An exploratory study ofmarketing, logistics, and ethics in

packaging innovationMaria Vernuccio and Alessandra CozzolinoSapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy, and

Laura MicheliniLUMSA University of Rome, Rome, Italy

Abstract

Purpose – Packaging is a strategic tool that merits holistic management. Three managerialdisciplines have the potential to significantly influence packaging strategy: marketing, logistics, andethics. Despite the multidimensional nature of packaging, the academic literature tends to analysethese three dimensions separately. To address this shortcoming of a more integrated approach, the aimof this paper is to identify the main integration areas among marketing, logistics, and ethics inpackaging innovation projects, in the retail grocery sector.

Design/methodology/approach – In total, 186 cases of packaging design were selected and thedata collected were analysed by quantitative content analysis (cross-tabulation).

Findings – The results show that simultaneous integration among marketing, logistics and ethicsrecurs in only one third of the cases. The main area of integration is between marketing and ethics. Toa lesser extent, there is a significant degree of integration between marketing and logistics as well asbetween logistics and ethics. Nevertheless, the findings of this initial analysis suggest that thepotential in terms of integration has yet to be exploited.

Practical implications – Taking a holistic view of innovation in packaging, the study can assistmanagers participating in packaging management by providing a conceptual instrument for theintegrated evaluation of the multidimensional relationships among the three perspectives.

Originality/value – The paper provides the first empirical exploration in this field and an originalconceptual framework that could serve as a theoretical reference point for future research and as amanagerial tool, recognising the urgent need for a careful understanding of how marketing, logisticsand ethics may be integrated in innovation projects.

Keywords Packaging, Innovation, Retailing, Competitive strategy, Integration

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionThe intense level of innovation in packaging, which is particularly noticeable in theretail grocery sector, has focused on a continuous search for competitive advantage.Many external forces are driving businesses to make more serious efforts in thisdirection – for example: changes in patterns of consumption behaviour; lengtheningdistribution chains; new materials and technologies; environmentalism; regulation; andthe obligations of corporate responsibility.

The best possible management response to this complex operating environment isproduced through the interaction of many functional areas within the firm, with theirdiverse perspectives, that combine and integrate in different ways at different times. Thiscomplex management discipline is furthermore a highly and increasingly significantelement in the production, distribution and consumption systems of the world’s developedand developing economies, themselves the subject of specialised study.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1460-1060.htm

Packaginginnovation

333

European Journal of InnovationManagement

Vol. 13 No. 3, 2010pp. 333-354

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1460-1060

DOI 10.1108/14601061011060157

Among the variety of management activities associated with innovation inpackaging, this study focuses on the perspectives of the marketing, logistics and ethicsdisciplines, which are considered some of the most relevant components of strategicpackaging planning. Over recent decades, some researchers have emphasised thatpackaging is a highly versatile marketing tool (Nickels and Jolson, 1976; Schoormansand Robben, 1997; Nancarrow et al., 1998; Underwood and Ozanne, 1998; Underwoodet al., 2001; Lambin, 2002; Lee and Lye, 2003; Underwood, 2003; Ampuero and Vila,2006; Kotler, 2006), while others have considered it mainly as an integral element of thelogistics system as a whole (Twede, 1992; Coles et al., 2003; Rundh, 2005; Hellstrom andSaghir, 2006), and a few others have analysed its ethical implications specifically (Boneand Corey, 1992a, b; Prendergast and Pitt, 1996; Bone and Corey, 2000).

Despite the multidimensional nature of packaging, the academic literature tends toanalyse these three dimensions separately. In view of the lack of a more integrativeapproach, our study takes a systematic and holistic vision of innovation in packaging.Thus, the key research question was formulated as follows:

RQ. Which are the main areas of integration among marketing, logistics, andethics in packaging innovation in the retail grocery sector?

In pursuit of this aim, we propose an original multidisciplinary analytical frameworkfrom the diversity that characterises this field. This framework is applied to case studyevidence considering the specific areas in which marketing, logistics, and ethics areintegrated in packaging innovation projects. In so doing, we take a companyperspective (Cooper, 1979; More, 1982; Cooper and De Brentani, 1991; Green et al., 1995;Olson et al., 1995; Colarelli O’Connor, 1998; Goldenberg et al., 1999). In definingpackaging innovation, we first took into consideration a variety of implied definitionsof “innovation” in the literature. Garcia and Calantone (2002, p. 112) speak of“discontinuity in marketing and/or technological factors”, which may precipitate newproduct design (Lawton and Parasuraman, 1980; Kleinschmidt and Cooper, 1991;Kessler and Chakrabarti, 1999), new product features (Cooper, 1979; Ali et al., 1995),new benefits in terms of quality (Cooper and De Brentani, 1991), and new processes(Cooper, 1979; More, 1982; Yoon and Lilien, 1985; Cooper and De Brentani, 1991;Schmidt and Calantone, 1998). With respect to innovation in packaging, specifically,we are concerned with an initiative that, whether “really new” (Garcia and Calantone,2002) or incremental, is bound to have an impact on both the physical aspects ofdelivery along the packaging chain and the ways in which it communicates specificmessages to selected target groups by various means. Our research study examinessuch final outcomes of the innovation process as improvements in both the physicaland communicative functions of the packaging. The first of these (physical) concernsthe containment, protection and conservation of goods, physical handling and storage,retailing, and the facilitation of use and re-use. In the case of the second(communicative) function, strategic objectives such as information, visibility,persuasion, dialogue and social involvement, are conveyed to such targets asconsumers, distributors and logistics contractors by means of various informative andsymbolic forms of communication.

In the next section we present a conceptual framework that integrates marketing,logistics, and ethics perspectives arising from the literature. Despite the limits of ananalysis that covers such diverse disciplines, it is necessary a first step in the exploration

EJIM13,3

334

of integration areas. It could serve both as theoretical reference point for future researchand as a practical tool for practitioners responsible for packaging development. Such atool can enable practitioners to manage the process of innovation in a more integratedway and hence to control its impact on both the physical and communicative functions ofpackaging. A research methodology that applies this framework to empirical evidence isthen described: 186 cases of packaging design were selected in the retail grocery sectorand the data collected were analysed by quantitative content analysis (cross-tabulation).Afterwards, the main research results are explained and, in the final sections, theseresults are discussed and conclusions are drawn, including some important managerialimplications, limitations, and future directions.

2. Background: perspectives on innovativeness in packagingThe analysis of physical and communicative innovation in packaging could beundertaken and organized on the basis of the three components of strategic packagingplanning (marketing, logistics, and ethics). In fact, we have noted research interest inpackaging as an integral element, on the one hand, of the product system (Lambin,2002) or the marketing process (Kotler, 2006), and, on the other hand, of logisticalsystem (Twede, 1992; Hellstrom and Saghir, 2006; Chan et al., 2006). Considering alsothe ethical perspective, it has further been shown that it can have a significant impacton the personnel working in the logistics function, and on the physical environment(Bone and Corey, 1992, 2000; Prendergast and Pitt, 1996; Thøgersen, 1999). Studieshave shown that, in response to the growing importance of logistics, the evolution ofintermediate and final markets, and an emerging sensitivity to ethical issues,packaging has become a key interface in the working relationships among suppliers,producers, distributors and end-users, and in their interaction with the physicalenvironment (Coles et al., 2003).

