Shared Producer Responsibility for Sustainable Packaging in FMCG: The Convergence of SDGs, ESG Reporting, and Stakeholder Engagement

Abstract

Packaging waste is a major environmental issue, making the transition to sustainable solutions imperative. This article proposes the concept of Shared Producer Responsibility (SPR) as a key approach to advancing sustainable packaging in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector. The study explores how the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting, and stakeholder engagement converge to support this transition. The research identifies current trends, challenges, and gaps in sustainable packaging practices through a systematic literature review (SLR) and analysis of sustainability and ESG reports from leading FMCG and packaging companies. The findings highlight the need for standardised reporting frameworks and improved stakeholder cooperation to enhance transparency and accountability in sustainability efforts. This study proposes a conceptual framework for accelerating sustainable packaging adoption through combining strategies like consumer education, regulatory incentives, and clear product labelling. The proposal to implement the concept of Shared Producer Responsibility emphasises the shared accountability of FMCG companies and packaging manufacturers in managing the full environmental lifecycle of packaging materials. This approach is crucial for achieving SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) and SDG 13 (climate action) and driving more effective and sustainable packaging practices across the FMCG industry.

1. Introduction

Packaging serves an essential role in product protection, waste minimisation, and the facilitation of efficient transportation and storage [1]. Despite its utility, the prevalence of single-use plastic packaging creates significant environmental concerns, such as landfill overflow and ocean pollution [2]. Beyond plastics, packaging waste includes materials like glass, paper, and metal, which pose substantial environmental and waste management challenges. Recent statistics reveal the magnitude of this issue, with Europe generating approximately 79.6 million tonnes of packaging waste in 2020, equating to roughly 179.9 kg per inhabitant [3]. In Britain, the total packaging waste reached about 12.6 million tonnes in 2021, with paper and cardboard making up 42% and plastics 19.8%, contributing to 2.5 million tonnes [4]. This data underscores the necessity for a shift towards comprehensive sustainable packaging strategies that address the environmental impact of various packaging materials. In response, sustainable packaging has emerged as a critical solution, emphasising eco-friendly, economically viable, and socially responsible production methods. These methods prioritise the use of recyclable, biodegradable, or reusable materials and aim to reduce waste, energy use, and emissions [5,6]. The urgency for the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector to transition towards sustainable practices is underscored by its significant contribution to packaging waste, coupled with a growing consumer demand for environmentally friendly products [7,8].

This study addresses the urgent need for a transition to sustainable packaging in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector. To guide this exploration, the paper is structured around the following core research questions:

• What are the primary drivers, challenges, and opportunities shaping the adoption of sustainable packaging in the FMCG industry, and what role do different stakeholders play?
• How do leading FMCG and packaging companies currently report on their sustainability performance, and what inconsistencies exist in their ESG reporting practices?
• How can stakeholder collaboration and corporate reporting be enhanced to accelerate the transition toward a more sustainable packaging ecosystem?

To answer these questions, this research employs a dual methodology, combining a systematic literature review (SLR) with an analysis of sustainability and ESG reports from prominent FMCG and packaging firms. Through this analysis, the study identifies critical gaps and advocates for the concept of Shared Producer Responsibility (SPR). This approach is presented as a necessary evolution of traditional Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), creating a more comprehensive framework for joint accountability across the packaging lifecycle.

The article proceeds by establishing the theoretical background (Section 2) and outlining the research methodology (Section 3). The key findings from the literature review and corporate reports are then presented (Section 4), followed by a discussion of their implications (Section 5). The paper concludes (Section 6) by proposing a conceptual framework and actionable recommendations to foster the adoption of sustainable packaging.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Sustainable Packaging in the FMCG Industry

In response to heightened environmental awareness and stricter regulations, the FMCG sector—which includes high-turnover products such as personal care items, household goods, and packaged foods [9]—has seen a major shift towards sustainable packaging practices. Sustainable packaging, though not defined uniformly in textbooks, is widely understood in the academic literature as packaging that minimises the environmental impact throughout its lifecycle—through reduced material use, recyclability, biodegradability, and resource efficiency [8,10]. Initially focused on protection and convenience, FMCG packaging has evolved to prioritise material reduction, innovative designs, and lightweight materials for efficiency [11]. This evolution is also influenced by logistical considerations, where packaging impacts transportation efficiency, warehouse handling, and cost trade-offs across the supply chain [12]. Reusable packaging is gaining traction, with platforms like Loop collaborating with major companies for eco-friendly packaging cycles [2,13]. Recycling is also integral, with a focus on single-material, recyclable packages and the incorporation of post-consumer recycled components [14]. Notably, packaging development is a critical innovation stage often overlooked in generic product development models, yet it represents the majority of incremental innovation in the FMCG sector [15]. These developments reflect the FMCG industry’s commitment to sustainability, balancing environmental concerns with packaging functionality.

2.2. SDGs and Packaging

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 12 and 13, focusing on responsible consumption and production and climate action, respectively, are integral to guiding the FMCG industry towards sustainable packaging practices [16,17]. SDG 12 emphasises reducing waste through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse. This includes developing FMCG packaging that is source-reduced, made from renewable or recycled materials, and designed for easy recycling [16]. SDG 13 aims to mitigate climate change by minimising the carbon footprint of packaging. Strategies include using renewable energy in production, material optimisation, lifecycle management to reduce waste and emissions, and optimising logistics [17]. However, the implementation of these sustainable practices in packaging presents challenges, e.g., the effectiveness of recyclable, reusable, or compostable packaging depends heavily on waste management infrastructure, which varies globally. Inadequate facilities could lead to recyclables ending up in landfills. Successful sustainable packaging requires cooperation among manufacturers, consumers, waste managers, and policymakers. Without this synergy, the effectiveness of eco-friendly packaging initiatives may fall short of their potential.

2.3. Sustainability Reporting and Packaging

In recent years, companies have increasingly published sustainability reports to enhance transparency and trust with shareholders and customers. The growing body of literature on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria underscores its critical role in corporate strategy, with comprehensive reviews highlighting how robust governance and disclosure practices influence both sustainability and financial outcomes [18]. Research indicates that companies with ESG-based sustainability reports tend to have a lower risk of accidents or lawsuits, thanks to their commitment to responsibility, social rights protection, and environmental conservation [19,20]. The introduction of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) by the EU mandates that both European and significant non-EU companies operating within Europe disclose sustainability-related information. This directive targets companies with more than EUR 20 million in total assets, EUR 40 million in net turnover, and/or over 250 employees, potentially influencing non-European Economic Area companies as well. With CSRD, companies must report their sustainability performance globally, aiming for a standardised approach to sustainability reporting across all markets [21,22]. Currently, companies adopt various frameworks and standards for sustainability reporting. The European Commission (2021) [23] is working on harmonising these frameworks under CSRD to introduce more standardised elements, although most companies today combine existing frameworks to meet their reporting needs.

2.4. Stakeholder Influence in Sustainable Packaging

Successful sustainable packaging in the FMCG industry heavily relies on effective management of stakeholder engagement, incorporating theories like Stakeholder Management Theory and Institutional Theory. Stakeholder Management Theory underlines the importance of involving all stakeholders in decision-making processes, encompassing internal stakeholders (employees, management, shareholders), external stakeholders (consumers, suppliers, regulators, NGOs, competitors), and environmental stakeholders (the natural environment) [24,25]. Stakeholder engagement takes this further by emphasising proactive communication, collaboration, and the involvement of stakeholders in the development and implementation of sustainable packaging solutions [26,27].

This approach is crucial for building trust and increasing acceptance and success rates of sustainable packaging initiatives. Institutional Theory provides insights into external forces shaping FMCG companies’ adoption of sustainable practices through institutional pressures: coercive (regulatory bodies), normative (societal expectations), and mimetic (industry leaders’ practices) [28,29]. The interplay of stakeholder management and institutional pressures is crucial for the successful transition to sustainable packaging. Managers need to interact with stakeholders to understand sustainability concerns and convey the benefits of initiatives while addressing institutional pressures. Compliance with sustainable packaging laws and regulations, understanding and aligning with social expectations, and benchmarking against industry leaders are key strategies for managing these pressures [29,30]. Lean supply principles in FMCG packaging have also revealed the need for more adaptive and contingency-based models rather than rigid frameworks, as supplier capabilities and equipment flexibility vary significantly [31]. Navigating the complex landscape of sustainable packaging in the FMCG sector requires a multifaceted approach involving stakeholder engagement, understanding institutional pressures, and strategically managing these elements for effective implementation and compliance.

3. Methodology

The research utilises a dual methodology: a systematic literature review (SLR) and an analysis of sustainability (ESG) reports from FMCG companies and packaging manufacturers [20,32]. This methodological approach is consistent with established practices in sustainability research, where systematic reviews are frequently used to map the academic landscape, synthesise findings across a field, and identify key research gaps [18]. The SLR establishes the theoretical foundation for this study by providing a comprehensive overview of the current state, established trends, and gaps in the academic literature about sustainable packaging research, with a particular focus on stakeholder engagement [33]. This academic perspective is then complemented by the analysis of corporate sustainability reports. This analysis provides grounded, real-world insights by examining how leading FMCG companies and packaging manufacturers implement various sustainability strategies, initiatives, and global standards to take responsibility for the ecological integrity of their packaging products [34]. By integrating these two perspectives, the research bridges the gap between theory and practice, enabling a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the sustainable packaging ecosystem.

3.1. The Systematic Literature Review

This study employed a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify the most relevant academic articles within the research scope. The search process followed the steps of the PRISMA protocol and is presented by adopting the approach of Ed-Dafali et al. (2025) [18].

3.1.1. Identification Stage

The objective of the identification stage was to establish search criteria that would capture all relevant articles. The search utilised two reputable bibliographical databases: Scopus and Web of Science. The keywords were designed to target articles with “packaging” in the title, which also referenced FMCGs or sustainability in the title, abstract, or keywords, and considered stakeholders such as consumers and customers. The search focused on the fields of Environmental Sciences, Business and Management, Operational Research, and Social Science, given their close relation to sustainability issues and consumer behaviour. To ensure relevance to current industry trends, the search period was limited to 2019–2024, reflecting the recent acceleration in sustainable development concerns. After removing 182 duplicates, this initial identification process yielded 499 articles. The complete search structure and criteria are detailed in

Table 1. Selection criteria for SLR articles.

	Scopus	Web of Science
Primary Search Keywords	Packaging, FMCG, Sustain*, Stakeholder, Customer, Consumer	Packaging, FMCG, Sustain*, Stakeholder, Customer, Consumer
Search Query String	(TITLE (packaging) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“FMCG” OR “sustain*”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (stakeholder OR customer OR consumer))	packaging (Title) and FMCG OR sustain* (Topic) and stakeholder OR customer OR consumer (Topic)
Date Range	2019–2024	2019–2024
Limitations	English Language	English Language
	Articles and Reviews	Articles and Reviews
Exclusions	Scopus Subject Areas NOT related to Environmental Sciences or Business, Management and Accounting, or Social Science	Web of Science Subject Areas NOT related to Environmental Sciences or Business or Management or Economics or Environmental Studies or Operations Research Management Science or Social Sciences
Database updated on	24 June 2025	24 June 2025

To broaden the search for relevant articles, truncation was utilized in the search query. The search term ‘sustain*’ was used, which allowed for the inclusion of documents containing both the words ‘sustainable’ and ‘sustainability’.

