Barriers to Mainstream Adoption of Circular Packaging in Indonesia

Abstract

Achieving the mainstream adoption of circular packaging is essential for mitigating the environmental impacts of plastic waste. Its widespread adoption, however, remains hindered by significant user barriers. This study investigates the barriers to user adoption of upstream packaging solutions in Indonesia with the aim of reducing plastic packaging waste. Through a mixed-methods approach including case studies, expert workshops, and focus group discussions, nine key barriers were identified and analysed. These include inconvenience, resistance to changing habits and behaviours, higher costs and deposit schemes, contamination and hygiene concerns, wear and tear, functional and performance limitations, a lack of awareness about the environmental impacts, limited availability and variety, and a lack of trust. This research advances the literature by offering a detailed analysis of these barriers, categorising them into sociocultural, economic, contextual, and regulatory aspects. Additionally, barriers specific to Indonesia were identified such as a shift from being served to self-service refilling, some people not having smartphones, poor cellular signals in rural areas, a preference for plastic packaging due to its resale value, and a preference for cash payments due to limited access to credit or bank cards. The findings highlight the need for tailored, multidisciplinary strategies to overcome these barriers and promote the adoption of circular packaging solutions. This research provides valuable insights for researchers studying circular design, businesses seeking to innovate upstream packaging solutions, and policymakers aiming to develop regulations that support the adoption of circular packaging practices.

1. Introduction

Plastic, valued for its light weight, affordability, and durability, is extensively used in consumer products worldwide [1]. Alarmingly, nearly a third of all plastics produced are intended for single use [2], destined to become waste. This growing accumulation of plastic waste poses serious threats to human health [3,4] and ecosystems globally [5,6]. Specifically, the growing accumulation of plastic waste contributes to the release of toxic chemicals and microplastics into the environment, which can enter the human body through food, water, and air, posing risks to the immune, reproductive, and endocrine systems. In ecosystems, plastic debris harms marine and terrestrial wildlife through ingestion, entanglement, and habitat disruption, ultimately threatening biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. Indonesia has emerged as a major contributor to global plastic pollution [7,8,9]. Factors such as high population densities in coastal areas and limited, inefficient waste management services have been identified as the primary drivers of the country’s significant plastic emissions [8,10]. Addressing Indonesia’s plastic pollution problem offers a critical opportunity to reduce global plastic emissions, particularly to the oceans.

This research is part of an interdisciplinary research initiative conducted by the Plastics in Indonesian Societies (PISCES) Partnership (www.piscespartnership.org) and is supported by UKRI through the Global Challenges Research Fund running from 2021 to 2025. The project adopts a systemic approach to reducing plastic waste across the value chain, aiming to develop evidence-based solutions for systemic change in Indonesia. While numerous studies have focused on quantifying plastic pollution, particularly in marine environments [11], research on upstream strategies—solutions targeting the root causes of plastic pollution—is limited. Upstream packaging solutions refer to strategies that aim to prevent packaging waste before it is created, typically at the design and manufacturing stages by redesigning how products are delivered, consumed, and reused. In Indonesia, initiatives like Siklus (https://www.siklus.com/, accessed on 15 March 2022) and Allas (https://zerowastelivinglab.enviu.org/our-ventures/allas/, accessed on 15 March 2022) are leading the way in eliminating plastic packaging waste, but more research is needed to expand the implementation and adoption of these upstream solutions.

Upstream packaging strategies, which focus on redesigning products and delivery systems to prevent waste at the source, offer transformative potential for addressing plastic pollution [12]. While some research has explored user adoption barriers and enablers for such solutions, the focus has primarily been on European contexts [13,14,15]. Barriers and enablers in low- and middle-income countries, such as Indonesia, may differ significantly in nature and relevance. Our study addresses this knowledge gap by identifying user adoption barriers specific to low- and middle-income urban and peri-urban contexts in Indonesia. Understanding these barriers is essential for tailoring upstream packaging solutions that can accelerate the transition to a circular economy. To this end, the research is guided by the following question: what are the user adoption barriers hindering implementation of upstream packaging solutions in low- and middle-income peri-urban Indonesia? This paper is organised as follows: Section 2 reviews the existing literature on the user adoption barriers of upstream packaging solutions and introduces the upstream packaging framework employed in this study. Section 3 details the research methods, including case studies, workshops, and focus group discussions (FGDs). Section 4 presents the four categories of barriers identified in this study, while Section 5 details the results. Section 6 discusses the contributions to existing knowledge, and Section 7 highlights the limitations and suggests directions for further research. Finally, Section 8 concludes by summarising the findings and implications of this study.

2. User Adoption Barriers of Upstream Packaging Solutions

The transition from single-use packaging to reusable alternatives presents significant challenges. Previous research has identified several factors that can influence the large-scale implementation of reusable packaging systems (RPSs) [16,17,18]. Among these, user adoption is a critical determinant of success [13,19]. The literature further highlights a range of factors that hinder user adoption. To synthesise these findings, we have categorised the user adoption barriers identified in the literature into nine distinct groups, as summarised in Table 1. This categorisation provides a foundation for understanding the challenges associated with implementing upstream packaging services.

Table 1. User adoption barriers of upstream packaging services were explored in the existing literature and categorised into nine groups.

