The sustainability of communicative packaging concepts in the food supply chain. A case study: part 2. Life cycle costing and sustainability assessment

Purpose This paper is the second part of a two-paper series dealing with the sustainability evaluation of a new communicative packaging concept. The communicative packaging concept includes a device that allows changing the expiry date of the product as function of temperature during transport and storage: a flexible best-before-date (FBBD). Such device was analysed in a consumer unit consisting of a nanoclay-based polylactic acid tray filled with pork chops. Methods An economic assessment was made through the use of life cycle costing (LCC) methodology proposed by Bovea and Vidal (Resources, Conservation and Recycling Volume 41, Issue 2, May 2004, Pages 133–145) where both internal and external costs were considered. Furthermore, the social aspects were analysed using a contingent valuation (CV) of the willingness to pay (WTP). The sustainability assessment of FBBD was made through the combination of life cycle assessment (LCA) and LCC results, together with the CV of the WTP according to the method proposed by Bovea and Vidal. It was assumed that the use of the FBBD minimizes the food losses from 3.5% to 0.5%. Results and discussion LCC results show that internal costs related to pork chops and logistic supply chain life cycle represent more than 90% of life cycle cost. The use of FBBD communicative device could increase pork chop selling price between 0.01 and 0.1 € since the purchasing cost of this communicative device is included in this price. WTP results show that FBBD purchasing cost for consumer acceptance is estimated as 0.05 €/FBBD. Therefore, only pork chop selling price for scenarios 1 (0.05 €/device) and 3 (0.01 €/device) could be accepted by consumers. The most sustainable situation is reached when the cost of the FBBD is as less as possible (0.01 €). Conclusions The use of FBBD communicative device has economic advantages for perishable products since it contributes to the increase in the economic savings due to the reduction of food losses. However, these economic savings represent a small percentage over pork chop selling price, and therefore, an FBBD price less than 0.02 €/device is required. If a lower price for the communicative device is reached, satisfying the WTP of consumers (0.05 €/FBBD), the communicative package will be much more sustainable. Recommendations It is expected that the competitiveness of FBBD communicative device will be improved in the future. This might be accomplished by reducing FBBD production and distribution