Sustainable Packaging - Research Paper Example

SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING DEAR Sir/Madam, The discussion on sustainability has certainly taken a new dimension in modern public discourse as the issue is now seen as one that affects all people and not just a group of persons. Indeed the transcending nature of sustainability can be seen in the three pillars of the concept which includes social, environmental or ecological, and economic pillars of sustainability (Wever & Vogtlander, 2013). In their daily operations and activities, companies and organizations of various orientations are expected to ensure that their approach to production and services fulfils all the three pillars of globalisation. The food and beverages industry is considered one of the fastest growing in the world in terms of market capitalisation (Sterling, 2008). Interestingly, the United States (US) is a leader in terms of the number of the world’s leading companies that operate in that country as far as the food and beverages industry is concerned (Gunther, 2015). Unfortunately however, when the issue of green initiative which is a component of ecological or environmental sustainability is raised, the food and beverages industry is readily pointed out to be one of the guiltiest in terms of their contribution to environmental pollution and waste (Stillwell, 1991). Even though there are several areas where the food and beverages industry is culpable when it comes to environmental pollution and waste, packaging remains a major area of concern in the global discourse. The article by Gunther (2015) and the report within it give very clear evidence of what is happening within the food and beverages industry in the US. In critiquing the article and the report it carries, it can be said that they have been useful in giving a very vivid idea of the real situation within the US food market as far as sustainable packaging is concerned. Indeed there are very specific issues of the article and the report that are worth considering as KFC makes an attempt to improve on its packaging to be more sustainable. The first issue is the fact that sustainable packaging is a practice that is not only preserved for smaller brands and that big brands can also be guilty of the act. Secondly, it has clearly been shown that unsustainable packaging is the result of the absence of sustainable operations management within the companies (Yam, 2009). The reason for this assertion is that the companies that were approached had thinking that they are not waste management companies and so did not have the responsibility to ensure sustainable packaging. This is a clear indication that such companies do not understand the operations management aspect of sustainability. The third issue that is raised by the article and the report is that even though some big brands are guilty, others have showed the way that there is hope and prospect for sustainable packaging. Finally, it has clearly been indicated that a refusal to go the way of sustainable packaging results in a lot of financial loss to the companies in question. Based on these identified issues, I am going to recommend a scope that your study into knowing how you can produce sustainable disposals should take. 1.0 Scope of the study The background given above and the critique of the article and the report clearly reveal a problem that calls for the need for a comprehensive study to be conducted just as has been requested by KFC. From the major issues that were identified as part of the content of the article and the report, the overall scope of the study you want to undertake will be to achieve sustainable operations management for KFC. Even though your company makes a very specific request of understanding what they should be doing with regards to disposal packaging, it would be indicated that without a viable sustainable operations management within the company, there cannot be any understanding of how the disposal packaging of the company should be approached (Soroka, 2002). This is because sustainable operations management comes on the basis of utility theory which argues that even though it is impossible to measure the utility gained from a good or service, it is usually possible to the outcome from alternatives in order of preference (Zabaniotou & Kassidi, 2003). Certainly, the outcomes of disposal packaging can be said to align with utility theory given the fact that it will be impossible to specifically quantify the gains that your esteemed company which is KFC will make from choosing a certain line of packaging practice. This notwithstanding, it will be admitted without doubt, and based on evidence that when sustainable packaging is selected, the rank of satisfaction in terms of social, environmental and ecological sustainability will be higher. Meanwhile, since KFC is not already used to sustainable packaging, it will be required to approach the concept from the perspective of sustainable operations management so that it will be possible to integrate the responsibility of sustainable packaging into all areas of operations within the company (Jedlicka, 2008). 2.0 Related theories and concepts Dear Sir/Madam, there are some related theories and concepts in literature that can help you gain better appreciation of why it is a step in the right direction that sustainability should be pursued by your organisation. Some of these have been discussed below. 2.1 Operations management and sustainability Operations management has been explained to be a component of management concerned with overseeing, designing, and controlling all processes that go into production and redesigning of business operations (Maslennikova & Foley, 2000; Kleindorfer, Singhai & Van Wassenhove, 2006). This implies that operations management is an integrated approach to operations where different roles and outcomes associated with the production is expected to be achieved. Operations management has been noted to play a very vital role in sustainability as both concepts employ an integrative means to the end of a process (Gmelin & Seuring, 2014). That is, in sustainability, there are three major perspectives that are considered which are social, economic and environmental sustainability (Nash, 2000). Operations management also entails overseeing, designing and controlling. From the above, it would be acknowledged that when your organisation approaches sustainability from operations management perspective, it will be making consideration of two major issues which are measurement and design. The measurement aspect entails what the company needs to measure in order to know the actual profit levels that sustainability brings to it. Much of this will however be discussed under 2.3. In terms of design, an embedded sustainability is recommended so that it will be possible to integrate sustainability into the design process. By so doing, there will be greater commitment to oversee the success of sustainability as design is already a well regulated component of the organisational process (Potter & Van der Linde, 1996). When your organisation approaches sustainability from an operations management context therefore, it will be possible to ensure that both concepts are undertaken in ways that makes it possible for there to be shared benefits across the two. In Jimenez and Lorente (2001), it was indicated that operations management evaluates performance based on cost, quality, time and service. By implication, any organisation that wants to attain sustainability and does this through the principles of operations management can be assured that not only will it make social, economic and environmental preservations but also, it would do these whilst being assured of the most effective cost, quality, time and service (Porter & Van der Linde, 1996). 2.2 Product-service design for sustainability Mont (2001) explained product-service system (PSS) as a marketable set of products and services that has the capability of jointly fulfilling a user’s need. This means that KFC can take product-service design (PSD) as the first approach to achieving PSS, as PSD will help your company in fostering the idea of what a desirable PSS should be (Muller & Seuring, 2008). The disposal packaging sector of the food and beverages industry has a major responsibility to share when it comes to ensuring PSD for sustainability. This is because they are required to come out with a disposable packaging that does not only become marketable to the user but that which also embraces the philosophy of sustainable development (Pantzar, Raijas & Heiskanen, 1994; Braungart & Engelfried, 1993). A packaging that embraces the philosophy of sustainable development can be said to be one whose PDS was constructed for sustainability because such packaging will use resources that replicates immediate and intergenerational demand (Stoughton, Shapiro, Feng & Reiskin, 1998). On the basis of this, it will be true to argue that PSD for sustainability do not only look at marketability for users but also looks at utility of resources and how well the resources used in the design of a product-service like packaging caters for the needs of both the current generation and that of future generation. Popov and DeSimone (1998) stressed that one important advantage of sustainability initiatives such as recycling is that instead of wasting fresh and new raw materials in creating new items, those materials that have already been changed from their raw states are used. This way, preservation of fresh raw materials is made for the future generation. For packaging that is approached from sustainability perspective also, this merit is expected to be registered (Atasu, Guide & Van Wassenhove, 2010). 