Consumers’

perception on fruits
and vegetables
packaging in India
Jabir Ali and Sanjeev Kapoor
Centre for Food and Agribusiness Management,
Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow – 226013
Uttar Pradesh (India)

18th Annual World Symposium of the International Food and Agribusiness

Management Association (IAMA) on “Meeting Food System Challenges
through Innovation and Entrepreneurship” , Monterey, California, USA on
June 14-15, 2008
 Consumers’ perception on fruits and vegetables packaging in
India

Jabir Aliaφφ and Sanjeev Kapoorb

a
Assistant Professor, Centre for Food and Agribusiness Management,
Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow – 226 013, India
b
Associate Professor, Centre for Food and Agribusiness Management,
Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow – 226 013, India

Abstract
This paper analyses the consumer preference for fruits and vegetables packaging in India by a
structured survey of 421 urban respondents belonging to four districts of Uttar Pradesh, India.
Simple statistical analysis is carried out such as descriptive statistical analysis, cross tabulation
and frequency distribution to assess the consumer’s perception on food packaging. Factor
analysis is conducted to identify the underlying dimensions among a set of food packaging
attributes. As the market for packaged food is coming up very fast in India with the emergence of
organized food retailing at urban centres, this study gives a timely assessment of packaging
issues to design appropriate packaging attributes based on consumers’ perspective.

Introduction
Historically, Indian consumers have preferred raw and fresh foods over processed and
packaged Shaw et al, 1993; Pysarchik et al., 1999; Ling et al, 2004; Goyal and Singh,
2007). However, with emergence of supermarket and hypermarket culture, the consumer
preference of packaged food products has increased significantly in the recent years
(Silayoi and Speece, 2004). Factors such as increased purchasing power of the Indian
consumer in a booming economy, changing lifestyle, greater willingness to experiment
with new products and flavours, desire for convenience in packaged food products and an
increase in the number of working women have led to the strong growth in consumption
of packaged food products (Euromonitor International, 2007; Goyal and Singh, 2007).
Besides, urban consumers have been increasingly responding towards changes in quality
food intake and becoming more conscious in terms of nutritional diet, health and food
safety issues. To meet these emerging trends, retailing in India is undergoing

φ
Corresponding author: Tel: +91-522-2736978
Email: jabirali@iiml.ac.in

1|Page
unprecedented transformation with a number of national and multinational organizations
trying to capture the huge and exponentially growing consumer market.

The growing market for packaged food provides both opportunities and challenges to
food processors and food packagers to respond as per the consumers’ requirements. Food
product development, innovation and packaging are becoming key factors for
competitive success and survival within the consumer market across the world (Bogue,
2001; Stewart-Knox and Mitchell, 2003; Wells et al, 2007). Packaging has numerous
important roles to play in emerging market environment. Some feel that packaging is an
indispensable component of modern lifestyle and the key trends fostering growth in
packaged food market are convenience, functionality and indulgence (Ahmed et al,
2005), while other perceive the product packaging as a tool of protecting products for the
purposes of protection, transportation, storage and information display (Lee and Lye,
2003; Silayoi and Speece, 2004). Packaging is important in post-harvest preservation of
fruits, vegetables and processed food for assured shelf-life extension (Kittur et al, 1998).
Food processors, packagers and retailers view packaging as a business need, which fulfill
several functions primarily logistic and marketing functions that the package provides
such as convenience in handling, transporting and storing the product (Prendergast and
Pitt, 1996).The consumer, on the other hand, does not differentiate between the product
and the package (Ahmed et al, 2005). Consumers have also been demanding more
environmental friendly packaging material, reduced packaging and packaging that is
possible to be recycled and reused (Bech-Larsen, 1996).

Considering, India as an emerging processed and packaged food market, the analysis of
consumers’ preference on packaging attributes become important. In this paper we tried
to analyze the consumers' attitude towards packaging and the importance of the
functional characteristics of packaging for their purchasing decisions in India through
primary survey. The study deals with consumers' attitude to packaging in terms of
product protection, preservation & quality, product appearance & convenience, product
size & weight and environmental issue. The paper concludes with the implications for
food processors, retailers, packagers and policy makers in the emerging consumer
market.
2|Page
Data and Methodology