2.1 Packaging and marketingOne fundamental tenet of our study is that “packaging” is a multidimensional construct.In pursuit of value creation, innovation projects need to take into account the multipleroles of packaging with respect to the numerous actors operating in the production,distribution, consumption, and post-consumption phases of the marketing process.Moreover, packaging should be designed and executed with a sense of responsibilitytowards the physical environment and in compliance with social regulations.

This means, in turn, that inter-functional teams responsible for the planning ofinnovation strategy must have an in-depth understanding of more than justconsumers’ needs and wants. They must also concern themselves with the intrinsiccharacteristics of the products, the expectations of retailers, the logistics of transportand delivery, the packaging materials available, the machinery, and productionprocesses, the environmental performance of the proposed packaging, and many otherintervening variables (Coles et al., 2003).

Such an “evolutionary” approach to the management of packaging innovation willbe best able to realise its value-added potential in this complex operational setting ifthe firm adopting it is market-oriented (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Jaworski and Kohli,1993; Narver and Slater, 1990; Slater and Narver, 1995; Li and Calantone, 1998;Deshpande, 1999; Narver et al., 2004). According Gatignon and Xuereb (1997, p. 77):“Although being market-driven may lead to general benefits for the firms’ marketing

Packaginginnovation

335

activities, the ability to bring to market new products, which present the characteristicsnecessary to be successful, may be critical”. Atuahene-Gima (1995) found a strongpositive relationship between market orientation and a new product’s marketperformance. This greater influence on new product performance is observed primarilywhen the product represents an incremental change for both the customers and thefirm, and also when the perceived intensity of market competition and industryhostility are high. Market orientation includes not only the concept of customerorientation, but also that of competitive orientation (Day, 1990, 1994). Competitiveeffects play an important role in the formulation and execution of innovation strategies(Robertson and Gatignon, 1986; Gatignon and Robertson, 1993).

Clearly, market-orientation demands management that is fully aware of thecomplex web of relationships within which packaging is the prime mover if theproposed innovations in the physical and communicative aspects of packaging are tobe effective. Notwithstanding the fact that the relevance of packaging to marketing haslong been recognised in the literature (Twedt, 1968; Sara, 1990; Stewart, 1996), andindeed spoken of as the “fifth P” (Nickels and Jolson, 1976), the prevalent studies haveuntil now collected only specific details of packaging as a part of the marketingprocess, without broadening the perspective to market orientation. For example,packaging has been analysed as a marketing instrument that can influence suchspecific aspects as product positioning (Gershman, 1987), consumer attention,categorization and evaluation (Schoormans and Robben, 1997, Folkes and Matta, 2004;Ampuero and Vila, 2006), usage behavior (Wansink, 1996), intention-to-purchase(Raghubir and Greenleaf, 2006) or brand communication (Nancarrow et al., 1998;Underwood and Ozanne, 1998; Underwood et al., 2001; Van den Berg-Weitzel and vande Laar, 2001; Underwood and Klein, 2002; Underwood, 2003). Here, we postponefuture extensions of our study into these unexplored links between market orientationand the multidimensionality of packaging in favour of providing a primaryidentification of the aspects of marketing expected to feature most prominently in thechoice of packaging innovations. We therefore concentrate our attention on the mainobjective and outcome: the perceived value to the buyer or consumer, as the final phaseof innovative intervention in the packaging process.

Drawing on studies of semiotics in marketing, and in particular the celebrated“semiotic square” (Greimas, 1966; Floch, 1990), it is possible to identify the principaldimensions of the value of packaging to the consumer in the “physical” and“communicative” terms defined in the introduction to this paper. As Table I shows,those are distinguished as “practical”, “ideal”, “emotional” and “critical”. Thesecategorisations combine and interpret Floch’s French descriptions of four “axiologiesof consumption” – “pratique”, “utopique”, “ludique” and “critique” (Floch, 1990) – andthe English translations “utilitarian”, “utopian”, “hedonic” and “critical” proposed byPinson (1998). These distinct values, conveyed to the consumer by physical andcommunicative dimensions of packaging on various occasions and at various locationsduring the process of acquisition and the experience of consumption, can clearly beinfluenced by innovations in packaging design.

To summarise, marketing-led innovation in packaging is concerned with thepractical, ideal, emotional and critical value that innovative packaging can deliver tousers of the packaged offering.

EJIM13,3

336

2.2 Packaging and logisticsIn the contemporary competitive scene, increasing attention is accorded to the strategicrole of logistics in delivering competitive leverage (Stock and Lambert, 1987; Fawcettet al., 1993; Cooper et al., 1997; Lambert et al., 1998; Coyle et al., 2003; Neef, 2004;Christopher, 2005; Bowersox et al., 2006; Melnyk et al., 2007; Guide and VanWassenhove, 2009). It is particularly evident with respect to the logistical functions ofpackaging – or rather to its specific “physical” aspects – yielding increasingly valuableand important innovations, and heralding other interesting developments (Lockamy,1995; Twede and Parsons, 1997; Johnsson, 1998; Twede et al., 2000; Hellstrom andSaghir, 2003; Jahre and Hatteland, 2003; Jonson and Johnsson, 2004; Saghir, 2004;Engelseth, 2005; Chan et al., 2006; Hellstrom and Saghir, 2006; Sci, 2006; Bramklev, 2009).In fact, the capacity to speed products through the “downstream” segment of the chain ofproduction and distribution (where packaged goods are especially often found) by meansof efficient and integrated service-oriented operations, has immediately significantimplications for initiatives linked to those changes in the end-market and in theproductive context that can reconfigure inter-firm competition (Christopher and Peck,2003; Lemoine and Dagnaes, 2003; Hakansson and Persson, 2004).

The “packaging system” (Twede, 1992), in its entirety, fulfils in logistics afundamental role in assuring the availability of “the right product, in the rightquantity, in the right condition, in the right place, at the right time, to the rightcustomer, at the right price” (Shapiro and Heskett, 1985). Such “rules of availability”lead, in today’s competitive landscape, to the formulation of original packaging“complete solutions” (Chapman et al., 2003), for ever-changing market conditions, sothat three levels of packaging can be distinguished (intimately related to logistics):primary packaging (or “sales packaging”, or “consumer packaging”), secondarypackaging (or “group packaging”, or “distribution packaging”), and tertiary packaging(or “transport packaging”). This explicitly recognises packaging as a hierarchicalsystem, the performance of which is affected by the interactions between levels(Hellstrom and Saghir, 2006).