2.3 Sustainability metric system thinking According to Sterman (1994), the issue of sustainability remains only a mirage until there is a means by which any company such as yours can measure the real outcomes of it. Using the recent report on sustainable packaging among the big brands in the US as an example, one is likely to ask that if the big brands are not using sustainable packages, why is that an issue if there is no means by which the impact of sustainability can be measured. It is against this backdrop that the use of sustainability metric system thinking is very relevant as your company seeks to implement sustainable disposal packages (Acharya & Saeed, 1995). This is because when such metric system thinking is in place for sustainability, it is possible to quantify the benefits as well as the cost that go into sustainable packaging (Radzicki & Trees, 1995). Several approaches to sustainability measurement have been recommended, including the use of systems thinking. Forrester (1994) explained systems thinking as a means of understanding how things work based on the influence of isolated units within the whole, which is known as the system. This means that in order to develop a sustainability metric system thinking for packaging, it is important that there will be units of isolated components that are needed to be put together in a way that influences each other to form a whole. As soon as this call is made, the most immediate idea that can come to mind is to develop the metric for sustainability in a manner that captures not just the economic measure of packaging but also social and environmental aspects as well (Gale & Cordray, 1994). In a recommendation to use a systems approach to identifying decisive information for sustainable development, Kelly (1998) actually called for an additional unit of measure which is a cultural measure. 2.4 The place of sustainable packaging in managing carbon foot-printing Delving more into environmental aspect of sustainability, carbon footprint can surface. This is because carbon footprint looks at the sum of greenhouse gas emissions that a given organisation, an event or a person causes (PAS 2050, 2008). By this understanding, and in relation to packaging, you are likely to ask about the place of sustainable packaging in cutting down on the carbon footprint of KFC. In the first place, Finkbeiner (2009) associates certain issues with carbon footprint as the scientific relevance and challenge of the concept. Three of these include scope of emissions, lifecycle stages and land use change. For each of these three, there are ways in which sustainable packaging can be seen as being instrumental in reducing the carbon footprint of any company (Matthews, Hendrickson & Weber, 2008). For example, Carbon Trust (2006) gave scientific evidence to the effect that the greenhouse gas emitted from packages with recycled materials are less than those that are produced from packages with fresh raw materials. The reason here is that recycled materials have already gone through the mill of production, limiting its quantity of organic entity (SETAC, 2008). Secondly, Vattenfall (2005) also saw that the lifecycle stages of packages made from recycled materials are shorter due to the fact that they have already completed a full production stage. With such sustainable packages, your company may employ the use of increased lifecycle inventory and lifecycle assessment in guiding the use of packages so that it can reduce environmental impacts (Finkbeiner et al., 2006). Finally, you can be assured that there will be limited land use of sustainable packages as they have shorter life span when they are eventually disposed off (Vattenfall, 2007a). 3.0 Data collection plan For the study being pursued by your company to achieve the scope that has been set above, it will be important that there will be both qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection (Bender, 2003). In effect, a mixed market research approach will be required. Under the mixed market research approach, two major models will be recommended for data collection. These are stakeholder analysis and sustainability cost benefit analysis. In most previous studies, whiles the stakeholder analysis has been used for qualitative data collection, the economic cost benefit analysis has been used for quantitative data collection (Collis & Hussey, 2013). 3.1 Use of Stakeholder Analysis For your company to use the stakeholder analysis, it will be important to identify a group of experts and stakeholders in the area of packaging. These could include environmental experts, government regulators and disposal package designers. Once these people are identified, an interview guide containing questions about the best ways KFC can approach packaging from a sustainable perspective will be prepared. With the interview guide prepared, an interview will then be performed as the major data collection procedure among the stakeholders. Because the respondents are experts and authority in their areas of practice, it will be expected that they will give out responses that best practices that can be followed by KFC in its approach to sustainable packaging. A major advantage that the stakeholder analysis will bring is that it will allow KFC an opportunity of undertaking in-depth analysis of the issues involved in the sustainability packaging concept. This is because as part of the interview, the respondents will have the chance of expressing their opinions and ideas freely without any major limitations (Hardy & Bryman, 2004). 