.

3.1.2. Screening Stage

In the screening stage, the initial 499 articles were filtered against the 2024 ABS list of journals, which is recognised as a “pluralistic and comprehensive” list [35]. This process revealed an underrepresentation of the FMCG sector, a key focus of this study, with only seven articles originating from ABS-listed journals. To correct for this potential gap in the literature, the selection was broadened to reinstate 15 relevant articles focused on FMCG that had been previously excluded based on the journal ranking. The resulting 139 articles were then screened by reading their abstracts to assess relevance to the study’s objectives. Following this assessment, 25 articles were rejected, which left a refined sample of 114 articles for the next stage.

3.1.3. Eligibility Stage

At this stage, the 114 full-text articles were assessed for their eligibility. Eligibility was determined by an article’s direct relevance to the research topic and its accessibility [36]. To mitigate bias, two researchers conducted this review process independently, reaching a consensus to exclude 68 articles that did not align with the study’s objectives. The majority of the excluded articles were rejected because their focus was either highly technical, concentrating on material science and chemical properties, or centred on marketing aspects that were outside the scope of this research.

3.1.4. Inclusion Stage

To build a comprehensive literature base, 17 highly cited articles from Scopus and Web of Science databases were identified through both backward and forward searches and were added to the list. The final sample consisted of 63 articles, representing the most relevant contributions to the academic literature aligned with the study’s objectives. The search process is presented by the PRISMA protocol’s flow diagram in Figure 1.

The final sample of 63 articles is drawn from 27 different academic journals. A significant concentration of research was found in two key publications: the Journal of Cleaner Production, which contributed 16 articles, and Sustainability, which contributed 12 articles.

Following article selection, a two-tier classification framework was applied to facilitate thematic analysis. Articles were first categorised by their primary research orientation, either sustainable packaging or stakeholder engagement, and subsequently by the industry sector addressed, including fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG), food and beverage, e-commerce, packaging, and supply chain. This structured classification guided the organisation of the literature and forms the basis for the insights from the SLR, presented in Section 4.1 of the Section 4, with a detailed discussion in Section 5.1 of the Section 5. The taxonomy tables for the SLR can be found in Appendix A.

It is acknowledged that consumer behaviour appears across both research areas. In this study, consumer behaviour is considered both as an individual-level influence (such as preferences and purchasing patterns) and as a component of stakeholder engagement, particularly where consumers are involved in collaborative sustainability initiatives. While the boundary between these perspectives is not always rigid, this distinction informed the thematic classification process.

3.2. Selection of Companies and Sustainability Reports

Fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies and packaging manufacturers have increasingly acknowledged the significance of sustainability reporting within sustainable packaging practices [19]. Reporting goes beyond mere compliance with regulations; rather, it encompasses transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement [38]. It allows stakeholders to gain an insight into a company’s sustainability goals, initiatives, and performance related to packaging—ultimately building trust and collaboration [26,39].

To complement the insights drawn from the systematic literature review, this study analysed the sustainability reports of eleven organisations—five fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies and six packaging companies. A search of publicly available industry rankings and market reports was conducted using general search engines. The results across multiple sources were compared, and companies that appeared consistently in multiple independent listings (e.g., top FMCG firms, top packaging companies in the Europe, top 10 global FMCG companies, etc.) were shortlisted for further evaluation. The decision to focus on packaging companies from the UK and Europe was informed by the regional concentration of academic studies observed during the SLR. For the selection of FMCG firms, selection criteria included company age, global operations, market share, and prominence in sustainability reporting. The term sustainability report is used throughout this study to refer to annual disclosures containing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) information, whether published as standalone sustainability reports, integrated reports, or annual reports with ESG sections. The titles of the reports and the reporting frameworks (e.g., GRI, SASB, TCFD, etc.) highlighted by the individual companies are provided in

Table 2. Overview of selected FMCG and packaging companies and their ESG reporting practices.

Company Name	Industry	Major Operations	Reporting Frameworks Highlighted	SDGs Mentioned	Name of the Report
Stora Enso	Packaging	Europe, North America	GRI, SASB	12, 13, 15	Storo Enso Annual Report 2022 [40]
DS Smith	Packaging	Europe	GRI, SASB	2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16	DS Smith Sustainability Report 2022 [41]
Smurfit Kappa	Packaging	Europe, Americas	GRI, SASB, TCFD	3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15	Smurfit Kappa Sustainable Development Report 2022 [42]
Tetra Pak	Packaging	Global	GRI	1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17	Tetra Pak Sustainability Report FY22 [43]
Amcor	Packaging	Global	GRI, SASB, TCFD	2, 3, 9, 12, 13, 14	Amcor Sustainability Report 2022 [44]
Mondi	Packaging	Europe, Russia, South Africa	GRI, SASB, TCFD	6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15	Mondi Group UN Sustainable Development Goals Index 2022 [45] Mondi Group Sustainable Development Report [46]
Nestle	FMCG	Global	GRI, SASB, World Economic Forum Stakeholder Capitalism metrics	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17	Creating Shared Value and Sustainability Report 2022 [47]
Unilever	FMCG	Global	WEF IBC, GRI, SASB, United Nations Global Compact (UNGC)	Not specified	Unilever Annual Report and Accounts 2022 [48]
Danone	FMCG	Global	Not specified	2, 3, 6, 8, 12, 13	Integrated Annual Report 2022—Danone’s Sustainability Performance [49]
Reckitt Benckiser	FMCG	Global	GRI, SASB	2, 3, 5, 6, 13	Sustainability Insights 2022 [50]
Coca-Cola	FMCG	Global	GRI, SASB, TCFD, UN SDG Index, United Nations Guiding Principles Reporting Framework (UNGPRF)	1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17	The Coca-Cola Company 2022 Business and Sustainability Report [51] The Coca-Cola Company 2022 Reporting Frameworks and SDGs [52]

.

3.2.1. Packaging Companies

Stora Enso is recognised for its innovation in sustainable packaging, focusing on bio-based and recyclable products, making it a leader in renewable packaging solutions [53].

DS Smith is noted for its environmentally sustainable packaging designs and recycling solutions, aiding in the advancement of a circular economy [54].

Smurfit Kappa excels in paper-based packaging, prioritising customer needs and environmental sustainability, offering eco-friendly solutions across various industries [55].

Tetra Pak is acclaimed for its innovative food processing and packaging solutions that protect both the product and the environment through sustainable designs [56].

Amcor stands out for developing responsible packaging globally, with a focus on ensuring product safety, enhancing consumer experience, and fostering environmental stewardship through flexible and rigid packaging designs [57].

Mondi specialises in paper and packaging solutions, known for its customised and sustainability-focused approach, providing innovative, functional, and environmentally conscious packaging solutions [58].

3.2.2. FMCG Companies

Nestle is one of the world’s leading FMCG companies and stands as an iconic food and beverage provider with expertise across various segments such as dairy products, beverages, and infant nutrition with particular regard to sustainability and nutrition [59].

Unilever stands out in the FMCG segment by offering an expansive portfolio of consumer goods spanning personal care to food products and demonstrating an admirable dedication to social and environmental impact [60].

Danone is operating within the FMCG sector, having long been revered as an innovator of dairy products, plant-based offerings, and bottled waters while simultaneously emphasising health, nutrition, and global healthy eating initiatives [61].

Reckitt Benckiser stands as an influential player in the FMCG industry and excels at manufacturing health, hygiene, and nutrition products that demonstrate innovation while contributing to global well-being [62].

Coca-Cola is one of the global icons in FMCG beverage production and is revered worldwide as one of the premier soft drink producers and beverage providers with an unmatched commitment to community involvement and environmental stewardship [63].

4. Findings

This review includes 63 peer-reviewed articles that explore key trends, challenges, and developments in sustainable packaging within the FMCG sector, with a particular focus on stakeholder involvement. These studies, published between 2019 and 2024, reflect a marked rise in academic engagement on the topic compared to the previous five-year period (2014–2018), during which only 14 relevant articles were identified under the same criteria. While geographic distribution was not a selection factor, it was observed that 25 of the 63 studies focus on the European market as represented in Figure 2. This may reflect the region’s stronger policy frameworks, industry leadership in sustainability, and heightened research activity in this area.

4.1. Insights from the SLR

To enable a focused and comparative analysis of the literature, the 63 selected articles were classified along two key dimensions: research area and industry focus. The research areas were categorised into two themes: sustainable packaging, covering topics such as materials, design innovation, environmental impact, and end-of-life strategies; and stakeholder engagement and involvement in sustainable packaging, examining how various actors including firms, consumers, regulators, and supply chain entities contribute to or influence sustainable packaging transitions.

Each article was also assigned to an industry segment relevant to its core focus. These segments include the following:

FMCG, referring to mass-manufactured, fast-moving consumer goods such as personal care and household products; food and beverage, analysed separately due to its unique packaging needs and perishability constraints; e-commerce, due to its growing impact on packaging demands and waste generation; packaging, as a standalone industry responsible for materials innovation and production; supply chain, capturing the logistics and lifecycle impacts of packaging choices.

Figure 3 illustrates how the selected articles are distributed across both dimensions. This segmentation helps to capture differences in research emphasis between product categories and sectors while identifying opportunities for cross-sector collaboration.

Building on this classification, Figure 4 explains how the literature was organised for detailed analysis. The articles were grouped into three sets:

Section 4.1.1. and

Table A1. Articles addressing sustainable packaging and stakeholder engagement in the FMCG industry.

