Sustainable Packaging – At What Cost?

A group I belong to recently had an interesting online debate on why sustainable packaging was "always" more expensive. The reasons and theories cited included freight and transportation costs, greedy manufacturers, a shift from some materials to others creating shortages, etc. Most of the wide variety of comments posted were accurate to some degree, but I was surprised no one mentioned the first rule of business, the one even non-business people often quote.

Sustainability and the Law of Supply and Demand

If more people were buying any specific green packaging product, more companies would manufacture it and eventually, probably sooner than later, the market price would be reduced due to increased competition. In addition, whether you are talking about tape, boxes, or void fill, short runs of a green packaging product for any manufacturer are always substantially more expensive than a long run of a similar "non-green" product because of costly changeover time and related costs. We need to understand that companies have spent decades and millions streamlining and automating their manufacturing processes to be able to produce volume efficiently. Once you realize and accept these facts, the solution is fairly obvious.

How Can Brown Boxes Turn Green?

Our company recently introduced a line of 100% recycled post consumer content corrugated boxes with the objective of making them price competitive with "standard" boxes that usually contain 25 to 35% recycled pre-consumer, in plant waste content. Our approach has been rather expensive in terms of time, initial start up costs, inventory buildup, etc., but essentially we helped design the product, enlisted the help of a visionary company to help make the product we were confident the market wanted and needed, and then took it to market. By combining volume of numerous smaller users, we were able to secure the support of a major corrugated manufacturer by providing them the volume that they need to be efficient in the production of our product. Much to our pleasant surprise, we discovered that our boxes are not necessarily much higher in price, in most cases we are within 10% of the current supplier and in some cases we are even less expensive!

Market Response

What has been fascinating to us through the launch and introduction has been the wide range of potential customer expectations and perceptions. Many of the people we speak with expect our product to be outrageously priced and they initially respond with "I want to be green but I can’t afford it". They have been convinced that green will always cost double or more than standard products and we are happy to dispel that misconception.

We have also been surprised by the number of people who believe our product should be less expensive since it is not made of virgin material. They obviously do not understand that saving consumer waste from landfills is more expensive in many ways that cutting down a tree that is genetically engineered to grow back in a relatively short five to seven years. I think we can all relate to high fuel prices and what it has done to freight and transportation costs.

The only prospects that we have not been able to help have been inquiries for highly unusual sizes, custom printed boxes in very small quantities. For all the reasons cited above, they usually discover there is little we can do to make their unique box be price competitive with standard construction, common size, stock box pricing.

Market Reaction by the Environmentally Focused

One fully committed lady told me she understood what we were attempting to do short term as well as long term and offered to help support our program during this initial costly phase. One incredibly eco minded prospect quickly stated that he could justify paying up to 50% more for our product because he was certain it would help him make his environmental message to his customers more consistent and more obvious. I instantly admired him for his environmental commitment and swore not to take advantage of his eagerness and openness. I am pleased to say our pricing was very competitive to what he had been paying to his former vendor.

Full Steam Ahead!

Despite the erratic price perceptions and inconsistent manufacturing costs, we are fully committed to bringing green products to market; in fact, we are about to roll out several new items in response to our customers’ growing sustainable packaging needs.

We are confident market pricing will eventually stabilize at very attractive and competitive levels as supply catches up with the slow but steady increase in demand. Unfortunately today’s weak economy has put the spotlight on price and to survive, companies are looking anywhere and everywhere to reduce cost but we remain optimistic. We are counting on the fact that the environment will not be where companies decide to make compromises.

Dennis Salazar is the president of Salazar Packaging, Inc., a certified MBE (Minority Business Enterprise) company specializing in packaging products, equipment and solutions. With over thirty years in the packaging industry, he is known for his tongue in cheek sense of humor as well as his sustainable packaging passion and expertise.   

To contact Dennis, please visit his web site: www.salazarpackaging.com

To read more articles by Dennis Salazar click here

Globe Guard Post Consumer Recycled Boxes

Salazar Packaging, a distributor of packaging materials and equipment with a focus on sustainable packaging, recently launched its own brand of corrugated boxes made from 100% post-consumer recycled content.  The new boxes are available in standard and custom sizes offering a cost effective option for businesses looking for 100% post consumer recycled corrugated boxes. 

"We are confident we will be able to make 100% recycled content boxes readily available at a reasonable price to any company that wants their packaging to be consistent with their green message and product," said Dennis Salazar, president of Salazar Packaging Inc. and a Sustainable is Good contributor.

"We have all seen a great, eco minded product wrapped in un-eco packaging, and inserted in an improperly sized un-eco box and filled with a very un-eco void fill," Salazar said.

Salzar Packaging is working with Cano Container Corporation to produce the Globe Guard line of boxes.  The recycled materials used in their production are primarily from local municipal waste Salazar said.

"We are incredibly excited about Globe Guard and see it as an important contribution to the sustainable packaging movement," said Salazar.

"Contrary to popular perception, corrugated boxes usually contain only 25-35% recycled material - or less. Now, high and low volume operations can use 100% PCW boxes and dramatically reduce their impact on the environment."

Besides contributing to a greener environment, Globe Guard boxes offer buyers another important benefit - affordability.  Unlike some packaging products engineered for sustainability, Globe Guard corrugated boxes do not sell at a premium.

Purchasers of the new boxes will be able to notice and let their customers notice the sustainable difference.

The Globe Guard logo is printed on the bottom flap of each box, and Salazar Packaging is offering customers a variety of marketing materials and support to help them express their environmental message by showcasing Globe Guard on their web sites, newsletters, and brochures.

Salazar said, "Our customer's customers are the people driving the Green movement.  Shippers need to let customers know about their sustainable efforts.  Otherwise sellers will see more and more customers drift away to what they perceive as 'Greener pastures'.  We think it's vitally important to help our customers keep their customers informed."

When Art Reflects our Non-Sustainable Life

CHRIS JORDAN I Photo depicting 2 million plastic bottles

I am in full agreement with those who say art does not imitate life, it reflects it. This could not be more true that in the work of photographer/artist Chris Jordan of Seattle.  Chris’ unique style is an indictment on our mass consuming society, and his work as well as his camera often focus on the amount of waste we generate and then dump into our environment.

The image shown above is from his series titled “Running the Numbers - An American Self-Portrait,” and is actually a photograph of two million disposable plastic bottles, the amount used every five minutes in the United States.  You can see the rest of his thought provoking series online at his web site.

Some of the other disturbing images Chris includes in his work are depictions of -

·    38,000 shipping containers, the number of containers processed through American ports every twelve hours.
·     426,000 cell phones, equal to the number of cell phones retired in the U.S. every day.
·    8 million toothpicks, equal to the number of trees harvested in the U.S. every month to make the paper for mail order catalogs.
·    170,000 disposable Energizer batteries, equal to fifteen minutes of Energizer battery production.
·    30,000 reams of office paper, or 15 million sheets, equal to the amount of office paper used in the U.S. every five minutes.

And of course, any photographic or written commentary on our wasteful lifestyle would be incomplete if it did not include packaging. Chris’ photographs include images depicting -

·    60,000 plastic bags, the number used in the U.S. every five seconds.
·    106,000 aluminum cans, the number used in the U.S. every thirty seconds.
·    1.14 million brown paper supermarket bags, the number used in the U.S. every hour.
·    Two million plastic beverage bottles, the number used in the U.S. every five minutes.

We can question the statistics and numbers but we cannot ignore the problem. Also, if we are completely honest with ourselves, we should not avoid accepting the blame because the problem is unarguably and undoubtedly us.

The Cost Versus Price of Sustainability

Traditional Detergent Packaging is Slowly being Phased Out PHOTO I KinoSport

What does it cost for a manufacturer to deliver a more sustainable product or package to our retail store shelf and what should the resulting price be to us as consumers?

There is a perception that going green increases a manufacturer’s cost, but does it really? We have found that the answer is, not usually, especially if it is done correctly. There is also an equally inaccurate idea out there that we as consumers are willing and perhaps even eager to pay a premium for a more sustainable product or package. As a consumer who happens to be in the packaging business; the answer is definitely not, unless the higher price is truly necessary and justified.

These perceptions open the door for CPG (Consumer Packaged Goods) manufacturers to quietly raise prices. Today I confirmed what I already suspected. While doing something positive for the environment, going green has become an opportunity for manufacturers to improve the profitability of a mature and perhaps less profitable product.

