Mar 26, 2008 at 12:14 am #1227989
@ryanLocale: Northern Rockies
Companion forum thread to:Mar 26, 2008 at 7:24 am #1425664
@charley289Locale: Cascades and Oregon Coast Range
Great article, really liked the pics. Gear and environment are two subjects dear to my heart!
CharleyMar 26, 2008 at 8:23 am #1425671
Jason BrinkmanBPL Member
I certainly agree with the spirit of the article, and reducing packaging makes more and more sense to businesses from a economic and environmental standpoint as gas/diesel prices (and thus shipping costs) rise to record levels. However, I fear that some of the ubiquitous blister packs have to do with reducing shoplifting of small items. Ever notice how they are all about the same minumum size, regardless of the size of the product? Ever notice that the more expensive the item, the harder it is to remove from its package?Mar 26, 2008 at 11:05 am #1425692
Kevin LaneBPL Member
Great job, but may I suggest we go one further. Many of the items mentioned in the article cannot just be recycled, but composted as well. If anyone has an interest in either reducing their carbon footprint or perhaps creating a more naturally fertile soil for their gardens, shrubs, lawns, etc., then look into the different ways to compost. Check out Bokashi and vermicomposting for year round indoor efforts! ALmost all kitchen waste can be put in there. I bet if you also start a compost pile the amount of trash will be 1/3 to 1/6 of that which you previously had. You will be shocked at how much non recyclable paper and cardboard turns into black goldMar 26, 2008 at 11:14 am #1425694
Ok…but how about we look a bit farther out?
Platy products? Made in the US and not shipped from China. So less waste in the end than shoes shipped here from there in paper boxes.
The shrink wrapping of the Camelbak bottles causes less waste in the end – it keep the bottles from being 'shop worn' and returned. They don't get scratched up and covered in fingerprints.
Same with any excessive packaging! It does serve a purpose in the end. It serves to protect the gear from getting nasty and as well, getting stolen. Makes it easy to display.
But here is something? Those Sigg bottles? They still come in packaging! They most likely came in a huge, very thick cardboard box with inserts and did they come in plastic bags as well?
I guess my thoughts are this….from having worked where I pack items for the past 4 years you start realizing packaging does serve a purpose.
For instance I wrap my books in a plastic bag. Overkill? Maybe. But in a recent case a lady ordered a book and I shipped. Her mail was dropped off, the carrier left the door down. All of her mail was soaked – but the book was in new shape inside the soaked envelope. She was SO happy over that. What it did do was make it so I didn't have to ship another package. That save money and packaging. And fuel for shipping. I'd rather wrap an item in a bag or in bubble wrap than have it wrecked. Customers expect a product to be NEW LOOKING when they get it!
So what can we do? Buy items made in the US. Recycle. Buy packaging made in the US (I do as well!).
Just remember….just because the packaging appears eco-friendly it doesn't mean the item inside is! If your underwear was sewn in Vietnam you paid for the diesel to have it shipped here in a cargo bin!Mar 26, 2008 at 11:20 am #1425696
Those Sigg water bottles? Look at the rack they are hanging from. Now tell me that rack is not made JUST for them! That in its self is wasteful!Mar 26, 2008 at 11:39 am #1425701
The Sigg rack is reusable for years. If they ship only one rack per store, that seems like a good use of resources.
Furthermore, I thought the camelback bottle shrink wrap is good minimalist packaging. When you buy a bottle with a straw, don't you want something like the tamper proof packaging in water/soda bottles? Comparisons to wide mouth nalgenes are unfair, since they are easier to clean.Mar 26, 2008 at 11:57 am #1425705
Christopher HoldenBPL Member
@back2basicsLocale: Southeast USA
"Just remember….just because the packaging appears eco-friendly it doesn't mean the item inside is! If your underwear was sewn in Vietnam you paid for the diesel to have it shipped here in a cargo bin!"
Are you suggesting a boycott of Smartwool in the US? As I recall, their merino wool is from New Zealand. They have eco-friendly packaging too!Mar 26, 2008 at 4:50 pm #1425739
Christopher, if you haven't tried them,Fox River is making great socks in a collection, Good Earth. Most are made free of oil, from corn. The ones that are not are organic wool. Awesome socks, made in the US and minimal packaging. And priced reasonably.
http://www.foxsox.com/Categories/goodearth.aspxMar 27, 2008 at 4:52 am #1425781
Christopher HoldenBPL Member
@back2basicsLocale: Southeast USA
I am not familiar with the name, but am a big fan of Smartwool. I'll check out Fox River socks in the near future.
Thanks for the tip.Mar 27, 2008 at 7:35 am #1425792
@mikeclellandLocale: The Tetons (via Idaho)
Thanks for this important article. I worked in advertising for over a decade, and lemme tell you, beyond the overt waste, that highly art directed 4-color packaging is EXPENSIVE, and it's passed onto the purchase price.
Patagonia has nice packaging, but they also mail out a LOT of full color catalogs. Yes, they are printed on recycled paper, but there is a LOT of energy used to design, print and ship those slick marketing tools. In my opinion – it's TOO much.
Two more "thumbs down" are Black Diamond & Metolious (climbing equipment), they both use horrendously excessive packaging. It's awful!
There should be a well publicized petition (maybe created by BPL) for the next series of outdoor retailer events. It's pathetic.
