Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135984

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Intelligent packaging in the transition from linear to circular economy:

Driving research in practice
Maria Palazzo *, Agostino Vollero, Alfonso Siano
Department of Political and Communication Sciences, University of Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, Fisciano, 84084, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Govindan Kannan Developing packaging with enhanced features helps organisations transition from a linear to a circular economy.
The paper aims at mapping the barriers, incentives and potential outcomes which can be reached by organisa­
Keywords: tions via such innovative packaging solutions and providing insights to researchers concerning the application of
Intelligent packaging their knowledge in this complex field. Our study comprises 130 articles from 1991 to 2021, identified through a
Smart packaging
systematic review methodology. The evolution of intelligent packaging was classified and mapped taking into
Systematic literature review
account the principles of circular economy, the main incentives and barriers which can help or hinder the up­
Cluster analysis
Multiple correspondence analysis surge of the packaging with enhanced features, and the potential outcomes that can be achieved by organisa­
Circular economy tions. By using a Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) combined with the Choice of Active Categories
(COREM) approach, three clusters were identified: (i) buying process, (ii) value chain issues, (iii) collaborative
issues. These clusters enable researchers to position their future contributions in the area and associated insights
linked to new trends in the packaging field should facilitate managers in developing strategic pathways and
supporting action research to enhance their packaging solutions. The paper also suggests to “decompose” the
field, by starting with bottom-up studies with a circumscribed scope, and then synergically puts them together
into a more general perspective.

1. Introduction communication (Lydekaityte and Tambo, 2020).

Packaging aids organisations and their customers in terms of product
protection, distribution, sales, and use (Mason, 1958; Short and Stovell,
1966). These functions are typical of traditional/passive packaging, i.e.,
“a covering material that encompasses insulating, protective, and
ease-of-handling qualities, and serves the basic principles of protection,
preservation, communication, and handling convenience” (Lydekaityte
and Tambo, 2020: 390).
With the advent of new digital technologies, the definitions and uses
of packaging have become more sophisticated (Voipio et al., 2020; Afif
et al., 2021). Advanced packaging functions address numerous specific
needs resulting from issues such as life cycle assessment, longer product
shelf-life, and sustainable supply chain (Testa et al., 2020; Silva and
Pålsson, 2021). These functions are linked to the development of
nanoscale materials, biopolymers, high-performance computing de­
vices, 5G communication network, and the Internet of Things (Gobbo
and Olsson, 2010; Zeng et al., 2020). We have thus moved beyond the
primary functions of packaging as being protection, preservation and
There are currently different types of packaging. Passive packaging is
influenced by advances in smart, active, interactive, ergonomic, and
intelligent packaging (Rundh, 2016). Smart packaging incorporates
novel technologies that improve its core functions and provide addi­
tional capabilities compared to conventional packaging (Kerry and
Butler, 2008). Active packaging refers to packages that interact with
products to improve and maintain their quality and extend their
shelf-lives (Biji et al., 2015). Interactive packaging is defined as a
package that is influenced by collaborative actions (involving clients
and organisations) and that establishes two-way communication be­
tween users and packaged products, thereby increasing user engage­
ment and allowing users to receive feedback from technology-based
interactive packaging systems (Butler, 2013). Ergonomic packaging re­
fers to the ease of carrying, stocking, utilizing, handling, and discarding
packaging by various actors in the value chain (Brockgreitens and
Abbas, 2016). Finally, intelligent packaging refers to a comprehensive
system characterized by intelligent functions, such as detecting, sensing,
recording, tracing and communicating. The main aims are to extend

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mpalazzo@unisa.it (M. Palazzo), avollero@unisa.it (A. Vollero), sianoalf@unisa.it (A. Siano).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135984
Received 15 September 2022; Received in revised form 2 January 2023; Accepted 7 January 2023
Available online 9 January 2023
0959-6526/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Palazzo et al.
Fig. 1. The four steps of the systematic literature review and cluster analysis.
shelf-life, boost safety and quality, provide information, and provide
alerts on potential issues (Yam et al., 2005).
All of these definitions emphasize that packaging is now critical in
corporate business strategies, not only from a marketing standpoint, but
also as a way to rethink organisations’ ability to achieve successful
performance and an opportunity to shift from a linear to a circular
economy approach (Meherishi et al., 2019; Sumrin et al., 2021). The
various features and functions of packaging are often perceived as more
demanding when a circular economy perspective is taken into account
(Ajwani-Ramchandani et al., the 2021). Ethics and sustainability stances
have also been used to critically scrutinize the features of enhanced
packaging (Geueke et al., 2018; Meherishi et al., 2019; Friedrich, 2021).
However, few papers comprehensively reviewed the benefits that can be
achieved by organisations and the main incentives and barriers that can
help or hinder the adoption of intelligent packaging.
A closer look at the literature reveals that while some authors adopt a
technology-driven focus on intelligent packaging that tends to highlight
specific innovative features (Mlalila et al., 2016), other stress the need to
broaden the view by considering concurrently environmental, economic
and social dimensions through an interdisciplinary approach (Afif et al.,
2021). Furthermore, in the area of sustainable packaging, other con­
tradictions emerge. Some authors (Glock, 2017; Mahmoudi and Parvi­
ziomran, 2020) point out an excessive emphasis on the flow of materials,
products and final products along supply chain, without giving adequate
attention to reusable packaging material (returnable packaging items,
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135984
RTIs, or reusable packaging) for bundling, shipping or containing
products along different stages of the chain. Overarchingly, it emerges
the need both to clarify main themes and trends in intelligent packaging
and to disclose potential lines of research, especially in terms of appli­
cation of scientific knowledge on the topic of transition towards
circularity.
Only a few papers have systematically reviewed the literature to
provide a summary of the recent research trends. Some authors have
employed specific methodologies to investigate unusual topics or stan­
dard packaging’s features, intertwined with sustainability demands,
such as consumers’ pro-environmental behaviour (Testa et al., 2020),
food safety (Byrd et al., 2021), green supply chain (Qin et al., 2021),
waste management (Brennan et al., 2021), and reverse logistics (Chan,
2007). For example, Silva and Pålsson (2021) reviewed the environ­
mental aspects of packaging, as opposed to the traditional inclination to
describe its economic features. A bibliometric approach was used to
present trends on the application of intelligent systems to predict food
contamination and investigate foodborne diseases (Lebelo et al., 2021).
With the same method, Afif et al. (2021) highlighted the importance of
integrated packaging decisions at three different levels to improve
packaging sustainability. The above three reviews demonstrate that
technology and the growing interest in ethics, social concerns, and
sustainability are inextricably linked and are driving factors in advances
in the packaging business (Brennan et al., 2021).
Nonetheless, there is still a need to offer a wide-ranging overview of
M. Palazzo et al.
Fig. 2. Number of publications 1991–2021.
innovative and intelligent packaging approaches, due to increasing
competitiveness, rapid technological developments, unexpected
changes in consumer behaviour, as well as increased customer interest
in safety and their responsiveness to sustainability aspects.
This paper enriches previous reviews by identifying connections with
other research streams, and by comprehensively exploring the current
packaging sector trends in terms of how they support the transition from
a linear to a circular economy approach. We argue that exploring
packaging with enhanced features provides a fundamental strategy to
help organisations in their transition to a circular economy, and to
appreciate the potential social, economic and environmental outcomes
through such a strategy.
We thus identified four key research questions.
-when, where, and on what issues has packaging with enhanced
features been undertaken and published in the domain (systematic
mapping)?
- what theoretical approaches, methods, tools of analysis and types of
data have management and marketing researchers in this field used?
- what barriers, incentives, outcomes and framework of CE have been
identified regarding new trends in packaging? How can these studies
be clustered according to these variables?
- how can these clusters inform future strategies and action research
directions that can help organisations in their transition to the cir­
cular economy?
Firstly, we provide key definitions, characteristics and functions
using a systematic review methodology (SRm) to analyse the field of
packaging with enhanced features. We look at the 30 years leading up to
2021 and identify the key journals, the main issues and contexts of ap­
plications, the theoretical approaches, and the type of methods and
research tools used. More importantly, we categorize the main in­
centives, barriers and outcomes that are related to new packaging fea­
tures. By using these variables as active modalities for cluster analysis,
we identified three thematic groups: (i) buying process, (ii) value chain
issues, (iii) collaborative issues. Secondly, we contribute to the man­
agement literature by providing a theoretical framework for future
research in the packaging field, we summarise the building blocks of this
progression and offer a basis on which further developments can be
built. Thirdly, we offer insights to managers that need to structure their
strategies on new packaging functions. Given that packaging can facil­
itate the transition from a linear to a circular economy, maximizing its
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135984
new technological functions is fundamental for managers.
The next section focuses on the methodology used for the develop­
ment of the systematic literature review and cluster analysis. Section 3
reports the results of the analysis of the selected papers. The three
clusters are identified and described in Section 4. Section 5 concludes
the paper by discussing the findings and offering theoretical and
managerial implications that can pave the way for the development of
future lines of research and specific directions for driving research in
practice.
2. Methodology
A systematic literature review combined with a cluster analysis is
widely recognized as the most informative and evidence-based type of
reviewing papers in a specific knowledge domain (Tranfield et al., 2003;
Paul et al., 2021) and enhances both academic knowledge and man­
agement practice (Rojon et al., 2021). We adopted a rigorous protocol
(Rojon et al., 2021; Paul et al., 2021) to avoid common biases in tradi­
tional SRm, and to provide a framework for researchers to justify their
choices in terms of future research that can advance the knowledge in
the packaging domain by avoiding duplicated empirical research. We
paid particular attention to refinement and synthesis as the field of study
was particularly fragmented, and we aimed to provide a theoretical
framework for future research in order to consolidate this field of in­
quiry and to bridge the gap between conceptual and practice - or policy-
oriented issues. The research design followed four main steps (see
Fig. 1).
The first step was to identify the scope of the review and collect all
the papers written in English that refer to the enhanced-features pack­
aging domain. The literature search used management databases (i.e.,
Business Source Complete, PsycInfo) and Scopus (by limiting subject
areas to “Business, Management and Accounting”, “Decision making”
and “Psychology”). Scopus is the most comprehensive database for
initial collection (e.g., see Latino et al., 2019) and selecting keywords
was considered as a basis for setting an expanded query. The following
keywords were combined for the search: “packaging” AND “intelligent”
OR “smart” OR “active” OR “interactive” OR “ergonomic”.
A total of 966 papers were collected, after applying queries to Title,
Abstract, Keywords (or similar fields, according to each database) and
removing duplicates. Following previous reviews in the area of pack­
aging (Sweeney and Paternoster, 1992; Poyatos-Racionero et al., 2018),
the start date of review was set at 1991 and covered up to 2021.
M. Palazzo et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135984