User Adoption Barriers	Existing Literature
Inconvenience	Coelho, et al., 2020 [16]; Jiang et al., 2020 [20]; Lofthouse et al., 2009 [21]; Lofthouse and Bhamra, 2006 [22]; Miao et al., 2023 [19]; Singh & Cooper, 2017 [23]; Steinhorst & Beyerl, 2021 [24]; Zhu et al., 2022 [25]
Resistance to changing habits and behaviours	Bradley, et al., 2023 [26]; Sæter et al., 2020 [27]; Tassel and Aurisicchio, 2020 [28]
Higher costs or deposit schemes	Kunamaneni et al., 2019 [29]; Long et al., 2022 [13]; Miao et al., 2023 [19]
Contamination and hygiene concerns	Baxter et al., 2016 [30]; Bradley et al., 2023 [26], Long et al., 2022 [13]; Miao et al., 2023 [19]; Numata & Managi, 2012 [31]
Wear and tear on the packaging	Magnier & Gil-P’erez, 2021 [32]; Miao et al., 2023 [19]; White et al., 2016 [33]
Functional and performance limitations	Miao et al., 2023 [19]; Tassel & Aurisicchio, 2023 [28]
Lack of awareness about environmental impacts	Coelho et al., 2020 [16]; Miao et al., 2023 [19]
Limited availability and variety	Miao et al., 2023 [19]
Lack of trust	Miao et al., 2023 [19]; Yu et al., 2023 [34]

2.1. Inconvenience

Inconvenience has been widely recognised as a barrier to adopting upstream packaging solutions by various authors [16,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. This barrier refers to the additional effort or complexity perceived by consumers when switching to reusable packaging solutions. These include the need to carry empty containers back to a store, extra time spent on returning packaging for cleaning or refilling, or difficulties in storage at home. For example, Jiang et al. [20] studied the collection modes of reusable takeaway containers and the preferences of consumers and service providers. For consumers under the age of 20, the inconvenience of washing the dishes was one of the factors influencing the adoption of this RPS model studied. Such findings highlight the practical obstacles that may deter consumers from embracing reusable packaging solutions.

2.2. Resistance to Changing Habits and Behaviours

Changing habits and behaviours represents another significant barrier to the adoption of reusable packaging systems [26,29]. Consumers are often entrenched in the convenience of single-use packaging, which requires minimal effort and responsibility after consumption. Transitioning to upstream packaging solutions necessitates a shift in routine behaviours, such as remembering to bring reusable containers to stores or cleaning them after use. Tassel and Aurisocchio [28] conducted a literature review on reuse and recycling models and behaviours relevant to fast-moving consumer goods and emphasised the need for further research into consumer behaviour to facilitate widespread adoption of e reuse models. Similarly, Sæter et al. [27] emphasises the critical role of habit change in implementing RPSs, suggesting that effective strategies must address these ingrained behaviours to promote adoption.

2.3. Higher Costs or Deposit Schemes

Upstream packaging solutions sometimes require an initial investment, higher product costs, or deposits on containers to incentivize their return. These financial requirements can deter consumers, especially when they are uncertain about how frequently they will use the product [13]. Concerns about potential issues with deposit refunds, such as businesses withholding refunds due to packaging damage, further exacerbate this barrier [13]. Similarly, Miao et al. [19] also found that consumers are sometimes concerned about losing the chance to get their deposit back if the reusable packaging gets damaged. The upfront cost or deposit can be seen as a disadvantage compared to the immediate, lower cost of disposable packaging. Kunamaneni et al. [29] explored consumer attitudes and behaviour towards the reuse of household care products and emphasised the difficulty of determining the correct deposit rate. The authors noted that while a deposit rate set too high could discourage adoption, setting it too low might undermine the effectiveness of the return incentive, posing a significant challenge for reusable product adoption.

2.4. Contamination and Hygiene Concerns

Hygiene concerns are a significant barrier to adopting reusable packaging, particularly when the packaging has been used by others or has interacted with external substances [13,19,26,30,31]. Consumers may worry about improper cleaning, contamination from previous contents, or the transmission of germs, which can discourage the use of reusable containers, particularly in food-related applications. Such apprehensions often lead to aversion towards using reusable packaging [30]. Baxter et al. [30] developed the HUT contamination model, identifying hygiene, utility, and territory as the three primary mechanisms that drive the perceptions of contamination. Their study emphasised that material properties are the main indicators of contamination, with improper cleaning or visible marks amplifying consumer concerns. These factors collectively discourage the adoption of reusable containers in contexts where hygiene is perceived as critical.

2.5. Perceived Wear and Tear on the Packaging

Over time, reusable packaging can exhibit signs of wear and tear such as scratches, dents, or fading, which may negatively impact consumer satisfaction and perceptions of quality. The wear and tear on packaging can also signal contamination, triggering concerns about health and safety [19,32,33]. This deterioration not only raises doubts about the hygiene and functionality of the packaging but may also necessitate frequent replacements, which could offset the intended environmental benefits of reuse.

2.6. Functional and Performance Limitations

These relate to the practical aspects of reusable packaging, such as its ability to inform consumers, preserve contents, and provide adequate protection. Miao et al. [19] pointed out that research on packaging functions has primarily focused on single-use packaging, leaving a gap in understanding how the absence of certain functions in RPSs affects consumer perceptions. Tassel and Aurisicchio [28] also identified this barrier in their article in which they examined how people use refillable fast-moving consumer goods at home. They identified various performance issues related to users’ habits that cause people to use too much or throw away these products too soon and pinpointed when these behaviours happen during the consumer journey. The findings of their study have led to the creation of several strategies to encourage more reuse and reduce the environmental impact. These strategies include incentivizing the continued use of original reuse facilitators and standardising reuse facilitators for compatibility across brands/products [28].

2.7. Lack of Awareness About Environmental Impacts

Consumers may not be fully aware of the environmental benefits of reusable packaging [16,19]. For example, Miao et al. [19] identified that some participants were unclear on how RPSs were a better option for conserving natural resources, pointing out that the production, operation, and maintenance of reusable containers still consumed resources. Such misconceptions can hinder adoption by undermining the perceived environmental advantages of reusable packaging.

2.8. Limited Availability and Variety

If reusable packaging options are not readily available or if they do not offer the variety needed to meet consumers’ needs across different products and uses, adoption can be limited [19]. The success of reusable packaging systems depends on their accessibility and the ability to cater to diverse consumer preferences and requirements. Without adequate availability or variety, consumers may find it challenging to integrate RPSs into their daily routines, reducing their willingness to transition from single-use alternatives.

