A Tetra Pak case study

MSc Thesis Sustainable Development

Patricia Maria Megale Coelho

September 2018
 A Tetra Pak case study
Improving sustainability strategy in the supply chain
MSc Thesis Sustainable Development. Energy and Materials 30ECTs

Patricia Maria Megale Coelho

Student Number: 5962323
[email protected]

Supervisors:

Prof. dr.Ernst Worrell,

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development and Innovation
Utrecht University
Utrecht, NL

Mona van Wijk

Retail and Portfolio Manager - E&CA Market North West Europe
Tetra Pak.
Dordrecht, NL

Frank Vandewal
Circular Economy EPR Coordinator - PMCO Sustainability
Tetra Pak.
Dordrecht, NL
 ABSTRACT

The concern regarding sustainability issues have been increasingly growing and have
been influencing the way business is done. This case study was conducted with Tetra Pak, a
processing and beverage and food packaging multinational. Wanting to improve the
sustainability strategy throughout the supply chain, Tetra Pak focused on improving the
relationship with its retailers, since by deciding which products will be sold, they have power
to influence the entire supply chain and drive consumers towards a more sustainable choice.

To do so, it was vital to understand the retailers’ perspective on sustainable development,

including their current practices and aims for the future, and also their views on beverage/food
packaging and its environmental impacts. The research was carried out with Dutch and
Belgian retailers and was assessed by online research and by semi-structured interviews
about their sustainability practices and aims on reduction of carbon emission, energy and
packaging usage. Inputs from consumers and producers were also integrated by an online
survey and informal interviews, respectively. A literature review on sustainability concepts and
life cycle assessment of different beverage packaging was compared to the results retrieved
with retailers. The views of producers and consumers were also analyzed in this research
considering its relevance for retailers.

Most retailers mentioned the Sustainable Development Goals when talking about their
sustainability strategy and their aims to reduce CO2 emissions and packaging use, especially
plastic. The life cycle assessments results are practically unanimous regarding the impacts of
primary packaging options, pointing beverage carton as the lowest environmental impact for
all impact’s categories, except land use, since over 70% of the packaging is consistent of
paper from wood fiber.

The results show that there are still misconceptions regarding the impacts of beverage
packaging options from all stakeholders which is seen as one of the main barriers in choosing
the most sustainable option. The initial concept that retailers are the main decision-makers of
packaging choice was actually transferred to producers and suppliers. This is the perception
of the retailers themselves who understanding producers and suppliers know more about
packaging, want to improve the upstream of the supply chain. The final part of this report has
recommendations on how Tetra Pak can improve the sustainability strategy throughout the
supply chain retrieved from the findings of this report.

Keywords: beverage and food packaging, primary packaging, supply chain, sustainability
strategy, beverage carton.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my supervisors, Frank Vandewal, for opening Tetra Pak doors for me
and giving me the opportunity to become part of this team for the past 6 months; Mona van
Wijk, for introducing me to the retailer management world and being by my side throughout
the entire thesis, always ready for brainstorming sessions. Lastly but not least, Ernst Worrell,
for supporting me on the academic perspective, sharing and being so honest regarding his
knowledge on recycling, plastics and legislations. It was an honor.

I want to thank my family for, as always, being so incredibly supportive in making this crazy
dream of mine become reality. For despite the distance, being always present, caring and
making me feel so loved... Amo vocês!!

Finally, I want to thank the friends I have made throughout these two years for the study
sessions, late nights at the library and thesis room, for the dinners, parties and laughs… You
made these two years unforgettable!
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................1

1.1 PACKAGING: A PROBLEM AND A CURE ............................................................................................. 1

1.2 TETRA PAK, ITS RETAILERS AND BEVERAGE/FOOD CARTONS ........................................................... 2

1.3 PROBLEM DEFINITION AND KNOWLEDGE GAP ................................................................................ 3

1.4 RESEARCH AIM .................................................................................................................................. 3

1.5 RESEARCH QUESTION AND SUB-QUESTIONS 1, 2 AND 3 .................................................................. 3

1.6 SOCIETAL AND SCIENTIFIC RELEVANCE ............................................................................................. 3

2 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................5

2.1 PACKAGING ....................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 LEGISLATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPTS & VALUE CREATION IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN .......................................... 7

3 METHODS .....................................................................................................................................13

3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................ 15

3.2 TETRA PAK....................................................................................................................................... 15

3.3 CONSUMERS ................................................................................................................................... 16

3.4 PRODUCERS .................................................................................................................................... 16

3.5 RETAILERS ....................................................................................................................................... 17

4 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................19

4.1 LITERATURE REVIEW OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................ 19

4.2 TETRA PAK....................................................................................................................................... 21

4.3 CONSUMERS ................................................................................................................................... 26

4.4 PRODUCERS .................................................................................................................................... 30

4.5 RETAILERS ....................................................................................................................................... 32

4.6 RETAILERS NOT INTERVIEWED ........................................................................................................ 40

4.7 SUMMARY OF THE INTERVIEW WITH THE RETAILERS ANSWERING THE SUB-QUESTIONS AND
RESEARCH QUESTION ....................................................................................................................................... 44
5 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................46

5.1 SUSTAINABILITY AND LEGISLATIONS .............................................................................................. 46

5.2 RETAILERS AND RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UPSTREAM OF THE SUPPLY CHAIN .............................. 47

5.3 BEVERAGE/FOOD CARTON AND ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................. 48

5.4 PERCEPTIONS OF BEVERAGE/FOOD CARTON AND ALTERNATIVE PACKAGING .............................. 49

5.5 RECOMMENDATION FOR TETRA PAK ............................................................................................. 51

5.6 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 53

5.7 FUTURE RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................... 53

6 CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................................55

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................56

APPENDIX ...............................................................................................................................................65

A: LITERATURE REVIEW COMPARISON...................................................................................................... 65

B: CONSUMER SURVEY .............................................................................................................................. 67

C: RETAILERS INTERVIEWS......................................................................................................................... 74
Table of figures

Figure 1: Representation of the Sustainable Development triple bottom line as defined by Elkington
(1998). ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 2: Representation of how sustainability concepts can interact according to literature. Codes of
conduct and CSR can be used by companies to get closer to sustainable development, composed
its three pillars. According to literature this should be done by tackling all impacts caused by the
business in a global scale, with a long-term strategy. National and international guidelines should
be used to measure these impacts and keep the business UpToDate with new demands. ........... 9
Figure 3: The 17 Sustainable Development Goals. ................................................................................ 10
Figure 4: Conceptual Theory ................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 5: Research Framework. ............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 6: Three circle Venn Diagram further clarifying the comparison between the results retrieved
from the three areas of the research. .......................................................................................... 14
Figure 7: Three segments of methodology displayed chronologically. ................................................. 15
Figure 8: GWP Indicator for different juice packaging alternatives (Pasqualino et al., 2011). .............. 19
Figure 9: Global Warming Potential (GWP on the left) and Acidification Potential (AP on the right) of
aseptic carton, HDPE and PET bottles (Meneses et al., 2012) ...................................................... 20
Figure 10: Carbon foot print CO2 (Kg) the for materials, manufacturing and transport phases (Ghenai,
2012). ........................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 11: Layers of Tetra Pak Beverage/Food carton. Source: (Tetra Pak, 2018d) .............................. 22
Figure 12: Comparisons between packaging alternatives and product damage (Personal communication
with Tetra Pak Iberia. .................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 13: Tetra Pak packaging options for ambient temperature and food have the aluminum layer for
extra protection, extending its life-time. Aluminum is not in the composition of chilled packaging
options (Tetra Pak, 2018a)............................................................................................................ 23
Figure 14: Logos shown in the back of the plant-based carton certifying its source. ............................ 23
Figure 15: LCA comparing PET and HDPE to Tetra Rex packaging (Markwardt et al., 2017). ................ 24
Figure 16: Logos of how to correctly dispose of packaging (KIDV, 2018). ............................................. 25
Figure 17: Consumers raking the importance of a companies to be environmentally friendly. ............ 26
Figure 18: Consumers answer regarding the type of packages of frequently bought beverages. The
values refer to the number of respondents. ................................................................................. 27
Figure 19: Consumers answer for question 4: “Which packaging material do you think is more
environmentally friendly?” (on the left). Image used to show consumers the impact of different
packaging options as used in the questionnaire (In the middle). Consumers answer to question 5:
“Viewing these impacts which one would you prefer to buy?” (on the right). ............................. 28
Figure 20: Consumers answers to relevance of price when purchasing a beverage carton. ................. 29
Figure 21: Consumers answer to how they dispose glass, carton, can, plastic and plant-based packaging
with the options of Regular waste, glass bin, plastic PMD bin, Paper bin, return ant the
supermarket and compostable "GFT" bin. .................................................................................... 29
Figure 22: Dutch consumers answers to the level of impact the actions of choosing which
products/package to buy, limiting food waste and recycling has on the environment. ............... 30
Figure 23: Sustainable Development Goals that are being tackled by Ahold Delhaize in their
sustainability strategy (Ahold Delhaize, 2018b). ........................................................................... 32
Figure 24: Aldi's Carbon Footprint in the reference year 2015 (Aldi North Group, 2017). .................... 38
 “In the presentation of products as answers to the demands of modern

culture, busy lives, and youth perceptions, packaging goes beyond being just a

container and becomes a product in its own right (…)”

(Akenji & Bengtsson, 2010, p.33)

 INTRODUCTION

1 INTRODUCTION

With the current and expected increase of population, natural resource depletion and
environmental impacts, it has become clear that business as usual is no longer feasible (Dean,
2013). Climate change has been causing a shift in the market, directly challenging business
strategies to be innovative in order to survive (Laszlo & Zhexembayeva, 2017). Powering this
shift are environmental and social legislations, media pressure, as well as attitudes and value
of consumers (Jones, Clarke‐Hill, Comfort, & Hillier, 2008).

Business innovation is becoming more and more decisive to improve social and
environmental spheres (Bocken et al., 2014). When businesses set sustainability as a goal,
strategy innovation is constant and results in the development of hard to match competencies
(Nidumolu, Prahalad, & Rangaswami, 2009). These become competitive advantages and with
them, companies are more likely to thrive, for they see sustainability as a long-term strategy
and not as mere market “greenwashing” (Laszlo & Zhexembayeva, 2017; Nidumolu et al.,
2009). Market incumbents are not only increasing the pressure towards sustainable
development (Hockerts & Wüstenhagen, 2010), but it is progressively expected from them
that they contribute do so (Kolk & van Tulder, 2010). Multinationals are especially relevant,
since for having a broader market, their actions can lead to a wider-ranging impact (Hockerts
& Wüstenhagen, 2010). Multinationals account for 25% of global gross domestic product,
which shows the importance that they contribute to sustainability (Unctad, 2017). Some
authors go even further, stating that sustainability is not even possible without corporations
and in the lack of defined international environmental standards, large multinational are
defining sustainability rules in their own supply chains, working as global regulators
(Dauvergne & Lister, 2012; Fuchs, Kalfagianni, & Havinga, 2011; Schaltegger, Lüdeke-
Freund, & Hansen, 2012).

1.1 PACKAGING: A PROBLEM AND A CURE

Today, beverage and food packaging, also referred to as primary packaging, are
usually single use and get discarded right away. This coupled with the fact that the variety of
packaged food is continuously increasing, is leaving consumers with fewer alternatives to
avoid waste (Pasqualino, Meneses, & Castells, 2011). On the other hand, packaging has a
significant role on maintaining food quality and safety from environmental, chemical and
physical factors (Risch, 2009).

1
 INTRODUCTION

The issues around waste generation have gained more attention from the community
and governments and are pushing companies to act on the matter (Sonneveld, James,
Fitzpatrick, & Lewis, 2005) and find innovative solutions (Risch, 2009).

1.2 TETRA PAK, ITS RETAILERS AND BEVERAGE/FOOD CARTONS

This report was developed in cooperation with Tetra Pak, a multinational focused on
processing and packaging solutions (Tetra Pak, 2018b). The company dedicates significant
effort to its sustainability strategy focusing on the three pillars of sustainable development
(Tetra Pak, 2017).

Nevertheless, Tetra Pak wanted to further decrease the environmental impact of

beverage packaging and broaden the value creation of sustainability throughout the supply
chain. Knowing that companies aiming to reduce their footprint must consider internal and
external stakeholders (Bocken & Allwood, 2012), Tetra Pak took into consideration the actions
and perception of retailers. Even though all of stakeholders involved matter, in this first step,
the company wanted to focus on the downstream, specifically on its retailers. This is because
Tetra Pak understands the crucial role retailers have on the market. This is attributed to
different factors: retailers intermediate manufacturers and producers with the final consumers;
can dictate which products and packaging will be sold (Jones, Comfort, & Hillier, 2012); and
when if they also have their own brands, as many do, retailers have the power to directly
influence the supply chain (Sharma, Iyer, Mehrotra, & Krishnan, 2010). This influence can,
therefore be used to drive the market and consumers towards a more sustainable choice
(Jones et al., 2012). Organizations that adapt and incorporate sustainability trends as
forecasts for the future, can turn them into long-term strategies. This will be done with arising
urgent matters and will position itself by not only preventing impacts, but by benefiting of new
industries and technologies (Moon, 2007; Willard & Hitchcock, 2009).

Sustainability is however very contextual, varies depending on the location in question

and is also at the mercy of urgency, which changes with time. Even though sustainability is
more and more understood as composed by three pillars: social, economic and environmental
responsibilities, also known as the Triple Bottom Line (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014), the
broadness of the concept, gives space for different interpretations. As a result, companies
give different emphasis to different matters (Barkemeyer, Holt, Preuss, & Tsang, 2011)

Therefore, to get closer to its retailers and improve the sustainability throughout the
supply chain, there was the need to better understand what elements of sustainability are
valued by its retailers as well as their aims for the future. Their perception of the environmental

2
 INTRODUCTION

impacts of different packaging options and of their own importance as market influencers
towards more sustainable options, were also of extreme importance in this report.

1.3 PROBLEM DEFINITION AND KNOWLEDGE GAP

For companies to become more sustainable they must understand what the impacts
of their business are (Epstein & Roy, 2001). Therefore, it is crucial to understand the
importance retailers give today to sustainable development by analyzing their sustainability
strategy, current practices and future aims. For being retailers, packaging, more specifically,
beverage and food packaging should be part of their sustainability strategy. However, retailers’
knowledge on the environmental impacts of packaging options was taken as main gap of this
report. Gaps were also expected regarding how these impacts directly affect various steps of
the supply chain and how they could be improved by sustainability strategy.

1.4 RESEARCH AIM

The aim of this research was to help Tetra Pak retailers improve their sustainability
strategy by reducing their footprint by using the most sustainable and feasible beverage/food
carton. This was done reaffirming their sustainability strategy to its retailers and strengthening
their relationship to continue to move towards a more sustainable development. It is important
to highlight it is not on Tetra Pak’s scope to tell how its retailers should work on their
sustainability strategy. However, by understanding their current practices, it becomes easier
to evaluate in which ways they are willing to improve it and what Tetra Pak could do to help.

1.5 RESEARCH QUESTION AND SUB-QUESTIONS 1, 2 AND 3

RQ: How can Tetra Pak and the use of beverage and food cartons help improve the
sustainability strategy with its retailers throughout the supply chain?

SQ1: What are the sustainability concepts used by Tetra Pak's retailers, how are these
defined and how are they implemented throughout the supply chain?

SQ2: What are the knowledge gaps between the perception of retailers and the actual
environmental impact of beverage/food carton packaging and its alternatives?

1.6 SOCIETAL AND SCIENTIFIC RELEVANCE

This research can help stakeholders and more specifically retailers, to have a better
understanding of how practical concerns, actions and basic supply chain elements are linked

3
 INTRODUCTION

to sustainability. By understanding such, it becomes clearer the areas in which they can
innovate to move towards sustainable development.

This report highlights the importance of broadening the sustainability practices throughout
the supply chain as well as of supplier and retailers working together, taking into consideration
its consumers’ needs and expectations. By focusing on retailers and consumers, this study
sheds light on the downstream of the supply chain, which refers to sales, use and disposal
phases. This case study highlights the necessity of moving together towards sustainable
development and can be used as a practical example to other companies that desire to do the
same in their supply chain.

4
 BACKGROUND

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 PACKAGING
The first evidence of usage of packaging as food containers was in 7000B.C. with
pottery, paper and glass. Since then the composition of glass barely changed apart from some
color additives (Risch, 2009). Since 1880s milk was delivered and collected by the “milkman”
in consumers doors and was sold with the intention of being returned and reused (Vaughan,
Cook, & Trawick, 2007). In fact in some countries the bottles were considered legal propriety
of the bottler, obliging consumers to return it, which meant a reduced cost for consumers since
the bottle was not repassed to them (Busch, 1987). Later, improvements in refrigeration and
transport had a significant impact on the industry, since it amplified the distance between
production and consumption (Vaughan et al., 2007).

In 1935, non-returnable bottles for beer started appearing, but after the World War II
there was a continuous growth of non-returnable beverage bottles. Plastics were discovered
in 1800 but were only used as packaging, as PET, after 1970, patented by Pepsi (Freinkel,
2011). Since then, the use of glass as beverage packaging has been drastically declining
(Vaughan et al., 2007). So much, that 30 years after the end of the war, 62% of packaged soft
drinks and 89% on packaged beer were non-returnable (Busch, 1987). In 2013, packaging
alone corresponded to 32% of total municipal waste in the European Union (Eurostat, 2013).

What before was looked merely as “reduce, reuse, recycle”, now requires a more
holistic approach broadening the attention to the entire life-cycle of the product (Sonneveld et
al., 2005). This broadened focus is supported by Marsh and Bugusu (2007), who state that all
environmental impact studies of food packaging need to consider not only the impacts, but
also the benefits, such as reducing food waste. At least one-third of the food produced globally
is wasted annually, resulting in waste of land, water and energy resources and contributing to
unnecessary CO2 emissions and financial losses (FAO, 2011). Packaging can reduce not only
these impacts, but extend shelf-life (Marsh & Bugusu, 2007) and also increase transport
efficiency (Magnier & Schoormans, 2015), consequently reducing food waste, costs and
environmental impacts.