Table 1 analysis (Di Franco, 2006; Holmes, 2007). This approach, originally
Leading journals in the field of research. developed by the French sociologist Benzécri (1973), was made popular
Rank Journal Number of Average global by Bourdieu (1984). Initially MCA is used to synthesise nominal vari­
papers (min = citations per paper ables into individual factors, then clustering analysis is applied to group
3) (Scopus) cases by following the MCA findings (Delli Paoli and Addeo, 2011;
1 Journal of Cleaner Production 29 37.41 Ragnedda et al., 2022). The analysis was carried with SPSS25 for data
2 British Food Journal 16 28.06 cleaning and univariate analysis, and SPAD for multivariate analysis.
3 International Journal of 6 24.50
Production Research
4 International Journal of 6 22.50 3. Systematic mapping
Production Economics
5 European Journal of Marketing 3 107.33 3.1. Papers, geographical affiliation of authors, leading journals and
6 Psychology & Marketing 3 77.00
main issues
7 Business Strategy & the 3 67.33
Environment
8 International Journal of 3 35.00 The number of papers on the evolution of packaging is continually
Physical Distribution & Logistics increasing (see Fig. 2), and over half of the 130 articles (61.5%) were
Management published between 2017 and 2021. The upsurge of interest of re­
9 International Journal of 3 31.67
Hospitality Management
searchers is due to both scientific and practical issues, especially in the
10 Production Planning & Control 3 22.33 research areas of sustainability, innovation, circular economy and waste
management. It seems that newer articles are more focused on specific
issues and sectors, and this can pose some risk in terms of developing an
The second step was to refine the initial dataset. Articles were filtered all-embracing perspective. Furthermore, the growing interest on
by their inclusion in the Academic Journal Guide (ABS list) to ensure different modes of “greening” the supply chain through packaging so­
their consistency with business disciplines and a reasonable quality lutions seems sincere, even if it is more driven by commercial, branding
level. The remaining 445 articles were then reviewed separately by all and performance issues than by ethical stances.
the authors, and quality and relevance were assessed based on two The USA (13%) and UK (10.8%) dominate in terms of the number of
exclusion criteria: (i) those outside the business and management realm; papers, others are by authors based in European universities (59.5%).
(ii) those unrelated to the evolution of packaging. On this basis, 130 Publications in this field are thus predominantly from the West. Two
items were included. thirds of the dataset (66.8%) include papers with 2 and 3 stars in the
In Step 3, bibliographic information was integrated, and a qualitative ABS, thus indicating a medium-high quality.
classification scheme was defined for the selected papers. For each Table 1 highlights that there is a prevalence of “Sector Studies”
paper, purposes, main issues, theoretical frameworks, tool/research (36.9%), mainly due to the Journal of Cleaner Production which is the
methods, data collection (data sources), entity of analysis (EOA), busi­ leading outlet in terms of total articles published in the field (29 articles -
ness sectors involved were added following Ravasi and Canato (2013). over 20% of total publications included in SR). Other primary subject
Additional qualitative content coding was made to identify incentives, areas are “Operations & Technology Management” (23%) and “Mar­
barriers and outcomes for intelligent packaging, circular economy keting” (18.5%). In terms of total articles published (PSC), the British
frameworks adopted. Food Journal, International Journal of Production Research, and Interna­
Finally in Step 4, cluster analysis was used to develop a compre­ tional Journal of Production Economics seem to be the main journals. The
hensive synthesis of this area. Besides systematic mapping based on three journals with the highest impact are European Journal of Marketing
descriptive and summary statistics, we used a multivariate analysis to (107.33 AGC), Psychology & Marketing (77.00 AGC), and Business Strat­
have an enhanced representation of our research area. A Multiple Cor­ egy & the Environment (67.33 AGC).
respondence Analysis (MCA) was then followed by a cluster analysis to The key lesson hereby seems to be the fact that some journals have
obtain an effective summary of data (Palazzo et al., 2016; Ragnedda published a relatively high number of papers (mostly from production
et al., 2022), by using the so-called French method for multivariate research), as expected, while other journals became more interested on

Table 2
Current issues related to CE and research in action in packaging: food and beverage vs. non-food sector.
Business Current issues Research in action Authors
sector

Food and REDUCE/RECYCLE/REUSE Avoidance of not recyclable multi-layer plastic; recyclability; Matthews et al. (2021); Otto et al. (2021); Bortolini et al., 2018;
beverage biodegradability; and reuse rate of packaging Postacchini et al. (2018).
sector SAFETY/PREVENTION OF Risk perception about food, packaging & technology; Byrd et al. (2021); Lebelo et al. (2021); Stampfli et al. (2010).
RISKS AND prediction and prevention of contamination
CONTAMINATION
WASTE REDUCTION/WASTE Prevention of food waste; bioplastic food packaging; life-cycle Spreafico and Russo (2021); Brennan et al., 2021; Kakadellis and
PREVENTION assessment; food loss reduction Harris (2020); Djekic et al. (2019); Poyatos-Racionero et al.
(2018); Yokokawa et al. (2018).
DESIGN/PHYSICAL Visualisation mode of packaging (3D vs. AR); packaging ‘s eco- Petit et al. (2022); Ku and Chen (2021); Mukherjee et al. (2021);
FEATURES strategies; anthropomorphic signage; opaque packaging; Sundqvist-Andberg and Åkerman (2021); Zeng (2021); Ikonen
environmental policy design; green design; front-of-package et al. (2020); Zeng et al. (2020); Aagerup et al. (2019); Bray
nutrition labels et al. (2019); Latino et al. (2019); Świda et al. (2018).
SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES Circular Supply Chain Management; value co-creation; Qin et al., 2021; Li et al. (2020); Batista et al. (2019);
production planning; logistics system design Giacomarra et al., 2020.