2.9. Lack of Trust

Trust is a critical factor influencing consumer adoption of reusable packaging systems due to concerns about the reliability, quality, and safety of these systems [19]. Yu et al. [34] explored the adoption intentions of home-refill delivery services for fast-moving consumer goods in Indonesia, employing an extended technology acceptance model that integrated variables like environmental concern, green perceived value, and trust. Their study found that environmental concerns correlate with green perceived values and trust, both of which contribute to forming positive attitudes toward home-refill delivery services. Yu et al. [34] further identified that trust is linked to consumer perceptions about the reliability and credibility of the service, focusing on whether the service will behave as expected and fulfil its promises. Their findings suggest that a lack of trust can act as a barrier to adopting home-refill delivery services, which, in this study, aligns with the mobile refill station archetype. This section has explored the complex landscape of user adoption barriers for reusable packaging systems, synthesising existing research and identifying nine distinct barrier types. These barriers reflect the multifaceted challenges associated with transitioning to RPSs, spanning functional, behavioural, and systemic aspects. In the next section, we examine how these nine barriers interrelate and cluster under broader categories, corresponding to sociocultural, economic, or contextual aspects.

3. Circular Packaging Adoption Framework

Our analysis of the nine barriers identified in Section 2 revealed interconnections among these factors, which can be clustered under three groups that correspond to sociocultural, economic, or contextual aspects. These categories provide a structured lens through which the challenges to adopting circular packaging solutions can be understood and addressed. In addition to these three aspects, regulatory barriers play an important role in the widespread implementation of upstream packaging solutions. Regulations establish the legal and policy frameworks that influence company practices and consumer behaviours, directly impacting users’ interaction and adoption [35]. Regulatory mechanisms play a crucial role in shaping market behaviour by either enabling or restricting the adoption of sustainable practices. In Indonesia, for instance, policies enforced by the Food and Drug Administration (Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan, BPOM) exemplify these regulatory challenges. BPOM currently regards refill products as being in the research or pilot stage rather than fully operational systems for product delivery. This perception underscores the regulatory hurdles in scaling sustainable packaging solutions [36]. Additionally, some regulatory frameworks focus on the disposal phase, prioritising collection rates. While these policies primarily target end-of-life management, they also present opportunities to integrate preventative measures at earlier stages, such as product design, manufacturing, and use [37].

Considering the significance of regulatory factors, we incorporated this dimension into our research process. Consequently, our study extends beyond the initial three categories to include a fourth dimension: regulatory barriers.

This comprehensive review informed the theoretical development of a circular packaging adoption framework, which summarises the identified barriers and categorises them under sociocultural, economic, contextual, and regulatory aspects, as outlined in Table 2.

Table 2. Framework describing the barriers for circular packaging adoption.

User Adoption Barriers	Sociocultural Barriers	Inconvenience
		Resistance to changing habits and behaviour
		Contamination and hygiene concerns
		Perceived wear and tear on the packaging
		Lack of awareness about environmental impacts
		Lack of Trust
	Economic Barriers	Higher costs or deposit schemes
	Contextual Barriers	Functional and performance limitations
		Limited availability and variety
	Regulatory Barriers

3.1. Sociocultural Barriers

Sociocultural barriers arise from the habits, traditions, beliefs, and social norms of different groups of people. These barriers can include but are not limited to factors such as user acceptance, social roles, norms, and lifestyle factors that could affect the applicability/adaptability of the existing plastic packaging solutions. In this study, we have identified six types of sociocultural barriers: inconvenience, resistance to changing habits and behaviours, concerns about contamination and hygiene, perceived wear and tear on packaging, a lack of knowledge about the environmental impacts, and a lack of trust.

3.2. Economic Barriers

Economic barriers are related to the economic aspects of implementing the packaging solutions pertaining to the organisation of money, income, wealth, etc. These barriers can include a higher cost of products and deposit requirements which can deter users and limit the adoption of alternatives to single-use plastic packaging.

3.3. Contextual Barriers

Contextual barriers depend on or relate to the circumstances and setting in which packaging solutions are introduced. These barriers are influenced by the functionality, performance, and availability of reusable packaging systems. We have identified the two types of contextual barriers in this study as functional and performance issues and a lack of availability and variety.

3.4. Regulatory Barriers

Regulatory barriers stem from laws and regulations that govern the use and disposal of packaging materials. These barriers can significantly impact the applicability, adaptability, and scalability of reusable plastic packaging solutions. Many governments at national, regional, and municipal levels have introduced regulations and legislation specifically targeting plastic usage and disposal. These measures are designed primarily to reduce plastic consumption and enhance waste management practices. Examples include bans and levies on plastic packaging and single-use products, as well as requirements for refillable and reusable packaging systems.

This next section presents the findings of the workshops with experts, organised according to each packaging archetype as discussed during the sessions.

4. Methodology

A combination of methods including case studies, expert workshops, storyboards and FGDs was used to identify user adoption barriers to solutions that tackle the plastic packaging waste problem in Indonesia. Figure 1 presents the methodology adopted in this research, summarising the sequence of the research activities.

Figure 1. Methodology diagram shows the utilised methods and the outputs of the research.

We applied the categorisation from our previously developed UPS framework [12] to explore the applicability of the existing upstream packaging solutions in Indonesia. The research focuses on identifying barriers to implementing each archetype in Indonesia. Solutions that aim to solve the plastic packaging pollution issue by applying circular strategies, such as reusing, recycling, and composting, exist. The UPS framework offers a systematic approach to think about and analyse these existing solutions by categorising them under 10 archetypes according to the upstream packaging strategies that they employed and their sectors [12]. The framework groups these 10 archetypes under 3 overarching strategies: reuse, elimination, and material circulation (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Upstream packaging strategies framework showing 10 archetypes and 17 sub-archetypes of existing packaging solutions.

