Next Article in Journal
A Harmful Algal Bloom Detection Model Combining Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer Multi-Factor and Meteorological Heterogeneous Data
Previous Article in Journal
The Addition of Anthocyanin as a Sensitizer for TiO2 Nanotubes in a Combined Process of Electrocoagulation and Photocatalysis for Methylene Blue Removal
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 21
10.3390/su152115385
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of Chinese National Standards on Packaging and the Environment (CNSPE) Based on Standard Literature Bibliometrics

by
Shuang Ding
1,2,
Yanxin Gao
1,2,
Haoxin Lin
1,2,
Yi Zhu
1,2,
Rui Zhang
1,2,
Ling Lin
1,2,
Bingsheng Xu
1,2,* and
Dongfeng Gao
1,2,*
1
China National Institute of Standardization, Beijing 100191, China
2
Key Laboratory of Energy Efficiency, Water Efficiency and Greenization for State Market Regulation, Beijing 100191, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(21), 15385; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115385
Submission received: 18 September 2023 / Revised: 10 October 2023 / Accepted: 13 October 2023 / Published: 27 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Waste and Recycling)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper aims to understand the status of the Chinese National Standards on Packaging and the Environment (CNSPE), analyze the existing problems, and discover their possible solutions. Based on the standard bibliometric literature, the metadata information from the CNSPE have been collected and analyzed. The results indicated that the number of CNSPE released showed a wave-like growth with two peaks during 2006–2010 and 2016–2020 driven by both external and internal factors. The basic standard was the main standard sort. The average valid period of a CNSPE was 5.90 years, while the update rate was 23.33%. Public institutions lead the drafting committee of the CNSPE. The percentage of adopting the international or foreign standards was 28.86%, and the average conversion time was 7.61 years. There were four problems deduced from the results, including the unbalanced supply of different sorts of CNSPE, long valid period of standards with low update rates, low engagement of the enterprises, and loose links between national standards and international standards. The corresponding solutions are (1) strengthening market research and combining with policy development to optimize the supply of different sorts of CNSPE; (2) improving the process management ability of standardization organizations to enhance the supervision and feedback of standards development and implementation; (3) providing trainings and broadening dissemination while fulfilling the reward mechanism; and (4) enhancing the compatibility between the national standards system and the international standards system to promote the standard internationalization level.

1. Introduction

Packaging has a variety of functions, including protecting products, facilitating transportation, storing products, and labeling product information [1], providing great convenience during commodity circulation and consumption. Appropriate packaging is essential to prevent the loss of goods and, as a result, this decreases the impact on the environment. However, with the fast development of the commodity economy (especially online shopping), the amount of packaging consumption and packaging waste has continued to increase, resulting in a series of problems such as the excessive consumption of resources and energy [2,3], aggravated environmental pollution [4,5,6], soaring greenhouse gas emissions [7,8,9], and biodiversity loss [10,11,12]. Packaging is a key environmental concern. In the European Union (EU), packaging is one of the main users of virgin materials. It was estimated that 40% of plastics and 50% of paper used in the EU were destined for packaging, and these account for 36% of municipal solid waste [13,14]. Similar circumstances have occurred in China: taking the express delivery sector for example, the business volume of national express deliveries exceeded 108.29 billion pieces in 2021 [15], and it was estimated that more than 21 million tons of municipal solid waste were generated in 2021, calculating 0.20 kg per express packaging. Harmonizing the environmental aspects of packaging and packaging systems has become a common goal pursued by all countries in the world.
Standards are important tools to support the shift toward a more sustainable future [16], and they promote environmental sustainability by helping businesses and countries manage their environmental impact [17,18]. The foundation of EU waste management proposes end-of-waste criteria, which was introduced to provide a high level of environmental protection and an environmental and economic benefit [19]. At present, several standard systems on packaging and the environment have been established in the world. For example, a harmonized standard system was established in the EU under the European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste [20]. A sub-committee ISO/TC 122/SC4 named Packaging and the Environment was established in the International Standard Organization (ISO), aiming to develop ISO standards to harmonize the environmental aspects on packaging and packaging systems throughout the life cycle [21]. China has been developing its National Standards on Packaging and the Environment (CNSPE) since 1994, and a national standard system has started to be established over the past 20 years [22]. However, due to new requirements from the increasingly rigid laws and regulations on packaging and packaging waste [23] and the emergence of new industries linked with packaging (such as e-commerce) [24], standards for the packaging sector need to be updated to improve their compatibility and applicability.
Now, China is the largest manufacturer, exporter, and user of packaging. From January to March 2022, the paper and cardboard packaging industry in China completed cumulative exports of USD 1.999 billion, which was an increase of 22.9% [25]. A Chinese standard system on packaging and the environment is very important for the sustainable development of the packaging sector. Therefore, it is necessary to discover the status of the Chinese standard system using systematic and quantitative methods. Bibliometrics may be a good tool for this study, as it is a discipline that studies the literature or literature-related media to grasp the dynamic characteristics of science and technology by applying mathematics, statistics, and other measurement methods [26,27,28]. At present, bibliometrics studies using research articles from electronic journals are very common and popular, but they are not standard within the literature. The standard literature is the best to reflect the progress of standardization of science and technology, which has significant information value. Bibliometrics studies on the standard literature can help with the quantitative and scientific mining of data, such as the output of standardization work and the evolution process of hotspots. However, bibliometrics studies on the standard literature in China are applied in very few fields, including agricultural standards [29], scientific and technological archive standards [30], publication standards [31], information security standards [32], and medical insurance drug payment standards [33]. Up to now, there has been no report on bibliometrics study using the standard literature on packaging and the environment. Therefore, this paper aims to discover the status of the Chinese National Standards on Packaging and the Environment (CNSPE) based on bibliometrics. By using the quantitative method, the existing problems with the CNSPE can be analyzed and possible solutions can be worked out, thus supporting the transition to a more sustainable packaging sector in China.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Source

