Unnecessary packaging is material that is not doing a job: duplicate formats, over-specified board, a second protective layer repeating the first, inserts nobody reads, and fill compensating for a box that is too big. Removing it reduces cost, waste and pack time together - provided you remove material rather than function.
Material versus function
This is the distinction that makes the exercise safe. Removing material that is not doing a job reduces cost with no downside. Removing function - protection that is genuinely needed - converts a material cost into a damage cost several times larger.
Every item below is material that is typically doing nothing, which is why they are safe to challenge.
Where unnecessary packaging accumulates
- Duplicate formats. Two carton sizes within a couple of centimetres of each other, each with its own stock and shelf space.
- Over-specified board. Double wall used across a range where most lines never needed it.
- Doubled protection. A fitted insert and loose fill, because the fill was never removed when the insert was introduced.
- Inserts nobody reads. Leaflets and cards that go straight in the bin, printed and stocked on every order.
- Fill compensating for fit. Material occupying a gap that should not exist.
- Second bags and wraps. An item already in retail packaging, wrapped again out of habit.
How to find it in your own operation
Two exercises, each about twenty minutes.
- Watch a pack being built. Count every component. For each, ask what would happen if it were not there. If the answer is 'nothing', that is the list.
- Look in the bin at the end of a shift. Off-cuts, unused inserts, part-used materials and discarded cartons tell you what is being bought and not used.
Both are more informative than reviewing a line list, because they show what actually happens rather than what is supposed to.
Challenging each component
| Component | Question |
|---|---|
| Each carton size | What volume goes through it, and is there a near-duplicate? |
| Board grade | What is stacked on this, and for how long? |
| Each protective layer | Which failure mode is this addressing? |
| Void fill | Is this protecting, or filling a gap the box created? |
| Inserts and leaflets | Does anybody act on this? |
| Outer wrap or bag | Is the item already protected underneath? |
The questions to ask.
Removing without increasing damage
The safe sequence is to remove one component at a time from one format, and watch the damage rate before removing the next.
In practice the most common finding is that a fitted insert was added at some point and the fill that preceded it was never removed - so the pack carries both. Removing the redundant one is free. See protective packaging.
The savings compound in four directions
- Material - fewer components bought.
- Labour - fewer components handled on every order.
- Carriage - a smaller pack where fill is removed.
- Waste - less for the customer to dispose of, which they notice.
That is why removing unnecessary packaging is usually the first thing a packaging review looks for, and why it tends to be the least controversial finding - see also sustainable packaging.
The short version
- Remove material that does nothing; never remove function.
- Watch a pack being built and challenge every component.
- Look in the bin at the end of a shift.
- The commonest redundancy is an insert added and the old fill never removed.
- Savings compound across material, labour, carriage and waste.
Frequently asked questions
How do we know what is unnecessary?
Watch a pack being built and ask, for each component, what would happen if it were not there. If the answer is 'nothing', it is a candidate.
Is it risky to remove protection?
Removing material that is not doing a job is safe; removing function is not. The distinction is whether the component addresses an actual failure mode.
What is the most common redundancy?
A fitted insert added at some point with the previous loose fill never removed, so the pack carries both.
Do customers notice reduced packaging?
They notice excess far more than efficiency. Over-packaging generates comment; a well-fitted pack rarely does.
Where should we start?
The highest-volume format, because anything removed there is multiplied by the most orders.