To combine environmental standards with economical requirements of transport and

distribution, while protecting the product throughout its supply chain are, according to
Sonneveld et al. (2005), characteristics of a sustainable packaging. These are in line with the
European Organization for Packaging and the Environment which elucidates that sustainable
packaging should be designed to keep the product safe during its life cycle, be made from
5
 BACKGROUND

responsibly sourced materials that can be recycled or efficiently recovered after use, optimize
environmental performance, while also meeting market criteria of performance, cost and
consumers expectation (Europen, 2018).

2.2 LEGISLATIONS
The European Parliament and the council of the European union set up in 1994 the
directive on packaging and packaging waste, which shows member states policies that need
to be incorporated. The directive has as aims to prevent and reduce the impact in the
environment while avoiding obstacles of trading between the member states (EC Packaging
Waste Directive, 1994). Some common EU targets are to recycle 75% of packaging waste by
2030 and to reduce landfill to maximum of 10% of municipal waste by 2030 (European
Commission, 2017). Its latest revision was done in 2015. The directive states that reuse and
recycling should be considered as first options regarding recovery of material for reducing the
use of energy and resources. This recycling rate varies accordingly to European countries and
their regulations in order to avoid barriers to trade. It also states that the inclusion of recycled
materials in packaging should go against health, hygiene or consumer safety. The directive
passes the responsibility to those involved in the production, usage and distribution of
packaging and packaged goods according to the polluters-pays principle to take responsibility
for the waste (EC Packaging Waste Directive, 1994).

To comply with the European goals, the Netherlands emitted the Dutch packaging
Decree in 1997 and the Framework Agreement for Packaging. The Decree refers to the
Netherlands Institute for Sustainable Packaging, as supervisor of pilot projects as collection
reuse or recycling of beverage cartons and to develop a methodology to create target for
packaging production (Beatrix, Nederlanden, Aan, & Na, 2014). Dutch targets were bolder
than those found in the European policies, as for recycling for example. However, a study
done by Rouw and Worrell (2011) which evaluates the effectiveness of Dutch policies in
reducing the total packaging volume, shows that the policies stopped being effective from
2000 on. This was due to the fact that packaging consumptions increased at a higher rate.

Since January 2009, the Belgian legislation, as called, Cooperation Agreement in the
prevention and management of packaging waste has determined decrees that should be
followed in the country, including Brussels-Capital Region, the Flemish Region and the
Walloon Region. Some of the specifications are for example, recycling percentages variating

 Kennisinstituut Duurzaam Verpakken in Dutch, is an independent institute founded in 2012 consists of representatives

of national government, packaging industries, scientists, amongst others.

6
 BACKGROUND

on material type (60% by weight of beverage carton, 30% weight of recyclable plastics)
(PEETERS et al., 1999).

The Belgian agreement mentions take policies stipulating that companies that place
more than 300kg of packaging per year on the market is responsible for taking-back the
materials. Sellers should also inform of their packaging prevention plans every 3 years. Both
measures however, exclude retailer (PEETERS et al., 1999).

Europe has the 2030 climate and energy framework in which it is stablished the aim to
reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared to 1990, have a 27% share of
renewable energy and the same percentage in improvements in energy efficiency (European
Commission, 2018). However, those are not directly applicable to corporations. For
corporations, the Environmental Energy Act requires them to implement energy saving
measures with a payback of 5 years or less.

2.3 SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPTS & VALUE CREATION IN THE SUPPLY

CHAIN
“Just doing good is no longer enough”
(Unctad, 2017)

Sustainability is key to achieve a successfully developed society (Baumgartner, 2014).

However, the concepts regarding sustainability must first be clear, so that effective measures
can be taken. According to Willard and Hitchcock, (2009) when there is a clear understanding
of sustainability, it becomes easier to realize how it can bring positive improvements to the
business, and once in the sustainability path, companies usually remain in this path.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been widely used by companies and is
sometimes misplaced as an equivalent to sustainable development (Baumgartner, 2014).
Even though the term has been evolving since the 50’s, environmental responsibility was only
included in the 80’s (Carroll, 2009). Coupled with the misleading name, there is still uncertainty
around its definition, resulting in the misuse of the concept by not including the environmental
practices (Dahlsrud, 2008). However, according to (Moon, 2007), corporate social
responsibility is a way the company can self-regulate in order to contribute to social and
environmental welfare. In other words, CSR refers to how a company can integrate social and
environmental problems in its activities (Baumgartner, 2014).

7
 BACKGROUND

As mentioned, sustainable development is more and more understood as composed

by three pillars: social, economic and environmental responsibilities, also known as the Triple
Bottom Line (figure 1), as created by Elkington (1998). Sustainable development focuses on
the global impacts of actions done locally by the
business (Moon, 2007). In this concept, ecology and
economy merge into a win-win situation, reducing
costs by increasing the efficiency in the use of
energy and materials while keeping ethics and equity
as a focus point, to ensure the needs of present and
future generations are met (Baumgartner, 2014).
According to Bansal and DesJardine (2014),
sustainable development may require trade-offs
such as smaller investments for short-term profits
Figure 1: Representation of the Sustainable
and higher for long-term. Corporate Social Development triple bottom line as defined by
Elkington (1998).
Responsibility (CSR) on the other hand, does not
require this trade-off with time and usually produces actions that are good for society and the
firm. By including time, the company recognizes that the future is neither always predictable
nor controllable, which is acceptable when the business is resilient (Bansal & DesJardine,
2014). According to Moon (2007) companies have as main drivers to incorporate sustainability
practices: market (consumers, suppliers, etc), society (NGO, media and general society
expectations), government (policies and legislations) and globalization. A representation of
the relation between the different sustainability concepts can be found in figure 2.

Economic globalization has made corporations compete for the cheapest

manufacturing and services, which is linked to the rise of retailing and brand power in the
world economy. This results in considerable control from these brands over the global supply
chain (Dauvergne & Lister, 2012). Since goods are being sourced all over the world,
consumers, governments, and the own brands have been concerned about quality, safety and
traceability of possible negative impacts in the supply chain (Trienekens & Zuurbier, 2008).
The use of standards facilitates the verification and compliance of suppliers around the globe
(Chkanikova & Mont, 2015), increases the transparency to the end-use consumer while also
legitimatizing the power of retailers to require sustainability actions from suppliers (Chkanikova
& Mont, 2015). Nowadays, there is a range of standards in the food industry differentiating
products in a moral and health perspective. Some examples are UTZ Certified and Roundtable
on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) frequently used standards by producers. According to
Kalfagianni and Fuchs (2012) standards are effective depending different factors including:
how well defined and measurable it is, if it is audited by a 3rd party, to what extend is the
8
 BACKGROUND

standard adopted and complied by producers and bought by consumers, and how well is it
actually positively impacting the issue.

When a private standard is created, various aspects of food quality can be included,
making it unnecessary to comply with a variety of different standards. On the positive side,
this cuts costs, reducing therefore, the price of products on the shelves (Fuchs & Kalfagianni,
2010). It also helps transfer the demands of consumers and retailers upstream of the chain
and improve supplier standards (Trienekens & Zuurbier, 2008). On a negative side, since the
reporting is voluntary, companies that act unsustainably, can leave this information out of the
report or only report it partially (Fuchs, Kalfagianni, Clapp, & Busch, 2011). This can result in
an inconclusive efficacy and stringency of private standards (Fuchs & Kalfagianni, 2010).

Some companies adopted Codes of Conduct, which work as guidelines for retailers to
deal with suppliers, government authorities, and stakeholders. It can be seen as an instrument
used by companies that want to improve their CSR approach (Erwin, 2011). However, as
some private standards, Codes of Conduct are not necessarily “certifiable” (Fuchs,
Kalfagianni, Clapp, et al., 2011). To analyze its effectiveness, the quality of the codes’ content,
its implementation and its performance, should be analyzed (Erwin, 2011).

Figure 2: Representation of how sustainability concepts can interact according to literature. Codes of conduct
and CSR can be used by companies to get closer to sustainable development, composed its three pillars.
According to literature this should be done by tackling all impacts caused by the business in a global scale,
with a long-term strategy. National and international guidelines should be used to measure these impacts
and keep the business UpToDate with new demands.

9
 BACKGROUND

There are different methods and guidelines that companies can use to incorporate and
report about their sustainability strategy. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) for example, is
a set of international guidelines on environmental, social and economic performance for
companies to standardize their corporate social responsibility efforts. The International
Organization for Standardisation (ISO) develops international standards that can be used by
companies. GRI and other guidelines use ISO as metrics. By following these guidelines, firms
can be certified (Morhardt, Baird, & Freeman, 2002). Some authors however, defend that there
is a necessity to better translate international standards and guidelines into local sustainability
practices, which can be done by including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
(Unctad, 2017).

In 2015, the UN released the Sustainable Development Goals which is composed by

17 goals (Figure 3) and 169 targets and indicators with qualitative and qualitative objectives
that tackle the social, economic and environmental spheres of sustainable development to be
achieved until 2030. Even though these goals are not legally binding, governments are
expected to develop frameworks to achieve these goals (Unctad, 2017; United Nations,
2018b).

Figure 3: The 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

The SDGs can be used by companies to improve their CSR practices (Unctad, 2017).
The authors defend that the SDGs provide measurable targets for all stakeholders and
increase partnership in the supply chain since they can identify common interests to tackle
issues beyond one companies’ border. Furthermore, using the SDGs would help companies
have a broader focus and a cleared pathway to sustainability (Unctad, 2017). For example,
Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production has as an aim to reduce waste generation
10
 BACKGROUND

by prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse until 2030. It also highlights the necessity of
actors in the supply chain cooperating to engage consumers and increase awareness and
education regarding sustainable development (United Nations, 2018a).

Nevertheless, it is crucial to realize that regardless of the concepts, framework or

methodology used, actions are only incorporated if/when those in charge of decision-making
are convinced of the value creation that will come with them (Manda et al., 2016). Value
creation happens when a company recognizes opportunities in a new business, market or
revenue stream (Bocken et al., 2014), which can result in cost and risk reduction, as well as
product differentiation (Manda et al., 2016). Some studies show that there are three
advantages common in many case studies of companies that adopted the triple bottom line
model: economic and market share growth, higher employee retention as well as community
support (Schulz & Flanigan, 2016).

Value creation can go even further when broadening its application to the entire supply
chain. Sustainability is progressively linked to the supply chain management domain,
especially when associated with environmental issues (Thöni & Tjoa, 2017). Sharma et al.,
(2010) highlight that environmentally responsible companies need to address not only
consumers but also the supply chain, which should present a great inter-functional
coordination. By managing the supply chain, companies improve the relationships between
those involved, that will result in sustainable competitive advantage (Seuring & Müller, 2008;
Sharma et al., 2010). These advantages can come not only as cost savings but also as
economic sustainability and reputation enhancement, amongst others (Carter & Rogers,
2008). Vachon and Mao (2008) show practical cases in which a strong supply chain can walk
hand-in-hand with economic growth and sustainability, by considering environmental and
social performances and practices. This was observed with Nestlé, who was able to further
strengthen the supply chain while improving its environmental performances, and with Nike,
who realized that strengthening the relationship with their partners would result in better-
monitored processes (Vachon & Mao, 2008).

Therefore, as depicted in figure 4, to help the sustainability strategy of retailers, it was

first necessary to understand which sustainability concept(s) they make use of and what
practices are currently taken by the company, if they are sufficient when it comes to
sustainability effort, and then evaluate how this could be improved, complemented by theory.

 There are different frameworks and methods a company can use to incorporate and improve sustainability in its
business model and in its supply chain. Even though this is not in the scope of this report, it is relevant to point for further
reference concepts like explained by Bocken et al. (2014) on how a company can explore opportunities for innovations inside
its business, or how a company can aim for a sustainable business model as explained by (Joyce & Paquin, 2016).
11
 BACKGROUND

Regarding beverage/food packaging it was necessary to evaluate if their perception on the

environmental impacts of packaging is in accordance with literature and how these are being
addressed within their sustainability strategy. It was also important to verify if the perception
of these impacts by packaging company, as Tetra Pak, is according to literature to avoid
misinformation of retailers.

Figure 4: Conceptual Theory

If both changes are implemented by companies, they would result in a more complete
set of sustainability criteria and indicators to be used that reduce their impacts throughout the
supply chain, including their beverage and food packaging impacts. Turning these into action
and applying them throughout the entire supply would result in a more sustainable supply
chain and consequently generate value creation.

12
 METHODS

3 METHODS

Due to time restraints and aiming to give Tetra Pak clear and objective actions from
the expected results, the report will devote more focus on the environmental pillar of
sustainability. The research is divided into four research segments which are: literature, Tetra
Pak, retailers, producers and consumers. In this report, “producers” is referring to brand
owners that use Tetra Pak’s beverage/food carton or other packaging alternatives to pack
products. Retailers sell products from different producers, but also from their own brand.
However, most retailers do not fabricate their own products. For this, they do business with
producers to fabricate a product under the retailer’s name. A schematic view of the
methodology can be found in Figure 5. The comparison and relation between the different
segments are depicted as a Venn Diagram in Figure 6.

Figure 5: Research Framework.

Consumers and producers were considered in the methodology because Tetra Pak
wanted to have a better view of their perspective before interviewing the retailers. This was
due to the fact that retailers frequently base their choices relying on producers and especially
on consumer’s preferences. By doing a survey with consumers and the interview with
producers, it was possible to analyze differences between their views and retailers’ own
perceptions.

13
 METHODS

After comparing and analyzing the results retrieved from the four research segments,
it was possible to answer all sub-questions. Understanding the differences in sustainability
concepts, the knowledge gaps regarding beverage/food carton impacts and what are the
barriers to change to carton packaging, it then became possible to answer the research
questions and make recommendations for Tetra Pak and its retailers. These will be further
explained in the Results and Discussion sections.

Figure 6: Three circle Venn Diagram further clarifying the comparison between the results retrieved from the three
areas of the research.

Figure 6 is depicted as a Venn diagram so that the different interaction between

research areas becomes clearer. The ideal situation is when Tetra Pak and retailers’
sustainability practices are aligned between them and in agreement with the theory (literature
review). This is also the case for the knowledge of the impacts of beverage and food carton
packaging that should be known by both and be in accordance with literature. Outside the
ideal situation there are three intersections in which two actors are in harmony, but there is
still a third one to consider. Stakeholders, as consumers and producers, are not represented
here since the main focus of this report is on retailers’ practices and perspectives.

14
 METHODS

Figure 7: Three segments of methodology displayed chronologically.

Figure 7 is a chronological representation of the methodology. It was planned as such

to more effectively gather information from each step.

3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENTS

Studies on environmental impacts of beverage/food packaging, such as life cycle
assessments, were reviewed. Since Tetra Pak is the case study of this report and its main
products are beverage and food carton packaging, the studies reviewed must compare the
impact of beverage/food cartons to other types of packaging, such as plastic, glass and can.
This step made it possible to evaluate what has been concluded so far on scientific researches
concerning the environmental impacts of beverage packaging and which are the most
frequently used impacts categories. These categories are impacted differently depending on
the packaging material, showing the hotspots of each type. These hotspots were later
analyzed and compared to preconceptions and views of retailers and consumers, revealing
knowledge gaps on the matter.

The composition of the beverage and food cartons of the impact studies reviewed must
be the same of those produced by Tetra Pak. This way, the studies’ results can be used by
Tetra Pak to better communicate with its retailers and consumers about the impacts of different
packaging options.

3.2 TETRA PAK

The research on Tetra Pak was based on three sources: Internal documents, publicly
available information and eventually interviews with staff in case additional information was
necessary. These sources are essential to have a better understanding of the company, the
processes around the entire product supply chain, their sustainability strategy and their current
relationship with the retailers.

The different types of food/beverage cartons that are currently being produced,
developments of new compositions that may be used in the future and its general suitability
for different market segments were also retrieved. Understanding more about the products
15
 METHODS

and future aims can reflect the sustainability path the company aims to achieve. Their view
and focal points on sustainability, as well as the way they perceive the demands and
expectation of the retailers, gave better background information to understand some of what
is backing their current sustainability strategy.

3.3 CONSUMERS
In order to better prepare for the retailers’ interviews, and have a more holistic view of
the participating factors of packaging consumption, a consumer survey was inserted in the
methodology, also because it could give a perspective on consumers opinions that may be
different from those experienced by retailers and Tetra Pak. The survey was constructed
expecting to better understand consumers’ perceptions on beverage packaging and its impact.
The questions aimed at what is expected from an environmentally friendly company, what are
consumer actions, and perceptions regarding consumption and disposal of packaging, what
are their concerns regarding environmental impacts caused by packaging and which changes
they would like to be made in purchasing and disposal options. The complete questionnaire
can be found in Appendix B1.

The survey was conducted with 400 consumers from The Netherlands and Belgium,
from the Flemish region, since Tetra Pak desires to focus on these specific areas. To ensure
comprehension by the respondents, the questionnaire was launched in Dutch, their mother
tongue. In Appendix B1, the questions are in English to be comprehensive to non-Dutch
speakers and follow the use of English of this report. The survey platform used was Toluna
QuickSurvey. This tool made it possible to determine which group of people are desired to
answer the questionnaire, which in this case was a range of 18 years old and higher being
these male or female. The questions could be set up as multiple choice, ranking options and
order of importance, which was used depending on the question, these are specified after
each question. During the formulation of the questions, it was also taken into consideration
the answers from a consumer survey done by Tetra Pak in 2017.

3.4 PRODUCERS
During the PLMA event in Amsterdam in May of 2018, it was possible to retrieve
insights from producers regarding their influence of the stakeholders in the supply chain, as
well as their perceptions on Tetra Pak and beverage cartons. It is important to notice that the

 PLMA is an acronym for Private Label Manufacturers Association, a non-profit organization that represents over 4.000

members around the world. The event in Amsterdam was attended by almost 3.000 companies aiming to bring retailers and
manufactures together. Source: PLMA (2018)
16
 METHODS

producers interviewed were not exclusively Tetra Pak clients. The interviews were very
informal and to maintain the anonymity of the interviewees, their names will not be mentioned.
Since recording was not suitable for the situation, notes were taken of the interviewees’
opinions. The results retrieved from this section were useful to have a basal perception of
producers’ opinions. Instead, a summary of the insights retrieved is presented in the results
section of this report.

