The Potential of Food Packaging Attributes to Influence Consumers’ Decisions to Sort Waste

Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting the manuscript for consideration. The research theme is interesting, but the study isn't appropriately designed and must be improved to justify its publication. The study requires extensive review (major revision) and please see below, some comments or observations that can improve the manuscript.

Authors would thank the esteemed reviewer for careful consideration & appreciate the time, spent on this manuscript. We’ve carefully followed each one of the comments and reported accordingly.

Abstract

There is a lack of convincing argument or rationale about the need for this study based on the information presented in the abstract. I expect a structured abstract highlighting the key issues with food packaging and why, how the issues are addressed in this study, key findings, and their implications (if any). This section should be improved to provide a snapshot of the entire study, especially about “what”, “why”, “how”, and “so what” of the study. This information should be made explicit in this section to convince the audience that the manuscript is worth reading.

 A structured abstract was developed and the argument was enhanced, further covering the relation behind the study. See line 9-20

Lines 26 – 28

Is this information about MSW in Sweden or where? This requires more explanation.

It is clarified in the paper.

See line 27.

Lines 31 – 43

What is the current practice in Sweden and how does the legislation define sorting? You should be aware that recycling, which encompasses sorting of materials, is guided by a policy-based instrument and schemes are designed to support that, these should be taken into consideration when examine people’s behaviour. You are not expected to define what sorting is, there is an acceptable definition/guide based on the operating scheme in Sweden (or research context). Also, you should explain how the scheme and legal requirements affect sorting and recycling of packaging waste in Sweden.

Legislations were included and people's behavior was addressed based on the standard. The accepted sorting definition was replaced. More clarifications were also made as to how the scheme and legal requirements affect the sorting and recycling of packaging waste in Sweden. See  Lines 53-73

Lines 48 – 56

Why is it mis-sorted? There may be many factors contributing to why packaging waste is mis-sorted and these should be identified and explained in your study. If Sweden is planning to increase packaging waste by 20%, what is the current success rate and what is the effect of this effort on people’s sorting behaviour?

Factors of leading to mins sorting were further explained. See line 73-76. The current rate of packaging waste recycling was a mention for Sweden 42-44

Lines 57 – 61

If studies have been conducted on packaging design and consumer behaviour, why the need for another (this0 study? Is it not that you are re-inventing the wheel? This rationale for this study should be adequately justified and supported with the literature. Also, what are the findings of the studies you mentioned here and how are they differ from your study?

The rationale is now adequately justified and further supported with more literature. Also, the distinction between our study and others’ are clarified. See line 90-99/ The former discoveries also explained in section 2.

Lines 69 – 71

The statement “the level of consumer satisfaction . . .” requires more explanation and clarity, and should be supported with evidence.

It is an item of literature, cited by us, to show as one of many evidences that packaging affects consumer behavior.   

Lines 72 – 73

What are the findings of the identified studies and again what is the difference from your study?

Please refer to our clarification mentioned in the Row 90-99

Also, the distinction between our study and others’ are clarified here as well.

Lines 84 – 88

If it is a routine task as mentioned, why investigating the attributes of packaging and why is it important to consumers’ behaviour? If sorting is unconscious, it shows that behaviour is habitual where features and attributes of packaging play no important role in the consumer’s sorting decision-making and behaviour. This suggests the presence of other factors other than the features/attributes influencing people’s sorting behaviour and those factors should be explored if people are still mis-sorting packaging (Line 49).

The issue was amended. It is explained that packaging design may affect the way consumers are dealing with the process of recycling unconsciously. However, proper packaging may keep the consumers unconscious whilst they behave the way designers wanted them to do. See line 116-124

Line 91 – 93

“This is the first time such a study has been undertaken” contradicts the information in Lines 59-61; 66; 72; and 77 for example. Also, “the understanding that can be gained . . .support correct separation and sorting” is not feasible in practice although it may make theoretical sense (see Line 385).

The contradiction was eradicated and amended. See line 99-124 and Lines 128-130

Section 2

I expect this section to address the current knowledge in the sorting and recycling of packaging waste rather than recycling in general. Also, how is Table 1 developed and from what studies? What is the relevance of that table in this study? While some factors are identified in this section, it lacks robustness, especially about the utility of the identified factors in influencing consumers’ packaging sorting behaviour. For instance, you claim that large and heavy packaging increases inconvenience, but there is no information of how, including its contribution/relevance in your study considering the items in Table 2.

Current knowledge about recycling and sorting somewhat interwoven and difficult to distinguish among them. Also, it was explained in the manuscript (Line 273-276) there are few studies with that focus. Table 1 summarizes the section 2 discussion and it was replaced (Line 218-220). The heavy or large packaging was reported by the reference and it is not our claim (Line 214-216). Based on research objectives we selected the smallest and biggest size to have a fair compare at the end.