Sr. No	Title of the Article	Research Type and Methodology	Industry Focus	Research Area	Key Findings and Themes Identified	Reference
1	A consumer definition of eco-friendly packaging	Empirical—Qualitative	FMCG	Stakeholder	The article defines eco-friendly packaging based on consumer preferences, emphasising recyclability, biodegradability, minimalism, renewable resources, energy efficiency, and ethics. It highlights the gap between consumer expectations and industry practices, underscoring the need for more consumer-informed packaging strategies.	[6]
2	Characterisation and environmental value proposition of reuse models for fast-moving consumer goods: Reusable packaging and products	Empirical—Mixed Methods	FMCG	Packaging	The study characterises reuse models, identifying significant environmental benefits like material and energy savings. It also outlines current challenges like product design limitations. Contributions include a framework to categorise reuse models, aiding industry stakeholders in improving sustainable practices.	[7]
3	Exploring green packaging acceptance in fast moving consumer goods in emerging economy: The case of Malaysia	Empirical—Quantitative	FMCG	Stakeholder	Shows positive Malaysian consumer attitudes toward innovative and distinctive green packaging, highlighting the critical role of uniqueness and innovativeness. Identifies a key barrier: perceived cost implications.	[65]
4	Exploring relationship among semiotic product packaging, brand experience dimensions, brand trust and purchase intentions in an Asian emerging market	Empirical—Quantitative	FMCG	Stakeholder	Finds significant connections between semiotic packaging and brand experience dimensions, influencing trust and purchase intentions. Emphasises the crucial role of visual and symbolic packaging elements in shaping consumer behaviour in emerging markets.	[72]
5	Factors for eliminating plastic in packaging: The European FMCG experts’ view	Empirical—Qualitative	FMCG	Stakeholder	Identifies factors influencing European FMCG experts’ decisions to eliminate plastic packaging, highlighting consumer awareness, government policy, and technological innovations as enablers. Also recognises existing barriers like high costs and logistical complexities.	[9]
6	Influencing Factors for Consumers’ Intention to Reduce Plastic Packaging in Different Groups of Fast-Moving Consumer Goods in Germany	Empirical—Quantitative	FMCG	Stakeholder	Highlights how environmental attitudes and social and personal norms significantly influence consumer intentions to minimise plastic packaging, especially in food and textiles. Emphasises tailored interventions for specific product categories to enhance sustainable consumer behaviours.	[68]
7	Packaging-influenced-purchase decision segment the bottom of the pyramid consumer marketplace? Evidence from West Bengal, India	Empirical—Quantitative	FMCG	Stakeholder	Identifies significant differences in packaging-driven purchase behaviours among urban and rural bottom-of-pyramid (BoP) consumers in West Bengal, with urban consumers being most influenced by packaging attributes. Suggests customised strategies addressing diverse segment needs.	[66]
8	Purchase Behavior of Young Consumers Toward Green Packaged Products in Vietnam	Empirical—Qualitative	FMCG	Stakeholder	Reveals that attitudes, environmental concerns, knowledge, and trust strongly influence young Vietnamese consumers’ decisions to buy green-packaged products. Suggests strategies emphasising awareness and trust-building to foster sustainable consumption patterns.	[64]
9	Recycling of multi-material multilayer plastic packaging: Current trends and future scenarios	Empirical—Qualitative	FMCG	Packaging	Addresses recycling complexities for multi-material multilayer plastics, outlining current trends and challenges due to difficult-to-recycle materials. Suggests innovations in recycling technologies and design improvements to enhance recycling efficiency.	[46]
10	Reusability and recyclability of plastic cosmetic packaging: A life cycle assessment	Empirical—Qualitative	FMCG	Packaging	Presents lifecycle assessments emphasising the critical role of reusability and recyclability in plastic cosmetic packaging sustainability. Highlights design improvements as essential for reducing environmental impact and promoting sustainable product practices.	[2]
11	Sustainable packaging in the FMCG industry	Empirical—Qualitative	FMCG	Stakeholder	Explores consumer perceptions and behaviour toward sustainable packaging in FMCG. Highlights the importance of material selection, technology, and market appeal, identifying consumer education as critical for fostering broader acceptance and use.	[8]
12	Sustainable Packaging Practices Across Various Sectors: Some Innovative Initiatives Under the Spotlight	Empirical—Qualitative	FMCG	Packaging	Discusses innovative sustainable packaging initiatives across multiple industries, emphasising best practices and key challenges. Highlights technology, material innovation, and consumer engagement as essential for achieving sustainability.	[70]
13	Corporate self-commitments to mitigate the global plastic crisis: Recycling rather than reduction and reuse	Theoretical—Qualitative	FMCG	Packaging	Highlights corporate preference for recycling over reduction and reuse strategies. Companies misalign “reduction” practices with waste hierarchy standards, suggesting a need for realignment with effective sustainability principles.	[14]
14	Impact of Packaging Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) on Consumer Buying Behaviour- A Review of Literature	Review—Qualitative	FMCG	Stakeholder	Reviews packaging’s significant influence on consumer purchasing behaviour in FMCG, stressing elements like colour, design, and sustainability attributes. Advocates packaging improvements to enhance consumer appeal and product differentiation.	[1]
15	Circular business models for the fastmoving consumer goods industry: Desirability, feasibility, and viability	Empirical—Mixed Methods	FMCG	Stakeholder	Identifies key success factors for reusable packaging models in FMCG, emphasising partnerships, consumer involvement, profitability, operational efficiency, and supply chain innovation. Promotes strategic collaborations for circular business model effectiveness.	[74]
16	Investigation into circular economy of plastics: The case of the UK fast moving consumer goods industry	Case Study—Qualitative	FMCG	Packaging	Highlights barriers (technical challenges, aesthetics) and enablers (regulatory support, consumer awareness) of plastics circular economy in UK FMCG. Suggests targeted interventions to overcome implementation challenges effectively.	[75]
17	Role of green and multisensory packaging in environmental sustainability: Evidence from FMCG sector of Pakistan	Empirical—Quantitative	FMCG	Packaging	Finds green packaging positively influences environmental sustainability, while multisensory packaging negatively impacts it. Consumer perceptions significantly moderate multisensory packaging effects, underscoring perception management for sustainable outcomes.	[71]
18	An Explorative Study on Packaging-Saving Consumer Practices in the Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Sector	Empirical—Quantitative	FMCG	Stakeholder	Examines how customers practise packaging-saving techniques like reducing and reusing packaging. Cost savings and environmental concerns are among the motivators, but convenience and product design are also obstacles. It draws attention to how crucial consumer behaviour is in promoting environmentally friendly packaging initiatives.	[115]
19	Simplicity Matters: Unraveling the Impact of Minimalist Packaging on Green Trust in Daily Consumer Goods	Empirical—Quantitative	FMCG	Stakeholder	Investigates the impact of minimalist packaging on consumers’ views of environmental responsibility, particularly “green trust”, in everyday consumer goods. By communicating simplicity, authenticity, and reduced environmental impact, minimalist design can increase green trust. For brands looking to establish long-term credibility, minimalist packaging can be an effective tool.	[73]
20	A review on consumer sorting behaviour: Spotlight on food and Fast Moving Consumer Goods plastic packaging	Review—Qualitative	FMCG	Stakeholder	The study classifies the sorting factors into four groups: packaging design, internal consumer traits, sociodemographic variables, and external conditions. There is a need for clearer labelling and better consumer education for proper sorting. The authors suggest standardising labels, improved design, and investigating behavioural techniques and policy tools, for sorting properly plastic packaging.	[69]
21	Factors associated with Finnish, German and UK consumers’ intentions to test, buy and recommend reusable fast-moving consumer goods packaging	Empirical—Quantitative	FMCG	Stakeholder	The research concludes that consumers’ intentions are more strongly influenced by positive emotions, such as pride and joy, than by more conventional cognitive factors, such as attitude. It indicates that emotional engagement may be more important in promoting reusable packaging than rational evaluations.	[114]
22	The Role of Sustainable Packaging in Saudi Arabian Supply Chains FMCG: Analyzing Consumer Acceptance and Marketing Strategies for Enhancing Environmental Impact	Empirical—Quantitative	FMCG	Stakeholder	The study suggests that environmental values are more important to consumers than price. Satisfaction and demand are increased by environmental consciousness. Positive visualisations enhance consumer advocacy and perceptions—but purchasing behaviour is not necessarily affected.	[67]

analyse 22 articles that focus on both sustainable packaging and stakeholder involvement, specifically within the FMCG industry.

Section 4.1.2. and

Table A2. Articles addressing stakeholder involvement in sustainable packaging in related industries.