We developed case studies corresponding to each of the ten archetypes of the UPS framework [12] to provide detailed information about the archetypes to experts who participated in the workshop. Data regarding these cases were sourced from the official websites of the respective businesses. A booklet containing the case studies was prepared and emailed to the experts prior to the workshop, allowing them to familiarise themselves with the material in advance.

The workshops, a participatory design technique, involved a group of participants engaging in focused discussions and activities on a specific topic. Given the geographical spread of the experts across different cities in Indonesia, we conducted two online workshops. This method proved effective for gathering valuable insights from participants with expertise in the social, contextual, economic, or regulatory aspects of Indonesia. Participants were selected through recommendations from our project partners. Each workshop lasted three hours and focused on presenting and discussing the 10 archetypes and 17 case studies, with an emphasis on identifying the social, contextual, economic, or regulatory barriers specific to the Indonesian context. The workshops were video recorded and transcribed for further analysis.

Following the workshops, we conducted a content analysis of the data, which helped identify the key social, contextual, economic, and regulatory factors related to each archetype. More details about the content analysis are included in Section 5.2. Based on these results, we selected five archetypes for further investigation to better understand the barriers to user adoption in Indonesia through direct user interactions.

To communicate the context and user journey for these five selected archetypes, we created storyboards. Storyboards are visual narratives that help generate empathy and capture essential social, environmental, and technical factors, making it easier to gain deeper insights into the user adoption potential of these five archetypes and identify barriers at each stage of the user journey; we organised FGDs with 30 local residents in Indonesia. After the sessions were completed, the recordings were transcribed and translated.

5. Results

5.1. Case Studies

Case studies represented existing practices associated with each of the ten archetypes within the UPS framework. The cases were developed to inform and prepare experts before the workshop. The case studies were used during the workshop to evaluate the potential for implementing these archetypes in Indonesia and identifying barriers to user adoption.

As seen in Table 3, we selected 17 cases that were representative of the archetypes. Case studies are included in Appendix A. The narratives of these case studies were crafted to be easily understandable for the experts. Each case study was presented in a consistent way that described the nine key features:

• Value Proposition: This refers to the unique offerings and benefits that a business provides to its customers. It clarifies whether customers are paying for the content itself, the use of containers that deliver the content, or a combination of both.
• Scale: the scope and extent of operations of the solution, indicating its size and level of activity.
• Market Reach: the geographic and demographic spread of the solution, showing where and to whom it is available.
• Stakeholders: individuals or groups involved in or affected by a business or enterprise, including suppliers, stores, and consumers.
• Location of Purchase: The specific places where the solution is provided to the customers, such as stores or online platforms.
• Place of Consumption: the location where the solution is accessed, used, or consumed by the customer.
• Delivery Method: the process by which the solution is provided to the consumer, such as via automated machines or direct delivery.
• Container Ownership: it refers to who owns the packaging or containers.
• Collection, Return, or Disposal of Containers: the system or method by which consumers return used containers or packaging to a designated point for reuse or recycling.

Table 3. A total of 17 case studies were created to present ‘real-life’ examples for each of the 10 archetypes.

UPS Archetype [12]	Case Study
Refill Stations	Algramo [38]
	Water ATM [39]
	Ecover [40]
Mobile Refill Stations	Algramo Mobile [41]
Refill at Home Solutions	Soda Stream [42]
	Faith in Nature [43]
Pre-filled (Returnable)	EcoPure [44]
	Loop [45]
	Kecipir [46]
	Koinpack [47]
Reusable Takeaway and Delivery	Alas [48]
	Ozzi [49]
	CupClub [50]
B2B Reusable Packages	Swedish Return System [51]
Packaging Solutions Led by Elimination	Lush Cosmetics [52]
Compostable Packaging	BioFreshPak [53]
Substitution to a Non-Plastic Material	KeepClip [54]
Plastic Recycling	Evolve [55]

Table 3. A total of 17 case studies were created to present ‘real-life’ examples for each of the 10 archetypes.

UPS Archetype [12]	Case Study
Refill Stations	Algramo [38]
	Water ATM [39]
	Ecover [40]
Mobile Refill Stations	Algramo Mobile [41]
Refill at Home Solutions	Soda Stream [42]
	Faith in Nature [43]
Pre-filled (Returnable)	EcoPure [44]
	Loop [45]
	Kecipir [46]
	Koinpack [47]
Reusable Takeaway and Delivery	Alas [48]
	Ozzi [49]
	CupClub [50]
B2B Reusable Packages	Swedish Return System [51]
Packaging Solutions Led by Elimination	Lush Cosmetics [52]
Compostable Packaging	BioFreshPak [53]
Substitution to a Non-Plastic Material	KeepClip [54]
Plastic Recycling	Evolve [55]

5.2. Workshops with Experts

We conducted two online workshops with seven experts to assess and identify the upstream packaging strategies that can be adopted by the Indonesian people. The aim of this study was to assess the applicability and adaptability of the existing plastic packaging solutions to Indonesian contexts by identifying the social, economic, environmental, and regulatory barriers to implementing these solutions.

We recruited seven participants who are experts in the social, economic, contextual and regulatory aspects of Indonesia (see Table 4). Before the workshop, the facilitator emailed the identified archetypes and case studies to participants and asked them to read through and become familiar with the cases. At the beginning of the workshop, the facilitator gave a short presentation about the archetypes and case studies and answered the questions of the participants. Then, the facilitator presented each archetype and related case study and asked participants questions about each archetype. The questions explored the potential barriers of each case, considering the social, environmental, economic, and regulatory aspects of implementing the cases in Indonesia.

Table 4. Expertise areas of the experts involved in the workshops.

	Experts	Expertise Area
Workshop 1	1	An Indonesian academic who is an expert on community empowerment and poverty in coastal communities.
	2	An academic whose expertise area is on the economics of pollution and climate change, valuing environmental services.
	3	An Indonesian expert working in a leading position in a company that creates and implements circular packaging solutions in Indonesia.
Workshop 2	4	An Indonesian expert from an industry association whose expertise area is sustainable waste management and recycling within the packaging industry in Southeast Asia.
	5	An Indonesian academic who is an expert on waste management services in Indonesia.
	6	An Indonesian academic who is an expert on community empowerment with a focus on local and national regulations and policies.
	7	An expert working in a leading position in a company that creates and implements circular systemic change solutions in Indonesia.