The Chinese standards include national standards, sector standards, local standards, association standards and enterprise standards according to the Standardization Law of the People’s Republic of China. In this study, only national standards are included, as they are consistent across China. The Chinese National Standards on Packaging and the Environment (CNSPE) in this study are searched and collected by referring to the scope of the ISO/TC122/SC4–Packaging and the Environment, which mainly covers the harmonization of the environmental standards for packaging and packaging systems throughout the life cycle, including but not limited to terminology and general requirements, packaging optimization and source reduction, reuse, recycling, other recycling methods, ecological (environmental consciousness) design, etc. In addition, some product standards are also counted as they contain the requirements for the optimization of packaging or controlling the packaging waste.
The national standard literature data retrieved in this study were from the National Public Service Platform for Standards Information, website: https://std.samr.gov.cn/ (accessed on 30 June 2023). The data collection is dated up to 31 December 2023, with the detail steps as follows: an advanced search was employed to search on the National Public Service Platform for Standards Information, the search type was “national standard”, and “packaging” or “package” served as the keyword of the standard title. As a result, 694 national standards were obtained. Following that, the text contents of the standards obtained from the search were compared with the set scope of the CNSPE. Data cleaning of the search records was carried out, and unrelated standards were phased out. As shown in Table 1, 58 CNSPE were obtained finally. The metadata of the CNSPE obtained from the search results were collected and organized in the form of Microsoft Excel. The metadata of national standard literature includes standard sort, standard title, standard number, standard status, release date, execute date, abolition date, governor, technical committee (TC), drafting committee (DC), standard status, adopted international standard and so on.

2.2. Research Design and Framework

In order to identify the existing problems and work out the correspondent solutions, we apply the standard literature bibliometrics considering five dimensions including quantity, sort, time, subject and adoption, to analyze and evaluate the status of the CNSPE. The research design is shown in Figure 1. These five dimensions cover all the metadata from the National Public Service Platform for Standards Information. After analyzing the five dimensions, we can evaluate the evolution process, standard supply, validity, engagement and compatibility.

2.3. Indicators and Analysis Methods

2.3.1. Active Level of Developing Standards

The number of CNSPE released in the year can reflect the active level of developing standards in that year. In this study, the active level of developing standards is divided into high level or low level. The average number of CNSPE released from 1996 to 2022 is calculated and considered as the baseline to identify the active level. When the number of standards released in the year is more than the baseline, the active level of developing standards in that year is regarded as high level; when the number of standards released in the year is less than or equal to the baseline, the active level of developing standards in that year is regarded as low level.

2.3.2. Standards Sort

The number and distribution of different sorts of the CNSPE can reflect the coverage and supply of standards in different fields. Based on the purpose of developing standards, the Chinese national standards can be divided into eight sorts: basic standards, product standards, environmental protection standards, safety standards, health standards, management standards, method standards and others.

2.3.3. Valid Periods and Update Rates of Standards

The valid period of the standard (also known as the age of the standard) refers to the period of time from the execute date to the reconfirmation, revision or abolition date of the standard, which can reflect the prescription of standards. The current valid standard in this study is calculated up to 30 June 2023. The update rate of the standards is the proportion of standards updated in a certain field or scope to the total number of standards over a period of time, which can reflect the update status of standards.