Sr. No	Title of the Article	Research Type and Methodology	Industry Focus	Research Area	Key Findings and Themes Identified	Reference
1	Consumer Perceptions of Food Packaging in Its Role in Fighting Food Waste	Empirical—Mixed Methods	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Explores consumer perceptions of packaging effectiveness against food waste, revealing positive insights into sustainable behaviour. Limitations include its single-country focus, suggesting broader geographic studies. Contributions emphasise practical strategies for reducing food waste through better packaging designs.	[103]
2	Consumers’ response to environmentally friendly food packaging—A systematic review	Systematic Review—Qualitative	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Identifies factors affecting consumer responses to sustainable packaging and highlights gaps in current research. Limitations include reliance on convenience samples and minimal probabilistic studies. It suggests deeper investigations into consumer attitudes for designing impactful sustainable packaging.	[88]
3	Consumers’ awareness of plastic packaging: More than just environmental concerns	Empirical—Quantitative	Packaging	Stakeholder	Investigates consumer awareness and attitudes toward plastic packaging, finding multidimensional environmental and practical concerns. Limitations include limited demographic coverage. Contributions enrich understanding of how awareness influences consumer behaviour, supporting targeted interventions.	[89]
4	Double-edged sword effect of packaging: Antecedents and consumer consequences of a company’s green packaging design	Empirical—Mixed Methods	Packaging	Stakeholder	Demonstrates that employee psychological ownership enhances green packaging designs, significantly influencing consumers’ green purchasing behaviour. It underscores the dual impact of green packaging as both beneficial and challenging, influencing consumer trust and perceptions.	[81]
5	Eco-friendly alternatives to food packed in plastics: German consumers’ purchase intentions for different bio-based packaging strategies	Empirical—Mixed Methods	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Finds German consumers favour paper-based bio-packaging due to perceived eco-friendliness, significantly impacting purchase intentions. Highlights varying consumer preferences across packaging types, emphasising consumer perceptions as critical in packaging strategy.	[82]
6	Effect of executional greenwashing on market share of food products: An empirical study on green-coloured packaging	Empirical—Mixed Methods	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Indicates that green-coloured packaging significantly increases market share, supporting concerns about greenwashing. Highlights ethical implications and consumer trust issues, urging clearer standards to protect consumers and ensure transparency.	[83]
7	Environmental sustainability of liquid food packaging: Is there a gap between Danish consumers’ perception and learnings from life cycle assessment?	Empirical—Mixed Methods	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Explores discrepancies between Danish consumer perceptions and actual lifecycle assessments regarding liquid food packaging sustainability. Highlights misalignment and urges improved consumer education to bridge the knowledge gap.	[102]
8	Incorporating consumer insights into the UK food packaging supply chain in the transition to a circular economy	Empirical—Qualitative	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Highlights the importance of consumer behaviour insights in promoting circular economy practices within the UK food packaging sector. It emphasises improved communication and smart technologies to facilitate sustainable disposal practices.	[78]
9	Plastic or not plastic? That’s the problem: analysing the Italian students purchasing behavior of mineral water bottles made with eco-friendly packaging	Empirical—Qualitative	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Investigates Italian students’ preferences for eco-friendly bottled water packaging, highlighting critical purchasing behaviours and eco-awareness. Suggests increased consumer education about sustainability to drive effective transition toward environmentally friendly packaging alternatives.	[87]
10	Signs of Use Present a Barrier to Reusable Packaging Systems for Takeaway Food	Empirical—Qualitative	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Highlights consumer resistance to reusable packaging in takeaway foods due to visible signs of prior use, impacting adoption rates negatively. Suggests the importance of perception management, cleanliness assurances, and packaging designs to overcome acceptance barriers.	[94]
11	Single-use plastic packaging in the Canadian food industry: consumer behavior and perceptions	Empirical—Qualitative	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Explores Canadian consumer attitudes toward single-use plastics, emphasising environmental concerns. Suggests opportunities for consumer education and alternative packaging innovations, reflecting increasing consumer willingness to adopt sustainable packaging options.	[90]
12	Stakeholder engagement toward value co-creation in the F&B packaging industry	Empirical—Qualitative	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Emphasises stakeholder collaboration in driving sustainability within the food and beverage packaging sector, highlighting effective co-creation models involving businesses, consumers, and policymakers. Advocates increased engagement for impactful, collective sustainability initiatives.	[27]
13	Sustainability governance and contested plastic food packaging e An integrative review	Review—Qualitative	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Examines complexities in sustainability governance for plastic packaging, emphasising roles of policymakers, businesses, and consumers. Highlights stakeholder conflicts and cooperation, suggesting integrated governance strategies for advancing sustainability goals.	[77]
14	The Effect of Sustainable Packaging Aesthetic Over Consumer Behavior: A Case Study from India	Case Study—Quantitative	Packaging	Stakeholder	Highlights sustainable packaging aesthetics significantly influencing Indian consumers’ behaviours and preferences. Illustrates that visually appealing sustainable packaging notably impacts consumer choices, suggesting aesthetics as a key component in packaging strategies.	[84]
15	The persuasive effects of emotional green packaging claims	Empirical—Qualitative	Packaging	Stakeholder	Finds emotional green packaging claims highly influential on consumer purchase decisions compared to rational or neutral messages. Suggests leveraging emotional appeals to effectively encourage sustainable consumer behaviours.	[80]
16	What affect consumers’ willingness to pay for green packaging? Evidence from China	Empirical—Quantitative	Supply Chain	Stakeholder	Reveals factors influencing Chinese consumers’ willingness to pay for green packaging, including package price, convenience, reusability, and protective capability. Advocates enhanced consumer education and economic incentives for adoption.	[98]
17	What do consumers care about when purchasing experiential packaging?	Empirical—Quantitative	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Highlights consumer preferences for engagement, branding, and economic considerations in experiential packaging. Emphasises effective design strategies as crucial for successful commercialisation and increased consumer acceptance.	[95]
18	Consumer Considerations for the Implementation of Sustainable Packaging: A Review	Review—Mixed Methods	Packaging	Stakeholder	Outlines critical consumer considerations for adopting sustainable packaging, emphasising tangible sustainability information and effective leadership. Highlights the importance of clear consumer communication and educational initiatives.	[5]
19	Managing the transition to eco-friendly packaging—An investigation of consumers’ motives in online retail	Empirical—Quantitative	E-commerce	Stakeholder	Finds consumers’ eco-friendly packaging choices in online clothing retail driven by gain and normative motives, informed by goal-framing theory. Suggests emphasising reliability and consumer willingness to pay for increased adoption.	[92]
20	Packaging-free practices in food retail: the impact on customer loyalty	Empirical—Qualitative	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Indicates packaging-free retail positively affects brand image, satisfaction, and customer loyalty. However, the expected effects of brand trust on loyalty were not confirmed, suggesting nuanced relationship management strategies.	[93]
21	Paper Meets Plastic: The Perceived Environmental Friendliness of Product Packaging	Empirical—Mixed Methods	Packaging	Stakeholder	Reveals consumer bias favouring plastic packaging enhanced with paper, due to simplistic environmental perceptions. Suggests educational efforts to correct consumer misconceptions and drive truly sustainable choices.	[86]
22	Recycled or reusable: A multi-method assessment of eco-friendly packaging in online retail	Empirical—Mixed Methods	E-commerce	Stakeholder	Identifies mismatches among retailers’ assumptions, consumer preferences, and actual environmental impacts regarding packaging in online retail. Highlights need for improved retailer awareness and better alignment with consumer expectations.	[76]
23	Achieving sustainable development with sustainable packaging: A natural-resource-based view perspective	Review Qualitative	Packaging	Stakeholder	Identifies three resource-based competencies—sustainable development, product stewardship, and pollution prevention—as essential facilitators for businesses implementing sustainable packaging to improve environmental performance and gain a competitive edge. Highlights how sustainability can be strategically incorporated into essential business processes.	[101]
24	Creating conditions for sustainability transformation through transformative governance—The case of plastic food packaging in Finland	Case study Qualitative	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Finland’s plastic food packaging governance is primarily reactive despite having many transformative components, such as cooperation and policy integration. Recycling is prioritised over cutting back on single-use packaging. Innovation is scarce, and voluntary initiatives are insufficient to bring about significant change. More proactive policies, stronger regulation, and clearer direction are needed.	[97]
25	Introducing reusable food packaging: Customer preferences and design implications for successful market entry	Empirical—Quantitative	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Investigates consumer preferences for reusable food packaging and how these can influence effective marketing and design tactics. It concludes that the main elements influencing consumer acceptance are convenience, hygiene, ease of return, and unambiguous information. Alignment with sustainability principles and provider trust are also crucial.	[96]
26	One Year of Mandatory Reusable Packaging in Germany: Opportunities and Obstacles from the Perspective of Consumers and Companies	Empirical—Quantitative	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Examines Germany’s first year of requiring takeaway food and drink to be packaged in reusable containers. Despite a rise in awareness, adoption is still constrained by behavioural, financial, and logistical issues. Customers prioritise convenience over sustainability. To put in place efficient reuse systems, businesses require more precise instructions and support.	[100]
27	Switching to Reuse: The Impact of Information on Consumers’ Choices for Reusable Food Packaging	Empirical—Quantitative	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Reveals that when consumers are aware of the environmental advantages of reusable options, particularly with regard to CO2 reduction, they are more inclined to select them. The effectiveness of environmental messaging, changes in consumer behaviour, and the significance of clear communication in promoting sustainable choices are some of the major themes.	[79]
28	The Impact of Food Packaging Design on Users’ Perception of Green Awareness	Empirical—Mixed Methods	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Investigates how packaging’s informational and visual components affect consumers’ opinions about how environmentally friendly a product is. Design elements like colour, imagery, and eco-labels have a big impact on how consumers perceive and assess products. It highlights consumer trust, the importance of aesthetics in sustainability messaging, and how packaging design fits in with environmentally conscious branding.	[85]
29	How consumers value sustainable packaging: an experimental test combining packaging material, claim and price	Empirical—Quantitative	Food and Beverage	Stakeholder	Examines how young adults view and select food items based on packaging indicators such as price, recycled content claims, and material (glass vs. plastic). According to the study, claims about glass and recycled materials both improve perceptions of sustainability and product quality because of the “halo effect,” but when a price premium is applied, consumers are much less likely to choose these options.	[99]
30	Purchasing Intention of Products with Sustainable Packaging	Empirical—Quantitative	Packaging	Stakeholder	Purchase intention is greatly increased by perceived value, environmental concern, and eco-label credibility. Personal norms and social influence are also significant factors, particularly for consumers who care about the environment. According to the findings, promoting green purchasing behaviour requires clear communication and credible sustainability claims.	[91]

discuss 30 articles focused on stakeholder engagement in sustainable packaging across other industries, excluding FMCG.

Section 4.1.3. and

Table A3. Articles addressing general trends and themes in sustainable packaging (other industries excluding but related to FMCG).

Sr. No	Title of the Article	Research Type and Methodology	Industry Focus	Research Area	Key Findings and Themes Identified	Reference
1	Environmentally sustainable plastic food packaging: A holistic life cycle thinking approach for design decisions	Empirical—Quantitative	Food and Beverage	Packaging	Advocates a comprehensive lifecycle approach for sustainable plastic packaging design, considering environmental impacts throughout the lifecycle. Limitations include insufficient attention to alternative materials. The approach emphasises holistic sustainability strategies.	[104]
2	Packaging, business, and society	Empirical—Quantitative	Packaging	Packaging	Examines the complex relationship between packaging, businesses, and societal expectations, emphasising increased demand for sustainable solutions. Highlights diverse stakeholder roles, including businesses, consumers, and regulatory entities driving packaging innovation.	[113]
3	Sustainable packaging for supply chain management in the circular economy: A review	Systematic Review—Qualitative	Supply Chain	Packaging	Reviews sustainable packaging practices in supply chain management, highlighting circular economy opportunities and challenges. Emphasises the adoption of recyclable materials, waste reduction, and effective logistics as critical strategies for sustainable growth.	[106]
4	The commitment of packaging industry in the framework of the european strategy for plastics in a circular economy	Empirical—Qualitative	Packaging	Packaging	Highlights the European packaging industry’s significant efforts toward circular plastics strategies, emphasising challenges like recyclability and material selection. Advocates stronger collaboration and policy support to achieve European sustainability objectives.	[108]
5	Understanding plastic packaging: The co-evolution of materials and society	Theoretical and Case Study—Qualitative	Packaging	Packaging	Discusses the dynamic relationship between packaging innovations, consumer behaviour, and societal norms. Highlights complexity in achieving sustainability, emphasising the necessity of integrated technological and societal changes.	[112]
6	Sustainability in e-commerce packaging: A review	Systematic Review—Qualitative	E-commerce	Packaging	Highlights strategies to reduce environmental impacts in e-commerce packaging, including circular packaging systems, reducing overpackaging, and adopting technologies like 3D printing. Recognises limitations due to reliance on the existing literature rather than primary research.	[10]
7	Plastic pollution and packaging: Corporate commitments and actions from the food and beverage sector	Empirical— Qualitative	Food and Beverage	Packaging	Reveals that many companies avoid directly addressing plastic pollution in reports, preferring neutral language. Few companies detail actionable commitments. Suggests transparency improvements for clearer corporate accountability and action.	[109]
8	Achieving the circular economy through environmental policies: Packaging strategies for more sustainable business models in the wine industry	Empirical—Mixed Methods	Food and Beverage	Packaging	Demonstrates environmental and economic benefits from sustainable packaging strategies using lifecycle assessment in the Italian wine industry. Highlights significant reductions in emissions and costs, suggesting broader industry applicability.	[105]
9	Investigating sustainability tensions and resolution strategies in the plastic food packaging industry—A paradox theory approach	Empirical–Qualitative	Food and Beverage	Packaging	Identifies significant sustainability tensions in plastic packaging (operations, recycling, stakeholder relations). Suggests resolution via collaborative, innovative, and circular approaches, promoting multi-stakeholder engagements for sustainability.	[110]
10	Enhancing circular supply chains via ecological packaging: An empirical investigation of an extended producer responsibility network	Empirical—Quantitative	Supply Chain	Packaging	The literature identifies several key drivers for adopting sustainable packaging, such as stringent environmental laws, internal cooperation, and consumer demand. In a counter-intuitive finding, the same study provides evidence that firms with more limited financial resources are also more likely to adopt ecological packaging, as they are motivated by the potential for cost and resource efficiencies. The study further notes that the positive effect of customer demand is weakened in highly competitive markets.	[111]
11	Environmental analysis of returnable packaging systems in different eCommerce business and packaging management models	Empirical—Case study	E-commerce	Packaging	When return logistics are effective and reuse rates are high, returnable systems can drastically cut down on emissions and resource consumption. Variables like return rates, cleaning procedures, and transportation distance have a significant impact on environmental benefits. Maximising sustainability results requires optimising user compliance and logistics.	[107]

explore 11 articles centred on sustainable packaging alone, across industries other than FMCG and without a stakeholder engagement focus.

This structure allows for a clearer interpretation of thematic overlaps and sector-specific patterns across the literature, helping to identify both convergence and gaps in sustainable packaging research.

4.1.1. Sustainable Packaging and Stakeholder Engagement in the FMCG Sector

The research findings from the 22 selected studies focusing on the FMCG industry (Table A1) collectively underscore the critical role of sustainable packaging, revealing a complex interplay between consumer behaviour, packaging design, corporate strategy, and technical barriers.

A prominent theme is the increasing consumer demand for eco-friendly packaging, driven by growing environmental concerns, knowledge, and trust [8,64]. Studies across emerging markets in Vietnam, Malaysia, and India highlight how these factors significantly influence purchase decisions [64,65,66]. Consumers define eco-friendly packaging based on attributes like recyclability, biodegradability, and minimalism [6], and their attitudes and norms heavily impact their intention to reduce plastic use [67,68]. However, the perceived high cost of green alternatives remains a key barrier to adoption [9,65]. Furthermore, while consumers may practice packaging-saving for environmental or cost reasons, convenience often presents a significant obstacle [67]. Across the literature, comprehensive consumer education is identified as critical for fostering a broader acceptance of sustainable options [8,69].