3.5 RETAILERS
This possible dissonance between theory and practice of sustainability shows how they
perceive the environmental impacts of packaging options and if they realize how sustainability
is actually linked to different topics of supply chain, such as transport and shelf-life. The efforts
were also expected to vary depending on the sustainability concept the company makes use
of, which shows how they see sustainability and the relevance they give to it. The literature
was reviewed depending on which concepts were used by retailers. This helped to clarify the
differences between theory and what was stated by retailers online and on the interviews.

The fact that sustainability terms are being used, does not mean that the companies
fully grasp the concept, let alone apply it in its full magnitude. It was then imperative to analyze
which concept were being used by the company, to then verify if they were congruent with the
practices and indicators used to address the impacts caused by the business. This was done
in two ways:

 Internal Policies
By analyzing if they used internal policies to control the primary packaging use, which
could be a proactive measure or mirrored in national legislations.

 Measurement of the most relevant impact categories of the LCAs

Understanding that a life cycle assessment, determines the impacts caused by a product
composition and by the processes throughout its life cycle in time and space, including
material extraction, production, use and disposal (Finnveden et al., 2009), another way to
evaluate their practices was to translate the impacts, as shown in life cycle assessment
studies, into indicators of the company, for example CO2 emissions, energy use, etc..

The research with Tetra Pak retailers, from the Netherlands and Belgium, was
composed by two steps: online research and semi-structured interviews, which are explained
below. The retailers aimed to be studied in this report are Ahold Delhaize, Albert Heijn, Jumbo,
Colruyt, Carrefour, Ekoplaza, Superunie, Lidl and Aldi.

17
 METHODS

3.5.1 ONLINE RESEARCH

Firstly, online research on their own websites and available documents was carried
out. This preliminary research was extremely useful so that the interviews could be better
directed to their current sustainability practices and aims for the future, such as carbon
emission reduction, energy use or plastic/ packaging policies.

3.5.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

The interviews were conducted as semi-structured because these allow a set of pre-
defined questions to focus on the topics that should be covered while also allowing flexibility
for the conversations to vary according to the interviewees’ opinions (Fylan, 2005).

The interviews were constructed with common questions, so that is would be possible
to compare all retailers’ answers. Extra few personalized questions for each retailer were
asked depending on specific doubts on current actions or on information that could not be
found online. The interviews were conducted by phone, due to the availability of the
interviewees. The analysis of the interviews was done by manually verifying the similarities
between what was until then found in available literature and by collecting additional
information on topics that still required clarifying. The results of the interviews and of the online
research are discoursed together in the result section to give a broader perspective of the
actions and practices of each retailer. The interview’s questions can be found in Appendix C1.

The Interview with retailers made it possible not only to have a deeper comprehension
on their current sustainability practices and goals for the future, if/what they want to improve,
but also on their expectations of Tetra Pak, their views on beverage/food packaging impacts
and on their roles as retailers and change-makers.

18
 RESULTS

4 RESULTS

4.1 LITERATURE REVIEW OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENTS

Four articles and a meta-analysis of 22 LCA were reviewed. All articles are very
consistent regarding the results of environmental impacts of beverages and food packaging
options excluding minor exceptions. All articles consider as part of the life cycle the beverage
production, transport, packaging production, waste collections and packaging disposal, this
considering incineration, landfill and recycling. The impact categories presented differed from
article to article, however, the most recurrent impact categories were: global warming
potential, which measures the greenhouse gas emission (expressed in CO 2 equivalent), was
present in all of them; cumulative energy demand (expressed in MJ), which indicates the
amount of energy accumulated throughout the life-cycle, and acidification potential, which
evaluates the release of gases such as SO2, NOx, NH3 that produce sulfuric or nitric acid which
acidifies soil and water being also responsible for the acid rain. A table comparing the articles
considered can be found in Appendix A.

The article containing the meta-analysis done by Von Falkenstein, Wellenreuther and
Detzel (2010) global warming potential, was considered in all 22 articles. The lowest impact
was attributed to beverage carton in all cases with exception to one article that also took multi-
use glass bottles into consideration. Cumulative energy demand was addressed in 19 of the
22 articles, of which 18, pointed beverage carton as the lowest impact option. Again, the one
article that showed a different result, compared beverage carton to multi-use glass bottle. The
result for acidification potential was the same, pointing carton as the lowest emission option,
with one exception, which attributed a
smaller impact for PET due to assuming
higher recycling rate. Beverage/food carton
showed the lowest impacts also in summer
smog and eutrophication potential.
However, Von Falkenstein et al. (2010)
highlighted that for Land Use, beverage
carton is always associated with a larger
impact compared to alternatives, due to the Figure 8: GWP Indicator for different juice packaging
alternatives (Pasqualino et al., 2011).
use of paper from wood fiber and that

 The results of water use are only showed in three articles and has a mixed result for beverage carton.
19
 RESULTS

human toxicity was studied in only 3 cases and resulted in an unclear conclusion since the
results varies depending on the indicator used.

Pasqualino et al., (2011) analyzed the life cycle of juice, including landfill, incineration,
and recycling of different packaging options and sizes. The packages considered were carton,
glass and HDPE. Figure 8 depicts the results on global warming potential. Energy use was
analyzed and showed that glass has the highest impacts and carton the lowest. Regarding
the disposal option, recycling was pointed as the least impactful option, followed by landfill
and incineration. Another conclusion was that the larger the package, the lower the emission,
pointing 1L package as the best alternative.

Meneses, Pasqualino and Castells (2012) evaluated the Global warming Potential and
Acidification Potential of different sizes of aseptic carton, HDPE and PET bottles (Figure 9).
The authors concluded that carton had the lowest impact for both indicators and recycling was
again pointed as the disposal option with the lowest impact compared to landfill and
incineration.

Figure 9: Global Warming Potential (GWP on the left) and Acidification Potential (AP on the right) of aseptic carton,
HDPE and PET bottles (Meneses et al., 2012)

Bertolini, Bottani, Vignali and Volpi (2013), considered more impact categories, which are:
cumulated energy demand, global warming potential, photochemical ozone creation potential,
stratospheric ozone depletion potential, human toxicity potential, acidification potential and
eutrophication potential. For all impact categories, beverage carton showed the lowest
environmental impact (on average 30% lower than HDPE and PET) except for human toxicity.

Many of the articles mentioned point to the fact that the material production phase is the
most energy and emission intensive. Ghenai (2012), separates this footprint by material
production, manufacturing, and transport phases as shown in Figure 10. The author highlights

 This article states that the packaging studied makes use of PVC labels. If this is no longer the case, the outcome for the

impacts on human toxicity would be the lowest for beverage/food carton.

20
 RESULTS

the fact that aluminum can and glass have

the highest emissions during all phases,
however, they can be reused. If so, 94% and
64% of the energy used to produce cans
and glass respectively is recovered, stating
Figure 10: Carbon foot print CO2 (Kg) the for materials,
that reuse is the best end of life option to
manufacturing and transport phases (Ghenai, 2012).
reduce CO2 emissions and recover energy.

Cleary (2013) evaluates the environmental impact of changing from conventional

single-use glass bottles to alternatives such as aseptic carton, lightweight glass and PET
bottles. The results show that refillable glass and aseptic carton have the lowest impacts,
being able to reduce up to 87% of the endpoint impact compared to single-use glass bottles.
It is important to note that transport is responsible for a large part of the life cycle impact, so
these need to be studies for each case in order to see if single-use bottle would still have low
impact.

4.2 TETRA PAK

“A packaged should save more than it costs”

Ruben Rausing

Focusing on grocery distribution specifically on milk, in 1943 Ruben Rausing started

developing a milk packaging that required a minimum of material. In 1944, the tetrahedral
shape that gave Tetra Pak its name was born, providing savings in transportation and storage
(Tetra Pak, 2002).

The idea of continuous filling came from Ruben’s wife after he shared with her the
difficulty of obtaining the correct amount in each package, since milk foams during filling. This
continuous filling made it possible for packages to be filled completely while also removing
oxygen, which prevents milk spoiling (Tetra Pak, 2002).

4.2.1 THE ASEPTIC CARTON

In 1961, Tetra Pak developed the aseptic sterilization technology for bacteria-free milk
with heated hydrogen peroxide, which is later eliminated using pressure rollers or hot air. This
technology together with the UHT (Ultra High Temperature) pasteurization process that heats
21
 RESULTS

up the milk up above 135 Celsius, makes it possible to store the product up to 6 months without
refrigeration and conservatives (Tetra Pak, 2018a). These aseptic packages prolong shelf-
life, and by extending self-life, food waste is reduced, and resources are saved (Van Sluisveld
& Worrell, 2013).

4.2.2 THE COMPOSITION OF BEVERAGE/FOOD CARTON

The beverage/food carton package is composed of six layers as shown in Figure 11.
Around 75% of the entire packaging is paper
alone, which gives rigidity to the package. The
plastic layers isolate and protect the product from
oxygen and external agents while protecting the
paperboard from external and internal humidity.
The packages can be of two different
compositions, with or without aluminum foil,
depending on the product. The aluminum
provides an extra layer of protection against
Figure 11: Layers of Tetra Pak Beverage/Food
carton. Source: (Tetra Pak, 2018d) oxygen and light, necessary for products that
degrade with luminosity. Figure 12 exemplifies how carton packaging can further reduce food
waste by protecting the product against oxidation by having no air inside the package,
protecting it against oxygen penetration and serving as a light barrier compared to alternative
packages.

Figure 12: Comparisons between packaging alternatives and product damage (Personal communication with Tetra
Pak Iberia.

22
 RESULTS

Today, Tetra Pak packaging is used for milk, water, juices, wine, sauce, amongst others.
The packaging and compositions are depicted in Figure 13. Furthermore, Tetra Pak’s market
researches show that when compared to can, these packages can save from 30% to 40% of
shelve space at stores and more than 18% packs per pallet saving on transport space.

Figure 13: Tetra Pak packaging options for ambient temperature and food have the aluminum layer for extra
protection, extending its life-time. Aluminum is not in the composition of chilled packaging options (Tetra Pak,
2018a).

4.2.3 PLANT-BASED BEVERAGE/FOOD CARTON

Plastics from fossil fuels release CO2 that is outside of the natural carbon cycle loop, for
being buried for millions of years. Plant-based plastic, on the other hand, is inside of this loop
(Freinkel, 2011) for being made of renewable resources such as plant and wood biomass
(Iwata, 2015). Due to this factor, the demand for plant-based products is expected to grow in
the near future (Manda et al., 2016).

In 2007, Tetra Pak released their plant-based package completely derived from plants.
The paperboard is from FSC-certified sources and the plastic is produced with Brazilian
sugarcane, including the cap. The package has no visual
difference from fossil-fuels derived packages, with exception
from the logos in the back (Figure 14). These certifications
Figure 14: Logos shown in the
used for the bio-based packaging state that the sugar cane is
back of the plant-based carton
certifying its source.

 In this report, packaging made with bio-plastics is referred to as bio-based and plant-based. In the consumer

questionnaire the word plant-based was used to avoid consumers confusing it with bio-degradable.
23
 RESULTS

planted in mainly degraded pasture lands and does not compete with food production. Bio-
based plastic produced from sugarcane have the same configuration as polyethylene (PE),
which is not biodegradable, but can be recycled, as fossil fuel based PE would be (Tokiwa,
Calabia, Ugwu, & Aiba, 2009; Tsiropoulos et al., 2015).

4.2.4 BIO-DEGRADABLE PACKAGING

According to Freinkel (2011) there has to be caution when talking about biodegradable
plastics. Plastic is considered biodegradable when polymer molecules are completely
consumed by microorganisms that turn them back into carbon dioxide, methane, etc..
However, if it is not completely digested, it should not be considered biodegradable. That is
the case with a lot of biodegradable plastics that are only partially consumed, while the rest
will break into smaller pieces and pollute soil, water and oceans (Freinkel, 2011). According
to Kuciel, Kuźniar and Nykiel (2018) composting biodegradable plastic is not easy outside of
the laboratory. There must be special conditions such as waste sorting infrastructure,
consumer knowledge and legislations, and if mixed with normal plastic waste it can have
negatives effects on the recycled final product.

4.2.5 STUDIES ON PACKAGING IMPACTS RETRIEVED WITH TETRA PAK

Tetra Pak has LCA’s performed by third party institutes comparing the environmental
impact of different Tetra Pak packaging and alternative packaging as glass, HDPE and PET.
The results vary depending on the packaging type and size. Overall, beverage carton has a
lower impact compared to
alternatives.

A study performed by Markwardt,

Wellenreuther, Drescher, Harth, and
Busch Heidelberg (2017) shows that
beverage carton has a lower impact
for all impact categories except for
aquatic eutrophication compared to
PET and ozone depletion compared
Figure 15: LCA comparing PET and HDPE to Tetra Rex packaging
to HDPE as shown in Figure 15. (Markwardt et al., 2017).

24
 RESULTS

4.2.6 LIMITATIONS OF USAGE OF BEVERAGE/FOOD CARTON

The carton package currently has some limitations regarding which products it can pack.
Carbonated drinks cannot be packed with carton packaging since they cannot stand the
pressure and could break. Drinks with fruit pieces or particles bigger than 1mm also cannot
be packed in beverage carton since when the carton is sealed below beverage level, the
particles can get caught between the strips and cause leakages.

4.2.7 DISPOSING

In the Netherlands, beverage and food cartons can be disposed of in the PMD (plastic,
metal, and drinking carton) container or in the plastic bin. More information on regarding
different municipalities and can be found in Hedra (2018) also on how to unfold the carton
before disposing. Belgium has one recycling system throughout the country which is the PMD
(plastic, metal and drinking carton) bin. More information can be found at Fost Plus (2018b).
Bio-based beverage cartons should also be disposed of as the regular beverage carton
according to the country collection system for having the same molecular structure as other
polyethylene plastic (Tokiwa et al., 2009; Tsiropoulos et al., 2015).

The logo displayed in Figure 16 is displayed in most Tetra Pak

products in the Netherlands and Belgium, showing consumers how
to correctly dispose Tetra Pak packaging. However, since the
Figure 16: Logos of how to
brand-owner decides the design and the information contained on
correctly dispose of
the package, it is their decision whether include or not. packaging (KIDV, 2018).

It is important to note that the correct way to dispose beverage and food carton can varies
depending on the referenced country or even municipality. In some countries for example.
Beverage carton should be disposed of in the paper bin. This should be made clear for
consumers to avoid confusion.

4.2.8 RECYCLING PROCESS

Beverage and food carton are recycled by putting them into a pulper that damages the
packages and is then filled with water. The hydra pulping process drenches the fibers
separating them from the other materials, aluminum and plastic. The fiber is then turned into
pulp sheets that can be used to produce different types of paper, as envelopes and tissue

25
 RESULTS

paper, and the plastic and aluminum is recovered and fully recycled into various items such
as boards or roof sheets. More information can be found at Tetra Pak (2018c).

4.2.9 TETRA PAKs SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY

Tetra Pak has a section on their website dedicated to sustainability. Their sustainability
strategy has as base their brand promise: “Protect what’s good” which is divided into
Protecting People, Food and Future. The sustainable development goals that are tackled in
each of these three segments are specified in their sustainability report (Tetra Pak, 2017).

The company is currently investing in renewable energy and aims to source 100% of
its electricity from renewable sources until 2030. The company also aims to cap their carbon
impact as 2010 levels by 2020. They also want to reduce the operational greenhouse gas
emissions by 42% compared to 2010 by 2030. Furthermore, Tetra Pak is actively engaging
with stakeholders to develop solutions and create shared value. They have been working
together with their stakeholders to minimize the impact from sourcing to disposal of the
packages (Tetra Pak, 2017).

Aiming to tackle a sustainability issue of resource use, Tetra Pak started using in 2007,
FSC labeled paper to produce the cartons. FSC or Forestry Stewardship Council is a standard
that ensures that the production does not come from illegal harvesting. Today 100% of carton
is produced with certified paper by FSC and other standards (Tetra Pak, 2017).

4.3 CONSUMERS
The consumer survey was answered by 403 Dutch and 411 Belgium people in less than
a week. The complete results can be found in Appendix B2. Nevertheless, the most interesting
results were the following:

“1. How important is for you

that a food company acts
environmentally friendly?"

In this question, consumers

rated the relevance of a company
being environmentally friendly
variating from not important at all to
very important. 53% of Dutch
consumers answered that is was Figure 17: Consumers raking the importance of a companies to be
environmentally friendly.
important and so did 46% of Belgians
26
 RESULTS

as shown in Figure 17. These results show that consumers expect companies to be
environmentally conscious about their impacts.

“2. What are packages of the beverages you frequently buy?”

In this case, the graph is showing the answers by number of respondents, since in this
case, they only had to tick the
product if they frequently buy it. The
beverages that could be chosen
were milk, juice, and water since
these are the most common
beverages sold by Tetra Pak.

The results show that the

most frequently bought packaging
is carton followed by plastic.
However, when it comes to the
product, juice and milk are mostly
packed in carton, while water if Figure 18: Consumers answer regarding the type of packages of
frequently bought beverages. The values refer to the number of
mostly bought in plastic. respondents.

Question 4 and 5 were the most important questions in the survey since the aim with
these questions was to see if their opinion would change once they were correctly informed
about the impacts of different packaging types. Question 4 was:

“4. Which packaging material do you think is more environmentally friendly?”.

After consumers answered question 4, they would see a graph showing an LCA
assessment* with the CO2 emissions of plastic, carton, and glass. The following question was
“5. Viewing these impacts which one would you prefer to buy?”.