Lines 181

Why (and how) questionnaire if the study adopted qualitative interviews? Please clarify the approach used in this study.

The research approach utilized in this paper was further clarified. It was pre-intended questions that were used to clear the path of the interview. See Line 221-239 and Line 236-238. Also, Line 292-294.

[

Lines 184 -189

Why did you focus on only one stage? Identifying problems without solutions makes no contribution to the present knowledge and practice, especially in designing waste collection scheme that will allow consumers to sort their packaging waste effectively.

The stage was further explained. The selection was made due to its prominence to the whole process. It could be a B2C approach as it is the onset of the whole recycling process. Changes to this stage are much simpler than making even a small alteration to the recycling infrastructure in a city or nationwide.  See line 224-227. The suggestion has emerged from ideation and participants' statements were proposed in section 4.

Line 196

Please explain the random process you employed in this study and justify why the approach is adopted.

The process is further explained and justified. See line 239-244

Line 198

Are you suggesting that members of a household sort their packaging waste differently even when they have access to the same bin/container? It is empirically misleading to analyse the behaviour of individuals at a household level when they belong to the same family considering that you are not exploring their perceptions, but what they actually do.

 This is the design’s job; design can change consumers’ behavior. So far, PKG design has been concentrated on market aspects + attention attraction. We are going to offer another kind of attitude. 

Lines 207 – 210

If these packages are common in Sweden, what are the legal requirements for their sorting and is there any scheme for collecting these materials? Many important information is missing from your study design and approach, thus reducing the credibility and quality of the findings.

Legal requirements are included and addressed against our criteria. We did investigate their perception. please see lines from 267-279 Details of our study were added to enhance credibility.

Lines 227 – 228

This was like an experiment; the question is whether you establish consumers’ sorting experience before asking them to include specific packaging in their daily shopping. Also, did they receive financial incentives when changing their shopping behaviour and how did you establish that they changed the shopping preferences? All these require more explanation.

Considering the facts: 1) consumers have not provided with the band newly designed packaging so as to be able to check up on them if they are ok with it and 2) consumers are not design experts, we are left in a position where only have to address the status quo.  

Lines 228 – 232

The approach used might have introduced bias in consumers’ behaviour, it would have been more intuitive to interview the participants before the shopping experience to benchmark their behaviour and to understand that their behaviour is not influenced by the approach used for data collection.

The number of families interviewed was 15. The justification is that the social aspects and lifestyle of these families (including sex, age, education, income, etc.) have made these families a typical Swedish family, suitable for the study. BTW, the budget limitation ruled out this figure. We cannot more agree with the reviewer that the larger the sample size, the more accurate results could have been achieved.

Lines 233 – 255

This section requires extensive explanation. How are the interviews conducted and how are the questions developed? What is the relevance of Table 3 and its meaning? For instance, is Q4a function of “packaging functions” and “perceived convenience”?

 An extensive explanation was added to the section. See line 299- 313. The relevance of Table 3, factors included with was explained. Line 291-295

Lines 256

This section needs more clarity, especially in relation to Table 3 and the participants’ responses. What type of analysis did you perform and how did you arrive at these results? What depicts a good score, medium score, and not being good? How did you generate Table 4, especially the scale used?

 The section was further clarified. See line 328-330. Also, see Line 341-347.

Lines 277 – 288

Are they performing these actions due to packaging features and how will this result explain the mixed results in Lines 261 – 269?

The results in Lines 331-334 approved that the informative aspect of packaging was not subject to direct their behavior. The effect of packaging features was explained in Table 5 (visual elements) and Table 6 (physical features).

Lines 297 – 299

Figure 1 contradicts the results in Lines 277 – 290. The question now is whether one member of a household sort packaging as presented in Lines 277 – 290, and another member of the same household adopts the approach in Figure 1 (without sorting) – this suggests the difficulty in using the individual as a unit of analysis when investigating a collective action/behaviour, such house household recycling behaviour.

That’s right but that was an exception see Line 363.  

Lines 305 – 319

The information here suggests that there is no need for interviews in this study and you should have framed the argument more differently.

The information was retrieved from producers or relevant companies’ website and supplied here to clarified their connection with research objectives. This section was transferred into the paper appendix to keep the coherent in the manuscript. See line 85-857

Lines 332 – 339

How do you know that consumers are paying attention to the information or seeking information on how to sort this material? You should have adopted experimental approach to understand whether consumers are paying attention to the features and establish if small/large prints affect their sorting behaviour.

 We were reporting on what we have achieved from participants’ statement and compare with current references. A multi-dimensional approach is needed for a better recycling behavior including the packaging design itself.

Lines 362 -374

I don’t think there’s a need for information on packaging materials on how to sort packaging waste due to possible differences in waste collection scheme, including its underpinning facilities. You will agree that collection schemes are different from county to county, and there is no uniform recycling scheme in Sweden, and it’s impractical for packaging producers to tailor the design to schemes due to the lack of correspondence. And Lines 372 -374 indicate that sorting is not a function of packaging features, and may be due to type of scheme that makes sorting difficult for consumers.