In response to consumer pressure, innovation in packaging design and strategy is a central theme [70]. Studies show that distinctive and innovative green packaging designs positively influence consumer acceptance [1,65,71], while visual and symbolic (semiotic) elements are crucial for building brand trust and influencing purchase intentions [72]. Minimalist packaging, for instance, has been found to enhance “green trust” by communicating simplicity and a reduced environmental footprint [73]. Concurrently, circular business models, particularly those involving reusable packaging, are identified as a key strategy with significant environmental benefits [7]. However, their success hinges on strategic partnerships and deep consumer involvement [74]. Despite these innovations, research indicates that corporations often prioritise recycling over more impactful strategies like reduction and reuse [14].

The literature also highlights persistent challenges and technical barriers. A significant obstacle is the difficulty in recycling complex materials, such as multi-material multilayer plastics, which are common in the FMCG sector [46]. Lifecycle assessments (LCAs) are emphasised as essential tools for evaluating the true environmental impact of packaging, particularly for items like cosmetics where both reusability and recyclability must be considered [2]. In the UK, technical challenges and aesthetic concerns were identified as barriers to a circular economy for plastics, while regulatory support and consumer awareness were seen as key enablers [75]. Experts confirm that the high costs associated with sustainable alternatives and logistical complexities are major hurdles that hinder the elimination of conventional plastic packaging [9].

4.1.2. Involvement of Stakeholders in Sustainable Packaging

The 30 studies detailed in Table A2 emphasise the crucial role of stakeholder engagement in advancing sustainable packaging across various industries related to FMCG, including food and beverage, e-commerce, and packaging. A recurring theme is the need for effective multi-stakeholder collaboration and communication to bridge the gap between perceived and actual environmental benefits of packaging [5,27,76,77,78]. Providing clear information on benefits, such as CO₂ reduction, significantly influences consumer choice for reusable options [79].

Several studies explore the psychological and emotional drivers behind consumer decisions. Emotional claims can be highly persuasive [80], and visual design elements like colour, imagery, and eco-labels heavily influence consumers’ green perceptions and purchase intentions [81,82,83,84,85]. However, this can also lead to consumer biases, such as perceiving packaging with paper components as more eco-friendly regardless of its actual composition [86], highlighting the need for transparent communication strategies, credible eco-labels, and further consumer education [87,88,89,90,91].

Consumer trust and loyalty are also critical. In online retail, consumer motives are often driven by both personal gain and social norms [92]. While practices like packaging-free retail can enhance brand image and customer satisfaction [93], consumer resistance to reusable takeaway packaging can occur if it shows visible signs of prior use [94]. For reusable systems to succeed, they must be designed around consumer preferences for convenience, hygiene, ease of return, and experiential value [95,96].

The literature also identifies significant barriers to the widespread adoption of sustainable packaging. These include governance challenges, such as reactive policies that prioritise recycling over reduction and the insufficiency of voluntary corporate initiatives [77,97]. Economic constraints are a major hurdle, as consumers are often unwilling to pay a price premium for sustainable options [98,99]. Furthermore, even with government mandates for reusable packaging, adoption is constrained by behavioural, financial, and logistical issues, with consumers frequently prioritising convenience over sustainability [100]. For businesses to successfully implement sustainable packaging and gain a competitive edge, they must develop core competencies in sustainable development, product stewardship, and pollution prevention [101]. Foundational tools like lifecycle assessments (LCAs) remain essential for ensuring that packaging choices align with genuine sustainability goals [76,102,103].

4.1.3. General Trends and Themes in Sustainable Packaging

The 11 articles detailed in Table A3 provide an in-depth exploration of trends and themes in sustainable packaging across various industries beyond FMCG. A major focus is on integrating circular economy principles into packaging design and supply chain management, with an emphasis on reducing environmental impact through lifecycle assessments (LCA) and adopting eco-friendly materials [104,105,106]. For instance, in e-commerce, returnable packaging systems can significantly reduce emissions, but their success is highly dependent on efficient return logistics and high reuse rates [10,107].

Several studies highlight the challenges associated with implementing sustainable packaging practices, particularly in the context of balancing economic, environmental, and social factors. The European packaging industry shows commitment to circular strategies but faces challenges with recyclability and material selection [108]. In the food and beverage sector, many companies avoid directly addressing plastic pollution in their reports, preferring neutral language over detailing actionable commitments [109]. This creates sustainability tensions between operations, recycling, and stakeholder relations, which require collaborative and innovative approaches to resolve [110].

The literature also identifies key drivers for adopting sustainable packaging. Key drivers include stringent environmental laws, internal cooperation, and consumer demand, while significant barriers often include the pressure of strong market competition [111]. Ultimately, the transition to sustainable packaging is a complex issue requiring integrated technological and societal changes that account for the co-evolution of materials and society [112,113].

4.2. Insights from Sustainability (ESG) Reporting

The sustainability reports analysed in this study are public disclosures of the selected FMCG entities and packaging manufacturers. These reports serve as an essential window into how companies take accountability for the sustainability of their packaging products, by uncovering the strategies, initiatives, and global standards employed to uphold it, as well as their real-world practices that demonstrate commitments to ecological integrity, ethical stewardship, and compliance with international regulations; these are the essential steps toward answering the research questions of this study. The indicators, divided into environmental, social, and governance categories, are vital in measuring the company’s commitment and efforts towards sustainability; these categories encompass aspects related to environmental impacts, employee relationships within an organisation’s workforce or its local community of operations, and quality governance structures/processes, etc. Reporting indicators across these dimensions allows a complete assessment of an organisation’s sustainability efforts.

Analysis of E, S, and G Indicators

Environmental Indicators. The FMCG and packaging industries use various environmental indicators to assess sustainability (

Table 3. Most prevalent environmental indicators in the sustainability reports of discussed companies for the year 2022–2023.

		DS Smith	Tetra Pak	Mondi	Stora Enso	Smurfit Kappa	Amcor	Coca-Cola	Unilever	Reckitt Benckiser	Danone	Nestle	Total
Environmental Indicators	Sub-Parameters
GHG Emissions	Combined		✓	✓			✓	✓		✓		✓	6
	Packaging	✓								✓	✓		3
	Paper	✓		✓									2
	Recycling	✓											1
	Employees			✓						✓			2
	Manufacturing			✓				✓	✓	✓	✓		5
	Carbon Footprint				✓					✓		✓	3
	Logistics & Transportation							✓	✓	✓	✓		4
	Indirect (by purchases)						✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	5
Energy & Fuel	Energy	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓			✓	8
	Fuel	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓					6
	Renewables	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	9
	Emissions to air	✓					✓		✓				3
	Net energy consumption	✓					✓	✓					3
	Energy generation	✓			✓								2
	Electricity		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓				✓	✓	7
	Non-renewables			✓		✓	✓		✓				4
	Energy Stewardship				✓								1
	Green Electricity								✓				1
Water	Withdrawals	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	10
	Discharges	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	10
	Consumption		✓	✓	✓			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	8
	Emissions to Water			✓	✓								2
	Water footprint			✓						✓			2
	Water Stewardship							✓	✓		✓	✓	4
Waste	Waste to landfill	✓		✓		✓	✓		✓	✓			6
	Hazardous waste			✓		✓	✓		✓	✓		✓	6
	Non-hazardous waste			✓		✓			✓			✓	4
	Total debris			✓									1
	Total solid waste			✓		✓	✓						3
	Waste to Recycling						✓		✓	✓			3
	Waste to Incineration						✓						1
	Waste to Compost						✓						1
	Total Waste Recovered							✓	✓		✓		3
	Total Waste Generated							✓	✓	✓	✓		4
	Total waste reused								✓	✓			2
	Total waste disposed							✓	✓				2
	Food Waste								✓		✓		2
Material	Raw material inputs	✓											1
	Production outputs	✓											1
Forest Related				✓	✓	✓					✓	✓	5
Air	Air emissions			✓	✓	✓							3
Environmental compliance	Environmental Incidents/complaints			✓	✓	✓		✓	✓				5
Biodiversity					✓	✓		✓		✓		✓	5
Circularity					✓	✓						✓	3
Packaging								✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	5
Climate						✓		✓		✓			3
Regenerative Agriculture								✓			✓	✓	3
		13	7	21	15	16	17	20	22	19	15	17

). Common indicators such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy and fuel usage, and water and waste metrics are crucial for understanding a company’s environmental impact. GHG emissions encompass both direct emissions from operations and indirect emissions from the value chain, offering a comprehensive view of a company’s contribution to climate change. The energy and fuel usage indicator, covering both renewable and non-renewable sources, reflects the company’s energy efficiency and reliance on fossil fuels. The water and waste metric tracks resource consumption and waste management practices, highlighting the company’s efficiency and impact on global waste issues. Rare indicators, though less frequently reported, also play a significant role. The climate indicator, which includes overall climate impact, carbon footprint, and emission reduction efforts, often overlaps with GHG emissions and energy usage, resulting in less frequent separate reporting. Regenerative agriculture, focusing on sustainable farming practices, assesses a company’s commitment to environmentally responsible supply chain management, though it is rarely reported. A major concern is the inconsistency in reporting key sustainability metrics, with companies like Smurfit Kappa and Reckitt Benckiser showing gaps in essential data such as GHG emissions or energy usage.

Social Indicators. Social indicators (

Table 4. Most prevalent social indicators in the sustainability reports of discussed companies for the year 2022–2023.

		DS Smith	Tetra Pak	Mondi	Stora Enso	Smurfit Kappa	Amcor	Coca-Cola	Unilever	Reckitt Benckiser	Danone	Nestle	Total
Social Indicators	Sub-Parameters
Employees	Employee demographics
	Gender	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	11
	Type of Contract	✓	✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	✓	7
	Turnover	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓		9
	Age	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		10
	Designation	✓	✓	✓		✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	9
	Gender Pay Gap	✓			✓						✓		3
	Regional		✓		✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	8
	Race						✓	✓				✓	3
	Disability										✓	✓	2
	Employee Engagement								✓				1
Health & Safety	Employees (Incidents, Losses)	✓		✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	9
	Contractors (Incidents, Losses)	✓		✓		✓			✓	✓			5
	Employee Assistance Program							✓			✓	✓	3
	Safety Audits							✓			✓	✓	3
Talent Development	Training & Development	✓		✓	✓		✓				✓	✓	6
	Programs & Scholarships						✓					✓	2
Human Rights					✓			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	6
Community Development	Time Investment				✓				✓		✓		3
	Monetary Investment				✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓		6
	Social Projects, Investments & Impacts					✓		✓			✓	✓	4
Sustainable Sourcing	Suppliers Audit				✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	7
	Supplier contract termination/non-renewal				✓								1
	Ingredients					✓		✓	✓		✓	✓	5
	Relationship with suppliers										✓	✓	2
	Traceability					✓		✓			✓	✓	4
Business Ethics	Compliance (Employee & Contractors Training)				✓			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	6
	Code of Conduct (Employee & Contractors Training)				✓			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	6
	Data Privacy (Employee & Contractors Training)				✓			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	6
Non-Compliance Issues	Anti-trust				✓							✓	2
	Conflict of interest				✓							✓	2
	Corruption				✓			✓				✓	3
	Fraud				✓						✓	✓	3
	Discrimination, harassment and/or bullying				✓			✓			✓	✓	4
	Working conditions				✓						✓	✓	3
	Health and safety				✓			✓			✓	✓	4
	Other				✓						✓	✓	3
	Child Labour							✓			✓	✓	3
Security	Employee Security										✓		1
	Site Security										✓		1
Food Safety & Quality	Certifications								✓		✓	✓	3
	Site Audits							✓	✓		✓	✓	4
	Reporting health & nutrition indicators										✓	✓	2
	products sold in healthy categories										✓	✓	2
	Nutritional labeling							✓			✓	✓	3
Occupational safety	Incidents and non-compliances			✓					✓				2
		9	6	9	23	12	7	23	19	14	36	34