2.3.4. Governor, Technical Committees and Draft Committees

Statistics analysis on the governor can reflect which administrative department under the State Council is responsible for the standardization work within their working scope. Statistics analysis on technical committees (TCs) can reflect which TC is responsible for the technical review of standards. Statistics analysis on draft committees (DCs) can reflect the engagement and contribution of the stakeholders. The categories of the DCs can be divided into public institutions (including universities, professional scientific research institutions, etc.), enterprises (including all kinds of enterprises) and social groups (including associations within sectors and industry, non-governmental organizations, etc.). Considering the first DC makes the most contributions when developing standards, only the first DC is counted. We found and confirmed the category of the first DC by querying the Unified Social Credit Code Query of National Organization website (https://www.cods.org.cn/gscx/ (accessed on 30 June 2023).

2.3.5. Adoption of International or Foreign Standards

The adoption of international or foreign standards when developing national standards includes four indicators: adoption intensity, category of the standard adopted, degree of adoption and conversion time, which can reflect the internationalization level of a country’s standards. Among them, the absolute adoption intensity refers to the absolute number of international or foreign standards adopted, and the relative adoption intensity is the proportion of international or foreign standards adopted. The sources of international or foreign standards can be from the ISO, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) or other similar organizations. The degree of correspondence when adopting international standards can be divided into three degrees including identical (IDT), modified (MOD) and not equivalent (NEV), for which the differences can be found in ISO/IEC Guide 21–1 [34]. The conversion time refers to the time consumed from the release date of the adopted international or foreign standard to the release date of the national standard that adopts the international or foreign standard.

3. Results

3.1. Active Level of Developing Standards

The number of CNSPE released per year is shown in Figure 2a. From 1996 to 2022, the number of CNSPE per year varied from 0 to 11. The average number of CNSPE was close to two, which was used as the baseline in this study. When the number of standards released in that year was equal or less than two, the active level of developing standards was regarded as low level; otherwise, the active level of developing standards was regarded as high level. From 1996 to 2022, 18 years fell into low active level, accounting for 66.66% of the total CNSPE. Especially, the active level was really low from 1996 to 2007, when the number of CNSPE yearly released did not exceed 2 before 2008. However, after 2008, 9 years including 2008, 2010, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021 and 2022 fell into high level, accounting for 33.34% of the total CNSPE. Among these active years, 2008, 2010 and 2018 were the three top years for developing the CNSPE, when 6, 6 and 11 standards were released, respectively, accounting for 38.33% of the total CNSPE. The active level of developing CNSPE became higher after 2008.
The number of CNSPE released every five years is shown in Figure 2b. The reason we divided period into 5-year segments was to seek the linkage between the Five-Year Plans in the packaging sector and the development of the CNSPE. The number of CNSPE showed a “wave-like” growth with five periods divided from 1996 to 2020. Only three or four standards were released during Period 1 (1996–2000) or Period 2 (2001–2005), respectively. As the average number of standards released per year was less than one, the active level of developing standards was low level. Then, 14 standards were released in Period 3 (2006–2010) with the first peak of standards released. As the average number of standards released per year is close to 3, the active level of developing standards increased significantly. During Period 4 (2011–2015), only five standards were released while the average number of standards released per year was one, so the active level of developing standards decreased. During Period 5 (2016–2020), 25 standards were released, which represented the highest peak of standards released. The average number of standards released per year was five, which achieved the highest active level of developing standards.

3.2. Standard Sorts

As shown in Figure 3, the CNSPE covered seven sorts, including basic standards, safety standards, product standards, method standards, management standards, environmental protection standards and others. Among them, there were 27 basic standards, which represented the highest number, accounting for 46.55% of the total CNSPE. Period 3 (2006–2010) and Period 5 (2016–2020) were the two high active periods for developing standards. Period 3 (2006–2010) covered three sorts of standards: basic standards, product standards and environmental protection standards. A total of 11 basic standards were developed, accounting for the largest proportion, which meant that the basic standard was the major sort during Period 3 (2006–2010). Period 5 (2016–2020) covers five sorts of standards: basic standards, product standards, environmental protection standards, method standards and management standards. A total of 10 product standard were developed, accounting for the largest proportion, which meant that product standard was the major sort during Period 5 (2016–2020). Comparing Period 3 (2006–2010) with Period 5 (2016–2020), Period 5 (2016–2020) covered more standard sorts. The basic standard, which was dominant during Period 3 (2006–2010), shifted to the product standard, which was dominant during Period 5 (2016–2020).

3.3. Valid Periods and Update Rates of Standards

The Measures for the Administration of National Standards stipulate that the review of national standards shall generally not exceed 5 years, which can serve as the benchmark of valid periods for national standards. From the perspective of valid periods, excluding the abolished and upcoming national standards, the range of valid periods (Tv) for the current CNSPE varied from 0.17 to 17.58 years, and the average valid period was 5.90 years, which was 1.18 times the benchmark value (5 years). The distributions of the valid periods (Tv) of the current CNSPE are shown in Table 2, in which the valid period (Tv) of 19 CNSPE was more than 5 years, accounting for 45.24%. From the perspective update of national standards, the update rate of the CNSPE was 23.33%. The average replacement time of 14 national standards was 9.98 years, which meant that the national standards could be updated every 10 years.

