4.6 Article

Desired, Perceived, and Achieved Sustainability: Trade-Offs in Strategic and Operational Packaging Development

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su9101923

关键词

operational development; strategic development; sustainable development; marketing; packaging development; development team

资金

  1. Dutch Top Institute Food and Nutrition (TIFN)
  2. Netherlands Institute for Sustainable Packaging (KIDV) [SD002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The alignment of the strategic and the operational level of packaging development in relation to the integration of sustainability is not addressed extensively in current research. This paper aims to address this, by focusing on the decision-making interrelations of key actors (marketing and packaging development) within multidisciplinary product-packaging development teams. The research is conducted by means of a qualitative approach, consisting of semi-structured interviews with individual packaging development team members, complemented with a newly developed visualization tool. The research builds upon eight cases within brand owners, packaging material suppliers and packaging development consultants. The main findings of the study include the decision-making trade-offs between sustainability considerations and other project indicators, such as costs, time-to-market and technical challenges. These trade-offs are linked to the strategic and operational roles of key actors, and to internal and external factors influencing sustainable development processes. This research's contribution is to address the alignment of the strategic and the operational levels of sustainable packaging development, in relation to (1) decision making and interrelations within multidisciplinary development teams; and (2) the relevance of development-influencing factors. This provides opportunities for further development of sustainable packaging models and tools, in order to align the strategic and operational level of development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据