) play a vital role in measuring how organisations impact employees, customers, suppliers, and the communities they operate in—these may cover topics like labour practices, human rights violations, community engagement programs, or product responsibility measures reported by companies—to indicate their commitment to social responsibility, as well as any efforts undertaken towards creating positive change within society. The analysis of social indicators for FMCG and packaging manufacturers reveals key metrics crucial for evaluating social responsibility, including employees, health and safety, talent development, community development, and human rights. The employees’ indicator encompasses employee satisfaction, diversity, benefits, and labour relations, reflecting a company’s dedication to a supportive and productive work environment. Health and safety measures commitment to the well-being of employees, suppliers, and contractors through policies, accident prevention, and health initiatives, essential for maintaining a social license to operate. Talent development assesses efforts in skill and career development, including training, advancement initiatives, and talent retention, key for staying competitive. Community development evaluates contributions to local communities through engagement activities, support, volunteer work, and donations, enhancing societal impact and stakeholder relationships. The human rights indicator tracks actions to respect and promote human rights in operations and supply chains, including policies and abuse prevention, crucial for protecting a company’s reputation. The reporting of these indicators varies among companies, with some integrating metrics like human rights into other categories, while others maintain separate sections. For instance, Danone reports approximately 23 social indicators, though not all are universally relevant for other companies.

Governance Indicators. The analysis of 11 sustainability reports in the FMCG and packaging sector highlights key governance indicators (refer to

Table 5. Most prevalent governance indicators in the sustainability reports of discussed companies for the year 2022–2023.

		DS Smith	Tetra Pak	Mondi	Stora Enso	Smurfit Kappa	Amcor	Coca-Cola	Unilever	Reckitt Benckiser	Danone	Nestle	Total
Governance Indicators	Sub-Parameters
Board leadership	Structure	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	10
	Composition	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	11
	Division of responsibilities	✓	✓	✓	✓			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	9
Corporate Governance Statement/Purpose		✓	✓	✓		✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	9
Audit, risk and internal control		✓	✓	✓	✓		✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	9
Financial	Remuneration	✓			✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	8
	Revenue	✓			✓	✓		✓		✓	✓	✓	7
	Tax				✓	✓				✓			3
Policies and Procedures			✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	9
Corporate Compliance		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	11
Stakeholder Engagement				✓	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	8
Shareholder Rights & Engagement		✓			✓				✓	✓	✓		5
		9	7	8	10	7	6	9	10	12	11	10

) essential for achieving sustainable practices and long-term success. Board leadership is essential in ESG governance, providing strategic direction, oversight, and accountability. These boards often comprise individuals with diverse ESG expertise, and dedicated committees frequently monitor ESG strategy implementation and performance. Corporate governance statements further emphasise a company’s commitment to responsible business practices and ESG governance, detailing the structures and processes that ensure accountability and transparency. Robust systems are also in place to manage ESG risks, with internal audits evaluating compliance with laws, regulations, and standards, all overseen by an audit committee. Financial practices are aligned with ESG goals to ensure the responsible and sustainable utilisation of funds, and companies typically disclose their ESG-related performance in annual reports.

Additionally, companies implement and regularly update policies addressing environmental protection, social responsibility, and ethical conduct, thereby keeping all stakeholders informed. Corporate compliance involves a commitment to adhering to ESG-related laws, regulations, and standards, with comprehensive training and guidance provided to employees. Active stakeholder engagement ensures that companies understand the expectations and concerns of shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, and communities regarding ESG matters. Respecting shareholder rights involves engaging them on ESG issues, providing accurate performance information, and involving them in significant ESG decisions.

4.3. Convergence of SDGs with Sustainable Packaging

The analysis of sustainability reports from 11 prominent packaging and FMCG companies, along with a systematic literature review of 63 scholarly articles, emphasises the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) and SDG 13 (climate action). These goals are central to shaping sustainable practices in the packaging and FMCG sectors, promoting eco-friendly methods, responsible production, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. SDG 12 focuses on waste reduction, renewable or recycled materials, and circular economies, while SDG 13 aims to minimise carbon footprints through renewable energy, efficient logistics, and recycling efforts. Out of the 11 companies studied, 10 explicitly highlighted their focus on the UN SDGs in their reports, demonstrating a strong commitment to global sustainability and transparency. Unilever did not explicitly mention the SDGs, likely indicating a communication gap rather than a lack of alignment. All 10 companies prioritised SDG 13 (climate action), acknowledging the urgent need to address climate change. Additionally, nine of these companies also emphasised SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), underscoring their dedication to reducing ecological footprints and fostering a sustainable global economy. The systematic literature review of the scholarly articles revealed varied discussions on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 12, which focuses on responsible consumption and production. There has been an emphasis on how sustainable packaging contributes to reducing environmental impacts and promoting sustainable consumer behaviours, aligning with the objectives of SDG 12 [7,81]. Similarly, the authors of [104] highlight the necessity of integrating lifecycle assessments in packaging to enhance sustainability. The work in [65] addresses multiple SDGs, including SDG 9 (innovation and infrastructure), SDG 12, and SDG 14 (life below water), discussing the broader impact of sustainable packaging on innovation and environmental conservation.

5. Discussion and Recommendations

5.1. Interpreting the Key Themes in Sustainable Packaging Literature

The findings from the systematic literature review reveal a complex and often contradictory landscape for sustainable packaging. While there is a clear momentum towards sustainability, the transition is fraught with challenges related to stakeholder alignment, consumer behaviour, and systemic barriers. This discussion synthesises and analyses the key themes emerging from the findings to provide a deeper understanding of the underlying dynamics and their theoretical implications.

A central theme is the consumer paradox: a significant gap exists between consumer’s stated pro-environmental intentions and their actual purchasing behaviour. Across FMCG and related sectors, consumers express a strong preference for sustainable packaging, driven by environmental concerns and a desire for brand trust [8,64,81]. This preference is heavily influenced by visual and emotional cues, where minimalist designs or green colouring can enhance “green trust” and influence purchase decisions [73,83,114]. However, this positive sentiment often fails to translate into action when faced with practical barriers. The unwillingness to pay a price premium remains a major economic hurdle [9,65,98,99], and convenience consistently outweighs sustainability goals, especially when reusable systems require extra effort from the consumer [100,115]. This well-documented “say-do” gap is not merely a consumer failing but a reflection of a system that has not yet made sustainability the most accessible choice. It suggests that corporate strategies that rely solely on appealing to consumer conscience are likely to be insufficient. Instead, effective change requires systemic interventions that lower the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour.

The findings challenge the notion that consumer demand is the primary lever for change, highlighting the need for a holistic, multi-stakeholder approach. While consumers are a powerful driver, effective governance and industry collaboration are essential enablers. The literature points to significant tensions between different stakeholders’ goals, such as when companies prioritise recycling over more impactful reduction and reuse strategies to meet reporting targets, or when they use neutral language to avoid making firm commitments on plastic pollution [14,109,110]. This behaviour can be interpreted through the lens of Institutional Theory, where firms adopt visible, easily justifiable practices (mimetic isomorphism) rather than more disruptive, transformative ones. From a Stakeholder Theory perspective, these actions reveal a tendency to prioritise the demands of regulators and shareholders over the broader environmental good. Successful transitions, therefore, require deep collaboration and shared accountability across the supply chain, from raw material suppliers to packaging manufacturers and retailers, to resolve these tensions and align stakeholder interests toward a common goal [27,74,110,111].

The analysis reveals significant systemic and technical barriers that impede progress, suggesting that the problem is more than the sum of its parts. Governance is often reactive, with policies that fail to drive transformative change beyond incremental recycling efforts [77,116]. From a technical standpoint, the difficulty of recycling complex multi-layered materials remains a major challenge for the circular economy [46]. While lifecycle assessments (LCAs) are identified as a critical tool for making informed decisions [2,104,105], their application is not yet universal, and their findings can sometimes conflict with consumer perceptions of what is “eco-friendly” [102]. These systemic issues spanning policy, technology, and economics indicate that sustainable packaging is not merely a design challenge but a complex systems problem. This necessitates integrated solutions that account for the co-evolution of materials and society [112] and bridge the gap between corporate sustainability reporting and on-the-ground environmental impact.

5.2. From Disclosure to Accountability: A Discussion on Corporate ESG Reporting Practices

The analysis of corporate sustainability reports from leading FMCG and packaging companies reveals a critical disconnect between the stated commitment to sustainability and the reality of inconsistent, non-standardised, and often opaque reporting practices. As a precursor to a detailed discussion,

Table 6. Summary of ESG indicators reported by selected companies.

		Environmental	Social	Governance
FMCG Companies
1	Coca-Cola	9	8	6
2	Unilever	8	8	8
3	Reckitt Benckiser	12	6	8
4	Danone	7	23	8
5	Nestle	9	9	7
Packaging Companies
1	DS Smith	5	3	6
2	Tetra Pak	3	1	5
3	Mondi	9	4	6
4	Stora Enso	8	7	6
5	Smurfit Kappa	9	4	5
6	Amcor	5	2	6

provides a quantitative summary of the number of unique environmental, social, and governance (ESG) indicators disclosed by each company.

While the adoption of ESG reporting signals a positive response to stakeholder pressure, a deeper look into the specific indicators discloses a landscape of strategic ambiguity. The data in Table 6 immediately highlights the significant variance in reporting depth, particularly within the social dimension, where a company like Danone reports a substantially higher number of indicators (23) compared to its peers. Conversely, governance indicators show more consistency across the board, suggesting a more standardised approach in that area. This quantitative overview sets the stage for a deeper critique of the patterns, gaps, and strategic ambiguities in corporate reporting across the packaging value chain. This discussion analyses the patterns and gaps in corporate reporting to critique the current state of transparency and accountability in the packaging value chain.

On the environmental front, the widespread reporting on metrics like GHG emissions, energy, and water consumption suggests these have become baseline expectations for corporate responsibility. Nearly all companies analysed report on these core indicators, likely driven by regulatory pressure and investor demand. However, this surface-level compliance masks significant inconsistencies. The fact that major players show gaps in reporting fundamental data, as noted in the findings, suggests that a standardised, mandatory framework is absent. This allows companies to selectively disclose favourable information while omitting data that might reveal a less positive performance. Furthermore, the analysis reveals a critical flaw in the system: the issue of “double reporting,” where both the FMCG brand and its packaging supplier report on the same materials, leading to distorted and unreliable aggregate data on packaging waste. This not only undermines the credibility of the reports but also obstructs any genuine attempt at creating a circular economy. This finding converges with the SLR analysis, which found that companies tend to prioritise recycling over more impactful strategies like reduction and reuse [14], indicating a preference for easily quantifiable, end-of-pipe solutions over a fundamental redesign of their production and consumption models.

