Usability Works Project
A feasibility study of reusable transport and storage systems for large kitchen appliancesWRAP commissioned a feasibility study to examine the possibility of replacing the current disposable packaging used for large kitchen appliances with an alternative reusable transportation and storage system.
WRAP works in partnership to encourage and enable businesses and consumers to be more efficient in their use of materials and recycle more things more often. This helps to minimise landfill, reduce carbon emissions and improve our environment.
Contents
1 Introduction 5
2 The Current System 6
3 The Reusable Transportation and 8 Storage System (RTSS)
4 Route forward 16
5 Conclusions 18
6 Bibliography 20
Appendix A 21 Desk research
Appendix B 24 Average weight of primary packaging (large kitchen appliances)
Appendix C 25 Stakeholders and users
Appendix D 27 Cost models for RTS box manufacture
Appendix E 29 Materials research
Appendix F 34 Project risk assessment
Appendix G 37 Sales of large kitchen appliances
Appendix H 38 Reduction in packaging costs
While steps have been taken to ensure its accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being accurate, incomplete of misleading. For more detail, please refer to our Terms & Conditions on our website – www.wrap.org.uk
3
Executive summary
WRAP commissioned a feasibility study to examine the possibility of replacing the current disposable packaging
used for large kitchen appliances with an alternative reusable transportation and storage system (RTSS) which
could also provide a means of transporting ‘returns’ and used appliances. The study involved John Lewis as the
retail partner and Electrolux as the manufacturing partner. Involving a manufacturer made it possible to establish
how far back in the supply chain the RTSS could be implemented.
The aim is to effectively design out the use of disposable packaging for large home delivery items, thereby
delivering a significant reduction in household waste. The project seeks to establish packaging principles and
solutions that could subsequently be applied across all large kitchen appliances and white goods, all large home
delivery items, and the broader range of home delivered items.
The study consisted of desk research, in-depth interviews and site visits. Cost modelling was based on three
possible types of design for the prototype (solid box format, flexible/fabric with sold parts, fully flexible/fabric).
The main findings of the study are as follows:
The challenges to be faced in introducing a reusable packaging system for large kitchen appliances could be
overcome. With appropriate preparation and a staged approach (prototyping, trialling and full-scale
production) that involved all stakeholders, such a system stands a good chance of success and is a viable
proposition.
A reusable transportation and storage (RTS) box would offer more protection than current disposable
packaging. This would reduce the risk of damage to the appliance during its transportation and/or during
delivery to the customer, thus reducing the high cost to both manufacturer and retailer of 'loss and returns'.
If widely adopted for large kitchen appliances, packaging waste in the UK could fall by around 39,250
tonnes/year. Other environmental benefits would include reduced use of materials and energy in
manufacturing packaging, less wastage resulting from appliances damaged in-transit and less waste going to
landfill.
One of the keys to success will be the development of a RTS box that is acceptable to all users. An
incremental approach based on consultation, monitoring and assessment at each stage would encourage buy-
in from users and help overcome resistance to change. It would allow designs to be adjusted and adapted
according to user needs, circumstances and project findings.
Another key to success will be a logistics system that ensures the reusable packaging is available in the right
quantities at the right place at the right time. It will be essential to consider the views of all those likely to
come into contact with the packaging and the logistical systems needed to manufacture, sell and deliver the
appliances.
The next stage is a trial of a prototype. Containing the trial within the UK would remove the issue of
backhauling to locations in Europe and facilitate close communication between the retailer, manufacturer and
third-party logistics companies.
Establishing the principle of the RTSS through a successful UK-based trial would provide evidence to broaden
its scope to other product lines and internationally.
4
Contents
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 The Current System ............................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Packaging and delivery ............................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Returned goods ....................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Waste disposal......................................................................................................................... 7
3.0 The Reusable Transportation and Storage System (RTSS)..................................................... 8
3.1 The RTS box............................................................................................................................ 8
3.1.1 Design concepts.......................................................................................................... 8
3.1.2 Estimated manufacturing costs .................................................................................... 9
3.1.3 Possible materials for the RTS box............................................................................. 10
3.2 Logistics system..................................................................................................................... 10
3.2.1 Environments in which the RTS will be used .............................................................. 10
3.2.2 New proposed system............................................................................................... 11
3.3 Other issues .......................................................................................................................... 11
3.3.1 Ownership of the RTS box......................................................................................... 11
3.3.2 Change management ................................................................................................ 11
3.3.3 Environmental issues ................................................................................................ 11
3.3.4 The WEEE Directive .................................................................................................. 12
3.3.5 Risk assessment........................................................................................................ 12
3.4 Waste saving implications of the RTSS ................................................................................... 12
3.5 Replication of the RTSS.......................................................................................................... 14
3.6 Benefits of the RTSS .............................................................................................................. 14
3.6.1 Benefits for manufacturers ........................................................................................ 14
3.6.2 Benefits for retailers.................................................................................................. 15
3.6.3 Benefits for WRAP..................................................................................................... 15
4.0 Route forward ..................................................................................................................... 16
5.0 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 18
5.1 Feasibility of the RTSS ........................................................................................................... 18
5.2 Next steps ............................................................................................................................. 18
5.3 Overview of main conclusions ................................................................................................ 19
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix A: Desk research .............................................................................................................. 21
Appendix B: Average weight of primary packaging (large kitchen appliances) ............................... 24
Appendix C: Stakeholders and users................................................................................................ 25
Appendix D: Cost models for RTS box manufacture......................................................................... 27
Appendix E: Materials research ........................................................................................................ 29
Appendix F: Project risk assessment ............................................................................................... 34
Appendix G: Sales of large kitchen appliances................................................................................. 37
Appendix H: Reduction in packaging costs ...................................................................................... 38
List of Figures and Tables ................................................................................................................ 39
5
1.0 Introduction
In 2005, WRAP commissioned and part-funded a feasibility study to examine the potential for replacing the
current disposable packaging used for large kitchen appliances with a reusable transportation and storage system
(RTSS), which would also provide a means of transporting ‘returns’ and used appliances.
The project aim is to achieve a significant reduction in household waste by effectively designing out the use of
disposable packaging for large home delivery items. The feasibility study sought to establish principles and
solutions that could subsequently be applied to all large kitchen appliances and white goods, all large home
delivery items, and the broader range of home delivered items.
The objectives of the project are to:
replace current disposable packaging with a reusable packaging solution;
minimise the amount of throw-away packaging used when delivering household items to customers;
significantly reduce the amount of household waste resulting from customer deliveries in the retail sector;
allow consumers to participate in waste minimisation and recycling initiatives without effort;
provide commercial benefits to manufacturers and retailers; and
achieve environmental benefits.
This report sets out the findings of the feasibility study involving John Lewis as the retail partner for the project
and Electrolux as the manufacturer. Both partners contributed to the feasibility study through interviews, site
visits and the provision of information and data.
Desk research was undertaken to identify any previous studies into the use of reusable packaging systems for
large kitchen appliances and whether similar systems exist. Although many reusable container and carrier
systems exist (see Appendix A), systems that relate specifically to large kitchen appliances are relatively scarce
and there are few systems similar to the proposed RTSS. Web searching unearthed a packaging system for
refrigeration units from Panasonic (Matsushita), which had some elements of the packaging being recyclable, but
it was not clear whether this was in production (see Appendix A).
A significant finding was that Electrolux had experimented with a reusable packaging system in 2000. In
conjunction with its UK packaging supplier, SCA Tuscarora, Electrolux had trialled a reusable packaging system
consisting of nine component pieces of foam moulding in relation to one appliance – a large double range oven
(see Appendix A). However, the system was judged a failure as only around 50% of the reusable packaging
components were returned to the manufacturing centre.
6
2.0 The Current System
2.1 Packaging and delivery
Current packaging units for Electrolux's large kitchen appliances weigh on average 3 kg. They use a variety of
cardboard, plastic and wood (see Appendix B) including:
polythene shrink-wrap wrapper;
moulded polystyrene units (top and base);
cardboard sections (top and base);
plastic strapping; and
wooden struts.
Products are built on the polystyrene packaging base piece and, when the product is complete, the rest of the
packaging is assembled manually. Packaged products are then moved next door to the warehouse from where
they are transported to the company's main warehouse. Stock is moved as required to the retailer's distribution
centre, from where it pulled off according to sales for delivery to the appropriate branch service building for
onward transportation to the customer.