This study is based on a survey carried out by a questionnaire and personal interview
during the second quarter of 2007 under an on-going research project1. A total of 421
households were interviewed personally to know their perception on food packaging,
covering four districts of Uttar Pradesh2 namely Lucknow, Allahabad, Gorakhpur and
Moradabad. The sample households were randomly selected and emphasis had been
given in interviewing those respondents who purchase fruits and vegetables or involved
in food preparation. The survey questionnaire was structured and included the questions
related to packaged versus loose purchasing, preference on packaging material and rating
on various attributes of food packaging on 5 point Likert-type scale to analyze the level
of importance on various packaging attributes (1=not at all important and 5=extremely
important). Similarly, the questions related to demographic information of the
respondents such as age, gender, family size, education level and household income were
also included. The collected data was digitized in SPSS spreadsheet and simple statistical
analysis were carried out such as descriptive statistical analysis, cross tabulation,
frequency distribution and analysis of variance to assess the consumers’ perception on
food packaging. Factor analysis was conducted to identify the underlying dimensions
among a set of food packaging attributes. The principal Component Analysis was done
using varimax rotation criterion. The Kaiser criterion was used to retain only factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1.

Results and Discussion

Demographic Profile of Sample

A total of 421 respondents were personally surveyed covering 4 districts of Uttar
Pradesh, one of the major states in India. The demographic profile of overall sample is

1
This paper is a part of an ongoing research project “Demand assessment of horticultural commodities
in Uttar Pradesh” funded by the Uttar Pradesh Council of Agricultural Research (UPCAR),
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
2
Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state in India accounting for 16.4 per cent of the country’s population.
It is also the fourth largest state in geographical area covering 9.0 per cent of the country’s geographical
area, encompassing 2,94,411 square kilometres and comprising of 70 districts.

3|Page
shown in Table 1. The sample comprises of 69 percent male and 31 percent female
respondents, since while collecting the responses, emphasis was laid on to surveying the
main food purchase decision-makers in the households. The age composition of the
sample has been normally distributed with average age of 36 years. Educational profile of
the sample shows that about 42 percent respondents are graduate and above; 35 percent
are having education upto secondary and higher secondary level. About 53 percent
respondents were vegetarian, considered to be consuming more vegetables as compared
to non-vegetarian respondents. Majority of the respondents were having more than 5
members in the family with an average family size of 6 members. The number of earning
members was one or two in a family with an average monthly income of Rs. 9103 with a
dominance of Rs. 5000-Rs. 10000 monthly income household group.

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of respondents

Characteristics Respondents reporting Characteristics Respondents reporting
Number % Number %
Gender Family Size
Male 292 69.4 < 5 members 107 25.5
Female 129 30.6 5-6 Members 175 41.7
Age group 7-10 members 107 25.5
< 25 years 111 26.4 > 10 members 31 7.4
25-35 years 119 28.3 Average Family size 6
(number)
36-45 years 95 22.6 Number of working
members
> 45 years 96 22.8 One member 183 44.2
Average age (years) 36 Two members 133 32.1
Education 3-5 members 94 22.7
Illiterate 27 6.4 > 5 members 4 1.0
Below Junior High School 69 16.4 Monthly Household Income
High School/ Intermediate 147 35.0 <Rs.5000 106 25.2
Graduate 117 27.9 Rs. 5000-10000 180 42.8
Post Graduate/ professional 60 14.3 Rs. 10001-15000 70 16.6
Family Type Rs. 15001-20000 32 7.6
Vegetarian 220 52.6 Rs. 20001-25000 17 4.0
Non-Vegetarian 198 47.4 >Rs. 25000 16 3.8
Only Male Members 62 31.3 Average income (Rs.) 9103
All Members 136 68.7

4|Page
Response on Packaging Preferences
In general, fruits and vegetables in India are consumed fresh and purchased in loose form
or locally packaged by the hawkers, vendors or retailers in front of the consumer after
sorting and weighing (Table 2). However, with the emergence of organized food
retailing, the perception of consumers towards sorted, graded and packaged fruits and
vegetables is significantly changing in a positive direction. The consumers’ purchase
preference for vendor packaged fruits and vegetables provide an opportunity for fresh
food retailing organizations to develop their own brands. As own-label brands are
exclusive and owned by the retailers, they have potential opportunity to develop
packaging designs that are even more attuned to their customers’ requirements than those
offered by the equivalent range of branded products (Wells et al, 2007).

