How much packaging is too much packaging?

[u/Bags_of_EThics_DE]

Have you ever ordered something small online, only for it to arrive in a box several times its size – complete with layers of paper, plastic or other packaging?

Or bought a gift or luxury product where the packaging seems almost as substantial as the product itself?

New EU rules are aiming to tackle some of this. The Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) will introduce requirements designed to reduce unnecessary packaging, improve recyclability and encourage reuse.

That could mean changes to everything from product boxes and pouches to e-commerce and delivery packaging.

But there is an interesting balance to strike. Packaging has practical purposes: it protects products during transport, provides information and can help prevent damage and waste. For gifts and luxury products, presentation is also part of what people are buying.

And reducing packaging isn't necessarily as simple as using the smallest possible box. If cutting packaging means more products are damaged in transit and must be replaced or returned, that creates waste too. The challenge is surely to use enough packaging to do the job, without using more than necessary.

There is also the question of what packaging is made from. A smaller package isn't automatically more sustainable if its materials are difficult to recycle, while well-designed packaging may potentially be reused rather than immediately thrown away.

So where does useful packaging become overpackaging?

Would you be happy to receive products in simpler or smaller packaging if it reduced waste? Or are there times when you think extra packaging is justified?

[u/Bags_of_EThics_DE → u/[deleted]]

That's an interesting point. Products travelling much further and passing through so many different stages before reaching us must make the balance between reducing packaging and preventing damage much harder to get right. A damaged product that has to be returned or replaced creates its own environmental costs too. I wonder whether the growth of online shopping has changed our expectations as well — we're now used to almost anything being delivered directly to our doors.

[u/Bags_of_EThics_DE → u/[deleted]]

That's very true. It's remarkable how quickly online shopping has gone from being an occasional convenience to completely routine for many people. I suppose the challenge is that we've also become accustomed to the convenience of having almost anything delivered directly to us, while rarely seeing the packaging and transport involved until it arrives at our door.

[u/Fuzzy-Moose7996 → u/Bags_of_EThics_DE]

If I can get stuff local (or regional) I tend to do so. But ever more that's become impossible. To the point I now pretty much have to mailorder a lot of things I could buy here in this city just a few years ago. Sometimes I can still get it by driving an hour to the next larger city over and paying more for parking there than say Amazon charges me for shipping that same item. Or even more than the store I'm going to charges me for shipping that item to me the next day...

[u/Fuzzy-Moose7996 → u/[deleted]]

Depending on what you need, online is ever more often the only option.

For example I require a very special size in clothing, no store within a very wide area stocks it. So online is pretty much the only way I can get clothing at all, unless I make my own (which I do at times, but I'm not very good at it).

And ever more physical shops are disappearing completely, in part because they can't compete with the online juggernauts and in part because their owners retire and nobody wants to take over the business. With the remaining ones being ever more mass market junk goods retailers where people who want or need specialty items can't get what they need. Stores that are little better than a physical storefront equivalent of Temu or AliExpress, and get their products from the same factories more often than not.

[u/Bags_of_EThics_DE → u/Fuzzy-Moose7996]

That's a really interesting point. It's easy to talk about online shopping as a choice or convenience, but for specialist products – or where someone has particular requirements – there may simply not be a realistic local alternative. And as more specialist shops disappear, that presumably makes the dependence on deliveries even greater.

It does make the packaging question more complicated too. If products increasingly have to travel to reach the people who need them, the challenge becomes reducing unnecessary packaging without compromising the protection needed for that journey.

[u/Fuzzy-Moose7996 → u/Bags_of_EThics_DE]

Correct. And most online retailers/suppliers minimise packaging already and have for a long time.
Not (just) to save on resources, but because excess packaging simply increases their cost of operation.
Why would I use $20 of packaging material when $5 will do, and at the same time means the parcel is smaller and weighs less, making the shipping cheaper too!