3.4. Governor, Technical Committees and Draft Committees of Standards

As shown in Table 3, there were seven different departments managing the CNSPE, including the Standardization Administration of P.R.C. (SAC), the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Commerce, the State Post Bureau, and so on. Among them, the SAC is the administrative department of the State Council in charge of national standardization, and it has the largest number and proportion of the CNSPE. Other departments mainly develop the relevant national standards from the perspective of their administrative responsibilities, managing a relatively smaller number of national standards.
From the perspective of technical committees (TCs), there were a total of 20 different TCs which were responsible for organizing and conducting technical review for national standards. Eleven standards were under the management of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Commerce, the State Post Bureau and other departments, while the other 49 standards were under the management of different TCs. A total of 30 standards were under the management of TC 49—Packaging, representing the largest number and accounting for half of the total. Only one or two standards were under other standardization TCs.
As shown in Table 4, from the perspective of the drafting committees (DCs), public institutions (including universities, professional scientific research institutions, etc.) were in a leading position, which developed 31 national standards as the first DC, while enterprises developed 26 national standards as the first DC, accounting for 53.45% and 43.85%, respectively.

3.5. Adoption of International or Foreign Standards

From the perspective of adoption intensity, the absolute adoption intensity of the CNSPE was 18, and the relative adoption intensity (adoption rate) was 30%. The absolute adoption intensity of the whole national standards in China was 19059, and the relative adoption intensity in China was 28.86% (calculated according to statics data on the website: https://std.samr.gov.cn/ (accessed on 30 June 2023).
From the perspective of the category of the standard adopted, the CNSPE covered four categories, including the standards from the ISO, EU, ITU and ISO/IEC. Before 2012, six European standards were adopted by the CNSPE, accounting for one-third of the total adopted international or foreign standards. After 2012, 10 ISO standards were adopted, accounting for 55.55% and taking the leading position.
From the perspective of the degree of adoption, 10 CNSPE were classified as identical (IDT), while eight CNSPE were classified as modified (MOD).
As shown in Table 5, from the perspective of conversion time (Tc), the average conversion time (Tc) was 7.61 years. A total of 14 CNSPE with a conversion time (Tc) of 5–10 years occupied the largest proportion, accounting for 77.77%.

4. Discussion

4.1. Evolution Process of the CNSPE

The number of CNSPE showed an evolution process of wave-like growth, which was driven by both external and internal factors:
The external factor was that foreign or international standards on packaging and the environment had a profound impact on the development of the CNSPE. The Chinese standardization works on packaging and the environment began in the 1990s. During 1994–2001, it mainly focused on the laws and regulations on packaging and packaging waste in Germany and the United States [35,36]. After that, the focus of standardization work gradually shifted to the study of the harmonized standards that supported the European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC on the packaging and packaging waste during 2002–2008. As the CNSPE followed the EU standards, more time was needed to adopt the EU standards, which led to a low active level of developing the CNSPE before 2007. It was not until after 2008 that the first peak of standards released was reached. In 2009, ISO/TC122/SC4 was established in ISO [21]. In 2013, the ISO 18600 series standards on packaging and the environment were released [1,37,38,39,40,41]. During 2011–2015, the CNSPE gradually shifted to the adoption of the international standards (especially from ISO standards), which was followed by a second peak of standards released during 2016–2020.
The internal factor was that the development of the CNSPE was guided by increasingly strict Chinese laws, regulations and policy systems, especially the Five-Year Plans for the packaging sector. The Five-Year Plans for the packaging sector are strategic plans that set the national development goals and corresponding policy guidance for a certain period of time. During 1996–2000 (that is, the 9th Five-Year Plan Period for the Packaging Sector), the Chinese packaging sector focused on the standardization and quality management of packaging products [42], but insufficient attention was paid to the harmonization of the environmental aspects for packaging and packaging systems. In 2001, following China’s formal accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Chinese packaging sector put forward two principles: one was adhering to equal emphasis on the development and rational utilization of resources; another was adhering to parallel development and environmental protection during 2001–2005 (that is in the 10th Five-Year Plan Period for the Packaging Sector) [43]. In order to meet the requirements from foreign regulations and related standards on packaging and the environment in export, during 2006–2015 (which cover the 11th and 12th Five-Year Plan Period for the Packaging Sector), the Chinese packaging sector promoted the improvement of the legislation of packaging, the packaging standard system and the quality control system in the packaging sector, and it officially proposed the development of the green packaging industry, putting the packaging industry onto a sustainable development track [44]. Therefore, under the guidance of relevant policies and plannings, the first peak of standards released came during 2006–2010. From 2016 to now, under the guidance of ecological civilization, the Chinese laws, regulations and policy systems on packaging and environment have been continuously improved [45]; in particular, a number of relevant policies on such fields as express packaging, restrictions on excessive packaging and other fields have been intensively issued [46,47], pointing out the direction for the development of the CNSPE. This resulted in the second peak of standards released during 2016–2020.