Figure 19 depicts the difference in answers before and after the impacts were
observed. It is important to note that for question 4, consumers could choose between 5
packaging options (glass, carton, can, plastic and plant-based) and in question 5 there were
only 3 options (glass, carton, and plastic) since those are the options shown at the image from
the LCA. This was done like so because there was an aim to see their perception of plant-

* The image was retrieved and altered so that only the LCA results for plastic (HPDE 1L), carton (aseptic carton 1L) and
glass (white glass 1L) would be shown to consumer to avoid graph’s misinterpretation. The original graph from the LCA is as
displayed on figure 8 or can be found at: Pasqualino et al., (2011) as “fig1. GWP indicator for different juice packaging
alternatives”.
27
 RESULTS

based packaging compared to alternatives and on question 5 the aim was to retrieve their
perception regarding only the 3 main packages used for beverages.

Figure 19: Consumers answer for question 4: “Which packaging material do you think is more environmentally
friendly?” (on the left). Image used to show consumers the impact of different packaging options as used in the
questionnaire (In the middle). Consumers answer to question 5: “Viewing these impacts which one would you
prefer to buy?” (on the right).

Even though this results in a not very fair comparison between both results, it still
becomes clear the increase in the preference for carton compared to plastic and especially
glass which was first pointed by them as the most environmentally friendly option. This is in
accordingly with the findings of Rokka and Uusitalo (2008), who state that 34% of consumers
prefer the most environmentally friendly packaging option. Their research aim was to analyze
to which extent consumer preference for environmentally friendly packaging would prevail
over other products characteristics such as price, brand, and reseal-ability.

The aim with question 6 was to evaluate the relevance of price when purchasing
beverage carton. It was asked: “Would you buy beverage carton if it was:” and consumers
could choose between “Yes, if it is the same price”, “Yes, even if it is slightly more expansive”,
“Yes, only if it is cheaper” or “No, I do not prefer beverage carton”. The results as displayed
in Figure 20 show that the majority of consumers, around 60% in both countries would buy
carton if the price was the same and 20% and 30% (Belgium and the Netherlands respectively)
would buy even if it was more expensive. This answer was later reinforced by question 14 in
which around 50% of respondents said that price was one of the main barriers from taking

28
 RESULTS

more environmentally friendly actions

followed by “Limited options in the regular
supermarket to buy products in other
packaging” and “Limited options in the regular
supermarkets to collect packaging”.

Another question that provided

interesting results was number 7: “How do
you dispose of your waste?” depicted in
Figure 21. The consumers had to choose how
Figure 20: Consumers answers to relevance of price
to dispose of different packaging materials when purchasing a beverage carton.
(glass, carton, can, plastic and plant-based) in different disposal options (regular waste, glass
bin, PMD, paper bin, return at the supermarket or compostable bin).

The great majority of glass is disposed of by respondents in the glass container, however,
even though the option plastic container had the PMD acronym which stands for plastic, metal,
and carton, carton is still frequently disposed of in the paper container. Another interesting
outcome was that plant-based packaging is disposed of in the compostable container (GFT -
Groente, fruit en tuinafval or vegetables, fruits and garden waste in English) or paper
container, showing that consumers probably think that plant-based packaging is fully
compostable.

Figure 21: Consumers answer to how they dispose glass, carton, can, plastic and plant-based packaging with the
options of Regular waste, glass bin, plastic PMD bin, Paper bin, return ant the supermarket and compostable "GFT"
bin.

 Plastic, metal and drankkarton in Dutch.

29
 RESULTS

After retrieving the results from this question (Figure 21), it was noticed that it could have
been phrased differently since it might have caused misinterpretations from consumers. This
is attributed to the fact that the word used was carton, instead of beverage carton even though
the name of the survey was Environmental impacts of drinking packaging.

On question 10 “Which of the below actions have more positive impacts on the
environment?” revealed the consumer perception regarding different actions.

The respondents affirm that between the three

options: Choosing which product/packaging to buy,
limiting food waste at home and recycling, the least
important action was choosing the
product/packaging and recycling and limiting food
waste had close results as having the most
beneficial impact in the environment. The result
from Dutch consumers is displayed on figure 22, Figure 22: Dutch consumers answers to the level
however, the result for Belgium had similar results of impact the actions of choosing which
products/package to buy, limiting food waste
and can be found in Appendix B2. and recycling has on the environment.

4.4 PRODUCERS
During the PLMA event it was possible to retrieve some views of producers. The
interviewees were in different positions in the company; including sales, export, administrative
manager, etc). In total, 18 producers gave their point of views on beverage/food carton
packaging.

From these 18 producers, 10 see beverage/food carton packaging as the most

sustainable and have a good image of the product. However, 2 had a negative perception
saying it was worse than plastic due to having different layers or for probably being more
difficult to recycle. The other 6 producers were not sure about which was the most
environmentally friendly option.

 Carton is cheaper

One-third of the producers interviewed pointed out that carton is cheaper, and many
highlighted the fact that this was also due to the no refund value, which is different for plastic
and glass.

30
 RESULTS

 Carton packaging is chosen for kids because of the straw


Three producers emphasized the choice of carton packaging for products addressed
to children because straws make it easier for them.

 Consumers prefer alternative packaging over carton


Three producers stated that consumers prefer plastic or glass. One of these
highlighted that retailers know that carton is the best option, but at the end, it depends on
consumer preference. Therefore, Tetra Pak should work on educating consumers to change
their view.

 Who is the change-maker?


It was stated by most producers that they usually do according to what the retailers
want, since they are the ones selling the products. However, one producer highlighted that
once a brand changed to a plant-based packaging, which is an innovative measure, a retailer
was interested and asked to also have this packaging option, showing that in this case, the
producer was the change-maker.

 Plastic in carton packaging can be detrimental for Tetra Pak


Contrasting the previous perception, one producer stated that If consumers learn that
there is plastic in the carton packaging, this can be a risk for Tetra Pak because of the growing
awareness against plastic with the plastic soup issue.

 Beverage packaging visibility in the shelf


There were also contrasting views regarding carton packaging visibility in the shelf.
While one consumer said that carton packaging is old-fashioned compared to plastic, another
one stated that carton is more attractive to consumers.

One producer has a clear view of the environmental and cost benefits of carton
packaging and desires that Tetra Pak pays more attention to food packaging.

Another producer even stated that they had their main and most famous product for
years packed in cans and were worried to change to carton. However, they were surprised to
see that this change not only did not affect the sales of the product but in a few years after the
change, the sales actually increased, showing that consumers keep being loyal to the brand.

31
 RESULTS

4.5 RETAILERS
The retailers Tetra Pak addressed in this report are Ahold Delhaize, Albert Heijn,
Jumbo, Colruyt, Carrefour, Superunie, Ekoplaza, Lidl, and Aldi. The first step in setting up the
questions for the interviews was to assess what was mentioned online regarding their
sustainability efforts, especially on their websites. Albert Heijn and Jumbo are the biggest
retailers in the Netherlands accounting together for more than half of the market share
(Distrifood, 2017). A table summarizing the results and how this related to research questions
and sub-questions can be found in the end of the results section.

4.5.1 AHOLD DELHAIZE

The interview with Ahold Delhaize was done by the phone due to the interviewee
availability.

Delhaize was founded in 1867 as a grocery business in Belgium and has continuously
expanded since then. In 2016 Ahold and Delhaize merged, being currently between the
biggest retailers in the world with 21 brands. Some of their brands are Ethos, and Gall & Gall
in the Netherlands, Delhaize in Belgium and Albert Heijn and Bol.com, present in both
countries. Around the globe, it is present in Europe, the United States, and Indonesia (Ahold
Delhaize, 2018a).

In 2015 Ahold Delhaize was included in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, an Index
that classifies benchmark sustainable
businesses for investors that seek for long-term
shareholder value (Dow Jones Sustainability
Indices, 2018). Their sustainability strategy is
divided into three categories: Governance
Structure, Material Suitability Topics, and
Sustainable retailing strategy. The section
“Sustainable Retailing” explains the company’s
vision and strategy and how their efforts
Figure 23: Sustainable Development Goals that are
support the UN Sustainable Development
being tackled by Ahold Delhaize in their sustainability
Goals (SDGs) that are shown in figure 23. strategy (Ahold Delhaize, 2018b).

Their main focus is divided into three areas: “Enable their brands’ customers and
associates to eat healthier food every day”; “Reduce food waste” and “Provide a healthy and
inclusive work-space for its associates “. Their sustainable retailing strategy in five areas:
Product safety and sustainability, climate impact, associate development, safety at work and
32
 RESULTS

local community connection (Ahold Delhaize, 2018b). The company aims to reduce their CO2
emissions to 30% by 2020 compared to 2008 (reducing the global warming potential of
refrigerants to 2230 by 2020) and increase the recycling rate from 73% to 80% also by 2020
(Ahold Delhaize, 2017).

Ahold Delhaize supports the Consumer Goods Forum’s (CGF), an organization that
helps retailers and consumer goods manufacturers to collaborate, and the Global Food Safety
Initiative (GFSI), a standard that improves food products’ safety. The company is also a
working group of Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), part of the Board of Global
Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI) and is a member of UTZ Standards Committee,
amongst others. According to their website, their own brands are 100% GFSI-certified or
compliant with another standard, 80% of their own brand suppliers are already audited by
standards. The interviewee pointed out the importance of having standards to better control
the supply chain of their own products. According to the interviewee, the main driver to improve
the sustainability strategy and the environmental impact is risk. Risk that a product might not
be available in the future.

Furthermore, in their website, Ahold Delhaize emphasized the importance of engaging

with stakeholders to understand what social, economic, and environmental topics are
important in their view (Ahold Delhaize, 2018b). This was mentioned during the interview when
packaging was discussed. Ahold Delhaize wants to work together with producers to better
understand their needs and the options they have. Even though they do not have a policy on
packaging alone, the interviewee stated that a document is given to producers that works as
a checklist that they can use to try to make packaging more sustainable. However, they do
want to make a plastics policy in the coming months. It was also pointed out that there is
pressure against plastics from different sides as plastic soup discussion, UK retailers, and
consumers.

When asked about beverage and food carton in specific, the interviewee could not
really explain why a type of packaging was chosen or what are the barriers to change to carton,
but that packaging is decided depending on which option will better protect the product inside.
Factors like cost, attractiveness to consumers, etc., are also taken into consideration.

It was pointed out that the part of the supply chain that they are most worried about is
disposal and how consumers will discard the packaging. According to the interviewee, Tetra
Pak should help consumers understand about the most sustainable option and how to dispose
of it by explaining in a short sentence or putting a logo on the packaging. This was emphasized
throughout the interview. When asked about bio-based packaging, the interviewee thinks that
this has to be done cautiously, since the best use of land might not be to grow packaging.
33
 RESULTS

Regarding change-makers, Ahold Delhaize wants to be a front-runner, but that working

together with suppliers is essential, so they can better understand the packaging options and
necessities. Since Albert Heijn is part of the Ahold Delhaize group, it was asked if the
sustainability strategy of both are the same or aligned. The answer was yes, it is aligned, and
that Albert Heijn has to use this as a base, going beyond if desired, but not doing less.

4.5.2 ALBERT HEIJN

Opened in 1887 and in 1952 had the first self-service supermarket. In 1973 Albert
Heijn changed its holding name to Ahold, an abbreviation of Albert Heijn holding. Albert Heijn
currently has 35,3% of Dutch market share (Distrifood, 2017).

The interview with Albert Heijn was done by phone. A lot of the interviewee’s work
revolves around packaging, so the answers were mainly focused on their packaging policies
and aims for the future. The interviewee stated that regarding their packaging policy, they
have been following the 4R guidelines, as pointed out during Ahold Delhaize interview, for
several years now. However, last year they started working on the target of reducing they
primary packaging by 15% until 2020. When the reduction reaches its limit, they would go to
the second step, which is to reuse, which is not possible for food. For the third step, which is
recycling, the interviewee mentioned two targets: introduce 50% of recycled content in PET
bottles by 2020 and by 2025 have every packaging recyclable and as much as possible from
recycled sources, which according to the interviewee is a common target of many companies.
According to the interviewee, PP and PE (polypropylene and polyethylene), can be recycled
but cannot be used for food packaging. The interviewee stated that this is not the case for
PET, which is already composed 80% of their ready-to-eat salads and 95% of meat packaging
and further stated that for beverage this percentage could rise to 100%, but not for carbonate
drinks.

The interviewee highlighted throughout the interview that Albert Heijn wants to improve
the relationship and communication with their suppliers regarding packaging communication.
That suppliers have the knowledge and are aware of innovations regarding packaging, which
many times might not be known by Albert Heijn. Therefore, it is important for them to not only
communicate this, but also “push them back”, as said by the interviewee, if the wrong choice
of packaging is being done by the retailer. The respondent see that this may be intimidating
for suppliers, who may be scared of compromising the business, but that is something they
are currently trying to improve.

34
 RESULTS

When asked about the reasons of choice of the different packaging alternatives, it was
answered that they believe this depends on the supplier and the machine they have available.
So that the product is firstly chosen by quality, then price and then the packaging, if possible
to choose between options, will be chosen depending on the image they want to convey with
this product. When it comes to their own brands, packaging is a way they have of
differentiating between the brands. One brand is packed in carton, while another in plastic or
glass, all depending on the products’ characteristics. When talking about carton, the
interviewee thinks that carton is not always the most environmentally friendly option, that this
varies according to product, transport, shelf-life, etc.. and that maybe recycled PET would be
a better option. However, in the interviewee’s opinion, consumers see beverage carton as the
most environmentally friendly option.

Regarding the deposit refund, the interviewee explained that it is mandatory for soft
drinks and water that have a content of 1 liter or larger and the packaging are plastic or glass.
However, since a few years ago, these bottles can no longer be refilled and have to be
recycled.

It was reinforced during the interview that Albert Heijn prefers mono packaging (made
with only one material), and that for carton they are avoiding the carton with aluminum in the
composition, for being, according to the interviewee, a scarce material. That some products
they are changing to aluminum free carton, which shortens the shelf-life but is still inside the
pattern of shelf-life desired by the company. In fact, when asked about what Tetra Pak could
do to help them improve their sustainability strategy, the interviewee reinforced this saying
that it would be ideal if Tetra Pak had a beverage carton without aluminum, but still maintain
the properties of oxygen and light barrier.

The interviewee reminded of the fact that some years ago, beverage cartons did not
have caps, but that today due to convenience and to avoid spillage and product waste, caps
are preferred, however this brings a downside of adding more plastic to the package. Relating
to this, it was said that Albert Heijn would like a carton package that the screw cap would stay
with the packaging after use, since for being small, it can end up in the residual waste, which
is incinerated in the Netherlands or even if in the recycling stream it can fall off and not get
recycled. Another alternative pointed out by the interviewee was that Tetra Pak could develop
a cap made of carton instead of plastic. It was also mentioned that they think Tetra Pak is
doing a great job with the bio-based packs and that Albert Heijn is in favor of bio-based once
recycled material is not feasible. For example, as said by the interviewee, in milk bottles or for

 The deposit refund is called statiegeld in Dutch.

35
 RESULTS

the inner side of carton, when recycled plastic is not an option, bio-based plastic would be the
best alternative.

4.5.3 EKOPLAZA

Ekoplaza started in 1980 in Amsterdam focused on natural products (Ekoplaza,

2018c). Almost two decades later, became the franchisor of Udea, a wholesaler of organic
food (Udea, 2018). Ekoplaza has as main goal to supply organic, healthy food with an
accessible price. Due to its concern about soil and Earth itself, Ekoplaza has been a front-
runner in combating plastic.

The supermarket opened the first plastic free pop-up store this year, which was open
from Feb until April. Nevertheless, all plastic free products were made available in all
supermarkets. Working in collaboration with the Plastic Soup Foundation and Plastic Planet,
the brand seems to be putting a lot of effort on its fight against plastic packaging and has been
resorting to glass, paper and compostable bio-materials (Ekoplaza, 2018b).

The interview with Ekoplaza was done by email according to the interviewee
preference. Due to their actions against plastic and knowing that Ekoplaza does not accept
beverage/food carton packaging due to the existence of plastic in it, the questions were slightly
altered and will be mentioned in the next paragraphs.

Knowing that Ekoplaza has been working to reduce its emissions and is concerned
about its environmental impacts, it was asked how they see the fact that, comparing packaging
options glass is the best option only if reused. If produced or even recycled, glass has the
highest CO2 emissions compared to plastic and carton, according to various LCA studies. So,
taking this into consideration, how are the environmental impacts taken into consideration by
Ekoplaza. The interviewee answered that Ekoplaza works in a long-term investment and
therefore, do not want a material that comes from fossil fuels, that only a small amount gets
recycled and is indestructible “It can never be that an indestructible material from an
unsustainable source is the best option for the future”.

On their website, Ekoplaza explains that they make available the return and deposit of
plastic bottles and cans in their supermarket. This deposit system is costly for supermarkets,
which explains why some supermarkets may not do it. However for Ekoplaza the impact on
the environment is heavier (Ekoplaza, 2018a). It was asked if they have plans to directly work
with producers to reuse, instead of recycling the glass bottles used to pack their products. The
interviewee confirmed what was already explained in the website regarding the return and

36
 RESULTS

deposit for plastic bottles and cans and complemented saying that Ekoplaza wants to intensify
the refund system in the Netherlands.

When asked about the main components of their sustainability strategy, the
interviewee answered that the fundaments of their sustainability strategy are based on IFOAM
but it is also inspired by the SDGs or by topics brought to them by NGOs. For their packaging
strategy, they have been closely working with the Plastic Soup Foundation, as mentioned on
their website. When asked if they use GRI or ISO, since it was not found in available
documents, the interviewee stated that for being a business to consumers organization they
use GRI and ISO as guidelines choosing topics relevant for consumers. Ekoplaza still wants
to create a supermarket where consumers can shop without creating negative side effect on
the environment, this relating to energy, biodiversity and materials. So, they want to work to
become carbon free and be more transparent with their supply chain, having the correct
packaging.

Ekoplaza reduced its CO2 emissions by 66% in 2016 compared to 2014 and wants to
reduce its energy consumption. The brand current aim is to become self-sufficient in energy
generation. Today, Ekoplaza is supplied with 100% renewable energy, wind more specifically
(Ekoplaza, 2016, 2018b). The interviewer also pointed out that the main drivers to improve the
sustainability are: reducing CO2 emissions, Plastic Soup, impact on biodiversity and reduce
food waste, since they believe consumers do not want to contribute to these negative side
effect.