Table 2: Consumers purchase preference for fruits and vegetables

Packaging Types Respondents reporting
Number %
Fruits
Loose purchase 288 68.4
Vendor packaged 127 30.2
Packaged (Branded) 6 1.4
Vegetables
Loose purchase 298 70.8
Vendor packaged 117 27.8
Packaged (Branded) 6 1.4

Response on Packaging Material

The consumer’s response on type of packaging material shows that degradable and
environmental friendly packaging material is mostly preferred (Table 3). Though,
polythene is commonly used as the packaging material for fruits and vegetables in India,
it is least preferred by the consumers. Over 50% of packaging plastics are consumed in
the food retail and food services sectors (ILSI, 2000; Zaby, 2001). Polyethylene’s
dominance as a food packaging plastic is due to its relatively low cost, its range of
versatile properties and the ease with which it can be processed into various packaging
forms (ILSI, 2000). Globally, around 40 million tonnes of plastic packaging is used
annually and a majority of this is put to one time use and then discarded. In India, its

5|Page
share is around 3 million tonnes and the treatment of waste plastic has become a serious
problem (Srinivasa and Tharanathan, 2007). The biodegradable packaging material is
most suitable for food packaging, which can be locally composted, recycled or disposed
(Davis and Song, 2006).

Table 3: Consumers preference for food packaging material

Packaging Mean Score* Weighted Rank
material Score
Cotton 4.040 823 1
Jute 3.890 877 2
Paper 3.800 925 3
Polythene 2.990 1266 4
* 1=strongly not preferred………5=strongly preferred

Response on Packaging Attributes

The role of packaging across businesses and functional areas such as production,
preservation, distribution and marketing are well researched mostly from manufactures’
and packagers’ perspective (Gray and Guthrie, 1990; Robertson, 1990; Sara, 1990;
Silayoi and Speece, 2004; Ahmed et al, 2006). Literature survey indicates variety of
functions of packaging. However, packaging is broadly considered as a logistics and
marketing function for improving the delivery of products to consumers in an efficient
manner and to enhance the consumer satisfaction with proper communication
(Prendergast and Pitt, 1996; Lee and Lye, 2003; Silayoi and Speece, 2004; Jahre and
Hatteland, 2004; Rundh, 2005; Ampuero and Vila, 2006). The logistical function of
packaging is mainly to protect the product during movement through distribution
channels, whereas in marketing, packaging provides an attractive method to convey
messages about product attributes to consumers at the point of sale (Rettie and Brewer,
2000; Underwood et al. 2001; Underwood, 2003; Silayoi and Speece, 2004; Jahre and
Hatteland, 2004). With increasing concerns on environmental issues, consumers are
increasingly demanding more environmental friendly, which can be recycled or reused
(Prendergast and Pitt, 1996, Johnsson, 1999; Jahre and Hatteland, 2004).

Under this study, the respondents were asked to show their level of agreement or
disagreement with a number of statements related to food packaging to identify the key

6|Page
packaging attributes as perceived by them. Analysis of the consumers’ response on
packaging attributes indicate that they agree in most of the cases but strong agreement
was reported on attraction and appearance attributes of product packaging followed by
environmental issues and protection, preservation and quality attributes (Table 4). About
31 percent respondents strongly agree that packaging makes product attractive to buy
followed by 25 percent response on pleasant appearance of products due to packaging.
About 22 percent respondents strongly agree that packaging waste material is dangerous
for environment due to wide use of non-degradable packaging material. About 20 percent
respondents strongly agree that packaging provides protection to products from damage
and also makes product hygienic.

Table 4: Consumers purchase preference for fruits and vegetables packaging (%)
Packaging Attributes Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
disagree agree Agree
nor
disagree
Packaging is there to protect the product 2.2 12.6 29.3 35.4 20.6
Packaging make sure things are not tampered 2.7 11.4 21.5 45.5 18.9
Packaging make things more hygienic 2.7 11.6 22.8 43.1 19.6
Packaging makes ease in storage 1.2 10.0 23.8 50.9 14.1
Packaging make ease for labeling 1.5 6.3 32.2 47.5 12.6
Packaging make things attractive to buy 0.5 4.1 18.7 45.3 31.4
Packaging make things ease to handle 0.0 6.1 19.1 61.5 13.3
Packaging gives pleasant appearance to 0.7 5.1 18.2 50.8 25.2
products
Packaging save product waste 2.7 30.0 26.4 34.4 6.3
Packaging extends the shelf-life of perishable 2.0 29.5 27.0 33.9 7.4
goods
Packaging adds volume/size of the product 23.3 20.6 14.3 32.8 9.0
Packaging adds weight to the product 27.4 25.5 18.0 23.1 6.1
Packaging waste materials are dangerous for 1.0 4.9 17.0 55.0 22.1
environment

The importance of packaging attributes are ranked based on weighted average of the
consumer responses (Table 5). It is clear from the table that from the consumers’ point of
view, attractiveness, appearance and environmental friendly packaging are three major
attributes. The analysis of mean score of consumer responses on various attributes of

7|Page
packaging suggest that their responses are not very strong as mean score is less than 4 for
all the packaging attributes.

