Skip navigation
Subscribe to Packaging Digest

When green packaging fails

August 10, 2009

Recently I was made aware of a Twitter conversation initiated by an Amazon customer complaining about the high damage rate on her books since the mega shipper decided to “green up” their secondary packaging. Amazon will undoubtedly recover from the unfavorable public comment but my concern is that sustainable secondary packaging is more than likely taking another undeserved black eye. Those, who love to perpetuate the “green packaging is not as good” myth, have yet another, though not totally accurate anecdote to share as “proof” with other likeminded consumers and suppliers.

Green packaging doesn’t damage products, people do
Borrowing from pro-gun lobby, I can tell you from over thirty years of field and real world application experience that in most cases the problem is not the packaging product; it is the way it is used that usually results in shipping damage and failure.  Keep in mind miss use also includes miss application so if the wrong material or design is selected for a specific application, it is destined to fail but that does not make the material bad. The quality of domestically produced packaging materials is generally so high that rarely is defective packaging materials the root cause of damage.

Why Damage Occurs
Here is just a short list of things that usually result in product damage

Trying for a one size fits all packaging solution – we often work with e-commerce companies who ship everything from soft goods to glass products. While we understand their need to minimize the variety of different packaging materials they stock and use; rarely is there a universal solution able to satisfy the protection needs of their wide range of products. The product and application will tell us what type of protection is required if we take the time to listen.


Attempting to reduce cost beyond a reasonable point – in tough economic times we are all trying to reduce cost but saving a few cents in packaging is quickly offset but the RE factor. That is the cost of replacement, reshipment and repairing a customer relationship. As an example, depending on the box size and style, the difference between 32 ECT and a much heavier 44 ECT is less than 10% or in most cases just a few cents. Most void fill products are inexpensive so using less is not always a wise thing to do. A good, multifaceted, multi product line  supplier is able to balance the cost versus benefit of all your packaging and can often reduce cost in one area to be able to reinforce and support a weaker or more vulnerable spot.

Designing to satisfy a singular need - I love retail package designers but often times their efforts are primarily if not exclusively focused on what a products looks like on the shelf. There is very little thought given to labor cost resulting from assembly or processing. The same holds true of secondary packaging design. In many cases the focus is on ease of opening, sustainability, protection during shipment, or even something like space required for storage. (By the way, I think this may be at least part of the reason and problem with Amazon’s new “frustration free” packaging.)

Not including the pick and pack process into the thought process – there are many ways a pick and pack process can either work with or against your packaging materials. Are you automatically forming, filling and sealing your shipping containers or is it a manual operation? Are order pickers picking into totes or into the shipper?  Are products being sorted or does every pack station need to be able to process every variety of order? How much space is available at each pack station and how many different packaging materials? Not all packaging materials lend themselves to all situations so it is important to work with someone who understands that.

Not seeking an outside, fresh perspective – it is human nature that we tend to go back to the same people to help us with packaging problems. I sincerely appreciate customer/vendor relationships but most packaging vendors have a single product or substrate to work with. The example I usually use is your corrugated supplier is not likely to tell you plastic film is the best solution for your application and the reverse is true as well. Don’t expect the person and company who possibly helped to create the problem, to fix it for you.

Accomplishing green objectives while managing material and labor costs are not as difficult as some make it out to be. Making sure the product arrives in good condition is not an “available option”, it is an absolute requirement.

.

Posted by Dennis Salazar on August 10, 2009 | Comments (6)

September 9, 2009
In response to: When green packaging fails
Dennis Salazar commented:

Hello Azania and thank you for your comment. I think over all I have placed more than enough blame on suppliers who steer customers in their own direction, even if it is the wrong way to go. To the suppliers' defense, customers are not always open or do not know what their requirements are. That is no excuse however and though it may make the task tougher, it is still our job to determine the best solution and help the customer implement it.


September 8, 2009
In response to: When green packaging fails
Azania commented:

The gun analogy doesn't apply. No one complains about a gun not being up to the task. Since you assign blame to misapplication, be balanced and acknowledge the role of suppliers who should know the user's requirements when they recommend their packaging.


August 12, 2009
In response to: When green packaging fails
Dennis Salazar commented:

Sparky, that is an excellent point. I tend to focus on material and relational costs of failed packaging but the fact is that the carbon footprint left behind by any replacement shipment is huge and unnecessary. Thanks for the reminder. Dennis


August 12, 2009
In response to: When green packaging fails
Mark V. Ewing commented:

Dennis: Great article. The most anti-Green package is the package that doesn't assure the product gets to the consumer in a usable condition. In this instance, all of the energy and materials are wasted. The perfect Green state is not feasible given our dependancies on the vast supply chain to deliver us the products we demand. Let's continue to work together (as packaging professionals) to bring a logical, functional approach to reducing energy and material consumption. And as one of my mentors told me, "If it was easy, they'd have kids doing it!". All the best, Sparky


August 11, 2009
In response to: When green packaging fails
Dennis Salazar commented:

Melissa, I was trying to preserve your identity but I thank you for stepping forward and introducing yourself. I agree with you TOTALLY and wish someone from Amazon would reply, even if it's off line. Sending out any product, in effective green packaging is neither as easy or as tough as Amazon is making it appear. They may have simply recieved some bad guidance as I have described in this post. Dennis Salazar


August 11, 2009
In response to: When green packaging fails
Melissa commented:

As the twitterer in question, I thought that I'd comment. ;) I'm all for greener packaging. I order a lot of books online, and I save everything that I get to reuse. I'm fairly active on two book swapping sites and sell sporadically on eBay, and everything is sent in secondhand boxes, secondhand air bags, etc. I have a whole section of my closet dedicated to packing materials that I plan on reusing in the future. That said, when I keep getting books that look like they were attacked by some mythical book-eating creature while traveling a mere 250 miles from warehouse to my front porch, something is wrong. A+ to Amazon for wanting to green up their packaging, but F- for sending books in boxes several inches too large on every side with just an air bag or two to protect it. I don't think it's the "greener" packaging that is at fault here; it's Amazon tossing a book into a one-size-fits-all box with no protection to speak of. They'd likely save more money (and definitely more trees) using boxes that were an appropriate fit.

POST A COMMENT
Display Name
captcha

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:

Advertisement
PEI2010news_mw
Advertisement
About Us   |   Advertising Info   |   Site Map   |   Contact Us   |   FREE Subscriptions   |   RSS
 © 2010 Canon Communications LLC. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy