Six small packaging changes that can save big money
A quarter of an inch here, a few more items in a box there, and suddenly you've reaped thousands of dollars in savings. Here are a few small packaging tweaks that can produce huge benefits.
Susan Lacefield has been working for supply chain publications since 1999. Before joining DC VELOCITY, she was an associate editor for Supply Chain Management Review and wrote for Logistics Management magazine. She holds a master's degree in English.
Ten years ago when packaging consultant Tom Blanck would try to talk to people about the cost-savings potential hidden in packaging, he'd receive a lukewarm reception. It was simply not seen as a high priority. But that all began to change in the past five years. As transportation and warehousing costs rose, companies realized that packaging offered a fresh opportunity to cut waste out of the system, he says.
Despite that newfound awareness, many companies are still struggling to identify where exactly they can cut costs in their packaging without creating bigger problems down the line. A good place to start, say some experts, is with small incremental changes that can add up to big results. Here are a few to consider.
1. Cut the size of your primary packaging. Sometimes, a small change to the product's primary packaging (what the consumer takes off the shelf) can result in a big reduction in overall supply chain costs.
For example, Blanck and his crew of packaging engineers at the consulting firm Chainalytics once helped a food company redesign the packaging for its frozen pizza so that the box's length and height were reduced by 1/16th of an inch and 3/8th of an inch, respectively. "It was almost imperceptible to the consumer," he remembers. But that small decrease allowed the company to use a different size case, which in turn allowed it to utilize the pallet better and fit more boxes of pizzas into a case. These changes ultimately resulted in transportation cost savings of over $500,000 per year.
Yet while small changes to the primary packaging can save them big money, some consumer goods companies can be leery of making the cuts. "That's their advertisement at the store level," explains Peter Stirling, executive vice president of the consulting firm Supply Chain Optimizers.
One way to get around that concern is to reduce the depth of the box while leaving the height and width intact. This was the tactic Supply Chain Optimizers pursued with a client that made cake mixes. There was significant "head space," or air, at the top of the primary packaging, but the company didn't want to lose that advertising space. So it changed the depth of the box. "Therefore, the product comes up higher in box, but the consumer still sees the exact same image [on the box], and the advertising value of the primary packaging remains the same," says Stirling. By reducing the depth of the primary packaging, the company was able to increase the number of cake boxes it could put in a corrugated shipping box, which allowed it to fit more cases on a pallet. The warehouse and transportation savings amounted to $100,000, Stirling says.
2. Change the count. Sometimes you don't even need to change the size of the packaging; you just need to reconfigure it so you can fit more product inside. A health and beauty company that Blanck and Chainalytics once worked with saved a quarter of a million dollars by changing the package to allow products to nest inside it differently, which reduced the package profile. The new package also resulted in a smaller case, which saved materials and drove cube efficiencies. "It created a 50-percent increase in product density, so there was more on a pallet," explains Blanck.
When you increase product density like this, it can create a kind of ripple effect, according to Blanck. "It's important to understand that when you increase density and can get more on a pallet, it means that you are gaining efficiencies in warehousing and storage and in transportation, and you are also reducing handling and labor," he says.
3. Alter the size of the shipping case. Making small adjustments to the secondary packaging (the box or case in which the product is shipped) can also produce big savings. For example, by slightly altering the size of a case of product and how it was unitized on the pallet, Chet Rutledge, director of private branding packaging for Wal-Mart Stores, was able to add an extra layer of product on the pallet. That extra layer allowed Wal-Mart to get more product into each truckload shipment. As a result, the retailer was able to cut down on the number of shipments of inbound product by several hundred over the course of a year.
4. Leave a gap. And sometimes the changes to the shipping case don't even have to affect the box's overall size. Walking through the DC one day, Rutledge began to wonder whether he could use less material to create the shipping cases for Wal-Mart's private-label cereals. At the time, the company was shipping its cereal boxes in a "full-coverage" regular slotted carton created by gluing the flaps together. Could Wal-Mart get away with cutting the size of the flaps by an inch? The box would now have a gap in the middle, but it would still be able to safely transport cereal boxes.
Wal-Mart made the change, and it worked. "That [tweak] saved about 20 percent on the shipping case material required, which netted a little over a million dollars in material savings in a year, and all we had to do was adjust the glue nozzles on the case erector," says Rutledge. "We just moved them by an inch."
5. "Rightsize" your carton lineup—which may mean more, not fewer, options. Sometimes, companies try to save money by limiting the number of shipping boxes and cases they use. While that can save money on material costs, Stirling says this often turns out to be a case of "saving nickels by spending quarters."
Many times, this effort to reduce complexity means that the company is shipping products in boxes that are too large, according to Stirling. To keep the product from rattling around in the box and becoming damaged, the company often has to pay more for filler material, and the product takes up more room in the warehouse and on the truck than is strictly necessary. Stirling has been part of projects where increasing the number of boxes available from, say, nine to 12 has ended up saving the company around half a million dollars a year.
6. Buy better-quality corrugate. While using a better corrugated box for your secondary shipping packaging might raise your corrugate costs, using a sturdier box might end up saving you money overall, says Stirling. First off, a better-quality corrugated box can provide better protection to the product, which reduces damage. Second, with a stronger box, you can stack more cases on top of one another, and thus, get more cases on a pallet. This allows you to save money on storage and transportation.
BUT DON'T GO TOO FAR!
As you make these tweaks to your packaging, be careful not to go too far. Keep in mind that the primary purpose of packaging is to ensure the product arrives at its destination undamaged, Stirling cautions. The quarter of an inch that you shave off here or the extra product you squeeze in there should not lead to a higher incidence of product damage.
How do you avoid making that mistake? Blanck says that any time you make changes to your packaging materials (especially if you are using a new material), you need to test it to make sure it will work in a distribution environment. He recommends testing the packaging at both the case and unitized-palletload level to see how it handles compression, shock, and vibration. Drop tests, for example, will indicate how well your packaging can prevent product damage.
Rutledge adds that it's important to think about how all of the packaging components (the box, the pouch, the case, the pallet, the shrink wrap) will work together as a total delivery system. It's not about minimizing the costs of the individual components, according to Rutledge; it's about optimizing the overall system. "That's where the real success opportunity is," he says.
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."