We are agreed with you. Please notice that information was not suggested by us and was mentioned upon the producers’ recommendation e.g. See line 403-404. This information is not provided by all manufacturers. the lack of sufficient information leads to unknown behaviors by consumers as you mention in lines 421-433 And that does not mean that packaging separation was not its task. As you know, packaging separation and recycling is mandatory in Sweden given the producers’ responsibilities and FTI legislation. See Line 61-65

Line 500

If separation/sorting is ritual, then it shows habitual behaviour and suggests that packaging features may have no or little effects. The direction of this study is not clear and is not properly designed to understand specific problems/issues being addressed. For a qualitative study, you need clear and concise research questions, and how the problems are addressed should be sufficiently explained to arrive at admissible results. The study should be appropriately justified and results of this are ambiguous. There is a need for more clarity about the study design, especially regarding the research questions, data collection and analysis methods, the results should focus/address the research questions.

1) Rituals can be planned or designed in accordance with society's needs today. We have not considered Rituals as something granted and fixed. 2) Packaging that fails to supply functionality, usability, and satisfaction cannot affect consumer behavior. See lines 521-531

The paper went through a complete justification and clarification process.   

The authors sincerely thank you for your rigorous examination of the paper. 

This is well written paper. The literature search was impressive and extensive. I am concerned about the limited number of families used as test subjects. In order to realize the strong conclusions, I would have expected a larger number as the various categories (sex, age, education, income, etc) would be quite small.

Authors would thank the reviewer for careful consideration & appreciate the time spent on this manuscript.

The number of families interviewed was 15. The justification is that the social aspects and lifestyle of these families (including sex, age, education, income, etc.) have made these families a typical Swedish family, suitable for the study. BTW, the budget limitation ruled out this figure. We cannot more agree with the reviewer that the larger the sample size, more accurate result could have been achieved.

I find Table 3 confusing in terms of the manner in which the questions relate to the factors. Some questions were also confusing, especially  9 and 10. However since they were asked in that way, there is little that can be done now, unless there is a translation issue.

Your suggestion is true. This part was modified and further explained. See Line 299-313   

One final comment. In the paper the statement is made that " sustainable packaging is one that stimulates consumer recycling behaviour". That may be the result of sustainable packaging, but this is not a definition of sustainable packaging.  The materials are the key factor, along with their source and recyclability and compostability.

Thai is true and thank you for you notice. This section, however, was modified based on other reviewers’ comments and the sentence was removed.

Suggestions for Authors

I have gone through the manuscript entitled "The Potential of Food Packaging Attributes to Influence Consumers’ Decisions to Sort Waste". The authors investigated how the different packaging attributes are perceived by consumers and affect consumer decisions. The topic sounds interesting. The topic could belong the areas of interest to the Sustainability audience. The present manuscript could be considered to publish in the journal after a major revision. I would give the specific comments below that could help the authors improve their manuscript.

Authors would thank the reviewer for careful consideration & appreciate the time spent on this manuscript.

Abstract

The abstract should be rewritten by detailing the aim and concept of the manuscript. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions.

The aim and conclusion of the study were added. Pls. Check the abstract. See line 9-22

The abstract should also be revised with the benefits of the study findings and recommendations as a way forward.

The findings were added. Pls. Check the abstract. The recommendations were included and were extensively discussed at Section 4.

Provide significant words which are more relevant to the work in logical sequence as ‘keywords’. Also use keywords which are not present in title.

Keywords were revised.   See line 22-24

Introduction

The introduction section is required to be improved. The present introduction is very general and need to be elaborative to explore the actual philosophy to design the study. The introduction is insufficient to provide the state of the art in the topic. Hypothesis should be given. How this work is different from the available literature?

The study theoretical framework was further elaborated. Pls. Check lines 27-132  

The originality and novelty of the paper need to be further clarified. What progress against the most recent state-of-the-art similar studies was made in this study?

 The study originality was further elaborated. Pls. Check lines 99-132

Discussion

The manuscript does not provide interesting and technically sound discussion; it would be better to use more recent references in discussion.

The study discussion was modified, in some parts was made shorter and, in another parts, included further explanation: that is, findings were addressed based on theories of waste management, sustainability and product design. e.g. 447-462. Some further references also were added e.g. references e.g. 101,104,105.

Under section, discussion, it is recommended to discuss and explain what the appropriate policies should be based on the findings of this study. Also, the results should be further elaborated to show how they could be used for real applications.

As mentioned above. Another e.g. 525-538.

Conclusion

Pls. conclude with more focus on the major outcomes of the paper and future perspectives

The clarity of findings toward providing some ground for future studies was enhanced. See line 566-572.