Non-food SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES Green supply chain management; customer-supplier Ahmed et al. (2020); Lorenzini et al. (2018); Agrawal et al.
business relationship; reverse logistics (2016)
sector ADVERTISING AND Reduction of greenwashing Kahraman & Kazançoğlu (2019)
PACKAGING STRATEGIES
DESIGN/PHYSICAL Visual and verbal packaging design Salem (2018)
FEATURES

4
M. Palazzo et al.
Table 3
Outcomes, barriers, incentives and CE framework for intelligent packaging.
Active variables/ Outcomes % Barriers
modalities
Behaviour change 26.9 Economic constraint
Technology acceptance 18.5 Resource constraint
Efficiency/optimisation 16.2 Buying routines
Circular Supply Chain 14.6 Lack of support
Management
Emission reduction 12.3 Rejection of
innovativeness
Technological advancement 11.5 Indifference
this topic rather more recently and decided to explore it from different
angles (e.g., marketing, consumer behaviour, retailing services).
“Innovation” accounted for the most articles (37, 29%), followed by
“packaging design” (19, 15%). Articles on sustainability accounted for
nearly 30% of the total, including discussions on sustainable packaging,
waste management and sustainable supply chain management. Other
issues include “Labelling” (9%), “Packaging functions” (5%), “Consumer
perceptions of packaging” (4%), “Logistic management” (3%), and
“Brand management” (2%).
Not surprisingly, the food sector is mostly influenced by original
features in terms of packaging: 52 papers (40%) refer to food and
beverage characteristics (e.g. cheese; fruit; vegetable; fish; meat), while
9 articles (7%) are related to non-food businesses (e.g. personal care;
electronics; flowers; pharmaceuticals), and 9 articles (7%) compare food
and non-food sectors and their way to involve intelligent, active, smart
and ergonomic packages. Almost half of the sample (60 papers; 46%),
analysed new packaging without taking into account a specific business
sector.
Table 2 presents an analysis of current issues and research in action
that are triggered by the growing importance of enhanced features of
packaging. Based on the content mainly analysed in the food sector
along with trends identified in the non-food sector, the table summarizes
the major contributions from extant literature and offered practical
insights.
3.2. Theoretical frameworks, methods, research tools and “active
variables”
More than half of the articles did not adopt a specific theoretical
approach. However, 27 articles dealt with behavioural approaches
(especially related to purchasing decisions), 11 papers with the circular
economy, and 5 with life cycle assessments. Other approaches focus on
collaboration and stakeholder theories, natural-resource based view,
adaptive resonance theory, and C–K theory, thus indicating a very
fragmented scenario.
A qualitative approach was used in 89 papers (68%), quantitative
methods in 29 (23%), and 12 (9%) used a mixed method. Various
research tools are used to describe the features of intelligent, smart,
interactive and ergonomic packaging. Byrd et al. (2021) used a survey to
analyse consumers’ risk perceptions about food, restaurant food, and
restaurant food packaging during the COVID-19 pandemic. Escursell
et al. (2021) used a systematic literature review of the evolution of
e-commerce packaging. Wallenburg et al. (2021) used several experi­
ments to show that packaging influences the number of returns in online
retailing. Finally, Li et al. (2020) used mathematical models to illustrate
the benefits for integrating packaging with planning production
routines.
Surveys are the most used research tool (21%); followed by sys­
tematic literature reviews (13%); experiments (13%); case studies
(11%); and mathematical model and interviews (each 9%). Most papers
used primary data (e.g., surveys, interviews, focus groups, experiments,
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135984
% Incentives % CE framework %
26.2 Address stakeholder 31.5 Smarter product use and 70.0
needs manufacture
23.1 Added value 30.8 Useful application of materials 14.6
20.0 Collaboration and 19.2 Extend lifespan of product and 10.8
coordination its parts
12.3 Information 12.3 More than one perspective on 4.6
CE
10.0 Interaction product/ 3.1
packaging
8.5 Ensure non 3.1
contamination
observation - 66%); secondary data (e.g., bibliometric records, content
extraction) were employed in 20 papers (15%); a mix of primary and
secondary data in 4 articles (4%) and 20 papers (15%) did not exploit
any data source since they focus on theoretical modelling.
For each publication, we coded the outcomes, barriers, incentives
and CE framework (Table 3). It emerges that behaviour change is the
most important outcome to be achieved for about 25% of papers, as
changes in routines in buying behaviour are considered decisive for
successful implementation of intelligent and circular packaging (Yoko­
kawa et al., 2018; Herbes et al., 2018; Testa et al., 2020; Ratnichkina
et al., 2021). Other mentioned outcomes concern technology acceptance
among the public and various stakeholders (Ford et al., 2016; Voipio
et al., 2020), and issues related to efficiency/optimisation (Jubiz-Diaz
et al., 2019; Glock et al., 2019), the overall circularity of supply chain
(Zhang et al., 2016; Gupta and Singh, 2020). Other papers focus on the
outcomes of reducing emissions (Ajwani-Ramchandani et al., 2021) or
promoting technological advances (Casarejos et al., 2018; Lebelo et al.,
2021).
About 50% of papers highlight economic (Simms and Trott, 2014;
Han et al., 2019) and resource (Kakadellis and Harris, 2020; Mahmoudi
and Parviziomran, 2020) constraints as the main barriers to the adoption
of packaging with enhanced features. Syrjälä et al. (2020), Świda et al.
(2018), Hollywood et al. (2013) showed that some buying routines may
discourage consumers from embracing intelligent packaging. Other
barriers include indifference towards the original characteristics of
packaging (Byrd et al., 2021; Silayoi and Speece, 2004), lack of support
among partners in developing new features (Yusuf et al., 2017; Laguir
et al., 2021) and rejection of innovativeness (Van Rompay and Velt­
kamp, 2014; Ajwani-Ramchandani et al., 2021).
Conversely, as for incentives, the ability to address stakeholders’
demands and mechanisms for added value creation are present in nearly
two third of the selected articles. Organisations seem to be more inclined
to approach the innovative functions of packaging, if they are aware that
they are creating added value for their stakeholders (Świda et al., 2018;
Syrjälä et al., 2020; Ferrara et al., 2020; Zeng, 2021). Collaboration and
coordination strategies with key partners (Chan, 2007; Lorenzini et al.,
2018) are also indicated as important facilitators for adopting intelligent
packaging.
We also coded the papers following Kirchherr et al., 2017: 225), who
structured the circular economy into: (i) ‘useful application of mate­
rials’; (ii) ‘extend lifespan of products and their parts’; and (iii) ‘smarter
product manufacturing and use’. To sum up, the great majority of papers
adopt a higher-level perspective on CE, thus involving ‘smarter product
use and manufacture’ rather than a partial view of circularity, for
example considering only the extension of lifespan of products. The first
step towards a circular economy is considered central by, for example,
Palombini et al. (2017) and Postacchini et al. (2018); while the second
step inspired Rapp et al. (2017) and Jubiz-Diaz et al. (2019). Finally, the
last step was investigated by Bortolini et al. (2018), Stoica et al. (2020),
Lydekaityte and Tambo (2020), highlighting that the enhanced features
of packaging are more in line with the circular economy approach than
 M. Palazzo et al.
Table 4
Trending articles in the area of packaging (1991–2021).
Authors Year Source title Cited Purpose Method (research Main Issues Outcomes Barriers Incentives Circular Economy
by tool) Framework

Handfield 1997 Journal of 396 Develop a taxonomy of environmentally friendly Mixed (case study) sustainability efficiency/ lack of address extend lifespan of
et al. Operations best practices within the operations optimisation support stakeholder needs product and its
Management management value chain. parts
Kulp et al. 2004 Management Science 321 Develop a conceptual framework that relates Quantitative supply chain efficiency/ lack of collaboration and smarter product
information-integration initiatives to (survey) management optimisation support coordination use and
manufacturer profitability. manufacture
Silayoi and 2007 European Journal of 300 Explore the perceptions about packaging Qualitative (survey) brand behaviour change buying added value smarter product
Speece Marketing technology. management routines use and
manufacture
Silayoi and 2004 British Food Journal 272 Integrate packaging into an effective purchasing Qualitative (focus packaging behaviour change indifference information smarter product
Speece decision model, by understanding packaging group) design use and
elements as important marketing manufacture
communications tools.
Spence and 2011 Psychology and 210 Demonstrate the importance of the feel of a Quantitative packaging technology buying added value smarter product
6

Gallace Marketing product and its packaging, in determining (mathematical design acceptance routines use and
product evaluation. models) manufacture
Sweeney and 1992 Journal of the 188 Present a bibliography on cutting and packing Qualitative (SLR) innovation technology economic address more than one
Paternoster Operational problems. (general) acceptance constraint stakeholder needs perspective on CE
Research Society
Prakash and 2017 Journal of Cleaner 183 Examine the influence of eco-designed Quantitative packaging behaviour change economic address smarter product
Pathak Production packaging on consumers’ response. (survey) design constraint stakeholder needs use and
manufacture
Sharfman 2009 Business Strategy 165 Determine conditions under which firms engage Qualitative supply chain circular supply lack of collaboration and useful application
et al. and the Environment in cooperative supply-chain environmental (interview) management chain support coordination of materials
management. management
Farooque et al. 2019 Journal of Cleaner 115 Offer a comprehensive integrated view of Qualitative (SLR) supply chain circular supply indifference collaboration and more than one
Production Circular Supply Chain Management (CSCM). management chain coordination perspective on CE
management

Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135984

Poyatos- 2018 Journal of Cleaner 98 Review intelligent packaging. Qualitative (SLR) waste emission economic address smarter product
Racionero Production management reduction constraint stakeholder needs use and
et al. manufacture
M. Palazzo et al.
Fig. 3. The three clusters in a bidimensional matrix.
with the linear perspective.
A similar analysis of trending articles in the field was undertaken in
terms of active variables (outcomes, barriers, incentives and CE
framework).
Table 4 shows that the main factors in key papers appear to be:
behavioural change (Silayoi and Speece, 2004, 2007; Prakash and
Pathak, 2017), circular supply chain management (Sharfman et al.,
2009; Farooque et al., 2019), efficiency/optimisation (Handfield et al.,
1997; Kulp et al., 2004); technology acceptance (Sweeney and Pater­
noster, 1992; Spence and Gallace, 2011) and emission reduction
(Poyatos-Racionero et al., 2018). The same papers analyse how actors in
the supply chain try to find a solution to issues linked to lack of partner
support for the development of innovative packaging (Handfield et al.,
1997; Kulp et al., 2004; Sharfman et al., 2009); economic constraint
(Sweeney and Paternoster, 1992; Prakash and Pathak, 2017; Poya­
tos-Racionero et al., 2018); indifference (Farooque et al., 2019; Silayoi
and Speece, 2004); and buying routines (Silayoi and Speece, 2007;
Spence and Gallace, 2011).
The trending publications consider as incentives the possibility to
address stakeholder needs (Sweeney and Paternoster, 1992; Handfield
et al., 1997; Prakash and Pathak, 2017; Poyatos-Racionero et al., 2018);
the likelihood of developing collaborations and coordination (Kulp
et al., 2004; Sharfman et al., 2009; Farooque et al., 2019); the chance to
attain added value (Silayoi and Speece, 2007; Spence and Gallace,
2011), and useful information about the external context (Silayoi and
Speece, 2004). Some type of research method and data analysis (quan­
titative, survey and case study) seem underdeveloped, and this is in line
to the general trend. More quantitative studies are needed, also by trying
to develop best practices from single and multiple case studies. Finally,
the stages of circular economy that inspired them are: ‘smarter product
use and manufacture’ for Kulp et al. (2004), Silayoi and Speece (2004,
2007), Spence and Gallace (2011), Prakash and Pathak (2017), Poya­
tos-Racionero et al. (2018); ‘extend lifespan of product and its parts’ for
Handfield et al. (1997); ‘useful application of materials’ for Sharfman
et al. (2009); while more than one perspective on circular economy was
at the core of Sweeney and Paternoster (1992) and Farooque et al.
(2019).
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135984
4. Cluster analysis
The identification of clusters was preceded by a Multiple Corre­
spondence Analysis with Choice of Active Categories (COREM). This
method differs from traditional MCA, where all variables are considered
in the analysis, as it allows “active” modalities to be selected, i.e., those
variables considered as discriminating for the analysis, and other vari­
ables can be treated as supplementary modalities (Di Franco, 2006; Delli
Paoli and Addeo, 2011). We used COREM to extract factors and group
clusters of publications that share similarities in terms of the active
variables presented in Table 3, namely (1) main outcomes of circular
transition in packaging, (2) potential barriers, (3) incentives, and (4)
different phases/framework in the transition to the CE.
From the combination of the categories included in the analysis, two
factors were extracted, reflecting 25% inertia (corresponding to the
variance in the traditional MCA) which is a satisfactory value consid­
ering the high number of variables and categories included in the study
(Ragnedda et al., 2022).
Comparing the negative semi-axis and the positive axis (see Appen­
dix 1), the first factor refers to the outcomes related to behavioural
change especially from a consumer level perspective (barriers to buying
routines and ways for smarter product use thanks to innovative pack­
aging), the second factor instead focuses on interaction with product,
resource constraint as a barrier, and technological advances as the main
outcome. Both factors were then used to carry out the cluster analysis
using SEMIS, which combines in sequence a non-hierarchical technique
with a hierarchical one (Ragnedda et al., 2022). Of the various solutions
extracted (clusters 3, 4 and 5), we chose the one with three clusters, as it
satisfies the conditions of parsimony, sharpness and intelligibility of the
cluster solution (see Fig. 3). In addition, the inertia/variance of
three-cluster solution was satisfactory (74.02%) and the most reliable
from a semantic point of view.
Each cluster is detailed below, and specific measures are reported in
Table 5. The VALUE TEST is a measure of significance, i.e., the modality
with the highest value is the most significant. All the modalities excee­
ded a threshold of 2 and are significant for characterizing the clusters.
The CLA/MOD % represents the percentage of publications that present
a specific modality and are classified in the cluster; MOD/CLA %, is the
percentage of overall publications categorized into a modality; lastly,
GLOBAL % shows how many publications were assigned to a specific
M. Palazzo et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135984

Table 5 Surveys tend to be used to reveal the preference of consumers in terms of

Measures, modalities and variables for the three clusters. packaging design and functions, frequently with a focus on sustain­
VALUE CLA/ MOD/ GLOBAL MODALITY VARIABLE ability issues, such as overpackaging (Monnot et al., 2019). In this
TEST MOD CLA % % cluster, the papers primarily consider a circular economy framework
% that investigates smarter product use with strong social and environ­
CLUSTER 1 “BUYING PROCESS” (30%) mental impact.
8.64 88.57 79.49 26.92 behaviour OUTCOMES The second cluster, “VALUE CHAIN ISSUES”, accounts for 50.77% of
change total publications, with research on barriers to the application of intel­
8.57 100.0 66.67 20.00 buying routines BARRIERS
5.86 63.04 74.36 35.38 consumer PERSPECTIVE
ligent packaging solutions, such as resource (Tromp et al., 2012; Mah­
5.00 71.43 51.28 21.54 purchasing CORE THEORY moudi and Parviziomran, 2020) and economic constraints (Yenipazarli,
decision 2017; Jubiz-Diaz et al., 2019), and other problems in generating added
4.18 40.66 94.87 70.00 smarter product CE value in supply chain. Unlike the first cluster, here the focus is on
use FRAMEWORK
different types of technological advances (95% of papers with this focus
3.25 39.53 87.18 66.15 primary TYPE OF DATA
3.07 51.35 48.72 28.46 packaging design MAIN ISSUES are in this cluster), rather than behavioural changes. The papers are
& functions often conceptual or literature reviews, and they analyse the barriers to
2.73 77.78 17.95 6.92 branding & MAIN ISSUES innovative and sustainable solutions in packaging (Vila-Lopez and
consumer Küster-Boluda, 2020; Mahmoudi and Parviziomran, 2020).
perceptions
2.57 50.00 41.03 24.62 survey RESEARCH
The third cluster “COLLABORATIVE ISSUES” (19.23%) focuses on
METHOD the incentives for adopting intelligent packaging solutions in terms of
collaboration and coordination mechanisms at partner level, such as
CLUSTER 2 “VALUE CHAIN ISSUES” (50.77%)
reverse logistics (Chan, 2007) and co-innovation (Tjahjono and Cao,
5.02 95.83 34.85 18.46 technological OUTCOMES 2020). The papers in this group concentrate on the partner level rather
advances
4.44 86.67 39.39 23.08 resource BARRIERS
than consumer level, especially for the analysis of the supplier-customer
constraint dyad (Lorenzini et al., 2018; Tjahjono and Cao, 2020). In terms of CE
3.34 76.47 39.39 26.15 economic BARRIERS frameworks, the papers deal with a middle-level scale by concentrating
constraint on extending the lifespan of products or faults in supply chain or lo­
3.04 72.97 40.91 28.46 conceptual PERSPECTIVE
gistics (Bhardwaj and Agrawal, 2022; Gupta and Singh, 2020), and
2.34 84.62 16.67 10.00 rejection of BARRIERS
innovation pushing for a circular supply chain (Batista et al., 2019; Farooque et al.,
2.34 84.62 16.67 10.00 circular CORE THEORY 2019). As expected, stakeholder theory is the main theoretical approach
economy/TBL used and case studies are the preferred research method (Chan, 2007;
2.34 76.19 24.24 16.15 literature review RESEARCH Lorenzini et al., 2018; Giacomarra et al., 2020).
METHOD