The workshops were conducted in February 2022. Each workshop lasted around three hours. The structure of the workshop and the questions are presented in Appendix B. Workshops were recorded on Zoom. The experts’ consent was obtained before the session (see Appendix C). After the workshops, each session was transcribed. We used a content analysis method to analyse the collected data. Transcribed data were coded for each archetype. A total of 102 codes were identified, and they were clustered into different barrier categories. Meaningful clusters emerged from the codes, and subcategories of the barrier categories were identified. The codes corresponding to each archetype are presented in Appendix D. The results from the expert workshops, aligned with each archetype, are presented below:

1. Refill Stations: The results from the expert workshops indicate that refill stations in Indonesia face several barriers that may hinder their widespread adoption. A major sociocultural barrier identified is inconvenience and resistance to changing habits and behaviours. This requires a significant shift in consumer behaviour, transitioning from using disposable packaging to consistently carrying and reusing containers. Economic barriers also play a critical role, particularly factors such as price, affordability, and the practice of buying on credit. For example, some consumers prefer to have their purchases recorded on credit, with the option to pay later. This preference was viewed as both an economic barrier and a cultural habit.

2. Refill-at-home solutions: Sociocultural, economic, and contextual barriers regarding the adoption of refill-at-home solutions in Indonesia were identified. Sociocultural barriers were mainly rooted in convenience and traditional shopping behaviours, alongside economic concerns about purchasing power. One barrier related to bulk buying was about transporting large packages home, particularly as motorcycles are one of the primary modes of transportation in Indonesia.

3. Home delivery solutions: We identified several barriers that impact the adoption of home delivery solutions in Indonesia. Economically, the concerns are centred around affordability, with many consumers, especially those in lower-income groups, preferring immediate and cheaper purchasing options such as buying products in single-use plastic packaging from warungs or stores. Additionally, a high deposit can also pose a significant economic barrier. Some of the main sociocultural barriers mentioned were hygiene and the fact that online shopping is a new behaviour for some people.

4. Reusable takeout and delivery containers: Regarding reusable takeout and delivery containers, the hygiene barrier dominated discussions, with concerns about the cleanliness of reused containers and their acceptance in the food service industry. One participant said “Cleaning is a concern. Hygiene of the reused container is a barrier. Especially places where water quality is not good”. Additionally, the perceived higher cost of reusable containers compared to single-use options was identified as an economic barrier.

5. Returning on-the-go packaging: Predominantly, sociocultural and economic barriers were identified and discussed in relation to “return on the go” packaging solutions in Indonesia. For example, returning packaging after use is not a typical behaviour among Indonesian consumers. This barrier is often due to the inconvenience of carrying used packaging back to a collection point and the lack of established habits supporting such practices. Economically, the concept is challenging as it may not resonate with consumers who see no immediate cost benefit in returning packaging compared to disposing of it. Moreover, the infrastructure for collecting and processing returned packages is underdeveloped, complicating the logistics of implementing such a system efficiently across varied geographic and urban settings.

6. Compostable packaging: The barriers for adopting compostable packaging in Indonesia are primarily sociocultural and contextual. An example of a sociocultural barrier is that there is a lack of awareness and misunderstanding about compostable materials, with many people mistaking them for traditional plastics. This can result in contaminating the recycling streams. Among the contextual barriers, the local environmental conditions pose significant challenges; the high humidity and varying temperatures in Indonesia can affect the integrity and decomposition rate of compostable materials.

7. Packaging solutions led by elimination: The barriers related to this archetype are related to price and the local environmental conditions. Participants argued that the unpackaged goods may not withstand the humid and warm weather; this could make users hesitant to adopt minimal packaging solutions.

8. B2B reusable packages: Regulatory barriers were a primary concern for the B2B reusable package archetype. Participants stated that new legislations could promote the use of reusable packaging in business operations. Additionally, sociocultural barriers were discussed, highlighting the challenges of convincing businesses to switch to reusable packaging solutions, especially when disposable options are perceived as more straightforward and cost-effective.

9. Substitutions to non-plastic materials: Sociocultural barriers were identified regarding substitutions to the non-plastic material archetype. For example, participants stated that canned drinks are not common in Indonesia and changing from familiar plastic products to alternatives may be a barrier for them.

10. Plastic recycling: Contextual barriers were a key concern for this archetype. Participants discussed inadequate waste management infrastructure that makes the collection and sorting of recyclable plastics inefficient or non-existent.

The barriers identified across different packaging types underscore the complex interplay of sociocultural, economic, contextual, and regulatory challenges specific to each archetype. We selected five archetypes to understand the user adoption barrier in more detail. The next section presents this selection process.

5.3. Selecting the Archetypes for Focus Group Discussions

Among the ten archetypes, we selected five for further research based on the previous research including case studies and expert workshops. The selection criteria and the process are outlined below:

• Results of the expert workshops: Based on the results of the expert workshops, some solutions were eliminated due to their lack of relevance to the Indonesian context. Each solution was carefully evaluated based on its purpose and the relevance of its services and products to address specific challenges that exist in Indonesia.
• Targeting a wider audience: Previously conducted case studies and expert workshops showed that certain existing solutions are mainly adopted by high-income, environmentally conscious consumers in urban areas. In this study, we aimed to target a wider demographic, including people from low- and middle-income backgrounds and those from rural and peri-urban areas.
• Sector: we selected solutions from different sectors to ensure a broad range of packaging types and better understand various adoption barriers

Table 5 presents the five archetypes of upstream packaging strategies that were selected for the FGD study. They were inspired by existing solutions such as Algramo, Allas, MIWA, and Koinpack.