Table 5: Weighted scores of consumer’s response on fruits and vegetables packaging (%)
Packaging Attributes Mean Weighted Rank
Score* Score
Packaging make things attractive to buy 3.60 810 1
Packaging gives pleasant appearance to products 3.75 848 2
Packaging waste materials are dangerous for environment 3.58 853 3
Packaging make things ease to handle 3.67 900 4
Packaging makes ease in storage 3.82 959 5
Packaging make sure things are not tampered with 3.95 964 6
Packaging make things more hygienic 3.20 968 7
Packaging make ease for labeling 3.21 977 8
Packaging is there to protect the product 3.80 993 9
Packaging extends the shelf-life of perishable goods 2.83 1156 10
Packaging save product waste 2.55 1188 11
Packaging adds volume/size of the product 1.67 1304 12
Packaging adds weight to the product 3.92 1422 13
* Consumer perception of food packaging (1=strongly disagree………5=strongly agree)

Factor Analysis

Based on factor analysis, four sets of components/ factors emerged, which explains the
58.421 percent of variance (Table 6). The total variance explained by factor 1 is 22.068
percent primarily comprising of product protection, preservation and quality attributes of
food packaging as indicated by factor loading values. Factor 2 explains 16.822 percent
variation and load high on factors related to product appearance and convenience in terms
of labeling, handling and storage of the products. Similarly, factor 3 explains variation of
11.431 percent and correlates high on factors related to product size and weight. The last
component of factor analysis shows a variation of 8.100 percent and load high on
environmental concerns of food packaging. This analysis clearly categories the packing
attributes based on consumers’ perspective for fruits and vegetables, which can be used
by food processors and packagers for making appropriate decisions on packaging issues.

8|Page
Table 6: Factor analysis to identify fruits and vegetables packaging attributes
Factors Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Commun-
alities

Packaging save product waste 0.756 0.075 0.067 -0.147 0.592

Packaging is there to protect the product 0.673 0.039 -0.138 0.346 0.454
Packaging extends the shelf-life of 0.663 0.057 0.199 -0.268 0.396
perishable goods
Packaging make sure things are not 0.637 -0.032 0.105 0.190 0.473
tampered with
Packaging make things more hygienic 0.593 0.019 -0.140 0.156 0.587
Packaging make things attractive to buy 0.018 0.744 -0.164 -0.019 0.581
Packaging gives pleasant appearance to -0.010 0.725 -0.176 0.145 0.548
products
Packaging make ease for labeling 0.035 0.710 0.278 -0.068 0.578
Packaging make things ease to handle 0.091 0.597 -0.171 0.392 0.603
Packaging makes ease in storage 0.423 0.425 -0.267 -0.205 0.554
Packaging adds volume/size of the product 0.041 -0.110 0.885 -0.054 0.800
Packaging adds weight to the product 0.004 -0.102 0.855 -0.036 0.742
Packaging waste materials are dangerous 0.088 0.095 -0.025 0.818 0.687
for environment
Total Variance Explained (%) 22.068 16.822 11.431 8.100
Cumulative Variance Explained (%) 22.068 38.890 50.321 58.421
Note: Bold numbers indicate the largest loading for each variable

Conclusion
In general, majority of Indian consumers purchase fruits and vegetables in fresh and loose
form from local vendors or hawkers. The strong economic growth with increased
purchasing power has brought with it a new set of consumers at urban locations,
demanding processed and packaged food products at convenient marketplaces. To reap
the benefits of changing consumer preferences, organized retailing in the form of
supermarket and hypermarket are witnessing phenomenal growth across the country.
These outlets are selling sorted and graded fruits and vegetables in a very hygienic
environment with own-labelled brands. The level of fruits and vegetables packaging is at
an infancy stage and is anticipated to rise fast due to increased consumer preference on
one hand and emergence of organized and integrated retail formats on the other. At this
juncture, this study gives timely input to food processors, retailers and food packagers
while introducing packaging in fruits and vegetables segment. Results of the study
suggest that most of the consumers are concerned with the packaging material and

9|Page
attributes. The analysis indicates that consumers expect all the packaging to be
environmental friendly and bio-degradable. The result clearly emphasize that the
packaging should focus more on safety and quality issues of the product followed by
attractiveness & appearance and the environmental issues.

