June 9, 2008
Packaging Levels Need to Fall Further
By Bernice Hurst, Managing Partner, Fine Food Network
Supermarkets and smaller groceries across Britain are trying to reduce and/or reuse packaging but with mixed results according to the latest assessment by the Local Government Association (LGA). Based on analysis of 29 common grocery items from six leading supermarkets, a local retailer, and a market by the British Market Research Bureau (BMRB), it appears that “up to 38 percent of food packaging in a typical supermarket shopping basket cannot be recycled,” according to a report in The Guardian. This represents a mere two percent improvement since last year.
Both issues – overall packaging and recyclable packaging – were examined. Many items had “excessive and unnecessary” packaging including a boxed fresh pizza with a plastic or polystyrene base as well as shrink-wrap. Biscuits came in plastic tubes, with some also having trays.
Amongst the improvements cited were instances of unwrapped (as opposed to shrink-wrapped) broccoli. The average weight of packaging has reduced by five percent, but the proportion of it that is recyclable has changed little, the study found.
Paul Bettison, chairman of LGA’s environment board, commended the progress made, saying, “Families will be pleased to see that more packaging in their shopping baskets can now be recycled.” But he added that “there is still a lot further to go” if Britain is to meet its recycling targets and avoid landfill tax.
In another survey of the most environmentally friendly brands, however, five of the country’s biggest grocers scored in the top 10 with their green advertising campaigns. Conducted by two of WPP’s marketing consultancies, Landor, Cohn & Wolfe and PSB, 1,500 people responded to campaigns discouraging plastic bags and packaging. Several supermarkets in last year’s top 10 moved up the rankings this year.
“There is a direct correlation between being more green and people wanting to buy more from you,” according to one of the consultants. “People look for practical, substantive examples of action that they can relate to.” Having said that they like the ads, however, 94 percent of the respondents also felt that products, especially food, were over-packaged and that supermarkets could do more.
Discussion questions: Has the supermarket and consumer packaged goods industry put a high enough priority around reducing packaging or is it mostly still talk at this point? Have you seen any significant changes in either the overall amount of packaging or the amount of recyclable packaging? What can supermarkets and their vendors do to reduce levels further?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
German retailers lead the world in package waste prevention. Why? Because Germany requires its retailers to haul away all the waste packaging. In the USA, if chain retailers had to pay for the local trash removal tonnage of their shoppers, packaging waste would be minimized in 6 months.
It may be early days as the industry makes sustainable packaging a priority but retailers who have made commitments to sustainable practice move packaging front and center. It is such a visible opportunity for supermarkets to let shoppers know that they care about their community and are working toward better packaging choices.
With choices like concentrated liquid detergents in smaller containers, there are many winners–easier to carry and store at home for consumers, reduced costs for shipping, less material consumed in manufacturing, less material for disposal. Consumers appreciate and respond to initiatives like these to reduce the amount of packaging–alternatives to plastic shopping bag or packages that are contain a lot of empty space or over sized in relation to the product.
Programs for recycling are increasing, driven not only by municipalities, but good ideas like the Recycle Bank LLC, which encourages people to recycle with reward cards they can redeem at local and national retailers. In this program, participation is reported to average over 80% in communities where available, representing an average of 100 pounds per household. With major marketers involved in these programs, consumer incentive to recycle is greatly increased–with corresponding possibilities for supermarkets to talk to their shoppers about packaging choices that can benefit everyone.
Green is now a variable of a brand and retailer. All things being equal–and we have a lot of parity in brands and services, green will be favored by consumers.
In CPG qualitative focus groups, I’ve seen green increased in value and discussion.
There’s still plenty of room for improvement. Milk cartons are exasperating; the coated cartons are not recyclable, and yet there appear to be a variety of plastic, recyclable alternatives. Consumers are more than ready to do their part to reduce waste and “think green” if they are given the chance.
As always, the issue is not one of black and white.
Unquestionably, packaging in many cases can be redesigned to reduce cost in materials and transportation (forget carbon for now) with little other impact–but not always so easy as others make it sound.
Packaging is obviously part of a brand’s marketing at the “moment of truth” at the store shelf. Does anyone really understand how different packaging changes, if they impact store presentation, might impact product sales?
It’s easy for someone to say “unnecessary,” but if it affects presentation, that’s a huge issue.