Table 5. Selected archetypes of upstream packaging strategies.

Archetype/Existing Solution	Description	Relevance to Indonesia	Target Audience	Sector
1- Refill stations in small markets/Algramo 0.1	Eliminates single-use packaging by providing refill stations for daily use products	Addresses the sachet problem by offering affordable quantities.	Mass market	Everyday products (e.g., rice and oil)
2- Mobile refill stations/Algramo 0.2	A mobile refill station on an electric tricycle that travels to neighbourhoods close to customers’ homes	Fits Indonesia’s motorcycle culture; offers affordable product quantities.	Mass market	Everyday products, starting with detergents
3- Reusable takeaway and delivery/Allas	Reusable food containers for takeaway and delivery services	Reduces single-use plastic from rising online food delivery waste.	Users who already use online food takeaway services	Food delivery and takeaway
4- Refill stations in big markets/MIWA	A modular refill system in grocery stores for dry foods offering reusable containers	It offers container reuse options, but affordability is a barrier for mass adoption.	Medium- and high-income households	Dry foods (e.g., pasta and coffee)
5- Pre-filled packaging/Koinpack	Small reusable packages for daily needs in small shops (warungs)	Convenient like sachets but less affordable due to deposit system.	Medium- and high-income households	Everyday products (e.g., rice and oil)

It is important to mention that we did not use these existing solutions in our research as they are. We generalised the solutions and developed cases that are based on these solutions. As a result, there might be some differences in the solutions presented below compared to the available versions of these solutions in commerce.

5.4. Storyboards

Storyboards were prepared to present the idea, context, and touch points of the five selected archetypes from the purchase to disposal stages (Figure 3). The degree of detail was decided considering the effectiveness of the information at focusing the attention of the participants on the specific activities required to use the concepts. These activities include paying the deposit, washing the reusable packaging, and returning the reusable packaging, etc. Text-based narrations as captions were added to supplement the visuals.

Figure 3. Storyboards for the five selected archetypes were created, featuring text-based captions that highlight key touchpoints and activities.

5.5. Focus Group Discussions

We conducted five FGDs in Banyuwangi, Indonesia, with 30 participants in total (Figure 4). The aim of the FGDs was to identify the user adoption barriers of existing packaging solutions throughout the entire user journey, from purchase to use and disposal.

Figure 4. We conducted 5 FGDs in Banyuwangi, Indonesia, with 30 participants in total.

Participant Selection and Recruitment:

The sessions were conducted in Bahasa Indonesia, the local language. Participants included adults responsible for household shopping and waste management who used single-use packaging and/or who used refillable, returnable, and reusable packaging solutions. The participant selection criteria were as follows:

• Urban and rural residents and people with and without access to waste management infrastructure;
• Low-income and middle-income households;
• Males and females.

We recruited thirty participants in total, with five/six participants per FGD session. Participants were aged between 18 and 43 years old. Eight of them were men, and twenty-two of them were women. The number of women was higher than the number of men because mostly women manage the household shopping needs, make purchase decisions, and manage household waste in the selected area. Prior to the sessions, participants were provided with information forms, and consent to record the sessions was obtained through a consent form (see Appendix E). Each session lasted around 90 min. Participants engaged with the user journey posters that illustrate the key stages of each packaging solution. Discussions focused on barriers to adoption. During each stage of the user journey, from purchase to use and disposal, participants were guided by structured questions to identify these barriers. The structure of the FGDs and the questions asked can be found in Appendix F.

We employed content analysis to analyse the data collected. The transcribed data were coded by solution type, with specific codes identified and categorised into various barrier categories. These categories were then grouped into meaningful clusters and subcategories. The specific codes associated with each solution are detailed in Appendix G. Table 6 summarises the results of the FGDs. The results are also presented below for each solution.

• Algramo 0.1-inspired solution: According to the results of the FGD study, we identified sociocultural and economic user adoption barriers for the Algramo solution, which encourages the use of refillable containers to reduce plastic waste. Sociocultural barriers play a significant role, where the inconvenience of carrying personal containers deters users accustomed to the ease of purchasing directly from local stores known as warungs. Furthermore, another challenge is that this solution would require a shift from being served by the warung (which is a preferred and established habit) to being actively involved in the refilling process. In addition, this solution would require educating consumers on how to use the service and the refilling machine. Finally, there is also an economic barrier identified due to the reluctance to pay a deposit for the containers.
• Algramo 0.2-inspired solution: Sociocultural, economic, and technological barriers were identified regarding the Algramo mobile refill station. The results of the FGDs show that the majority of the barriers are related to technology. Technological barriers are listed under the contextual barrier category in this study. Issues such as using a touchscreen, not owning smartphones, and poor cellular data signals in rural areas were some of the main technological barriers identified by participants. Additionally, sociocultural barriers were mentioned. For example, convenience issues were mentioned as potential users were reluctant to wait for the van’s arrival, preferring immediate access to products. Moreover, significant behavioural changes are required for adoption: some participants were not motivated to switch from their usual shopping routines to waiting for a mobile service. Finally, the economic barrier mentioned was that individuals prefer to use plastic packaging because they can resell it post-use, providing them with a return on their purchases.
• MIWA-inspired solution: The FGD study results on MIWA revealed both sociocultural and technological barriers to user adoption. Sociocultural barriers encompass issues of convenience and ingrained user habits and behaviours. Participants expressed that mobile apps are seen as complicated and expressed a preference for the straightforward nature of online shopping, which they found easier than navigating MIWA’s services. Additionally, a preference among some consumers to pay in cash was also discussed, noting that not everyone in Indonesia has access to a credit or bank card. Technological barriers mentioned included the challenges associated with downloading and using a mobile app. These challenges are often due to the inconvenience they represent or a lack of familiarity with such technology.
• ALLAS-inspired solution: The FGD study results highlighted the sociocultural barriers of the Allas food takeaway and delivery solution. Primarily, hygiene concerns were mentioned as impacting user acceptance. Participants expressed discomfort with the idea of eating from containers that have been used by others, stemming from a belief that such containers cannot be sufficiently sanitised to meet their standards of cleanliness. Additionally, inconvenience was noted as a barrier; some participants expressed a preference for returning the containers immediately after the food is delivered. The reason for this preference is to eliminate the burden of having to go to a drop-off point to return the containers.
• Koinpack-inspired solution: The FGD results regarding Koinpack highlighted brand loyalty as the primary barrier related to habits and behaviour change, significantly impacting user adoption. Participants expressed hesitation due to the uncertainty about the brands of the products contained within the packages. They emphasised their needs specifically about skin care and their preference for sticking with familiar brands that they normally use.