CLUSTER 3 “COLLABORATIVE ISSUES” (19.23%) 5. Implications and suggestions for future lines of research
8.17 84.00 84.00 19.23 collaboration INCENTIVES
and coordination Our review provides a comprehensive mapping of the new trends in
7.58 100.0 64.00 12.31 lack of support BARRIERS
research into packaging by discussing the literature on the enhanced
6.78 80.95 68.00 16.15 circular supply OUTCOMES
chain
features of this topic and using cluster analysis to identify the main
4.48 68.75 44.00 12.31 supply chain MAIN ISSUES research streams.
management
3.57 85.71 24.00 5.38 collaborations & CORE THEORY 5.1. Limitations
stakeholder
3.12 57.14 32.00 10.77 extend lifespan of CE
products FRAMEWORK The main limitation is due to the fact that we only selected articles
2.59 80.00 16.00 3.85 dyad PERSPECTIVE that met our quality threshold (i.e., included in ABS journal guide 2018)
2.59 80.00 16.00 3.85 logistics PERSPECTIVE and content criteria (‘smart, active, intelligent, and ergonomic pack­
2.52 50.00 28.00 10.77 case study RESEARCH
aging’), so some valuable findings may have been overlooked. More­
METHOD
over, our search terms may not have found all relevant articles, despite
our attempt to rectify this issue by considering the concepts in different
modality. research areas (e.g., areas of business, psychology and decision making).
As shown in Fig. 3, we put “linear economy” and “circular economy” It is important to account for any biases that could exist in coding,
labels as endpoints on the vertical axis, “partner level” and “consumer proposed frameworks, and suggestions for future research, since those
level” labels on the horizontal axis. The three clusters are distinct and are based on the authors’ subjective interpretations. Finally, we
positioned far from each other. They are closer to “circular economy” acknowledge that SRm could not be particularly ground-breaking
label, even if the second cluster labelled “VALUE CHAIN ISSUES”, ac­ (Heinis et al., 2022), but, in this case, it is certainly an appropriate
counting for 50% of publications is about in the middle zone. basis for suggesting future streams of research and for supporting
The first cluster, labelled as “BUYING PROCESS”, represents 30% of managers involved in their transition to circular economy.
total publications. This cluster is completely characterized by the focus
on changes in consumer behaviour as a primary outcome (Silayoi and 5.2. Theoretical and practical implications
Speece, 2007; Simms and Trott, 2014; Rapp et al., 2017; Świda et al.,
2018). These papers identify those buying routines at consumer level Research in this field still seems to be fragmented. There are diver­
that may prevent change in packaging adoption and use, such as the sified, even though complementary, subjects within clusters, giving a
acceptance of alternatives to glass in wine bottling (Ferrara et al., 2020) wide-ranging perspective of the recent development in packaging. The
or misconceptions about sustainability in the packaging of other foods in buying process (cluster 1), and value chain issues (cluster 2) represent
liquid form (Boesen et al., 2019). In this cluster, there is a wide preva­ respectively 30% and 50.76% of our selected publications and are thus
lence of marketing and consumer behaviour papers that analyse the decisive items to be considered by managers in setting strategies for
purchasing process, with just a few exceptions (Kumar et al., 2008). packaging, and also for raising the attention of scholars. Cluster 3, i.e.,
collaborations by different actors of the supply chain, were the least