When asked about their relationship with suppliers and which end has the biggest
influence, the interviewer stated that both ways are possible and that they want to cooperate,
so they achieve the best solution. When it comes to packaging, the decision often comes from
the supplier. Ekoplaza at this point helps them choose the most sustainable option. They said
that this cooperation throughout the supply chain was a main focus point, together with the
raw material source and other aspects such as distance, avoiding unnecessary impacts.

Finally, the interviewee was asked about how Tetra Pak could help them in their
sustainability strategy and answered that supplying a packaging that is plant-based from
sustainable resource, recyclable in an easy way and compostable at the end of life, when it
can no longer be recycled is the best option they see as packaging for the future.

4.5.4 ALDI NORTH GROUP

Aldi started in 1913 and Albrecht family opened the first store Albrecht Discount in
1914. The base concept of the company was to sell high quality products with low prices (Aldi,
37
 RESULTS

2018). Today Aldi North Group has more than 4 thousand stores over 8 European countries
including the Benelux region (Aldi, 2016) and is responsible for 6,7% of the Dutch market
share (Distrifood, 2017).

On their Annual Report, the company specifies their actions on a responsible supply
chain including increase their own products being RSPO certified palm oil, UTZ, Rainforest
Alliance FSC or PEFC-certified and Fair-trade. In the interview it was stated that they use QR
codes in the back of meat products which inform consumers about the meat, its origin, and
how it was produced. In their annual report, specific targets and target dates, are stipulated,
for example a 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2021 compared to 2015.

This is also explained in their Climate Protection Policy report in which it is specified
some other actions to reduce their emissions. Figure 24 shows the company’s emissions in
2015. In their annual report,
the actions being taken to
reduce this footprint as
including LED lights in stores
and change those of existing
stores, part of the energy
used is generated by solar
panels, CO2 cooling systems
will be used for refrigeration
and heating systems will use
waste heat during winter
(Aldi North Group, 2017). Figure 24: Aldi's Carbon Footprint in the reference year 2015 (Aldi North
Group, 2017).
When asked about
their sustainability strategy, the interviewee stated that it is based on the SDGs. In their annual
report it is specified that goals 12 (responsible consumption and production), 13 (climate
action), 8 (decent work and economic growth) and 15 (life on land) are tackled with company’s
practices (Aldi North Group, 2017).

Aldi’s interviewee reinforced throughout the entire call that packaging is decided by
producers and suppliers, not imposed by the retailer. According to the interviewee this is
because producers have their own production line and know more about packaging than
retailers. It was stated that Aldi do not have any internal policies or guidelines on packaging.
However, Aldi sees that retailers also have responsibility in this sector, and for that reason,

38
 RESULTS

they have been working together with Fost Plus to tackle packaging issues in two ways.
Firstly, by following eco-design by reducing overpackaging and making sure all packaging
used is recyclable. Secondly, by doing workshops with buyers, which will start this year. This
is because according to the interviewee, even though buyers are the ones who will close
contracts, determine price and volume, and they are usually unaware of the technical aspect
of packaging. By doing a workshop they want to inform the buyers about specific pointers and
about eco-design aspects Aldi wants to follow.

The interviewee mentioned the importance of having a good communication with the
supply chain upstream. This is due to the fact that since producers, suppliers and retailers
have their own specifications to follow, as production line and distribution system, this must
be clear to the other parties. The interviewee highlighted the importance of producers since
for being at the start and for having more knowledge, producers can inform retailers of the
latest innovations. The interviewee gave one example of the idea of using snap-click cap,
which was given by the producers to retailers.

When asked bio-based packaging, the interviewee answered speaking about

biodegradable, which may be a sign of misconception that bio-based packaging is the same
as biodegradable. Nevertheless, the interviewee showed no opposition to biodegradable, only
pointed out that there are no offers of applicable biodegradable packaging in the market and
that they would be a good option as long as they still guarantee food waste prevention and
transportation. It was then explained to the interviewee that bio-based and biodegradable are
not necessarily the same and that there is still a lot of controversy regarding biodegradable
packaging since a lot is still not completely degradable, polluting soil and water.

It was then asked if the interviewee knew about Tetra Pak’s bio-based package, which
is plant sourced, being inside of the carbon natural cycle, not degradable and fully recyclable.
It was answered that if producers want to use it and it is a competitive price, there is no reason
for them to be against it, especially if it is a more sustainable option.

Finally, it was asked how Tetra Pak could help in their sustainability strategy. The
interviewee answered saying that it would be good if Tetra Pak came forward with innovative
packaging options so that Aldi could inform their buyers who would then speak to producers.
It was also pointed out that Tetra Pak should develop the most sustainable options and
convince producers to use it. When asked if there are any particular changes they would like

 Fost Plus is a Belgian organization responsible for the collection, sorting and recycling of household packaging waste

(Fost Plus, 2018a).

39
 RESULTS

to be done, the interviewee answered that this is something that should be answered by
producers.

4.6 RETAILERS NOT INTERVIEWED

4.6.1 CARREFOUR GROUP

Carrefour was founded in 1959 and opened its first supermarket one year later in
Annecy, France. In 1985, their first brand products were launched. The company has been
growing, acquiring and merging with supermarkets all over the world, being today present in
more than 30 countries with more than 12 thousand stores (Carrefour, 2018a) and has now
22% of the Belgian market share (Syndy, 2015).

According to their website, Carrefour’s aim is to become a World leader in food

transition providing high-quality food for all without harming the environment. On its website
protecting biodiversity, working together for solidarity, corporate social responsibility, and
combating waste are shown as some of their commitments (Carrefour, 2018b).

In order to protect biodiversity, Carrefour has developed different actions such as

sustainable fishing, protecting forests and tackling deforestation, Certified wood and paper by
FSC and Pan European Forest Certification (PEFC), Rainforest Alliance certified beef from
Brazil to tackle deforestation of the Amazon forest, 100% of RSPO certified palm oil in their
products, a line of “reared without antibiotics” products and that by 2020 half of the fish sold
must come from certified and responsibly sourced (Carrefour, 2018b).

Under Corporate social responsibility, Carrefour states that the group has incorporated
objectives related to the Sustainable Development Goals including supporting suppliers to
adopt a more responsible approach. Combating waste throughout the entire supply chain is
stated as their main way of preventing global warming. Waste is for them linked not only to
food, but to water, energy and packaging. The company also implements new technology to
improve energy and resource use (Carrefour, 2018b).

In 2015 Carrefour committed to reduce its current CO2 emissions by 40% by 2025
(Carrefour, 2018a). In their annual report, by 2050 the group aims to reduce its CO2 emissions
by 70% compared to 2010. A reduction of 30% compared to 2010 in energy consumption was
set as goal, and they currently achieved a 15.4% reduction. Refrigeration is their leading
source of energy consumption and the goal of 40% reduction (compared to 2010) by 2025
was achieved in 2016 (Carrefour, 2016, 2018b). Other goals can be found in their annual
report.
40
 RESULTS

4.6.2 C.I.V. SUPERUNIE B.A.

Superunie is a cooperative representing 13 retail organizations including PLUS, Sligro,

Dirk, Boon’s Markt and SPAR (in the Netherlands), deciding which products will be purchased
and from which suppliers. In total it accounts for around 30% of the Dutch market share
(Distrifood, 2017). In Superunie website there is a section dedicate to sustainability in which
they explain they want to make the supply chain more transparent so that consumers can
more easily choose sustainable products. Because of that, they are collaborating with RSPO,
Round table for sustainable soy (RTRS), Covenant on Sustainable Fresh Fruit and Vegetables
(Sustainable Trade Initiative) and Covenant responsible soy (Sustainable trade initiative).
Their sustainability policy is established in combination with the members (Superunie, 2017).
These are explained in more detail on their Annual Report Sustainable Trade 2017.

On the webpage they make it available their code of conduct where they specify for
their suppliers demands that must be followed. These demands are according to the
International Labour Organization (ILO), which cover human rights, working conditions, etc.
(ILO, 2018).

However, not enough information regarding their aims on sustainability strategy, CO 2

emissions, or packaging reductions were found online. Superunie was, therefore, not
considered for the discussion of this report due to lack of information.

4.6.3 COLRUYT GROUP

Colruyt opened in 1928 as a wholesale goods business in Brussels. In 1990 they

started the Green Line charter and sold organic products for the first time (Colruyt, 2018b). In
their annual report, Colruyt states that they are working to reduce their footprint. This has been
done in different areas such as refrigeration and transport.

The company has been showing interest in renewable energy since 1999 when it
constructed its first wind turbine in Halle, Germany. Today, 25% of the energy used by Colruyt
group is supplied by Eoly a sustainable energy producer. In the future they aim to all energy
used by Colruyt Group. The remaining 75% is bought from green wholesale market. Colruyt
also invests in wind farms Belwind, Nothwind and Nobelwind, all part of Parkwind on the
Belgian coast and aims to reduce their CO2 emissions by 20% compared to 2008 by 2020
(Colruyt, 2017). On their website and on their sustainability report, Colruyt states that they
base their sustainability strategy on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (Colruyt, 2018c).
Furthermore, Colruyt became and ambassador for the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

41
 RESULTS

Colruyt consist of over 40 brands including Spar in Belgium (Colruyt, 2018a). The company
currently accounts for 31,7% of Belgian market share (Colruyt, 2017).

4.6.4 JUMBO

Founded in 1921 as a wholesale trade, Jumbo has stores all around The Netherlands.
Jumbo alone has a significant share of 18,7% of the Dutch market share (Distrifood, 2017).

Jumbo publishes annually a sustainability report. In it, it is stated their sustainability

principal (Duurzaamheidsprincipes) that also for being a family business, they focus on being
not only successful today, but in the future, giving importance to generations to come,
choosing the best and not the easiest solution (Jumbo, 2016). Products that have certification
as UTZ, RTRS (Round Table Sustainable Soy), Rainforest Alliance, MSC (Maritime
Stewardship Council), amongst others. A list of sustainable products sold by the company is
available on their website.

In 2016, Jumbo open as they call in their Annual Report, the most sustainable and
energy efficient store in the Netherlands, which is energy neutral. The company also states
they have a partnership with WeCycle, who collects and recycles electrical waste, and in case
of Jumbo, appliances and lamps brought by consumers (Jumbo, 2016)

Jumbo’s CO2 emission was reduced by 16% compared to 2012. This decrease was
due to energy savings and refrigeration substitutions. It is also said that Jumbo is working with
their own brand suppliers to reduce packaging materials and how to make them more
sustainable. However, it its highlighted that due to food safety and expiration date, it is not
possible to completely forbid packaging since it guarantees a longer product life and reduces
food waste. At the end of the report, Jumbo makes available some specifications according to
GRI such as material, energy and emissions (Jumbo, 2016).

4.6.5 LIDL

Lidl started in the 1930s as a grocery wholesale in Germany and after the 90’s the
store started opening in other countries in Europe as France and UK (Lidl, 2018a).Today, Lidl
is responsible for 10,5 of the Dutch market share (Distrifood, 2017).

In their website, under Responsibility (Verantwoordelijkheid in Dutch); Assortment

(Assortiment in Dutch), Lidl explains that it makes use of certifications as UTZ, Fairtrade and
Rainforest Alliance for a variety of products sold at their stores (Lidl, 2018b). Further
information on certification and quality of products sold can be found on their website.

42
 RESULTS

On their annual report 2015-2016 Lidl states that they have a Corporate Social
Responsibility team working with the Sustainable Development Goals and testing them
through questionnaire with their stakeholders (Lidl, 2015). Under the section climate (klimaat
in Dutch), Lidl describes other actions taken related to sustainability as sustainable building,
energy and packaging. They state they have the most sustainable distribution center in the
Netherlands, part of the energy used is supplied by solar panels installed in 23 facilities.
Regarding packaging, Lidl aims to reduce the plastic consumption by 20% until 2025 and by
2025 all plastic packaging must be recycled (Lidl, 2018b).

43
 RESULTS

4.7 SUMMARY OF THE INTERVIEW WITH THE RETAILERS ANSWERING THE SUB-QUESTIONS AND RESEARCH
QUESTION
SQ1: Sustainability concepts used by retailers
Policies to reduce
Retailer Sustainability Concept How is it measured?
CO2 emissions Energy Use Packaging use
Sustainable Development. Uses GRI, ISO and SDGs. 80% of their Is improving energy efficiency by reducing Increase recycling rate from 73% to
Ahold Reduce by 30% by 2020
Specifies which SDGs are being tackled. own brand suppliers are already refrigerants leakage. Were able to reduce the 80% by 2020. Want to make a plastic
Delhaize compared to 2008.
Talks about CSR but as a part of SD. audited. energy consumption compared to 2016. policy this year.
Want to reduce primary packaging by
Working to further reduce
Albert Has their sustainability strategy aligned Is improving energy efficiency by using energy 15% until 2020.Reach 50% recycle in
Uses GRI, ISO and SDGs. the CO2 emissions. Have a
Interviewed

Heijn with Ahold Delhaize. efficient cooling and climate systems. 2020.Use the 4R policy to help
CO2 neutral building.
suppliers.
Don’t really have a packaging policy,
Is installing solar panels in stores around Europe.
Sustainable Development. Specifies which Wants to reduce CO2 by 40% but is working with Fost Plus on eco-
Aldi SDGs are being tackled.
Uses GRI, ISO and SDGs.
by 2021 compared to 2015.
Are including energy efficiency technologies
design reducing overpackaging and
specially for refrigeration and lighting.
increasing recyclability.
The sustainability strategy is based on SDGs Use GRI and ISO as a guideline for
Was able to reduce their Ekoplaza energy is provided from 100%
and IFOAM. NGO’s and Plastic Soup being a business to consumer Is creating plastic free aisle
Ekoplaza Foundation work with them to improve the organization, focusing on topics
emissions by 66% compared renewable energy. Uses LED lights in the stores
supermarkets.
to 2014. saving energy.
sustainability strategy. interesting for consumers.
In 2016 the energy consumption decreased by
Is working with their own brand
Uses CSR divided into different themes of 6.3% compared to 2015.
Uses GRI as indicators for material, CO2 emission were reduced suppliers to reduce packaging
Jumbo relevance for industry, business and
energy, emissions,.. by 16% compared to 2012.
They are aiming to reduce the consumption of gas
materials and how to make them
stakeholders. and electricity focusing on increasing the share of
more sustainable.
renewables.
A reduction of 30% compared to 2010 in energy
Their commitment to reduce waste
Not interviewed

Wants to reduce the CO2 consumption was set as goal. Refrigeration is their
Uses CSR dividing the website in areas of Refers to 2 sustainable development also refers to packaging waste. Their
Carrefour commitment as waste, biodiversity, etc. goals being tackled by the company.
emissions by 40% compared leading source of energy consumption and the
aim is 100% reusable, recyclable or
to 2010. goal of 40% reduction by 2025 was achieved in
compostable packaging.
2016.
25% of the energy used is supplied a sustainable
Base their sustainability strategy in the Their practices are divided in their Wants to reduce their CO2
energy producer. The remaining 75% is bought Created a recyclable tray for
Colruyt SDGs. Works with the UN as an ambassador sustainability report according to emissions by 20% compared
from green wholesale market. Colruyt also invests delicatessen products.
of the SDGs. the SDGs. to 2008 by 2020.
in wind farms.
They are working to reduce The energy used by Lidl is partly supplied by solar Aims to reduce the plastic
Has a CSR team working with the SDGs and the CO2 emissions with power in many stores and for customers to consumption by 20% until 2025 and
Lidl their stakeholders.
Uses the SDGs and GRI.
measures on transportation, recharge electric cars. They also trained their by 2025 all plastic packaging must be
energy, employees to be more energy conscious. recycled.

44
 RESULTS

RQ. How Tetra Pak can

SQ1 and 2. Sustainability in the supply chain
SQ2. Knowledge gaps on packaging improve the sustainability
and knowledge gaps on packaging
strategy
Knowledge on the View on
Reasons to improve Relationship with upstream/ deciding Recommendations for Tetra
Retailer environmental impacts of bio-based packaging
sustainability packaging Pak
packaging
Wants to engage with stakeholders to improve
sustainability and understand their perception. Wants to Sees that consumers have glass as
Is worried about how consumers
Risk. Pressure from plastic soup work together with suppliers to understand better the the most sustainable option but Have to be cautious that
Ahold dispose packaging. Wants Tetra Pak to
discussion, UK retailers and options on packaging. See producers and suppliers as knows that the environmental producing plastic is the right
Delhaize make it easier for consumer to know
consumers. packaging experts in the chain. Does not know how impacts of plastic is lower than use of land.
how to do it.
packaging is decided, but the main reason is to protect the glass.
product
The commercial director is
Does not think carton is always the
engaged in reducing plastic Wants a packaging without aluminum
best option, it depends on the Bio-based is a good option
waste. Wants to encourage suppliers to come with proposals and and the same proprieties.
cycle. Carton has aluminum which when recycled packaging
Albert
Interviewed

They try to consider the entire warn if a bad decision is being made. Wants a cap that stays with the pack
is rare. They prefer mono cannot be used.
Heijn chain when working on Packaging is decided by producers depending on the when disposed of.
packaging. Are not in favor of
packaging. They cannot reduce production line and machine they have available. Is open to receive LCAs on packaging
They use packaging to differ biodegradable.
weight if it will damage the pack impact.
between product lines.
during transport.
Confused bio-based with Tetra Pak could keep them updated on
Aldi has 97% of own brand products. Producers decide on Producers know more about
biodegradable. But if innovations on sustainable packaging.
Make packaging as eco-designed the packaging. There has to be mutual agreement, but a lot packaging and is their responsibility
Aldi as possible. depends on producers’ production line. Gives the examples to point and use the best
producers want to use it and it Would like to see results on consumer
is in a competitive price, they perspective on carton and alternative
of snap-click caps given by producers. packaging.
wouldn’t oppose to using it. packaging.
Packaging from fossil fuels that is
Create a supermarket where
The relationship works both ways. The decision is with indestructible is not a good choice. Plant-based packaging is a They would lie a blan-based from a
consumers do not have to worry
Ekoplaza about generating negative
producers, however Ekoplaza instruct them is a better They want packaging that fits good option as long as the sustainable source, easily recyclable
option is available. circular economy and is source is verified. and compostable at the end of life.
impact.
compostable.