Dimensions

Practical Here, innovation influences the customer’s perception of functional value. In the caseof physical innovation, we observe an improvement in the user-friendliness of goods(transportability, re-sealability, ease of handling, etc.). Practical communicativeinnovations relate to verbal and iconic cues for the consumer, to facilitate use andrepeat usage (e.g. the directions for use)

Ideal These concern the symbolic value of the packaging, the significance that it can takeon for the customer, created through communicative innovations and, to a lesserextent, physical innovations

Emotional These relate to aesthetic and emotional values (e.g. diversion, stimulation, feeling)conveyed by the physical and communicative elements

Critical These relate to the critical cost/benefit evaluation of the offering. In communicativeterms, it can be influenced by the provision of critical information (e.g. aboutnutritional attributes) and/or by the development of transparent packs. From thephysical point of view, it concerns features that improve convenience orconservability (e.g. “intelligent” packaging, or “active” packs)

Table I.Principal marketing

dimensions of innovationin packaging

Packaginginnovation

337

Many scholars have highlighted that the principal logistical functions required ofthe packaging system, in pursuit of optimum efficiency and qualitative performance,are: protection and conservation; handling and transport; manipulation and storage;and information (Friedman and Kipnees, 1977; Paine, 1981 1991; Harkham, 1989;Ebeling, 1990; Paine and Paine, 1992; Twede, 1992; Twede and Parsons, 1997; Saghirand Jonson, 2001; Soroka, 2002; Hellstrom and Saghir, 2006; Robertson, 2006; Williamset al., 2008; Yam, 2009). These specific roles are linked to the physical andcommunicative meta-functions. Moreover they are considered to be necessaryprerequisites within the total compass of packaging planning, given their intrinsicimportance.

Arising from the previously mentioned authors, Table II summarises the mostcommon objectives for logistical innovation in packaging, in practice, classified bythese specific macro-functions or dimensions. In concert, these can simultaneouslydeliver optimum efficiency, in terms of cost reduction and time saving, and improvedservice quality (Lambert et al., 1998).

Protection and conservation. The key function of primary packaging is to safeguardthe physical, thermal and chemical-bacteriological integrity of the product. If thecontents are hazardous or potentially polluting, it prevents injury to the user ordamage to the external environment in which the product is used. Primary packagingcan furthermore conserve the product and thereby lengthen its life with respect to thecycle of obsolescence or natural perishability.

Handling and transport – manipulation and storage. Primary, secondary, andtertiary packaging, collectively facilitate various operations within the long chain ofhandling and transport, and manipulation and storage, across the product range andthroughout all the phases of the production, distributive and consumption processes.The controlled dimensions of space-saving primary packaging, for example, canoptimise load saturation and thereby reduce the number of delivery vehicles requiredto be on the road, on the rails or in the air. The reduction of packaged weight will alsohave direct positive effects on transport costs. Rationalisation of secondary packaging

Dimensions

Protection and conservation Better protection of the product; better protection for users and theenvironment; extension of shelf life; reduction of the risk of voluntaryor accidental tampering; reduction of harmful materials; utilization ofmaterials of certified quality

Handling and transport Weight reduction; facilitation of supply; facilitation of re-use andrecycling; stackability, and space saving; optimization of loads andstorage space; reduction of materials used; simplification and/orreduction of operations

Manipulation and storage Weight reduction; facilitation of supply; facilitation of re-use andrecycling; stackability and space-saving; reduction in stockout;reduction of materials; simplification and/or reduction of operations

Information Clarity and simplicity in Instructions for Use on the package; betterinformation on the components of the packaging; facilitation ofproduct identification and traceability

Table II.Principal logisticaldimensions of innovationin packaging

EJIM13,3

338

can deliver clear benefits in the warehousing and picking and packing operations.Furthermore, initiatives in tertiary packaging have addressed a critical logisticalproblem in practice by homologating the standards relating to the pallet, the mostwidely adopted unit of load in international distribution logistics.

Information. Moving from the physical aspects of packaging to its communicativefunction, messages incorporated into the materials used can deliver practicalinstructions to those involved in the movement of goods through the distribution chain(for example, “this way up” or “fragile”, and associated symbols) or information aboutthe contents (such as descriptions of the contained materials and recommendationsabout disposal, reclamation or recycling). The use of barcodes on packaging is by nowwell-established practice, for delivery tracking and the upstream communication ofmarket information. In response to the urgent need to be able to trace the progress of aproduct along the entire supply chain “radio frequency identification technology”(RFID) is steadily replacing bar codes with radio-frequency.

2.3 Packaging and ethicsIn the current operational environment, the planning of packaging innovations musttake into account not only marketing and logistics, but also a factor that is emerging asincreasingly important: the ethical dimension.

Recent studies suggest that an increasing number of companies are choosing to takean ethically sound approach to innovation in packaging (Business Insights, 2008;Datamonitor, 2008). This trend, can be detected, among both the producers of thematerials involved, and the users; improved environmental sustainability is a case inpoint. There seems to be an increasing awareness among decision-makers of thestrategic value of this ethical dimension. A strong impetus towards consumerconsciousness and corporate responsibility is provided by numerous standards andnorms imposed by public regulatory institutions, as well as by the many industrybodies and consortia that offer guidelines for best practices and advice on reclamationand recycling of packaging.

Although the theme of ethical planning of packaging is very well developed andhighly topical, the academic literature on the subject so far remains sparse. Studieshave concentrated on the analysis of related consumption behaviour (Thøgersen, 1999)and on differences in the perception of issues connected with packaging amongpackaging professionals, marketing managers and end-consumers (Bone and Corey,2000), always with specific reference to environmental questions (Prendergast and Pitt,1996). Interesting points of departure for further reflection emerge from two studies byBone and Corey (1992a, b), who propose a classification of ethical questions relating topackaging decisions and show how the ethical dimension is made explicit in labelling,graphics, safety, pricing, and environmental issues.

Table III summarizes the ethical dimensions of packaging innovation that arepotentially useful to planners of packaging strategy, identifying appropriate guidelinesfor an improvement in the overall level of ethical responsiveness. The definitions of thefive dimensions, and their origins, are as follows:

(1) Eco-compatibility: minimising the environmental impact of packing materials(Prendergast and Pitt, 1996; Bone and Corey, 1992a).

(2) Information: conveying information that is honest, truthful, sincere,comprehensible and complete (Underwood and Ozanne, 1998).

Packaginginnovation

339

(3) Societal orientation: placing the consumer-individual at the centre of thepackaging design process, guaranteeing high levels of user-friendliness for allcategories of user, and maximum advantage from an economic point of view(Institute of Grocery Distribution, 1995).

(4) Safety: guaranteeing maximum levels of safety in use (Laczniak, 1983; Bone andCorey, 1992a).

(5) Social solidarity: using packaging for initiatives that sustain the community(Till and Nowak, 2000).

The importance of the eco-compatibility dimension is self-evident. With particularreference to the information dimension, Underwood and Ozanne (1998) take their leadfrom the theory of communication competence (Habermas, 1984) in asserting that allinformation communicated via packaging should be: honest, in that it tells the truth;truthful, in that it withholds no facts essential to the proper and safe use of the product;sincere, in that it does not deliberately confuse the issue; comprehensible, in that it doesnot use vocabulary that is too specialised or too vague; and complete, in that it explainseverything a typical consumer would find useful to an evaluation of the product and itsperformance.

