Why maximum packaging security can cost companies money, and why the most cost-effective solution is rarely the one with the lowest damage rate
For many companies, preventing transport damage as far as possible is a top priority and therefore remains the key criterion when assessing packaging. Falling damage rates are seen as a success, whilst additional protective measures are regarded as a gain in quality. Yet in practice, it is precisely this perspective that often leads to a trend which proves costly for companies: packaging is being reinforced more and more, even though the economic benefit of these additional safety margins has long since ceased to exist.
The crucial question is therefore not how every single instance of damage can be prevented. The crucial question is which packaging represents the best solution from an economic perspective.
Safety is not an end in itself
A look at the automotive industry illustrates this point. Modern vehicles feature highly sophisticated safety systems and protect their occupants from the stresses and strains to be expected in real-world road traffic. However, no one would demand that a vehicle itself must survive a head-on collision at 100 km/h against a concrete wall without sustaining damage. Safety is designed to withstand realistic stresses and strains, not every theoretically conceivable extreme scenario.
When it comes to packaging, this principle is often assessed differently. Products are thrown about, stacked improperly or transported under unfavourable conditions. If damage occurs, the reaction is often: more material, more padding, more safety margins.
Yet it is rarely questioned whether this additional protection actually creates economic added value. buhl-paperform GmbH takes a different approach here, working closely with its customers to scrutinise the necessity of every protective measure – after all, these measures incur costs. Costs that arise not only from the packaging material itself, but throughout the entire supply chain.
“Packaging must withstand the actual demands of the supply chain. However, it does not need to cater for every theoretically possible exceptional case,” says Christoph Buhl, Managing Director of buhl-paperform GmbH. “What matters is not the maximum possible level of safety, but the economically optimal balance between product protection and the use of resources.”
When damage rates become the wrong metric
In principle, transport damage can be reduced almost indefinitely. Cardboard boxes can be reinforced, padding increased and safety margins expanded. However, with every additional protective measure, material consumption, packaging weight, handling costs, CO₂ emissions and volume also rise.
The consequences are immediately apparent: higher material costs, more storage space, lower pallet utilisation, higher transport costs and more complex packaging processes. At the same time, the economic benefit of the additional protective measures steadily diminishes. To put it another way: the final tenths of a per cent of a damage rate are often the most expensive.
“Many companies invest considerable resources in further reducing transport damage,” explains Buhl. “In doing so, they often overlook the fact that the resulting additional costs may be higher than the costs of the damage they are trying to prevent.”
It is precisely at this point that it becomes clear why looking at damage rates in isolation falls short. A packaging solution can function excellently from a technical point of view whilst at the same time being economically inefficient.
The industry is shifting its perspective
This development is now also being recognised by institutions and market participants. For instance, the German Insurance Association (GDV) explicitly states that packaging must withstand ‘expected stresses’. Similarly, the German Packaging Institute (dvi) no longer views packaging solely as having a protective function, but as a key component of efficient and sustainable supply chains.
The focus is thus shifting significantly from maximum safety towards the optimal and most cost-effective overall solution.
A simple example is Amazon. The company uses artificial intelligence to specifically optimise packaging based on historical damage data, product characteristics and logistical conditions. The aim is explicitly not the largest possible packaging, but the most economically sensible. This has enabled millions of tonnes of packaging material to be saved and unnecessary shipping packaging to be significantly reduced. Some items are even dispatched entirely without additional protective packaging. The insight behind this is as simple as it is relevant: more packaging does not automatically mean greater cost-effectiveness.
Packaging must be viewed as an integrated system
The Fraunhofer Institute for Material Flow and Logistics (IML) also highlights the considerable potential of systematic packaging optimisation. This is because any unnecessary excess packaging affects transport efficiency, storage capacity, CO₂ emissions and process costs.
For this reason, buhl-paperform does not view packaging in isolation, but as part of an overall system. And this makes even more sense, particularly in the current climate of PPWR regulations.
“Together with our customers, we analyse products, transport routes, storage conditions, handling processes and damage costs,” explains Christoph Buhl. “Only when all influencing factors have been taken into account can we assess which packaging represents the best solution in economic terms.” It is explicitly not a question of accepting damage or lowering quality standards.
“In practice, packaging designed to withstand stress will never achieve a permanent zero per cent rate of transport damage,” says Buhl. “Exceptional stresses and mishandling can never be completely ruled out. The crucial question is therefore not whether individual instances of damage may occur, but whether the overall solution makes economic sense.”
The most cost-effective packaging is rarely the most robust
Rising costs, increasing competitive pressure and growing sustainability requirements, as well as PPWR, are forcing companies today to reassess their packaging. What is needed are solutions that combine product protection, cost-effectiveness and resource efficiency.
The future therefore lies not with packaging offering the greatest safety margins, but with packaging offering the highest efficiency.
“Anyone who assesses packaging solely on the basis of the damage rate is missing the point,” says Buhl. “Successful packaging concepts emerge where product protection, logistics, sustainability and cost-effectiveness are optimised together.”
Zero per cent transport damage may sound like an ideal scenario at first glance. For companies, however, it is not a measure of success. Packaging is successful when it achieves the necessary protection whilst using the least possible resources. Only in this way can the greatest economic benefit be created throughout the entire supply chain.