Out of the Box: Exploring Cardboard Returnability in Nanostore Supply Chains

Abstract

Packaging plays an important role in the movement and distribution of products along the supply chain by safely ensuring proper product delivery, achieving economies of scale through standardization, and serving as a selling tool. Packaging presents associated high economic and environmental costs for transportation, picking, handling, storing, and returning products. Considering the high demand for paper and cardboard worldwide and the projected increase during the next decade, there is a latent need to prevent and reduce the possible waste from packaging. The return of cardboard boxes used for packaging to the product suppliers could be a feasible solution to tackle this issue; however, it seems to be a disposable cost that companies assume when delivering products to highly fragmented markets. This research intends to understand the role that nanostores play in affecting whether or not cardboard packages are returned after receiving the products from suppliers and how likely shopkeepers are to support closing the loops in the current supply chain system. A survey with 27 questions related to recycling, reusing, reselling, returning, and waste was designed and applied to three hundred thirty-seven shopkeepers in two stages. The data was analyzed through plot analysis and descriptive statistical methods. The results show that some dynamic drivers and intervention schemes may increase the current returnability rate of packaging (11%) to the level of reuse rates (75% in these small, family-owned retailers). We found that thicker cardboard packages foster reuse and recycling rates. Based on the results, we propose that startups close the gap to trigger returnability and recycling while the government develops regulations to support these initiatives.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, a movement calling for more responsible practices has grown. It aims to create economic growth for all stakeholders while preserving natural and social capital, consistent with the pledge “Leave no one behind (LNOB)”, which is the primary purpose of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The agenda seeks to ensure that humankind respects the planetary boundaries [1] by changing the traditional linear manufacturing business model (i.e., extract materials—manufacture—use—waste) toward a more responsible model, which is more circular, regenerative, and restorative by design [2].

The vicious circle created in traditional models is based on companies aiming to generate revenue by selling new products to customers. Therefore, they have no incentive to lengthen the life cycle of their products [3], which triggers a culture of overconsumption and adds pressure on the city’s capabilities to manage and dispose of the associated waste properly [4]. Recently, companies have started to face pressure from customers [5,6], stakeholders [7,8], and policymakers [9,10,11] to become more sustainable and to reduce the amount of waste produced along the entire supply chain [12]. A large portion of the waste is linked to the packaging of the goods [13,14,15]. Several strategies have been suggested to minimize this type of waste [16,17]. However, low collection rates and inadequate recovery infrastructure are bottlenecks to improving the recycling rate and material efficiency of post-consumer packaging materials such as cardboard boxes and glass containers [18]. Considering the advantages of a cardboard box for storing different products and preserving their quality, it is understandable why these packages are frequently reused.

Food and beverage industries use large volumes of plastic, cardboard, and wooden boxes as transport packaging along multiple echelons and supply chain actors [19]. However, it is essential to highlight that retailers must embrace sustainability as awareness of the impact on the supply chain at different scales increases [20]. Actually, retailers are key to driving circular economy models in which products in the early stages of their end of life are returned to the supply chain for continued use. There are several well-reported cases of retailers’ roles in recovering plastic, but not so much has been reported for other materials.

Nowadays, the cardboard industry has grown significantly due to the rapid increase in e-commerce [21,22] attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic [23] and the need for companies to protect the goods purchased by customers along the supply chain. With companies promoting cardboard reuse [24] and recycling practices [25], it is necessary to understand consumer recycling behavior, knowledge, and willingness to support these initiatives. There are two purposes for reuse campaigns: first, being friendly to the environment by generating reuse habits in people, and second, reducing logistics and storage costs for manufacturers and retailers where cardboard boxes may be helpful to store or be reused to transport other items [26,27].

Amid this push-pull war on managing waste from both ends of the supply chain, the distributors act as intermediaries linking the manufacturer and the downstream parties, sometimes using retailers as collection points. Moreover, distributors act as decoupling points where they must balance the overstock from upstream parties and meet the needs of small order quantities from downstream parties, especially, small retailers [28]. Subsequently, it could be inferred that any entity acting as a distributor could support the waste reduction strategy as it connects both supply chain streams. These distributors and wholesalers play a similar role to the container companies that move shipping containers worldwide, but they manage the boxes in this case. Unfortunately, in most cases, these cardboard packs are not returned, forcing manufacturers and distributors to order more boxes to keep the logistics system working. Unlike shipping containers, boxes can be easily produced, assembled, and inserted into the system by any party, which unnecessarily increases the number of outer packs circulating in the supply chains and the environmental impact.

In emerging markets, distributors face the additional challenge of serving a growing urbanized population, increased traffic congestion, economic uncertainty [29], and a high level of informality, creating densely populated neighborhoods and making last-mile delivery operations an intricate activity. Distributors must supply small independent retailers, or nanostores [30], which serve as the main point of sale for households, in particular for the bottom of the pyramid (i.e., people who live with less than US$5 per day and account for 65% of the world’s population).

The nanostores (also known as mom-and-pop shops or neighborhood stores), estimated at 50 million globally [31], are the places where customers typically buy essential goods daily in small quantities or individual product units [32]. Despite being identified by different names (e.g., changarro in Mexico, tienda de barrio in Colombia and Bolivia, pulperia in Central America, colmado in the Dominican Republic, mercadinho in Brazil, kirana in India), they share similar features. These stores are family-operated and non-organized, mostly with less than 100 m² of commercial space [31]. They are predominantly located in emerging market economies [33]. They operate under strict cash and inventory constraints due to limited budgets and null storage space [34] and provide informal credit to end consumers to foster the affordability of multiple products [35]. Moreover, nanostores play a crucial role within their communities, serving bottom-of-the-pyramid consumers [36] and creating entrepreneurial opportunities [37] for people looking to make a living and avoid unemployment.

Nanostores are therefore located in a “sweet spot”, becoming the ultimate link between the manufacturer of consumer packaged goods (CPG) and the end consumer, whose daily needs for “fragmented” products are met. Nanostore owners regularly receive orders from multiple distributors, wholesalers, and manufacturers, which are delivered using cardboard boxes. Some of these suppliers do not leave the boxes with the shopkeepers, but some do. Shopkeepers use these packages mainly for storing, protecting, and transporting products [38]. Consequently, they may support initiatives regarding the reuse and/or reduction of product packaging, like cardboard. Nanostores do not have large backrooms or storage areas to store inventory and prefer to build a competitive strategy [39]. Therefore, most supplying operations must be performed daily or every other day as shopkeepers order various products, such as bakery products, home- and personal-care products, dairy products, assorted refreshments, and cleaning items. Consequently, nanostores accumulate cardboard boxes from suppliers. Our research intends to demonstrate the role that nanostores could play in the return of cardboard packaging in emerging markets, using the city of La Paz in Bolivia as a case study, by answering the questions: What significant factors may trigger the returnability of cardboard packaging for shopkeepers? What role may shopkeepers play in reducing packaging waste?