Societal orientation means that design packaging considers the disparate needs ofseveral categories of potential consumer, as follows:

. Children: designing a package that is either particularly easy for them to use, orhas child-resistant closures if it is potentially harmful.

. Elderly people: taking into account age-related difficulties, for example, byhandling the product or reading the label.

. Disabled people: diminishing obstacles to proper use of packaging, for exampleby ensuring that the package conveys information in Braille or by other suitablemeans in the case of potential users who are partially sighted.

. Other categories: such as immigrants or economically disadvantaged citizens.

In general, the value of user-friendliness is clear. Designing packaging from auser-centred perspective means paying attention to “consumer-individuals”. In thiscase, consumer well-being is placed at the heart of the process, and the aim is to deliverhigh levels of comfort and convenience in use.

Dimensions

Eco-compatibility Facilitation of recycling activity; reduction of waste; reduction of harmfulmaterials; reduced use of materials; reduction of the risk of environmentaldamage; energy savings in the production process; re-use of packaging; useof ecological or certificated materials; use of recycled materials

Information Is honest, truthful, sincere, comprehensible and complete

Societal orientation Focus on special-needs customers; maximisation of user-friendliness;reduction of costs

Safety Reduction of risk of damage to the person beyond the legal obligations

Social solidarity Communication; social responsibility; social engagement

Table III.Principal ethicaldimensions of innovationin packaging

EJIM13,3

340

If a firm plans in parallel for improved cost-effectiveness in the production orpurchasing of its packaging, then the advantage to the consumer can be reinforced byan affordable final product price.

As well as adopting a societal orientation, packaging strategy can serve the broadersocial interest. In this sense, it can form part of a channel of social communication or bean instrument of “social marketing”, used for the diffusion of messages intended tosensitise consumers to specific social issues, social causes or public initiatives, andstimulate their support or participation. It thus becomes one of many contributors tothe promotion of social solidarity.

As for the safety dimension, it is an unarguable objective of packaging strategy. Inethical terms, it is imperative to safeguard the personal safety of the user, even beyondthe legal constraints and regulatory obligations.

2.4 Towards an integrated approachIn the previous analysis, we have identified and discussed the particular aspects ofmarketing, logistics and ethics that are significant in the planning and management ofinnovation in packaging. It is therefore now possible to introduce some preliminarythoughts about the potential for integration among them as the point of departure forthe empirical analysis.

There is a strong potential, in theory at least, for integrating marketing, logisticsand ethics in the planning of innovative packaging initiatives. In fact, all threecorresponding managerial functions are potentially linked to the essential physical andcommunicative meta-functions of packaging, and can be involved, to a greater or alesser degree, in their implementation. The degree of crossover of a given dimensionbetween the two meta-functions will determine its capacity for integration with theothers. For example, in the case of marketing, the fact that the practical, ideal,emotional and critical user-values exhibit a high degree of parallel involvement in thetwo meta-functions suggests that it will, generally speaking, have a high potential forintegration with logistics and ethics on both fronts.

From a theoretical standpoint again, the logistical dimensions have a strongpotential for integration with marketing and ethics, but only in the physicalmeta-function. Ethical innovations in packaging, since they can affect both thephysical and communicative functions, potentially integrate well with both marketingand logistics, though more substantially with the former. The matrix in Figure 1integrates the many multidisciplinary elements discussed.

3. MethodologyTo apply the conceptual framework set out in Figure 1 to the identification of the mainareas of integration among marketing, logistics and ethics, an exploratory researchdesign was based on desk research and case studies. The context was innovation inconsumer-product primary packaging, with a subsidiary focus on secondarypackaging.

In the first phase of data collection, 300 separate cases of packaging innovation wereassembled from a variety of published secondary sources: research reports, “whitepapers”, industry publications, the web sites of leading companies in the field, andwinning entries in international competitions. The criteria for inclusion in this datapool were:

Packaginginnovation

341

. relevance to the objectives of the study;

. use of primary and secondary packaging;

. reporting period 2005-2008;

. focus on consumer goods; and

. international recognition.

In the second phase, 186 cases were selected from the pool on the basis of two furthercriteria:

(1) Richness of the relevant information, in that each case had to describe, as aminimum, the objectives of the innovation project, details of its development,results, and usable visual material.

(2) Homogeneity within the sample, in terms of level of detail in the projectdescriptions.

The large size of the final sample and the diversity of the sampled units reflect the aimof covering the full international range of packaging innovation. Data were collectedfrom 27 countries across five consumer-goods categories: foods and beverages,consumer electronics, cosmetics and toiletries, household care products, andpharmaceuticals.

The data were reduced and organised by quantitative content analysis (Holsti, 1969;Kassarjian, 1977; Rourke and Anderson, 2004). This research method appearsappropriate for the systematic, objective, and quantitative description of manifestcontent (Berelson, 1952). In this context, description is a process that includesproviding tallies for each category, segmenting text content into “single assertionabout a subject” (Kassarjian, 1977, p. 12), and assigning the segments to a category(coding process). Thus, we considered any single assertion about the specific subjects(categories) of this study as the unit of analysis. Table IV shows the 16 codingvariables employed in the analysis, as derived from the conceptual framework

Figure 1.Conceptual framework:potential for physical andcommunicativeintegration amongmarketing, logistics, andethics dimensions

EJIM13,3

342

presented in Figure 1: three “macro-variables” (marketing, logistics, and ethics) and 13“micro-variables” relating to such attributes as practical value, protection-conservationor societal orientation. These categories of analysis were defined based on the principlethat different analysts may apply them to the same body of content and secure thesame results (Berelson, 1952).

In order to construct the most parsimonious model of data collection, and since thisis a first exploration of this field, the coding process did not distinguish between thephysical and communicative functions.

For each descriptive case, the presence or absence of the 16 analytical variables wasnoted and recorded.

“Interjudge reliability” was measured by the ratio of coding agreements to the totalnumber of coding decisions (Kassarjian, 1977). In this study, two academic judges wereinvolved in the coding process. The coefficient of reliability was 96 per cent.

The outcome was then quantified through multivariate analysis based on afrequency measurement produced by SPSS software. To identify the frequency of theco-occurrences of categories (variables), a cross-tabulation based on the Pearson’schi-square test was used.

A three-way analysis allowed us to identify the integration among marketing,logistics, and ethics in packaging innovation projects. Bivariate cross-tabulation madeit possible to identify the integration between each pair of macro-variable andmicro-variables belonging to different managerial fields, e.g. between practical value(marketing) and eco-compatibility (ethics).

4. FindingsThis section presents the principal empirical findings, as they relate to the three keymanagement perspectives of marketing, logistics and ethics, and with a focus on theirapplication in the integrated projects of innovation in packaging.