Appliances such as washing machines tend to be installed by the delivery crews only at the pre-specified request
of the customer (at additional cost). Some appliances, which are not installed, are unpacked by the crews when
requested by the customer, or in order to transport the appliance up stairwells and through doors. This tends to
be done an ad hoc basis and there are no records of how often this happens.
2.2 Returned goods
The role of returns is a significant one for retailers in terms of both cost and activity. Appliances arrive at returns
centres for four reasons:
they are faulty, having been replaced with a new appliance;
packaging faults;
supplier recalls; and
buying office recalls.
Returned goods tend to be:
sent on to the particular supplier;
made available for resale;
made available for charitable giving; and
picked up for waste disposal.
There is a considerable scope for reselling or reusing returned goods, although they need to be presentable and
undamaged. A major concern for many retailers is that large kitchen appliances are frequently returned from
customers and returned to the supplier with minimal packaging and protection. Appliances tend to be wrapped
with bubble-wrap and tape which offers little protection (Figure 1). Other ad hoc protection such as blankets and
the quilted wraps usually used for furniture are sometimes seen.
7
Figure 1. Returned washing machine with minimal packaging
At present, large kitchen appliances that are supplier returns tend not to be in particularly good condition due to
the unprotected delivery process. Both retailers and manufacturers would benefit from use of the reusable
transport storage (RTS) box for returned appliances as this will reduce in-transit damage and the appliances will
retain greater value.
In a previous study by Sony, it was estimated that a 40% reduction in damage was achievable; this figure could
be much higher utilising the RTS box. If the RTS box was used for all appropriate appliances by other
manufacturers and retailers, the savings would be even more significant.
2.3 Waste disposal
The packaging materials around the appliance are often left with the customer, though some are removed by the
delivery teams when requested by the customer and brought back for recycling. Some packaging materials left
with the customer may be recycled (depending on the facilities available to them), while most become part of
general household waste.
John Lewis operate a system whereby the customer pays a fee upfront to have old appliances taken back by the
delivery team for collection and disposal by the retailer's waste contractor. Those appliances not taken back by
the retailer are presumed to be:
collected by the local council on arrangement by the householder;
transported by the householder to the local recycling centre (civic amenity site); or disposed of in some other
way.
If the RTS box was used routinely to pick-up old appliances being replaced, this would lead to significant benefits
in terms of the management of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (see section 3.4).
8
3.0 The Reusable Transportation and Storage System (RTSS)
The proposed system consists of two elements:
a reusable transportation and storage box (RTS box); and
a supporting logistics system.
3.1 The RTS box
3.1.1 Design concepts
Figures 2-6 show conceptual designs that indicate how a possible RTS box design might evolve; they are not final
design suggestions. Figures 2 and 3 are thumbnail sketches showing a flexible solution; Figures 4–6 are examples
of the other extreme – a hard box with wheels.
Figure 2. Reusable packaging: soft-fill wrap-around Figure 3. Reusable packaging: flat hard-top for
stacking
Figure 4. Hard front, side right Figure 5. Hard back, side left
Figure 6. Bottom, top
9
3.1.2 Estimated manufacturing costs
Following discussions with the Metropolitan Works’ Digital Manufacturing Centre (London Metropolitan University),
a three-stage approach was developed to manufacture the reusable packaging units. Each stage (prototyping,
trialling and manufacture) requires different numbers of units to be produced. The rationale is to design the form
and function first, and then to decide on a material.
User-centred design (UCD) techniques will be used with design criteria developed following consultation with all
stakeholders (see Appendix C). This approach will provide the lowest risk for the project.
Two key elements of UCD distinguish it from other methodologies.
There is an early and continuous focus on users, their work environment and their tasks. Consulting key
personnel such as warehouse staff, clamp truck drivers and delivery staff will not only provide valuable
information on which to base the design, but will also help to gain their support in using the RTS system.
Iterative development is adopted whereby a design is evaluated at each stage of the process and
amendments are included in the next iteration. The step-by-step approach enables many issues and design
faults to be eradicated during the design and prototype phases.
For the purposes of cost modelling, the prototype was defined as having three possible variations of design. At
one end of the scale is a solid box type structure (Type 1) and at the other a totally flexible bag or fabric style
packaging (Type 3). An intermediate solution (Type 2) combines the flexible bag style with a number of solid
edges or protection points.
To reduce costs, thermoforming was selected as the most appropriate method for solid structures at the
prototype stage. This lends itself to rapid prototyping and easy modification of the design. For solid structures
and large production runs, creating a tool for the mould (for injection moulding) is expensive and there is a trade-
off between the numbers of units produced versus the initial cost of the mould. For the flexible/fabric style, the
prototype would be worked manually while production runs would require an automated machine. In both cases,
it will be necessary to decide when it is economic to proceed to the more expensive manufacturing process based
on numbers produced versus the cost of the mould/machine.
Table 1 shows calculated possible costs for the three potential solutions for the RTS box production ranging from
five prototype units to 100,000 production units. These are projected costs, not actual figures. Appendix D gives
details of the cost modelling.
Table 1. Estimated manufacturing cost per RTS box for different design solutions
Number of boxes
produced
Type 1: solid box
format
Type 2: flexible/fabric
with solid parts
Type 3: fully
flexible/fabric
5 prototypes £700–1400 £450 £80
10 prototypes £420–770 £580 £65
100 units for trialling £125–160 £105–135 £50
1000 units for trialling £66 £51–70 £30
10,000 units for
production
£17.80–31.80 £25.60–27.50 £15
50,000 units for
production
£10.50–16.50 £12.30–14.30 £12
100,000 units for
production
£6.45–10.45 £8.35–9.35 £9–10
10
3.1.3 Possible materials for the RTS box
Materials selection is critical. The challenge is to locate environmentally sound materials (including, if possible, a
significant proportion of recyclate) that will:
be suitable for the construction of a strong and durable reusable box;
be practical for use in a complex process system; and
provide a high degree of protection for the appliances.
Extensive research into suitable materials was undertaken including desk research and consultations with
packaging manufacturers, support services and academic institutions. These included Kingston University, London
Metropolitan University, WestFocus, Inspired Recycling and London Remade. An initial overview report is given in
Appendix E. This research will feed into the design of the transport and storage system in the next stage, when
the wider impacts of all potential materials will also be assessed (e.g. carbon impacts).
During the next stages of the project, a series of design workshops could be held to allow all interest parties to
contribute to the discussions regarding the design of the RTS box, including materials.
3.2 Logistics system
To keep change to a minimum, existing transport routes would be maintained for moving the packaging from the
customer back to the manufacturing centre. Where possible, this would involve
‘piggybacking’ on existing systems and transport routes; and
backhauling.
In addition, the RTSS should be incorporated within any goods management systems at both the retailer and the
manufacturer so that numbers and locations can be monitored.
Establishing the strategic points at which the RTS box will be stored, and in what volumes, will help to determine
how many RTS boxes will be required within the system. Other factors – including standing time in storage
locations and seasonal sales spread – will also influence this. The need to monitor the RTS boxes for damage and
clean them regularly will also need to be factored into the logistics system.
One aspect to be considered during the development of the RTSS will be to determine:
whether the new system is quicker or slower than the existing delivery system to customers; and
the impact in terms of time.
3.2.1 Environments in which the RTS will be used
There are many places where the RTS box could be found and handled (Table 2).
Table 2. Possible working environments for the RTS box
Possible location Handling method*
Packaging production centre Box created and stored
Manufacturing centre May be part of the production line or moved on trolleys as a packaged
appliance.
Manufacturer's warehouse Moved by clamp truck – clamped and stacked.
Retailer's distribution centre Moved by clamp truck – clamped and stacked.
Retailer's service buildings Moved by sack barrow or pallet truck.
Customer's house† Moved on sack barrow from delivery vehicle to entry point.
Retailer's returns centre Moved by combi-power pallet trucks
Manufacturer's returns centre Moved by fork-lift truck, sack barrow or pallet truck.
Approved rework centres Moved by fork-lift truck, sack barrow or pallet truck.
* Potentially loaded, transported on a lorry and unloaded between each location.
† Ranges from ground floor housing to multiple staircases and corridors.
11
3.2.2 New proposed system
The RTS box encasing the newly manufactured appliance is transported via established routes or via backhauling.
On arrival at the customer's house from the retailer's service building, the appliance is removed from the RTS
box, checked for damage and confirmed as acceptable with the customer. At this point, responsibility for the
appliance passes from the retailer to the customer. The RTS box (housing the old appliance if it is to be taken
back) is then returned to the retailer's service building. A special system (including deposit or fee) would need to
be devised for instances where customers wished to retain the RTS box (e.g. to store the appliance).
