Journal of Cleaner Production 281 (2021) 125276

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

The role of packaging in fighting food waste: A systematised review of

consumer perceptions of packaging
Linda Brennan a, c, *, Sophie Langley a, c, Karli Verghese b, c, Simon Lockrey b, c,
Maddison Ryder b, c, Caroline Francis b, c, Nhat Tram Phan-Le a, c, Allister Hill a, c
a
RMIT University School of Media and Communication, Building 9, Level 4, 124 La Trobe Street, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
b
RMIT University School of Design, Building 9, Level 4, 124 La Trobe Street, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
c
Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre, Wine Innovation Central Building, Level 1, Waite Campus, Urrbrae, SA 5064, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Food packaging is often viewed as having a negative impact on the environment. However, packaging can
Received 12 March 2020 protect food, prolong shelf life, and reduce environmental impact by reducing food waste. Throughout
Received in revised form the existing literature it is evident that consumer knowledge and levels of awareness, interest, and
18 November 2020
appreciation of these functions of packaging are major factors in their refusal or acceptance of emerging
Accepted 22 November 2020
Available online 26 November 2020
packaging technologies, whether those technologies are specifically directed at reducing food waste or
not. The complex relationship consumers have with food packaging creates a barrier to food saving
Handling editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Kleme
s practices. This paper presents a systematised literature review of the existing scholarly and industry
discussion of consumer food waste in households, packaging technologies to reduce food waste, and
Keywords: consumer perceptions of packaging. It maps the shifting theoretical approaches to food waste, showing a
Food waste move in the literature away from food waste being treated as a food-related issue and towards seeing
Food packaging food waste as a waste-related, sustainability, production, and environmental issue. The paper finds that
Food packaging design there is very little research that examines consumers’ perceptions of food packaging. In particular, there
Reducing food waste
is little research on the role of consumers’ perceptions in reducing food waste. Mapping the ways
Consumer perceptions
different types of consumers perceive this role and linking this with a life cycle assessment of the overall
Households
environmental impact of food waste in different food categories could help the development of focused
strategies for packaging design to reduce food waste in households. This review shows that technologies
directly addressing the reasons for household food waste are under researched, and more research is
needed to explicitly explore consumer perceptions, understandings, and acceptance of these packaging
technologies.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Analysis of bibliographic information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Theoretical approaches to examining the role of packaging in food waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Location and publication of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Food categories wasted by consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Consumer perceptions, attitudes and awareness of food waste and the role of packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Brennan), Sophie.langley@rmit.
edu.au (S. Langley), [email protected] (K. Verghese), Simon.lockrey@rmit.
edu.au (S. Lockrey), [email protected] (M. Ryder), Caroline.francis@rmit.
edu.au (C. Francis), [email protected] (N.T. Phan-Le), [email protected].
au (A. Hill).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125276
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Brennan, S. Langley, K. Verghese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 281 (2021) 125276

3.5.1. Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5.2. Challenges of everyday life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5.3. Managing stock in households and material factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5.4. Consumer concerns about the role of packaging in food waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5.5. Consumer attitudes towards emerging packaging technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Theoretical contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Practical and managerial contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1. Introduction Little research currently exists about how consumers perceive

the role of packaging in reducing food waste or whether emerging
Food waste is a significant environmental, economic, and social packaging technologies would be accepted and used by consumers.
issue (Devin and Richards 2018). Reducing food waste is a signifi- Studies that explicitly investigate the relationship between food
cant way to lower production costs and increase the efficiency of waste and packaging functions in consumer households of different
the food system, improve food security and nutrition, and types and in different markets are still needed (Wikstro €m et al.,
contribute towards a more environmentally sustainable food sys- 2019). Given the ways that food packaging can contribute to
tem (Food and Agriculture Organisation 2019). Managing demand reducing food waste, understanding consumer perceptions of
for food, in part by reducing food waste, is a key part of creating packaging and the ways they use it play an important role in
sustainable food systems to meet the world’s growing population reducing household food waste. The negative perception of food
(Searchinger et al., 2019). Addressing food waste therefore has a packaging and the potential lack of understanding of its functional
range of positive implications for the global community. role in reducing household food waste that has been identified by
Packaging, by contrast, is often viewed as having a negative some studies in this review is limited, and therefore requires more
impact on the environment (INCPEN & WRAP 2019). It remains discussion and consumer research. This is the key gap in the
once a product is consumed and the customer has to either dispose existing research that is explored by this literature review.
of it or recycle it. However, packaging can protect food and prolong This study aims to draw together existing consumer behaviour
shelf life, reducing a product’s environmental impact by reducing studies related to food waste with studies that examine the func-
food waste (Lockrey et al., 2019). Generally speaking, food pack- tions of packaging to reduce food waste in order to illuminate some
aging can help reduce household food waste by extending the shelf of the nuances of this research gap. This study will assist in
life of food products, being available in numerous sizes for different informing strategies and educational campaigns about packaging
sized households, communicating the best way to use and store and food waste deployed by food producers, packaging designers,
food items, assisting households to use date labels to better manage and retailers. It also highlights several key opportunities for further
their food, and slowing the degradation of minimally processed research.
fruits and vegetables. There is also a growing body of literature that Food loss and waste (FLW) occurs along the entire food supply
identifies and examines food packaging functions and technologies chain. There are multiple definitions for FLW across the literature.
that are specifically designed to reduce food waste (Wikstro €m et al., There are variations about the inclusion of stages of the food supply
2018; Wikstro €m et al., 2019). chain (and whether a distinction is made between food loss and
The objective of this literature review is to understand existing food waste), which different end-of-life options are considered as
knowledge of consumer perceptions and behaviour in the field of FLW, and the inclusion or exclusion of inedible parts of the food
food packaging and food waste. It aims to understand what is product (Spang et al., 2019). Some of the literature also differenti-
already known about consumer perceptions and behaviour related ates between the loss of quantity and the loss of quality when
to food packaging and food waste, the theoretical approaches to the determining FLW (Food and Agriculture Organisation 2019). Most
issue of household food waste and the implications these ap- definitions consider ‘food’ to mean foodstuffs intended for human
proaches have, and what factors about consumers’ lives e for consumption. This review focuses on food waste in households.
example, age, household makeup, geographical location e re- The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (UNFAO)
searchers and packaging designers might consider when devel- estimates that each year, about one-third of all food produced for
oping and evaluating packaging solutions to both reduce food human consumption in the world is lost or wasted (Food and
waste and meet the practical needs of a variety of consumers. Agriculture Organisation 2019). Globally, the volume of edible
Recent literature reviews of consumer perceptions and behav- food waste is estimated to be 1.3 GTonnes, with 13.8% of food
iour related to food waste have examined consumer food waste produced being wasted at the ‘upstream’ stages of the food supply
behaviours and their implications for policy (Mak et al., 2020; chain: retail and consumer (Food and Agriculture Organisation
Schanes et al., 2018) the drivers of consumer food waste (Pearson 2019). Food waste at the consumer level is often caused by poor
et al., 2017; Spang et al., 2019) and the complexity of date label- purchasing habits, confusion over labels, excess buying, and poor
ling and food risk/benefit communication (Frewer et al., 2016; storage (Food and Agriculture Organisation 2019).
Newsome et al., 2014). However, no literature review to date In an Australian context, it has been estimated that the value of
examined how existing literature understands consumer percep- food waste in Australia is $AUD20 billion (ARCARDIS, 2019). Ac-
tions of packaging and its role in reducing food waste, nor the cording to the National Food Waste Baseline, Australia generated
relationship between consumer behaviour with food in the home 11.8 million tonnes of food waste in 2016/17, of which four million
and the developments in food packaging designed to reduce food was diverted to food rescue and animal feed (ARCARDIS, 2019). This
waste. equates to 298 kg of waste per person. The most significant stages