The research goal is to analyze the driving characteristics of nanostore owners and potential strategies to become active agents to increase the returnability and reuse of cardboard packages. The authors chose Bolivia because it is a Latin American country with a high market share of nanostores, roughly 70%. La Paz-El Alto region was selected because it hosts 15% of Bolivia’s population, is second-ranked in the gross national product, and is characterized as a city with plenty of commerce. We conducted an exploratory investigation through interviews and surveys with nanostore owners to collect data about shopkeepers’ profiles, supply, dynamics with supply chain stakeholders, and characterization of reuse, return, recycling, reselling, and waste of boxes. The data were processed and analyzed using statistical methods. Our analysis highlights that most shopkeepers reuse cardboard boxes because there are limited ways to return the packaging. Intervention schemes based on granting a monetary reward for returning packages were most commonly selected, followed by those that reduce the environmental impact and, lastly, those with a social impact.

Despite being a baseline study to map dynamics and describe shopkeepers’ behavior and preferences around reselling, reusing, returning, and recycling, the investigation fills a relevant gap in the literature. Currently, there is no information about how nanostore owners handle cardboard boxes, their motivation for reusing or recycling cardboard materials, or their role in triggering circular economy models in retail supply chains in emerging market economies such as Bolivia.

The remainder of this manuscript presents the methodology, data collection, and sampling in Section 2. Section 3 presents the results of the exploratory analysis, while Section 4 briefly discusses the results. Finally, Section 5 draws the main conclusions and future research venues.

2. Methodology

For this research, we follow an exploratory study methodology to understand the context, behavior, and circumstances and assess different phenomena [40] by connecting various disciplines under the same umbrella [41]. As empirical exploratory research intends to reduce research bias effectively [42], collection tools must be tailored [43]. In this case, the authors designed a survey with closed-ended questions [44], reducing potential bias issues, looking for honest responses [45], and minimizing the interaction time between the interviewer and the interviewee while maximizing the data collected.

Data collection represents a significant challenge due to the limitations of obtaining reliable primary data [46]. Furthermore, public policies regarding the recycling and reuse of cardboard are inexistent, untwisting, and/or largely neglected, allowing for different failures in the system [47]. Due to this lack of information, only a few studies on diverse topics have been conducted around nanostores in other emerging market economies: Indonesia [48], China [49], Mexico [33,35], Peru [36,50], Colombia [51], and Morocco [52], among others.

Considering the latest, this research was performed in Bolivia, an emerging-market country, which shows a dominant presence of nanostores in the retail landscape. As a result, the authors surveyed a statistically significant sample of shopkeepers to represent them accurately in La Paz and El Alto. Both cities account for the majority of nanostores in Bolivia, with roughly 14,370 nanostores [53], of which 53% are in El Alto city. Lifestyles in these two cities are very different from each other. El Alto city has a higher presence of commercial areas, many nanostores, and a vibrant entrepreneurial spirit. In comparison, La Paz city shows fewer nanostores but a higher presence of supermarkets and bigger retailers, as most inhabitants work for different companies and organizations.

Figure 1 presents a summarized representation of the methodology followed in this research. Section 2.1 describes how the sample was identified and defined. Section 2.2 mentions how the data collection instrument was designed and the data collection stages. Finally, Section 2.3 summarizes the data collection and analysis.

2.1. Sample Size Definition

To ensure that the sample size is coherent with the population data, we considered the total population of inhabitants in the La Paz region to be 2,046,647, of which 1,091,452 are located in El Alto, and the remaining 955,195 are located in La Paz. Following the latest estimate of nanostores in the country, with one nanostore for every 133 inhabitants [54], it can be concluded that the estimated population of 15,388 nanostores fairly sketches the actual number of these family-owned stores. For the sample calculation, we work with the following variables: “$N$” is the population, “$\sigma$” is the standard deviation for a normal distribution, “$Z$” is the level of confidence, “$e$” is the error, and “$n$” is the final sample size. The variables are shown in Equation (1).

(1)$n=\frac{Z^2\ast {\sigma }^2\ast N}{e^2\ast \left(N-1\right)+Z^2\ast {\sigma }^2}$

If we use the variables, $N=\mathrm{15,388}$, $\sigma =0.4725$, $Z=1.96$ at a level of confidence equal to 95%, and $e=5\%$, then the determined sample size found is as follows:

$n=\frac{{1.96}^2\ast {0.4725}^2\ast \mathrm{15,388}}{{0.05}^2\ast \mathrm{15,387}+{1.96}^2\ast {0.4725}^2}$

$n=336 Surveys$

Therefore, by collecting at least 336 surveys from shopkeepers, we would have a representative sample in La Paz and El Alto cities in Bolivia.

2.2. Design of Instruments and Collection Stages

This study’s primary data collection instrument is a survey with closed-ended questions designed to help researchers understand the habits and practices of shopkeepers related to the use of cardboard boxes received from their suppliers in the nanostores. While the survey primarily focuses on cardboard box reuse, it also captures information regarding five critical dimensions of cardboard box use. These dimensions include reuse, return, resell, recycling, and waste. By detailing these dimensions, we aim to understand behavioral operations at a granular level and contribute to the work proposed by Thierry et al. [55] regarding product recovery, as presented in Figure 2. Consequently, we consider the cardboard box (i.e., exterior packaging or outer pack) the target product.

The survey was designed to collect specific and measurable data that could be used to identify trends and patterns in the use of cardboard boxes by nanostore owners. Closed-ended questions were proposed as they provide consistent and easily comparable data, which is essential for identifying significant findings. Additionally, the survey design allowed for identifying critical demographic characteristics of the nanostore owners, which is crucial in understanding the context in which they operate.

The survey was designed after engaging with shopkeepers and asking them to share their experiences regarding reusing cardboard boxes in their stores through a short interview. The interviewer was responsible for asking the questions and recording the responses via Google Forms through a link they could access.

To test the data collection instrument, the data collection was split into two main stages: a pilot stage and the final survey stage. The pilot stage was intended to test the estimated interviewing time, ensure that all questions were clear for the interviewees, and serve as a training and first approach for the interviewers to the nanostore owners’ population. The final survey stage aimed to conduct extensive data collection in the city.

Therefore, the survey was carefully designed to gather comprehensive and meaningful data in the pilot stage. It consisted of 27 main questions and took approximately 5 min for each respondent to complete. To streamline the data-gathering process, we chose to use Google Forms. This process allowed us to ask various questions, including multiple selections, Likert scales, and grid questions. Furthermore, it enabled numerous surveyors to record the answers simultaneously, while the tool automatically recorded the responses in a timely and organized manner. After completing the pilot stage, it was determined that the survey took longer than expected, ranging between 7 and 8 min. The respondents felt exhausted upon completion, according to the interviewer’s reports.