4.1 Preliminary analysisTable V shows the absolute and percentage frequencies for each of the 16 variables.

Macro-categories Micro-categories

Marketing Practical valueIdeal valueEmotional valueCritical value

Logistics Protection and conservationHandling and transportManipulation and storageInformation

Ethics Eco-compatibilityInformationSafetySocietal orientationSocial solidarity

Table IV.Variables used for the

coding process

Packaginginnovation

343

The base for the three macro-categories was all 186 cases analysed. For themicro-categories, the percentages were calculated by dividing the absolute frequencyby that of the corresponding macro-variable. Item totals can exceed 100 per centbecause two or more items could occur simultaneously in the same project.

The presence of marketing aspects was found in 95.2 per cent (n ¼ 177) of the cases.Less than two thirds explicitly involved ethical factors (60.2 per cent), and less thanhalf, were judged, to be related, to logistics (44.6 per cent).

Marketing. Among the four fundamental kinds of value deliverable by marketinginnovation in packaging, “practical” dominated, being present in three quarters of allcases (74.6 per cent; total ¼ 177). The “ideal”, “emotional” and “critical” variantstogether accounted for only two thirds of all observations (67.2 per cent).

Logistics. “Protection and conservation” (57.8 per cent), “handling and transport”(48.2 per cent), and “manipulation and storage” (57.8 per cent) were all identified as keyfactors in roughly half of all the case histories where the logistics dimension occurs(total ¼ 83). Only the information dimension of logistics was less represented in theanalysis (2.4 per cent).

Ethics. “Societal orientation” considerations were a factor in more than half of allcases (54.5 per cent of 112 cases). Table V also shows that “eco-compatibility” had anequally strong role in the ethical dimensions of packing innovation (55.3 per cent).

4.2 Integration of marketing, logistics, and ethicsThe research question asks which are the most relevant integration areas in packaginginnovation. Cross-tabulation of the data suggested a definite tendency to significantintegration among marketing, logistics and ethics. Table VI shows that integrationincluded all three dimensions in just 33 per cent (n ¼ 62) of the case histories

Macro-categories

Absolutefrequency

(A)

Frequencypercentage

(A/186) Micro-categories

Absolutefrequency

(B)

Frequencypercentage

(B/A)

Marketing 177 95.2 Practical value 132 74.6Ideal value 65 36.7Emotional value 37 20.9Critical value 17 9.6

Logistics 83 44.6 Protection andconservation

48 57.8

Handling andtransport

40 48.2

Manipulation andstorage

48 57.8

Information 2 2.4

Ethics 112 60.2 Eco-compatibility 61 54.5Information 5 4.5Safety 25 22.3Societal orientation 62 55.3Social solidarity 4 3.5

Note: Base ¼ 186

Table V.Frequency analysis ofmacro- andmicro-variables (fromSPSS output)

EJIM13,3

344

( p-value , 0.05). In a slightly smaller proportion (31 per cent), innovation wasexclusively marketing-led (n ¼ 57), but in only two cases (2 per cent) was it found to besolely ethics-led. In no case was logistics the only dimension of innovation. Most of thecases, presented an integration between at least two variables.

Pair-wise comparisons were conducted to investigate the degree of integrationamong the three-macro variables and their sub-dimensions. Table VII shows the

Logistics innovationMarketing innovation No Yes Total

No Ethical innovation No 1 0 1Yes 3 5 8

Total 4 5 9

Yes Ethical innovation No 57 16 73Yes 42 62 * 104

Total 99 78 177

Note: Pearson chi-square significant at p-value # 0.05

Table VI.Integration of the three

macro-variables ofinnovation (three-way

analysis fromSPSS output)

Integrationbetween macro-categories

Absolutefrequency

(A)

Frequencypercentage

(A/186)Integration betweenmicro-categories

Absolutefrequency

(B)

Frequencypercentage

(B/A)

Marketing andlogistics

78 * 41.9 Practical value andprotection andconservation

45 * * 57.7

Practical value andmanipulation andstorage

41 * 52.6

Marketing andethics

104 * 55.9 Practical value andsocietal orientation

60 * * 57.7

Practical value and eco-compatibility

51 * 49.0

Practical value andsafety

25 * * 24.0

Logistics andethics

67 * * 36.0 Manipulation andstorage and eco-compatibility

34 * * 50.7

Handling and transportand eco-compatibility

33 * * 49.2

Protection andconservation andsocietal orientation

24 * 35.8

Protection andconservation and safety

20 * * 29.8

Notes: *Pearson chi-square significant at p-value # 0.05; * * Pearson chi-square significant atp-value #0.001

Table VII.Integration between pairs

of variables(cross-tabulation

from SPSS)

Packaginginnovation

345

absolute and percentage frequencies of pairs of macro-variables for micro-variableintersections that are more frequent and statistically significant.

Marketing and logistics. Association between the marketing and logisticsdimensions occurs in 42 per cent of all 186 cases, and is shown to be acceptablysignificant by the Pearson’s chi-square value of p ¼ 0.049.

The main areas of overlap were between “practical value” and “protection andconservation” ( p ¼ 0.000) and “manipulation and storage” ( p ¼ 0.010).

Marketing and ethics. Cross-tabulation output showed a very frequent andsignificant association between marketing and ethics (56 per cent with p ¼ 0.03),within which this supplementary analysis indicated a high level of integration betweeninnovations that have an impact on “practical value” from the user’s perspective andthose that related to the ethical sub-dimensions of “societal orientation” ( p ¼ 0.000),“eco-compatibility” ( p ¼ 0.008), and “safety” ( p ¼ 0.001).

Logistics and ethics. Furthermore, there was a significant degree of integration( p ¼ 0.000) – even if less frequent – between the logistical and ethical dimensions (36per cent). Here, the principal area of overlap referred to environmental aspects; the“handling-and-transport” ( p ¼ 0.000) and “manipulation-and-storage” ( p ¼ 0.000)functions were strongly associated with “eco-compatibility”. Moreover, significantintegration occurred between “protection-and-conservation” and “societal orientation”( p ¼ 0.004) and “safety” ( p ¼ 0.000).

5. ConclusionBased on the conceptual framework, this first exploratory study analysed empiricalevidence about the specific areas in which the three key management perspectives(marketing, logistics, and ethics) were integrated in packaging innovation projects.

Before discussing the issue of integration, it is useful to provide some notes on eachsingle dimension of packaging innovation.

Empirical findings show that the planning and execution of packaging innovationswere guided largely by marketing considerations. In fact, marketing was not only thevariable that occurred most frequently, but also the one that occurred by itself mostoften. In the context of consumer goods, marketing-related innovations had a largelyfunctional purpose, with a specific impact on the practical value dimension. In otherterms, we observed an improvement in the user-friendliness of goods (transportability,re-sealability, ease of handling, etc.) or in the verbal and iconic cues to the consumer,facilitating use and repeat usage (e.g. the directions for use) more frequently than otherimprovements. Second, innovation that referred to the shape of the container or theverbal and iconic signs conveyed by the packaging was frequently driven by the aim ofhaving a positive impact mainly on the “ideal” value dimension.