Table 6. The sociocultural, economic, and contextual barriers identified in the FGD study for five selected archetypes, highlighting key user adoption barriers.

Solution	Barrer Category	Barrier
Refill stations in small markets/Algramo 0.1	Sociocultural	Inconvenience of carrying personal containers
		Shift from being served to self-service refilling
		Limited knowledge on the refilling process
	Economic	Reluctance to pay deposit for containers.
Mobile refill stations/Algramo 0.2	Sociocultural	Reluctance to wait for the van’s arrival
		Preference for immediate purchases
		Resistance to changing shopping routines
	Contextual Barriers	Issues with using a touchscreen
		Some people do not have smartphones
		Poor cellular signals in rural areas
	Economic	Preference for plastic packaging due to its resale value
Refill stations in big markets/MIWA	Sociocultural	Inconvenience
		Preference for simpler online shopping
	Contextual Barriers	Preference for cash payments due to limited access to credit or bank cards
		Challenges with downloading and using mobile apps
Reusable takeaway and delivery/Allas	Sociocultural	Hygiene concerns regarding reused containers
		Inconvenience in returning containers to drop-off points
Pre-filled packaging/Koinpack	Sociocultural	Brand loyalty issues particularly with skincare products
	Contextual Barriers	Limited availability and variety (reluctance to switch from familiar brands)

Table 6. The sociocultural, economic, and contextual barriers identified in the FGD study for five selected archetypes, highlighting key user adoption barriers.

Solution	Barrer Category	Barrier
Refill stations in small markets/Algramo 0.1	Sociocultural	Inconvenience of carrying personal containers
		Shift from being served to self-service refilling
		Limited knowledge on the refilling process
	Economic	Reluctance to pay deposit for containers.
Mobile refill stations/Algramo 0.2	Sociocultural	Reluctance to wait for the van’s arrival
		Preference for immediate purchases
		Resistance to changing shopping routines
	Contextual Barriers	Issues with using a touchscreen
		Some people do not have smartphones
		Poor cellular signals in rural areas
	Economic	Preference for plastic packaging due to its resale value
Refill stations in big markets/MIWA	Sociocultural	Inconvenience
		Preference for simpler online shopping
	Contextual Barriers	Preference for cash payments due to limited access to credit or bank cards
		Challenges with downloading and using mobile apps
Reusable takeaway and delivery/Allas	Sociocultural	Hygiene concerns regarding reused containers
		Inconvenience in returning containers to drop-off points
Pre-filled packaging/Koinpack	Sociocultural	Brand loyalty issues particularly with skincare products
	Contextual Barriers	Limited availability and variety (reluctance to switch from familiar brands)

6. Discussion

This paper addresses a gap in the existing research by focusing on user adoption barriers of upstream packaging solutions particularly in the context of Indonesia. It offers valuable insights into the multifaceted nature of the user adoption barriers of upstream packaging solutions by identifying and categorising these barriers into sociocultural, economic, contextual, and regulatory aspects.

The contributions of this research are threefold. Firstly, it organises existing user adoption barriers into nine distinct groups: inconvenience, habits and behaviour change, higher costs or deposits, contamination and hygiene concerns, wear and tear on packaging, functional and performance issues, a lack of knowledge about the environmental impacts, a lack of availability and variety, and a lack of trust. This categorization not only clarifies the complexities involved but also enhances the understanding of how these barriers interconnect. Secondly, the research elaborates on the interrelationships among these barriers by clustering them into four categories: sociocultural, economic, contextual, and regulatory. This categorization provides a structured approach to better understand these barriers, which can benefit both research and practical interventions aimed at enhancing the adoption of sustainable packaging solutions. Thirdly, this study extends beyond the existing literature by identifying unique user adoption barriers specific to low- and middle-income households in Indonesia through expert workshops and FGDs. We compared these findings with existing research, discussing the similarities and differences across each of the nine barrier categories below.