On arrival at the retailer's service building, the RTS box is treated as 'goods' and logged as ‘goods in’ on the
warehouse management system. Empty RTS boxes are returned to the manufacturer's warehouse or factory as
part of a regular backhauling route, while RTS boxes containing old appliances are transported to a returns
centre. Once empty, the boxes are transported back to the manufacturer's warehouse or factory on a regular
returns or stock transfer run. On arrival, the RTS box is treated as 'goods' and logged as ‘goods in’ on the
warehouse management system.
3.3 Other issues
3.3.1 Ownership of the RTS box
At present, the manufacturer commissions and pays for the current packaging. This cost is included in the cost of
the product as the packaging is used once and then recycled or disposed of. The RTS box would be a company
asset requiring initial capital investment, maintenance, loss and damage replacement, cleaning, proper
management and ongoing accounting.
The two main options are ownership by either the manufacturer or the retailer. The former is most likely,
although some element of tailoring (e.g. livery) could be added when the packaging is used only for one brand or
by one retailer. However, such tailoring could become unduly complex when the RTSS is established as standard.
A third possibility is that the packaging could be owned by a third-party logistics organisation.
An unbranded option RTS box owned by the manufacturer or a manufacturer’s agent appears the most likely
solution, but requires further investigation.
3.3.2 Change management
Involving staff at all levels from the outset through consultation at the design stage will mitigate against
resistance to change and slowness to adopt new ways of doing things. It is essential that the new system is
explained fully so that everyone understands how it will affect their role and its benefits.
Proper briefing and consultation will be vital for the project to succeed. Problems in implementing other reusable
packaging solutions in the past can usually be traced to:
logistical details relating to the return of the reusable packaging system;
inadequate recognition of the reusable packaging as a valuable asset that must be managed, maintained and
accounted for; and
a non-user centred design approach to the project meaning insufficient research was undertaken prior to
implementation.
3.3.3 Environmental issues
The RTSS will have significant net positive benefits to the environment as it will eliminate a large amount of
disposable packaging that would otherwise need to be recycled, incinerated or landfilled (see section 3.4).
Replacing single-trip transportation packaging with reusable packaging will:
reduce material costs; and
reduce the energy required to produce each individual packaging unit.
12
The environmental impact of the RTSS will be minimised through:
the use, where possible and practical, of recyclates in the production of the RTS box;
recycling the RTS box when it is no longer fit to use;
use, where possible, of backhauling to move the RTS boxes; and
its design with environmental concerns as a primary consideration (including the impacts of materials,
manufacturing processes, transportation and disposal).
3.3.4 The WEEE Directive
The RTSS supports the aim of the WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) Directive to encourage the
reuse, recycling and recovery of WEEE. Use of the RTS box to transport old, replaced appliances away from
households will:
protect the appliances from further damage and thus increase their likelihood of being donated or sold on for
reuse; and
result in more discarded appliances being collected and broken down to components that could be reused or
recycled.
While the RTS box will protect the new appliances transported in the same vehicle as the old ones, the box itself
may become contaminated and require cleaning.
3.3.5 Risk assessment
A full risk assessment for the project is given in Appendix F.
3.4 Waste saving implications of the RTSS
Use of the RTS box will remove virtually all the packaging waste related to large kitchen appliance home delivery
items from domestic waste. On arrangement, old appliances will also be removed from the household waste
stream. One option is to revise the system to incorporate removal of the old appliance as standard rather than as
a paid for extra.
Under The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2005, returnable packaging picks
up obligations only on its first trip and the cost of this obligation can be spread over a period of four years.
Obligation is determined by both material and weight.
A number of other benefits will result from the development of a new reusable and recyclable packaging solution
for home delivery. These include:
cost savings to the retailers using the new packaging solution;
less materials used for packaging;
a measurable reduction in waste produced by the retail sector;
less household waste; and
less waste going to landfill.
Table 3 shows the potential waste savings with the RTSS calculated using average weights of packaging materials
(Appendix B) and annual sales figures/forecasts (Appendix G) for three scenarios:
for all large cooking appliances sold in the UK;
for all large kitchen appliances sold in the UK; and
for all large kitchen appliances sold worldwide (if the RTSS replicated worldwide).
13
Table 3. Potential waste savings using the RTSS
Parameter Value
All large cooking appliances sold in the UK
Number of large cooking appliance units sold in UK (2008 forecast) 3,034,400
Average weight of packaging for large cooking appliances* 2.6 kg
Potential packaging waste saving 3,034,400 2.6
= 7,889,440 kg
= 7,889 tonnes
All large kitchen appliances sold in the UK
Number of large kitchen appliance units sold in UK (2008 forecast)† 12,380,300
Average weight of packaging for large kitchen appliances* 3.01 kg
Potential packaging waste saving 12,380,300 3.01
= 37,264,700 kg
= 37,265 tonnes
All large kitchen appliances sold worldwide
Number of units sold worldwide for all manufacturers (forecast 2003) 272,500,000
Average weight of packaging for large kitchen appliances* 3.01 kg
Potential packaging waste saving 272,500,000 3.01
= 820,225,000 kg
= 820,225 tonnes
* See Appendix B.
† Excluding microwaves.
The actual weight savings achieved will depend on factors such as:
the number of appliances sold;
the weight of the new RTS box; and
the number of old appliances taken back as WEEE.
Table 4 shows the potential waste savings in the UK for different types of large kitchen appliances based on the
expected reduction in packaging weight and forecast sales.
Table 4. Potential reduction in UK packaging waste for different types of appliances
2006 2007 2008
Type
Weight
reduction
per unit
(kg) Unit sales
Weight
reduction
(tonnes)
Unit sales
Weight
reduction
(tonnes)
Unit sales
Weight
reduction
(tonnes)
Refrigeration 4.40* 3,662,000 16,113 3,767,700 16,578 3,861,700 16,992
Home laundry 2.41 3,962,200 9,549 4,116,500 9,921 4,262,100 10,272
Dishwashers 2.36 1,111,600 2,623 1,170,200 2,762 1,222,100 2,884
Large cooking 3.00† 2,781,200 8,344 2,910,600 8,732 3,034,400 9,103
Microwave 1.50† 3,692,600 5,539 3,885,300 5,828 4,058,300 6,088
Total 15,209,600 42,168 15,850,300 43,820 16,438,600 45,338
* Average for fridge (3.17 kg) and fridge/freezer (5.63 kg)
† Estimate
Source: Euromonitor and Exel Packaging Datastore
The world market for large kitchen appliances (excluding microwaves) in 2003 was 272.5 million units. With the
expansion of markets in Eastern Europe and China, a reusable packaging solution will have considerable
implications for international waste saving.
14
3.5 Replication of the RTSS
The trial proposed by this study (see section 4) would establish the principle of using reusable packaging within a
closed-loop system within a national boundary. The trial would also examine complicated scenarios such as third
party logistics. Further logistical issues (e.g. location of the packaging production centre and the use of packaging
machinery) may come into play when international manufacturing and deliveries are taken into account in later
stages of developing the RTSS.
Although manufacturers use different methods of manufacturing and packaging appliances, it is likely that these
could be adjusted to accommodate the principle of reusable packaging. In theory, any barriers to replication
could be overcome by:
carrying out in-depth investigations to identify organisation-specific issues; and
working with organisations to incorporate reusable packaging as industry standard practice.
3.6 Benefits of the RTSS
The RTSS offers substantial benefits in terms of minimising waste.
The RTS box will have a more robust specification and offer more protection than current disposable packaging.
Both the manufacturer and the retailer will benefit from the reduced risk of damage to the product during its
transport or delivery to the customer; damage to appliances during the storage and delivery process can be
considerable and costly (wasted time, effort and materials).
If the RTSS was replicated throughout the UK for large kitchen appliances, packaging waste could fall by around
39,250 tonnes/year (based on 2008 projected sales). If it was replicated worldwide for large kitchen appliances,
the potential reduction could be up to 820,225 tonnes/year (based on 2003 figures). RTS boxes at the end of
their useful life will be recycled whereas much of the current disposable packaging ends up in household waste
sent to landfill.
The change in the home delivery procedure whereby the packaging is removed at the customer's home and
responsibility for the appliance passed to the customer will mean less chance of subsequent complaints to the
manufacturer or retailer about damage during its transport or delivery.
3.6.1 Benefits for manufacturers
The particular benefits of the RTSS for manufacturers of large kitchen appliances include:
reduced cost of each delivered unit due to savings in packaging costs (see Appendix H);
savings in the cost of ‘loss and returns’;
returns received in better condition, making it possible to resell them for more;
savings in the cost of Packaging Recovery Notes (PRNs) to meet obligations under the packaging waste
regulations;
reduced costs associated with waste disposal, including plastic bailer hire, skip collection and cleaning staff;
packaging that is easier to fit, giving time and ease of use benefits when repackaging;
less repacking of products due to damaged packaging materials;
no need to buy and store sets and part-sets of packaging materials for the repackaging process;
more effective processing of old appliances in line with the requirements of the WEEE Directive;
marketing and public relations benefits from innovation, improved delivery service and environmental
credentials; and
opportunity to apply established principles to other product lines with associated benefits.
15
3.6.2 Benefits for retailers
The particular benefits of the RTSS for retailers of large kitchen appliances include:
savings in the cost of ‘loss and returns’;
reduced waste disposal costs;
reduced labour costs for handling returned packaging waste;
reduced storage requirements for waste packaging;
savings in cost of PRNs to meet obligations under the packaging waste regulations;
returns received in better condition, making it possible to resell them for more;
improved home delivery service to customers;
more effective processing of old appliances in line with the requirements of the WEEE Directive;
marketing and public relations benefits from innovation, improved delivery service and environmental
credentials; and
opportunity to apply established principles to other product lines with associated benefits.
3.6.3 Benefits for WRAP
There is enormous scope for addressing the amount of waste associated with white goods. However, the
approach to the packaging of white goods has changed little over the years and is unlikely to alter without
external assistance to allow innovations to be adopted. This project provides WRAP with an ideal opportunity to
spearhead the movement towards reusable packaging in this area.
The particular benefits of this project for WRAP include:
being seen to be pioneering and innovative in supporting the concept of a reusable transportation system for
large kitchen appliances;
being instrumental in enabling the UK to take a lead in investigating reusable packaging possibilities for large
items;
providing evidence to encourage retailers and manufacturers to adopt similar reusable packaging systems;
valuable opportunities to work with major packaging suppliers;
the potential expansion of the system to sister manufacturing plants in Europe and worldwide (most large
kitchen appliances in the UK are imported); and
the potential to replicate to other product lines such as garden and domestic cleaning appliances.
16
4.0 Route forward
The project to design a reusable transport and storage system for large kitchen appliances should proceed to the
next stage – trial of a prototype. Suitable locations have been identified for a relatively small-scale, closed-loop
national trial involving a major manufacturer and a major retailer of large kitchen appliances. Such a trial would:
avoid complications from products originating outside the UK; and
provide an ideal opportunity to establish the principles and practicalities of a reusable packaging system.
Once successfully completed, the trial would provide an example and incentive to broaden the RTSS to both other
product lines and internationally.
Such a trial would involve the following facilities:
packaging production centre;
manufacturing centre and adjacent warehouse;
manufacturer's main UK warehouse;
retailer's main UK distribution centre;
retailer's branch service buildings;
retailer's national returns centre; and
manufacturer's loss and returns warehouse.
The RTS box rotation cycle will be assessed by studying the duration of the actual life cycle to point of delivery of
existing appliances.
The actual number of prototype RTS boxes to be produced for the trial will be calculated once the storage points
within the RTSS have been identified.
A variety of methods are used to track and monitoring units similar to the RTS box such as pallets and totes.
These include:
bar coding coupled with reader and note units;
a simple sticker that is removed manually;
chip tracers/tags; and
radio frequency identification (RFID).
The choice of method will depend on factors such as:
cost;
number of prototypes produced;
materials used in the manufacturer of the units; and
which systems are already in place.
Table 5 presents an overview of project activities in two main areas:
A – the logistics of the RTSS such as transport and handling, training and monitoring systems; and
B – the development of the RTS box (both materials and functionality).
Where an activity covers both areas, it is shown as A/B. Progress reports and meetings would be incorporated as
required.
17
Table 5. Proposed route forward
Stage Activity
1 Feasibility study Completed
Part 1: Research (A) RTSS logistics interviews/workshop 1
(B) RTS box design workshop 1
(A/B) User interviews
(A/B) Interview additional third parties
2 Research requirements
and concept testing
Part 2: Field studies (A/B) Field study of manufacturer supply chain
(A/B) Field study of retailer delivery chain
Part 1: Design sessions (A) RTSS logistics interviews/workshop 2
(B) RTS box design workshop 2
Part 2: Specification (A) Define procedures for RTSS cycle from supply chain to
customer and back, including monitoring systems and maintenance
procedures.
(B) Define RTS box specification for design team.
3 Development of design
Part 3: RTS box design (B) Produce RTS box design concepts, including specification for
manufacture of prototype.
Part 1: Build prototype RTS box (B) Develop and build prototype RTS box.
Part 2: Iterations of usability testing on prototype (B) Test usability and amend according to findings.
Part 3: Test RTS box (B) Carry out full packaging test to manufacturer's specification and
amend according to findings.
Part 4: Staged trials (A) Implement monitoring systems.
(A/B) Trial RTS box from supplier to retailer.
(A/B) Trial RTS box from retailer to customer and back to retailer.
(A/B) Trial RTS box from retailer to supplier and amend according
to findings.
(A) Amend RTSS logistics and monitoring systems.
(A) Amend reuse and handling procedures.
(B) Amend RTS box according to findings.
Part 5: Preparation for full trial (A) Implement reuse and handling procedures, staff training and
change management.
(A) Implement maintenance procedures for RTS boxes.
Part 6: Build RTS boxes for trialling (B) 1000–2000 units
Part 7: Full trial of RTSS and RTS box (A) and (B) Conduct trial as production run over at least six months.
Analyse data from trials and amend specification and procedures.
4 Trial prototype
Part 8: Specification for manufacture Produce RTS box specification.
Produce RTSS procedures (logistics, maintenance, handling and
change management).
Final report
18
5.0 Conclusions
5.1 Feasibility of the RTSS
Before the project began, the aim was to design reusable packaging to protect goods in-transit in delivery
vehicles between the retailer and the customer, and when carried from the vehicle to the home. However,
inclusion of a major manufacturer in the project enabled research to be carried out at earlier points in the supply
chain, including manufacturing and warehousing facilities. The findings suggested it may be possible to design
out disposable packaging at an earlier stage.
There is a both a need for a reusable packaging solution for large kitchen appliances and a desire to create one.
A significant driver in the development of a reusable packaging system is the ability to protect high value
appliances, both during initial delivery and when returned for repair or replacement. Ad hoc use of packaging to
protect appliances in-transit to returns centres indicates recognition of the need to protect 'returns' adequately
but the lack of a formal method of doing so.
The study established that:
it would be feasible to introduce a reusable transportation and storage system for kitchen appliances to
replace current disposable packaging;
despite concerns by manufacturers and retailers, there is a willingness to tackle the issue through research
and trialling of a potential replacement packaging system; and
a reusable packaging solution for large kitchen appliances would significantly reduce household waste in the
UK.
Previous failed attempts to develop a reusable packaging solution have generally involved systems designed
without full user consultation; they experienced logistical problems, suggesting process design issues. Any design
work in this project would overcome this problem by adopting a user-centred design (UCD) methodology.
The report recommends the trial of a prototype RTS and the associated logistical procedures.
5.2 Next steps
In the next stages of the project, a continual process of stakeholder and user consultation will be adopted to
inform the design of a prototype RTSS, working in conjunction with packaging experts.
User-centred design processes generally achieve workable design concepts from the outset, minimising the risk of
taking to trial unworkable prototypes. They are considered a best-practice approach, especially where a number
of diverse user groups (e.g. retail, warehouse, storage, despatch and delivery staff) are involved.
The next stages will include:
confirming the primary contacts at the facilities participating in the trial;
consulting all stakeholder and user groups to draw out information on attitudes to, and acceptance of, the
principles of the proposal, design input and the supply chain system;
establishing design criteria for the RTSS and the RTS box;
generating design concepts for a reusable packaging solution;
mapping out processes and the logistical requirements of the RTSS;
producing a prototype in conjunction with experienced packaging designers;
establishing the scope and scale of trials;
defining key performance indicators (KPIs) and success criteria; and
trialling and refining the prototype.
19
5.3 Overview of main conclusions
The introduction of a reusable system is a viable proposition.
Use of a reusable system has significant business and environmental benefits.
If widely adopted for large kitchen appliances, packaging waste in the UK could fall by around 39,250
tonnes/year.
An incremental approach taking one stage at a time – monitoring, assessing and qualifying each stage – will
increase the chances of success.
The success of the project will depend on:
a reusable transportation and storage box that is acceptable to all users; and
a logistics system that ensures the reusable packaging is available in the right quantities at the right
place at the right time.
The next stage should be design research followed by a trial with a small number of products within a limited
geographical area. To offer greater control during the trial, the manufacturing and supply chain should be
contained within the UK. Such a closed-loop trial would minimise business disruption and provide the best
chance of success.
20
Bibliography
Anon. 2001. Reusable Packaging Systems, Warehouse Management, March 2001.
Denison, E. and Ren G.Y. 2001. Packaging Prototypes: Thinking Green. v. 3. Design Fundamentals Series. Hove,
RotoVision.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). 2005. Securing the Future: Delivering UK
sustainable development strategy. London, Stationery Office.
Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme [now Envirowise]. 1999. Reducing the Cost of Packaging in
the Food and Drink Industry. GG157. Available from: http://www.envirowise.gov.uk
Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme [now Envirowise]. 2000. Life-cycle Assessment – An
Introduction for Industry. ET257. Available from: http://www.envirowise.gov.uk
Envirowise. 2005. Cutting Costs and Waste by Optimising Packaging Use. GG482. Available from:
http://www.envirowise.gov.uk
Fleischmann, M., Beullens, P., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. M. and van Wassenhove, L. N. 2001.The Impact of Product
Recovery on Logistics Network Design. Production and Operations Management, 10(2), 156-173.
Fuad-Luke, A. 2005. The Eco-Design Handbook: A Complete Sourcebook for the Home and Office. London,
Thames & Hudson.
Imhoff, D. 2005. Paper or Plastic: Searching for Solutions to an Overpackaged World, San Francisco, Sierra Club
Books.
Mollenkopf, D., Closs, D., Twede, D., Lee, S. and Burgess, G. 2005. Assessing the viability of reusable packaging:
a relative cost approach. Journal of Business Logistics, 26(1), 169-197.
Sapphire, D. 1994. Delivering the Goods: Benefits of Reusable Shipping Containers. New York, Inform.
21
Appendix A: Desk research
Desk research was undertaken to establish whether:
information was freely available relating to similar studies already undertaken; and
reusable packaging solutions similar to the one being proposed existed.
Research was conducted over the web using various search engines (business, academic, etc); the
high cost precluded any paid-for research and documents. Numerous professional bodies and
agencies were approached directly or via websites, as were key university and research bodies.
Research inaugurated at the behest of a particular manufacturer or group of manufacturers, or
specific retailers, may be confidential and unavailable in the public domain. Approaching all
manufacturers and retailers was considered outside the scope of this research, but key individuals
from stakeholder groups and representatives of the two partner organisations were asked during
interview sessions about similar studies and existing systems.
If you take a broad definition of 'reusable packaging systems', there are numerous packaging,
container and transportation systems in existence including:
legacy or older reusable solutions targeted at specific products such as egg cartons, milk bottles and
returnable beverage bottles (e.g. fizzy drinks);
'old' technologies such as barrels, grain cases and tea cases;
plastic or metal wire crates, wire basket systems, tote or haulage boxes used to transport a whole range of
goods from groceries to widgets (components);
steel and plastic drums for liquids;
reusable bags for solid materials such as aggregates, etc;
various refill and part-refill systems, e.g. home delivery organic vegetable boxes, home removal tote boxes,
Amway-type home soap systems, supermarket refill hand washes;
various bags, pallets, envelopes, reusable shopping bags, cool bags and heavy repeat-use carrier bags;
sleeve or wrap packaging for furniture use, e.g. office furniture components;
standard vessels (e.g. box or crate) used to carry foodstuffs, machine components and books tailored using
foam and board inserts, inner dividers/segregators, etc. to house specific items or products;
systems where some elements of the packaging are recyclable, e.g. Hewlett-Packard printers, whereby most
of the individual packaging has been replaced by shrink-wrap and foam housing on pallets; and
systems that use reusable packaging solutions designed specially for use only with a similar particular product
or defined group of products, e.g. Harley Davidson motorcycles.
Research can be assumed to have been carried out into reusable packaging systems per se, as systems such as
those above already exist.
However, no existing research was found in the public domain relating to systems that would use
reusable packaging solutions designed specifically for use only with a particular product or defined
group of products, i.e. a washing machine or large white goods. Some published articles on reusable
packaging (e.g. Anon 2001, Mollenkopf et al. 2005) were found, as were documents published by
Envirowise (a government-funded programme) (see Section 6).
Two WRAP-funded projects were investigated via telephone conversations with key individuals:
a reusable system designed to transport doors in conjunction with B&Q; and
a reusable system for transporting furniture in conjunction with Argos.
22
Reusable systems that relate specifically to the area of large kitchen appliances are scarce, though
manufacturers (apart from Electrolux as a project partner) were not investigated directly. Two
systems were found:
web research uncovered a packaging system for refrigeration units from Panasonic (Matsushita) that had
some elements of the packaging being recyclable (Figure A1); and
interviews with Electrolux provided details of a reusable packaging system (Figure A2) trialled in conjunction
with its packaging supplier, SCA Tuscarora. The proposition was justified on the basis of environmental
grounds and in terms of cost-savings on both packaging and fewer damaged returns. The idea was that the
foam pieces would be collected by the delivery team in a supplied plastic bag and returned to base.
Figure A1. Webpage outlining partial recyclable system for refrigeration units
23
Figure A2. Tuscarora flyer about the reusable packaging system trialled by Electrolux
24
Appendix B: Average weight of primary
packaging (large kitchen appliances)
Table B1. Average weights of primary packaging around selected white goods, April 2005*†
Packaging material type Type of appliance
Paper Plastic Wood Steel
Total
primary
(kg)
Number in
sample
Dishwasher 1.34 0.90 0.11 2.36 29
Tumble dryer 1.18 0.71 1.89 27
Washing machine 1.31 1.10 2.41 51
Fridge 2.43 0.72 3.17 63
Fridge/freezer 4.04 1.19 0.39 5.63 55
Large cooker 0.42 1.59 0.58 0.01 2.61 275
All 10.72 6.21 1.08 0.01 18.07 500
Average 1.79 1.04 0.18 0.00 3.01
* Sample data for large cookers provided by Electrolux. Other sample data prepared for UsabilityWorks by Exel,
Packaging Datastore.
† Figures are subject to rounding. The information in this report shows the average primary packaging weights
across each product range. Best in class analysis (based on unit sales) has not been applied to these figures.
Waiver: Data Prepared for UsabilityWorks by Exel, Packaging Datastore: Whilst Packaging Datastore Limited has
taken all due skill, care and diligence to ensure that the packaging data contained in this spreadsheet is as
accurate as reasonably possible taking into account the information made available to it, it does not give any
warranty of accuracy, reliability or fitness for any purpose of the information contained in the spreadsheet.
25
Appendix C: Stakeholders and users
Project stakeholders
WRAP
Customers purchasing appliances
Manufacturer General management
Departmental management
Appliance designers
Packaging designers
Packaging purchasers
Computer systems/asset trackers
Retailer General management
Departmental management
Appliance buyers
Computer systems/asset trackers
RTSS user stakeholders
Manufacturing centre Assembler
Packer
Trolley driver
Manufacturer's storage warehouse Unloader and mover (clamp truck driver)
Picker/loader (clamp truck driver)
In-transit driver
Packaging waste handler
Manufacturer's loss & returns warehouse Trolley drivers
Assessors
Repackers
Clamp truck drivers
Packaging waste handler
Retailer's distribution centre Delivery taker/quality assurance
Unloader (clamp truck driver)
Picker
Loader (clamp truck driver)
Trolley driver
In-transit driver
Packaging waste handler
Retailer's branch service buildings Delivery taker/quality assurance
Unloader (clamp truck driver)
Picker
Loader (clamp truck driver)
In-transit driver
Domestic delivery/appliance waste collection
Packaging waste handler
Retailer's branches Delivery taker/quality assurance (shop samples)
Packaging waste handlers
Retailer's national returns centre Delivery taker
Assessor
Unloader (combi-power palette truck driver)
Picker
Loader (combi-power palette truck driver)
In-transit driver
Customer Delivery taker
Fitter
Consumer/user
26
RTSS user community
Primary users Warehouse and distribution staff
In-transit drivers and delivery teams
Repackers
Secondary users Customers
Installers
Support groups Computer systems and logistics
Management
Transportation and storage system suppliers
27
Appendix D: Cost models for RTS box
manufacture
An open-ended design process will be applied to the RTS box. Therefore this financial model is an overview
example based on envisaged costs that might be required and working with example materials that may or may
not be used for the prototype. Three possible variations of design solutions were considered (see section 3.1).
The development of the end solution will necessitate three stages (prototyping, trialling and manufacture), with
each stage requiring a larger number of units to be produced.
Each aspect of the design concept will be tested through interaction and so prototypes are developed only to the
state necessary to allow interaction to proceed. To keep costs as low as possible, only those aspects and
functions that need testing are created in the prototype. The rationale is to determine the form and function of
the design first, and then to decide on the most appropriate materials to use for the final product.
Thermoforming and compression moulding are methods that can keep prototyping costs low and allow for easy
modification. Injection moulding is an expensive and inflexible method for prototyping, as each mould has to be
made from a tool which is expensive to create. There is a trade-off between the cost of the tool and the cost of
the components (materials) which make the product. A tool can cost £ 50,000–200,000. There is therefore an
economic decision to be made concerning the numbers to be produced such that the marginal cost of each unit
produced falls as the numbers increase due to economies of scale. This cost can vary significantly (£2–15 per
unit). Thermoforming as a manufacturing process could offer the necessary flexibility to facilitate the ability to
provide amendments quickly and economically during the development phase of the project and to provide a
solution for production, with more sophisticated tooling being employed as volume increases.
The following considerations were taken into account:
Developing prototypes by thermoforming can determine 90% of the information required to prove the design
and, compared with injection moulding, can be 15–25% of the cost in terms of tooling costs.
Creating tools for moulding is expensive.
As the size of each part to be moulded and therefore the size of the tool to create the mould increases, so
does the cost.
The quality and cost of tools for moulding are determined by the number of units required to be produced by
the mould.
At a certain point, the cost of moulding becomes economical when considering the amount of units to be
manufactured. This assumes initially that 5–10 prototype units will be needed per design solution for testing
purposes.
Prototype tooling is formed from cast or machined resin board.
Soft tooling will be formed from aluminium or resin.
Volume tooling will be formed from steel.
Tables D1–D3 detail the cost elements for the three types of RTS box.
28
Table D1. Type 1 – solid box format with two large components per unit*
Tool type Number of units
Thermoforming/
compression
mould/ tooling
Moulding and
machining per
component
Cost per RTS
box ( two
components)
5 prototypes £2500–6000 £100 £700–1400
10 prototypes £2500–6000 £85 £420–770
Pro
toty
p
e t
oolin
g
100 units for trialling £2500–6000 £50 £125–160
1000 units for trialling £10,000 £28 £66
Soft
toolin
g
1 U
p (
single
impre
ssio
n t
ool)
10,000 units for
production
£18,000 £8–15 £17.80–31.80
50,000 units for
production
£25,000 £5–8 £10.50–16.50
Volu
me
toolin
g
2 U
p
(double
impre
ssio
n
l)
100,000 units for
production
£45,000 £3–5 £6.45–10.45
* Assumes one symmetrical piece is used for both parts of the box.
Table D2. Type 2 – flexible/fabric with solid parts as protection points *
Tool type No. of units
Fabric
working
manual
Thermoforming/
compression
mould tooling
Moulding Cost per RTS
box
5 prototypes £70 each £1500 £80 each £450
10 prototypes £50 each £4500 £80 each £580
Pro
toty
pe
toolin
g
1 u
p (
single
impre
ssio
n
tool)
100 units for
trialling
£30 each £1500–4500 £60 each £105–135
1000 units for
trialling
£15 each £6000–25,000 £30 each £51–70
Soft
toolin
g
10,000 units for
production
£10 each £6000–25,000 £15 each £25.60–27.50
50,000 units for
production
£8 each £15,000 £4–6 each £12.30–14.30
Volu
me
toolin
g
Multi im
pre
ssio
n t
ool
(four
part
s )
100,000 units for
production
£5 each £35,000 £3–4 each £8.35–9.35
* Initial fabric/flexible prototypes are created manually. This process remains economical for manual working as
the number produced increases. Assumes smaller parts are required for the protection points such as corners and
edges (four per unit).
Table D3. Type 3 – fully flexible/fabric*
No. of units
Cost of each
fabric working
manual
Machine
production for
fabric
Cost per RTS box
5 prototypes £80 n/a £80
10 prototypes £65 n/a £65
100 units for trialling £50 n/a £50
1000 units for trialling £30 n/a £30
10,000 units for production £15 n/a £15
50,000 units for production £12 n/a £12
100,000 units for production £9–10 Bespoke machine
decision point
£9–10
* Initial fabric/flexible prototypes are created manually. This process remains economic for manual working as
the number produced increases. At 100,000 units, a decision point is reached to invest in bespoke machinery to
create units.
The above estimated manufacturing costs were compiled with the help of London Metroplitan Works Digital
Manufacturing Centre (London Metropolitan University).
29
Appendix E: Materials research
From a report supplied by Addington Hendley
The range of materials includes:
materials for mass-produced packs such as high density polyethylene (HDPE) and polypropylene (PP) for
which moulds are required and therefore high initial capital outlay; and
materials such as corrugated board and medium density fibreboard (MDF) that can be used to construct packs
with minimal need for dedicated machinery.
The cost of most materials varies with time and it was not felt worthwhile to quote costs per unit (weight or area)
at this stage. It also does not make sense at this stage to quote performance figures such as tensile strength and
top load for any material. These are specific to the application and can be dramatically affected by aspects such
as design and component thickness and, for some materials (e.g. corrugated board) by environmental conditions
such as high humidity. Life-span is similarly affected by aspects such as design and environment, and is therefore
mentioned only in a general way (e.g. corrugated packaging will achieve only a limited number of return
journeys).
Table E1 summarises the properties of the main types of plastics/polymers, timber and metal packaging
materials. Additional types of these materials that are currently available include:
Plastic/polymer:
Corian®;
Droptec®;
jute/thermoset composite;
Kenaf/thermoset composite;
plastic lumber;
thermoplastic composite – Timbaplus®, Treeplast®, Ultrapoly®, Acousticel®;
expanded silicone rubber foam;
natural rubber;
rubber embossed matting;
rubber/plastic lumber;
rubber sheet; and
vulcanised rubber.
Wood/vegetable:
bamboo;
Biopol®;
Gridcore®;
Environ®;
straw board;
soy polymer;
Tectan® board; and
Treeplast®.
Metal:
aluminium foam;
aluminium mesh;
aluminium sheet;
foamed aluminium panel;
non-woven copper textiles; and
zinc foam.
30
Other environmentally appropriate materials under development include:
Starch-based packaging. The starch is derived from renewable plant sources and manufacture of the foam
does not involve the use of ozone-depleting chemicals (the foam is produced by introducing steam into starch
extract). The material is completely biodegradable and, after use, can be mixed with compost, cardboard and
paper waste streams if desired.
Polylactic acid (PLA). This has been developed by a number of companies and is being produced
commercially in the USA by Cargill; Cargill's material is branded as NatureWorks PLA (see
www.natureworksllc.com). This material has been used for applications as diverse as bottles and textiles. Its
property profile is similar to that of PET. The material is from renewable resources and is biodegradable.
Textile-based materials. For the soft-fill wrap-around packaging option, a range of textile based materials
is available including:
hemp;
jute;
Kevlar®;
polyester geotextile;
polyester fleece;
polypropylene geotextile;
straw geotextile; and
textile architecture.
31
Table E1. Properties of main materials used in packaging
Type General Characteristics Availability Cost Application advantages Application disadvantages
Plastics/polymers
HDPE Polyolefin plastic
widely used in
injection and blow
moulding. Typical
products
manufactured from
HDPE include
plastic milk bottles,
bottle caps, plastic
crates, plastic
drums and pallets.
Very durable material
widely used because of
its strength, availability
and good thermal
forming properties.
Not fundamentally
affected by its
environment.
Wide temperature
durability.
One of the two most
widely available
plastics.
Can be purchased
from a wide range of
global resin suppliers.
Also available as a
recyclate; this source
of the material is
used for the
production of such
items as plastic
pallets.
Like all plastics, its
price is linked
closely to the price
of oil and therefore
suffers a degree of
instability.
Application is a suitable use
for recyclate.
Offers strength, durability
and the rigidity required for
the structural elements of a
pack.
Wide use for other forms of
returnable packaging
(pallets, bottle crates, etc.)
makes it an ideal candidate
for the concept.
Damaged components can
be recycled.
As the plastic requires
thermal forming (i.e. injection
moulding), the start-up cost
will be high due to the need
to invest in moulds. This will
potentially be in the range of
£80,000 to £150,000, and
thus will need high volumes
to justify the investment.
LDPE Polyolefin plastic
widely used in blow
moulding and film
extrusion. Typical
products
manufactured from
LDPE include shrink
and stretch film,
bubble wrap and
plastic bottles.
Very durable and flexible
material widely used
because of its strength,
tear resistance,
availability, good thermal
forming characteristics
and moisture barrier
properties.
Not fundamentally
affected by its
environment.
Wide temperature
durability.
Does not have the rigidity
of HDPE and is therefore
not widely injection
moulded.
Widely available.
Can be purchased
from a wide range of
global resin suppliers.
Also available as a
recyclate; source of
the material is used
for applications such
as black refuse sacks.
Like all plastics, its
price is linked
closely to the price
of oil and therefore
suffers a degree of
instability.
Application is a suitable use
for recyclate.
Offers tear resistance and
moisture barrier, but not
the rigidity required for the
structural elements of a
pack. But could find
application in as a
protective component
(possibly in bubble wrap
form).
Easily recycled.
The material does not offer
significant structural strength
and therefore would need to
be used with other
materials/components.
PP Polyolefin plastic
widely used in
injection moulding,
Very durable and flexible
material widely used
because of its strength,
Most widely available
resin.
Can be purchased
Like all plastics, its
price is linked
closely to the price
Offers similar advantages to
HDPE.
Can also be foamed to give
Although all its properties are
similar to HDPE, the low
temperature brittleness can
32
Type General Characteristics Availability Cost Application advantages Application disadvantages
blow moulding and
film extrusion.
Typical products
manufactured from
PP include film,
bottle and caps,
plastic food
containers such as
yoghurt pots and
margarine
containers, bottle
crates and other
returnable plastic
containers.
availability, good thermal
forming characteristics
and moisture barrier
properties.
Not fundamentally
affected by its
environment, but its
unmodified form becomes
very brittle at low
temperatures ( 0°C).
Has the rigidity of HDPE
and is therefore widely
used in injection
moulding.
from a range of
global resin suppliers.
Also available as a
recyclate.
of oil. It is widely
traded and
consequently the
price suffers a
degree of
instability.
a robust protective
component.
Would be particularly useful
in applications where there
is a formed hinge (PP is
very resistant to repeated
bending).
Can be easily recycled at
the end of its useful life.
Can be converted to a
structural foam, which
might offer good protective
qualities to the returnable
pack.
Strapping would be another
application for this material.
cause problems. It is
therefore not widely used if
temperatures are likely to fall
to around freezing point.
PET Known as PET
when used for
plastic bottle
manufacture and
polyester when
used as a film or in
textiles. Widely
used for soft drinks
bottles, ready meal
trays, in textiles
and carpet
manufacture.
Very wide application in
both the packaging and
textile industries.
An extremely strong
plastic with good clarity
and barrier properties.
Easily recycled and there
are established markets
for it as a recyclate such
as filling for jackets,
sleeping bags, soft
furnishings and carpet
manufacture.
This plastic is only
likely to be used in
this project as
recyclate. Recyclate is
generally restricted
only by supply.
Cost of recyclate
tends to follow the
cost of the virgin
resin at around
60% of the price of
virgin material.
Application is a suitable use
for recyclate.
When in the form of fibres
has strength and maintains
its 'volume', i.e. it is not
prone to collapse and thus
could be valuable as a
padding material in a
protective component.
PET foam is also being
developed and this may
also bring some structural
strength.
PET pallets are available.
Because of its strength,
also used for strapping.
It is a relatively expensive
material with a lot of
competing markets. It is not
therefore a material that is
used widely for injection
moulded components where
an alternative such as HDPE
may be more realistic.
Timber (including plywood and MDF)
Timber Widely used
packaging material
on both its natural
Used for its strength,
rigidity and ease of
conversion.
Renewable resource,
widely available in
natural and
Cost is not normally
a concern in its
use.
Low capital cost to
manufacture a suitable
timber-based returnable
There are international
restrictions on wood
packaging material (WPM).*
33
Type General Characteristics Availability Cost Application advantages Application disadvantages
form and processed
forms such as
plywood.
Commonest
material in tertiary
packaging, being
the most cost-
effective material
for pallets and box
pallets.
Very cost-effective in
broad areas of packaging
such as export, defence
and machinery packing.
Some of its
disadvantages limit its
use in some areas of
packaging.
processed forms.
Timber packs
designed for closed-
loop returnable
systems are well-
established and often
designed for the
particular product.
pack.
Life of the pack likely to be
less than a plastic
equivalent but more than a
corrugated board pack.
Repair may be an option.
Can be a health and safety
hazard.
Not as tolerant of its
environment as plastic,
although considerably better
than corrugated board.
Metal (galvanised steel and aluminium)
Metal Suitable materials
for returnable
packaging systems
where their
strength, rigidity
and ease of
forming are
advantageous. The
choice between
aluminium and
galvanised steel
often balances cost
against weight (Al
is significantly
lighter but more
expensive).
Provides the ability to
fabricate a rigid
framework for a large
returnable pack.
Extremely long life if
treated well.
Can often be repaired to
extend useful life.
Traded
internationally.
Both Al steel are
economically
recyclable, enabling
any metal-based pack
to be both
manufactured from
recycled material and
ultimately recycled.
Costs fluctuate.
Al is generally more
expensive than
steel.
Low capital cost to
manufacture a suitable
metal returnable pack, with
little or no pack specific
equipment required.
Life of the pack likely to
rival a plastic equivalent.
Repair may be an option.
The disadvantages of metal in
this application are associated
largely with weight –
particularly for steel. With a
steel-based pack, the pack
weight could approach that of
the product, thus reducing
truck loading with a knock-on
environmental impact.
* Following EU implementation on 1 March 2005 of ISPM-15 (an international standard for phytosanitary measures developed by the International Plant Protection Convention), all
WPM such as boxes, crates, pallets made using any unmanufactured wood products must be either heat-treated or fumigated with methyl bromide under an officially approved
programme and carry the internationally agreed mark. WPM consisting entirely of manufactured wood products such as plywood, particleboard, oriented strand board or similar is
exempt, and need not be treated or marked.
34
Appendix F: Project risk assessment
Significance Issue
Impact Risk
Mitigation
Access to retailer's staff and delivery chain.
High Low Obtain buy-in from retailer's senior management.
Access to manufacturer's staff. High Low Obtain buy-in from manufacturer's senior management.
Stakeholders not engaged in the project.
Medium Medium Ensure all interested parties represented in workshops and discussion groups.
Retailer's staff not happy with the new procedures.
Medium Low Ensure retailer's change management processes are fully engaged. Explain benefits to company and its staff.
Manufacturer's staff not happy with the new procedures.
Medium Low Ensure change management procedures are fully engaged. Explain benefits to company and its staff.
Difficulties integrating new packaging within retailer's and manufacturer's supply, storage and delivery procedures.
High Medium Study the current supply and delivery chain system. Utilise existing transport streams and logistics operations to minimise change.
Delivery team unhappy with new packaging.
High Low Develop design using UCD techniques, ensuring user participation within the design process. Make usability of packaging and associated packaging applicators a key factor in the design.
Customers concerned about new packaging.
High Low Address all functional requirements of packaging such as protecting from damage and breakages fully. Take customers’ views into account during design process. Market new delivery service as a benefit.
Suitable materials for packaging not found.
High Low Involve product design experts and sustainable design experts within project team. Research and obtain a full range of available materials and components.
Damaged to appliances increases as a result of the new packaging system.
High Low By its nature, reusable packaging is built to a higher specification than current packaging which is only used once. A key driver for the development of reusable packaging is to reduce the cost of ‘loss and returns’.
Low sales of appliances selected for trial leads to it being halted prematurely before conclusive results obtained.
High Low Select a product that is currently selling well and which is predicted to continue to sell well.
Packaging not returned by retailer's delivery crews.
High Medium The logistics aspect is fundamental to the success of this project. Focus attention on
35
Significance Issue
Impact Risk
Mitigation
the human factors involved, engaging key personnel in the development of new procedures, training for delivery crews, internal marketing of project and change management. Incorporate simplification of the collection process into the design.
Packaging procedures not understood and/or valued by crews of third-party logistics company making manufacturer's deliveries.
Medium Low Include logistics company in development process. Ensure full awareness of new packaging and associated procedures.
Packaging lost within logistics system.
High Medium Change mindsets of packaging handlers and stock management to treat reusable packaging as a company asset, as part of the transport system and as ‘goods’ so that the RTS box will be registered as ‘goods in’ and will appear on all warehouse and stock management systems. Employ a tracking system.
Packaging damaged due to mistreatment within logistics system.
Medium Low Change mindset of logistics stakeholders so that packaging is treated as part of the transport system, with each package monitored and stored as goods to be returned to the manufacturer. Allocate storage space as for any valuable goods.
Appliance may reside with the customer in storage for some time before installation.
Medium Low Unpacking of product and removal of packaging will be part of the revised delivery service. The packaging will be part of the transport system.
Packaging does not meet current specifications.
High Low Perform the full range of tests normally applied to the manufacturer's products on the packaging, e.g. clamp tests, stacking tests, drop tests and inclined plane tests.
Not enough packaging is returned in time for the next batch run or build of appliances.
Medium Medium Compensate by allowing a contingency number of additional packaging units to be produced. Produce enough in advance for a set number of batch runs and allow time for return of packaging. Measure and monitor turn-around time, and adjust amounts required. Provide collection or storage pools at strategic locations.
Packaging supplier not familiar with specified material or specified design, or unable to source or work with specified material.
Medium Low Work with a supplier with a wide variety of products and services, and one open to innovative ideas and keen to be involved with new materials and designs. Consider
36
Significance Issue
Impact Risk
Mitigation
involving other packaging suppliers.
Packaging left at customer location.
Medium Low Standard practice will be to unpack and take back RTS box. Consider either charge/fee if customer wishes to retain the box or supply alternative storage as cost item to customer.
Loss of packaging during delivery.
Medium Low to Medium
Employ tracking system to avoid loss.
No ownership of RTS box. Low Low Establish this at the outset.
Unfavourable business conditions at retailer and/or manufacturer prevent access to staff.
High Low Look for indications of this at outset. If necessary, locate other retail and/or manufacturing partners.
Lack of co-operation from manufacturer and/or retailer
High Low Ensure time and resources for engagement and activities have been at budgeted for. Appoint internal primary contact/project manager.
Lack of co-operation of third party logistics companies
High Medium Ensure time and resources for engagement and activities have been budgeted for. Use influence of manufacturer and retailer buying their services.
37
Appendix G: Sales of large kitchen
appliances
UK
Table F1. Sales of selected large kitchen appliances in the UK, 2003-2008
Type 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Refrigeration 3,285,600 3,419,600 3,545,600 3,662,000 3,767,700 3,861,700
Home laundry 3,461,500 3,633,200 3,800,600 3,962,200 4,116,500 4,262,100
Dishwashers 838,800 959,500 1,043,900 1,111,600 1,170,200 1,222,100
Large cooking 2,372,100 2,510,800 2,647,600 2,781,200 2,910,600 3,034,400
Microwave 2,889,400 3,263,100 3,483,900 3,692,600 3,885,300 4,058,300
Total 12,847,400 13,786,200 14,521,600 15,209,600 15,850,300 16,438,600
Source: Euromonitor
The latest forecast for large kitchen appliances in 2009 is 16.9 million units.
Worldwide
Table F2. Global retail sales of large kitchen appliances by sector volume, 2003
Large kitchen appliances Million units
Refrigeration 78.1
Home laundry 71.6
Dishwashers 16.8
Large cooking 106.0
Total 272.5
Source: Euromonitor International
38
Appendix H: Reduction in packaging costs
Using cost models for the RTS box of between one and fifty times that of the current disposable packaging costs,
table H1 shows the expected cost savings from the RTS box with a reuse factor of 10, 50 or 100 times.
There are other cost implications to be taken into account including:
savings in waste disposal costs for discarded packaging;
potentially higher costs on aspects such as storage for the new RTS box; and
anticipated rates of loss of the RTS box.
Table H1 shows in simple terms the savings that could be achieved calculated simply on the basis of reuse ratios.
The more the RTS box is reused, the higher the cost saving that will be achieved.
For example, if the new RTS box costs five times the current packaging (£20.40) and had a reuse factor of 10
times, and was used to transport over a year all forecast sales of the appliance covered by the trial (5500), then
the cost saving would be £112,200 (5500 £20.40). A reuse factor of 50 would increase the saving to over
£1 million.
Table H1. Estimated cost savings from use of reusable packaging*
Cost saving (£) New cost
compared with
current
Cost of new
packaging One use Reuse factor
10
Reuse
factor 50
Reuse factor
100
1 (same) £4.08 0 36.72 199.92 403.92
3 times higher £12.24 –8.16 28.56 191.76 395.76
5 times higher £20.40 –16.32 20.40 183.60 387.60
10 times higher £40.80 –36.72 0 163.20 367.20
20 times higher £81.60 –77.52 –40.80 122.44 326.40
50 times higher £204.00 –199.92 –163.20 0 204.00
* Based on the average cost of packaging for a built-in and built-under double oven.
39
List of Figures and Tables
FIGURE 1. RETURNED WASHING MACHINE WITH MINIMAL PACKAGING.......................................................... 7
FIGURE 2. REUSABLE PACKAGING: SOFT-FILL WRAP-AROUND ........................................................................ 8
FIGURE 3. REUSABLE PACKAGING: FLAT HARD-TOP FOR STACKING................................................................ 8
FIGURE 4. HARD FRONT, SIDE RIGHT ............................................................................................................. 8
FIGURE 5. HARD BACK, SIDE LEFT .................................................................................................................. 8
FIGURE 6. BOTTOM, TOP ................................................................................................................................ 8
FIGURE A1. WEBPAGE OUTLINING PARTIAL RECYCLABLE SYSTEM FOR REFRIGERATION UNITS ................... 22
FIGURE A2. TUSCARORA FLYER ABOUT THE REUSABLE PACKAGING SYSTEM TRIALLED BY ELECTROLUX...... 23
TABLE 1. ESTIMATED MANUFACTURING COST PER RTS BOX FOR DIFFERENT DESIGN SOLUTIONS.................. 9
TABLE 2. POSSIBLE WORKING ENVIRONMENTS FOR THE RTS BOX................................................................ 10
TABLE 3. POTENTIAL WASTE SAVINGS USING THE RTSS ............................................................................... 13
TABLE 4. POTENTIAL REDUCTION IN UK PACKAGING WASTE FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF APPLIANCES........... 13
TABLE 5. PROPOSED ROUTE FORWARD ......................................................................................................... 17
TABLE B1. AVERAGE WEIGHTS OF PRIMARY PACKAGING AROUND SELECTED WHITE GOODS, APRIL 2005*† 24
TABLE D1. TYPE 1 – SOLID BOX FORMAT WITH TWO LARGE COMPONENTS PER UNIT*................................. 28
TABLE D2. TYPE 2 – FLEXIBLE/FABRIC WITH SOLID PARTS AS PROTECTION POINTS * ................................. 28
TABLE D3. TYPE 3 – FULLY FLEXIBLE/FABRIC* .............................................................................................. 28
TABLE E1. PROPERTIES OF MAIN MATERIALS USED IN PACKAGING............................................................... 31
TABLE F1. SALES OF SELECTED LARGE KITCHEN APPLIANCES IN THE UK, 2003-2008 .................................... 37
TABLE F2. GLOBAL RETAIL SALES OF LARGE KITCHEN APPLIANCES BY SECTOR VOLUME, 2003..................... 37
TABLE H1. ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS FROM USE OF REUSABLE PACKAGING*.............................................. 38
www.wrap.org.uk/retail
Waste & Resources Action Programme
The Old Academy, 21 Horse Fair, Banbury, Oxon OX16 0AH
Tel: 01295 819 900Fax: 01295 819 911E-mail: [email protected]
Helpline freephone 0808 100 2040
When you have finished withthis report please recycle it.
Written by: Usability Works Limited
UsabilityWorks LimitedCoppergate House, 16 Brune Street, London E1 7NJTel: 020 7377 6467 Fax: 020 7377 6574 www.usabilityworks.co.uk