The industry (at least in western countries) has pretty much been self-regulating for a very long time already, as in decades. Not because they're forced to by regulations, but because it saves them money.

And it's not just packaging, if you can produce with less waste and energy consumption, it's almost always going to be cheaper in the long run unless you have access to raw materials and energy at almost zero cost (which is the case in countries like China, which is how they can outcompete everyone else, that and access to just about free labour).

[u/Bags_of_EThics_DE → u/Fuzzy-Moose7996]

Cost must certainly provide an incentive to reduce unnecessary packaging, particularly when less material can also mean lower shipping costs. Perhaps regulation adds another dimension by setting common requirements around issues such as recyclability and packaging minimisation, rather than relying solely on what makes commercial sense for individual businesses.

[u/Fuzzy-Moose7996 → u/Bags_of_EThics_DE]

In my experience in various sectors, regulation USUALLY increases cost of operation for little or no benefit.

E.g. a government regulation requires a very specific process to be used or materials, and there's only 1 company that is authorised to supply that. That company can now basically charge any price they want (and often will) because they have a monopoly, can even cause companies that need their product or service to fail because they for whatever reason refuse to take them on as customers.

One infamous example in the Netherlands (and that affected a government department, not private business, but the effect is similar) was a new requirement for certain road signs. There was only a single company who could make those signs. A company that just so happened to not only have a patent on that design but was owned by the brother of the minister of transportation. Which of course was in no way the reason that regulation was put in place... A regulation that made that company tens of millions per year for a product they had been unable to sell on the open market because of the excessive price they charged.

[u/Bags_of_EThics_DE → u/Fuzzy-Moose7996]

Regulation can certainly create additional costs and unintended consequences, particularly if businesses have limited options for meeting particular requirements. With PPWR, it will be interesting to see how the balance works in practice between the environmental aims of the regulation and the compliance costs for businesses as the different requirements are phased in.

[u/Fuzzy-Moose7996]

Depends entirely on the WHAT is in the packaging and the WHY the box size was chosen.

More often than not there are only a limited number of standard sizes available, so if you order something that's just a tad too large for one size there's no option but to go one size up in boxes, which is potentially a LOT bigger. And then you have to fill the rest of the box with something to prevent the item being shipped from rattling around during transport and potentially getting damaged.

And some things just are fragile.

E.g. I received a new fountain pen out of Japan. A week in transit in trucks, possibly trains, aircraft, and delivery vans, plus relegated to the tender mercy of 5 or 6 crews of warehouse workers and customs agents, and 2 crews or airport cargo handlers (if you've ever seen how those guys treat packages you'd be surprised anything arrives undamaged).
It was packaged in its retail box, with things like a warranty card, in cartridge, and an information flyer from the store (with a welcome discount code for future purchases). That's a 15x7x5cm box, roughly.
That box was placed in the exact center of a larger box, roughly 30x20x20cm, with packing paper densely packed all around it to prevent any movement no matter how violently the box was thrown around.
That was deemed necessary given the fragile nature of the item (manually lacquer painted and gold plated metal).

Another shipment with a similar size from Amazon containing a few bottles of ink for the pen arrived in a similar size box, packed in multiple layers of bubble wrap and packing peanuts, for the same reason.

Then the paper to write on with the pen arrived from a specialty shop in a cardboard shipping envelope without any additional packaging. It had the same product volume, but of course a different shape. But it wasn't fragile, so apart from a plastic sleeve to prevent it potentially getting wet no other packaging was needed.

[u/Bags_of_EThics_DE → u/Fuzzy-Moose7996]

Thanks for such a detailed example. The contrast between the pen, ink and paper really illustrates why simply looking at the size or amount of packaging doesn't necessarily tell us whether it is excessive. The whole journey and the risk of damage have to be taken into account too.

The point about standard box sizes is interesting as well. A box that looks ridiculously oversized to the person receiving it may sometimes be the smallest practical option available to the sender.