PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2003; 16: 9–14

DOI:10.1002/pts.604

Packaging Scorecard – a Packaging

Performance Evaluation Method
By Carl Olsmats*† and Chris Dominic
Packforsk – The Institute for Packaging and Logistics AB, Kista, Sweden

To support a more holistic approach to the contribution of packaging to efficiency

and value creation in the product supply chain, a systematic evaluation method –
packaging scorecard – has been developed and tested in two case studies. The
packaging scorecard is based on research of functional criteria of packaging and the
theories of ‘balanced scorecard’, a general management approach to evaluating
organizational performance using different perspectives. The results of the case
studies indicate that the method can be very useful to get a systematic overview of
packaging performance throughout the product supply chain. Copyright © 2003
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 17 January 2003; Revised 4 February 2003; Accepted 5 March 2003
KEY WORDS: strategy; management; logistics; balanced scorecard; supply chain;
demand chain

INTRODUCTION business, a process described by Chatham House

From a business point of view the packaging
system is becoming an increasingly more vital and
integrated factor for success in the marketplace.
The influence of the packaging system is canalized
through an efficient supply chain to add value
and satisfy steadily increasing customer demands,
described in futures research, e.g. by Olsmats1
and Pira.2 The logistics and marketing functions of
packaging, as well as the fact that the package
can contribute to saving resources and reducing
the environmental load, are of importance in the
supply chain.
Many authors emphasize the need for a holistic
view on packaging, e.g. Johnsson3 and Dominic
et al.4 in a logistics perspective, Sörås et al.5 in an
environmental perspective, and Harckham6 in an
overall business perspective. The complexity and
length of the supply chains are increasing with
globalization and increased competition. Compa-
nies typically specialize and concentrate on core
Forum.7 Case studies by Johansson et al.8 look-
ing into the strategic role of packaging seem to
indicate that a more holistic view is implemented
in organizations with strong vertical integration.
With a need for a holistic approach and a trend
towards longer and more complex supply chains,
the need for a method/tool to support an overall
evaluation of packaging contribution to efficiency
and value creation in the supply chain is indicated.
A new approach to general company stategic
management was developed in the early 1990s
by Kaplan and Norton.9 Recognizing the need for
a broader view on business performance than the
traditional financial perspective, they developed
a system and named it the ‘balanced scorecard’.
They described the innovation of the balanced
scorecard as follows:
The balanced scorecard retains traditional financial
measures. But financial measures tell the story
of past events, an adequate story for industrial age
companies for which investments in long-term

* Correspondence to: C. Olsmats, Packforsk — The Institute for Packaging and Logistics AB, Kista, Sweden.
†
Email: carl.olsmats@packforsk.se

Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packaging Technology C. OLSMATS AND C. DOMINIC

and Science
capabilities and customer relationships were not
critical for success. These financial measures are
inadequate, however, for guiding and evaluating
the journey that information age companies must
make to create future value through investment in
customers, suppliers, employees, processes, tech-
nology, and innovation.
The balanced scorecard approach avoids some
of the weaknesses and vagueness of previous
management approaches, with too much focus on
(short-term) financial performance. It suggests a
framework where the organization is measured
and followed-up from four perspectives:
The learning and growth perspective.
• ality by Lorentzon and Olsmats,12 Dominic et al.4
• The business process perspective.
The customer perspective.
• packaging scorecard was developed. This is pre-
• The financial perspective.
Several customized applications of balanced score-
card in other areas, such as procurement (Pratsch
and Ustad10) and packaging logistics (Johnsson3),
have been proposed.
Based on the need for a holistic approach to
packaging, together with the increased difficulties
in obtaining this view with growing length and
complexity of supply chains and the concept of
balanced scorecard principle of different perspec-
tives, a ‘packaging scorecard’ has been developed
by Dominic and Olsmats.11 The perspectives
chosen are the different actors in the supply and
demand chain. For each actor, a subjective, but
systematic, evaluation of the role and functions of
packaging towards higher business performance is
performed. The packaging scorecard is intended
to support one common goal for all actors in the
supply chain. This goal is to satisfy the final cus-
tomer needs.
METHODOLOGY
Based on research regarding packaging function-
and Henriksson13 a theoretical framework for a
sented in Table 1 and summarizes functional
criteria (marked X) that are typically the most
significant ones for different actors along the
supply chain and can serve as a base for the
creation of the applied packaging scorecard.
This framework was then tested and refined in
an integrated process using two case studies. Two
different types of products and packaging systems
were selected in the fast-moving consumer goods
(FMCG) sector. The selected packages were card-
board containers for breakfast cereals and a plastic
refill package for jam.

