Drivers, barriers and performance outcomes of sustainable packaging: a systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper presents a comprehensive overview of the cross-disciplinary literature on the drivers, barriers and performance outcomes of sustainable packaging to understand the current state of research in this field and identify research opportunities. Design/methodology/approach A systematic review is conducted within no time limit. The Methodi Ordinatio methodology was applied that resulted in retaining 48 relevant and high impact articles published in 26 academic journals with various scopes. Findings Seven key drivers are identified and defined: the integrative and collaborative supply chain, environmental capabilities and resources, market-based instruments, cost reduction, consumer pressure, competitive advantage, and regulatory pressure. Three main barriers are identified and defined: cost/benefit ambiguity, additional costs and complex trade-offs between packaging requirements. The review shows that the drivers and barriers to packaging sustainability are contingent on the firm size. Sustainable packaging positively affects the environmental, social and economic performance; however, its operational performance requires a proactive and integrated supply chain. The results highlight the importance of integrated packaging decisions at three different levels to improve packaging sustainability: vertical and horizontal integration, upstream and downstream integration, and product-packaging integration. The authors developed research propositions and provided insightful directions for future research. Originality/value Most studies focus on specific drivers, barriers and outcomes of sustainable packaging, while this paper brings them together to build a comprehensive framework. The latter provides a deeper understanding of the factors that incentivize or deter firms from pursuing sustainable packaging and its performance outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".