4.2. Analysis on the Existing Chinese Standard System on Packaging and the Environment

Based on the results of the CNSPE, four existing problems were summarized, and the reasons were analyzed as follows:
Firstly, the supply of the CNSPE in different sorts was uneven. The CNSPE are concentrated on basic standards, the number of which far exceeds that of other sorts of standards. The reason may be related to the reform of the Chinese standardization system. In 2015, China issued a guideline to deepen the reform of the standardization system [48], and the approval of new work items for the Chinese national standards became stricter, which resulted in a decline for the total supply of national standards. At the same time, the existing national standards were streamlined and optimized, which further caused a decrease in national standards supply. The Chinese national standards are developed to address the technical requirements to serve basic and generic purposes, which put the basic standards on packaging and environment standards in line with the setting of the national standard. In addition, market demand has been supplemented by other levels of standards such as association standards (for example, T/CIET 074–2023 General Principles for Green Packaging Evaluation [49]).
Secondly, some CNSPE were outdated with long update periods, which were unable to meet the needs and changes of the market. The reason may be related to the implementation of the traceability procedure in the whole process of developing national standards, in which the review and maintenance of standards were not timely. A negative effect might occur as outdated national standards may directly lead to failure of the current CNSPE to meet market demand. It would also lead to ineffectiveness regarding the implementation of the CNSPE.
Thirdly, the participation and engagement of enterprises in developing the CNSPE need further improvement. Professional research institutes, universities and other types of public institutions were in a leading position when developing the CNSPE, while the proportion of enterprises was close to 40%. Enterprises are not only a main body of market economy but also an implementer and user of the CNSPE, so they have a deep understanding on how the standards are suitable to the market. However, due to the enterprises’ lack of standardization consciousness, capability and incentive, their enthusiasm to lead or participate in developing national standards is yet to be improved.
Fourthly, the adoption of international or foreign standards should be enhanced. The adoption rate of the CNSPE was about 30%, which was slightly higher than the average level of all the Chinese national standards (28.86%), but it was still lower than those of developed regions or countries such as the European Union or the United States. Taking ISO 18600 series standards as an example, the ISO18605 Packaging and the environment–Energy recovery and ISO18606 Packaging and the environment–Organic recycling was released in 2013 [40,41]. However, the revision work item for these two national standards adopting these two international standards was not assigned until 2022, and it would take 12 months to make the MOD version. This example indicated that the conversion time was longer than expected.

4.3. Proposals and Solutions

Firstly, we shall optimize the supply of the CNSPE according to the requirements of policies (laws, regulations and policy documents) and the needs from the market to change the uneven standards’ supply. Policy and market are the two driving factors for developing the Chinese national standards, where two ways can be developed. The first way is “from top to bottom”, which means that the national standards in the packaging sector are developed based on the changes and requirements of specific policies from the government. For example, Article 68 of Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Prevention and Control of Environment Pollution Caused by Solid Wastes (2020 Revision) states that producers and traders shall comply with the mandatory standards that limit excessive packaging of goods and avoid excessive packaging. As a result, the national standard GB 23350 Requirements of restricting excessive package–Foods and cosmetics was released in 2021 [50]. In this way, we should pay more attention to the market research for accurate policy making. The second way is “from bottom to top”, which means that the national standards in the packaging sector are developed based on the needs from the market. After the release of the Standardization Law of the People’s Republic of China, the legal status of association standards which meet market and innovation has been confirmed. The association standards with high flexibility can directly respond to the changes and needs from the market. When sufficient feedback information can be collected from association standards, they can be converted in a timely manner into the national standards in the corresponding fields to increase the supply of the CNSPE.
Secondly, capacity building should be continuously improved, especially regarding developing the national standards and the supervision of feedback when implementing the national standards. The traceability, supervision and error correction mechanism of the whole process of the formulation and implementation of the CNSPE shall be improved while realizing the closed-loop management of standard development, implementation and information feedback. In particular, attention should be paid to feedback and evaluation from the market when implementing the national standards on packaging and the environment. Meanwhile, the capacity building of related standardization TCs should be focused on the management process, which can assure that the national standards involved in each TC are reviewed and updated in time.
Thirdly, the capacity and engagement of enterprises should be enhanced. On one hand, the dissemination and training on using the national standards in the packaging sector should be strengthened so that the national standards can be implemented in the whole process of production, operation and management of enterprises. The consciousness and capacity of the enterprise on standardization can be continuously improved. On the other hand, combined with the existing standardization rewarding and incentive mechanism in various provinces or cities in China, enterprises are encouraged to positively participate in the standardization work on packaging and the environment so as to lead the formulation of international standards, national standards, associated standards, etc., which help form a market-driven, government-guided and enterprise-oriented standardized cycle.
Fourthly, the internationalization level of national standards in China should be improved to promote the compatibility and consistency of the national standard system with the international standard system in the packaging sector. It is necessary to carry out a promotion project for standard internationalization on packaging and the environment. This promotion project includes a series of activities such as submitting the new work item proposals, applying for the convenor or project leader, and participating in developing international standards as experts, which can improve the ability to develop or adopt the international standards. In order to accelerate the adoption of advanced and applicable international standards, it is necessary to establish a long-term working mechanism to track the international standards on packaging and the environment, carry out the comparison analysis between the international standards and the national standards in China and evaluate the adaptability of the international standards.