Moreover, it was identified that three questions were not providing additional information, and it was decided to discard them for the next stage. By removing these questions, the final survey was completed in 5 min. The final survey consisted of six demographic questions, three supplier-related questions, seven reuse habits questions, three resell habits questions, three recycling habits questions, three return habits questions, and two waste habits questions (see Table 1). For each section, a yes/no question was presented to the respondent, and if the answer were no, the interviewer would move on to the next section: e.g., Return section—Q23—Do you return cardboard boxes to the CPG supplier? Yes/No. For questions Q3 and Q16, as these required different subsections within the same question to be answered, these options presented in italics.

As the tool is quite extensive, it might seem that it requires that the surveyor undergo intensive training and follow a cautious procedure to avoid skipping any questions unintentionally. However, to prevent this, the tool was designed using Google Forms, which allowed the researchers to split the survey into the same sections mentioned in Table 1. This process facilitated more accessible data collection. The full version of the questions presented in the data collection tool can be seen in Supplementary Materials Table S1.

Overall, the survey design and data-gathering process were carefully planned and executed to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the collected data. Using Google Forms and Excel facilitated the data gathering and analysis, allowing us to draw meaningful conclusions and inform future decision-making processes.

2.3. Data Collection Tool and Analysis

Since the exact number of nanostores operating in the analyzed region is unknown, it was decided to select the nanostores for an interview through “non-probabilistic” sampling [56], which involves an informal and random selection procedure that allows drawing first-order inferences from the sample to the whole population.

The pilot stage collected 35 surveys (i.e., 20 in El Alto and 15 in La Paz). The final survey stage comprised the collection of 302 surveys (i.e., 177 in El Alto and 125 in La Paz), providing the final results after reducing the interview time. As the stratified random sampling would suggest, the decision to have more surveys performed in El Alto is consistent with the higher commercial activity in the area. Overall, the survey design and data-gathering process were carefully planned and executed to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the collected data. Using Google Forms and Excel facilitated the data gathering and analysis, allowing us to draw meaningful conclusions and inform future decision-making processes.

After conducting all the surveys, the data were downloaded into an Excel file and analyzed using various statistical methods, like descriptive statistics. Data analysis involved identifying trends, patterns, and relationships among variables. We also conducted a preliminary analysis of the data obtained from the pilot phase to ensure that the final survey questions effectively gathered reliable data.

Finally, the collection period was 15 days, from 22 November to 5 December, 2022. The selected timeframe allowed interviewers to randomly choose the days to visit the nanostores, ensuring no difference between answers collected on a workday or over the weekend. Furthermore, having a diverse group of 26 interviewers (15 females and 11 males) was crucial for completing the task within the specified timeframe. It proved that the respondents had no preference for the interviewer in their willingness to participate in the survey.

3. Results

In this section, we will provide an overview and statistics of the results obtained from the surveys and a detailed analysis of these results. We will first explain the geographical locations where the surveys were conducted and the participants’ demographics. Furthermore, we will delve into the supply chain implications and participants’ perceptions regarding using cardboard in stores. Finally, we will present the actions taken by the participants and, ultimately, define the behavior patterns observed in using this material. By providing a comprehensive analysis of these results, we aim to draw meaningful conclusions that can be used to improve future decision-making processes. To illustrate the results, we have created a series of statistics, graphs, and tables that present the data collected in the surveys. We have also included relevant participant quotes to provide context and support the findings.

As previously mentioned, the survey was run in two stages. To ensure the collection instrument was set correctly, the results from the pilot stage were conducted, and then a final survey was conducted to gather conclusive data and compare results. Similar results were obtained for several items at both stages. For example, in the pilot survey, 70% of the respondents answered that they reused cardboard boxes in the nanostores. Comparably, 75% of respondents answered similarly in the final survey.

The questionnaire was conducted mainly in El Alto, surveying 197 nanostores (58.4%) of the final sample, consistent with the city’s intensive commercial activity and the larger nanostore population. In La Paz, 140 surveys were applied to accumulate 337 surveys.

3.1. Statistics about Demographics

The demographics section found that most shopkeepers who participated in the survey are female (68%), with a ratio of 2:1 (male 32%). Only 22.2% are younger than 30 years old, while the remaining 77.8% are distributed among the following age groups: 31–40 years old (44.4%), 41–50 years old (26.2%), and over 50 years old (7.2%). Regarding education level, 64.2% of the shopkeepers reported that they have completed up to secondary school (i.e., ninth grade), 10.9% have completed only primary school (i.e., sixth grade), and 0.02% have no studies at all. Only 22.5% of respondents have a higher education; less than 0.01% have completed advanced degrees. Additionally, it was identified that 52% of the respondents rely entirely on the nanostore as their primary source of income, while the remaining 48% supplement running a nanostore with a secondary activity by working in another sector. From the last group, shopkeepers work in other commercial activities (31.8%), education activities (5.6%), and other industries like manufacturing (3.3%), house labor (3%), and transportation (2.3%). Finally, regarding the size of the nanostore, it was somewhat expected that most of the nanostores would be mid-sized—between 50 and 100 m²—(60%), followed by small stores—less than 50 m²—(22.8%), and lastly, large stores—over 100 m²—(18.2%).

3.2. Statistics about Suppliers and Shopkeepers

In the supply section, the respondents were given a list of nine widely recognized and major suppliers in Bolivia and the option to mention any additional one. As a result, all nanostores have more than two suppliers; some have up to 14. The different suppliers mentioned numbered five, mainly major distributors and wholesalers. Among the suppliers, CPG manufacturers such as Pil Andina (12.8%), Delizia (12%), and La Estrella (12%) supply almost all nanostores in La Paz and El Alto. Regarding the goods sold by nanostores, 20.6% are cookies and crackers, followed by ice cream and cereals with 15.8% each, and chocolates and confectionery (13.9%) in third place. Additionally, as most of these products are delivered in cardboard boxes, it was identified that 58.5% of shopkeepers receive more than five boxes per week (33.9% between 5 and 10 boxes per week and 24.6% more than 10), and about 41.5% receive fewer than five boxes per week. This considerable amount of cardboard packaging is used in a network that comprises over 15,000 nanostores.

Given the number of cardboard boxes of different sizes and shapes that nanostores receive from other vendors, retailers must decide what to do with them, as these packages can pile up in their limited storage and display areas. Due to this, the shopkeepers were also asked about their “cardboard box management” practices. A quarter of the respondents (25.4%) discarded the boxes. In contrast, the remaining 74.6% “keep the boxes in the loop” in one way or another, as presented in Figure 3. Reuse is the preferred option by most respondents, followed by recycling, reselling, and just a tiny portion returning them to the distributors and suppliers.