10 | P a g e
References
Ahmed, A., Ahmed, N. and Ahmed, S., 2005. “Critical issues in packaged food
business”, British Food Journal, Vol. 107 No. 10, pp. 760-780.
Ampuero, Olga and Natalia Vila, 2006. “Consumer perceptions of product packaging”.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23/2 (2006): 100–112.
Bech-Larsen, Tino, 1996. “Danish consumers' attitudes to the functional and
environmental characteristics of food packaging”. Journal of Consumer Policy. Volume
19, Number 3 / September, 1996.
Bogue, J., 2001. “New product development and the Irish food sector: a qualitative study
of activities and processes”. Irish Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 171-93.
Goyal, Anita and N.P. Singh, 2007. “Consumer perception about fast food in India: an
exploratory study”. British Food Journal, Vol. 109 No. 2, 2007, pp. 182-195
Gray, V. and Guthrie, J., 1990. “Ethical issues of environmentally friendly packaging”.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 8,
pp. 31-6.
ILSI, 2000. “Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) for Food Packaging Applications”.
International Life Sciences Institute. ILSI Europe Report Series. ISBN 1-57881-092-2
Jahre, Marianne and Carl Johan Hatteland, 2004. “Packages and physical distribution:
Implications for integration and standardization”. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, 2004: pp. 123-139
Johnsson, M. (1999), “Packaging logistics – a value added approach”. PhD thesis,
Department of Technical Logistics, Lund University, Lund.
Kittur, F.S., Kumar, K.R., Tharanathan, R.N., 1998. “Functional Packaging Properties of
Chitosan Films”. European Food Research Technology, 1998, 44, 206–208.
Lee, S.G. and S.W. Lye, 2003. “Design for manual packaging”. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, 2003: pp. 163-189
Ling, Shu-Shian, Dawn Thorndike Pysarchik and Ho Jung Choo, 2004. “Adopters of new
food products in India”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 371-391.
Prendergast, G., 1995. “The logistical implications of the EC directive on packaging and
packaging waste”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1995, pp. 10-17.
Prendergast, Gerard and Leyland Pitt, 1996. “Packaging, marketing, logistics and the
environment: are there trade-offs?. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 26 No.6, 1996, pp. 60-72
Pysarchik, D.T., Chung, J.E. and Plank, L.F., 1999. “Western-style prepared foods blaze
trail in Indian market”, Marketing News, 16 August, p. 14.
Robertson, G.L., 1990. “Good and bad packaging: who decides?” Asia Pacific
International Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 3 No. 2, 1990, pp. 37-40.
Rundh, Bo, 2005. “The multi-faceted dimension of packaging marketing logistic or
marketing tool”? British Food Journal, Vol. 107 No. 9, 2005 pp. 670-684

11 | P a g e
Sara, R., 1990. “Packaging as a retail marketing tool”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, 1990, pp. 29-30.
Shaw, A., Mathur, P. and Mehrotra, N.N., 1993. “A study of consumers’ attitude towards
processed food”, Indian Food Industry, Vol. 47, pp. 29-41.
Silayoi, Pinya and Mark Speece, 2004. “Packaging and purchase decision: An
exploratory study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure”, British Food
Journal, Vol. 106, No. 8, pp. 607-628.
Srinivasa, P.C. and R.N. Tharanathan, 2007. “Chitin/Chitosan -Safe, Ecofriendly
Packaging Materials with Multiple Potential Uses”. Food Reviews International, 23:53–
72
Stewart-Knox, B. and Mitchell, P., 2003. “What separates the winners from the losers in
new food product development?” Trends in Food Science & Food Technology, Vol. 14
Nos 1/2, pp. 58-63.
Underwood, R.L. (2003), “The communicative power of product packaging: creating
brand identity via lived and mediated experience”, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Winter, pp. 62-76.
Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M. and Burke, R.R., 2001. “Packaging communication:
attentional effects of product imagery”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol.
10 No. 7, pp. 403-22.
Wells, L.E., H. Farley and G.A. Armstrong, 2007. “The importance of packaging design
for own-label food brands” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 35 No. 9, 2007: pp. 677-690.
Zaby, G., 2001. “Plastics remain a growth industry”, Kunststoffe Plast Europe, Karl
Hanser Verlag, Munich, Germany, 91(10):84-86.
Rettie, R. and Brewer, C., 2000. “The verbal and visual components of package design”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 56-70.

12 | P a g e