2
L. Brennan, S. Langley, K. Verghese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 281 (2021) 125276

of the supply chain at which the remaining 7.3 million tonnes of points of that life cycle, and the packaging’s food protection func-
waste was generated include primary production (34%), house- tions (Wikstro € m et al., 2018). Packaging designers also need to
holds (34%), and manufacturing (24%). identify the aspects of packaging design (e.g. portion size, ability to
Existing FLW solutions are usually aimed at reducing, recov- empty) that would reduce waste for specific products (Wikstro €m
ering, or recycling waste. Food waste reduction is seen as the et al., 2018). Packaging design can also be used as a medium
highest value solution (Spang et al., 2019). Interventions aiming to through which to inform consumers of best practice e for instance,
reduce food waste in households have included consumer educa- to communicate portions or inform consumers when the product
tion (Spang et al., 2019; Young et al., 2018), and technological in- has expired. These factors in packaging design need to be based on
terventions in household appliances, packaging, and technologies the identification of food protection issues for particular products
for food planning and sharing (see (Bucci et al., 2010; Farr-Wharton and an understanding of consumer behaviours that contribute to
et al., 2012; Ganglbauer et al., 2013; van Holsteijn and Kemna 2018; reduced food waste (Wikstro € m et al., 2018).
Spang et al., 2019). This paper presents limited findings about sustainable design of
Spang et al. (2019) argue that existing interventions tend to packaging and consumer perceptions of the importance of sus-
focus on pressure points for FLW, rather than addressing broader tainable packaging options. Though sustainable packaging is an
systemic causes. Their review of existing interventions at the con- important issue that is gaining prominence in packaging policy, a
sumer level found that most interventions aim to change consumer comprehensive review of sustainable packaging is outside the
behaviour and increase process efficiency, but few involve policy scope of the paper. This limitation points to a possible area of focus
change (Spang et al., 2019). They also argue that it is necessary to for future research. A further limitation of this study is the inclusion
consider the health and nutritional needs of consumers, and to only of English-language studies. Again, this limitation points to a
ensure that interventions aimed at reducing waste by reducing possible area of focus of future research.
purchases of certain foods e for instance, fresh fruits and vegeta- In this paper we present a literature review of the existing
bles e also aim to increase consumption of those foods (2019). scholarly and industry discussion on consumer food waste in
Packaging technologies could reduce food waste by addressing households, packaging technologies to reduce waste, and consumer
some of the broader systemic causes of FLW e such as extending perceptions of packaging.
shelf life and maintaining food quality, providing appropriate
portion sizes, or using date labelling effectively e without 2. Method
discouraging the consumption of healthy foods.
Food packaging plays a vital role in food waste reduction In this paper, we review the rapidly growing body of academic
through functional measures (Lindh et al., 2016). The existing and grey literature on household consumer food waste and the role
literature shows that food packaging is continually advancing in of packaging in reducing waste. We conducted a literature review
shelf life extension and waste reduction. Existing designs and in- using a systematic review methodology. The systematic review
tegrated technologies include physical, chemical, sensory, and approach allowed us to bring together accumulated findings from a
microbiological protection innovations (Gutierrez et al., 2017; range of papers to identify any common findings, as well as di-
Manfredi et al., 2015; Møller et al., 2016; Verghese et al., 2014; rections for future research and potential managerial and policy
Wikstro € m et al., 2018; Yildirim et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2015). gaps or issues (Foster and Jewell 2017; Gough et al., 2017; Grant and
There is well-established research on packaging features that Booth, 2009). We conducted a comprehensive and systematic
extend the shelf-life of food by using physical-chemical and literature search of topic-specific keywords, as listed in Table 1, to
microbiological protection. However, research specific to packaging locate English language academic papers and grey literature pub-
functions that save food from waste (also called ‘save food pack- lished between 2014 and 2020 (inclusive). We chose this time
aging’) is an under-developed field (Wikstro € m et al., 2018; frame to chart the development of the research in the area over the
Wikstro € m et al., 2019). last five years and to document any emerging research in 2020.
Throughout the literature it is evident that consumer knowl- These works were either peer-reviewed articles or ‘landmark’
edge, levels of awareness, interest, and appreciation are major publications from grey literature. Grey literature was included
factors in their refusal or acceptance of emerging packaging tech- where it was often cited in the academic papers that were included
niques (whether those technologies are specifically directed at in the review. There were 17 grey literature papers in total. Addi-
reducing food waste or not). This complex relationship consumers tional publications outside of these date parameters were also
have with food packaging creates a barrier to efficient food saving included in the review if they were often cited by authors whose
practices (ARCARDIS, 2019). Consumer education on the benefits of work was published within this date range or if they were other-
packaging technologies is a repeated recommendation across the wise considered to be substantial or necessary to understand fac-
literature (Aday and Yener 2015; Barska and Wyrwa 2016; tors related to this topic that were not covered in literature from
Licciardello 2017; Verghese et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2012). within the date parameters. The search was completed using aca-
Vocabulary used to communicate to consumers has also been demic databases Scopus, Web of Science, and Sage Journals, as well
recognised as a concern. Licciardello (2017) states that the focus as Google Scholar. We used a variety of databases in order to cap-
should be on the way the product and packaging work together as a ture results from a variety of disciplinary areas.
system, rather than just the packaging. This approach aims to Additional subject categories that limited the searches further
expand consumers’ awareness that packaging is an actor in the were selected on the topics of ‘food packaging’ AND/OR ‘food
broad food system and is not the only determining factor relating to waste’. Boolean search terms were used to combine the primary
environmental impact. It has also been argued that consistent search terms ‘food packaging’ and ‘food waste’ with a third search
research on contemporary consumers’ specific behaviours in rela- term, which included: ‘design’, ‘reducing’, ‘efficient’, ‘life cycle
tion to packaging is required to stay up to date, as demands for assessment (LCA)’, ‘circular economy’, ‘consumer perceptions’,
relevant future design are constantly shifting (Barska and Wyrwa ‘consumer behaviour’, food category specific fields (‘baked goods’,
2016). Improving packaging design has also been recommended. ‘vegetables’, ‘fresh fruit’, ‘cooked food’, ‘seafood’, ‘meat and dairy’),
These improvements in packaging design require knowledge about and ‘best before date’ (and other related terms).
the requirements of the food item through the entire life cycle of We followed a six-step selection process in accordance with the
the product-package combination, the uses of the produce at key preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-
3
L. Brennan, S. Langley, K. Verghese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 281 (2021) 125276

Table 1
Boolean search terms used in literature search.

Query number First level terms AND Second level terms AND/OR Third level terms References

1 Food AND packaging AND Food waste AND 1068

2 Food AND packaging AND Food waste AND Design 460
3 Food AND packaging AND Food waste AND Reducing 568
4 Food AND packaging AND Food waste AND Efficient 352
5 Food AND packaging AND Food waste AND Life cycle analysis (LCA) 148
6 Food AND packaging AND Food waste AND Circular economy 134
7 Food AND packaging AND Food waste AND Consumer perceptions 32
8 Consumer behaviour AND Food waste AND Food packaging 99
9 Consumer behaviour AND Food waste AND Dairy products 42
10 Consumer behaviour AND Food waste AND Bread 92
11 Consumer behaviour AND Food waste AND Vegetables 190
12 Consumer behaviour AND Food waste AND Fresh fruit 32
13 Consumer behaviour AND Food waste AND Cooked food 16
14 Consumer behaviour AND Food waste AND Best before 17
16 Consumer behaviour AND Food waste AND Disposal date 7
17 Consumer behaviour AND Food waste AND Use by 12
18 Consumer behaviour AND Food waste AND Expiration date 13
19 Consumer behaviour AND Food waste AND Portion control 13
Total papers 3476

analyses approach (PRISMA) (Moher et al., 2009): (1) search results consumer food waste in households and in the role of food pack-
exported to spreadsheet; (2) duplicates omitted; (3) article ab- aging gradually increased in the lead up to 2014. Since that time, it
stracts screened for relevance; (4) full texts reviewed; (5) further has more than doubled, and 2020 appears to be following this
exclusions made where necessary, (6) papers categorised and trend.
documented. Papers were excluded in steps (3) and (5) where they Tables 2 and 3 provide an overview of the papers published by
were found to be duplicates across the different databases, and journal and author. Five hundred and fifty-six authors published in
where they were found not to be relevant to the research questions. more than 80 journals. The Journal of Cleaner Production is the most
This process is shown in the PRISMA flow diagram in Fig. 1. prominent, followed by the British Food Journal and Resources,
Both a qualitative and a quantitative analysis were undertaken Conservation and Recycling.
for the 345 included papers. The papers were entered into a As shown in Table 2, food-related approaches to the issue of food
spreadsheet as well as the names of the authors, the key words waste and packaging still dominate the literature, with the number
provided by the authors, the abstract (where applicable), and the of articles published in the British Food Journal remaining high in
journal name. We then coded papers for additional areas of inter- recent years. It is also clear, however, that a focus on cleaner pro-
est: study location, food type, methods, theoretical background, duction, environmental impacts, and sustainability is increasing,
discipline, common topics, and demographics, such as age of particularly in journals such as the Journal of Cleaner Production,
participants. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, and Sustainability. Papers
The review included some Australian data on food sales volumes about these clean production, environmental impact and sustain-
and wastage to consider the implications of the existing literature, ability in the Journal of Cleaner Production have increased signifi-
and current gaps in that literature, in an Australian context. cantly since 2014, doubling between 2017 and 2018. Already in
2020, the number of articles has reached 2018 levels, suggesting a
continued and growing interest in this area. A resources and waste
3. Results and discussion
management approach is also evident in the types of journals
publishing articles related to food waste and packaging; as is a
In the following subsections, we provide insight into the authors
technology approach. A handful of papers were published in the
and journals that are publishing research on household food waste,
Journal of Food Products Marketing in 2017 and 2018, and a small
the role that packaging plays or might play in reducing waste, and
number in other marketing-focused journals. Given the prevalence
theoretical approaches and methods used to investigate the related
of marketing campaigns about reducing food waste directed at
issues. We also identify the most common locations for the existing
consumers, this suggests a gap in existing research. Similarly, only a
research and show where there are gaps in the existing literature.
very small number of the journals or published articles included in
We then outline and discuss the evidence for the contribution of
our review suggest an approach that is explicitly design oriented.
consumer perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours to household food
The top three authors shown in Table 3 are publishing papers
waste, and the role of packaging in reducing food waste.
predominantly in both the environment- and sustainability-
focused journals, as well as the packaging technology-focused
3.1. Analysis of bibliographic information journals. Aschemann-Witzel has also published papers in food-
related and waste management-focused journals. The British Food
We conducted a brief analysis of the basic characteristics of the Journal has only published five papers related to household food
345 articles selected for review. Fig. 2 shows the number of aca- waste and food packaging in the last two years, while the Journal of
demic articles and grey literature published on household con- Cleaner Production has published nine, and Sustainability eight. This
sumer food waste and reducing waste with packaging since 2014. could suggest a shift towards approaching food waste and the role
Although our date parameters mainly collected papers published of packaging in reducing waste less as a food-related issue and
since 2014, some publications from earlier years were included to more explicitly as a sustainability, cleaner production and envi-
ensure our qualitative analysis included landmark papers and sig- ronmental issue e a shift that has been argued for by some authors
nificant grey literature. It is clear that academic interest in
4
L. Brennan, S. Langley, K. Verghese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 281 (2021) 125276