8
M. Palazzo et al.
Fig. 4. Theoretical framework of new trends in packaging.
robust, with 19.23% of the selected publications, though this number of
publications is likely to increase given that many researchers have noted
that organisations are strongly involved in developing packaging in­
novations as a way to add value to key stakeholders. Collaboration be­
tween organisations and stakeholders can easily lead to co-creation
opportunities in developing new forms of packaging, which can result in
a higher level of engagement, a deeper understanding of consumer
behaviour, and a more customer-centric marketing plan (Kulp et al.,
2004; Sharfman et al., 2009; Yenipazarli, 2017). Future research could
thus analyse the potential effects of customer proactivity: buyers can
suggest how to rethink the features and functions of packaging, not only
in the B-to-C sector but also in the B-to-B marketplace.
The new trends in the packaging field according to the three clusters
are shown in Fig. 4. Packaging with enhanced features will likely impact
on an organisation’s overall life, on the relationship between consumers
and products, and on the economy as well, as it brings new opportunities
and threats to organisations, giving them the opportunity to rapidly
transition from a linear approach to a circular one (Meherishi et al.,
2019).
The emerging innovative functions of packaging may not yet have
triggered much interest in organisations and key stakeholders (Cappel­
lesso and Thomé, 2019). Therefore, organisations need to understand
how to use these promising assets, which are now playing a strategic role
in rethinking business performance (Mahmoudi and Parviziomran,
2020). While successfully exploit the current trends in the packaging
area can offer different outcomes, it can also be facilitated by incentives
or impeded by barriers.
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135984
5.3. Future research in action: how intelligent packaging can favour the
transition to CE
A key conclusion of our review is that the investigation of current
trends in packaging, presented in each cluster, reflects different phases
in the path towards circular economy, due to the complexity of the
process that leads from a linear economy to the new circular economic
perspective. On the basis of the results achieved so far, Table 6 suggests
future lines of research (FR) related to innovation in the packaging
sector, detailed by clusters. These topics contribute to the progress of
this academic field, providing more knowledge to managers and de­
signers and especially answers on how to reach relevant outcomes, in a
circular economy perspective, leveraging on specific incentives and
avoiding barriers.
We believe that our review also has managerial implications and can
inspire research in action (RA). If organisations use innovative pack­
aging, the drivers (outcomes, barriers, and incentives) can contribute to
help stakeholders developing sustainable practices, while fostering the
circular economy in businesses and society. More concrete examples and
action research that highlight the circular attributes of packaging are
needed, as these would help managers and practitioners appreciate the
principles and benefits of the circular economy. It is paramount to
communicate the ‘best practices’ that connect packaging with the cir­
cular economy, so that intelligent packaging can be defined by
leveraging on a further dimension. Consequently, organisations should
gain more understanding of how packaging with circular attributes is
potentially another key innovation associated with intelligent
packaging.
M. Palazzo et al.
Table 6
Possible future research areas in the packaging field in the transition to CE.
Cluster/topic Suggestions for future lines of
research
Cluster 1 FR 1.1. Clarify the
Buying process contribution of drivers
considered as incentives in
sustaining the purchase
decision process of products
packaged with enhanced
features
FR 1.2. Investigate strategies
that can spur innovative and
consumer sustainable
behaviour
FR 1.3. Analyse the obstacles
that impede the purchase
decision process of products
packaged with enhanced
features
FR 1.4. Investigate how the
level of company’s
involvement in the circular
economy influences the
purchase decision of products
packaged with enhanced
features
Cluster 2 FR 2.1. Investigate how the
Value chain level of involvement in
issues circular economy’s process
can reduce the influence of
value chain issues that limit
the creation of added value of
intelligent packaging
FR 2.2. Analyse the barriers
to sustainable innovations
linked to packaging with
enhanced features
FR 2.3. Clarify how
incentives help organisations
overcome internal barriers to
the adoption of packaging
with enhanced features
FR 2.4. Investigate
techniques to solve problems
related to packaging with
enhanced features
Cluster 3 FR 3.1. Clarify the incentives
Collaborative that boost - and the factors
issues that hinder -collaborations
among key stakeholders and
organisations interested in
implementing packaging
with enhanced features
FR 3.2. Investigate strategies
that can lead to create new
collaborations for sustainable
packaging among actors of
the supply chain
Directions for research in
action
RA 1.1. Categorize
segmentation variables based
on consumers’ response to
intelligent packaging that can
provide information to help
marketers maximize package’s
impact
RA 1.2. Analyse different
strategies and techniques (e.g.,
labelling schemes) for
stimulating consumers to adopt
intelligent packaging solutions
that can help them to reduce
their global ecological footprint
RA 1.3. Investigate how
integrate intelligent packaging
into an omnichannel customer
journey, by analysing
packaging features as
communication touchpoints
RA 1.4. Examine the effects of
circular attributes of packaging
(e.g., air or paper powered
packaging) on consumers’
personal attitudes and pro-
environmental behaviour
RA 2.1. Explore how specific
technologies (such as
blockchain technologies)
embedded in intelligent
packaging, can add value to
products by improving their
traceability (RFID, sensors,
etc.) and the overall level of
product sustainability
RA 2.2. Analyse how inter-firm
relationships between retailers
and suppliers, based on
intelligent packaging co-
development, can impact on
sustainable performances
RA 2.3. Clarify how pro-active
environmental management
strategies stimulate inter-firm
trust and affect the extent to
which companies take part in
cooperative packaging
development along the supply-
chain
RA 2.4. Develop applied
research to explore the existing
link between intelligent
packaging and
nanotechnologies (e.g.,
intelligent packaging releasing
antimicrobial agents,
antioxidants, enzymes)
RA 3.1. Clarify how managers
can boost environmentally
friendly packaging features to
reach competitive eco-
advantages during the post-use
phase of products (e.g., by
establishing a cross-company
team to sustain the reverse
logistics approach involving
packaging)
RA 3.2. Investigate how the
adoption of an intelligent
packaging logistics approach
can set the bases for a proactive
integration of the efficiency
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135984
Table 6 (continued )
Cluster/topic Suggestions for future lines of Directions for research in
research action
and sustainability in the entire
supply chain
FR 3.3. Investigate how RA 3.3. Explore systemic
involvement in the circular approaches that involve all the
economy influences the relations between packaging,
collaborative issues among products, supply chain
organisations and key networks and physical
stakeholders in the field of processes, required in an era of
innovative packaging multi-product physical supply
chains with a global footprint
Action research has been reported in Table 6 and is presented in an
order of importance based on the significance that the authors place on
them in their papers. Moreover, action research directions are linked
with the three selected clusters.
Considering cluster 1 that focusses on buying process, the paper
suggests marketers to collect information about how to maximize
package effectiveness through selecting the right segmentation variables
based on consumers’ responses to intelligent packaging (Gómez et al.,
2015; Silayoi and Speece, 2007); to investigate different strategies
(labelling schemes, aesthetic/functional design, natural looking mate­
rials, etc.) for encouraging consumers to adopt smart packaging solu­
tions that can foster the circular economy (Prakash and Pathak, 2017);
to consider intelligent packaging functions as communication touch­
points made available by the organisation during the omnichannel
customer journey (Ståhlberg and Maila, 2013); to analyse the impact of
circular packaging attributes (e.g., air or paper powered packaging,
honeycomb paper, biodegradable kraft tape, honeycomb mailer, natural
kraft paper roll) on consumer attitudes and behaviours related to the
environment (Lydekaityte and Tambo, 2020).
Taking into account cluster 2, centred on value chain issues, the
perspectives proposed in this study can be used by practitioners as they
need to: (i) explore how specific technologies (such as blockchain
technologies, artificial intelligence, internet of things, robotics, 3D
printing) embedded in intelligent packaging can add value to products
while enhancing their traceability - (using RFID, tags, bar-code tech­
nologies, sensors) - and the level of sustainability (Ajwani-Ramchandani
et al., 2021); (ii) analyse how co-developed intelligent packaging can
impact sustainable performance in retailer-supplier relationships
(Yenipazarli, 2017); (iii) identify the factors that influence companies’
involvement in packaging design and cooperative supply-chain envi­
ronmental management by analysing how inter-firm trust and proactive
environmental management are related (Sharfman et al., 2009); (iv)
investigate how the development of intelligent packaging and nano­
technology are interconnected (e.g., intelligent packaging releasing
antimicrobial agents, antioxidants, enzymes) (Bowles and Lu, 2014).
Finally, insights presented in cluster 3 - aimed at highlighting
collaborative issues - can inspire action research that focusses on clari­
fying how managers can incorporate environmentally friendly pack­
aging features into post-use product packaging to achieve competitive
eco-advantages (e.g., by setting a cross-company team to support the
role played by packaging in the reverse logistics approach) (Herbes
et al., 2018); on exploring how an intelligent packaging logistics
approach can enhance the sustainability and efficiency of different as­
pects of the supply chain (e.g. to understand how to use, repair and
replace returnable transport items for packaging) (García-Arca et al.,
2014; Glock, 2017); on investigating the systemic approaches involved
in multi-product physical supply chains with a global footprint that
connect packaging, products, supply chains, and physical processes
(Meherishi et al., 2019).
Proposing future lines of research and directions for research in ac­
tion, inspired by the three clusters, clarifies in what ways intelligent
packaging can assist scholars and managers in bringing the CE nearer.
M. Palazzo et al.
This requires the ability to properly embrace CE from different per­
spectives: the consumer point of view, as customers have to show their
real interest to organisations about CE features and packaging’