“Cleaning up” in the detergent aisle

Being the well trained husband that I am, I made my trip to the nearby, big box retail store, knowing the laundry detergent my wife wanted me to buy and what I should pay for it. I headed straight for the detergent aisle ( I told you I am well trained) and immediately saw the 200 ounce bottle that we usually buy and the brand new, concentrated version, bragging about its increased strength and the fact that only one half of the usual amount was now needed.

“That’s great,” I thought, knowing enough about packaging to appreciate the fact that the new version’s design meant -

• - overall less packaging
• - substantially less plastic resin used
• - reduced corrugated usage
• - lower inbound material and outbound finished product shipping costs
• - a smaller carbon footprint

Then I took a closer look at the numbers that were NOT in big, bright, bold print.

Secondary Packaging – The Silent Killer of the Environment

While direct contact/retail/primary packaging has been receiving all of the attention and well deserved scrutiny of the world, secondary packaging, without much attention at all, been has been quietly filling our landfills.

Trouble by the Pallet

It is estimated that the stretch film market - that nearly invisible product used to wrap pallets - is over 1.5 billion pounds annually. Stretch film is used for load retention and containment to get a product from one place to another. But after the product is received and the stretch wrap removed, it may well be re-palletized and then, of course, re-wrapped in more stretch film. If it sounds silly and wasteful, understand that scenario is probably played out tens of thousands of times each day between manufacturers, distribution centers and retailers. Guess where most of these 1.5 billion pounds wind up?

I admit my company sells stretch film and I suspect many may categorize it as a necessary evil because it is an excellent way to unitize and protect a load during shipment. For most loads, it can also help to avoid plastic or metal strapping, Strapping may not result is as much secondary packaging waste, but disposal is difficult, can be dangerous (ask anyone who has ever worked with it) and without costly, inflexible automation, the strapping process is labor intensive.

Fill Voids, Not Landfills

For the purpose of this discussion let’s acknowledge the difference between interior packaging and void fill products. Interior packaging is typically used in cushioning applications and can be constructed of a wide variety of flexible and rigid foams or of corrugated design. We usually see this around electronics and other high cost products that are susceptible to damage in shipment, especially from overseas. The volume of this waste is probably greater than anyone would suspect and the shame of it is that most of the foam products can be eliminated with good corrugated designs. That would make a great subject for an article but for now let’s focus on void fill materials.

Void fill packaging materials are used to protect the product(s) being shipped when the outer, shipping case is larger than the products. This is most common in pick and pack operations where orders tend to each be different in size, shape and weight. Most cases you receive are usually filled with some form of paper product (newsprint, indented, bogus, Kraft, etc.), bubble sheets, with one of many commercially available inflatable products, or loose fill materials including the much maligned (deservedly I believe) foam peanuts and shells.

With so many options and manufacturers involved in the void fill industry, it is impossible to determine or accurately estimate the amount of waste being generated. However, I think we can all agree the total volume is substantial. Just check the local landfill and you’ll see that voids in boxes is not all these products are filling.

The 2008 “7 R’s” of Anti-Sustainability

With tongue in cheek and apologies to the Wal-Mart version we have all heard, please consider these thoughts that are sure to help us NOT achieve sustainability in 2008.

1. Refuse to consider thoughts and opinions other than your own. If you are right and everyone else is wrong, why bother?

2. Remain glued to the status quo. After all if what you have been doing works, why take a chance on changing anything?

3. Reject any idea that even remotely sounds like compromise even though sometimes, that is the best way to accomplish progress.

4. Resist any new technology unless it is absolutely perfect and supports your position. “See I told you it wouldn’t work” can be all so satisfying.

5. Ridicule anyone who appears to be profiting from their work in sustainability, especially if their margin appears to exceed your own.

6. Repel anyone seeking knowledge or help. Everyone knowing as much as you do cannot be a good thing.

Last but not least

7. Resign yourself to the fact that the environmental problem is too large to be fixed. Seek new goals that are easier to achieve!

Who Are the Landfillers

BY DENNIS SALAZAR

We Have Met the Enemy, and He Is Us

Considering the surge in public awareness and all the media attention on our fragile environment, you may find this fact astounding – it is estimated that only about 30% of the waste able to be recycled, actually is.

Why don’t more people recycle their recyclable waste? The answer is as simple: because they don’t have to.

When I’m in mixed company or in the presence of young children, I refer to these non-recyclers as “Landfillers”. The Landfillers choose not to recycle because there is no immediate, short-term benefit to them, and absolutely no penalty for not complying.

I suspect the 30% figure varies greatly from one town or state to another. I am certain the actual percentage in my area is far less because of the Landfillers. In Southern California and other areas, recycling with meticulous sorting is required, but in our suburban Chicago village, we have no recycling regulations whatsoever. As a result, I would estimate the number of households on our street that do not use their recycling bin is probably close to 50%. What do the Landfillers do with their village-issue recycling bins? My best guess is the bins are used as step stools or toy bins, or got tossed in the trash and now gather dust in … the landfill.

Field Guide to Sustainable Packaging: Book Review

BY DENNIS SALAZAR

The Field Guide to Sustainable Packaging by Steve Sterling includes the tagline, “The journey begins here.” If that is the case, it is a very small step for mankind and the environmental movement, though perhaps a step in the right direction. A “field guide” is typically a compact reference manual. By that definition, the author and publisher delivered what they promised but they definitely left me hungry for more. I usually have the same issue with French restaurants but never mind that, this is a book review. 

To give credit where it is due, Mr. Sterling does provide some historical background on the sustainable movement, which is quite interesting. Did you realize the environmental and sustainable movements can trace their roots back to 1972? I didn’t, and as a lifelong student of the packaging industry, I enjoyed those few pages of background very much. What the author wrote, he wrote well. Mr. Sterling is very obviously a capable and talented writer - but I wish he had finished what he started.    

The "One Material Myth" vs. Environmental Reality

BY DENNIS SALAZAR

We believe that most companies could easily and inexpensively reduce the volume of packaging they use by as much as 15 to 20%. However, to achieve that reduction, companies must be willing to embrace the idea that the best and most cost effective solution may be a combination of packaging materials.

A Multi-Material Opportunity

For example, a worldwide manufacturer of inexpensive writing instruments recently asked us to help them create a greener and more sustainable package design to replace their rack displayed blister cards, which retail customers perceived as being environmentally unfriendly. The young and very talented project engineers had their hands full attempting to process and respond to the wide range - and often conflicting - input they were receiving from key retail customers and various departments within their own company. It seemed everyone had a different concept of the problem and the possible solutions.

One consistent message from the large retailers was a desire for unique packaging using less packaging material. I was confident we could help the manufacturer create a design to meet those demands, provided we utilize a combination of materials. An outstanding option immediately came to mind - a card and shrink film overwrap design, which we have been promoting as a blister and clamshell replacement.

When presenting our design to the engineers, I highlighted several important advantages.

•  By eliminating the blister sealing process, we utilize an uncoated card that is pre-printed with earth friendly and easily recyclable inks.
•  We gain the ability to imprint the cards on an as needed basis, providing flexibility while minimizing unique packaging SKU's, eliminating waste, and giving retailers the unique packaging they each
want.
•  By utilizing a cost reducing, polyethylene based, low energy shrink film, we are able to minimize the card thickness for easy package component separation and recycling.
•  Since no expensive tooling or mold charges are needed for our design, we eliminate capital investment and avoid the necessity of warehousing bulky blister or clamshell components.
•  No blister sealing means we eliminate the blister flange, allowing us to reduce the size of the display card, which in turn would result in smaller cases (less corrugated and sealing tape), and reduced fuel/freight costs.  A key additional benefit might be being able to place more product on the same planogram space allowed them by their customers.

After describing our design, one of the engineers stated that retailers did not necessarily want to make the overall package smaller, for visibility and security reasons. “Hmmm. Let me see if I understand, you want less packaging but not necessarily smaller packaging?”

Always appreciating a good challenge, I pressed on. Knowing how relatively slow and labor intensive clamshell and blister packaging can be and realizing the intense and increasing foreign competition my potential client was undoubtedly experiencing, I was glad to have saved a key advantage for the end of our discussion.