Then there is safety. Many of today’s current packaging approaches were ultimately taken due to the Tylenol incident two decades ago. Packaging protects against those threats, and with increasingly ready to eat foods, in the storage and preparation of those foods.
In other consumer products areas (not so much CPG) you of course also have shrinkage concerns.
Finally, you need to adequately protect the product from package damage in transit and in handling in getting to the store shelf and consumer handling.
So, looking at this from a single view, it is easy to make packaging changes that could have a negative impact on one or more of these other areas.
Packaging can be improved and reduced without question. But we should all be careful of single dimensional analyses.
We surveyed retailers on green initiatives, thinking that oil prices and supply chain costs were going to be the top initiatives. Turns out, it’s all about packaging–and brand. Packaging is a real problem, but contrast that with yet another fresh item getting slammed by a health scare–the “tomatoes have salmonella” issue. Every time there is a problem like this, there is pressure to make food more sterile, more protected–more packaged. I’m not sure how it will all balance out in the end.
Another place for the government to become involved. They have already to some extent in Europe, where packaging is “taxed” to compensate for the wear and tear on infrastructure to both transport and to dispose. The obvious danger here is that these taxes have a way of spreading from country to country…and where will the money generated actually be spent?
This also places a significant burden on industry players to get a decent measure of weight by type of packaging material…creating another instance in the long-standing issue of inaccurate and out of date product masterfile data.
Packaging is now the real challenge for vendors and retailers. I still see excessive packaging in an effort to reduce the minimum order multiple so retailers can buy according to their needs. It is such a waste seeing a cardboard box with two shrink wrapped 6 packs inside. Vendors need to find a better way to package and deliver merchandise. Everyone wins when packaging is reduced. I know receivers and merchandisers definitely think so!
Two reasons packaging could become smaller: 1) To coincide with consumer usage and “greenry” goals such as described in the article’s introduction; and 2) To gain a greater margin for manufacturers and retailers who will take advantage of the opportunity to price small packages to their profit advantage.
The former is sensible, trendy and a little emotional. The latter has become necessary, rational and international. Who wants to tell me which is the greater force today?
While consumers may not know exactly what is meant by the term “carbon footprint,” they can see the impact of packaging and plastic bags on the environment. This issue is not going to go away. For now, retailers making a significant push in this area are going to realize a competitive advantage. However, before long, it will simply be another cost of doing business.
Food retailers and food manufacturers would be well-served by viewing this issue as an opportunity, rather than simply another threat to sales and profitability.
This issue is the Achilles heel of green at retail.
We can talk all we want about energy and lighting and materials, but if we don’t reduce packaging, which flows through the already-built environment in amazing quantities on a daily basis, we’re kidding ourselves.
Many retailers consider this as one of the most crucial sustainable initiatives going forward, including Wal-Mart.
Sort of as an aside to this, an odd and inconvenient truth that has cropped up in my little Vermont town. The market for recycled paper, plastic and metal has sunk low enough that pound for pound (counting the extra handling required for recyclables), it costs us more to recycle than it does to just haul it away as trash. We used to see a small but steady income stream. Now, our selectboard must decide whether to pay more to do “the right thing” and recycle, or not. This decision comes as local taxes soar and townies have to consider moving away.
Retailers can set standards and challenge their private label suppliers. They can also tell consumers what they are doing through product labeling, shelf labels and overall customer communications.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
German retailers lead the world in package waste prevention. Why? Because Germany requires its retailers to haul away all the waste packaging. In the USA, if chain retailers had to pay for the local trash removal tonnage of their shoppers, packaging waste would be minimized in 6 months.
It may be early days as the industry makes sustainable packaging a priority but retailers who have made commitments to sustainable practice move packaging front and center. It is such a visible opportunity for supermarkets to let shoppers know that they care about their community and are working toward better packaging choices.
With choices like concentrated liquid detergents in smaller containers, there are many winners–easier to carry and store at home for consumers, reduced costs for shipping, less material consumed in manufacturing, less material for disposal. Consumers appreciate and respond to initiatives like these to reduce the amount of packaging–alternatives to plastic shopping bag or packages that are contain a lot of empty space or over sized in relation to the product.
Programs for recycling are increasing, driven not only by municipalities, but good ideas like the Recycle Bank LLC, which encourages people to recycle with reward cards they can redeem at local and national retailers. In this program, participation is reported to average over 80% in communities where available, representing an average of 100 pounds per household. With major marketers involved in these programs, consumer incentive to recycle is greatly increased–with corresponding possibilities for supermarkets to talk to their shoppers about packaging choices that can benefit everyone.
Green is now a variable of a brand and retailer. All things being equal–and we have a lot of parity in brands and services, green will be favored by consumers.
In CPG qualitative focus groups, I’ve seen green increased in value and discussion.
There’s still plenty of room for improvement. Milk cartons are exasperating; the coated cartons are not recyclable, and yet there appear to be a variety of plastic, recyclable alternatives. Consumers are more than ready to do their part to reduce waste and “think green” if they are given the chance.
As always, the issue is not one of black and white.
Unquestionably, packaging in many cases can be redesigned to reduce cost in materials and transportation (forget carbon for now) with little other impact–but not always so easy as others make it sound.
Packaging is obviously part of a brand’s marketing at the “moment of truth” at the store shelf. Does anyone really understand how different packaging changes, if they impact store presentation, might impact product sales?
It’s easy for someone to say “unnecessary,” but if it affects presentation, that’s a huge issue.
Then there is safety. Many of today’s current packaging approaches were ultimately taken due to the Tylenol incident two decades ago. Packaging protects against those threats, and with increasingly ready to eat foods, in the storage and preparation of those foods.
In other consumer products areas (not so much CPG) you of course also have shrinkage concerns.
Finally, you need to adequately protect the product from package damage in transit and in handling in getting to the store shelf and consumer handling.
So, looking at this from a single view, it is easy to make packaging changes that could have a negative impact on one or more of these other areas.
Packaging can be improved and reduced without question. But we should all be careful of single dimensional analyses.
We surveyed retailers on green initiatives, thinking that oil prices and supply chain costs were going to be the top initiatives. Turns out, it’s all about packaging–and brand. Packaging is a real problem, but contrast that with yet another fresh item getting slammed by a health scare–the “tomatoes have salmonella” issue. Every time there is a problem like this, there is pressure to make food more sterile, more protected–more packaged. I’m not sure how it will all balance out in the end.
Another place for the government to become involved. They have already to some extent in Europe, where packaging is “taxed” to compensate for the wear and tear on infrastructure to both transport and to dispose. The obvious danger here is that these taxes have a way of spreading from country to country…and where will the money generated actually be spent?
This also places a significant burden on industry players to get a decent measure of weight by type of packaging material…creating another instance in the long-standing issue of inaccurate and out of date product masterfile data.
Packaging is now the real challenge for vendors and retailers. I still see excessive packaging in an effort to reduce the minimum order multiple so retailers can buy according to their needs. It is such a waste seeing a cardboard box with two shrink wrapped 6 packs inside. Vendors need to find a better way to package and deliver merchandise. Everyone wins when packaging is reduced. I know receivers and merchandisers definitely think so!
Two reasons packaging could become smaller: 1) To coincide with consumer usage and “greenry” goals such as described in the article’s introduction; and 2) To gain a greater margin for manufacturers and retailers who will take advantage of the opportunity to price small packages to their profit advantage.
The former is sensible, trendy and a little emotional. The latter has become necessary, rational and international. Who wants to tell me which is the greater force today?
While consumers may not know exactly what is meant by the term “carbon footprint,” they can see the impact of packaging and plastic bags on the environment. This issue is not going to go away. For now, retailers making a significant push in this area are going to realize a competitive advantage. However, before long, it will simply be another cost of doing business.
Food retailers and food manufacturers would be well-served by viewing this issue as an opportunity, rather than simply another threat to sales and profitability.
This issue is the Achilles heel of green at retail.
We can talk all we want about energy and lighting and materials, but if we don’t reduce packaging, which flows through the already-built environment in amazing quantities on a daily basis, we’re kidding ourselves.
Many retailers consider this as one of the most crucial sustainable initiatives going forward, including Wal-Mart.
Sort of as an aside to this, an odd and inconvenient truth that has cropped up in my little Vermont town. The market for recycled paper, plastic and metal has sunk low enough that pound for pound (counting the extra handling required for recyclables), it costs us more to recycle than it does to just haul it away as trash. We used to see a small but steady income stream. Now, our selectboard must decide whether to pay more to do “the right thing” and recycle, or not. This decision comes as local taxes soar and townies have to consider moving away.
Retailers can set standards and challenge their private label suppliers. They can also tell consumers what they are doing through product labeling, shelf labels and overall customer communications.