enhanced functions, while changing their buying routine and adopting
green buying process; the internal standpoint, as all actors involved in
the supply chain have to try reducing external constraints to synergically
spread CE principles, while offering value and wellbeing; and the rela­
tional perspective, as collaboration and co-creation among the different
value chain players stimulate the adoption and reinforcement of the role
that intelligent packaging can play in CE.
Another contribution offered by the paper can be appreciated using
the lens of complexity (Byrne, 2002). This concept is approached by
several authors analysing two different sides of the same coin, variety
and variability (Byrne and Callaghan, 2013). In line with this thought,
the paper highlights that the concept of intelligent packaging can be
synchronically declined in a ‘variety’ of strategies and actions that
shows to academics and managers the level of complexity of the phe­
nomenon (see Table 5). In addition, some of the items already presented
enrich the level of ‘variability’ of the selected topic as it is demonstrated,
for example, that nanotechnologies and the blockchain process are
continually affecting packaging, while diachronically redefining them­
selves and their role over time, as a result of enduring technological
innovations. On these lines, the paper suggests the need to start with
decomposing the subject, embracing a ‘bottom-up’ approach to research
that entails studying issues with limited scope (for example, exploring
how specific technologies – e.g. blockchain technologies - embedded in
intelligent packaging can add value to the products by improving their
traceability). Later, all these facets can be integrated into the more
general and complex perspective of the circular economy.
Credit author statement
Maria Palazzo Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis;
Investigation; Methodology; Validation; Visualisation; Writing – original
draft; Writing – review & editing. Agostino Vollero: Conceptualization;
Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Validation;
Visualisation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.
Alfonso Siano: Conceptualization; Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135984.
References
Aagerup, U., Frank, A.S., Hultqvist, E., 2019. The persuasive effects of emotional green
packaging claims. Br. Food J. 121 (12), 3233–3246.
Afif, K., Rebolledo, C., Roy, J., 2021. Drivers, barriers and performance outcomes of
sustainable packaging: a systematic literature review. Br. Food J. 124 (3), 915–935.
Agrawal, S., Singh, R.K., Murtaza, Q., 2016. Triple bottom line performance evaluation
of reverse logistics. Compet. Rev. 26, 289–310.
Ahmed, M., Thaheem, M.J., Maqsoom, A., 2020. Barriers and opportunities to greening
the construction supply chain management: cause-driven implementation strategies
for developing countries. Benchmark Int. J. 27 (3), 1211–1237.
Ajwani-Ramchandani, R., Figueira, S., de Oliveira, R.T., Jha, S., Ramchandani, A.,
Schuricht, L., 2021. Towards a circular economy for packaging waste by using new
technologies: the case of large multinationals in emerging economies. J. Clean. Prod.
281, 125139.
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135984
Batista, L., Gong, Y., Pereira, S., Jia, F., Bittar, A., 2019. Circular supply chains in
emerging economies–a comparative study of packaging recovery ecosystems in
China and Brazil. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (23), 7248–7268.
Benzécri, J.P., 1973. L’analyse des données, vol. 2. Dunod, Paris, p. l.
Bhardwaj, M., Agrawal, R., 2022. Benchmarking the failure assessment of perishable
product supply chain using fault tree approach: insights from apple case study of
India. Benchmark Int. J. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2021-0465 ahead-of-print
No. ahead-of-print.
Biji, K.B., Ravishankar, C.N., Mohan, C.O., Srinivasa Gopal, T.K., 2015. Smart packaging
systems for food applications: a review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 52 (10), 6125–6135.
Boesen, S., Bey, N., Niero, M., 2019. Environmental sustainability of liquid food
packaging: is there a gap between Danish consumers’ perception and learnings from
life cycle assessment? J. Clean. Prod. 210, 1193–1206.
Bortolini, M., Galizia, F.G., Mora, C., Botti, L., Rosano, M., 2018. Bi-objective design of
fresh food supply chain networks with reusable and disposable packaging containers.
J. Clean. Prod. 184, 375–388.
Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bowles, M., Lu, J., 2014. Removing the blinders: a literature review on the potential of
nanoscale technologies for the management of supply chains. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 82, 190–198.
Bray, J., Hartwell, H., Price, S., Viglia, G., Kapuściński, G., Appleton, K., Saulais, L.,
Perez-Cueto, F.J.A., Mavridis, I., 2019. Food information presentation: consumer
preferences when eating out. Br. Food J. 121 (8), 1744–1762.
Brennan, L., Langley, S., Verghese, K., Lockrey, S., Ryder, M., Francis, C., Phan-Le, N.T.,
Hill, A., 2021. The role of packaging in fighting food waste: a systematised review of
consumer perceptions of packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 281, 125276.
Brockgreitens, J., Abbas, A., 2016. Responsive food packaging: recent progress and
technological prospects. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 15 (1), 3–15.
Butler, P., 2013. Smart and interactive Packaging developments for enhanced
communication at the packaging/user interface. In: Farmer, N. (Ed.), Trends in
Packaging of Food, Beverages and Other Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG),
pp. 261–286.
Byrd, K., Her, E., Fan, A., Almanza, B., Liu, Y., Leitch, S., 2021. Restaurants and COVID-
19: what are consumers’ risk perceptions about restaurant food and its packaging
during the pandemic? Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 94, 102821.
Byrne, D., 2002. Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: an Introduction. Routledge.
Byrne, D., Callaghan, G., 2013. Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: the State of
the Art. Routledge.
Cappellesso, G., Thomé, K.M., 2019. Technological innovation in food supply chains:
systematic literature review. Br. Food J. 121 (10), 2413–2428.
Casarejos, F., Bastos, C.R., Rufin, C., Frota, M.N., 2018. Rethinking packaging production
and consumption vis-à-vis circular economy: a case study of compostable cassava
starch-based material. J. Clean. Prod. 201, 1019–1028.
Chan, H.K., 2007. A pro-active and collaborative approach to reverse logistics—a case
study. Prod. Plann. Control 18 (4), 350–360.
Delli Paoli, A., Addeo, F., 2011. Social network research in strategy and organization: a
typology. IUP Journal of Knowledge Management 9 (3).
Di Franco, G., 2006. Corrispondenze multiple e altre tecniche multivariate per variabili
categoriali, vol. 15. Franco Angeli.
Djekic, I., Miloradovic, Z., Djekic, S., Tomasevic, I., 2019. Household food waste in
Serbia–Attitudes, quantities and global warming potential. J. Clean. Prod. 229,
44–52.
Escursell, S., Llorach-Massana, P., Roncero, M.B., 2021. Sustainability in e-commerce
packaging: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 280, 124314.
Farooque, M., Zhang, A., Thürer, M., Qu, T., Huisingh, D., 2019. Circular supply chain
management: a definition and structured literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 228,
882–900.
Ferrara, C., Zigarelli, V., De Feo, G., 2020. Attitudes of a sample of consumers towards
more sustainable wine packaging alternatives. J. Clean. Prod. 271, 122581.
Ford, N., Trott, P., Simms, C., 2016. Exploring the impact of packaging interactions on
quality of life among older consumers. J. Market. Manag. 32 (3–4), 275–312.
Friedrich, D., 2021. What makes bioplastics innovative for fashion retailers? An in-depth
analysis according to the Triple Bottom Line Principle. J. Clean. Prod. 316, 128257.
García-Arca, J., Prado-Prado, J.C., Garrido, A., 2014. Packaging logistics”: promoting
sustainable efficiency in supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 44 (4),
325–346.
Geueke, B., Groh, K., Muncke, J., 2018. Food packaging in the circular economy:
overview of chemical safety aspects for commonly used materials. J. Clean. Prod.
193, 491–505.
Giacomarra, M., Crescimanno, M., Sakka, G., Galati, A., 2020. Stakeholder engagement
toward value co-creation in the F&B packaging industry. EuroMed J. Bus. 15 (3),
315–331.
Glock, C.H., 2017. Decision support models for managing returnable transport items in
supply chains: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 183, 561–569.
Glock, C.H., Grosse, E.H., Kim, T., Neumann, W.P., Sobhani, A., 2019. An integrated cost
and worker fatigue evaluation model of a packaging process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 207,
107–124.
Gobbo Jr., J.A., Olsson, A., 2010. The transformation between exploration and
exploitation applied to inventors of packaging innovations. Technovation 30 (5–6),
322–331.
Gómez, M., Martín-Consuegra, D., Molina, A., 2015. The importance of packaging in
purchase and usage behaviour. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 39 (3), 203–211.
Gupta, A., Singh, R.K., 2020. Developing a framework for evaluating sustainability index
for logistics service providers: graph theory matrix approach. Int. J. Prod. Perform.
Manag. 69 (8), 1627–1646.
M. Palazzo et al.
Han, Z., Zhang, Q., Jiang, Y., Duan, B., 2019. Research on the production scheduling
method of a semiconductor packaging test based with the clustering method. Int. J.
Inf. Syst. Supply Chain Manag. 12 (2), 36–56.
Handfield, R.B., Walton, S.V., Seegers, L.K., Melnyk, S.A., 1997. ‘Green’value chain
practices in the furniture industry. J. Oper. Manag. 15 (4), 293–315.
Heinis, S., Bamford, D., Papalexi, M., Vafadarnikjoo, A., 2022. Services procurement: a
systematic literature review of practices and challenges. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 24 (3),
352–372.
Herbes, C., Beuthner, C., Ramme, I., 2018. Consumer attitudes towards biobased
packaging–A cross-cultural comparative study. J. Clean. Prod. 194, 203–218.
Hollywood, L., Wells, L., Armstrong, G., Farley, H., 2013. Thinking outside the carton:
attitudes towards milk packaging. Br. Food J. 115 (6), 899–912.
Holmes, S., 2007. Multivariate Analysis: the French Way, Probability and Statistics:
Essays in Honor of David A. Freedman, vol. 2. Monograph Series, IMS, Beachwood,
OH.
Ikonen, I., Sotgiu, F., Aydinli, A., Verlegh, P.W., 2020. Consumer effects of front-of-
package nutrition labeling: an interdisciplinary meta-analysis. J. Acad. Market. Sci.
48 (3), 360–383.
Jubiz-Diaz, M., Santander-Mercado, A., Candelo-Becerra, J.E., 2019. A multi-item multi-
packaging model to minimise cost of lost units, unpacking cost and CO2 emissions.
Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (20), 6246–6263.
Kahraman, A., Kazançoğlu, İ., 2019. Understanding consumers’ purchase intentions
toward natural-claimed products: a qualitative research in personal care products.
Bus. Strat. Environ. 28 (6), 1218–1233.
Kakadellis, S., Harris, Z.M., 2020. Don’t scrap the waste: the need for broader system
boundaries in bioplastic food packaging life-cycle assessment–A critical review.
J. Clean. Prod. 274, 122831.
Kerry, J., Butler, P. (Eds.), 2008. Smart Packaging Technologies for Fast Moving
Consumer Goods. John Wiley & Sons.
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an
analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221–232.
Ku, H.H., Chen, H.Y., 2021. Countering negative country of manufacturing effects for
bottled foods: how extrinsic product cues matter to consumers. J. Market. Manag. 37
(13–14), 1436–1457.
Kulp, S.C., Lee, H.L., Ofek, E., 2004. Manufacturer benefits from information integration
with retail customers. Manag. Sci. 50 (4), 431–444.
Kumar, S., DeGroot, R.A., Choe, D., 2008. Rx for smart hospital purchasing decisions: the
impact of package design within US hospital supply chain. Int. J. Phys. Distrib.
Logist. Manag. 38 (8), 601–615.
Laguir, I., Stekelorum, R., El Baz, J., 2021. Going green? Investigating the relationships
between proactive environmental strategy, GSCM practices and performances of
third-party logistics providers (TPLs). Prod. Plann. Control 32 (13), 1049–1062.
Latino, M.E., Menegoli, M., Corallo, A., 2019. Food label design–exploring the literature.
Br. Food J. 122 (3), 766–778.
Lebelo, K., Masinde, M., Malebo, N., Mochane, M.J., 2021. The surveillance and
prediction of food contamination using intelligent systems: a bibliometric analysis.
Br. Food J. 124 (4), 1149–1169.
Li, Y., Chu, F., Côté, J.F., Coelho, L.C., Chu, C., 2020. The multi-plant perishable food
production routing with packaging consideration. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 221, 107472.
Lorenzini, G.C., Mostaghel, R., Hellström, D., 2018. Drivers of pharmaceutical packaging
innovation: a customer-supplier relationship case study. J. Bus. Res. 88, 363–370.
Lydekaityte, J., Tambo, T., 2020. Smart packaging: definitions, models and packaging as
an intermediator between digital and physical product management. Int. Rev. Retail
Distrib. Consum. Res. 30 (4), 377–410.
Mahmoudi, M., Parviziomran, I., 2020. Reusable packaging in supply chains: a review of
environmental and economic impacts, logistics system designs, and operations
management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 228 (C), 107730.
Mason, W.R., 1958. A theory of packaging in the marketing mix. Bus. Horiz. 1 (3), 91–95.
Matthews, C., Moran, F., Jaiswal, A.K., 2021. A review on European Union’s strategy for
plastics in a circular economy and its impact on food safety. J. Clean. Prod. 283,
125263.
Meherishi, L., Narayana, S.A., Ranjani, K.S., 2019. Sustainable packaging for supply
chain management in the circular economy: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 237, 117582.
Mlalila, N., Kadam, D.M., Swai, H., Hilonga, A., 2016. Transformation of food packaging
from passive to innovative via nanotechnology: concepts and critiques. J. Food Sci.
Technol. 53 (9), 3395–3407.
Monnot, E., Reniou, F., Parguel, B., Elgaaied-Gambier, L., 2019. Thinking outside the
packaging box”: should brands consider store shelf context when eliminating
overpackaging? J. Bus. Ethics 154 (2), 355–370.
Mukherjee, A., Mukherjee, A., Iyer, P., 2021. Imperfect produce: retailer actions and
service outcomes. J. Serv. Market. 35 (8), 1061–1072.
Otto, S., Strenger, M., Maier-Nöth, A., Schmid, M., 2021. Food packaging and
sustainability–Consumer perception vs. correlated scientific facts: a review. J. Clean.
Prod. 298, 126733.
Palazzo, M., Vollero, A., Siano, A., 2016. Identifying new segments from a global
branding perspective: a three-country study. Journal of Marketing Analytics 4 (4),
159–171.
Palombini, F.L., Cidade, M.K., de Jacques, J.J., 2017. How sustainable is organic
packaging? A design method for recyclability assessment via a social perspective: a
case study of Porto Alegre city (Brazil). J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2593–2605.
Paul, J., Lim, W.M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A.W., Bresciani, S., 2021. Scientific procedures and
rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). Int. J. Consum. Stud. 45
(4), O1–O16.
Petit, O., Javornik, A., Velasco, C., 2022. We eat first with our (digital) eyes: enhancing
mental simulation of eating experiences via visual-enabling technologies.
J. Retailing 98 (2), 277–293.
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135984
Postacchini, L., Mazzuto, G., Paciarotti, C., Ciarapica, F.E., 2018. Reuse of honey jars for
healthier bees: developing a sustainable honey jars supply chain through the use of
LCA. J. Clean. Prod. 177, 573–588.
Poyatos-Racionero, E., Ros-Lis, J.V., Vivancos, J.L., Martinez-Manez, R., 2018. Recent
advances on intelligent packaging as tools to reduce food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 172,
3398–3409.
Prakash, G., Pathak, P., 2017. Intention to buy eco-friendly packaged products among
young consumers of India: a study on developing nation. J. Clean. Prod. 141,
385–393.
Qin, X., Godil, D.I., Sarwat, S., Yu, Z., Khan, S.A.R., Shujaat, S., 2021. Green practices in
food supply chains: evidence from emerging economies. Operations Management
Research 1–14.
Ragnedda, M., Ruiu, M.L., Addeo, F., 2022. The self-reinforcing effect of digital and
social exclusion: the inequality loop. Telematics Inf., 101852
Rapp, A., Marino, A., Simeoni, R., Cena, F., 2017. An ethnographic study of packaging-
free purchasing: designing an interactive system to support sustainable social
practices. Behav. Inf. Technol. 36 (11), 1193–1217.
Ratnichkina, P., Lee, S.H., Haines, S., 2021. Communicating returnable packaging via
ease of use labeling. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 31 (4), 481–497.
Ravasi, D., Canato, A., 2013. How do I know who you think you are? A review of
research methods on organizational identity. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 15 (2), 185–204.
Rojon, C., Okupe, A., McDowall, A., 2021. Utilization and development of systematic
reviews in management research: what do we know and where do we go from here?
Int. J. Manag. Rev. 23 (2), 191–223.
Rundh, B., 2016. The role of packaging within marketing and value creation. Br. Food J.
118 (10), 2491–2511.
Salem, M.Z., 2018. Effects of perfume packaging on Basque female consumers purchase
decision in Spain. Manag. Decis. 56 (8), 1748–1768.
Sharfman, M.P., Shaft, T.M., Anex Jr., R.P., 2009. The road to cooperative supply-chain
environmental management: trust and uncertainty among pro-active firms. Bus.
Strat. Environ. 18 (1), 1–13.
Short, D., Stovell, R.J., 1966. Packaging for people. Hum. Factors 8 (4), 307–315.
Silayoi, P., Speece, M., 2004. Packaging and purchase decisions: a focus group study on
the impact of involvement level and time pressure. Br. Food J. 106 (8), 607–628.
Silayoi, P., Speece, M., 2007. The importance of packaging attributes: a conjoint analysis
approach. Eur. J. Market. 41 (11/12), 1495–1517.
Silva, N., Pålsson, H., 2021. Industrial packaging and its impact on sustainability and
circular economy: a systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod., 130165
Simms, C.D., Trott, P., 2014. Barriers to the upgrade cycle in a commodity process
industry: evidence from the UK packaging industry. R. Manag. 44 (2), 152–170.
Spence, C., Gallace, A., 2011. Multisensory design: reaching out to touch the consumer.
Psychol. Market. 28 (3), 267–308.
Spreafico, C., Russo, D., 2021. A sustainable cheese packaging survey involving scientific
papers and patents. J. Clean. Prod. 293, 126196.
Ståhlberg, M., Maila, V., 2013. Multichannel Marketing Ecosystems: Creating Connected
Customer Experiences. Kogan Page Publishers.
Stampfli, N., Siegrist, M., Kastenholz, H., 2010. Acceptance of nanotechnology in food
and food packaging: a path model analysis. J. Risk Res. 13 (3), 353–365.
Stoica, M., Antohi, V.M., Zlati, M.L., Stoica, D., 2020. The financial impact of replacing
plastic packaging by biodegradable biopolymers-A smart solution for the food
industry. J. Clean. Prod. 277, 124013.
Sumrin, S., Gupta, S., Asaad, Y., Wang, Y., Bhattacharya, S., Foroudi, P., 2021. Eco-
innovation for environment and waste prevention. J. Bus. Res. 122, 627–639.
Sundqvist-Andberg, H., Åkerman, M., 2021. Sustainability governance and contested
plastic food packaging–An integrative review. J. Clean. Prod. 306, 127111.
Sweeney, P.E., Paternoster, E.R., 1992. Cutting and packing problems: a categorized,
application-orientated research bibliography. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 43 (7), 691–706.
Świda, J., Halagarda, M., Popek, S., 2018. Perceptions of older consumers regarding food
packaging as a prerequisite for its improvement: a case study of Polish market. Int. J.
Consum. Stud. 42 (3), 358–366.
Syrjälä, H., Kauppinen-Räisänen, H., Luomala, H.T., Joelsson, T.N., Könnölä, K.,
Mäkilä, T., 2020. Gamified package: consumer insights into multidimensional brand
engagement. J. Bus. Res. 119, 423–434.
Testa, F., Iovino, R., Iraldo, F., 2020. The circular economy and consumer behaviour: the
mediating role of information seeking in buying circular packaging. Bus. Strat.
Environ. 29 (8), 3435–3448.
Tjahjono, B., Cao, D., 2020. Advancing bioplastic packaging products through co-
innovation: a conceptual framework for supplier-customer collaboration. J. Clean.
Prod. 252, 119861.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J.
Manag. 14 (3), 207–222.
Tromp, S.O., Rijgersberg, H., da Silva, F.P., Bartels, P., 2012. Retail benefits of dynamic
expiry dates—simulating opportunity losses due to product loss, discount policy and
out of stock. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 139 (1), 14–21.
Van Rompay, T.J., Veltkamp, M., 2014. Product packaging metaphors: effects of
ambiguity and explanatory information on consumer appreciation and brand
perception. Psychol. Market. 31 (6), 404–415.
Vila-Lopez, N., Küster-Boluda, I., 2020. A bibliometric analysis on packaging research:
towards sustainable and healthy packages. Br. Food J.
Voipio, V., Elfvengren, K., Korpela, J., 2020. In the bowling alley: acceptance of an
intelligent packaging concept in European markets. Int. J. Value Chain Manag. 11
(2), 180–197.
Wallenburg, C.M., Einmahl, L., Lee, K.B., Rao, S., 2021. On packaging and product
returns in online retail—mailing boxes or sending signals? J. Bus. Logist. 42 (2),
291–308.
M. Palazzo et al.
Yam, K.L., Takhistov, P.T., Miltz, J., 2005. Intelligent packaging: concepts and
applications. J. Food Sci. 70 (1), R1–R10.
Yenipazarli, A., 2017. To collaborate or not to collaborate: prompting upstream eco-
efficient innovation in a supply chain. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 260 (2), 571–587.
Yokokawa, N., Kikuchi-Uehara, E., Sugiyama, H., Hirao, M., 2018. Framework for
analyzing the effects of packaging on food loss reduction by considering consumer
behavior. J. Clean. Prod. 174, 26–34.
Yusuf, Y.Y., Olaberinjo, A.E., Papadopoulos, T., Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N.,
Sharifi, H., 2017. Returnable transport packaging in developing countries: drivers,
barriers and business performance. Prod. Plann. Control 28 (6–8), 629–658.
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135984
Zeng, T., 2021. Impacts of consumers’ perceived risks in eco-design packaging on food
wastage behaviors. Br. Food J. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2021-0603 ahead-
of-print No. ahead-of-print.
Zeng, T., Deschenes, J., Durif, F., 2020. Eco-design packaging: an epistemological
analysis and transformative research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 276, 123361.
Zhang, Y., Liu, S., Liu, Y., Li, R., 2016. Smart box-enabled product–service system for
cloud logistics. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54 (22), 6693–6706.