Logistics-related innovation was more strongly linked to the process than to theproduct, and packaging was managed as a system of services along the forward andreverse supply chains. In fact, the very balanced frequency distribution of “protectionand conservation”, “handling and transport”, and “manipulation and storage” seemsconsistent with the concept of logistical innovation, which manifests itself as aninitiative that is “systemic” and narrowly focused on the logic of the process. Bycontrast, the very low frequency relating to the “information” function of logisticsseems inconsistent with that concept, but that result could be explained in two ways.First, it was not always easy to identify information elements in the case histories;

EJIM13,3

346

second, the phenomenon could be attributable to the fact that primary packaging wasthe focus in 90 per cent of cases.

Ethical innovation in packaging design refers primarily to two aspects:eco-compatibility and societal orientation. Specifically, with respect to innovationsaimed at reducing the impact of packaging on the environment, it was found thatinitiatives were directed at reducing the amount or variety of materials used,facilitating recycling, and generally reducing waste.

Referring to societal orientation, the greater part of innovation was related to ease ofuse. Despite gradually increasing levels of attention to the needs of special categories ofend-user as disabled or elderly adults and children, such a commitment was found onlyrarely in our research. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that some significant examplesof such initiatives have recently begun to appear, for instance, in the form of Braillelabelling and typography adapted to the needs of the blind, which suggest possiblefuture developments.

Our study found that simultaneous integration of marketing, logistics and ethicsoccurred in only about a third of all cases.

Regarding the combination between marketing and logistics, the cross tabulationanalysis confirmed in practice what was expected theoretically in terms of a strongpotential for integration.

This was evident when the “practical value” for the customer occurredsimultaneously with logistical innovations, such as “protection and conservation”,and “manipulation and storage.” In the former, case innovation referred to the finalproduct, whereas in the latter case it referred to the logistical process. This resultsuggests that logistical packaging innovation could have a strong impact on customervalue creation. It seems that innovation initiatives may be based on considerable effortin pursuit of the proper equilibrium between the need to optimise logisticalperformance and the priority of creating value for the end-user.

Integration of marketing and ethics was the most common combination, but wasfocused almost exclusively on practical improvements in “societal orientation” and“eco-compatibility.” In particular, referring to the integration between “societalorientation” and “practical value”, findings show that innovation was primarily linkedto the user-friendliness of packaging. This aspect could be considered “ethical” to theextent that it presupposed a customer-oriented stance. Although the empirical evidenceindicated a strong connection between these ethically-driven innovations and the“practical value” of the packaging, as perceived by the consumer, innovations withmore demanding ethical content (e.g. directed at special user needs) were only rarelyassociated with marketing in practice. Furthermore, unexpectedly, the combinationbetween the ethics aspects and the “ideal value” (symbolic) was found only seldom.This evidence highlights the propensity of firms not to communicate the ethicalcomponent of an innovation. One possible reason may be the difficulty ofcommunicating the ethical value of packaging effectively. Consumers may fail tograsp the benefit, misconstrue the message when the packaged product seems to themto be ethically dubious, or be unconvinced if the firm’s commitment is not consistent.Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that exceptions do occur, when the ethical dimensionfigures prominently in the corporate mission and marketing strategy of a firm.

In the end, logistics and ethics displayed a significant degree of integration, even ifthis integration was less frequent in comparison with the other two combinations. The

Packaginginnovation

347

main integration area was that of “eco-efficiency”, which refers to both “eco-nomic” and“eco-logical” efficiency, typically achieved by savings in the amount and variety ofmaterials employed. In this case, benefits were felt both internally, by logisticsmanagers, and externally, in the broader environment. This consideration arose fromthe high level of overlap found in the environmental aspect between“handling-and-transport” and “manipulation-and-storage” and “eco-compatibility”.

Overall, even though integration among all three elements of marketing, logisticsand ethics is theoretically-foreseeable, and reasonable, we can conclude that part of thepotential benefits of integration remains to be realised in practice. This analysis of themain areas and the specific gaps of integration emerging in practice could serve as apoint of departure for fully understanding and properly utilising innovation.Consequently, our conceptual framework is useful not only for academics involved inthis field of research, but also for planners and managers with responsibility forpackaging strategy and management. This framework could be a useful conceptualinstrument for the integrated evaluation of the multidimensional relationships amongthe three perspectives.

6. Limitations and future directionsThis study has certain limitations that can be addressed in future research. Eventhough this broad exploratory study has allowed for a first significant step in taking aholistic view of packaging innovation, further research should strive to extend theanalysis. First, it might be useful to focus an empirical analysis on specific productcategories. Second, further investigation might consider integration specifically withinthe two meta-functions of packaging (physical and communicative). Moreover, it mightbe interesting to develop studies that consider separately primary and secondarypackaging, or that delve further into understanding integration between sets of twomacro-variables. Finally, the quantitative analysis presented here in followed a deskapproach. It might also be valuable to employ a qualitative field approach. Throughsuch additional studies that examine the process of innovation (with the directinvolvement of managers), it will be possible to create a deeper understanding of thedeterminants and consequences of integration choices in packaging innovation.

References

Ali, A., Krapfel, R. and LaBahn, D. (1995), “Product innovativeness and entry strategy: impact oncycle time and break-even time”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 12 No. 1,pp. 54-69.

Ampuero, O. and Vila, N. (2006), “Consumer perception of product packaging”, Journal ofConsumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 100-12.

Atuahene-Gima, K. (1995), “An exploratory analysis of the impact of market orientation on newproduct performance: a contingency approach”, Journal of Product InnovationManagement, Vol. 12, Sptember, pp. 275-93.

Berelson, B. (1952), Content Analysis in Communication Research, The Free Press, New York,NY.

Bone, P.F. and Corey, R.J. (1992a), “Ethical dilemmas in packaging: beliefs of packagingprofessionals”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 45-54.

Bone, P.F. and Corey, R.J. (1992b), “Ethical packaging: a call for research”, Journal of MarketingManagement, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 44-54.

EJIM13,3

348

Bone, P.F. and Corey, R.J. (2000), “Packaging ethics: perceptual differences among packagingprofessionals, brand managers and ethically interested consumers”, Journal of BusinessEthics, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 199-213.

Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. and Cooper, M.B. (2006), Supply Chain Logistics Management,McGraw-Hill Irwin, Boston, MA.

Bramklev, C. (2009), “On a proposal for a generic package development process”, PackagingTechnology and Science, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 171-86.

Business Insights (2008), “Trends in ethical and sustainable packaging”, available at: www.globalbusinessinsights.com (accessed 15 October 2009).

Chan, F.T.S., Chan, H.K. and Choy, K.L. (2006), “A systematic approach to manufacturingpackaging logistics”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 1088-101.

Chapman, R.L., Soosay, C. and Kandampully, M. (2003), “Innovation in logistic services and thenew business model. A conceptual framework”, International Journal of PhysicalDistribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 630-7.

Christopher, M. (2005), Supply Chain Management: Creating Value-adding Networks,Prentice-Hall/Financial Times, Harlow.

Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2003), Marketing Logistics, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Colarelli O’Connor, G. (1998), “Market learning and radical innovation: a cross case comparisonof eight radical innovation projects”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15No. 2, pp. 151-66.