Table 1. Criteria for the packaging scorecard

Transportation
distribution and
Criteria Supplier wholesale Retail Consumer

Machinability X
Product protection X X X X
Flow information X X X
Volume and weight efficiency X X X
Right amount and size X X X
Handleability X X X
Other value-adding properties X X
Product information X
Selling capability X X
Safety X
Reduced use of resources X
Minimal use of hazardous substance X X
Minimal amount of waste X X
Packaging costs X

Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 10 Packag. Technol. Sci. 2003; 16, 9–14
PACKAGING PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METHOD
The respective scorecard forms were distributed
to the various contact persons in the supply chain
for the chosen packaging systems. These persons
had considerable knowledge of the packaging
system at an operative level. The contact persons
were then asked to weight the criteria on a scale
of 0–100%. The criteria were pre-selected, but the
respondents had the right to add any new criteria
they felt were missing.
Thereafter, the weighted criteria were normal-
ized as follows: the weighted criteria are summed
to a total; each weighted criterion is then divided
by the total; the normalized weight is presented as
a percentage and it indicates the relative signifi-
cance of each criterion.
After the weighting, the respondents were asked
to evaluate packaging performance for each crite-
rion on a scale of 0–4, where the criteria are:
• 0, not applicable for the package.
• 1, not approved.
• 2, approved.
• 3, well approved.
• 4, met excellently.
The normalized criteria were then multiplied by
the scores gained and thereafter summed to a
weighted average packaging score. This score
gives an indication of how well the package is per-
forming in the respective links of the supply chain.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In the following, results from one of the case
studies will be presented, to illustrate how the
packaging scorecard can be applied. Procordia is
Table 2.The supplier packaging scorecard for the plastic refill package for jam
Criteria Weight
Flow information 30
Other value-adding properties 30
Volume and weight efficiency 40
Right amount and size 50
Machinability 70
Product protection 70
Packaging costs 70
Weighted average packaging score
Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Packaging Technology
and Science
Figure 1.The packaging scorecard for Procordia refill.
one of Sweden’s leading grocery suppliers, with a
number of market leading brands in its portfolio.
The product studied was jam or marmalade filled
in a refill package. The hot product is filled into a
plastic tube and the finished product resembles a
sausage. In order to maintain the high quality of
the product, quick and effective cooling is essen-
tial. The packaging scorecard in the supply chain
for the jam refill package can be summarized as in
Figure 1. Indicated by the score levels is, in general,
a well-performing package.
For interpretation and evaluation of the perfor-
mance, the scores must be analysed at a lower
criteria level for each actor. The evaluation of pack-
aging performance using the scorecards at sup-
plier, wholesaler and retailers is presented in
Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5.
At supplier level in Table 2, the criteria Packag-
ing cost, Product protection and Machinability are
considered the most significant ones for this appli-
cation at Procordia. The score indicates that some
effort could be put into reducing Packaging cost
and improving Machinability. Further room for
improvement relates to Flow information, ranked
to have a somewhat lower weight but also a low
Normalized weight (%) Score
8.3 2
8.3 0
11.1 3
13.9 3
19.4 3
19.4 4
19.4 3
2.86
11 Packag. Technol. Sci. 2003; 16, 9–14
Packaging Technology C. OLSMATS AND C. DOMINIC

and Science
Table 3.The wholesaler packaging scorecard, ICA Handlarna AB,
for the plastic refill package for jam
Criteria Weight Normalized weight (%) Score

Handleability 90 19.6 4
Flow information 80 17.4 2
Product protection 100 21.7 4
Volume and weight efficiency 80 17.4 2
Other value adding properties 30 6.5 0
Right amount and size 80 17.4 3
Weighted average packaging score 2.87

Table 4.The retailer packaging scorecard, ICA Maxi, Arlanda,

for the plastic refill package for jam
Criteria Weight Normalized weight (%) Scores

Handleability 90 16.4 3
Product information 50 9.1 1
Product protection 80 14.5 3
Volume and weight efficiency 70 12.7 4
Right amount and size 50 9.1 4
Consumer safety 50 9.1 4
Selling capability 80 14.5 4
Minimal amount of waste 80 14.5 4
Weighted average packaging score 3.42

performance score. The weighted total score for
the refill package at the supplier level is 2.86.
At wholesaler level illustrated in Table 3 and
represented by ICA Handlarna AB, the criterion
Product protection has been given the highest
weight, followed by Handleability. Other highly
significant criteria are Right amount and size, Flow
information and Volume and weight efficiency. As
indicated by the result, the performance score is
low for Flow information and Volume and weight
efficiency. Being highly significant, these need to
be improved. The weighted total score for the refill
package at the wholesaler level is 2.87.
At retailer level, illustrated in Tables 4 and 5 and
represented by retail stores ICA Maxi, Arlanda,
and ICA Maxi, Haninge, the results show that
the criterion Handleability is very important for
both retailers. The total average score for the refill
packaging is 3.44, which generally indicates a well-
performing package. The Selling capability was
rated excellent at both retailers. Despite this there
is room for improvement. At ICA Maxi, Arlanda,
the criterion Product information has been given
the lowest score, since customers have complained
about difficulties to select the right kind of jam.
Leaking consumer packages had been encountered
at both retailers indicating inadequate Product
protection. Handleability may also be an area for
further improvement. Due to financial constraints,
the consumer perspective was not evaluated in the
case studies.
The scorecard is based on subjective ratings of
packaging performance, hence the outcome may be
sensitive to which respondent is selected. To reduce
this problem, several people could be asked to do
the rating and an average value could be used. The
subjective nature of the rating makes it difficult
to compare packaging performance for different
applications, but comparisons are supported for
different packaging applications with similar
product, supply chain and market. The subjective
rating can be advantageous, as it also reflects

Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 12 Packag. Technol. Sci. 2003; 16, 9–14
PACKAGING PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METHOD Packaging Technology
and Science
Table 5.The retailer packaging scorecard, ICA Maxi, Haninge,
for the plastic refill package for jam
Criteria Weight Normalized weight (%) Scores

Handleability 90 16.4 3
Product information 50 9.1 3
Product protection 80 14.5 2
Volume and weight efficiency 70 12.7 4
Right amount and size 50 9.1 4
Consumer safety 50 9.1 4
Selling capability 80 14.5 4
Minimal amount of waste 80 14.5 4
Weighted average packaging score 3.45

feelings about a package, which may well be as
important as any objective performance criteria.
The results can be very useful for the supply
and demand chain, and especially for the product
and packaging suppliers, in their efforts to de-
velop and produce better packaging systems. The
method consolidates the requirements of the
supply chain and presents them in an interpretable
form. The potential benefits were confirmed by
interviews with respondents in connection to pre-
sentation of results.
The risk of incorrect conclusions makes the pre-
sentation and evaluation of the information
obtained in the studies very important. The overall
wholesaler, distributor and transport score was
practically the same for both case studies. One
explanation for this may be that both units are
handled in corrugated boxes. It is also worth
noting that the respondent was the same person in
both cases. However, going through the criteria
one by one and then comparing them showed that
the underlying weighting and scores were signifi-
cantly different in the two cases.
suggest any solutions. Product suppliers in the
case studies clearly indicated that they got a better
overview and understanding of the packaging
system performance throughout the supply chain.
Further research is proposed, focusing on:
• The cost implications of different score levels for
various criteria.
• Definitions of what functional performance is
implied for different scores and criteria.
• Verification of the usefulness of the method for
other sectors than FMCG.
• Testing the method at consumer level.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors want to thank The Private Owners Associ-
ation Packforsk for financing this project. We would also
like to thank the case study respondents, Mr Yngve
Nordvall, packaging researcher at Procordia in Örebro,
Mr Tommy Brunsärn at Cerealia in Järna, and Mr Lars
Bernhardsson, Packaging Logistics Manager at ICA
Handlarnas AB in Växjö.

CONCLUSIONS
The results from the case studies indicate that
the packaging scorecard method is useful as a
mapping tool for the participants in the supply
chain. Strengths and weaknesses of the packaging
system are identified in a systematic way with a
holistic approach. A weakness of the approach is
that it only identifies improvements but does not
REFERENCES
1. Olsmats C. Drivkrafter i omvärlden och deras
konsekvenser för framtida logistik-, marknads- och
miljökrav på förpackningssystemet. Thesis for the
degree of Licentiate in Engineering, Industrial
Economics and Management, Faculty of Chemical
Engineering, Åbo Akademi University, Finland,
2001.

Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 13 Packag. Technol. Sci. 2003; 16, 9–14
Packaging Technology
and Science
2. Pira International. Into the Millenium – Packaging.
Pira International: Leatherhead, 1997.
3. Johnsson M. Packaging Logistics – a Value-added
Approach. Doctoral thesis, Department of Engi-
neering Logistics, Lund University, 1998.
4. Dominic C, Johansson K, Lorentzon A. et al.
Förpackningslogistik – 2 : a utgåvan. Packforsk: Kista,
2000.
5. Sörås A, Erlöv L, Löfgren C. Packaging and the
Prevention of Environmental Impact Report No. 194.
Packforsk: Kista, 2000.
6. Harckham A. (ed), Packaging Strategy: Meeting the
Challenge of Changing Times. Technomic: Lancaster,
PA, 1989.
7. Chatham House Forum. Navigating Uncharted
Waters. Royal Institute of International Affairs:
London, 1997.
8. Johansson A, Nordin J, Ählman J. Förpackningens
affärsstrategiska betydelse – Förpackningsstrategier och
Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
C. OLSMATS AND C. DOMINIC
förpackningen som konkurrensmedel. Packforsk report
No. 188. Packforsk: Kista, 1999.
9. Kaplan R, Norton D. The Balanced Scorecard –
Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business
School Press: Boston, MA, 1996.
10. Pratsch L, Ustad I. Guide to Balanced Scorecard Per-
formance Management Methodology. Procurement
Executives’ Association: Washington, DC, 1996.
11. Dominic C, Olsmats C. Packaging Scorecard – A
Method to Evaluate Packaging Contribution in the
Supply Chain. Packforsk Research Report No. 200.
Packforsk: Kista, 2001.
12. Lorentzon A, Olsmats C. Integration of the Package
with the Distribution – A case study. Packforsk
Research Report No. 155. Packforsk: Kista, 1992.
13. Henriksson L. Packaging Requirements in the
Swedish Retail Trade. Thesis for the degree of
Licentiate in Engineering, Department of Engineer-
ing Logistics, Lund University, 1998.
14 Packag. Technol. Sci. 2003; 16, 9–14