3.2 Use of sustainability cost-benefit analysis The sustainability cost-benefit analysis will on the other hand be used in more quantitative form. What this means is that as part of the sustainability cost-benefit analysis, KFC will be able to gather real-time numeric and statistical data that tells it of the actual cost as well as benefits that it will gain from switching from traditional packaging to sustainable packaging (O’Leary, 2006). Like any cost-benefit analysis, the essence of the sustainability cost-benefit analysis will be to weigh the losses or cost that will go into the concept of sustainable packaging as against the benefits or gains that will come with the concept (Vattenfall, 2007b). The only difference in this case however has to do with the fact that instead of focusing on only economic data or outcome with the sustainability packaging, all three pillars of sustainability which includes social, economic and environment will be focused on by your company. To undertake the sustainability cost-benefit analysis from a quantitative perspective, a questionnaire will be prepared as data collection instrument for three major groups of respondents. Some of the major groups that your company may focus on could include customers, disposable package manufactures, and environmental regulators. The diversity in the respondents will be to serve the needs of the different aspects of sustainability which are social, economic, and environmental pillars respectively. Because the sustainability cost-benefit analysis will be to serve the need of quantitative research, the questions on the questionnaire will be close ended which tend to measure the extent of cost and benefits that sustainability packaging will bring from social, economic and environmental perspectives (Bender, 2003). 4.0 Data analysis plan The analysis of data to be collected will be directly reflected in the data collection procedure. As recommended by Collis and Hussey (2013), the qualitative data will be analysed qualitatively whiles the quantitative data will be analysed quantitatively. To achieve this, the interview which will be conducted as part of the stakeholder analysis will be analysed by the use of discourse analysis. This means that the outcomes of the interview will be interpreted according to what each respondent says whiles using coded themes and sub-themes. Through the use of discourse analysis, it will be possible to analyse the findings of the interview based on what each respondent said (Hardy & Bryman, 2004). After the individual analysis has been performed, there will be a common coding system that finds the most recurring lines of responses and answers. These recurring answers will be taken as the collective outcome for each interview question. For the questionnaire and sustainability cost-benefit analysis, the analysis will be done through the use of statistical software such as Microsoft Excel and SPSS. With these, it will be possible to rate, rank or measure the cost of sustainable packaging as against the benefits from the three major perspectives which are social, economic and environmental. All answers received to a particular question can be represented with a bar graph, which shows how many people agree that sustainable packaging will be socially profitable as against those who disagree with such an assertion. 5.0 Data and desired outcomes From the stakeholder analysis, it is expected that greater number of stakeholders who will take part in the interview will agree that sustainable packing will come with a lot of advantages for the company. In the light of this, they will recommend that the company undertake sustainable packaging through the use of increased use of life cycle inventory (LCI) and life cycle assessment (LCA). The desired outcome of the sustainability cost-benefit analysis is also expected to be such that most respondents will score sustainable packages as highly beneficial from all perspectives including social, economic and environmental. This will be against a lower score of sustainable packages being costly. For example, given the fact that profitability is measured as the difference between revenue and cost, sustainability will reduce cost, thereby increasing the profit margin of your company (Gmelin & Seuring, 2014). References Acharya, S.R. & Saeed, K. (1995). “A search for an operational environmental policy based on the Limits to Growth study” System Dynamics Proceedings, 1, pp. 1-11. Atasu, A., Guide V. D. R. & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2010). So what if remanufacturing cannibalizes my new product sale? California Management Review. Vol. 52 No. 2, p. 56 Bender, S. (2003) Producing the Capstone Project. Kendall Hunt Publishing. Braungart M. & Engelfried J. (1993). The intelligent product system. Bull EPEA, Hamburg. Carbon Trust (2006). “Carbon footprints in the supply chain: the next step for business” The Carbon Trust. 