The reporting on social indicators presents a similar paradox. While all companies report on employee-centric metrics like health, safety, and diversity, the scope of social responsibility appears to be interpreted very differently across the board. The heavy focus on internal, employee-related issues, while important, can also be seen as a narrow, risk-management approach to social responsibility. The significant variance in reporting on broader issues like human rights and community impact, with some companies providing extensive detail while others offer only cursory mentions, points to a lack of consensus on what constitutes meaningful social performance. This suggests that for many firms, the “S” in ESG is primarily an extension of human resources and compliance rather than a proactive engagement with the wider societal impacts of their operations.

The governance indicators reveal a strong emphasis on formal structures and processes. All companies report on board leadership and corporate compliance, demonstrating an awareness of the need for oversight. However, the presence of these structures does not automatically translate to substantive action or transparency. As noted in the literature, there is not always a direct correlation between having formal governance policies and producing high-quality sustainability disclosures [117]. The most significant governance failure identified is the profound lack of standardisation. Without common metrics and reporting formats, it is impossible for stakeholders, be they investors, consumers, or regulators, to make meaningful comparisons between companies. This ambiguity creates an environment where “greenwashing” can thrive, allowing companies to make aspirational statements that are not backed by verifiable, comparable data. This lack of accountability ultimately weakens the entire ESG reporting ecosystem and reinforces the central argument for a more robust framework like Shared Producer Responsibility (SPR), which would mandate transparency and distribute accountability across the value chain.

5.3. SDGs as a Framework for Sustainable Packaging

The widespread adoption of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a reporting framework, evidenced by both the corporate reports and the literature review, signals their emergence as a key benchmark for corporate legitimacy in the sustainability landscape. However, a critical analysis of how these goals are prioritised and operationalised reveals important tensions between corporate strategy and the holistic intent of the SDG agenda.

The findings clearly indicate a hierarchy in how companies engage with the SDGs. The near-unanimous focus on SDG 13 (climate action) across all reporting companies suggests that climate-related metrics, such as carbon emissions, have become a non-negotiable aspect of corporate sustainability. This is likely due to strong institutional pressures, including investor demand and established reporting frameworks like the TCFD, which make climate performance highly visible and relatively straightforward to quantify. In contrast, while SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) is also frequently cited, its application appears more complex and less uniformly addressed. SDG 12 calls for a fundamental shift in production and consumption patterns, including reduction and reuse, which challenges the core business models of many FMCG companies. The academic literature supports this, linking sustainable packaging directly to the principles of SDG 12 through concepts like lifecycle assessments [102] and the promotion of sustainable consumer behaviours [7,81]. The corporate focus on climate action over the more disruptive goal of responsible consumption may indicate a preference for addressing symptoms (emissions) rather than the root causes of unsustainable resource use.

The analysis highlights a potential gap between the broad scope of the SDGs as explored in academia and the narrower focus adopted in corporate practice. While corporate reports centre almost exclusively on SDGs 12 and 13, the literature review shows that academic research connects sustainable packaging to a wider array of goals, including SDG 9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure) and SDG 14 (life below water) [65]. This suggests that scholarly research is probing the deeper, systemic connections between packaging, innovation ecosystems, and biodiversity, while corporations may be concentrating on the most publicly recognisable and defensible goals.

The convergence on SDGs 12 and 13 is a positive step towards aligning business practices with global sustainability targets. However, the inconsistent application, the prioritisation of less disruptive goals, and the communication gap highlighted by a major firm not explicitly mentioning SDGs at all underscore the limitations of a voluntary framework.

5.4. Stakeholder Synergies and Transition to Sustainable Packaging

Transitioning to sustainable packaging in the FMCG sector involves a complex interplay of stakeholders, including FMCG companies, packaging manufacturers, regulatory bodies, and consumers. Each of these groups faces unique institutional pressures and plays a critical role in this process, making the leveraging of synergies among them essential for overcoming challenges more effectively. Long-term collaborative partnerships between manufacturers and retailers have been shown to enhance information flow, trust, and mutual goal alignment, factors essential for successful packaging transitions [118]. The systematic literature review (SLR) conducted reveals various trends regarding stakeholder involvement in sustainable packaging development in the FMCG sector. Key issues identified include a lack of coordination, consumer awareness, and collaboration challenges within the supply chain. Stakeholder Theory is instrumental in dissecting these challenges and paving the way for improved performance. Stakeholder Management, crucial in this transition, entails identifying, analysing, and engaging strategically with various stakeholders [25]. FMCG companies must involve all key stakeholders, addressing normative, coercive, or mimetic pressures effectively [28]. The environmental impacts of packaging, especially in the online retail segment of FMCG, are substantial, with issues ranging from carbon emissions to waste disposal challenges [77,119]. Stakeholder Management theory emphasises the need for businesses to consider the environmental footprint of their products and packaging, involving all stakeholders in decision-making [25]. Different stakeholders exert varying influences on corporate environmental strategies and green innovation, as alluded to in the study of [120]. Internal and consumer pressures drive environmental strategies and green product innovation, while regulatory pressures are more linked with environmental process innovation [121,122]. Successfully navigating these pressures, categorised as normative, coercive, and mimetic in Institutional Theory [28] is key to shifting towards more sustainable packaging.

5.5. Gaps and Issues Identified from the Data

The SLR and sustainability reports’ evaluation has helped in understanding the relevant literature and reporting of sustainable packaging in the FMCG sector and the involvement of stakeholders in it. This evaluation has led to the identification of certain gaps in the research, as well as issues with the reporting structure, and they have been highlighted in this section. The primary focus of the academic literature has been on consumers, with limited discussion of other stakeholders. Research on theories and strategies related to stakeholder involvement in sustainable packaging within the FMCG segment is scarce. Additionally, there is a lack of focus on developing new packaging, promoting the circular economy, and eliminating packaging. While much of the literature discusses packaging sustainability in general terms, very few studies explicitly distinguish between different levels of packaging—particularly “primary packaging”, which refers to the material that directly encloses the product and reaches the end-user. This lack of segmentation limits the ability to assess and compare the specific sustainability impacts of various packaging types. In terms of gaps identified from the analysis of the sustainability (ESG) reports, there is a lack of synchronisation between the reporting practices of packaging companies and FMCG companies. FMCG companies typically design their packaging but rely on packaging companies for manufacturing, resulting in double reporting for the same packaging material. Both the packaging manufacturer and the FMCG company include this material in their sustainability reports, leading to inaccurate data on packaging waste and its environmental impact. Additionally, governance indicators vary widely, with many companies generalising their reports and not accurately representing facts. Some companies only focus on employee demographics as part of their social obligations, with limited mention of their broader social impact. The absence of standardisation in reporting formats and indicators further complicates comparison and analysis.

5.6. Suggestions and Recommendations

Based on the gaps identified and extending the discussion from the previous sections, the following suggestions and recommendations can help in shaping the future of sustainable packaging in the FMCG industry and improve reporting practices.

5.6.1. A Conceptual Framework for Accelerated Transition Towards Sustainable Packaging

The transition to sustainable packaging is often hindered by fragmented efforts, where stakeholders implement valuable strategies in isolation, thereby limiting their overall impact. This conceptual framework addresses this gap by synthesising six widely recognised strategies into a unified, synergistic model designed to accelerate progress. The primary scientific contribution of this framework is not the introduction of novel strategies, but rather its emphasis on their integrated and concurrent implementation.

The model posits that the true potential for a rapid transition lies in the powerful feedback loops created when these strategies are coordinated. For example, consumer education [b] becomes more effective when reinforced by clear labelling and certification [c], while both are significantly strengthened by consistent regulatory standards [e] and incentives [d] that align market behaviour with sustainability goals. By illustrating these interdependencies, the framework provides a structured, holistic roadmap for systemic change. It moves beyond isolated actions to propose a collaborative architecture, offering a practical pathway for implementing the principles of Shared Producer Responsibility (SPR) across the entire packaging ecosystem.

• Collaborative Product Design—FMCG companies and packaging manufacturers should work collaboratively on product design for FMCG companies to create environmentally friendly, cost-effective designs that satisfy consumer demands while at the same time engaging stakeholders in decision-making processes and sharing knowledge to address stakeholder pressure [27]. As one example of cooperation, packaging manufacturers could work alongside FMCG firms to produce packaging made of recycled material to reduce environmental impacts while meeting company packaging requirements [27].
• Consumer Education and Engagement—Educating and engaging consumers about the environmental effects of packaging materials and benefits of sustainable packaging can drive demand for it and convince FMCG companies and packaging manufacturers to adopt sustainable packaging solutions [123]. An FMCG company could launch an advertising campaign about its new sustainable packaging, not just print it on the packaging while encouraging customers to recycle it.
• Clear Labelling and Certification—Labelling and certification of sustainable packaging materials can assist consumers in making informed choices while driving demand for eco-friendly alternatives [123]. A packaging manufacturer could obtain certification of its sustainable materials from an official certification body; an FMCG company might clearly label its products as packaged with certified sustainable material packaging.
• Incentives for Sustainable Packaging—Regulators should incentivise FMCG companies and packaging manufacturers who implement sustainable packaging practices, including tax breaks, grants, or subsidies. A government could, for instance, grant tax breaks to companies who utilise at least 51% recycled content in their packaging products.
• Regulations and Standards—Regulators must implement and enforce regulations and standards related to sustainable packaging, including requirements for using recyclable or recovered materials in packaging, restricting their usage or providing guidance as to its environmental footprint. For instance, governments could make regulations mandating that all packaging be either recyclable or compostable by a certain date (for instance, an ordinance passed by local council could create such requirements).
• Supply Chain Collaboration—FMCG companies, packaging manufacturers, and other stakeholders in their supply chains should work collaboratively to promote sustainable packaging materials and practices. This involves sharing knowledge and best practices; working to reduce environmental impacts associated with packaging; and investing jointly in research and development of sustainable packaging solutions [27]. For instance, an FMCG could collaborate with its suppliers to establish an automated collection and recycling system of old packaging material (e.g., an FMCG could create an FMCG company–supplier partnership), etc.

As illustrated in Figure 5, the six strategies are positioned as interrelated components that collectively influence the rate and effectiveness of sustainable packaging adoption. While many of these practices are already in use across industries, they are typically applied in isolation. The framework underscores the importance of integrated action, highlighting how a coordinated approach can enhance scalability, stakeholder accountability, and long-term impact in the FMCG packaging ecosystem.

5.6.2. Suggestions on Reporting Practices

a.

Combined Reporting

FMCG companies and packaging manufacturers should establish a standard reporting practice wherein they are partnering and disclosing information about each piece of packaging in a unified manner. Packaging companies can list their consumers and their consumption in their reports and FMCG companies should clearly report their suppliers. This will help in establishing a circular-economy-like model for every packaging product that is manufactured. This will also help in establishing increased producer responsibilities and the public consumer will be aware of the entire lifecycle of the product [124].

b.

Standardised Reporting Structure

Reporting standard guidelines should be established by institutions like GRI, ISO, and government bodies. This will create transparency, easy accessibility, and understanding for the end-users/customers.

Sustainability reports should incorporate SDGs and the quantitative data related to their workings toward achieving these goals. Currently, most of the reports only mention the theory behind these goals and how they are planning to achieve them, but not specific quantitative data to verify or measure the progress.

