1. 1 Applied EcoDesign Packaging and Transport Prof. Dr. Ir. Ab Stevels,M.A.h.c. Chair of Applied EcoDesign Design for Sustainability Dept. Design Engineering, School of Industrial Design Delft University of Technology stevels@xs4all.nl

2. 2 Outline Why consider packaging and transport? The world of packaging & transport has changed dramatically Benchmarking packaging & transport Packaging & transport reduction strategies Positioning of packaging & transport reduction in its context Conclusions

3. 3 Energy in the use phase deserves much more attention Packaging is relatively unimportant, but you can do a lot (a lot has changed) Figure 1. Average environmental load of an electronic product over its life cycle.

4. 4 Why consider packaging reduction? Drivers Customer Packaging is our environmental business card Ease of disposal and recyclability Legislation/regulation Reduction convenants Recycle obligations NGO’s / consumer organizations oppose “superfluous” packaging want producers to be responsible for waste

5. 5 Why consider packaging reduction? Enablers Science and technology modeling of impacts, forces availability of molded fibers, Suppliers packaging design as service Cost, quality Material reduction = direct money Volume reduction = indirect money

6. 6 Many reasons for not knowing your integral packaging and transportation cost Our business is XYZ; not packaging/transportation. They are low anyway! Cost are incurred at various centers, they manage them - manufacturing sites - sales departments - logistics departments. We have outsourced it: - packaging design - transportation companies - distribution management Our purchasing is aggressive! ……

7. 7 Function of packaging and transport Packaging * protection * handling * messages.product information.brand identity * sales promotion. catching attention. gifts (experience packaging Transport * right amount (for whom?). distribution centers. outlets * right time. time to market. storage

8. 8 We are in a new ball game! A lot of packaging design outsourced - our expertise; match with product, decreases - are you really served? Production is outsourced - more transport of items - longer distance VOLUME becomes more important than WEIGHT !

9. 9 We are in a new ball game! Power shift in the chain (producer – outlets) Volumes per account increase dramatically (chains) Big chains want own identity, customizing - …. Made by Philips - merchandizing

10. 10 We are in a new ball game! Intensification of competition - among established brands - new entrants Environmental issues: - environmental load of packaging and transport - recycling obligations

11. 11 We are in a new ball game! Customers: - want quality, identity - have impulse buying - want to “feel good” (want no hassle: unpacking, waste) - want packaging to be recycled

12. 12 Why consider Cost Drivers of packaging and transport Suppliers: - Leverage low labor cost - Limitation in availability of materials, transport services Producers: - Increased awareness that there is potential here - Increased pressure from trade Trade: - Packaging/transport are increasing percentage of total cost - Opportunities to increase sales

13. 13 Get facts about your packaging, Benchmark Materials (with respect to competition) Amounts cardboard, paper, fibers plastics incl. foamed plastics recycled material others Ratios packaging weight/ product weight environmental impacts/ product weight

14. 14 Example of internal packaging analysis TV 141516182021 Screen size (inch) Packaging weight Product weight 0.17 0.16 0.15 Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ

15. 15 Get facts about your packaging, Benchmark Transport (with respect to competition) Volume of packaging Distances production center – distribution center distribution center – retailer transportation for disposal Ratios packaging volume/ product volume

16. 16 Weight or volume reduction? I Environmental load of packaging (percentages) Production Transportation Disposal (weight) (volume) Audio system 28 71 1 Portable audio 30 66 4 TV 28”29 70 1 DVD 15 82 3 Average26 72 2

17. 17 Example: external packaging analysis Improvement potential (with respect to best competitor) Product categoryVolume WeightEco index index index Audio system+11%+28%+15% Portable audio0%+4%+24% TV 21”+9%+15%+16% TV 32”+1%+29%+15% VCR+2%+26%+4% DVD0%0%+8% CRT monitor+4%0%+16%

18. 18

19. 19 Implementation issues: A Packaging and Transport Value Chain China – Western World Actor/InterestPayment of transport Chief requirement on box Design Emphasis Factory in ChinaTransport to harborSolid box (shocks)Materials Business UnitOverseas transportLow value (load)Volume National Sales Organization Transport to warehouse customization Pallet load, Easy to unpack Materials/volume Retail Chain 60% Retailer 40% Warehousing cost Nothing Sell from box Easy to unpack Materials/volume Materials

20. 20 Packaging reduction strategies 1.Reduction of volume/ efficient transport 2.Reduction of total weight 3.Use of low environmental impact materials cardboard, paper recycled material 4.Multiple packaging 5.Reusable packaging 6.Product adaptation geometry improve fragility (failure analysis)

21. 21 But what still rules the world is the “DROP” TEST “C= G or h = Gt C = Cushion value (2.0 for molded pulp, 2.5 for EPS, 3.8 for corrugated board, 5.0 for air cushions) G = fragility of the product t = buffer thickness h = drop-height (depending on product type, or company tradition t h 1 C

22. 22 Three improvement approaches: IChallenge h (why is it as it is), G (are we consistent) and C. II“Collective” transport is dominant (overseas manufacturing, big accounts) IIIThe damage approach

23. 23 Challenge h, G and C h = ”obvious” (however: value chain) G = investment in measurement, value chain issue. Molded fiber: Low C Cheap “Green”, low recycling cost Economy of scale needed Fluctuations in quality Availability in Asia

24. 24 Container transport is often not considered in packaging design These and optimal relation between packaging volume and product weight both for containers and trucks -Above optimum density: too much air transported -Below optimum density: ‘breakdown’ of container, cranes, trucks

25. 25 Packaging volume versus total weight of product

26. 26 Example of internal packaging analysis TV 141516182021 Screen size (inch) Packaging weight Product weight 0.17 0.16 0.15 Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ

27. 27 Damage approach Basics: compare Actual packaging & Actual transportation transportation cost - Minimum “P&T”cost WITH damage cost Ratio found for Philips CE is 3-20:1 (depending on product type). Conclusion : overpacked ! “The nicest flowers grow near to the abyss” (note: intangibles not included)

28. 28 Conclusion Design Strategies Traditional design approaches still valid Developments in the chain invalidate to a large extent the drop-test criteria New approaches are optimizing volume/weight and balancing P&T cost and damage cost.

29. 29 Positioning of Packaging & Transport Reduction in its context, I AspectPositiveNegative FunctionalityPresently there is a lot of overkill Fear that technicalities will prevail Internal Value ChainWill lower costsNot everybody in the chain will benefit External value chainAll stakeholders like itTrade could resist

30. 30 Positioning of Packaging & Transport Reduction in its context, II AspectPositiveNegative Environmental dilemma’sReduces emissions Saves resources Possible increase of transport damage EcoDesign MatrixWill benefit the PrincipalValue chain issues Design processIs separate issue in product creation process Real functionality difficult to quantify

31. 31 Conclusions A lot can be done in the field of packaging & transport Preferred strategy to be based on facts/benchmark Value chain & context issues are important!