5. Conclusions

This paper aims to understand the status of the Chinese National Standards on Packaging and the Environment (CNSPE), analyze the existing problems and work out their possible solutions. Based on the standard literature bibliometric, the metadata information from the CNSPE has been collected and analyzed.
The results showed that the number of CNSPE released had a wave-like growth with two peaks during 2006–2010 and 2016–2020 driven by both external and internal factors. The basic standard was the main standard sort. The average valid period of the CNSPE was 5.90 years, while the update rate was 23.33%. Public institutions lead the drafting committee of the CNSPE. The percentage of adopting the international or foreign standards was 28.86%, and the average conversion time was 7.61 years.
Four problems were identified from the results, including an unbalanced supply of different sorts of CNSPE, long valid period of standards with a low update rate, low engagement of the enterprises and loose links between national standards and international standards.
We have developed four corresponding solutions: (1) strengthening market research and combining with policy development to optimize the supply of different sorts of the CNSPE; (2) improving the process management ability of standardization organizations to enhance the supervision and feedback of standards development and implementation; (3) providing trainings and broadening dissemination while fulfilling the rewarding mechanism; (4) enhancing the compatibility between the national standards system and the international standards system to promote the standard internationalization level.
In the future, more detailed comparisons among the CNSPE system, the EU standard system and the ISO standard system should be studied in order to enhance the compatibility of different standard systems in a bid to promote the future sustainable development in the packaging sector.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.D. and B.X.; methodology, S.D. and D.G.; formal analysis, Y.G. and H.L.; data curation, Y.Z. and R.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, S.D.; writing—review and editing, S.D. and D.G.; visualization, Y.G.; supervision, S.D. and L.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Dean Fund Project of China National Institute of Standardization (No. 542022Y–9371), International Standardization Work Fund of China National Institute of Standardization “Eco–design Principles, Evaluation Requirements and Behavioral Guidelines for Delivery Packaging” (No. GJ–2023–04) and Dean Fund Project of China National Institute of Standardization (No. 542023Y–10369).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. ISO 18601-2013; Packaging and the Environment—General Requirements for the Use of ISO Standard in the Field of Packaging. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
  2. Zhou, W.; Huang, W. Contract designs for energy-saving product development in a monopoly. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 250, 902–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hahladakis, J.N.; Iacovidou, E. Closing the loop on plastic packaging materials: What is quality and how does it affect their circularity? Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 630, 1394–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ada, E.; Kazancoglu, Y.; Gozacan-Chase, N.; Altin, O. Challenges for circular food packaging: Circular resources utilization. Appl. Food Res. 2023, 3, 100310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ellen MacArthur Foundation; McKinsey & Co. The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics. Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/EllenMacArthurFoundation_TheNewPlasticsEconomy_Pages.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  6. Ilyas, M.; Ahmad, W.; Khan, H.; Yousaf, S.; Khan, K.; Nazir, S. Plastic waste as a significant threat to environment—A systematic literature review. Rev. Environ. Health 2018, 33, 383–406. [Google Scholar]
  7. Seungtaek, L.; Jonghoon, K.; Wai, O.C. The causes of the municipal solid waste and the greenhouse gas emissions from the waste sector in the United States. Proced. Eng. 2016, 145, 1074–1079. [Google Scholar]
  8. WRAP Plastic Packaging. Available online: https://wrap.org.uk/taking-action/plastic-packaging (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  9. Ingarao, G.; Licata, S.; Sciortino, M.; Planeta, D.; Di Lorenzo, R.; Fratini, L. Life cycle energy and CO2 emissions analysis of food packaging: An insight into the methodology from an Italian perspective. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2017, 10, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Antonopoulos, I.; Faraca, G.; Tonini, D. Recycling of post-consumer plastic packaging waste in the EU: Recovery rates, material flows, and barriers. Waste Manag. 2021, 126, 694–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. FAO. The Future of Food and Agriculture—Trends and Challenges; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i6583e/i6583e.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  12. FoodDrinkEurope. Data and Trends. EU Food and Drink Industry. 2021. Available online: https://www.fooddrinkeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/FoodDrinkEurope-Data-Trends-2021-digital.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  13. European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Packaging and Packaging Waste, Amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and Repealing Directive 94/62/EC. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0677 (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  14. PlasticEurope Plastics—The Facts. 2020. Available online: https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/resources/market-data (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  15. National Bureau of Statistics. China Statistical Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2022. Available online: http://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/ndsj/2022/indexeh.htm (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  16. ISO. ISO Strategy 2030. Available online: https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100364.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  17. ISO. Contributing to the UN Sustainable Development Goals with ISO Standards. Available online: https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100429.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  18. McKinsey. True Packaging Sustainability: Understanding the Performance Trade-Offs. 2021. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.de/industries/paper-forest-products-and-packaging/our-insights/true-packaging-sustainability-understanding-the-performance-trade-offs (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  19. European Commission. Waste Framework Directive. 2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-framework-directive_en (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  20. Commission Communication in the Framework of the Implementation of the European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on Packaging and Packaging Waste. Official Journal of the European Union. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52005XC0219(02) (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  21. ISO/TC 122/SC 4; Packaging and the Environment. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005. Available online: https://www.iso.org/committee/52082.html (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  22. Xu, Y.H.; Guo, Z.M.; Zhang, G.; Wang, X.; Shen, W.J. International Convergence of “Packaging and Environment” Standardization System. Packaging Eng. 2016, 37, 58–62. [Google Scholar]
  23. Shi, J. Analysis of Paths for Improving Laws and Regulations on Logistics Packaging. Logist. Technol. 2012, 31, 199. [Google Scholar]
  24. Fang, K.; Jiang, W.Y.; Chen, Y.L.; Qian, L.F. Legislative Suggestion to the Governance of E-commerce Express Packaging Waste in China. J. GuiZhou Univ. 2020, 38, 95–103. [Google Scholar]
  25. China Packaging Federation. Overview of Import and Export of Packaging Industry in March 2022. Available online: http://www.cpf.org.cn/product/164.html (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  26. Tan, M.L.; Jiang, J. Bibliometric analysis of domestic text mining from 2010 to 2021. Digit. Technol. Applicat. 2023, 41, 26–30. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ledesma, F. Bibliometric Indicators and Decision Making. Data Metadata 2022, 1, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, Y.P. Research on the Measurement and Analysis Method of Standards and its Agricultural Applications; Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences: Beijing, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  30. Wu, K. Bibliometric Analysis of China’s Science and Technology Archives Standards. Jidian Bing Chuan Dang An. 2018, 1, 66–70. [Google Scholar]
  31. Wang, P.T.; Xu, W. Research on standardization of publishing industry based on standard bibliometrics. Res. Educat. 2019, 298, 116–124. [Google Scholar]
  32. Peng, G.C.; Liu, J. A Comparative Study of Chinese and ISO Information Security Standards. J. Intel. 2022, 41, 184. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wu, J.M.; Li, Y.L.; Liu, W.L.; Dong, Z.X.; Zhang, C.D.; He, M.M. Analysis and Study of China’s Medical Insurance Drug Payment Standards from the Perspective of Bibliometry. China Health Insur. 2023, 2, 92–99. [Google Scholar]
  34. ISO/IEC Guide 21-1 Regional or National Adoption of International Standards and Other International Deliverables—Part 1: Adoption of International Standards. Available online: https://www.iso.org/home.isoDocumentsDownload.do?t=oE9d-zmo_9043bwk_9K0lxTRpXSVOBdLY2yRQL7kW0y_Jf3IL-XW7c_fTeAb_F6D&CSRFTOKEN=L45D-0PN0-B690-H3GK-KF1B-UNFC-UDMS-4PO6 (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  35. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Eco-nomic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Resource-Efficient Europe—Flagship Initiative under the Europe, COM (2011). 2020. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/a-resource-efficient-europe-flagship (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  36. Marco-Fondevila, M.; Llena-Macarulla, F.; Callao-Gastón, S.; Jarne-Jarne, J. Are circular economy policies actually reaching organizations? Evidence from the largest Spanish companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 285, 124858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. ISO 18602–2013; Packaging and the environment—Optimization of the packaging system. International Standard Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
  38. ISO 18603–2013; Packaging and the Environment—Reuse. International Standard Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
  39. ISO 18604–2013; Packaging and the Environment—Material Recycling. International Standard Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