I informed them our concept would provide visibility, security, recyclability, and best of all, a package able to run at much faster speeds with less labor than their current design. Most package designers are focused on the way a package looks on the shelf but have absolutely no idea on how it is going to be produced in a plant environment. Our intimate knowledge of packaging equipment and processes helps us to maintain a dual focus on design and production. After all, what good is a “perfect” package design that requires twice as much labor and only runs at half the production speed of the current package being used?

The “One Material Myth” Perception rather than Reality?

We seem to have hit a package design homerun – less material, less labor, higher throughput, lower cost, greater flexibility, easy customization, superior shelf appeal, and reliable security. That is when one of the people mentioned their preference would be a new design utilizing only “one material” for ease of recycling and that they would prefer that one material used was not plastic.

Currently, the manufacturer is considering an all chipboard, die cut solution. To achieve the same retention and security, the design will require more chipboard than a board-shrink film combination. It will almost certainly require a coating making it less recyclable. It will offer less eye appeal, gloss, and sparkle than film would provide. It will do little, really, beyond fulfilling the prophecy of the “one material myth”.

Why Multiple Materials Multiply Benefits

Needs and objectives often conflict, but the fact is that in many if not most situations, two different materials working together, each bringing different characteristics and benefits to the packaging application, may be the best alternative. Many may not want to hear it, but shrinkable, forming plastic may be part of the solution from a performance AND from an environmental perspective. If they are easily separated and sorted, a combination of materials can help us reduce packaging by volume and by weight so that the people who chose not to recycle are doing as little damage as possible to the environment.         

Far from being an apologist for the plastics industry, I admit manufacturers and package design people can do a lot more than we currently are to minimize waste, but what we each decide to do at curbside on waste collection day is the ultimate unknown and one of the most important pieces of the sustainable packaging dilemma and solution. Why don’t more people recycle? That is a great question and the subject of my next article.

Dennis Salazar is the president of Salazar Packaging Inc., a certified MBE (Minority Business Enterprise) company specializing in flexible packaging products, equipment and solutions. After over thirty years in plastic film sales, he is the self-proclaimed, “Senor Shrink” of the industry and is known for his tongue in cheek sense of humor as well as his flexible packaging expertise.   
To contact, please email at: dennis@salazarpackaging.com

Sustainable Packaging - It’s All About Harmony

BY DENNIS SALAZAR

Beyond its musical implications and definitions, according to the dictionary, harmony is defined as - agreement in feeling, action, ideas, interests, etc.; peaceable or friendly relations. Harmony is also the name of the beautiful eight-month-old baby girl who due to some unusual and unforeseen circumstances became a resident in our adult household two months ago. Having a baby in our home again, after many drool free and very neat/orderly years, the impact this young lady has had on our lives has been quite profound and dramatic.

In addition to my faith, my wife and family, my love and life has been packaging. Packaging in general, and specifically and more recently, sustainable packaging, has had my almost full attention. My focus has been on creating a harmonious relationship between our client’s needs and their customers’ requests for less packaging and more earth friendly content. I spend much of my time working with manufacturers who sell product through retailers to consumers like you and me.

Harmonizing productivity objectives, budget requirements, and environmental considerations, have kept a guy like me, with an incredibly short attention span, fascinated by the packaging industry for well over thirty years.

What Will Our Environmental Legacy Be?

Having baby Harmony in our house has only intensified my interest in sustainable packaging, especially in the packaging of baby products. My worries about carbon footprints and little fingerprints are running parallel these days. “Renewable energy” is usually what happens after Harmony takes her afternoon nap. The term “long term impact” now extends beyond my own anticipated life expectancy of another twenty to twenty five years. Suddenly what winds up in our landfills is of greater importance because I now know who is going to inherit the mess we leave behind. Harmony will likely never experience or enjoy anything like the great technology driven economic boom of the 90’s but is almost certain to have to deal with the large national debt we are generating and leaving behind for her. She is also guaranteed to live with the waste we create and that she unknowingly contributes to on a daily basis.

My basic conclusion after 60 days of extremely unscientific observation and almost grandfatherly analysis - baby products create a lot of packaging and waste! No, we are not even going down the path of further discussion on disposable diapers because volumes have been written on that serious and huge problem. I am glad to see the major diaper manufacturers working to minimize the environmental impact of the products they sell. It’s a good start, but only a start. I firmly believe every manufacturer of product should be held accountable for the resources they pull out and the waste they put back into this earth.