45
 DISCUSSION

5 DISCUSSION

5.1 SUSTAINABILITY AND LEGISLATIONS

Sustainability is continuously changing since it is a reflection of a changing environment
(Willard & Hitchcock, 2009). Companies must, therefore, understand their impacts, keep pace
with trends and incorporate practices as long-term strategies (Unctad, 2017). Most companies
interviewed state that their sustainability strategy is based on the Sustainable Development
Goals, most of them addressed in their reports or websites which goals are being tackled in
their business strategy. All retailers interviewed make use of international guidelines as GRI
and ISO, as well as product standards. However, more time and cooperation with retailers
would be necessary to evaluate if their statements are congruent with their practices and how
they could further make use of the Sustainable Development Goals and other guidelines to
improve their sustainability strategy. Nevertheless, the use of standards, international
guidelines, efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, energy and packaging used by retailers show
they are working to improve their sustainability strategy and reduce their environmental
impact.

There is a lack of national and international regulations which, when present are not very
strict when it comes to delimitating indicators and measurements that should be taken by
retailers (Kolk & van Tulder, 2010). Even though there are packaging regulations in Europe,
for the Netherlands they lost its efficiency after the 2000s as shown by Rouw and Worrell
(2011). The lack of efficient regulations also on unsustainable products prevents the
government from playing what could be a decisive role in vetting or delimiting such products
(Akenji & Bengtsson, 2010). This makes it acceptable for companies to make sustainability
targets and agreements that suit their business and still be compliant with vague legislations.
On top of that, if these targets are not reached, there are no recriminatory measures. The next
action is solely the creation of new targets. This coupled with the fact that sustainability
measures are not legally binding, gives retailers the liberty to approach sustainability issues
as best fit their business, directing it only to issues that they see as relevant. It can also lead
to not enough efforts or even greenwashing measures (Dahlsrud, 2008).

46
 DISCUSSION

5.2 RETAILERS AND RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UPSTREAM OF THE

SUPPLY CHAIN
Retailers can be the front-runners and rule-setters, pressuring other retailers to
incorporate more sustainable practices. Prominent retailers can refuse to sell products that
are not according to their specifications. This is a powerful influence in the market. Retailers
that have their own brands have an even more influential role since they affect the market and
other producers (Akenji & Bengtsson, 2010). Consequently, if retailers are genuinely engaged
in doing their part and reducing the emissions, their actions will not only pressure stakeholders
in the supply chain but will influence the market to follow their steps (Akenji & Bengtsson,
2010; Dauvergne & Lister, 2012).

Two retailers’ practices were viewed as front-runner. Ekoplaza who aims to become a
plastic-free supermarket is innovating the way retailers deal with plastic. Their practice will
constantly adjust to new trends and push them to choose the most sustainable alternatives
not only for packaging but also for other measures as renewable energy use, for example.
When it comes to renewable energy, Colruyt, even if not interviewed, seems to be
concentrating a lot of focus not only in investing in wind energy but also in completely relying
on green energy usage.

Apart from these and even though literature has been pointing multinationals as regulators
of sustainability, truly change-making actions were not found during the research, with some
rare exceptions. The companies interviewed do not seem to be taking measures that exceed
the required by legislation to be seen as change-makers. Some practices as reducing CO2
emissions, using energy efficient refrigerators, getting informed about packaging impacts,
reducing packaging use, getting the company informed about the sustainability practices are
necessary measures, but seem to be first steps towards sustainability. Adding to this, the fact
that most retailers think that packaging is a producers’ choice, reduces retailers’ responsibility
towards sustainable packaging. Passing this responsibility upstream of the supply chain
annuls the power and influence of retailers as intermediaries in the supply chain and as
change-makers.

This is not necessarily a bad change of scene, on the contrary. When the relationship is
established, and producers are used to following retailers demands, they may find it difficult
to take the initiative to present an alternative. In cases like this, adopting new sustainable
initiatives can hit barriers and delay change (Chkanikova & Mont, 2015). This was mentioned
by the Albert Heijn interviewee who stated that they recognize that some suppliers and
producers can be scared of suggesting changes since they think this could result in losing the
47
 DISCUSSION

client. If producers and suppliers have the space to be more proactive, the initiative on moving
towards a more sustainable path is no longer strained and centralized solely with retailers but
can also come from the upstream of the supply chain. For this reason, cooperation and clear
communication between stakeholders are crucial to better understand in which steps of the
supply chain there is space for improvements. This is especially important regarding
knowledge on packaging environmental impacts, since lack of communication between
stakeholders can result in barriers to optimize this process (Van Sluisveld & Worrell, 2013).
This was pointed out by all retailers, highlighting the importance of working together with
suppliers and producers to understand which the best packaging option is. This was especially
emphasized in Aldi’s interview indicating producers and suppliers as most responsible for
packaging choice. One producer exemplified how innovative measures taken by stakeholders
can trigger retailers to do the same. Therefore, pressure to improve has to come from
upstream in the supply chain as well.

5.3 BEVERAGE/FOOD CARTON AND ALTERNATIVES

As shown by life cycle assessment studies and Tetra Pak reports, the use of
beverage/food cartons instead of alternative packaging is a less impactful option and can lead
to a reduction in the carbon emissions and environmental impacts throughout the supply
chain. This is attributed to weight, size of the package and type of resource used, being around
75% renewable resource, which reduces cost in transportation in every stage of the life cycle.
Another factor is that the producer can also change to the aseptic carton which means that
this product no longer needs to be refrigerated in the supermarket, reducing cooling energy
requirements. This has not been taken into consideration by most LCA studies, probably due
to the fact that it is hard to determine the amount of time that the product will remain in the
supermarket before being purchased and how this would translate into energy use for each
package.

This lower environmental impact is considering the packaging alternatives available in the
market today. This outcome may change with the development of new packaging options or
distribution concepts, such as concentrated juice or bulk purchasing, for example. Therefore,
Tetra Pak should keep themselves ahead of the market and keep looking for innovative
options, such as their bio-based packaging.

5.3.1 USE OF RECYCLED PLASTIC IN FOOD AND BEVERAGE PACKAGING

Some retailers mention the use of recycled plastic in primary packaging. Even though a
limited number of studies have evaluated the safety of using recycled plastic for food and
48
 DISCUSSION

beverage packaging the results are not conclusive and recommend further and careful study.
Contaminations of the packaging happen in an unpredictable way due to misuse of consumers
or due to the collection and recycling process. Furthermore, contaminants can be in the
packaging or migrating to the beverage/food contained (Palkopoulou, Joly, Feigenbaum,
Papaspyrides, & Dole, 2016). Therefore, there is still uncertainty in this application and the
use of recycled plastic should be carefully analyzed by retailers, so it is not a threat to its
consumers.

Again, Tetra Pak should consider how the packaging market may evolve in the future. If
the use of recycled packaging grows as assumed by some retailers, Tetra Pak will need to
analyze the consequences this shift in the market may cause for their business, footprint and
image as one-way, non-recycled plastic beverage/food carton. Since Tetra Pak seems to
oppose to recycled plastic use for beverage/food packaging, what actions could be taken in
product composition, design or recycling to ensure offering a competitive and more
sustainable product.

5.4 PERCEPTIONS OF BEVERAGE/FOOD CARTON AND ALTERNATIVE

PACKAGING
The misconception of consumers on the impacts of beverage packaging is a relevant
factor against a more conscious consumption. This misconception was verified in the survey
results in which the majority of consumers consider glass as the less environmentally impactful
option. This is added to the fact that, consumers see recycling as a more relevant practice
than purchasing when it comes to reducing negative impacts on the environment, as shown
by the survey results. If consumers are aware of the impacts of the products they buy and
understand the impact they have in the market when purchasing a product, they would
pressure retailers to act and sell more sustainable products (Akenji & Bengtsson, 2010).

Often, and especially with the current discussion on plastics, business, as consumers, are
focusing on the end of life of a product and are worried about recycling. This was exemplified
by Ahold Delhaize interviewee who stated that the stage of the supply chain they are more
worried about is disposal. Recycling is crucial, and Tetra Pak could develop or improve the
product design that facilitates recycling, resulting in a material with higher recycled quality.
However, not neglecting the relevance of recycling, companies need to prioritize reduction
and modification of the design to move towards a more sustainable path (Akenji & Bengtsson,
2010). The focus on recycling can again be a sign that the influence retailers have is not being
fully used to demand better packaging options for the market.

49
 DISCUSSION

The results from question 2 of the consumer survey, regarding the type of package of
frequently bought beverages, showed that even though juice and milk are frequently bought
in carton, water is mostly bought in plastic. This might be a matter of availability in the
supermarket, as pointed out by consumers as one of the main reasons preventing them from
acting more sustainably. However, no clear conclusions can be drawn from it, since it can also
be related to different factors, as prejudice, habit, or convenience for example. Further
research is recommended to analyze consumers perception on water sold in beverage carton.

Price was chosen by consumers, as the main barrier preventing them from choosing the
most sustainable product (Figure 20 and question 14 of consumer survey). If sustainable
products are more expensive, the majority of consumers will choose other options. Consumers
not purchasing sustainable products can prevent retailers from engaging in specific
sustainability strategies (Chkanikova & Mont, 2015).

However, the burden cannot be put upon the consumer (Akenji & Bengtsson, 2010). The
knowledge gap expected at the beginning of this research regarding the limited knowledge on
the impacts of beverage packaging was confirmed for some of the retailers interviewed. This
lack of knowledge represents a significant barrier against the availability of beverage cartons
in the supermarkets. This is also coupled with the fact that today, packaging goes beyond its
function and is seen as a product on its own (Akenji & Bengtsson, 2010). This was the case
of one retailer that stated they use different packaging options to differentiate between their
product lines. This shows that retailers are not worried about the environmental impact of the
packaging but using it as a sales strategy. If producers and retailers avoid unsustainable
options, consumers will not find them on the shelf (Akenji & Bengtsson, 2010). Nonetheless,
this may also be obstructed by the retailers themselves, since they might not want to
jeopardize other packaging alternatives by showing the environmental benefits of
beverage/food carton. Another factor is that retailers will avoid the possibility of losing
consumers for removing unsustainable products from their stores (Chkanikova & Mont, 2015).

5.4.1 PLANT-BASED PACKAGING

The remarks on Tetra Pak plant-based packaging were divergent. When asked if plant-
based package will be demanded in the future, the interviewee from Ahold Delhaize showed
no clear opinion but highlighted that it should be dealt with caution due to debates on land
use. Aldi’s interviewee was not aware of the packaging but stated that if producers are willing
to use it and the price is competitive, there was no reason to oppose it, especially if it is a more
sustainable alternative. The interviewee from Albert Heijn had a clearer view stating that plant-

50
 DISCUSSION

based is the best option, in case recycled plastic cannot be used in packaging as is the case
for various drinking packaging.

5.5 RECOMMENDATION FOR TETRA PAK

5.5.1 COMMUNICATE WITH STAKEHOLDERS

During the interviews, some retailers asked for more information on the environmental
impacts of beverage/food packaging, recycling process and innovations of Tetra Pak
packaging options. Many retailers said that producers and Tetra Pak know more about
packaging than they do; thus, they should intervene and bring innovations to the supply
chains. This shows that the retailers are open to conversation and Tetra Pak could therefore,
act more proactively also when communicating to producers and suppliers about the
packaging options and their impacts. Furthermore, improving communication with
stakeholders can point areas in which Tetra Pak could improve not only the business but also
their product design and composition.

5.5.2 TETRA PAKs PLANT-BASED PACKAGING

The communication could also be enhanced when it comes to Tetra Pak’s plant-based
packaging. Not only so that retailers and producers learn about its benefits, for not deriving
from fossil fuels, and being inside of the natural carbon cycle, but also to erase possible
misconceptions. This was evidenced by Aldi’s interviewee who talked about biodegradable
after being asked about bio-based, which may be an indicator that there is still confusion
regarding both definitions. Apparently, when retailers are aware that bio-degradable plastic is
not always fully degradable, polluting soil and water, there is a preference for recyclable or
other options. This was exemplified by the Albert Heijn interviewee that, knowing the impacts
of biodegradable, stated that it was not an option for them. Tetra Pak could use this in their
favor when explaining about the bio-based packaging, since it is not biodegradable and is fully
recyclable.

Tetra Pak has been proactive by making plant-based packaging available, which is pointed
out by some authors as a growing market demand (Risch, 2009). This shows that the company
is focusing on the beginning of the value chain worried about the materials used. However,
the company could be considered reactive when it comes to offering as an alternative to
producers and retailers. This is indicated by one retailer that would like Tetra Pak to be more
assertive with their product towards producers if it is a more sustainable option.

51
 DISCUSSION

5.5.3 FOCUS MORE ON PRODUCERS

As identified in the interviews, most retailers see producers and packaging suppliers as
the key responsible for choosing the packaging options. This shows that Tetra Pak should
broaden the focus from retailers (in this report), to also include the upstream stakeholders in
the supply chain, specifically beverage producers.

5.5.4 EDUCATE CONSUMERS

One recommendation mentioned by retailers and producers was that Tetra Pak can further
work in educating consumers on the impacts of beverage/food carton compared to alternative
packaging. This necessity was confirmed with the results of questions 4 and 5 of the consumer
survey, which showed that once consumers understand the impacts, they prefer the most
sustainable option. It was also shown the necessity to better inform consumers about the
recycling process and make it clearer on how the packaging should be disposed of. The logo,
however, shows consumers that it should be disposed of in the drinking carton bin. In case
PMD (Plastic, Metal and Drinking carton) bins are not available, it could be made clearer that
it should be disposed of in the plastic bin. This is, however, dependent on if producers want
to include it in the packaging design or not. Tetra Pak can, therefore, be more incisive,
highlighting the importance of facilitating this information to its consumers to reduce the
environmental impacts and increase recyclability.

To do so, Tetra Pak could work with retailers and producers to analyze how they could
join efforts to improve the communication with consumers. This could be done for example,
by increasing information in the packaging itself or by increasing the information at the
supermarkets. Tetra Pak Brazil for example, has done some campaigns at supermarkets to
educate consumers regarding the recycling process by having information stands (Tetra Pak,
2018b). It would be valuable to analyze what other countries have been doing to increase the
availability of information in the supply chain and which could be incorporated by Dutch and
Belgian Tetra Pak. Using social media or professional media channels could also be helpful
to increase the spread of information, however, analysis would necessary to find an approach
that brings effective results. However, to educate consumers, the knowledge gap on
packaging impacts of producers and retailers should be removed. If not, wrong information
will be passed on to the consumers.

52
 DISCUSSION

5.5.5 HELP IMPROVE LEGISLATION

Tetra Pak could also use its influence to help regulatory offices improve the
legislations, especially on packaging production, disposal and recycling. If legislations become
stricter, retailers are more likely to obey them and direct more efforts in their sustainability
practices.

5.5.6 CONTINUE WITH THE AIM TO BECOME 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY

To further reduce its environmental impacts and footprint, Tetra Pak should continue to
work on their aim to become 100% renewable. This will put them ahead of legislations that
may come in the future while adding value to the company and its product.

5.6 LIMITATIONS
The main research limitation was the difficulty in getting in contact with retailers. Even
though the email used to contact the interviewers was a Tetra Pak email and these contacts
were already acquainted by Tetra Pak retailers’ manager, many of them did not answer the
emails or the phone calls. In addition, it is important to highlight that one interview might not
reflect the holistic view of the company regarding the business practices and aims on
sustainability. The same is valid for their knowledge on packaging impacts, policies and goals.
The results are likely to vary depending on the interviewees, therefore, a higher number of
interviews with personnel from different sectors of the company would be required to generate
a more holistic picture.

5.7 FUTURE RESEARCH

In order to improve the sustainability strategy in the supply chain, further research is
recommended with the retailers, but also direct more attention to producers’ perspectives and
knowledge. Deepening their knowledge on the impacts of beverage/food package is essential
to eliminate misconceptions and better understand their needs and better understand how
Tetra Pak can help.

Further research is also recommended to evaluate how Tetra Pak can improve the
education of consumers regarding impacts, purchasing responsibility and the correct way to
dispose of the waste. This can be done by incorporating a variety of strategies to assess how
Tetra Pak in other countries is dealing with communication and marketing to incorporate
feasible tactics in Belgium and The Netherlands. Aligning with NGOs could also help evaluate

53
 DISCUSSION

how Tetra Pak could improve not only the communication, but the product and current
practices. Join efforts with stakeholders and combine this with literature on communication
and marketing play a decisive role in improving the communication with consumers while
avoiding green marketing.

The packaging market, especially regarding plastic packaging is rapidly changing. This
trend may bring a shift in the way goods are sold in the future. Reusable bottles, circular
economy or a more circular supply chain are some trends that can gain force in the upcoming
years. In order to be resilient and keep themselves ahead of possible outcomes, Tetra Pak
could analyze how they could better prepare now for future scenarios as such. This can be
done alongside with retailers and producers to have a wider perspective on what topics are
seen as future trends, but also to understand what the stakeholders would be willing to do to
prepare themselves and have more unified actions in the supply chain.

54
 CONCLUSIONS

6 CONCLUSIONS

In this report, the most significant barriers in improving sustainability throughout the supply
chain were insufficient communication between stakeholders, misconceptions of packaging
impacts, broadness of sustainability concepts, and vaguely defined legislation. The broadness
of sustainability coupled with non-binding and vaguely defined legislation could be the main
barrier why sustainability is not completely integrated into the business strategy. This can lead
to companies devoting attention only to urgent matters, in order to comply with legislation, or
react to societal and media pressure. Without a long-term strategy that neither incorporates
all business impacts nor involves all employees required, companies miss the opportunity of
truly generating value creation. A slow pace towards sustainable development, may not be
enough to keep up with future sustainability pressures.