  40. ISO 18605–2013; Packaging and the Environment—Energy Recovery. International Standard Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
  41. ISO 18606–2013; Packaging and the Environment—Organic Recycling. International Standard Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
  42. The national packaging industry “ninth Five-Year” development plan and long-term development goals in 2010. China Packag. 1996, 16, 16–20.
  43. The national packaging industry “ten Five-Year” development plan and long-term development goals in 2015. China Packag. News, 27 April 2001.
  44. Packaging Industry “Twelfth Five-Year Plan” Analysis and Investment Prospects Forecast Research Report. 2011.
  45. Ding, S.; Gao, Y.X.; Gao, D.F. Study on Legislation, Policies and Standards related to Packaging and Packaging Waste Management in China and European Union. China Standardizat. 2023, 6, 93–99. [Google Scholar]
  46. The General Office of the State Council Forwarded the Notice of the National Development and Reform Commission and Other Departments on Accelerating the Green Transformation of Express Packaging. Available online: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2020-12/14/content_5569345.htm (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  47. Notice of The General Office of the State Council on Further Strengthening the Control of Excessive Packaging of Commodities. Available online: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2022-09/08/content_5708858.htm (accessed on 30 August 2023).
  48. China Issues Guideline to Deepen Reform of Standardization System. Available online: http://english.www.gov.cn/policies/latest_releases/2015/03/26/content_281475078008940.htm (accessed on 26 March 2015).
  49. T/CIET 074–2023; General Principles for Green Packaging Evaluation. China Association for Promoting International Econimic & Technical Cooperation: Beijing, China, 2023.
  50. GB 23350–2021; Requirements of Restricting Excessive Package–Food and Cosmetics. State Administration for Market Regulation: Beijing, China, 2021.
Sustainability 15 15385 g001
Figure 1. Research design and framework of this study.
Figure 1. Research design and framework of this study.
Sustainability 15 15385 g001
Sustainability 15 15385 g002
Figure 2. (a) The number of CNSPE released from 1996 to 2022; (b) the number of CNSPE every five years from 1996 to 2020.
Figure 2. (a) The number of CNSPE released from 1996 to 2022; (b) the number of CNSPE every five years from 1996 to 2020.
Sustainability 15 15385 g002
Sustainability 15 15385 g003
Figure 3. Distribution for different sorts of CNSPE from 1996 to 2022. (Note: the numbers in the circular are the numbers of standards yearly released).
Figure 3. Distribution for different sorts of CNSPE from 1996 to 2022. (Note: the numbers in the circular are the numbers of standards yearly released).
Sustainability 15 15385 g003
Table 1. Search results and statistics data on standard status of the CNSPE.
Table 1. Search results and statistics data on standard status of the CNSPE.
Standard StatusNumberProportion (%)
Released but not be executed12
Currently valid but be replaced soon12
Currently valid4170
Abolished1526
Table 2. Distributions for valid periods of the CNSPE.
Table 2. Distributions for valid periods of the CNSPE.
Valid Period(Tv)/(Year)NumberProportion/(%)
0 ≤ Tv ≤ 52354.76
5 < Tv ≤ 101330.95
10 < Tv ≤ 15511.91
15 < Tv ≤ 2012.38
Table 3. Governors responsible for the CNSPE.
Table 3. Governors responsible for the CNSPE.
GovernorNumberProportion/(%)
Standardization Administration of P.R.C. (SAC)3967.24
Ministry of Industry and Information Technology58.62
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs23.45
Ministry of Commerce11.72
State Post Bureau46.90
China National Light Industry Council58.62
China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Federation23.45
Table 4. Draft committees of the Chinese National Standards on Packaging and the Environment.
Table 4. Draft committees of the Chinese National Standards on Packaging and the Environment.
Type of Draft CommitteesStandard QuantityProportion/(%)
Public institution3353.45
Enterprise2643.85
Social group11.72
Table 5. Conversion time of the CNSPE.
Table 5. Conversion time of the CNSPE.
Conversion Time Tc/(Year)NumberProportion/(%)
0 ≤ Tc ≤ 515.56
5 < Tc ≤ 101477.77
10 < Tc ≤ 15316.67
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ding, S.; Gao, Y.; Lin, H.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, R.; Lin, L.; Xu, B.; Gao, D. Analysis of Chinese National Standards on Packaging and the Environment (CNSPE) Based on Standard Literature Bibliometrics. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15385. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115385

AMA Style

Ding S, Gao Y, Lin H, Zhu Y, Zhang R, Lin L, Xu B, Gao D. Analysis of Chinese National Standards on Packaging and the Environment (CNSPE) Based on Standard Literature Bibliometrics. Sustainability. 2023; 15(21):15385. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115385

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ding, Shuang, Yanxin Gao, Haoxin Lin, Yi Zhu, Rui Zhang, Ling Lin, Bingsheng Xu, and Dongfeng Gao. 2023. "Analysis of Chinese National Standards on Packaging and the Environment (CNSPE) Based on Standard Literature Bibliometrics" Sustainability 15, no. 21: 15385. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115385

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop