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: info@wrap.org.uk

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