SpringerLink
Log in

Develo** Reusable Packaging for FMCG: Consumers’ Perceptions of Benefits and Risks of Refillable and Returnable Packaging Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
EcoDesign for Sustainable Products, Services and Social Systems I

  • 435 Accesses

Abstract

This research investigates consumers’ perception of two main types of reusable packaging systems: refillable and returnable packaging systems. An online experiment was conducted with Dutch consumers (n = 250) in which attitudinal and behavioural responses to two reusable packaging systems were compared to the responses to disposable packaging. We created three types of packaging (disposable, refillable and returnable) for either food (ketchup) or non-food (shampoo) products. Results showed that consumers evaluate refillable and returnable packaging positively. Three benefits (environmental benefits, anticipated conscience and enjoyment) and three risks (contamination, complexity and performance risks) of reusable packaging are measured in this study. This research contributes to the understanding of consumers’ perception of reusable packaging systems, which can help future designers and companies to design their systems more effectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Plastics—the Facts (2020) Plastics Europe. https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/resources/publications/4312-plastics-facts-2020. Accessed 24 Jun 2021

  2. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017) The new plastics economy: catalysing action. Isle of wight, UK. https://www.newplasticseconomy.org/assets/doc/New-Plastics-Economy_Catalysing-Action_13-1-17.pdf. Accessed 24 Jun 2021

  3. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 18603 (2013) Packaging and the environment—reuse. https://shopbsigroupcom/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030240157. Accessed 24 Jun 2021

  4. Coelho P, Corona B, ten Klooster R, Worrell E (2020) Sustainability of reusable packaging–current situation and trends. Resour Conserv Recycl: X 6:100037

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lofthouse V, Bhamra T, Trimingham R (2009) Investigating customer perceptions of refillable packaging and assessing business drivers and barriers to their use. Packag Technol Sci 22(6):335–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Muranko Ż, Tassell C, Zeeuw van der Laan A, Aurisicchio M (2021) Characterisation and environmental value proposition of reuse models for fast-moving consumer goods: reusable packaging and products. Sustainability 13(5):2609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Engel JF, Kollat DT, Blackwell RD (1968) Consumer behavior. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mugge R, Jockin B, Bocken N (2017) How to sell refurbished smartphones? An investigation of different customer groups and appropriate incentives. J Clean Prod 147:284–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mitchell V (1992) Understanding consumers’ behaviour: can perceived risk theory help? Manag Decis 30(3)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Biswas A, Roy M (2015) Green products: an exploratory study on the consumer behaviour in emerging economies of the east. J Clean Prod 87:463–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Michaud C, Llerena D (2010) Green consumer behaviour: an experimental analysis of willingness to pay for remanufactured products. Bus Strategy Environ 20(6):408–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Magnier L, Mugge R, Schoormans J (2019) Turning ocean garbage into products—consumers’ evaluations of products made of recycled ocean plastic. J Clean Prod 215:84–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chang C (2011) Feeling ambivalent about going green. J Advert 40(4):19–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Meyer A (2001) What’s in it for the customers? Successfully marketing green clothes. Bus Strategy Environ 10(5):317–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Steenhaut S, Van Kenhove P (2006) The mediating role of anticipated guilt in consumers’ ethical decision-making. J Bus Ethics 69(3):269–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Venhoeven L, Bolderdijk J, Steg L (2020) Why going green feels good. J Environ Psychol 71:101492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Forsythe S, Liu C, Shannon D, Gardner L (2006) Development of a scale to measure the perceived benefits and risks of online shop**. J Interact Mark 20(2):55–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sweeney J, Soutar G (2001) Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale. J Retail 77(2):203–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Choi D, Johnson KKP (2019) Influences of environmental and hedonic motivations on intention to purchase green products: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. Sustain Prod Consum 18:145–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zeng T, Durif F (2019) The influence of consumers’ perceived risks towards eco-design packaging upon the purchasing decision process: an exploratory study. Sustainability 11(21):6131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Keh H, Pang J (2010) Customer reactions to service separation. J Mark 74(2):55–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Trattner A, Hvam L, Forza C, Herbert-Hansen Z (2019) Product complexity and operational performance: a systematic literature review. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 25:69–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fogg BJ (2009) A behavior model for persuasive design. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive technology

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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 228:107730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Argo J, Dahl D, Morales A (2006) Consumer contamination: how consumers react to products touched by others. J Mark 70(2):81–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Numata D, Managi S (2012) Demand for refilled reusable products. Environ Econ Policy Stud 14(4):421–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bradu C, Orquin J, Thøgersen J (2013) The mediated influence of a traceability label on consumer’s willingness to buy the labelled product. J Bus Ethics 124(2):283–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rijsdijk S, Hultink E (2003) “Honey, have you seen our hamster?” Consumer evaluations of autonomous domestic products. J Prod Innov Manag 20(3):204–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Truong Y (2013) A cross-country study of consumer innovativeness and technological service innovation. J Retail Consum Serv 20(1):130–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Choi SM, Kim Y (2005) Antecedents of green purchase behavior: an examination of collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. Advances in consumer research. Assoc Consum Res 32(1):592–599