• Inconvenience: Inconvenience factors such as carrying containers back to stores, the additional time required for cleaning, and storage difficulties at home were widely discussed as barriers to adopting upstream packaging solutions in the literature [16,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. This research echoes similar findings, highlighting inconvenience as a significant barrier. It also identified the inconvenience factors specific to Indonesia such as carrying containers to warungs and the waiting time for the mobile refill station to arrive.
• Resistance to changing habits and behaviours: Changing habits and behaviours is highlighted as a significant barrier in the existing literature [27,28,29]. The findings of this study provided insights to this barrier such as the cultural habit of buying on credit when using refill machines. Additionally, the service provided by the warung owner, such as serving and bagging the items and picking the items for the customer, is considered a plus for Indonesians. They are used to this commonly provided service and found it more convenient than using a refill machine.
• Higher costs or deposit schemes: Similarly to the existing research [13,19,29], this study identified higher costs or deposits as a user adoption barrier.
• Contamination and hygiene concerns: This study adds new dimensions to existing research by focusing on factors specific to Indonesia that influence participants’ perceptions of hygiene. Participants expressed significant concerns about hygiene in areas with contaminated water, attributing their scepticism about water cleanliness to underdeveloped waste management and sewage systems. This lack of infrastructure fosters doubts about the efficacy of cleaning methods used for reusable packaging, underscoring the critical link between public utilities and consumer trust in product sanitation.
• Perceived wear and tear on packaging: The wear and tear on reusable packaging, such as scratches, dents, or fading, was not discussed in our workshops and FGDs. However, it was considered part of the hygiene of the reusable containers.
• Functional and performance limitations: User adoption barriers related to functional and performance issues have been addressed in only a few studies [19,28]. Similarly, in our study, this barrier was mentioned by the participants a couple of times regarding the complexity of using technology and mobile apps for refill stations.
• Lack of awareness about environmental impacts: Existing research indicated users’ concerns about the environmental benefits of reusable packaging, with concerns about the sustainability of plastics and the significant resources needed for the production and maintenance of reusable containers [14,19]. In our study, a key issue associated with this barrier was the general lack of awareness and indifference towards environmental impacts. A recent life cycle assessment by Stefanini et al. [56] also highlights that bioplastics, while often perceived as more sustainable, do not always outperform traditional plastics across all environmental impact categories, particularly regarding water and land use, raising further questions about their suitability in low-resource settings. The participants mentioned the necessity of educating consumers about the positive environmental effects of reusable packaging systems. Additionally, our findings pointed out the lack of awareness about packaging materials, specifically the lack of knowledge about compostable materials.
• Limited availability and variety: The existing literature highlights that limited availability and variety of reusable packaging options can hinder adoption [19]. Similarly, participants of the workshops and FGDs discussed brand loyalty as one of the barriers of upstream packaging solutions, specifically regarding the Koinpack-inspired solution.
• Lack of trust: Concerns about the quality and safety of the product provided as a part of RPSs [19] and the reliability and credibility of RPSs [34] were studied as part of the lack of trust barrier in the literature. However, this barrier was not prominently mentioned in our study.

Compared to other low- and middle-income countries, the Indonesian context presents some unique barriers influencing the adoption of circular packaging. In Malaysia, for instance, consumer acceptance of green packaging is largely driven by emotional, social, and functional values, reflecting a relatively higher level of environmental awareness and access to alternatives [57]. Similarly, young consumers in urban Malaysia tend to engage in impulsive online purchases of eco-friendly products, as they are influenced by social media trends and peer dynamics [58]. These factors were not identified in our study. Furthermore, sociocultural factors such as the preference for plastic packaging due to its resale value and hygiene perception highlight behaviours that are rarely seen in comparative studies [57,58]. These factors underscore the need for context-specific, multidisciplinary approaches to address the structural, cultural, and regulatory dimensions of sustainable packaging adoption in Indonesia [35]

7. Limitations and Further Research

This study provides valuable insights into the barriers to the adoption of upstream packaging solutions in Indonesia, though limitations should be acknowledged. This study focused on a selection of packaging archetypes inspired by existing solutions. There are other innovative packaging solutions not covered in this study that could offer different insights and implications. Future research should explore a wider variety of packaging solutions to identify additional barriers and opportunities.

The findings are specific to the Indonesian context, as they are influenced by local cultural, economic, and infrastructural factors. While these insights are valuable, they may not be directly applicable to other countries or regions. Comparative studies across different countries could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the global applicability of these findings.

This study primarily focused on specific regions in Indonesia, which may not fully represent the diverse demographic and cultural contexts across the entire country. Future studies should aim to include a broader range of participants from different regions to ensure more generalisable results.

Finally, future research should extend beyond the Indonesian context to examine how these barriers manifest in other low- and middle-income countries. Comparative studies across regions like Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America can help uncover shared challenges and context-specific nuances. Exploring these dimensions will generate scalable insights to support a global transition towards sustainable packaging systems.

8. Conclusions

This research is valuable to a diverse range of stakeholders committed to advancing sustainable practices and reducing plastic waste. Firstly, researchers and academics studying circular design, circular packaging solutions, and user behaviour will benefit from the detailed analysis of adoption barriers. Secondly, businesses and entrepreneurs in the packaging and consumer goods industries can use the findings to design more user-friendly, cost-effective, and culturally appropriate upstream packaging solutions to accelerate the shift to a circular economy. Additionally, policymakers and government agencies can leverage the insights to develop targeted regulations and incentives that promote the adoption of upstream packaging solutions tailored to local contexts.

To support the widespread adoption of circular packaging in Indonesia and similar contexts, practitioners must address the complex web of sociocultural, economic, and contextual barriers. One effective strategy is to co-design solutions with local users, especially those from low- and middle-income communities. Involving users in the design process helps ensure that new packaging systems are not only technically viable but also align with everyday habits and constraints, such as cash-based payments or limited digital access. Additionally, simplifying user interaction with reuse systems can reduce adoption barriers. For instance, providing user assistance at refill stations and integrating drop-off options within familiar retail environments like warungs can help consumers overcome hesitation linked to inconvenience or technology use. Equally important is the establishment of reliable cleaning systems for reusable containers to build trust and address hygiene concerns.

From a policy perspective, two key recommendations emerge as critical enablers of circular packaging in Indonesia. First, regulatory reform is needed to update the Indonesian Food and Drug Administration’s classification of refill systems. Rather than treating them as experimental or pilot-stage interventions, a regulatory framework should be developed to formally recognise and support reusable and refillable packaging models. This would provide businesses with clear guidelines and legal assurance. Second, economic incentives should be introduced to support early adoption. Tax breaks, grants, or subsidies for companies investing in reuse infrastructure especially those targeting low-income markets could expand access to circular packaging solutions.

Consumer education is also essential to shift mindsets and behaviours around packaging. Awareness campaigns should connect circular packaging directly to visible local benefits, such as cleaner neighbourhoods and improved health from reduced plastic burning. Additionally, public information efforts should clarify the environmental advantages of reusable packaging over single-use alternatives and correct misconceptions about compostable materials, which are often mistaken for traditional plastics. Educating consumers on how to properly use, sort, and dispose of these materials is vital to prevent contamination in recycling streams and foster informed participation in the circular economy.