Fig. 1. PRISMA flow diagram showing the systematised review process.

(Diaz-Ruiz et al., 2018). patterns of what are often groups of people cohabiting in house-
holds. The theory of planned behaviour uses attitudes towards a
behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control to
3.2. Theoretical approaches to examining the role of packaging in
predict an individual’s intentions to perform particular behaviours
food waste
(Ajzen 1991). It takes a quantitative approach, arguing that un-
derstanding attitudes and intentions towards food waste and use of
Household food waste and the role of food packaging in
packaging is enough to predict likely behaviours. The theory of
reducing waste have received scholarly attention from various
planned behaviour implies that a focus on shifting attitudes and
disciplines using various theoretical approaches and methods. Only
intentions should be sufficient to change behaviour. Attribution
a small handful of studies explicitly mentioned their theoretical
theory, on the other hand, models the ways in which people
approach to the research undertaken. The most common theoret-
attribute their own behaviours (or intended behaviours) to
ical approach used across the literature was the theory of planned
particular motivations (Monnot et al., 2015).
behaviour, followed by social practice theory, the psychology dis-
Construal level theory suggests that whether a person thinks
cipline’s attribution theory and construal level theory, and the
concretely or abstractly about something is affected both by the
economics theory household production theory.
attributes of the thing or idea someone is engaging with and by
The psychology theories take different approaches to attitudes,
their psychological distance from it. It contends that these levels of
intentions, and behaviour goals. In line with Jorgensen and
construal impact the goals formed and behaviour planned around
colleagues’ (2020) findings about resource consumption and con-
these (Trope and Liberman 2012). Household production theory,
servation literature in general, the theoretical approaches used
somewhat in contrast to the psychological theories, uses micro-
across the psychology literature were individual-level behavioural
economic models to explore decision making in households,
theories applied to analyse and understand the behavioural
5
L. Brennan, S. Langley, K. Verghese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 281 (2021) 125276

Fig. 2. Academic and landmark grey literature publications on household consumer food waste and the role of packaging in reducing waste since 2014.

Table 2 Table 4
Top journals. Method type by percentage.

Ranking Journal name Count Method type Count %

1 Journal of Cleaner Production 52 Technical assessment 49 14.20%

2 British Food Journal 39 Quantitative 136 39.42%
3 Resources, Conservation and Recycling 22 Qualitative 55 15.94%
4 Sustainability 13 Review 78 22.61%
5 Waste Management 12 345 papers
6 Food Quality and Preference 11
7 Sustainability (Switzerland) 10
8 Appetite 10
9 Packaging Technology and Science 9 considering factors such as household financial budget, time bud-
10 Journal of Food Products Marketing 5 gets of adults, technical efficiency, and technical change (Landry
and Smith 2017). This theory largely considers consumers as
rational decision makers in households.
Table 3 Social practice theory is a qualitative approach that aims to shift
Top authors. the focus of understanding (and interventions for behaviour
change) from individuals’ attitudes and behaviours to practices that
Ranking Author Number of publications
are shared among social groups (Evans 2012). There are a number
1 Williams, H 12 of different interpretations of practice theory. What becomes
2 Aschemann-Witzel, J 12
3 Verghese, K 11
important in this approach, particularly when applied to in-
4 Wikstro€m, F 8 vestigations of social and environmental change, are the ways in
5 Olsson, A 6 which practices shift and perpetuate, how they are made up and
6 Lockrey, S 6 changed, and how they continue or drop away.
7 De Hooge, I 5
Of the 345 papers, more than a third (39.42%) used quantitative
8 Frewer, L J 5
9 Soukka, R 4 methods, while only 15.94% used qualitative methods. Table 4
10 Siegrist, M 4 shows that nearly a quarter (22.61%) of the papers were reviews
11 Oostindjer, M 4 of existing literature, and 14.20% were technical assessments of
12 Vittuari M. 3 packaging technologies. Table 5 demonstrates that surveys were
13 Gronman, K 3
14 Crossin, E 3
the most common method used, with 108 papers using this
15 Clune, S 3 approach, while 32 used interview methods, and 13 used focus
16 Secondi, L 3 groups. The literature included 13 case study approaches and 11
17 Bolton, K 3 experiments. Slightly less than a quarter (21.45%) explicitly used
18 Wyrwa, J 3
methods related to households.
19 Barska, A 3
20 Lewis, H 3 Although 90 of the studies reviewed (26.09%) mention con-
21 Principato, L 3 sumer behaviour as a focus of the research (see Table 9), the psy-
22 Thompson, B 3 chological theoretical approaches and mostly quantitative methods
23 Toma, L 3 suggest much of the existing literature focuses on possible con-
24 Fischer, A R H 3
sumer behaviour based on the stated intentions, motivations, or
values reported by participants. While it is useful to understand
consumers’ perceptions of their own motivations and likely be-
haviours, our review shows that there is a lack of research on

6
L. Brennan, S. Langley, K. Verghese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 281 (2021) 125276

Table 5 Table 6
Top 10 Methods used. Locus of research by region.

Rank Method Count % Region Count %

1 Survey 108 31.3% Europe 107 30.31%

2 Review 78 22.61% Scandinavia 34 9.63%
3 Households 74 21.45% North America 28 7.93%
4 Interviews 32 9.28% Australia & New Zealand 27 7.65%
5 Life cycle assessment 32 9.28% Eastern Europe 10 2.83%
6 Case study 13 3.77% East Asia 10 2.83%
7 Focus groups 13 3.77% South America 4 1.13%
8 Experiment 11 3.19% Middle East 3 0.85%
9 Cluster analysis 9 2.61% South East Asia 2 0.57%
10 Mixed methods 7 2.03% South Asia 1 0.28%

consumers’ actual behaviours, or what social practice theories Table 7

might call ‘practices’. Locus of research by country.

Schanes et al. (2018) argue that it is increasingly desirable to # Location Count % # Location Count %
create “an open and constructive dialogue” (p. 981) between social 1 Italy 27 7.65% 13 Finland 5 1.41%
practice models of consumer behaviour and psychological ap- 2 Australia 23 6.52% 14 Turkey 5 1.41%
proaches, especially in areas related to sustainability. This review 3 United States 23 6.52% 15 Switzerland 5 1.41%
shows that qualitative methods are used with less than half the 4 United Kingdom 22 6.23% 16 Portugal 4 1.13%
5 Sweden 13 3.68% 17 New Zealand 4 1.13%
frequency of quantitative methods, and that studies that take a
6 Germany 12 3.40% 18 Ireland 4 1.13%
social practice theory approach make up about half the number of 7 Norway 9 2.55% 19 France 4 1.13%
studies that take psychological approaches. This can also be seen in 8 Netherlands 8 2.27% 20 Iran 3 0.85%
the relatively small number of studies that used interview methods 9 Denmark 7 1.98% 21 Uruguay 3 0.85%
(9.28%) or focus group methods (3.77%), as opposed to those that 10 Poland 6 1.70% 22 Greece 3 0.85%
11 China 5 1.41% 23 Japan 3 0.85%
used survey methods (31.3%). This suggests that there is still some
12 Canada 5 1.41% 24 Romania 2 0.56%
ground to make up in order to create a useful space for the kind of
dialogue Schanes and colleagues argue in relation to household
food waste and the role of food packaging in reducing waste.
comparing the region (Table 6) and country (Table 7) in which
As we noted in our discussion of the journals that have pub-
studies were conducted. About a third (30.31%) of the studies
lished research on consumers, packaging and food waste, our re-
involved participants in Europe, 9.63% had participants specifically
view shows that there is a lack of design-based theoretical
in Scandinavian countries, 7.93% in North America, and 7.65% in
approaches to this field. Design-based approaches could prove a
Australia and New Zealand.
significant addition to interdisciplinary dialogue, given that design
Many studies used European participants did not specify
is an integral part of food packaging’s capacity to reduce household
particular regions or countries within Europe. As such, we have
food waste. For instance, Chu et al. (2020) conducted a co-creation
listed Europe separately to specific regions that are also located
study focusing on date labelling design. In consumer workshops
within Europe. Australia and the United States were most often
and industry practitioner interviews, participants developed design
identified as the participants’ countries, closely followed by the
ideas to improve date labelling. Their findings showed the insuffi-
United Kingdom, Germany, and Sweden are also represented.
ciency of focusing consumer perceptions of date labelling alone.
Only two studies included participants in what they explicitly
Chu et al. (2020) suggested that date labelling design take a
identified as developing or emerging countries; a handful of studies
wholistic design-based approach, which would include taking into
had participants in South America, East Asia, the Middle East, South
account consumers’ specific food consumption goals, associated
East Asia or South Asia (5.66% in total). This shows a gap in research
food waste and food safety issues, and the practical labelling con-
in English language studies in these parts of the world. The UN Food
cerns from the perspective of the food and packaging industires.
and Agriculture Organisation (2013) found that European countries
Chu and colleagues’ findings show that studies using design-based
contribute a little more than 15% of the world’s food wastage, North
approaches could illuminate important considerations for pack-
American and Oceanic countries about 8%, industrialised Asia 29%,
aging design that may emerge through other approaches.
South and South East Asia 21% and Latin America 9.5%. While the
This review also shows that a large percentage of existing
proportion of FLW generated by consumers in regions such as South
studies (22.61%) are literature reviews. This suggests a lack of
and South East Asia, and Latin or South America is estimated to be
research funding for empirical research in this area, as does the lack
much less than Europe, North America, and Oceania (Gustavusson,
of qualitative approaches, which could be overcome with more
Cederberg et al., 2011), more research in these regions is needed to
partnerships with stakeholders in the food supply system or gov-
understand how consumer perceptions and practices differ there.
ernment agencies to fund more specific studies. The review also
In addition, this review also shows (as seen in Table 10) that only
shows that 14.2% of the studies were technical assessments of
3.77% of the studies reviewed explicitly considered the type of
packaging technologies, however few studies that directly related
geographic area (urban, peri-urban, or rural) of consumers. Given
to packaging explicitly engaged with either quantitative or quali-
the impact that location (and local sociocultural factors) may have
tative methods to understand how consumers might perceive and/
on the kinds of foods that are wasted (Szabo -Bo
 di et al., 2018) e
or use these packaging technologies in their households. There are
discussed further in Section 3.5 e and where along the food supply
a few exceptions to this, which are discussed further below.
chain food loss and waste occurs in different types of geographical
locations (Food and Agriculture Organisation 2019), more research
3.3. Location and publication of research
with a location-based focus could be useful. This would gain a more
nuanced understanding of household food waste behaviours and
This section compares the existing literature by location,
7
L. Brennan, S. Langley, K. Verghese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 281 (2021) 125276

Table 8 Table 10
Food types as a proportion of papers. Number of studies related to consumers’ everyday life challenges as drivers of food
waste.
Food types Count %
Challenges of everyday life Count %
Studies that include food type 82 23.77%
General General
Refrigerated foods 56 16.23% Consumer behaviour 90 26.09%
Leftovers 7 2.03% Habits 15 4.35%
Perishable food 1 0.29% Household/s 74 21.45%
Meat and seafood Household and lifestyle
Meat 18 5.22% Younger consumers 6 1.74%
Beef 7 2.03% Older consumers 7 2.03%
Lamb 2 0.58% Households with children 3 0.87%
Chicken 2 0.58% Urban area 8 2.32%
Pork 1 0.29% Rural area 4 1.16%
Ham 2 0.58% Peri-urban area 1 0.29%
Seafood 3 0.87% Planning and shopping habits
Fish 6 1.74% Purchasing decision 9 2.61%
Bakery Shopping 14 4.06%
Bread 11 3.19% Shopping list 1 0.29%
Packaged and processed foods Planning 7 2.03%
Snack food 2 0.58% Buying behaviour 9 2.61%
Cereals 5 1.45% Pricing 3 0.87%
Oils 2 0.58% Routines 5 1.15%
Ready meals 2 0.58% Food risk
Nut milks 1 0.29% Risk perception 3 0.87%
Dairy and eggs Acceptability (of food) 3 0.87%
Dairy 22 6.38% Waste-related behaviour
Butter 1 0.29% Consumer waste behaviour 9 2.61%
Milk 8 2.32%
Cheese 7 2.03%
Yoghurt 3 0.87%
Yoghurt drink 1 0.29% including its role in reducing food waste, are very much under-
Eggs 0 e represented in the literature. Our review shows that a focus on
Fresh fruit and vegetables particular food types e including a stronger consideration of the
Fruit 22 6.38%
environmental impacts of food packaging and its role in reducing
Vegetables 22 6.38%
Tomatoes 2 0.58% food waste e is an area of research that could be expanded
Strawberries 1 0.29% substantially.
Other Verghese et al. (2014) have argued “it is important to minimise
Drinks 3 0.87%
waste from food items with high GHG emission impacts, or from
Coffee 3 0.87%
Beer 2 0.58%
food items that may have lower GHG emission intensity per kg yet
Wine 1 0.29% are wasted in high amounts leading to a large absolute GHG
emissions” (p. np). Our review also shows that there is an oppor-
tunity to expand the data for LCA of particular food types when
Table 9 considering food waste and the potential role for packaging in
Consumer values that relate to food waste. reducing waste e only 9.28% of papers reviewed used this method
(see Table 4). An expansion of this research could help identify
Values Count %
which food types should be the focus of further research. For
Consumer attitude and perceptions 72 21.45%
example, in Australia in 2018, 8,602,800 tonnes of refrigerated food
Consumer awareness 9 2.61%
Consumer values 6 1.74% were sold, compared to 3,749,900 tonnes of non-refrigerated food
Environmental values 2 0.57% (Euromonitor 2018a, 2018b, 2019). Between 5% and 60% of refrig-
Sustainable consumption 7 2.03% erated foods are wasted in Australia each year (Reutter et al., 2017).
Consumer behaviour 90 26.09% The waste of refrigerated food equates to a global warming po-
tential (GWP) of 89.94 kg CO2-eq/kg, according to life cycle as-
sessments (Clune et al., 2017). However, only 16.23% of the studies
their relationship to food packaging in different sociocultural and we reviewed examined refrigerated foods. One of these examined
physical environments. refrigerated foods as a general category, and a further 16 studies
examined foods that would usually be stored in the refrigerator.
This suggests that research focusing on refrigerated foods could be
3.4. Food categories wasted by consumers a useful avenue for future research. Our review suggests that there
is some focus on high GWP foods, such as meat, seafood, and dairy.
A little less than a quarter of the studies (23.77%) examined food Again, in Australia, these foods are commonly wasted. In 2018,
waste related to a particular food type (some studies looked at nearly 2,500,000 tonnes of meat and seafood were sold
several food types). The contribution of different food types and (Euromonitor 2019), and between 5% and 40% of that was wasted
broader food categories to food waste volumes can differ consid- (Reutter et al., 2017), and 2,855,900 tonnes of dairy was sold and
erably (Reutter et al., 2017). Additionally, the environmental impact between 5% and 40% wasted (Reutter et al., 2017). Notably, there are
of wasting different types of foods also differs, as shown by Clune no studies that pay particular attention to eggs, even though the
et al. (2017) in their systematic review of life cycle assessments GWP for eggs (3.46 kg CO2-eq/kg) is a little less than three times
(LCA) of food waste. While packaging is often included in LCA that of milk (1.29 kg CO2-eq/kg) (Clune et al., 2017). There are as
studies, Molina-Besch et al. (2019) have noted that the indirect many studies that focus on fresh fruit and vegetables (each 6.38%).
environmental impacts of packaging in the food supply system,
8
L. Brennan, S. Langley, K. Verghese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 281 (2021) 125276

Although the GWP for these foods is much lower (0.42 kg CO2-eq/ Table 11
kg and 0.37 kg CO2-eq/kg respectively, or 1.10 kg CO2-eq/kg for fruit Number of studies on food waste drivers related to managing stock in households.

and vegetables grown in a passive greenhouse) (Clune et al., 2017), Managing stock in households Count %
2,737,600 tonnes of fresh fruit and vegetables were sold in Australia Storage 14 4.06%
in 2018 (Euromonitor 2019), and 15e60% of those purchases may Packaging
have been wasted (Reutter et al., 2017). Food packaging 26 7.54%
Even though several studies (Stancu et al., 2016; Sustainability Consumer perceptions packaging 27 7.83%
Portion size 6 1.74%
Victoria, 2018) identify leftovers or cooked food as one of the
Date labelling
most important contributors to household food waste, only 2.03% Date labelling 16 4.64%
of the literature explicitly considered left over food, as shown in Expiration dates 6 1.74%
Table 8. This shows a clear gap in the research around why leftovers Sell by date 1 0.29%
Use by date 4 1.16%
are commonly wasted, and what role packaging might play with
Best by 3 0.87%
leftovers. Similarly, our review shows an opportunity for more
research to examine particular types of food, waste related be-
haviours with those foods, and potential packaging solutions to
help mitigate that wastage. As Verghese and colleagues have of consumer perceptions and attitudes. Consumer awareness was
argued (2015), research using LCA in conjunction with data about much less common, with only nine papers (2.61%) making explicit
food types sold and wasted, may help researchers identify food mention of this. Only 7.83% of papers included some investigation
categories requiring the most attention due to waste quantities of consumers’ perceptions of food packaging (see Table 11), but only
combined with environmental intensity driving the highest envi- four (1.16%) (see Table 12) of those were explicitly about consumers’
ronmental impacts for foods relatively in particular locations. perceptions of innovation in food packaging, and none explored
consumers’ perceptions, awareness, or understanding of the role of
3.5. Consumer perceptions, attitudes and awareness of food waste packaging in reducing food waste. Environmental values and sus-
and the role of packaging tainable consumption were considered by only a handful of studies
(0.57% and 2.03% respectively).
This section draws together existing work and understandings These data show that there is a considerable gap in the literature
about consumer behaviour and food that is wasted in households. It for understanding how and if consumers’ perceptions, attitudes,
will give an overview of the ways consumers have been categorised and values affect their understanding of the role of packaging in
by various authors, the drivers of household food waste that have reducing food waste. The lack of research on consumers’ environ-
been identified, and existing interventions in household food waste mental values and attitudes towards sustainable consumption in
behaviour. It shows the most common topics explored in the this area is also a gap in the literature, especially considering the
existing literature about consumers and household food waste, increasing attention to these issues from researchers who are tak-
then the most common topics explored in the existing literature ing an environmental or sustainability approach.
related to food packaging and reducing food waste. Juxtaposing
these two broader areas of study reveals that there is a gap in un- 3.5.2. Challenges of everyday life
derstanding how consumers might perceive the role of food pack- 3.5.2.1. Households and lifestyle. Although household makeup and
aging in reducing food waste and how consumers accept various lifestyle have been identified in the literature as an important factor
packaging technologies that have been developed to reduce food that contributes to consumer behaviour around food waste (Hebrok
waste. and Bok 2017), there are only a handful of studies that explicitly
There are a wide variety of factors that have been found to in- explore these factors. As shown in Table 10, fewer than 4% of studies
fluence consumer behaviour with food that is wasted. These examined specific age groups, the presence of children in a
broadly relate to the relationship between consumers’ willingness household, or whether the household is in an urban, peri-urban or
to consume (WTC) (Thompson et al., 2018) and their willingness to rural area.
waste (WTW) (Wilson et al., 2017). In their review of the existing Households with more than two adults and households with
literature on consumer behaviour and household food waste, children were found by a handful of studies to produce more food
Hebrok and Bok (2017) identify three broad categories of factors waste (Stancu et al., 2016; Szabo  -Bo
 di et al., 2018; Visschers et al.,
that drive food waste in households: values, the challenges of
everyday life, and managing stock in households. They group more
specific drivers of household food waste under each of these broad Table 12
Food packaging and reducing food waste.
categories. Spang et al. (2019) identify an additional overarching
driver that is significant for this project: material factors, including Food packaging function focus Count %
the material properties of food and its packaging. Combined, these Consumer perceptions packaging 27 7.83%
two frameworks are useful for understanding the range of factors Packaging design 24 6.96%
that contribute to consumer behaviour with food waste. In this Innovation (packaging and supply chain) 15 4.35%
review, we include material factors under Hebrok and Bok’s Active packaging 13 3.77%
Shelf life 13 3.77%
‘managing stock in households’ category. These broad categories Circular economy 12 3.48%
have been used in this review to summarise the findings of the Intelligent packaging 11 3.19%
existing literature. Nanotechnology 10 2.90%
Sustainable packaging 10 2.90%
Packaging waste 9 2.61%
3.5.1. Values
Packaging functions 6 1.74%
Table 5 demonstrates nearly half (46.61%) of the literature Modified atmosphere packaging 6 1.74%
worked directly with consumers or other stakeholders, either Sensory 5 1.45%
through surveys, interviews, focus groups, diaries, or a combination Consumer perceptions innovative packaging 4 1.16%
of these methods. Reframing the results, Table 9 shows approxi- Packaging acceptability 3 0.87%
Biodegradable packaging 3 0.87%
mately one fifth of the literature (21.45%) explicitly made mention
9
L. Brennan, S. Langley, K. Verghese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 281 (2021) 125276

2016). The impact of having children in the household could be difficulty storing the food. For example, cheese often comes in
explained by the higher likelihood of children having and changing packaging that is not resealable, which likely leads to its quality
food preferences and eating patterns (Evans 2011). Larger house- diminishing quickly; consumers have reported that ham similarly
holds could also be more likely to have a range of different tastes to diminishes in quality quickly, which could be mitigated by reseal-
cater for (Evans 2014). Age has also been found to be a factor in able packaging (Wikstro € m et al., 2019). Wikstro
€ m et al. (2019) also
determining the likelihood of wasting food. Older consumers were found that consumers in their Swedish study saw yoghurt con-
found to be less likely to waste food (Quested et al., 2013; Secondi tainers as difficult to empty and struggled to check how much was
et al., 2015; Stancu et al., 2016; Sustainability Victoria, 2018). left. In Sweden, yoghurt comes in Tetra Pak (liquid paperboard)
Younger consumers were found to be more likely to waste food cartons, which seal with a plastic screw lid. However, in Australia,
(Visschers et al., 2016), and food waste has been found to make up yoghurt typically comes in a polypropylene or polystyrene tub with
the largest component of young consumers’ overall waste genera- a clear lid, mitigating both the issues found by Wikstro €m and col-
tion, ahead of paper, plastic, glass, metals, and other waste (Ghinea leagues. This points to the importance of understanding the rela-
and Ghiuta, 2019). How these variations in household makeup tionship between packaging formats and geographical locations.
affect consumers’ perceptions of and behaviour with food pack-
aging and its potential to reduce food waste is not explicitly 3.5.4. Consumer concerns about the role of packaging in food waste
considered by any of the existing literature and is therefore an This section summarises the packaging functions that have been
opportunity for further research. identified as preventing food waste, and how many studies have
examined these functions in some way. We then show how many
3.5.2.2. Planning. Shopping and habits are the most commonly studies have considered consumer perceptions of these packaging
cited predictors of food waste (Stancu et al., 2016; Stefan et al., functions and acceptability of the packaging, and summarise the
2013; Verghese, Lockrey and Williams, 2014), with purchasing findings of the few studies that have considered consumer
decisions, buying behaviour, and planning following close behind. perceptions.
However, less than a fifth (about 15%) of the literature explored The literature identified several reasons for household food
these areas. Further research into planning, perceptions, and use of waste that could be overcome by packaging: spillage, over pur-
packaging, such as whether packaging is considered when people chasing quantities, excessive quantity per pack, packaging is diffi-
plan for food purchasing and consumption, could be beneficial to cult to empty, provides insufficient protection, food product
understanding how such relationships shape food waste in the expires, shelf life failure, reduced product quality, damaged prod-
home. uct, and the lack of messaging about proper storage for the food
product (Conte et al., 2015; Stensgard and Hanssen 2015; Wikstro €m
3.5.2.3. Waste-related behaviours (added to Hebrok and Bok’s (2017) et al., 2014; Wikstro € m et al., 2018). The food packaging design
model). Diaz-Ruiz and colleagues and Evans (2011; 2014) have functions and features that could address these issues include
suggested that consumers’ waste-generation behaviours could also protection (mechanical, physical-chemical, resealability), facili-
be an important contributing factor to food waste (and, as high- tating handling (easy to open, grip, dose and empty, and providing
lighted in Section 3.5.2, packaging may influence waste-related the correct quantity and serving size), communication (food safety
behaviours). Diaz-Ruiz and colleagues argue that there is a gap in and freshness information, date labelling, storage information, and
food waste-related research around consumers’ waste-generation sorting of household waste information), and sustainability design
behaviours, and our review confirms this, with only 2.61% of the information (Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation 2019;
literature considering this (see Table 10). Australia Packaging Institute 2019; Conte et al., 2015; Lindh et al.,
2016; Wikstro €m et al., 2014).
3.5.3. Managing stock in households and material factors Table 12 shows that only 6.96% of the studies examined pack-
Hebrok and Bok (2017) identify three main issues related to aging design and only 4.35% looked at innovations in packaging or
managing stock in households and material factors: packaging, the supply chain that could reduce food waste. Specific functions of
food risk, and date labelling. Food packaging has a high potential to food packaging that could reduce food waste that were studied
contribute to food waste reduction by addressing some of the issues include active packaging (3.77%), shelf life functions (3.77%),
consumers have in this area. However, our review shows only 7.54% intelligent packaging (3.19%), nanotechnology (2.90%), sensory
of the studies explicitly considered food packaging, and that an functions (1.45%), and modified atmosphere packaging (1.74%).
understanding of how packaging is currently used by consumers Active packaging (modified atmosphere packaging is a specific type
and their perceptions of its role in preventing and reducing food of active packaging) and nanotechnology address issues with food
waste is under-researched. Less than a fifth (17.98%) of the papers protection and shelf life. Intelligent packaging addresses issues
we reviewed explicitly considered one or more of these issues. with shelf life and communication of food safety and freshness. Our
Table 11 shows that only 4.06% of studies explored storage issues as review shows that packaging technologies and functions that could
a cause of food waste in households, while 1.74% of studies explored directly address the reasons for household food waste are under-
portion size, and only 8.7% of studies examined the impact of date researched. More specifically, consumer awareness and percep-
labelling on food waste. These are all issues that could be addressed tions about the role of packaging for FLW is likely critical to said
through food packaging design. technologies and functions being effective, so more research about
The main finding of this handful of studies was that packaging is these relationships is needed. The handful of studies that cover
not currently adequate to keep food fresh and edible e whether this such aspects are discussed next.
is only consumer perception of packaging or the reality of the sit-
uation is unclear from this literature. Aschemann-Witzel et al. 3.5.5. Consumer attitudes towards emerging packaging
(2019) found that consumers felt they wasted food that was technologies
lower in quality when it was bought, and have suggested this As discussed in the previous section, our review shows there is
showed packaging could be used to help maximise food quality very little crossover between consumer perceptions or behaviours
throughout the supply chain. Di Talia et al. (2019) similarly found related to food waste and the role of packaging in reducing that
that unsuitable packaging was one of the main reasons for food waste. This section will summarise the handful of studies in our
wastage among rural dwellers because it caused consumers review that draw attention to consumer perceptions of food
10
L. Brennan, S. Langley, K. Verghese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 281 (2021) 125276

packaging. broadly in the literature. Vacuum skin packaging (VSP) used to

A recent consumer study undertaken in the United Kingdom by package raw meats was reported by stakeholders as appealing to
INCPEN and WRAP (2019) found that consumers recognised the consumers because it provides adequate protection from external
benefits of packaging to keep food fresher, hygienic, safe and clean, elements with minimal packaging material. VSP removes the at-
and protect it from damage. However, many consumers were also mosphere from around the product to decrease microbiologic
concerned about the impact of the packaging on the environment growth and degradation rates to extend shelf life. In addition to the
after it was discarded e especially if it was plastic packaging. The packaging, marinades (also categorised as active packaging) can be
percentage of consumers who recognised that packaging helps to included to further preserve produce, which may also appeal to
reduce food waste had more than doubled since a similar study in consumers as being similar to common meal preparation tech-
2012, from 15% to 36%. However, the majority of consumers niques (Crossin et al., 2015). Technologies like VSP are low cost,
believed the opposite, with 59% agreeing that keeping food in its which is likely attractive not only to consumers but also to supply
original packaging means it goes off quicker (INCPEN & WRAP chain industries (Crossin et al., 2015; Poyatos-Racionero et al.,
2019). 2018).
Table 12 shows that consumer perceptions of packaging in- A second example of active packaging positively optimistically
novations e whether they are designed to explicitly address food engaging with consumers is the transition from additional oxygen
waste reduction or not e and acceptability of packaging is under- scavengers and moisture absorbers sachets in traditional packaging
researched. Only a small handful of studies explored packaging to incorporating such technologies into the packaging itself. Con-
acceptability (1.40%) and consumer perceptions of innovative sumers have expressed their reservations to trust supplementary
packaging (1.86%). Of the papers that explored consumer percep- sachets and pads containing chemicals within food packaging,
tions of innovative packaging, three investigated perceptions of the fearing contamination if a rupture were to occur. Incorporating
use of nanotechnology in food packaging, and one investigated food saving technologies directly into the packaging bypasses
existing knowledge and perceptions among consumers of bio- contamination concerns and aims to increase consumer confidence
plastics in food packaging. There were six studies that investigated in active packaging techniques (Realini and Marcos 2014). However,
acceptability around food waste and packaging, but only three of as with VSP, no research has yet been published on testing pack-
those explicitly studied consumer acceptability of the packaging aging with incorporated oxygen scavenger sachets with consumers
technology itself. In one study, consumers did make an association to gauge actual perceptions and acceptability.
between a packaging technology and food waste, although they One study that did engage directly with consumers to under-
expressed concern that this technology would increase food stand their perceptions of food packaging technology found that
wastage, rather than decrease it (Pennanen et al., 2015). consumers associated several benefits with time temperature in-
As shown in the INCPEN & WRAP (2019) study and others dicators, which detect mechanical, chemical, electrochemical,
(Licciardello 2017; Williams et al., 2012), consumers commonly feel enzymatic, or microbiological changes in food in relation to time
some angst towards packaging, specifically plastic packaging, as the and temperature. These perceived benefits related to an increase in
highest cause of environmental harm, despite research that sug- food safety, especially for fresh and frozen seafood, meat, and
gests packaging represents a small percentage of environmental poultry products (Pennanen et al., 2015).
impact within food systems. Consumers’ lack of awareness of this
holistic approach ultimately hinders food-saving techniques 4. Conclusion
employed through emerging packaging technologies (Barska and
Wyrwa 2016; Crossin et al., 2015; Licciardello 2017; Verghese This paper has presented a review of the existing scholarly and
et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2012). industry discussion on consumer food waste in households, pack-
Exploring consumer behaviours towards emerging food pack- aging technologies to reduce that waste, and consumer perceptions
aging technologies, a study in Poland identified insufficient con- of packaging. It has shown some important opportunities for
sumer knowledge of active and intelligent packaging. Of the 372 further research. We will detail these recommended next steps in
respondents surveyed, only 17% and 4% were aware of the terms this concluding section.
‘intelligent packaging’ and ‘active packaging’ respectively. Further
examination of consumers’ familiarity with this type of packaging 4.1. Theoretical contribution
demonstrated a lack of understanding of packaging technologies, as
53% of respondents had come across interactive indicators before, Our review found a shift in recent years towards approaching
although they were often unaware that these technologies were food waste and the role of packaging in reducing waste as not only a
present in the packaging (Barska and Wyrwa 2016). This suggests a food-related issue but also related to waste, sustainability, cleaner
need for consumer education of packaging technologies (Barska production, and environmental issues. This shift suggests it would
and Wyrwa 2016; Verghese et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2012) to be useful to open a dialogue between psychological-based quali-
expand understandings of how consumers perceive and engage tative consumer approaches and qualitative practice theory ap-
with existing packaging technologies and innovative packaging proaches to reducing food waste and the role of packaging (Hall-
developments. Phillips and Shah, 2017; Le Borgne, Sirieix and Costa, 2018; Welch
Other issues that consumers had with food packaging included a et al., 2018). Our review finds that there is very little research
lack of trust in packaging technologies (Pennanen et al., 2015) and that takes this approach, and that this could therefore be an area for
misunderstandings of how to read or make use of the technology. future research to explore. In particular, by examining how and if
Studies also found a contradiction between intelligent packaging perceptions and attitudes affect consumers’ understanding of the
technology and physical best before or expiry dates, which may role of packaging in reducing food waste, future studies can provide
either encourage an increase in food waste or risk consumers solid foundations for expanding sustainable packaging theory to
relying too heavily on intelligent packaging, rather than using their include a more customer-centric point-of-view.
own judgement to determine freshness (Verghese et al., 2015). Additionally, more research with a location-based focus would
In one study, industry stakeholders in the food supply chain be useful to gain a more nuanced understanding of household food
reported positive responses from consumers to some packaging waste behaviours and their relationship to food packaging in
technologies, despite the general negative attitude found more different sociocultural and physical environments. This is also the
11
L. Brennan, S. Langley, K. Verghese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 281 (2021) 125276