    Google Scholar 

  31. Chandrashekaran R (2004) The influence of redundant comparison prices and other price presentation formats on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions. J Retail 80(1):53–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Orth U, Campana D, Malkewitz K (2010) Formation of consumer price expectation based on package design: attractive and quality routes. J Mark Theory Pract 18(1):23–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Magnier L, Schoormans J, Mugge R (2016) Judging a product by its cover: packaging sustainability and perceptions of quality in food products. Food Qual Prefer 53:132–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lofthouse V, Trimingham R, Bhamra T (2017) Reinventing refills: guidelines for design. Packag Technol Sci 30(12):809–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Greenwood SC, Walker S, Baird HM, Parsons R, Mehl S, Webb TL, Slark AT, Ryan AJ, Rothman RH (2021) Many happy returns: combining insights from the environmental and behavioural sciences to understand what is required to make reusable packaging mainstream. Sustain Prod Consum 27:1688–1702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kunamaneni S, Jassi S, Hoang D (2019) Promoting reuse behaviour: challenges and strategies for repeat purchase, low-involvement products. Sustain Prod Consum 20:253–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Steenis N, van Herpen E, van der Lans I, Ligthart T, van Trijp H (2017) Consumer response to packaging design: the role of packaging materials and graphics in sustainability perceptions and product evaluations. J Clean Prod 162:286–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by the China Scholarship Council (CSC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Xueqing Miao, Lise Magnier & Ruth Mugge

Authors
  1. Xueqing Miao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lise Magnier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ruth Mugge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xueqing Miao .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Creative Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan

    Shinichi Fukushige

  2. Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Osaka, Japan

    Hideki Kobayashi

  3. College of Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University, Kusatsu, Shiga, Japan

    Eiji Yamasue

  4. Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan

    Keishiro Hara

Appendices

Appendix 1:Stimuli and Six Conditions Used in Questionnaire

A pictorial representation of six conditions for a questionnaire of 3 conditions each for shampoo and ketchup. The conditions are disposable packaging, refillable packaging, and returnable packaging systems.

Appendix 2: Measurement Scales

Environment benefits [13]

Unsing this shampoo/ketchup

1. Is bad for the environment/is good for the environment

2. Accelerates the deterioration of the environment/slows the deterioration of the environment

3. Increase pollution/reduces pollution

(α = 0.95)

Anticipated conscience [26] (Strongly disagree/strongly agree)

1. It would give me a good conscience to buy shampoo/ketchup in this packaging

2. I would feel good about buying shampoo/ketchup in this packaging

(α=0.95)

Contamination risk [24] (Strongly disagree/strongly agree)

1. I believe this shampoo/ketchup packaging is very unsanitary

2. I think this shampoo/ketchup packaging is contaminated

3. In my opinion, this shampoo/ketchup is dirty

(α = 0.90)

Performance risk [20] (Strongly disagree/strongly agree)

1. There is a chance that there would be something wrong with this shampoo/ketchup packaging

2. There is a chance that I would suffer some loss because this shampoo/ketchup packaging would not perform well

3. This shampoo/ketchup packaging is risky in terms of how it would perform

(α = 0.89)

Complexity risk [27] (Not much at all/Very much) (Not many at all/A lot)

1. How much instruction do you think you need in learning how to use this packaging?

2. How much knowledge is needed to use this packaging?

3. How much help is needed in taking this packaging into use?

4. How much effort do you think it costs to learn how to use this packaging?

5. How many people do you think will find use of this packaging complicated?

(α = 0.90)

Enjoyment [18] (Strongly disagree/strongly agree)

1. This shampoo/ketchup packaging is the one that I would enjoy

2. This shampoo/ketchup packaging would make me want to use it

3. This shampoo/ketchup packaging is the one that I would feel relaxed about using

4. This shampoo/ketchup packaging would make me feel good

5. This shampoo/ketchup packaging would give me pleasure

(α = 0.95)

Purchase intention [28]

1. Given the information above, I am likely to buy shampoo/ketchup in this packaging

2. Given the information above, I am willing to buy shampoo/ketchup in this packaging

(α = 0.97)

Environmental concern [29]

1. I make a special effort to buy products that are made from recycled materials

2. I have switched products for ecological reasons

3. When I have a choice between two equal products, I purchase the one less harmful to other people and the environment

4. I have avoided buying a product because it had potentially harmful environmental effects

(α = 0.81)

Involvement [30]

1. I am particularly interested in shampoo/ketchup

2. Overall, I am quite involved when I am purchasing shampoo/ketchup for my personal use

(α = 0.71)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Miao, X., Magnier, L., Mugge, R. (2023). Develo** Reusable Packaging for FMCG: Consumers’ Perceptions of Benefits and Risks of Refillable and Returnable Packaging Systems. In: Fukushige, S., Kobayashi, H., Yamasue, E., Hara, K. (eds) EcoDesign for Sustainable Products, Services and Social Systems I. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3818-6_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation