PACKAGING
DAMAGED PRODUCTS = DAMAGED PLANET
By Clint Smith and Mike Purgatorio
F
or years, the societal model has been fueled by a “take-make-waste” mindset. This mindset contributed to 267.8 million tons of solid municipal waste in the United States in 2017 — with only one-fourth of that material being recycled, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Simultaneously, industrial waste has significantly impacted our planet. As we stop to look at the wake of our collective footprint, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, an environmental engagement group, has forged a strategic vision — one that creates a model rooted in the elimination of waste from society. This school of thought, which has been deemed a “circular economy,” is a leading movement in safeguarding our planet. Manufacturers and retailers alike must aspire to design and adopt products that can be effectively reused after their initial lifecycle. This concept, of course, is no surprise — especially within the world of packaging and shipping. Businesses are stepping up to the plate to make this happen. Sustainability has become the lifeblood of every B2B and B2C entity’s annual
14 PARCELindustry.com JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2020
strategy and goals, for two reasons: a thirst to preserve the planet, and growing pressure from consumers to be more responsible. Now more than ever, consumers are stopping to reflect on what is “green” around them, and as the e-commerce market continues to heat up, consumers will increasingly stop to reflect on the businesses around them and the packaging used to protect their products. With that said, it’s imperative for companies to take a candid look in the mirror to examine every aspect of their operation and its impact. From the standpoint of protective packaging, investments should center on solutions that offer a careful balance of sustainability and effective damage reduction. Why? Well, the sobering facts are plentiful. According to recent market research from Pregis, over five billion pounds of damaged products end up in US landfills every year. And the environmental cost of reshipping a damaged product can add up. To re-ship one parcel, it takes approximately 1.7 gallons of fuel, 1.8 kWh of electricity, 40.4 lbs of carbon dioxide emissions, and .13 ft² of habitat loss. On top of that, those same businesses are incurring unnecessary costs that can noticeably affect their bottom line. Those added expenses are materializing in a variety of ways, including re-shipping, product replacement, increased customer service and warehouse labor needs, re-packag-
ing, and a negative impact on customer acquisition/retention. In order to avoid these repercussions, there are a number of best practices that should be considered. Quantify Damages First and foremost, what are the product damage rates? Once an actual figure can be associated with this challenge, it sets a tangible goal for companies to measure against. Then, moving forward, it’s imperative to maintain monthover-month reporting of these figures to identify trends and correlations that may lead to optimizing shipping practices. Businesses should also be aware of their return policies, re-shipping processes, and the statistics associated with those operations. The more they know, the easier it is to ultimately identify inefficiencies in the system and come up with effective solutions. When it comes to protective packaging, it’s rarely a “one size fits all” strategy. Companies should examine the lifecycle and fragility of their product, then test a variety of packaging to ultimately match a solution to their needs — from cushioning and void fill, to surface protection and containment. Less Is More When designing or redesigning packaging, it is vital to balance the right amount of material with the added benefit of recycled content and recyclability for future use. This mission directly contrib-