3.3. Statistics about Reutilization and Disposal Practices

Regarding the reuse practice, 55.2% of respondents mentioned they engaged in it less than three years ago, while the remainder claimed they have always done it. Sixty-two percent of shopkeepers reuse the boxes inside the nanostores to display various products (31.1%) or store products (30.7%). In contrast, the remaining 38.1% use the boxes to pack customer orders (23.4%) or deliver them (14.7%). On the reuse of packages for storage within the nanostore, most of the storage room (72.4%) is used on non-perishable but highly rotational products (46.4% cookies and confectionery and 26% beverages and non-perishable foods). The remaining 27.6% stores perishables with high rotation (fruits and vegetables). Regarding the box features, the respondents were presented with the simplified naming version of the cardboard boxes (single, double, triple, or microchannel boxes instead of flute classifications) to avoid confusion when presented with the different options. As a result, the respondents strongly preferred thicker boxes (i.e., double channel—44.8% and triple channel—26.3%), as these were more durable. Single-channel boxes (24.1%) and microchannel boxes (1.79%) were less preferred. Reuse tends to be linked by respondents to adequate weight and durability (60.7%), purchasing price (58.9%), ease of handling (71.9%), durability (68.75%), and recyclability (74.1%).

On reselling, 66.2% of respondents generate an additional revenue stream through this practice. Passers-by are the main customers (68%), followed by bookstores and gift shops (10.3%) and small CPG manufacturers (9.4%), while other commercial entities represent the remaining 12.3%. For most shopkeepers (60.1%), the average selling price of a medium-sized cardboard box (30 cm × 20 cm × 15 cm) was less than 3.5 Bs. (US$0.5), although a higher selling price was considered only by 30.4% of shopkeepers. Although this may extend the lifetime of the cardboard packages, the visibility of their usage and return to a closed-loop supply chain is not guaranteed.

Regarding cardboard box recycling, 69.6% of shopkeepers mentioned engaging in this practice. When asked why they recycle, 95% said it was related to personal recycling habits. In comparison, 3% mentioned it was related to complying with local/national regulations on recycling. The remaining 2% suggested they were learning about environmental responsibility and were interested in contributing to recycling programs. The shopkeepers were then asked where they had left the discarded cardboard boxes to be recycled. Seventy-three percent of shopkeepers mentioned that they placed the boxes in authorized recycling points nearby their residential area (48%), malls or supermarkets (3.3%), or even the same nanostore that serves as a recycling point (21.7%). Interestingly, 27% of the respondents mentioned that the collection and recycling activities were performed by informal recyclers, which represent a relevant social component in supporting these vulnerable communities to get rid of any waste and favor recycling for big companies.

Regarding the return of the boxes to suppliers (e.g., CPG manufacturers) or distributors, we found that only 11.2% of the shopkeepers engage in this activity. Typically, CPG manufacturers collect the boxes on their next visit to the store (56%) or through an intermediary of the CPG company (36%). In only a few cases—the largest nanostores—(8%), the shopkeepers reported that they returned the boxes directly to the supplier sites (8%). When asked about the benefits of returning the packages, 44% said exchanging the old box for a new one was necessary, and 32% said the supplier would offer them a discount on their next purchase. In comparison, 24% suggested that the CPG manufacturers or distributors would purchase back the boxes when they were in good condition.

After reviewing the different practices that allowed the cardboard boxes to remain “in the loop”, it is necessary to understand why 25.4% of the shopkeepers directly dispose of the boxes into the waste stream. When asked why they discarded the boxes, 67.1% said they tear out and break very quickly (low-quality issues), most probably because they were looking to reuse them. Sixteen percent suggested that the boxes did not help preserve the quality of the product in the long term, and 16.4% believed that the boxes were toxic to human health and the environment. Subsequently, the respondents were asked about reasons to engage in at least one of the aforementioned practices (i.e., reuse, return, recycle, or resell). Half of the respondents categorically stated that they would do it if it represented additional monetary income, and 39% suggested adopting any waste reduction initiatives if there was clear evidence of supported environmental programs. The remaining 11.1% said they would do it if it were related to recycling projects or competitions in their neighborhoods (i.e., local social impact). Unsurprisingly, none of the respondents considered the “tax reduction” for contributions to recycling or “meeting local legislation” as an incentive to engage in any of the practices. The latter is because most shopkeepers are informal and do not care about meeting regulations, particularly in Bolivia, where few-to-no policies are directed to shopkeepers and nanostores.

Given these statistics and analysis, we can conclude that a significant percentage of shopkeepers still directly dispose of cardboard boxes into the waste stream because they consider that the boxes are of low quality and do not preserve the quality of the products in the long term. In addition, some traders believe the boxes are toxic to human health and the environment. However, many shopkeepers are willing to participate in waste reduction initiatives such as reuse, return, recycle, and resell if straightforward environmental programs are in place and if this represents additional monetary income. In addition, some shopkeepers are motivated by local social impact and recycling projects or contests. It is also evident that tax reduction or compliance with local legislation are not incentives for these shopkeepers to participate in waste reduction initiatives, as they are informal and do not care to comply with regulations.

4. Discussion

The data collected through nanostore owners and managers has allowed for an understanding of their preferences to engage in sustainable practices for cardboard packages from distributors and CPG manufacturers. Based on the findings, practitioners and policymakers can identify the gaps, lever the identified drivers, and design recovery channels and regulations to increase the reuse and recycling of cardboard packages collected from nanostores. Cost savings in nanostores may derive from cardboard reuse, given that a high cost comes from the packaging material and buying new cardboard boxes to pack some products [57]. On the vendor side, by collecting used cardboard boxes from nanostores, businesses can save money on packaging costs. The availability of cardboard is also affected by collecting used cardboard boxes from nanostores. Companies can more effectively manage their inventory of packaging materials and reduce the potential waste generated by them.

Given that shopkeepers prefer thicker boxes for durability, decision-makers from CPG manufacturers and distributors should assess the best design of their outer packs to use double- and triple-channel cardboard to enhance the reuse and recycling rates of the boxes on dry products. Moreover, it should be noted that, as the strength of corrugated cardboard boxes is a focal point for customers, options to increase their durability based on the internal design of the box layers (different flutes and walls) should be considered [58]. Using these features will also increase the returnability of the packages to suppliers serving nanostores. The latter will foster the configuration of an effective closed-loop supply chain for packaging materials to reduce the purchase of new boxes, decreasing the assembling costs and the opportunity costs those materials and boxes have when stored in the inventory. In addition, companies can create alternative ways to recover their cardboard packages by using alternative collection points and providing incentives to nanostores, wholesalers, and other intermediaries to avoid wasting 25% of the materials. Practitioners should carefully consider what type of nudge to provide to shopkeepers. Although shopkeepers highly value monetary incentives, other research shows that shopkeepers may also appreciate belonging to point programs, participating in raffles for technology gadgets, getting paid vacations, and receiving courtesy products [59]. Therefore, the incentives and the collection network design must support each other to recover larger quantities of cardboard packaging materials for recycling, promote returnability, and reduce self-reuse.

An effect on the perception of customers was also identified. For example, proposing to implement a cardboard reuse program can improve the perception of environmental responsibility and the sustainability efforts of the whole nanostore supply chain. Moreover, implementing reuse programs will reduce the environmental impacts related to cardboard boxes’ life cycle [60], principally from the extraction and manufacturing processes [61], and even create positive implications at the end-of-life stage [62]. The latter will be possible by reusing the boxes, avoiding extracting new materials, and even returning the empty boxes to the same vehicle on which the new deliveries are distributed. This could become a key differentiator for environmentally conscious consumers when purchasing, as it can positively influence customer loyalty and brand reputation, in addition to the environmental benefits due to the reduction in the amount of waste that ends up in landfills, minimizing negative environmental impacts. This analysis may potentially migrate into other packaging materials, such as plastic, to increase the returnability rate of the boxes and the number of cycles they can go from suppliers to retailers and back.

Given the existence of informal recyclers, policymakers and practitioners must develop an intermediary for collecting boxes and cardboard. Despite their informal and fragmented nature, recyclers may be a force to be reckoned with in recovering durable boxes in good condition. Therefore, policymakers should create regulations to push suppliers, distributors, and manufacturers to reduce the use of new packages and strengthen the professionalization of recyclers to improve recycling practices by recovering materials and reinserting them into formal supply chains. Policymakers should also propose decrees, mandates, and regulations to ensure the safety of products and packages being moved along supply chains, act rapidly in cases of cross-contamination, and promote the use of standard non-toxic materials. Furthermore, aside from traditional recycling, additional ways to create value for cardboard (and paper) could be explored, such as de-inking cardboard boxes for later rebranding, production of different by-products (sawdust and woodchips, cellulose derivatives, bioethanol production), agricultural mixtures, or energy recovery [63,64,65]. The public sector should also act as an enabler to create incentives to boost collaborative ecosystems with industry, startups, and academia, facilitate and promote infrastructure development, and invest in skill-development programs to train shopkeepers as waste reduction agents and recyclers into the active workforce.

Startups can fill in the gaps that distributors and suppliers have not been able to address by creating visibility to recover packaging materials, boxes, and other types of potential waste. Startups can work with corporations to insert new technology, promote its adoption and diffusion across the supply chain, gain traceability, or facilitate training. They can also insert additional capacity to recover and move materials from customers to suppliers or collection points and to divert and process packaging waste into other industries for recycling, reuse, and composting on a larger scale.

5. Conclusions

The findings of this research demonstrate the importance of sustainable practices in the management of reusable materials in nanostores. Specifically, we focus on reusing cardboard boxes and their movement in nanostore supply chains with a case study in an emerging economy in La Paz and El Alto, Bolivia. Our analysis highlights that many shopkeepers in these cities reuse cardboard boxes for various purposes, demonstrating an understanding of the economic value of reducing waste. In addition, it is clear that the nature of dry products sold in nanostores, such as chocolates and sweets, makes cardboard boxes an ideal packaging solution. However, concerns about the durability and quality of cardboard boxes persist, with some traders suggesting that the thinner boxes are no longer reusable and may be toxic.

However, a critical percentage of shopkeepers dispose of cardboard boxes because they believe they are low quality and potentially harmful. However, with clear environmental programs and financial incentives, many are willing to engage in waste reduction initiatives such as reuse, return, recycle, and resell. Some shopkeepers are motivated by local social impact and recycling projects or competitions. Tax reduction or meeting local legislation are ineffective incentives for informal shopkeepers to engage in waste reduction initiatives.

These findings present an opportunity to investigate further sustainable solutions for using cardboard boxes in nanostores. By developing strategies to address durability, quality, and toxicity issues, we can promote adopting more sustainable practices and reduce waste in the supply chain. Ultimately, this study has implications for improving sustainability practices and may inform policy decisions to encourage a more circular economy. This research emphasizes the need for education and awareness among shopkeepers about the environmental impact of their actions. Although most of the shopkeepers in the present study reuse cardboard boxes, there is still room for improvement. By providing education and training, we can encourage shopkeepers to adopt sustainable practices and reduce their carbon footprint. The study also highlights the importance of collaboration among stakeholders, including nanostores, suppliers, and government agencies. By working together, more sustainable supply chain practices can be developed that benefit all parties involved. Developing partnerships with recycling facilities can also provide a reliable outlet for cardboard box waste, reducing the amount of packaging waste in landfills.

This research also highlights the potential economic benefits of sustainable practices in handling reusable materials. By reusing cardboard boxes, nanostore owners can reduce their costs, contributing to the overall economic growth of their communities. Additionally, sustainable practices can create new business opportunities, such as establishing recycling facilities, leading to job creation and economic development.

Reusing cardboard boxes is a small but important step towards reducing waste and promoting a circular economy, a key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals objective. By adopting sustainable practices, we can reduce our environmental impact and promote a more sustainable future for future generations. In conclusion, based on the results of the surveys and the analysis of the shopkeepers’ responses, it has been identified that the nanostores can adopt sustainable practices in their own logistics operations, specifically with the reuse of cardboard, which could contribute to the reduction of waste. Likewise, the findings also point towards creating strategic decisions to promote adopting more sustainable practices in managing nanostore logistics operations in Bolivia and beyond.

However, despite the findings, this study also shows the natural limitations that arise, given the focus on a specific region of Latin America, where the geographic area’s economy, technology, and culture are influenced. Despite this, this first-order investigation shows emerging research venues for performing formal trade-off analysis to understand what packaging configurations and materials may be used to serve different distribution channels. Other descriptive studies have to be conducted to detail the behavioral components of shopkeepers’ decision-making processes on the impact of packaging size and materials on reuse, recycling, reselling, and return. Prescriptive models are required to optimize the mix of packaging materials, configurations, and new vs. reused packages for diverse distribution channels. Furthermore, predictive models are needed to analyze the impact that regulations, supply/demand shocks, and evolution may have on cardboard packaging in supply chains.

6. Limitations and Future Research

Although the proposed research describes the benefits of using the nanostores as return points for cardboard boxes from CPG manufacturers, this study is limited to one city in one country within Latin America and the Caribbean. It could be expanded to additional cities in the same country for comparison or to similar cities along the region to understand the mindset differences among Latin Americans. Furthermore, it would be interesting to replicate this study in different emerging economic areas and determine which practices are regularly observed.

Another limitation relates to the packaging material used for this study, as we have exclusively considered cardboard boxes. Some CPG manufacturers deliver their products in plastic crates as per their returnability rates in the modern channel. These can be reused and returned several times to the product manufacturer. However, this could become a challenge in emerging economic markets as the attractive features of the plastic crate (durability, foldability, looks, weight, etc.) can decrease the return rates in the traditional channel. This “pessimistic” hypothesis regarding consumer behavior in these regions requires further exploration to be confirmed or rejected. The authors would like to declare that they classify the region using emerging market economy concepts to explore its characteristics by contrasting traditional and modern distribution channels in a real-world application. The authors clarify that this classification does not undermine nor provide negative assumptions or implications about developing countries; instead, they aim to highlight their differences from developed countries.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.H.-C. and C.M.-A.; methodology, D.H.-C., E.G.-F. and C.M.-A.; validation, D.H.-C., E.G.-F., C.M.-A. and H.S.-E.; data collection, H.S.-E.; formal analysis, D.H.-C., E.G.-F. and C.M.-A.; resources, D.H.-C., C.M.-A. and H.S.-E.; data curation, D.H.-C. and H.S.-E.; writing—original draft preparation, D.H.-C. and H.S.-E.; writing—review and editing, D.H.-C., E.G.-F. and C.M.-A.; visualization, D.H.-C., E.G.-F. and C.M.-A.; supervision, D.H.-C., E.G.-F. and C.M.-A.; project administration, D.H.-C.; funding acquisition, D.H.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data sets are available for readers upon request to the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to acknowledge Franz Zenteno and his students at Universidad Mayor de San Andres, in La Paz, Bolivia, who supported the data collection activities. Special thanks to Helen Suntura, Douglas Rojas, Daynor Bautista, Pamela Perez, Cesar Paton, Gabriela Renjifo, Claret Cory, Fanny Mamani, Jhumar Nina, Jhon Copari, Jhoselin Santos, Emerson Apaza, Leyla Medrano, Roger Apaza, Grecia Choolner, Liseth Martinez, Jesús Torrez, Luis Quisbert, Enrique Salazar, and Edith Quispe.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the study’s design, in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Table

Figure 1. Methodology flowchart.

Figure 2. Proposed circular initiatives in a linear nanostore supply chain.

Figure 3. Preference for packaging waste reduction initiatives.

Table 1

Data collection tool.

Subsections		Questions
	Q0	Interviewer’s name
Demographics	Q1	Respondent’s gender
	Q2	Estimated size of the nanostore
	Q3	Where does the respondent live?
	Q3.a	El Alto—Specific location of the nanostore
	Q3.b	La Paz—Specific location of the nanostore
	Q4	Respondent’s age
	Q5	What is your highest level of education?
	Q6	Do you have another economic activity besides the nanostore?
	Q6.1	What is your other economic activity?
Supply	Q7	Which companies are your suppliers?
	Q8	Which kinds of products are delivered in cardboard boxes?
	Q9	How many cardboard boxes do you receive per week?
Reusing	Q10	Do you reuse the cardboard boxes in your store?
	Q11	What are your reuse practices for cardboard boxes after using them?
	Q12	How do you reuse cardboard boxes?
	Q13	What products do you pack/store/transport in cardboard boxes?
	Q14	How long have you been reusing cardboard boxes?
	Q15	How thick should cardboard boxes be to reuse them?
	Q16	How would you rate the following characteristics of cardboard boxes?
	Q16.a	Weight
	Q16.b	Purchasing price
	Q16.c	Ease of handling
	Q16.d	Durability
	Q16.e	Recyclability
Reselling	Q17	Do you sell cardboard boxes?
	Q18	To what type of customers do you sell cardboard boxes?
	Q19	What is your selling price for a mid-sized cardboard box? (30 × 20 × 15) cm3
Recycling	Q20	Do you recycle cardboard boxes?
	Q21	Why do you recycle cardboard boxes?
	Q22	Where do you leave the cardboard boxes for recycling?
Returning	Q23	Do you return cardboard boxes to the CPG supplier?
	Q24	How do you return the boxes to the CPG companies?
	Q25	Which benefit do you get by returning the cardboard boxes?
Waste	Q26	Why do you throw away cardboard boxes?
	Q27	Why would you start reusing/returning/recycling cardboard boxes?

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su15107804/s1, Table S1: Full Questionnaire—Data Collection tool.

References

1. Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E.M.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S.R.; de Vries, W.; de Wit, C.A. et al. Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet. Science; 2015; 347, 1259855. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855]

2. Hidalgo-Carvajal, D.; Carrasco-Gallego, R.; Morales-Alonso, G. From Goods to Services and from Linear to Circular: The Role of Servitization’s Challenges and Drivers in the Shifting Process. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 4539. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13084539]

3. Esposito, M.; Tse, T.; Soufani, K. Companies Are Working with Consumers to Reduce Waste. Harvard Business Review; 7 June 2016; pp. 1-6.

4. Guerrero, L.A.; Maas, G.; Hogland, W. Solid Waste Management Challenges for Cities in Developing Countries. Waste Manag.; 2013; 33, pp. 220-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.008] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23098815]

5. Gualandris, J.; Kalchschmidt, M. Customer Pressure and Innovativeness: Their Role in Sustainable Supply Chain Management. J. Purch. Supply Manag.; 2014; 20, pp. 92-103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2014.03.001]

6. Gong, M.; Gao, Y.; Koh, L.; Sutcliffe, C.; Cullen, J. The Role of Customer Awareness in Promoting Firm Sustainability and Sustainable Supply Chain Management. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2019; 217, pp. 88-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.033]

7. Reuter, C.; Goebel, P.; Foerstl, K. The Impact of Stakeholder Orientation on Sustainability and Cost Prevalence in Supplier Selection Decisions. J. Purch. Supply Manag.; 2012; 18, pp. 270-281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2012.06.004]

8. Meixell, M.J.; Luoma, P. Stakeholder Pressure in Sustainable Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.; 2015; 45, pp. 69-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0155]

9. Costa, I.; Massard, G.; Agarwal, A. Waste Management Policies for Industrial Symbiosis Development: Case Studies in European Countries. J. Clean. Prod.; 2010; 18, pp. 815-822. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.12.019]

10. Wahi, N.; Joseph, C.; Tawie, R.; Ikau, R. Critical Review on Construction Waste Control Practices: Legislative and Waste Management Perspective. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci.; 2016; 224, pp. 276-283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.460]

11. Patil, R.A.; Ramakrishna, S. A Comprehensive Analysis of E-Waste Legislation Worldwide. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2020; 27, pp. 14412-14431. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07992-1]

12. Mahajan, J.; Vakharia, A.J. Waste Management: A Reverse Supply Chain Perspective. Vikalpa J. Decis. Mak.; 2016; 41, pp. 197-208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0256090916659029]

13. Rosenau, W.V.; Twede, D.; Mazzeo, M.A.; Singh, S.P. Returnable/Reusable Logistical Packaging: A Capital Budgeting Investment Decision Framework. J. Bus. Logist.; 1996; 17, pp. 139-165.

14. Verghese, K.; Lewis, H. Environmental Innovation in Industrial Packaging: A Supply Chain Approach. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2007; 45, pp. 4381-4401. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540701450211]

15. García-Arca, J.; Prado-Prado, J.C.; Gonzalez-Portela Garrido, A.T. “Packaging Logistics”: Promoting Sustainable Efficiency in Supply Chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.; 2014; 44, pp. 325-346. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0112]

16. Tencati, A.; Pogutz, S.; Moda, B.; Brambilla, M.; Cacia, C. Prevention Policies Addressing Packaging and Packaging Waste: Some Emerging Trends. Waste Manag.; 2016; 56, pp. 35-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.06.025]

17. Andreasi Bassi, S.; Boldrin, A.; Faraca, G.; Astrup, T.F. Extended Producer Responsibility: How to Unlock the Environmental and Economic Potential of Plastic Packaging Waste?. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2020; 162, 105030. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105030]

18. Meherishi, L.; Narayana, S.A.; Ranjani, K.S. Sustainable Packaging for Supply Chain Management in the Circular Economy: A Review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 237, 117582. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.057]

19. Accorsi, R.; Baruffaldi, G.; Manzini, R. A Closed-Loop Packaging Network Design Model to Foster Infinitely Reusable and Recyclable Containers in Food Industry. Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2020; 24, pp. 48-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.06.014]

20. Vadakkepatt, G.G.; Winterich, K.P.; Mittal, V.; Zinn, W.; Beitelspacher, L.; Aloysius, J.; Ginger, J.; Reilman, J. Sustainable Retailing. J. Retail.; 2021; 97, pp. 62-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2020.10.008]

21. Escursell, S.; Llorach-Massana, P.; Roncero, M.B. Sustainability in E-Commerce Packaging: A Review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 280, 124314. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124314]

22. Chueamuangphan, K.; Kashyap, P.; Visvanathan, C. Packaging Waste from E-Commerce: Consumers’ Awareness and Concern. Sustainable Waste Management: Policies and Case Studies; Ghosh, S.K. Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 27-41. ISBN 9789811370700

23. Liu, X.; Yu, J.; Okubo, K.; Sato, M.; Aoki, T. Case Study on the Efficiency of Recycling Companies’ Waste Paper Collection Stations in Japan. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 11536. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132011536]

24. Rigamonti, L.; Biganzoli, L.; Grosso, M. Packaging Re-Use: A Starting Point for Its Quantification. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.; 2019; 21, pp. 35-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0747-0]

25. Esmieo, M.; Shaklawon, M.; Shaneb, O. Feasibility Study of Cardboard Waste Recycling. Proceedings of First Conference for Engineering Sciences and Technology: Vol. 2; AIJR Publisher: Utraula, India, 2018; pp. 704-710.

26. Cooper, D.R.; Gutowski, T.G. The Environmental Impacts of Reuse: A Review: The Environmental Impacts of Reuse: A Review. J. Ind. Ecol.; 2017; 21, pp. 38-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12388]

27. Minunno, R.; O’Grady, T.; Morrison, G.M.; Gruner, R.L. Exploring Environmental Benefits of Reuse and Recycle Practices: A Circular Economy Case Study of a Modular Building. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2020; 160, 104855. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104855]

28. Ng, T.W.; Chung, W. The Roles of Distributor in the Supply Chain–Push-Pull Boundary. Int. J. Bus. Manag.; 2008; 3, 2839. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v3n7p28]

29. Heckmann, G.; Hidalgo-Carvajal, D.; Vega, J.J. Identifying Underlying Urban Logistics Factors in Old Downtown of Córdoba, Argentina. Supply Chain Management and Logistics in Emerging Markets; Yoshizaki, H.T.Y.; Mejía Argueta, C.; Mattos, M.G. Emerald Publishing Limited: Bentley, UK, 2020; pp. 131-156. ISBN 978-1-83909-333-3

30. Kin, B. Less Fragmentation and More Sustainability: How to Supply Nanostores in Urban Areas More Efficiently?. Transp. Res. Procedia; 2020; 46, pp. 117-124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.03.171]

31. Fransoo, J.C.; Blanco, E.E.; Mejia-Argueta, C. Reaching 50 Million Nanostores: Retail Distribution in Emerging Megacities; CreateSpace Independent Publisher Platform: Lavergne, TN, USA, 2017; ISBN 978-1-975742-00-3

32. Blanco, E.E.; Fransoo, J.C. Reaching 50 Million Nanostores: Retail Distribution in Emerging Megacities; WP 104 (working paper); Eindhoven University of Technology: Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 1-11.

33. Mora-Quiñones, C.; Cárdenas-Barrón, L.; Velázquez-Martínez, J.; Gámez-Pérez, K. The Coexistence of Nanostores within the Retail Landscape: A Spatial Statistical Study for Mexico City. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 10615. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su131910615]

34. Boulaksil, Y.; van Wijk, A.C.C. A Cash-Constrained Stochastic Inventory Model with Consumer Loans and Supplier Credits: The Case of Nanostores in Emerging Markets. Int. J. Prod. Res.; 2018; 56, pp. 4983-5004. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1424368]

35. Rangel-Espinosa, M.F.; Hernández-Arreola, J.R.; Pale-Jiménez, E.; Salinas-Navarro, D.E.; Mejía Argueta, C. Increasing Competitiveness of Nanostore Business Models for Different Socioeconomic Levels. Supply Chain Management and Logistics in Emerging Markets; Yoshizaki, H.T.Y.; Mejía Argueta, C.; Mattos, M.G. Emerald Publishing Limited: Bentley, UK, 2020; pp. 273-298. ISBN 978-1-83909-333-3

36. Escamilla, R.; Fransoo, J.C.; Gallino, S. Order-Based Trade Credits and Operational Performance in the Nanostore Retail Channel. SSRN Electron. J.; 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4190552]

37. Escamilla, R.; Fransoo, J.C.; Tang, C.S. Improving Agility, Adaptability, Alignment, Accessibility, and Affordability in Nanostore Supply Chains. Prod. Oper. Manag.; 2021; 30, pp. 676-688. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/poms.13309]

38. Margallo, M.; Ziegler-Rodriguez, K.; Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Aldaco, R.; Irabien, Á.; Kahhat, R. Enhancing Waste Management Strategies in Latin America under a Holistic Environmental Assessment Perspective: A Review for Policy Support. Sci. Total Environ.; 2019; 689, pp. 1255-1275. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.393] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31466164]

39. Sun, S.; Zhang, B. Operation Strategies for Nanostore in Community Group Buying. Omega; 2022; 110, 102636. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102636]

40. Saunders, M.N.K.; Lewis, P.; Thornhill, A. Research Methods for Business Students; 8th ed. Pearson Education Limited: London, UK, 2019; ISBN 978-1-292-20878-7

41. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Palminder, S. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag.; 2003; 14, pp. 207-222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375]

42. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Ann. Intern. Med.; 2009; 151, pp. 264-269. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19622511]

43. Dillman, D.A.; Smyth, J.D.; Christian, L.M. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method; 4th ed. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-1-118-45614-9

44. Christian, L.M.; Dillman, D.A.; Smyth, J.D. Helping Respondents Get It Right the First Time: The Influence of Words, Symbols, and Graphics in Web Surveys. Public Opin. Q.; 2007; 71, pp. 113-125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfl039]

45. Converse, J.M.; Presser, S. Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Southend Oaks, CA, USA, 1986; ISBN 978-1-4833-4723-3

46. Ferronato, N.; Guisbert Lizarazu, E.G.; Velasco Tudela, J.M.; Blanco Callisaya, J.K.; Preziosi, G.; Torretta, V. Selective Collection of Recyclable Waste in Universities of Low-Middle Income Countries: Lessons Learned in Bolivia. Waste Manag.; 2020; 105, pp. 198-210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.02.014]

47. Hidalgo-Carvajal, D.; Carrasco-Gallego, R. Preparing for Future E-Waste from Photovoltaic Modules: A Circular Economy Approach. Int. J. Prod. Manag. Eng.; 2022; 10, pp. 131-141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4995/ijpme.2022.16712]

48. Chaniago, H. Understanding Purchase Motives to Increase Revenue Growth: A Study of Nanostores in Indonesia. Innov. Mark.; 2021; 17, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21511/im.17(4).2021.01]

49. Guo, X.; Lu, G.; Villena, V.H.; Vogel, D.; Heim, G.R. Supply Chain Transformation and Technology Management Challenges in Developing Regions: Inductive Theory Building from Rural Chinese Nanostores. J. Oper. Manag.; 2022; 68, pp. 454-486. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joom.1198]

50. Quiroz-Flores, J.C.; Valverde-Huaman, C.B.; Romero-Vega, M.A. Management Model under the BPM Approach and DT Tools to Increase the Level of Sales in a Peruvian Nanostore. Proceedings of the 2022 8th International Conference on Information Management (ICIM); Cambridge, UK, 25–27 March 2022; IEEE: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 241-245.

51. Granados-Rivera, D.; Mejía, G.; Tinjaca, L.; Cárdenas, N. Design of a Nanostores’ Delivery Service Network for Food Supplying in COVID-19 Times: A Linear Optimization Approach. Production Research; Rossit, D.A.; Tohmé, F.; Mejía Delgadillo, G. Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 1408, pp. 19-32. ISBN 978-3-030-76309-1

52. Boulaksil, Y.; Belkora, M.J. Distribution Strategies Toward Nanostores in Emerging Markets: The Valencia Case. Interfaces; 2017; 47, pp. 505-517. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.2017.0914]

53. Pereira Morató, R. Comercio Popular En La Vía Pública-Estudio En El Macrodistrito Max Paredes de La Paz; Gobierno Autónomo Municipal de La Paz. Secretaría Municipal de Planificación para el Desarrollo. Dirección de Investigación e Información Municipal Programa de Análisis e Investigación Estratégica Municipal: La Paz, Bolivia, 2015; ISBN 978-99905-47-57-3

54. López, R. Estructura Del Retail Tradicional En Bolivia. Available online: https://www.capturaconsulting.com/estructura-del-retail-tradicional-en-bolivia/#:~:text=El%2097%25%20de%20los%20puntos,responsabilidad%20a%20un%20familiar%20cercano (accessed on 15 February 2023).

55. Thierry, M.; Salomon, M.; Van Nunen, J.; Van Wassenhove, L. Strategic Issues in Product Recovery Management. Calif. Manag. Rev.; 1995; 37, pp. 114-136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41165792]

56. Ferri-García, R.; Del Mar, R.G.M. Efficiency of Propensity Score Adjustment and Calibration on the Estimation from Non-Probabilistic Online Surveys. SORT Stat. Oper. Res. Trans.; 2018; 42, pp. 159-182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2436/20.8080.02.73]

57. Gámez Albán, H.M.; Soto Cardona, O.C.; Mejía Argueta, C.; Sarmiento, A.T. A Cost-Efficient Method to Optimize Package Size in Emerging Markets. Eur. J. Oper. Res.; 2015; 241, pp. 917-926. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.09.020]

58. Babić, D.; Lajić, B.; Jurečić, D.; Pasanec-Preprotić, S. The Construction of Corrugated Boxes as a Key Parameter of Their Strength. Proceedings of the 11th International Design Conference and Workshop (Design 2010); Dubrovnik, Croatia, 17–20 May 2010; University of Zagreb: Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2010; Volume 4, pp. 1-7.

59. Escamilla, R.; Brosi, P.; Fransoo, J.C.; Mora-Quiñones, C.; Mejia-Argueta, C. The Role of Tax Privacy Concerns and Cost in the Digitization of the Nanostore Retail Channel. SSRN Electron. J.; 2022; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4030672]

60. Albrecht, S.; Brandstetter, P.; Beck, T.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P.; Grönman, K.; Baitz, M.; Deimling, S.; Sandilands, J.; Fischer, M. An Extended Life Cycle Analysis of Packaging Systems for Fruit and Vegetable Transport in Europe. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.; 2013; 18, pp. 1549-1567. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0590-4]

61. Li, X.P.; Wang, W.; Jiang, B.; Jian, Y.P. Environmental Coordinated Analysis of Corrugated Box Based on LCA. Mater. Sci. Forum; 2014; 787, pp. 152-158. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.787.152]

62. Koskela, S.; Dahlbo, H.; Judl, J.; Korhonen, M.-R.; Niininen, M. Reusable Plastic Crate or Recyclable Cardboard Box? A Comparison of Two Delivery Systems. J. Clean. Prod.; 2014; 69, pp. 83-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.045]

63. Vukoje, M.; Rožić, M. Various Valorisation Routes of Paper Intended for Recycling—A Review. Cellul. Chem. Technol.; 2018; 52, pp. 515-541.

64. Hamersma, B.; Chong, C. Growing Plants with Recycled Cardboard. Biocycle J. Compost. Recycl.; 1995; 3, pp. 86-87.

65. Il’ina, T.N.; Kuznetsova, I.A. Economic Effectiveness of the Aspiration Systems in Fiber By-Products Recycling Technology. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.; 2020; 791, 012043. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/791/1/012043]