4, pp. 56-77 Collis, J. & Hussey, R. (2013) Business Research (4th edition) Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Finkbeiner M, Inaba A, Tan RBH, Christiansen K & Klüppel H-J (2006). “The new international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044” Int J Life Cycle Assess Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 80–85 Finkbeiner M. (2009). “Carbon footprinting – opportunities and threats” Int. J Life Cycle Assess. 14, pp. 91-94 Forrester, J.W. (1994). “System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft Or” System Dynamics Review 10, pp. 245-256. Gale, R.P. & Cordray, S.M. (1994). “Making sense of sustainability: Nine answers to what should be sustained?” Rural Sociology 59, pp. 311-332. Gmelin, H. & Seuring S. (2014). Determinants of a sustainable new product development. Journal of Cleaner Production. 69, pp. 1-9. Gunther M. (2015). What a waste: study finds big US brands stuck on disposable packaging. [Online] Available at http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jan/29/what-a-waste-study-finds-big-us-brands-stuck-on-disposable-packaging [April 5, 2015] Hardy, M.A. & Bryman, A. (2004) Handbook of Data Analysis. London: SAGE. Jedlicka, W. (2008). Packaging Sustainability: Tools, Systems and Strategies for Innovative Package Design. New York: Wiley. Kelly K. L. (1998). A systems approach to identifying decisive information for sustainable development. European Journal of Operational Research. 109, pp. 452-464 Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhai K. & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2006). Sustainable operations management. Production and Operations Management. Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 482-492 Maslennikova, I. & Foley, D. (2000). “Xerox’s approach to sustainability” Interfaces Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 226-233 Matthews, H. S., Hendrickson C. T. & Weber, C. L. (2008). The importance of carbon footprint estimation boundaries. Environ Sci. Technol. 42, 5839-5842 Mont O.K (2002). Clarifying the concept of product–service system. Journal of Cleaner Production 10, pp. 237-245 Muller, M. & Seuring S. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production. 16, 1699-170 Nash, J.L (2000). “Beyond compliance: the sustainability challenge”, Occupational Hazards, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 38-42 O’Leary, Z. (2006) Researching Real-World Problems – A Guide to Methods of Inquiry. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Pantzar M., Raijas A. & Heiskanen E. (1994). Green consumers? Greening consumption? The Instruments to Promote Sustainable Patterns of Consumption and Production. Seminar, Stockholm. Nuclear Power Plant; S-P-00026; 2007-11-01 PAS 2050 (2008). Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. [Online] Available at http://www.bsigroup.com/upload/Standards%20&%20Publications/Energy/PAS2050.pdf [April 3, 2015] Popov F. & DeSimone D. (1998). Eco-efficiency — the business link to sustainable development. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. Porter, M.E & Van der Linde, C. (1996). “Green and competitive: ending the stalemate” Harvard Business Review Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 120-134 Radzicki, M.J. & Trees, W.S. (1995). “A systems dynamics approach to sustainable cities” Systems Dynamics Proceedings 1, pp.191-210. SETAC (2008). “SETAC Europe LCA Steering Committee: standardization efforts to measure greenhouse gases and ‘carbon footprinting’ for products” Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):87–88 Soroka, W. (2002). Fundamentals of Packaging Technology. London: IoPP Sterling S. (2008). Field Guide to Sustainable Packaging. New York: Ultimate Press Limited. Sterman, J.D. (1994). “Learning in and about complex systems” System Dynamics Review 10, pp. 291-330. Stillwell, E. J. (1991). Packaging for the Environment. Texas: A. D. Little. Stoughton M., Shapiro K., Feng L. & Reiskin E. (1998). The business case for EPR: a feasibility study for developing a decision-support tool. Boston (MA): Tellus Institute. Vattenfall (2005). Vattenfall AB Generation Nordic Certified Environmental Product Declaration; EPD of Electricity from Vattenfall’s Nordic Hydropower; S-P-00088; 02/2005 Vattenfall (2007a) Vattenfall AB Generation Nordic Certified Environmental Product Declaration; EPD of Electricity from Ringhals Vattenfall (2007b) Vattenfall AB Generation Nordic Certified Environmental Product Declaration; EPD of Electricity from Vattenfall’s Wind Power in the Nordic Countries; S-P-00115; 2007-02-01 Wever, R. & Vogtlander, J. (2013). "Eco-efficient Value Creation: An Alternative Perspective on Packaging and Sustainability". Packaging Technology and Science Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 229–248. Yam, K. L. (2009). Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology. London: John Wiley & Sons. Zabaniotou, A. & Kassidi G. (2003). "Life cycle assessment applied to egg packaging made from polystyrene and recycled paper". Journal of Cleaner Production Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 549–559. Read More