This is aggravated by the fact that actors in supply chains are usually focusing on their
part of the puzzle, disregarding the entire supply chain. Improving this relationship and
broadening the value creation in the supply chain can bring long-term benefits. On the other
side, even though consumers expect companies to be more sustainable, they are badly
informed about the environmental impacts of their choices, wasting their purchase power.

For Tetra Pak to improve the sustainability strategy of its supply chain, it is imperative to
have a more proactive communication towards retailers, producers and consumers. Better
informed stakeholders are more likely to make better decisions when it comes to packaging
and will, in their turn, help Tetra Pak improve their own actions while developing products that
better fulfil its stakeholders needs when it comes to design, innovation and environmental
impact.

55
 REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Ahold Delhaize. (2017). Ahold Delhaize Annual Report. Retrieved from

https://www.aholddelhaize.com/media/6445/180302_aholddelhaize_annualreport_2017
.pdf
Ahold Delhaize. (2018a). Heritage. Retrieved June 5, 2018, from
https://www.aholddelhaize.com/en/about-us/heritage/
Ahold Delhaize. (2018b). Sustainable Retailing. Retrieved June 5, 2018, from
https://www.aholddelhaize.com/en/sustainable-retailing/vision-and-strategy/
Akenji, L., & Bengtsson, M. (2010). Is the Customer Really King? Stakeholder Analysis for
Sustainable Consumption and Production Using the Example of the Packaging Value
Chain. Sustainable Consumption and Production in the Asia-Pacific Region: Effective
Responses in a Resource Constrained World (Vol. 3).
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214130.68
Aldi. (2016). Aldi North Group. Interim Report. Retrieved from https://www.aldi-
nord.de/content/dam/aldi/germany/verantwortung/unser-verständnis/zwischenbericht-
2016/Zwischenbericht_2016_EN.pdf
Aldi. (2018). Geschiedenis en praktische informatie. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from
https://www.aldi.nl/over-ons.html
Aldi North Group. (2017). Simply important.
Bansal, P., & DesJardine, M. (2014). Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic
Organization, 12(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127013520265
Barkemeyer, R., Holt, D., Preuss, L., & Tsang, S. (2011). What happened to the
‘development’in sustainable development? Business guidelines two decades after
Brundtland. Sustainable Development, 22, 15–32. Retrieved from
http://repository.essex.ac.uk/10452/1/what happened oppenaccv.pdf
Baumgartner, R. J. (2014). Managing corporate sustainability and CSR: A conceptual
framework combining values, strategies and instruments contributing to sustainable
development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(5),
258–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1336
Beatrix, W., Nederlanden, K. Der, Aan, A., & Na, B. (2014). van het Koninkrijk der
Nederlanden. Staatsblad 651, (december), 1–10.
Bertolini, M., Bottani, E., Vignali, G., & Volpi, A. (2013). Analysis and life cycle comparison of
different packaging systems in the aseptic beverages sector. Proceedings of the Summer
School Francesco Turco, 11–13–Sept, 185–190.

56
 REFERENCES

Bocken, N. M. P., & Allwood, J. M. (2012). Strategies to reduce the carbon footprint of
consumer goods by influencing stakeholders. Journal of Cleaner Production, 35, 118–
129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.031
Bocken, Short, S. W., Rana, Evans, Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., … Evans, S. (2014). A
literature and practice review to identify Sustainable Business Model Element
Archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039
Busch, J. (1987). Second time around: A look at bottle reuse. Historical Archaeology, 21(1),
67-80.
Carrefour. (2016). Annual Activity and Responsible Commitment Report. Retrieved from
http://www.carrefour.com/sites/default/files/carrefour_-
_2016_annual_activity_and_responsible_commitment_report.pdf
Carrefour. (2018a). Carrefour Group . History. Retrieved June 5, 2018, from
http://www.carrefour.com/content/history
Carrefour. (2018b). Carrefour Group > Our commitments. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from
http://www.carrefour.com/content/our-commitments-0
Carroll, A. B. (2009). A History of Corporate Social Responsibility: Concepts and Practices.
The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, (October 2015).
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199211593.003.0002
Carter, C. R., & Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management:
moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 38(5), 360–387. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882816
Chkanikova, O., & Mont, O. (2015). Corporate supply chain responsibility: Drivers and barriers
for sustainable food retailing. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 22(2), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1316
Cleary, J. (2013). Life cycle assessments of wine and spirit packaging at the product and the
municipal scale: A Toronto, Canada case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 44, 143–
151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.009
Colruyt. (2017). Colruyt group annual report 2016 2017 by Colruyt Group Services - Issuu.
Retrieved July 26, 2018, from
https://issuu.com/colruytgroup/docs/colruyt_group_annual_report_2016-
20?e=29882345/51581366
Colruyt. (2018a). Colruyt Group. About us. Retrieved July 25, 2018, from
https://www.colruytgroup.com/wps/portal/cg/en/home/about-us/about-us
Colruyt. (2018b). Colruyt Group History. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from
https://www.colruytgroup.com/wps/portal/cg/en/home/about-us/history

57
 REFERENCES

Colruyt. (2018c). The UN’s sustainability agenda | Colruyt Group. Retrieved July 26, 2018,
from https://www.colruytgroup.com/wps/portal/cg/en/home/about-us/sustainability-
sustainable-development-goals
Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How Corporate Social Responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37
definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
13(November 2006), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr
Dauvergne, P., & Lister, J. (2012). Big brand sustainability: Governance prospects and
environmental limits. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 36–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.007
Dean, T. (2013). Sustainable venturing: Entrepreneurial opportunity in the transition to a
sustainable economy. Pearson Higher Ed.
Distrifood. (2017). Marktaandelen. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from
http://www.distrifood.nl/service/marktaandelen
Dow Jones Sustainability Indices. (2018). DJSI Family Overview | Sustainability Indices.
Retrieved June 5, 2018, from http://www.sustainability-indices.com/index-family-
overview/djsi-family-overview/index.jsp
EC Packaging Waste Directive, E. C. (1994). European Parliament and Council Directive
94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. Official Journal of
the European Communities, (L), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/7.2.323
Ekoplaza. (2016). Maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen: Maatschappelijk jaarverslag
2016 Bio-Stek.
Ekoplaza. (2018a). Ekoplaza, partner van de statiegeldalliantie. Retrieved July 25, 2018, from
https://www.ekoplaza.nl/pagina/statiegeld
Ekoplaza. (2018b). Ekoplaza LAB | The world’s very first plastic-free pop-up store! Retrieved
July 26, 2018, from https://www.ekoplaza.nl/pagina/ekoplaza-lab-1
Ekoplaza. (2018c). Onze geschiedenis. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from
https://www.ekoplaza.nl/pagina/onze-geschiedenis
Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-
century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.3310080106
Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M. J. (2001). Sustainability in Action:Identifying and Measuring the Key
Performance Drivers. Long Range Planning, 34, 585–604.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00084-X
Erwin, P. M. (2011). Corporate Codes of Conduct: The Effects of Code Content and Quality
on Ethical Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 535–548.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0667-y

58
 REFERENCES

European Commission. (2017). Waste policy review - Environment. Retrieved August 13,
2018, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/target_review.htm
European Commission. (2018). 2030 Climate and Energy Framework | Climate Action.
Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_en
Europen. (2018). Packaging & the Environment - The European Organisation for
Packaging and the Environment. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from https://europen-
packaging.eu/sustainability/packaging-environment.html
Eurostat. (2013). Packaging waste by waste operations and waste flow database. Retrieved
July 26, 2018, from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/environment/waste/database
FAO. (2011). Global food losses and food waste - Extent, causes and prevention. SAVE
FOOD: An initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0126
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., … Suh, S.
(2009). Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Environmental
Management, 91(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018
Fost Plus. (2018a). About Fost Plus. Retrieved August 28, 2018, from
https://www.fostplus.be/en/about-fost-plus
Fost Plus. (2018b). Sorting rules PMD | Fost Plus. Retrieved August 31, 2018, from
https://www.fostplus.be/en/sorting-recycling/all-about-sorting/sorting-rules-pmd
Freinkel, S. (2011). Plastic: a toxic love story. HMH.
Fuchs, D., & Kalfagianni, A. (2010). The causes and consequences of private food
governance. Business and Politics, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.2202/1469-3569.1319
Fuchs, D., Kalfagianni, A., Clapp, J., & Busch, L. (2011). Introduction to symposium on private
agrifood governance: Values, shortcomings and strategies. Agriculture and Human
Values, 28(3), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-011-9310-5
Fuchs, D., Kalfagianni, A., & Havinga, T. (2011). Actors in private food governance: The
legitimacy of retail standards and multistakeholder initiatives with civil society
participation. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(3), 353–367.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9236-3
Fylan, F. (2005). Semi-structured interviewing. A handbook of research methods for clinical
and health psychology, 65–78.
Ghenai, C. (2012). Life Cycle Assessment of Packaging Materials for Milk and Dairy Products.
International Journal of Thermal & Environmental Engineering, 4(2), 117–128.
https://doi.org/10.5383/ijtee.04.02.002
Hedra. (2018). FAQ - HEDRA - Hergebruik drankenkartons. Retrieved August 31, 2018, from
https://www.hedra.nl/faq

59
 REFERENCES

Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids -
Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 481–492.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.005
ILO. (2018). International Labour Organization. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from
https://www.ilo.org/global/lang--en/index.htm
Iwata, T. (2015). Biodegradable and bio-based polymers: Future prospects of eco-friendly
plastics. Angewandte Chemie - International Edition, 54(11), 3210–3215.
https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201410770
Jones, P., Clarke‐Hill, C., Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. (2008). Marketing and sustainability.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 26(2), 123–130.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500810860584
Jones, P., Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. (2012). Marketing Sustainable Consumption within Stores:
A Case Study of the UK’s Leading Food Retailers. Journal of Food Products Marketing,
18(2), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2012.653779
Joyce, A., & Paquin, R. L. (2016). The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design
more sustainable business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1474–1486.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.067
Jumbo. (2016). Jumbo’s duurzame boodschap. Retrieved from
http://www.jumborapportage.com/FbContent.ashx/pub_1004/Downloads/MVO_jaarvers
lag_2016.pdf
Kalfagianni, A., & Fuchs, D. (2012). The Global GAP. Business Regulation and Non-State
Actors: Whose Standards, 148–160.
KIDV. (2018). Disposal Guide. Netherlands Institute for Sustainable Packaging. Retrieved
August 13, 2018, from https://www.kidv.nl/kidv-
publicaties/3695/weggooiwijzer.html?ch=EN
Kolk, A., & van Tulder, R. (2010). International business, corporate social responsibility and
sustainable development. International Business Review.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.12.003
Kuciel, S., Kuźniar, P., & Nykiel, M. (2018). Biodegradable polymers in the general waste
stream - The issue of recycling with polyethylene packaging materials.
Polimery/Polymers, 63(1), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.14314/polimery.2018.1.5
Laszlo, C., & Zhexembayeva, N. (2017). Embedded sustainability: The next big competitive
advantage. Routledge.
Lidl. (2015). Materialiteitsmatrix - Verantwoord ondernemen - Lidl Maatschappelijk
Jaarverslag 2015-2016. Retrieved from

60
 REFERENCES

http://lidl.h5mag.com/maatschappelijk_jaarverslag_2015-2016/materialiteitsmatrix
Lidl. (2018a). Our History - Lidl UK. Retrieved July 24, 2018, from
https://careers.lidl.co.uk/en/our-history-1819.htm
Lidl. (2018b). Verantwoordelijkheid. Retrieved July 24, 2018, from
https://www.lidl.nl/nl/Verantwoordelijkheid.htm
Magnier, L., & Schoormans, J. (2015). Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging: The
interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental concern. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 44, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.09.005
Manda, B. M. K., Bosch, H., Karanam, S., Beers, H., Bosman, H., Rietveld, E., … Patel, M. K.
(2016). Value creation with life cycle assessment: an approach to contextualize the
application of life cycle assessment in chemical companies to create sustainable value.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 126, 337–351.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.020
Markwardt, S., Wellenreuther, F., Drescher, A., Harth, J., & Busch Heidelberg, M. (2017).
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Tetra Pak® carton packages and alternative
packaging systems for liquid food on the Nordic market Final report commissioned by
Tetra Pak International SA, 49(April). Retrieved from www.ifeu.de
Marsh, K., & Bugusu, B. (2007). Food packaging - Roles, materials, and environmental issues:
Scientific status summary. Journal of Food Science, 72(3).
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00301.x
Meneses, M., Pasqualino, J., & Castells, F. (2012). Environmental assessment of the milk life
cycle: The effect of packaging selection and the variability of milk production data. Journal
of Environmental Management, 107, 76–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.019
Moon, J. (2007). The Contribution of Corporate Social Responsibility to Sustainable
Development, 306, 296–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd
Morhardt, J. E., Baird, S., & Freeman, K. (2002). Environmental and Sustainability Reports
and Other Criteria. Corporate Social Responsibility Management, 9, 215–233.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.26
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why Sustainability Is Now the
Key Driver of Innovation. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from
http://www.billsynnotandassociates.com.au/images/stories/documents/sustainability_th
e_key_driver_of_innovation.pdf
Palkopoulou, S., Joly, C., Feigenbaum, A., Papaspyrides, C. D., & Dole, P. (2016). Critical
review on challenge tests to demonstrate decontamination of polyolefins intended for
food contact applications. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 49, 110–120.

61
 REFERENCES

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.12.003
Pasqualino, J., Meneses, M., & Castells, F. (2011). The carbon footprint and energy
consumption of beverage packaging selection and disposal. Journal of Food
Engineering, 103(4), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.11.005
PEETERS, K., CREVITS, H., DEMOTTE, R., LUTGEN, B., PICQUE, C., & HUYTEBROECK,
E. (1999). Cooperation agreement of 04-11-2008 on the prevention and management of
packaging waste, 6(February 2004), 5–6.
PLMA. (2018). Welcome | PLMA. Retrieved August 16, 2018, from
https://www.plmainternational.com/
Risch, S. J. (2009). Food Packaging History and Innovations. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 57(18), 8089–8092. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf900040r
Rokka, J., & Uusitalo, L. (2008). Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices
– Do consumers care? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(5), 516–525.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00710.x
Rouw, M., & Worrell, E. (2011). Evaluating the impacts of packaging policy in The Netherlands.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(4), 483–492.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.12.013
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Hansen, E. G. (2012). Business cases for sustainability:
the role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. Int. J. Innovation and
Sustainable Development, 6(2).
Schulz, S. A., & Flanigan, R. L. (2016). Developing competitive advantage using the triple
bottom line: a conceptual framework. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(4),
449–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-08-2014-0150
Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–
1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020
Sharma, A., Iyer, G. R., Mehrotra, A., & Krishnan, R. (2010). Sustainability and business-to-
business marketing: A framework and implications. Industrial Marketing Management,
39(2), 330–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.11.005
Sonneveld, K., James, K., Fitzpatrick, L., & Lewis, H. (2005). Sustainable Packaging: How do
we Define and Measure It? Symposium A Quarterly Journal In Modern Foreign
Literatures, (April), 1–9.
Superunie. (2017). Samen op weg naar transparante en duurzame ketens Jaarverslag
Duurzame Handel 2017: Resultaten en voortgang. Retrieved from
https://www.superunie.nl/app/uploads/2018/05/Jaarverslag-Duuzame-Handel-
Superunie-2017_.pdf

62
 REFERENCES

Syndy. (2015). The State of Online Grocery Retail in Europe 2015. Retrieved from
http://www.syndy.com/report-the-state-of-online-grocery-retail-2015/
Tetra Pak. (2002). The history of an idea. Retrieved from
https://assets.tetrapak.com/static/documents/the-history-of-an-idea.pdf
Tetra Pak. (2017). Sustainability Report 2017. Retrieved from
https://assets.tetrapak.com/static/documents/sustainability/2017-sustainability-
report.pdf
Tetra Pak. (2018a). Aseptic solutions keeping food safe and fresh. Retrieved July 26, 2018,
from https://www.tetrapak.com/packaging/aseptic-solutions
Tetra Pak. (2018b). Global site. Retrieved July 26, 2018, from https://www.tetrapak.com/
Tetra Pak. (2018c). How Do Cartons Get Recycled? Retrieved August 1, 2018, from
https://www.tetrapak.com/in/sustainability/good-for-you-good-for-the-earth/how-do-
cartons-get-recycled
Tetra Pak. (2018d). Packaging material for Tetra Pak carton packages. Retrieved July 27,
2018, from https://www.tetrapak.com/packaging/materials
Thöni, A., & Tjoa, A. M. (2017). Information technology for sustainable supply chain
management: a literature survey. Enterprise Information Systems, 11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2015.1091950
Tokiwa, Y., Calabia, B. P., Ugwu, C. U., & Aiba, S. (2009). Biodegradability of plastics.
International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 10(9), 3722–3742.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms10093722
Trienekens, J., & Zuurbier, P. (2008). Quality and safety standards in the food industry,
developments and challenges. International Journal of Production Economics, 113(1),
107–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.02.050
Tsiropoulos, I., Faaij, A. P. C., Lundquist, L., Schenker, U., Briois, J. F., & Patel, M. K. (2015).
Life cycle impact assessment of bio-based plastics from sugarcane ethanol. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 90(December 2017), 114–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.071
Udea. (2018). About Udea | Ondernemend in biologisch. Retrieved July 25, 2018, from
https://www.udea.nl/pages/about-udea
Unctad. (2017). Transnational Corporations (Vol. 24). Transnational Corporations; 24(3); 33-
49.
United Nations. (2018a). Sustainable consumption and production. Retrieved August 28,
2018, from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-
production/
United Nations. (2018b). United Nations sustainable development agenda. Retrieved August

63
 REFERENCES

27, 2018, from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/

Vachon, S., & Mao, Z. (2008). Linking supply chain strength to sustainable development: a
country-level analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1552–1560.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.012
Van Sluisveld, M. A. E., & Worrell, E. (2013). The paradox of packaging optimization - A
characterization of packaging source reduction in the Netherlands. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 73, 133–142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.01.016
Vaughan, P., Cook, M., & Trawick, P. (2007). A sociology of reuse: Deconstructing the milk
bottle. Sociologia Ruralis, 47(2), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9523.2007.00432.x
Von Falkenstein, E., Wellenreuther, F., & Detzel, A. (2010). LCA studies comparing beverage
cartons and alternative packaging: Can overall conclusions be drawn? International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(9), 938–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-
0218-x
Willard, D., & Hitchcock, M. (2009). The business guide to sustainability. Practical strategies
and tools for organizations. Routledge.

