Super-size packaging a legacy society finds tough to shrink
By Dana FlavelleBUSINESS REPORTER
Mon., April 20, 2009timer5 min. read
In the days when we survived by plucking the berries off the nearest bush or spearing fish, we didn't need elaborate packaging. Food came in its own natural package, the rinds or hides of the things we ate.
But as more goods began travelling the globe, the business of bagging, boxing, stapling, and shrink-wrapping grew to be a $10 billion industry in Canada.
These days, it seems almost everything comes in a package, often one that's difficult to open, contains too many layers, seems designed mainly to sell the product and creates a mountain of non-recyclable waste.
Even packagers acknowledge they need to take steps to reduce their environmental impact.
"The reality is there is an over-packaging problem," says Jim Downham, president and chief executive officer of the Packaging Association of Canada. "It's a significant source of municipal solid waste."
But the answer is a lot more complex than just removing all wrappings or replacing everything with more recyclable materials, he says.
"All the government guys want to do is tax and they only think about recycling. They're all worried about the cost of their landfill," Downham says. "I'm trying to reframe the discussion around sustainable packaging.
"This isn't just about recycling. It's about reducing energy consumption, reducing the use of raw materials," he says. "Sustainable packaging is a much more holistic view. We consider recycling just one of the components of it."
It's also about staying in business.
"If a company doesn't make money, it's not sustainable," Downham says.
Historically, packaging served some pretty basic purposes. Manufacturers were concerned about the need to keep their products safe, secure, free from bacteria, tampering and other hazards.
Today, packaging has to meet a host of sometimes-conflicting consumer expectations, experts say.
If it's an appearance-based product like shampoo, it has to be in a tall, thin bottle. If it's laundry detergent, it's okay if the box is short and fat. If it's a prestige product, like perfume, the package is more likely to be highly differentiated from rival products.
"In fact, when you go to buy a bottle of perfume, the bottle generally costs a lot more than what's in it," says David Soberman, a marketing professor with the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management.
Consumers are also predisposed to think bigger is better.
"The idea that `less is more' is actually a very difficult concept for humans. The bigger animal gave you more meat. We've got a long history where size matters," says Alan Middleton, a marketing professor at York University's Schulich Executive Education Centre.
Retailers have an impact on packaging, too. Consumers take it for granted that cereal boxes come in uniform sizes. Retailers want packages that are neat, easy to display and maximize the selling space, Middleton says.
Packagers say consumers often send mixed messages.
They want packages that are easy to open but tamper-proof. They like the idea of buying food in bulk but don't want people sneezing on it.
Consumers are also confused by what they hear about packaging from government and environmentalists, Downham says.
They're told to stop using plastic bottles to serve baby formula because of potentially hazardous bisphenol-A. But when Hellman's mayonnaise ditches its weighty glass bottle for lighter-to-ship plastic, it's hailed as a breakthrough in reducing its carbon footprint.
But mostly consumers are very concerned about excessive waste.
Many large reputable retailers and packagers have got the message, Downham says, but repackaging takes time, careful planning and can involve major upfront costs.
Not long ago, the world's largest retailer set out to adopt a "green" agenda. As part of that process, Wal-Mart Stores Ltd. set a goal of reducing packaging waste by 5 per cent by the year 2013.
One of its first targets was liquid laundry detergent.
The result was Sunlight Small & Mighty, which is three times more concentrated but washes the same number of loads for the same price. And it uses far less water, cardboard, plastic resin and diesel fuel. Other retailers, such as Loblaw Cos. Ltd., have also moved to more concentrated detergent.
To help suppliers achieve its goal, Wal-Mart developed a scorecard, said Karin Campbell, a spokesperson for Wal-Mart Canada Corp.
"We look at packaging in a few different ways. The weight: Are we using materials that drive up the cost because they're so heavy? We look at how many we can fit on the truck. Can we reduce that? And we look at the individual package. Is the material sustainable, easily recyclable, or is it excessive for the minimum required for the safety and integrity of the product?"
Smart packaging is also smart business, Campbell says.
"Less packaging means savings on the supply chain, better shelf space for suppliers, the ability to carry more products in a smaller square footage," she says. "We see a very close tie between the environmental benefits and business benefits. When you've got smart packaging that's recyclable or in some cases biodegradable you're not paying as much in disposal fees. So, there are a lot of cost savings for a business committed to efficiencies."
So, why is there so much bad or excessive packaging on the market?
Why is the memory card for your digital camera sold in a blister pack four times the size of the card? Why is coffee still sold in unrecyclable, polycoated paper cups? Why are some pill bottles only half full?
The answers are as diverse as the products, experts say.
Many consumer electronics and toys are imported from manufacturers in Asia, which may be harder for retailers to influence.
Some drug companies find it more efficient to use one bottle size no matter how many pills are inside.
And sometimes it's a question of waiting for a breakthrough, like a clay coating that keeps the paper cup dry but is recyclable.
Every packaging change creates some business risk, Soberman says.
In some cases, it's relatively low. It's easy to calculate the potential payback when a new process makes things cheaper and easier. A more risky proposition is using new packaging to try to grab more market share, Soberman says.
Perhaps that's why change might have to be forced on companies.
"When government says do it, when consumers are demanding it, you have to do it. It's not really a question of payback. It's more a question of staying in business."