Coles, R., McDowell, D. and Kirwan, M.J. (2003), Food Packaging Technology, Blackwell, Oxford.

Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M. and Pagh, J.D. (1997), “Supply chain management – more than a newname for logistics”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-13.

Cooper, R.G. (1979), “The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 93-103.

Cooper, R.G. and De Brentani, U. (1991), “New industrial financial services: what distinguishesthe winners”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 75-90.

Coyle, J.J., Bardi, E.J. and Langley, J. Jr (2003), The Management of Business Logistics: a SupplyChain Perspective, Thomson Learning, Toronto.

Datamonitor (2008), Containers and Packaging in Europe, Datamonitor, London, available at:www.datamonitor.com (accessed 15 October 2009).

Day, G.S. (1990), Market Driven Strategy: Processes for Creating Value, The Free Press, NewYork, NY.

Day, G.S. (1994), “The capabilities of market-driven organizations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58No. 4, pp. 37-52.

Deshpande, R. (1999), Developing a Market Orientation, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Ebeling, C.W. (1990), Integrated Packaging Systems for Transportation and Distribution, CRC.

Engelseth, P. (2005), “The core role of packages in a logistics networks”, paper presented at the21st IMP Conference, Rotterdam, available at: http://impgroup.org/uploads/papers/4685.pdf (accessed 2 February 2009).

Fawcett, S.E., Birou, L. and Taylor, B.C. (1993), “Supporting global operations through logisticsand purchasing”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 3-11.

Floch, J.M. (1990), Semiotique, marketing et communication, Puf, Paris.

Packaginginnovation

349

Folkes, V. and Matta, S. (2004), “The effect of packaging shape on consumers’ judgments ofproduct volume: attention as a mental contaminant”, Journal of Consumer Research, 31September, pp. 390-401.

Friedman, W.F. and Kipnees, J.J. (1977), Distribution Packaging, Krieger, Malabar, FL.

Garcia, R. and Calantone, R. (2002), “A critical look at technological innovation typology andinnovativeness terminology: a literature review”, Journal of Product InnovationManagement, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 110-32.

Gatignon, H. and Robertson, T.S. (1993), “The impact of risk and competition on choice ofinnovations”, Marketing Letters, 4 July, pp. 191-204.

Gatignon, H. and Xuereb, J.M. (1997), “Strategic orientation of the firm and new productperformance”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXIV, February, pp. 77-90.

Gershman, M. (1987), “Packaging: positioning tool of the ’80s”, Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 8,pp. 33-41.

Goldenberg, J., Lehmann, D.R. and Mazursky, D. (1999), “The primacy of the idea itself as apredictor of new product success”, working paper, Marketing Science Institute,Cambridge, MA.

Green, S.G., Gavin, M.B. and Aiman-Smith, L. (1995), “Assessing a multidimensional measure ofradical technological innovation”, IEEETransactions on EngineeringManagement, Vol. 42No. 3, pp. 203-14.

Greimas, A.J. (1966), Semantique physicale, Larousse, Paris.

Guide, V.D.R. Jr and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2009), “The evolution of closed-loop supply chain”,Operations Research, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 10-18.

Habermas, J. (1984), The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.

Hakansson, H. and Persson, G. (2004), “Supply chain management: the logic of supply chains andnetworks”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 11-26.

Harkham, A. (1989), Packaging Strategy, CRC Press (Technomic), Boca Raton, FL.

Hellstrom, D. and Saghir, M. (2003), “Framework of packaging logistics activities – in retailsupply chains”, Proceedings of the IPSERA 2003 Conference, 12-16 April, Budapest.

Hellstrom, D. and Saghir, M. (2006), “Packaging and logistics interactions in retail supply chainspackaging”, Packaging Technology and Science, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 197-216.

Holsti, O.R. (1969), Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities, Addison-Wesley,Reading, MA.

Institute of Grocery Distribution (1995), IDG Tactile Information. Recommendations forPackaging Improvements, available at: www.igd.com (accessed 25 January 2009).

Jahre, M. and Hatteland, C.J. (2003), “Packages and physical distribution”, International Journalof Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 123-39.

Jaworski, J.B. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), “Market orientation: antecedents and consequences”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, July, pp. 53-70.

Johnsson, M. (1998), “Packaging logistics: a value added approach”, doctorial thesis, Departmentof Design Sciences, Lund University, Lund.

Jonson, G. and Johnsson, M. (2004), Packaging Technology for the Logistician, 3rd ed., LundUniversity, Lund.

Kassarjian, H. (1977), “Content analysis in consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research,4 June, pp. 8-17.

EJIM13,3

350

Kessler, E.H. and Chakrabarti, A.K. (1999), “Speeding up the pace new product development”,Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 231-47.

Kleinschmidt, E.J. and Cooper, R.G. (1991), “The impact of product innovativeness onperformance”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 240-51.

Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, J.B. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions,and managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, April, pp. 1-18.

Kotler, P. (2006), Marketing Management, Pearson Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Laczniak, G.R. (1983), “Framework for analyzing marketing ethics”, Journal of Macromarketing,Vol. 3 Nos 1, Spring, pp. 7-18.

Lambert, D.M., Stock, J.R. and Ellram, L.M. (1998), Fundamentals of Logistics Management,Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Lambin, J.J. (2002), Marketing strategique et operationnnel, Du marketing a l’orientation-marche,Dunod, Paris.

Lawton, L. and Parasuraman, A. (1980), “The impact of the marketing concept on new productplanning”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44, Winter, pp. 19-25.

Lee, S.G. and Lye, S.W. (2003), “Design for manual packaging”, International Journal of PhysicalDistribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 163-89.

Lemoine, W. and Dagnaes, L. (2003), “Globalisation strategies and business organisation of anetwork of logistics service providers”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 209-28.

Li, T. and Calantone, R. (1998), “The impact of market knowledge competence on new productadvantage: conceptualization and empirical examination”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62No. 4, pp. 13-29.

Lockamy, A. (1995), “A conceptual framework for assessing strategic packaging decisions”, TheInternational Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 51-60.

Melnyk, S.A., Lummus, R., Vokurka, R.J. and Sandor, J. (2007), Supply Chain Management 2010and Beyond. Mapping the Future of the Strategic Supply Chain, APICS Educational andResearch Foundation, Chicago, IL.

More, R.A. (1982), “Risk factors in accepted and rejected new industrial products”, IndustrialMarketing Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 9-15.

Nancarrow, C., Wright, L.T. and Brace, I. (1998), “Gaining competitive advantage frompackaging and labelling in marketing communications”, British Food Journal, Vol. 100No. 2, pp. 110-8.

Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The effect of a market orientation on business profitability”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 20-35.

Narver, J.C., Slater, S.F. and MacLachlan, D.L. (2004), “Responsive and proactive marketorientation and new-product success”, The Journal of Product Innovation Management,Vol. 21, pp. 334-47.

Neef, D. (2004), The Supply Chain Imperative: How to Ensure Ethical Behavior in Your GlobalSuppliers, AMACOM/American Management Association.