64
 APPENDIX

APPENDIX

A: LITERATURE REVIEW COMPARISON

Impact Bertolini, et al., (2013) Meneses, M., Simon, B., Pasqualino (2011) Von Falkenstein
Categories Pasqualino, J., Amor, M. Ben, (2010)

& Castells, F. & Földényi, R.

(2012) (2016)

Packaging Aseptic Carton

Types/ Unit Milk packaging. (0,2; 0,33; 1; 1,5L),
Aluminum cans
considered Aseptic carton Aluminum can Milk, Juice
Multi- (0,5; 0,33L); PET
(0,2L; 1L; 1,5L; (0,33; 0,5L), glass Carton, Plastic
PET HDPE layer (0,5; 1; 1,5 and
2L); HDPE (1L (0,33; 1L), Plastic (HDPE and PET),
Carton 2L); PLA (1,5L);
and 1,5L); PET HDPE (0,2; 1; glass.
Glass (0,33; 0,5)
(1,5L) 1,5L) PET (0,33;
1,5; 5; 8L)

Global Warming Aseptic carton

Carton has the
Potential. (GWP) shows lower
lowest impact in
(kg CO2 eq.) emissions Carton showed
Carton and PLA almost all studies.
compared to the lowest
show the One study with
0,265 0,275 0,17 HDPE and PET. impact for juice
lowest CO2 opposite result
Exact values compared to
emissions. compared carton to
were not given glass and HDPE.
multi-use glass
but shown in
bottle.
graph.

Acidification Aseptic carton Carton has the

Potential (AP) (g shows lower lowest impact in all
SO eq.)
2
emissions studies for milk. The
compared to same for juice with
0,0010 0,00089 0,00059
HDPE and PET. Not included Not included one exception that
46 2 6
Exact values attributed a smaller
were not given impact for PET due
but shown in to assuming higher
graph. recycling rate.

Cumulated Carton has the

Carton showed
Energy Demand lowest impact in all
the lowest
(CED)/fossil 5.16MJ studies, except one
resource 4.86MJ 3.65 MJ Not included Not included impact for juice
that compared
consumption compared to
carton to multi-use
glass and HDPE.
glass bottle.

Land use Higher for carton

(forestry) Not included Not included Not included Not included since 75% of carton
is composed by

65
 APPENDIX

paper from wood

fiber

Summer smog Over half of the

Different
studies point carton
reverse logistic
as the lowest impact
routes were
for milk. For juice 3
analyzed.
Not included Not included Not included out of 6 studies
Carton is
attributed a smaller
between the
impact for PET due
lowest impact
to assuming higher
in all routes.
recycling rate.

Terrestrial
eutrophication Carton has the
0,0003 0,00035 0,00022
or Not included Not included Not included lowest impact in all
25 1 3
Eutrophication studies for juice.
Potential (EP)

Stratospheric
3.23E- 1.64E-
ozone depletion 3.7E-08 Not included Not included Not included Not included
08 08
(SOD)

Different
reverse logistic
routes were
Photochemical
5.32E- 4.93E- 3.15E- analyzed.
Ozone Formation Not included Not included Not included
05 05 05 Carton is
(POF)
between the
lowest impact
in all routes.

Nutrient
Not included Not included Not included Not included Not included
Enrichment

Similar results
from GWP with
Only three studies
Human Toxicity larger
include this category
Potential (HTP) 0,055 0,0805 0,111 Not included differences Not included
but use different
(kg 1,4-DB eq) between
indicators.
collection
systems

Only three studies

included this
Ecotoxicity Not included Not included Not included Not included category. All pointed
carton as having the
lowest impact.

66
 APPENDIX

B: CONSUMER SURVEY

B1. CONSUMER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

1. How important is it for you that a food company acts environmentally friendly? 

(Scale from 1 to 5 as Not important at all, not important, not unimportant and not
important, important, very important)

2. What do you see as an environmentally friendly company? (Single Choice)

❏ Low production carbon footprint

❏ Uses certified materials (ex. FSC)
❏ Uses less chemicals
❏ Uses less resources
❏ You can return packaging after use
❏ Packaging is made of recyclable material
❏ Packaging is made of plant-based material
❏ Other (specify)

3. What are the beverages and food you frequently buy packaged in? (e.g. juice, milk
& water) (Single Choice)

❏ Glass
❏ Beverage carton
❏ Can
❏ Plastic
❏ Plant-based packaging
❏ I don’t buy this product

4. Which packaging material do you think is more environmentally impactful? (Single

Choice)

❏ Glass
❏ Beverage carton
❏ Can
❏ Plastic
❏ Plant-based

5. Viewing these impacts, which one would you prefer to

buy? (considering the price is the same) (Single Choice)

❏ Plastic
❏ Beverage carton
❏ Glass

67
 APPENDIX

6. Would you buy beverage carton if it was: (Single Choice)

❏ Yes, if it is the same price

❏ Yes, even if it slightly more expensive
❏ Yes, but only if it is cheaper
❏ No, I do not prefer drinking carton

7. How do you throw away your waste? (Single Choice, one for each category)

Regular Glass Plastic bin Paper Return at Organic Other

bin bin (PMD) bin supermarket bin
(GFT)
Glass
Beverage
Carton
Can
Plastic
Plant-based

8. How would you prefer to dispose of beverage packaging? (Single Choice)

❏ Regular bin
❏ Glass bin
❏ Plastic bin (PMD)
❏ Paper bin
❏ Return at supermarket
❏ Organic waste
❏ Other

9. If you had the option to return beverage carton to the supermarket, with a deposit
like it can be done with some glass and plastic bottles, would you prefer that? (Single
Choice)

❏ Yes
❏ No

10. Which of the below actions have more positive impacts on the environment? (Put
in order)

❏ Choosing which product/packaging to buy

❏ Limiting food waste at home
❏ Recycling

11. Do you consider yourself as environmentally friendly and cares about

sustainability? (Single Choice)

68
 APPENDIX

Yes 12. What do you do? (Multiple Choice)

❏ Buy organic and biological products

❏ Buy fair-trade products
❏ Buy bigger volumes to avoid packaging
❏ Buy less product to avoid (food) waste
❏ Buy less plastic packaging
❏ Buy recyclable packaging
❏ Prefer plant-based packaging

No 13. What would make you interested? (Single Choice)

❏ Understand current impacts of product/packaging choice

❏ Understand the consequences for the future
❏ Understand how my actions impact the environment
❏ Other (specify)

14. What limits your actions from being more environmentally friendly? (Multiple
Choice)

❏ Limited options in regular supermarkets to collect packaging

❏ Limited options in regular supermarket to buy products in other packaging
❏ I prefer the brand or product, no matter the packaging
❏ Price
❏ I don't think about environmental impacts all the time
❏ Other (specify)

15. What changes would you like to be done in packaging? (Single Choice)

❏ Less plastic options

❏ Less plastic bottles
❏ More beverage carton
❏ More glass
❏ More can
❏ More plant-based packaging
❏ No packaging
❏ More returnable packaging
❏ Other (specify)

69
 APPENDIX

B2: CONSUMER SURVEY RESULTS

1. How important is it for you that a Food Company acts NL Total 100% (411) BE Total 100% (403)
environmentally friendly?
Not important at all 1.22% 5 1.74% 7
Not important 3.16% 13 4.96% 20
Not unimportant and not important 16.55% 68 17.87% 72
Important 53.04% 218 46.65% 188
Very important 26.03% 107 28.78% 116
Total 100% 411 100% 403
2. What do you see as an environmentally friendly company? NL Total 100% (411) BE Total 100% (403)
Low production carbon footprint 61.56% 253 68.49% 276
Uses certified materials (ex. FSC) 54.5% 224 42.93% 173
Uses less chemicals 77.86% 320 78.16% 315
Uses less resources 44.04% 181 31.76% 128
You can return packaging after use 59.12% 243 59.31% 239
Packaging is made of recyclable material 76.4% 314 72.7% 293
Packaging is made of plant-based material 41.12% 169 35.48% 143
Others (specify) 3.41% 14 3.47% 14
3. What are the beverages and food you frequently buy packaged in? NL Total 100% (411) BE Total 100% (403)
(e.g. juice, milk & water)
Glass Juice 80% 64 59.82% 67
Milk 18.75% 15 30.36% 34
Water 30% 24 51.79% 58
Total 100% 80 100% 112
Beverage carton Juice 58.79% 214 52.65% 169
Milk 84.89% 309 85.67% 275
Water 9.34% 34 0.93% 3
Total 100% 364 100% 321
Can Juice 39.13% 9 69.23% 18
Milk 39.13% 9 26.92% 7
Water 26.09% 6 19.23% 5
Total 100% 23 100% 26
Plastic Juice 25.59% 65 16.12% 49
Milk 18.5% 47 21.38% 65
Water 78.35% 199 92.43% 281
Total 100% 254 100% 304
Plant-based packaging Juice 47.62% 10 52.63% 10
Milk 23.81% 5 10.53% 2
Water 38.1% 8 42.11% 8
Total 100% 21 100% 19
I don’t buy this product Juice 28.49% 49 70.87% 90
Milk 15.12% 26 15.75% 20

 The answers given in the Other (specify) options were not relevant and therefore not used in this report. They can be

obtained upon request with the researcher.

70
 APPENDIX

Water 81.4% 140 37.8% 48

Total 100% 172 100% 127
4. Which packaging material do you think is more environmentally NL Total 100% (411) BE Total 100% (403)
impactful?
Glass 43.31% 60.3%
Carton 15.09% 9.93%
Can 1.95% 2.73%
Plastic 3.16% 1.24%
Plant-based packaging 36.5% 25.81%
5. Viewing these impacts, which one would you prefer to buy? NL Total 100% (411) BE Total 100% (403)
(considering the price is the same)
Glass 20.44% 27.05%
Carton 74.21% 68.49%
Plastic 5.35% 4.47%
6. Would you buy beverage carton if it was: NL Total 100% (411) BE Total 100% (403)
Yes, if it is the same price 57.66% 237 60.05% 242
Yes, even if it slightly more expensive 28.71% 118 20.35% 82
Yes, but only if it is cheaper 9.49% 39 14.89% 60
No, I do not prefer drinking carton 4.14% 17 4.71% 19
7. How do you throw away your waste? NL Total 100% (411) BE Total 100% (403)
Regular bin Glass 8% 20 3.07% 7
Carton 36% 90 7.46% 17
Can 71.6% 179 13.16% 30
Plastic 19.6% 49 39.91% 91
Plant-based packaging 44.8% 112 64.04% 146
Total 100% 250 100% 228
Glass bin Glass 97.47% 347 97.67% 335
Carton 2.25% 8 0.87% 3
Can 2.53% 9 0.87% 3
Plastic 1.69% 6 0.58% 2
Plant-based packaging 0.28% 1 0.29% 1
Total 100% 356 100% 343
Plastic bin (PMD) Glass 0.61% 2 0.8% 3
Carton 54.74% 179 82.49% 311
Can 51.38% 168 83.02% 313
Plastic 91.74% 300 64.99% 245
Plant-based packaging 12.23% 40 8.75% 33
Total 100% 327 100% 377
Papier bin Glass 0.62% 1 2.22% 2
Carton 70.19% 113 56.67% 51
Can 2.48% 4 8.89% 8
Plastic 5.59% 9 6.67% 6
Plant-based packaging 26.71% 43 35.56% 32
Total 100% 161 100% 90
Return at supermarket Glass 33.33% 34 52.75% 48
Carton 4.9% 5 5.49% 5

71
 APPENDIX

Can 20.59% 21 10.99% 10

Plastic 38.24% 39 15.38% 14
Plant-based packaging 14.71% 15 19.78% 18
Total 100% 102 100% 91
Organic bin (GFT) Glass 1.91% 4 2.81% 5
Carton 4.78% 10 4.49% 8
Can 6.7% 14 17.42% 31
Plastic 1.91% 4 11.24% 20
Plant-based packaging 89.95% 188 76.97% 137
Total 100% 209 100% 178
Others (specify) Glass 10.34% 3 5.56% 3
Carton 20.69% 6 14.81% 8
Can 55.17% 16 14.81% 8
Plastic 13.79% 4 46.3% 25
Plant-based packaging 41.38% 12 66.67% 36
Total 100% 29 100% 54
8. How would you prefer to dispose of beverage packaging? NL Total 100% (411) BE Total 100% (403)
Regular bin 12.9% 53 5.71% 23
Glass bin 0.97% 4 0.25% 1
Plastic bin (PMD) 37.71% 155 61.79% 249
Papier bin 41.12% 169 20.84% 84
Return at the supermarket 3.41% 14 7.94% 32
Organic bin (GFT) 1.46% 6 1.74% 7
 2.43% 10 1.74% 7
Others (specify)
9. If you had the option to return beverage carton to the supermarket, NL Total 100% (411) BE Total 100% (403)
with a deposit like it can be done with some glass and plastic bottles,
would you prefer that?
Yes 53.53% 220 57.07% 230
No 46.47% 191 42.93% 173
411 403
NL Total 100% (411) BE Total 100% (403)
10. Which of the below actions have more positive impacts on the
environment?
Choosing which product/packaging to buy High impact 24.09% 99 22.33% 90
Medium impact 37.23% 153 38.46% 155
Low impact 38.69% 159 39.21% 158
Total 100% 411 100% 403
Limiting food waste at home High impact 38.44% 158 38.46% 155
Medium impact 27.01% 111 27.79% 112
Low impact 34.55% 142 33.75% 136
Total 100% 411 100% 403
Recycling High impact 37.47% 154 39.21% 158
Medium impact 35.77% 147 33.75% 136
Low impact 26.76% 110 27.05% 109

 The answers given in the Other (specify) options were not relevant and therefore not used in this report. They can be

obtained upon request with the researcher.

72
 APPENDIX

Total 100% 411 100% 403

11. Do you consider yourself as environmentally friendly and cares NL Total 100% (411) BE Total 100% (403)
about sustainability?
Yes 79.56% 327 82.63% 333
No 20.44% 84 17.37% 70
12. You are environmentally conscious and consider sustainability NL Total 100% (327) BE Total 100% (333)
important. What are you doing about this?
Buy organic and biological products 34.86% 114 30.93% 103
Buy fair-trade products 43.73% 143 28.53% 95
Buy bigger volumes to avoid packaging 32.42% 106 39.34% 131
Buy less products to avoid food waste 65.44% 214 55.56% 185
Buy less plastic packaging 56.88% 186 59.76% 199
Buy recyclable packaging 62.69% 205 69.37% 231
Prefer plant-based packaging 21.41% 70 19.52% 65
13. You do not find yourself environmentally conscious or sustainable, NL Total 100% (84) BE Total 100% (70)
what would you be interested in?
Understand current impacts of product/packaging choice 27.38% 23 27.14% 19
Understand the consequences for the future 30.95% 26 25.71% 18
Understand how my actions impact the environment 22.62% 19 30% 21
 19.05% 16 17.14% 12
Others (specify)
14. What limits your actions from being more environmentally NL Total 100% (411) BE Total 100% (403)
friendly?
Limited options in the regular supermarkets to collect packaging 36.01% 148 47.15% 190
Limited options in the regular supermarket to buy products in other 37.23% 153 44.17% 178
packaging
I prefer the brand or product, no matter the packaging 19.22% 79 20.1% 81
Price 48.42% 199 52.61% 212
I don’t think about environmental impacts all the time 21.41% 88 16.87% 68
Others (specify) 3.89% 16 2.48% 10
15. What changes would you like to be done in packaging? NL Total 100% (411) BE Total 100% (403)

Less plastic option 14.11% 58 11.17% 45

Less plastic bottles 9% 37 8.93% 36
More carton beverage packaging 11.44% 47 10.67% 43
More glass 3.65% 15 7.94% 32
More can 1.22% 5 1.49% 6
More biodegradable packaging 17.52% 72 16.13% 65
No packaging 7.06% 29 12.9% 52
More recyclable packaging 17.52% 72 14.64% 59
More returnable packaging 17.27% 71 15.14% 61
Other (specify) 1.22% 5 0.99% 4

 The answers given in the Other (specify) options were not relevant and therefore not used in this report. They can be

obtained upon request with the researcher.

73
 APPENDIX

C: RETAILERS INTERVIEWS

C1. COMMON QUESTIONS FOR ALL RETAILERS’ INTERVIEWS.

Questions Answer should mention

1. What are the main components of your

SDG, CSR, energy and CO2 impacts,
sustainability strategy and how does
standards, labels. Is packaging included?
packaging fit in?
2. What does the company still want to
Energy, environmental impact,..
improve in the sustainability strategy?
3. What are the drivers to work on Consumer, plastic soup, green marketing,
sustainability and/or improve the are they working with producers to
environmental impact of the company? improve?
4. What are the reasons to choose carton Consumer view, not feasible for beverage
and what barriers do you see for products option. This will show their perspective on
to not be packed in carton? carton.
5. What do you think is the perspective of Show survey results if the opinion is
consumers on beverage carton? different
Who decides, what matters - cost,
6. How is the packaging choice decided?
consumers, refrigeration, bio based
7. Do you change the packaging depending
Who influences who? Are they working with
on producers, consumers or do you think
producers to improve sustainability?
this change has to come from you?
Raw material, production, transport, store -
8. With which part of the supply chain are shelf -, consumer, disposal. Do you have
you more worried regarding sustainability? deposit money for plastic, glass and can
(statiegeld)?

9. What current trends in sustainability

have influenced your current sustainability Online sales increasing, bio based, less
strategy and what future trends do you plastic,..
see?
10. What can Tetra Pak do to help your
sustainability strategy?

74