key insights to develop a decision-making tool, to be used by practicing packaging designers to aid in the evaluation of early-design stage prototypes, which has been validated by an established packaging designer. Limitations, and potential directions for future research and iterations of the decision-making tool have also been outlined.
February 11, 2025 at 07:03PM
https://ift.tt/HqizQ6M