Nickels, W.G. and Jolson, M.A. (1976), “Packaging – the fifth ‘p’ in the marketing mix”, SAMAdvanced Management Journal, Winter, pp. 13-21.

Olson, E.M., Walker, O.C. and Ruekert, R.W. (1995), “Organizing for effective new productdevelopment: the moderating role of product innovativeness”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 59, January, pp. 48-62.

Paine, F.A. (1981), Fundamentals of Packaging, Institute of Packaging, Stanmore.

Packaginginnovation

351

Paine, F.A. (1991), The Packaging User’s Handbook, Blackie Academic & Professional, Glasgow.

Paine, F.A. and Paine, H.Y. (1992), A Handbook of Food Packaging, Blackie Academic &Professional, Glasgow.

Pinson, C. (1998), Marketing Semiotics, working paper (N 98/39/MKT), INSEAD, Paris, availableat: www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/search_papers.cfm

Prendergast, P.G. and Pitt, L. (1996), “Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: arethere trade-offs?”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 60-72.

Raghubir, P. and Greenleaf, E.A. (2006), “Ratios in proportions: what should the shape of thepackage be?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70, April, pp. 95-107.

Robertson, G.L. (2006), Food Packaging: Principles and Practice, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Robertson, T.S. and Gatignon, H. (1986), “Competitive effects on technology diffusion”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 50, July, pp. 1-12.

Rourke, L. and Anderson, T. (2004), “Validity in quantitative content analysis”, EducationalTechnology Research and Development, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 5-18.

Rundh, B. (2005), “The multi-faceted dimension of packaging. Marketing logistics or marketingtool?”, British Food Journal, Vol. 107 No. 9, pp. 670-84.

Saghir, M. (2004), “The concept of packaging logistics”, Proceedings of the Fifteenth AnnualPOM Conference, Cancun, April 30-May 3.

Saghir, M. and Jonson, G. (2001), “Packaging handling evaluation methods in the grocery retailindustry”, Packaging Technology and Science, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 21-9.

Sara, R. (1990), “Packaging as a retail marketing tool”, International Journal of PhysicalDistribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 10-21.

Schmidt, J.B. and Calantone, R.J. (1998), “Are really new product development projects harder toshut down?”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 111-23.

Schoormans, J.P.L. and Robben, H.S.J. (1997), “The effect of new package design on productattention, categorization and evaluation”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 18 Nos 2-3,pp. 271-87.

Sci, P.T. (2006), “Logistics improvement through packaging rationalization: a practicalexperience”, Packaging Technology and Science, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 303-8.

Shapiro, R.D. and Heskett, J.L. (1985), Logistics Strategy. Cases and Concepts, West PublishingCo., St Paul, MN.

Slater, S. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market orientation and the learning organization”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 59 No. 7, pp. 63-74.

Soroka, W. (2002), Fundamentals of Packaging Technology, Institute of Packaging Professionals,Naperville, IL.

Stewart, B. (1996), Packaging as an Effective Marketing Tool, Kogan Page, London.

Stock, J.R. and Lambert, D.M. (1987), Strategic Logistics Management, Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Thøgersen, J. (1999), “The ethical consumer. Moral norms and packaging choice”, Journal ofConsumer Policy, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 439-60.

Till, B.D. and Nowak, L.I. (2000), “Toward effective use of cause-related marketing alliances”,Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 7, pp. 472-84.

Twede, D. (1992), “The process of packaging logistical innovation”, Journal of Business Logistics,Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 69-94.

EJIM13,3

352

Twede, D. and Parsons, B. (1997), Distribution Packaging for Logistical Systems: A LiteratureReview, Pira International, Leatherhead.

Twede, D., Clarke, R.H. and Tait, J.A. (2000), “Packaging postponement: a global packagingstrategy”, Packaging Technology and Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 105-15.

Twedt, D.W. (1968), “How much value can be added through packaging”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 32, January, pp. 61-5.

Underwood, R.L. (2003), “The communicative power of product packaging: creating brandidentity via lived and mediated experience”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 62-76.

Underwood, R.L. and Klein, N. (2002), “Packaging as brand communication: effects of productpictures on consumer responses to the package and brand”, Journal of Marketing Theoryand Practice, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 58-69.

Underwood, R.L. and Ozanne, J.L. (1998), “Is your package an effective communicator? Anormative framework for increasing the communicative competence of packaging”,Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 207-20.

Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M. and Burke, R.R. (2001), “Packaging communication: attentionaleffects of product imagery”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 7,pp. 403-22.

Van den Berg-Weitzel, L. and van de Laar, G. (2001), “Relation between culture andcommunication in packaging design”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 3,pp. 171-84.

Wansink, B. (1996), “Can package size accelerate usage volume?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60,pp. 1-14.

Williams, H., Wikstroem, F. and Lofgren, M. (2008), “A life cycle perspective on environmentaleffects of customer focused packaging development”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16No. 7, pp. 853-9.

Yam, K.L. (2009), The Wiley Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology, Wiley, New York, NY.

Yoon, E. and Lilien, G.L. (1985), “New industrial product performance: the effect of marketcharacteristics and strategy”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 2 No. 3,pp. 134-44.

Further reading

Axelrod, M.D. (1976), “The dynamics of the group interview”, Advances in Consumer Research,Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 437-41.

Bailey, K.D. (1994), Methods of Social Research, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Berelson, B. (1955), “Content analysis”, in Lindsey, G. (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology,Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.

Eden, C., Ackerman, F. and Cropper, S. (1992), “The analysis of cause maps”, Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 309-24.

Erdener, C.B. and Dunn, C.P. (1990), “Content analysis”, in Huff, A.S. (Ed.), Mapping StrategicThought, Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Rosenthal, R. (1991), Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research, Sage Publications, NewburyPark, CA.

Weick, K.E. (1978), “Cognitive processes in organizations”, in Staw, B. (Ed.), Research inOrganizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, JAIPress, Greenwich, CT.

Packaginginnovation

353

Weick, K.E. and Browning, L.D. (1986), “Argument and narration in organizationalcommunication”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 243-59.

Weick, K.E. and Roberts, K.H. (1993), “Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating onflight decks”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 357-81.

About the authorsMaria Vernuccio is an assistant professor in the Department of Management, SapienzaUniversity of Rome, Italy. She earned her PhD in management and finance from the SapienzaUniversity of Rome. Her current research and teaching interests involve issues in marketing,e-business, and innovation management. Maria Vernuccio is the corresponding author and canbe contacted at: maria.vernuccio@uniroma1.it

Alessandra Cozzolino is a researcher in the Department of Management, Sapienza Universityof Rome, Italy. She received her PhD in management and finance from the Sapienza University ofRome. Her research interests are logistics and supply chain management, production andoperations management, and innovation management.

Laura Michelini is a postdoctoral research fellow and lecturer in economics and managementat the LUMSA University of Rome. She received her PhD in science of communication from theLUMSA University of Rome. Her research interests are marketing, corporate socialresponsibility, and innovation management.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

EJIM13,3

354