case for research that examines how different variations in Declaration of competing interest
household types effect consumers’ perceptions of and behaviour
with food waste and packaging, particularly in relation to issues The authors declare that they have no known competing
such as packaging’s role in food storage, appropriate portion sizes financial interests or personal relationships that could have
for household needs, and the impact of date labelling (for example, appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Liu and Chen 2019). Such knowledge would enable researchers to
build theoretical models to explain the influence of a household’s Acknowledgements
sociocultural, physical, and structural characteristics on percep-
tions and behaviours with food waste and packaging. Future This work has been supported by the Fight Food Waste Coop-
research would need to take household-level approaches to both erative Research Centre whose activities are funded by the
data collection and data analysis, considering group dynamics Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centre Program
factors such as types of interactions between household members, (Grant: FFW CRC Project 1.2.2). This work forms part of project
shared goals, levels and types of interdependence, roles of in- Consumers Perception of the Role of Packaging in Minimising Food
dividuals in the household, and levels of social cohesion, as has Waste, which is funded by the Fight Food Waste Cooperative
been suggested by Jorgensen et al. (2020). Research Centre, Sustainability Victoria, Woolworths, and RMIT
Research should also be undertaken to investigate whether University. The CRC Program supports industry-led collaborations
consumers have different perceptions of packaging on specific food between industry, researchers and the community.
items, such as if they think, and why, specific packaging should be
on certain products and not on others. We recommend an expan- References
sion of research to identify food types that contribute significantly
to food waste in particular geographic locations and the associated Aday, M.S., Yener, U., 2015. Assessing consumers’ adoption of active and intelligent
packaging. Br. Food J. 117 (1), 157e177.
environmental impacts. Amongst that, LCA and research that fo- Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.
cuses on one food type can explicitly address the perceptions of 50 (2), 179e211.
packaging on specific food items. Existing literature suggests, for Ampuero, O., Vila, N., 2006. Consumer perceptions of product packaging. J. Consum.
Market. 23 (2), 100e112.
example, that refrigerated foods of varying types could be a useful ARCARDIS, 2019. National Food Waste Baseline. Final assessment report. For the
area of focus (Verghese et al., 2012). Australia’ Government. ARCARDIS, Sydney.
Furthermore, although design is an integral part of food pack- Aschemann-Witzel, J., Gime nez, A., Ares, G., 2019. Household food waste in an
emerging country and the reasons why: consumers’ own accounts and how it
aging that could help reduce food waste, our review found little
differs for target groups. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 145, 332e338.
literature that took a design-based theoretical approach to food Australian Packaging Convenant Organisation, 2019. Australia’s 2025 national
waste. Research should capture, the packaging formats of food that packaging targets. Retrieved. https://www.packagingcovenant.org.au/who-we-
is wasted to see if there are any correlations with, for example, are/australias-2025-national-packaging-targets. (Accessed 6 November 2019).
from.
serving sizes, sealing, or date labelling. Additionally, we found Australian Packaging Institute, 2019. 2019 Australasian Packing Innovation and
technologies that could directly identify the reasons for household Design Awards. AIP.
food waste are under researched. Thus, more research should Barska, A., Wyrwa, J., 2016. Consumer perception of active and intelligent food
packaging. Problems of Agricultural Economics 4 (349), 138e159.
explicitly explore consumers’ perceptions of these packaging Bucci, M., Calefato, C., Colombetti, S., Milani, M., Montanari, R., 2010. Fridge Fridge
technologies or the likelihood of acceptance of these technologies. on the Wall: what Can I Cook for Us All?: an HMI Study for an Intelligent Fridge.
AVI.
Chu, W., et al., 2020. Tensions and opportunities: an activity theory perspective on
4.2. Practical and managerial contribution date and storage label design through a literature review and Co-creation
sessions. Sustainability 12 (3), 1162.
In light of our findings, we recommend government and in- Clune, S., Crossin, E., Verghese, K., 2017. Systematic review of greenhouse gas
emissions for different fresh food categories. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 766e783.
dustry sectors view sustainable packaging in a more comprehen-
Conte, A., Cappelletti, G., Nicoletti, G., Russo, C., Del Nobile, M.A., 2015. Environ-
sive lense. Our review found that certain areas were overlooked, mental implications of food loss probability in packaging design. Food Res. Int.
particularly that of households’ socio-cultural and structural char- 78, 11e17.
Crossin, E., Verghese, K., Lockrey, S., 2015. Review of Emerging Packaging Tech-
acteristics, the role of technology in sustainable packaging, and the
nologies and Trends for Red Meat. Meat and Livestock Australia Limited,
impact of food packaging on food waste. Similarly, the lack of (Australia, Sydney).
design-based theoretical approaches hampers the development for Devin, B., Richards, C., 2018. Food waste, power, and corporate social responsibility
recommendations to industry sectors to design effective packaging in the Australian food supply chain. J. Bus. Ethics 150 (1), 199e210.
Di Talia, E., Simeone, M., Scarpato, D., 2019. Consumer behaviour types in household
and labelling. Our review suggests a lack of research funding in food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 214, 166e172.
these areas, which could be overcome through industry and gov- Diaz-Ruiz, R., Costa-Font, M., Gil, J.M., 2018. Moving ahead from food-related be-
ernment partnerships for specific studies. haviours: an alternative approach to understand household food waste gener-
ation. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1140e1151.
Our review also found consumers’ perceptions towards the role Euromonitor International, 2018a. Baked goods in Australia. Euromonitor Interna-
of packaging is under-researched, which may lead to ineffective tional 1e9.
promotion and communication of the role packaging plays in Euromonitor International, 2018b. Packaged food in Australia. Euromonitor Inter-
national 1e219.
reducing food waste (Farr-Wharton et al., 2014; Hall-Phillips and Euromonitor International, 2019. Fresh food in Australia. Euromonitor International
Shah, 2017; Haws et al., 2016). We recommend an investment in 1e51.
research on consumers’ perceptions and attitudes, which would Evans, D., 2011. Blaming the consumer e once again: the social and material con-
texts of everyday food waste practices in some English households. Crit. Publ.
foster better designed communication and education programs. Health 21 (4), 429e440.
This research may benefit from engagement with existing research Evans, D., 2012. Binning, gifting and recovery: the conduits of disposal in household
that examines consumer perceptions of the marketing and infor- food consumption. Environ. Plann. Soc. Space 30 (6), 1123e1137.
Evans, D., 2014. Food Waste: Home Consumption, Material Culture and Everyday
mation delivery potential for packaging (see, for example, Ampuero
Life. Bloomsbury Publishing, London, UK; New York.
and Villa 2006). In particular, direct engagement with consumers is Farr-Wharton, G., Foth, M., Choi, J.H.-J., 2012. Colour Coding the Fridge to Reduce
needed to better understand both their practices with food waste Food Waste. Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction
and packaging, and their perceptions of packaging technologies Conference. ACM.
Farr-Wharton, G., Foth, M., Choi, J.H.-J., 2014. Identifying factors that promote
and the acceptability of different technologies that could help consumer behaviours causing expired domestic food waste. J. Consum. Behav.
reduce food waste. 13 (6), 393e402. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1488.