5.6.3. Shared Producer Responsibility

To illustrate the current gap in responsibility and the complex supply chain, consider a consumer who orders toothpaste from a major e-commerce website. The product arrives in a tertiary shipping box, often with filler material. Inside is the secondary carton, which provides branding, and finally the primary toothpaste tube itself. Upon receipt, the consumer becomes the final manager of three distinct waste streams: the shipping box is typically flattened for recycling, the secondary carton is discarded, and the primary tube is disposed of after use. In this common scenario, decisions about the packaging have been made by multiple, siloed actors: the e-commerce platform chose the tertiary packaging for logistics, while a specialised packaging manufacturer designed the primary and secondary layers with a focus on material cost and brand appeal. However, under Europe’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework, the legal and financial obligation for all these layers rests almost entirely with the FMCG company that placed the product on the market [125,126], that is, the brand owner. This creates a structural disconnect: the e-commerce company, the packaging expert, and the end-consumer who handles disposal are all insulated from the direct regulatory consequences. The brand owner alone bears the full burden, despite this fragmented control over the packaging ecosystem [127].

The traditional Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) model, as originally conceptualised by [128], places this primary responsibility for the post-consumer phase of a product’s lifecycle on the producer. While this approach has been instrumental in increasing recycling rates and shifting waste burdens away from public municipalities [129,130], it often overlooks the distributed nature of modern supply chains, as highlighted in the example above.

Shared Producer Responsibility (SPR) is presented in this study as a necessary evolution of the widely adopted Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) model. SPR can be defined as a collaborative policy framework in which responsibility for the environmental impacts of packaging is proportionally distributed across all major stakeholders in the packaging value chain that includes packaging manufacturers, FMCG companies, regulators, and even consumers, and not being assigned solely to the end-brand owner. This shared model promotes the transparency, accountability, and coordination needed to reflect the operational interdependence of the modern value chain [126,131].

This approach is grounded in the “polluter pays” principle, as well as in lifecycle thinking, which emphasises environmental responsibility throughout the full material flow, from production and use to post-consumer recovery and recycling [132,133]. The model finds early precedent in EU directives such as WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) and ELVs (End-of-Life Vehicles), which outline shared roles between producers, manufacturers, and recovery agencies [133,134]. Though these policies do not label themselves explicitly as SPR, the underlying structure mirrors its principles.

It is important to note that while the terminology “Shared Producer Responsibility” is relatively recent, the underlying principles have long existed in various policy and regulatory frameworks under different names and scopes. The present study brings together these distributed ideas into a coherent conceptual model specific to sustainable packaging [128,129,132,133].

SPR can generate tangible value for packaging sustainability in the FMCG sector in several critical areas:

• Shared Knowledge and Technological Innovation—FMCG firms bring a deep understanding of consumer behaviour and market conditions, while packaging manufacturers possess technical expertise in materials science and circular design. Joint responsibility under SPR creates the collaborative governance structure needed to merge these knowledge domains. This synergy is critical for developing and scaling complex technologies such as advanced chemical recycling, compostable bioplastics, or smart packaging embedded with IoT sensors for traceability. The shared financial and operational responsibility incentivises joint investment in these capital-intensive technologies, which might be too risky for a single entity to pursue alone, thereby aligning with SDG 9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure) and SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production).
• Cost Sharing for Systemic Feasibility—Sustainable packaging implementation is often hindered by significant cost burdens. A distributed cost-sharing model, in which both FMCG companies and packaging suppliers share financial responsibility for recycling infrastructure, EPR compliance fees, and R&D for circular design, makes the adoption of advanced solutions more feasible. By aligning financial incentives and spreading costs, SPR reduces resistance and supports the long-term operational planning required for systemic change. Governments, in turn, can facilitate this through ESG-aligned incentives such as green tax credits or recovery subsidies.
• Enhanced Lifecycle Tracking through Data Analytics—SPR strengthens environmental reporting by creating a clear incentive for data transparency and traceability. Joint accountability necessitates investment in advanced data analytics, IoT, and blockchain technologies to track materials, emissions, and consumer disposal behaviour in real time. This moves beyond static annual ESG disclosures to dynamic, verifiable data streams that can support predictive models for waste management and meet the rigorous transparency requirements of frameworks like GRI, SASB, and TCFD more accurately.
• Driving Behavioural Change through Coordinated Engagement—The “say-do” gap in consumer behaviour is a major barrier to sustainability. SPR provides a framework for stakeholders to move beyond isolated marketing campaigns and jointly fund and execute coordinated educational initiatives informed by behavioural science. By sharing responsibility, companies, regulators, and retailers can co-design programs that use nudges, incentives, and clear communication to foster durable habits around reuse, proper sorting, and waste reduction, making sustainable choices easier and more intuitive for consumers to adopt.
• Policy Alignment and True Circularity—SPR complements evolving policy directions where producer obligations are increasingly split among actors in the supply chain, as seen in the UK’s Producer Responsibility Obligations [135] and schemes in Germany [129] and Sweden [136]. More importantly, it provides the governance architecture needed to achieve true circularity. By fostering collaboration from the design phase through to end-of-life, SPR helps to operationalise circular principles like designing out waste and keeping materials in use at their highest value, moving beyond the linear focus of traditional EPR schemes.
• Risk Mitigation and Systems Integration—Shared accountability also spreads reputational and compliance risks across stakeholders, reducing the vulnerability of any single entity to public or regulatory backlash. Moreover, it facilitates the integration of complex reverse logistics systems and closed-loop recycling, which are critical components of the circular economy transition. When responsibility is shared, infrastructure investments and behaviour change campaigns can be coordinated, scalable, and strategically targeted for maximum impact.

While Shared Producer Responsibility offers a compelling pathway to sustainable packaging, its success depends on clearly defined roles, balanced obligations, and robust monitoring systems to prevent diffusion of accountability. If poorly designed, SPR could lead to inefficiencies or “blame shifting” rather than genuine collaboration. Therefore, the framework must be implemented through supportive policy instruments, stakeholder engagement, and outcome-based performance tracking.

As the packaging industry continues to evolve in response to environmental, regulatory, and consumer pressures, SPR presents an opportunity to reframe responsibility in a way that is equitable, actionable, and aligned with ESG and SDG goals. This model is not a replacement for EPR but rather an enhancement, providing the structural and ethical scaffolding necessary for collective progress in packaging sustainability.

6. Conclusions

This study investigated the complex landscape of sustainable packaging within the FMCG sector, focusing on the convergence of stakeholder engagement, ESG reporting, and the SDGs. The dual analysis of the academic literature and corporate sustainability reports revealed significant systemic challenges, including a persistent gap between consumers’ pro-environmental attitudes and their purchasing behaviours, and a corporate tendency to favour incremental, end-of-pipe solutions like recycling over more transformative strategies of reduction and reuse. Furthermore, the analysis of ESG disclosures highlighted a critical lack of standardisation and transparency, which hinders accountability and allows for “greenwashing”. In response to these findings, this paper advocates for the concept of Shared Producer Responsibility (SPR) and puts forward a conceptual framework to accelerate a more equitable and effective transition to sustainable packaging.

6.1. Contributions of the Study

This research offers several distinct contributions to theory, methodology, practice, and policy.

• Theoretical Contribution: The primary theoretical contribution is the articulation and positioning of Shared Producer Responsibility (SPR) as a necessary evolution of the traditional EPR model. By empirically demonstrating the structural disconnect between the actors with technical control (packaging manufacturers) and those with legal responsibility (FMCG brands), this paper provides a clear rationale for a more distributed accountability framework. The study further contributes by proposing a conceptual framework that synthesises six key strategies into a unified, synergistic model. The novelty of this framework lies not in the individual strategies themselves, but in its emphasis on their integrated application, which illustrates a practical pathway for implementing SPR and achieving systemic change.
• Methodological Contribution: The study’s dual approach of combining a systematic literature review with an analysis of corporate ESG reports provides a unique contribution by bridging academic theory with real-world corporate practice. This integrated method allowed for a more nuanced analysis, revealing the gap between the challenges discussed in the literature and the on-the-ground reporting behaviours of leading firms.
• Practical Contribution: From a practical standpoint, the conceptual framework offers a clear roadmap for managers aiming to accelerate the transition to sustainable packaging. The analysis of ESG reporting inconsistencies provides tangible evidence of the need for standardised reporting practices, a key recommendation for industry associations. Finally, the SPR model provides a blueprint for companies to engage in more effective, collaborative partnerships across the value chain.
• Policy Contribution: This study offers a significant contribution to environmental policy by proposing the SPR model as a concrete and actionable alternative to traditional EPR frameworks. By highlighting the systemic flaws that arise from misaligned responsibility in the current system, this paper provides policymakers with a clear rationale for regulatory reform. The conceptual framework serves as a practical tool for designing integrated policy mixes that combine regulations, incentives, and consumer-facing initiatives to create a more coherent and effective governance system for sustainable packaging.

6.2. Limitations of the Study

The conclusions of this study should be considered in light of its limitations. The analysis of corporate reports was based on a purposive sample of eleven leading companies; while they are significant players, their practices may not be representative of the entire FMCG and packaging industries, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. The proposed conceptual framework and the SPR model are, by nature, theoretical. Their real-world efficacy and implementation challenges require empirical validation. Finally, as with any systematic review, the findings are constrained by the scope and timeframe of the included literature.

6.3. Future Research Agenda

The findings and limitations of this study open several promising avenues for future research. A key priority is the empirical testing and validation of the Shared Producer Responsibility (SPR) model.

Future research should explore the governance and implementation of SPR through qualitative case studies. The SPR model is, in essence, a form of cross-sector partnership (CSP). Building on recent work on how CSPs achieve transformative innovation, research could investigate the process pathways that SPR initiatives follow, using frameworks like the one proposed by Margolis (2024) [137] to understand how they can move beyond consolidating knowledge to pioneering and adapting novel solutions. This would help in understanding the relational dynamics and power structures that enable or hinder shared accountability.

The economic and environmental viability of different SPR models could be tested using quantitative and simulation-based methodologies. For example, researchers could apply simulation modelling, similar to the approach used by Clement and Spinler (2025) [138] for returnable e-commerce packaging, to assess the cost-sharing mechanisms and logistical implications of SPR. This would allow for the modelling of different scenarios to identify the most efficient and ecologically sound configurations for specific value chains.

A deeper investigation into the role of the consumer within an SPR framework is needed. This study confirmed the “consumer paradox”, but SPR creates new opportunities for engagement. Future research could explore how shared responsibility messaging impacts consumer trust and purchase decisions, extending the work on green branding by researchers like Baca and Reshidi (2025) [139]. Furthermore, the issue of consumer confusion from lookalike labels, as identified by Schoemann et al. (2025) [140], could be examined. Research could test whether an SPR framework that mandates standardised, clear labelling could mitigate such confusion and enhance consumer participation in the circular economy, a concept explored in emerging markets by Ram et al. (2025) [141].

The technological dimension of SPR also warrants further exploration. The transition to sustainable packaging is often hindered by challenges in technology transfer between high-tech and low-tech firms, as highlighted by Simms and Frishammar (2024) [142]. Future research could investigate how the collaborative structure of SPR can serve as a mechanism to overcome these barriers, facilitating the joint development and adoption of advanced materials and recycling technologies. Finally, as the field of sustainable packaging is vast and interdisciplinary, future work should continue to explore the applicability of the SPR model in different geographic and economic contexts to ensure its global relevance.