12
L. Brennan, S. Langley, K. Verghese et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 281 (2021) 125276

Food, Agriculture Organisation, 2019. The State of Food and Agriculture: Moving Poyatos-Racionero, E., Ros-Lis, J.V., Vivancos, J.L., Martnez-Mez, R., 2018. Recent
Forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction. Rome, United Nations. advances on intelligent packaging as tools to reduce food waste. J. Clean. Prod.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2013. Food wastage 172, 3398e3409.
footprint : impacts on natural resources : summary report. Rome, United Na- Quested, T.E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., Parry, A.D., 2013. Spaghetti soup: the complex
tions. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf. world of food waste behaviours. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 79, 43e51.
Foster, M.J., Jewell, S., 2017. Assembling the Pieces of a Systematic Review: A Guide Realini, C.E., Marcos, B., 2014. Active and intelligent packaging systems for a modern
for Librarians. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, US. society. Meat Sci. 98 (3), 404e419.
Frewer, L., Fischer, A., Brennan, M., Ba  n
ati, D., Lion, R., Meertens, R., Vereijken, .C., Reutter, B., Lant, P.A., Lane, J.L., 2017. The challenge of characterising food waste at a
2016. “Risk/Benefit communication about foodda systematic review of the national leveldan Australian example. Environ. Sci. Pol. 78, 157e166.
literature”. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 56 (10), 1728e1745. Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., Go € zet, B., 2018. Food waste matters - a systematic review
Ganglbauer, E., Fitzpatrick, G., Comber, R., 2013. Negotiating food waste: using a of household food waste practices and their policy implications. J. Clean. Prod.
practice lens to inform design. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 20 (2), 1e25. 182 (C), 978e991.
Ghinea, C., Ghiuta, O.A., 2019. Household food waste generation: young consumers Searchinger, T., Waite, R., Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., 2019. Creating a Sustainable
behaviour, habits and attitudes. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16 (5), 2185e2200. Food Future: A Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050.
Gough, D., Oliver, S., Thomas, J., 2017. An Introduction to Systematic Reviews. Sage, World Resources Institute, Washington.
London. Secondi, L., Principato, L., Laureti, T., 2015. Household food waste behaviour in EU-
Grant, M.J., Booth, A., 2009. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types 27 countries: a multilevel analysis. Food Pol. 56, 25e40.
and associated methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 26 (2), 91e108. Spang, E.S., Achmon, Y., Donis-Gonzalez, I., Gosliner, W.A., Jablonski-Sheffield, M.P.,
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., Meybeck, A., 2011. Momin, M.A., Moreno, L.C., Pace, S.A., Quested, T.E., Winans, K.S., Tomich, T.P.,
“Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention. Food and 2019. Food loss and waste: measurement, drivers, and solutions. Annu. Rev.
Agriculture Organisation, Rome, United Nations. Available at: http://www.fao. Environ. Resour. 44.
org/3/a-i2697e.pdf. Stancu, V., Haugaard, P., L€ ahteenma €ki, L., 2016. Determinants of consumer food
Gutierrez, M.M., Meleddu, M., Piga, A., 2017. Food losses, shelf life extension and waste behaviour: two routes to food waste. Appetite 96, 7e17.
environmental impact of a packaged cheesecake: a life cycle assessment. Food Stefan, V., van Herpen, E., Tudoran, A.A., L€ ahteenm€ aki, L., 2013. Avoiding food waste
Res. Int. 91, 124e132. by Romanian consumers: the importance of planning and shopping routines.
Hall-Phillips, A., Shah, P., 2017. Unclarity confusion and expiration date labels in the Food Qual. Prefer. 28 (1), 375e381.
United States: a consumer perspective. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 35 (May 2016), Stensgård, A., Hanssen, O., 2015. Food Waste in Norway 2014. Status and Trends
118e126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.12.007. 2009e14. ForMat, Østfoldsforskning.
Haws, K.L., Reczek, R.W., Sample, K.L., 2016. Healthy diets make empty wallets: the Sustainability Victoria, 2018. Love Food Hate Waste Pre Campaign Community
healthy¼ expensive intuition. J. Consum. Res. 43 (6), 992e1007. Research. Melbourne, Victoria, Sustainability Victoria. Victorian State
Hebrok, M., Boks, C., 2017. Household food waste: drivers and potential intervention Government.
points for design e an extensive review. J. Clean. Prod. 151, 380e392. Szabo -Bo di, B., Kasza, G., Szakos, D., 2018. Assessment of household food waste in
INCPEN, WRAP, 2019. Key Findings Report: UK Survey 2019 on Citizens’ Attitudes & Hungary. Br. Food J. 120 (3), 625e638.
Behaviours Relating to Food Waste, Packaging and Plastic Packaging. WRAP, Thompson, B., Toma, L., Barnes, A.P., Revoredo-Giha, C., 2018. The effect of date
Banbury, UK. labels on willingness to consume dairy products: implications for food waste
Jorgensen, B.S., Boulet, M., Hoek, A.C., 2020. A level-of-analysis issue in resource reduction. Waste Manag. 78, 124e134.
consumption and environmental behavior research: a theoretical and empirical Trope, Y., Liberman, N., Van, L.P.A.M., Kruglanski, A.W., Higgins, E.T., 2012. Construal
contradiction. J. Environ. Manag. 260, 110154. Level Theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Pscyhology: Volume One. Sage,
Landry, Craig and Smith, Travis, Household food waste: theory and empirics Los Angeles, London, pp. 118e134.
(september 22, 2018). Available at: SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract¼3060838 van Holsteijn, F.V., Kemna, R., 2018. Minimizing food waste by improving storage
or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3060838. conditions in household refrigeration. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 128, 25e31.
Le Borgne, G., Sirieix, L., L, Costa, S., 2018. Perceived probability of food waste: in- Verghese, K., Lewis, H., Fitzpatrick, L., 2012. Packaging for Sustainability. Springer,
fluence on consumer attitudes towards and choice of sales promotions. London.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 42, 11e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser. Verghese, K., Crossin, E., Clune, S., Lockrey, S., Williams, H., Rio, M., Wikstro €m, F.,
2018.01.004. 2014a. The Greenhouse Gas Profile of a "Hungry Planet"; Quantifying the Im-
Licciardello, F., 2017. Packaging, blessing in disguise. Review on its diverse contri- pacts of the Weekly Food Purchases Including Associated Packaging and Food
bution to food sustainability. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 65, 32e39. Waste of Three Families. 19th IAPRI World Conference on Packaging 2014:
Lindh, H., Williams, H., Olsson, A., Wikstro € m, F., 2016. Elucidating the indirect Responsible Packaging for a Global Market. Melbourne.
contributions of packaging to sustainable development: a terminology of Verghese, K., Lockrey, S., Williams, H., 2014b. Final Report: Districts, Lifestyles and
packaging functions and features. Packag. Technol. Sci. 29, 225e246. Avoiding Food Waste. Retrieved from Melbourne, Australia.
Liu, C., Chen, J., 2019. “Consuming takeaway food: convenience, waste and Chinese Verghese, K., Lewis, H., Lockrey, S., Williams, H., 2015. Packaging’s role in mini-
young people’s urban lifestyle. J. Consum. Cult. https://doi.org/10.1177/ mizing food loss and waste across the supply chain. Packag. Technol. Sci. 28,
1469540519882487. October, Published online. 603e620.
Lockrey, S., Verghese, K., Danaher, J., Newman, L., Barichello, V., 2019. The Role of Visschers, V.H.M., Wickli, N., Siegrist, M., 2016. Sorting out food waste behaviour: a
Packaging for Australian Fresh Produce. Australian Fresh Produce Alliance, survey on the motivators and barriers of self-reported amounts of food waste in
Melbourne, Australia. households. J. Environ. Psychol. 45, 66e78.
Mak, T.M., Xiong, X., Tsang, D.C., Iris, K., Poon, C.S., 2020. Sustainable food waste Welch, D., Swaffield, J., Evans, D., 2018. Who’s responsible for food waste? Con-
management towards circular bioeconomy: policy review, limitations and op- sumers, retailers and the food waste discourse coalition in the United Kingdom.
portunities. Bioresour. Technol. 297, 122497. J. Consum. Cult. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540518773801. May, Published
Manfredi, M., Fantin, V., Vignali, G., Gavara, R., 2015. Environmental assessment of online.
antimicrobial coatings for packaged fresh milk. J. Clean. Prod. 95, 291e300. Wikstro € m, F., Williams, H., Verghese, K., Clune, S., 2014. The influence of packaging
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., The PRISMA Group, 2009. Preferred attributes on consumer behaviour in food-packaging life cycle assessment
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA state- studies - a neglected topic. J. Clean. Prod. 73, 100e108.
ment. PLoS Med. 6 (7), e1000097 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097. Wikstro € m, F., Verghese, K., Auras, R., Olsson, A., Williams, H., Wever, R.,
Molina-Besch, K., Wikstro € m, F., Williams, H., 2019. The environmental impact of Gro €nman, K., Pettersen, M.K., Møller, H., Soukka, R., 2018. Packaging strategies
packaging in food supply chainsddoes life cycle assessment of food provide the that save food: a research agenda for 2030. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (3), 532e540.
full picture? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24 (1), 37e50. Wikstro € m, F., Williams, H., Trischler, J., Rowe, Z., 2019. The importance of packaging
Møller, H., Hagtvedt, T., Lødrup, N., Andersen, J.K., Madsen, P.L., Werge, M., functions for food waste of different products in households. Sustainability 11
Aare, A.K., Reinikainen, A., Rosengren, Å., Kjelle n, J., 2016. Food Waste and Date (9).
Labelling: Issues Affecting the Durability. Nordic Council of Ministers. Williams, H., Wikstro € m, F., Otterbring, T., Lfgren, M., Gustafsson, A., 2012. Reasons
Monnot, E., Parguel, B., Reniou, F., 2015. Consumer responses to elimination of for household food waste with special attention to packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 24,
overpackaging on private label products. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 43 (4/5), 141e148.
329e349. Wilson, N.L.W., Rickard, B.J., Saputo, R., Ho, S.T., 2017. Food waste: the role of date
Newsome, R., Balestrini, C.G., Baum, M.D., Corby, J., Fisher, W., Goodburn, K., labels, package size, and product category. Food Qual. Prefer. 55, 35e44.
Yiannas, .F., 2014. Applications and perceptions of date labeling of food. Compr. Yildirim, S., Ro €cker, B., Pettersen, M.K., Nilsen-Nygaard, J., Ayhan, Z., Rutkaite, R.,
Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 13 (4), 745e769. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541- Radusin, T., Suminska, P., Marcos, B., Coma, V., 2018. Active packaging appli-
4337.12086. cations for food. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 17 (1), 165e199.
Pearson, D., Mirosa, M., Andrews, L., Kerr, G., 2017. Reframing communications that Young, C.W., Russell, S.V., Robinson, C.A., Chintakayala, P.K., 2018. Sustainable
encourage individuals to reduce food waste. Communication Research and retailing e influencing consumer behaviour on food waste. Bus. Strat. Environ.
Practice 3 (2), 137e154. 27 (1), 1e15.
Pennanen, K., Focas, C., Kumpusalo-Sanna, V., Keskitalo-Vuokko, K., Matullat, I., Zhang, H., Hortal, M., Dobon, A., Bermudez, J.M., Lara-Lledo, M., 2015. The effect of
Ellouze, M., Pentika €inen, S., Smolander, M., Korhonen, V., Ollila, M., 2015. Eu- active packaging on minimizing food losses: life cycle assessment (LCA) of
ropean consumers’ perceptions of time-temperature indicators in food pack- essential oil component-enabled packaging for fresh beef. Packag. Technol. Sci.
aging. Packag. Technol. Sci. 28 (4), 303e323. 28 (9), 761e774.

13