Howa 'bout BPL create a teeny-weenie sticker (or hang tag, or logo – or something) that praises the packaging on a product. That way, a company (example: TEKO socks) could have a positive bit of praise, and the consumer could be educated – and BPL could get others to see the error of their ways. You look at some socks in a store, and the TEKO socks have a little "BPL approved" notice on 'em. Maybe the concerned consumer would choose those socks over another brand?
M!Mar 27, 2008 at 9:31 am #1425814
Brian DobleBPL Member
@brian79Locale: New England
I'm glad you're tackling this issue! I hope there are more environmental articles like this one in the future.
One recent problem I've found with hiker waste is that whenever I order gear from a particular website, they send me a huge catalog with my order. Obviously, I found the gear I wanted online, so why do I need a hard copy of their site? OK, so it's advertising, but lightweight dealers need to differentiate themselves from other companies.
Also, I wonder how environmentally friendly the recycling process is. (I hope this post doesn't seem off the subject!)Mar 27, 2008 at 10:23 am #1425821
One thing we can do is to contact the companies and ask them about their packaging. Obviously if the items are imported they are more likely to have heavier, thicker packaging due to the production/shipping. You can also contact them and ask politely to not receive catalogs and if they do put them in packages, petition them to not.
More thoughts: there are many, many books on the outdoors out there – it is shocking how many are NOT printed in the US. There is one well known publishing house in California that prints their books in China. That puzzles me…there are so many good printers in the Midwest that are just as cheap and by doing it in the US we support American workers, American paper mills and use less fuel to ship the items. So, take a look inside the books you buy and if not printed here, ask why they are not. Email them! Call them!
And as always, support US made gear if it works for you – as local as you can :-)Mar 27, 2008 at 12:15 pm #1425833
We respect BackpackingLight as an unbiased source for product and industry reviews, however were very disappointed at the lack of research used for this article.
Why were we not contacted or better yet, why were dealers or packaging manufacturers not included in this research?
While the subject of the packaging article was on point, I believe there should have been a little more research done into the specifics. There are reasons for every decision.
There are varying levels of "blister pack" packaging… Brunton packaging is made with 100% Recyclable P.E.T. Packaging (Polyethylene Terephthalate) (http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_polyethylene_terephthalate_4/).
We were ahead of the curve in this transition as we moved all our packaging over to this type of "plastic" three years ago before it was even being asked for or required by dealers.
Our ability to decrease the amount of packaging we use across the board is always a topic of conversation among our designers and product developers.
We are also involved in major packaging initiatives for 2009-2010.
In regard to your statement, "These products are made to be taken into the wilderness and heartily used, so if normal in-store handling results in product damage, perhaps its wilderness utility should be questioned. The reality is this: Commodity accessories, like the ones sold by Brunton and dozens of others, are distinguished primarily by a company's ability to market them, especially as we see an increasing number of brands using the same factories for manufacturing commodity products that are becoming increasingly homogenized. Marketing is one of the few ways they have to differentiate themselves."
You are correct about our concern as manufacturers to have our product taken care of from the time it leaves our warehouse until it reaches their peg. Our dealers expect to receive products without scratches or blemishes so that they can be sold in their stores.
Moreover, dealers require us to implement security measures for our products. You see this in every retailer in our categories because we are all required to provide packaging that ensures the least amount of shrink.
When you say "commodity accessories" you are speaking mostly about hard goods vs. soft goods. Hard goods manufacturers have different requirements for packaging.
What you may not realize, or at least did not note in your review, is that most products that are not displayed in packaging (most shirts, jackets, water bottles, etc.) are shipped to retail packaged individually in plastic bags or boxes. The retailers are required to remove that packaging before it is displayed. The "Thumbs up" companies you highlight have different packaging requirements placed upon them from dealers. We applaud their ability to use more sustainable packaging and encourage all of them to continue to move this direction.
Understanding the requirements placed upon the manufacturers is critical when pointing out any downfalls they might have. I hope in the future more research could be done up front. If our packaging or products don't measure up to someone else's, we can accept that criticism, as long as the facts are in order and presented fairly.
Jason Kintzler | Senior Communications Manager | BruntonMar 30, 2008 at 1:52 pm #1426220
Dean F.BPL Member
@acrosomeLocale: Back in the Front Range
I know where you are coming from about needing to meet the demands of retailers, and you have my sympathies. I don't, however, buy the argument that this requires blister packages. Is there any reason a compass or a GPS can't be put in a small (recycled) cardboard box with cardboard or paper inserts, like the Patagonia shoe boxes? I've bought all kinds of electronics that were packaged solely in cardboard, for example.
I agree, the big benefit of blisters is marketing and anti-shoplifting. And, I certainly have NEVER met a CONSUMER who liked cutting products out of those horrible blister packages. It practically takes a chainsaw or orbital sander.
I understand that the plastic blisters are recyclable, but I also understand Nicole's and Ryan's point that most municipalities do not have readily accessible plastics recycling. It is also a pain to separate the plastic from the cardboard inserts in the blister packs, so many less-dedicated people don't bother and just toss the whole thing in the trash. I know that I personally find it annoying when a company makes it that hard for me to recycle, for no reason.
On the other hand, you can recycle paper very easily almost anywhere.
Kudos to your company for thinking about things like this, but I remain anti-blister.Mar 30, 2008 at 4:19 pm #1426238
John SmithBPL Member
@jcar3305Locale: East of Cascades
Ryan et al,
I appreciated your article but felt that more insight could be made into why retailers ask for such packaging. While I am not an outdoor product retailer the same philosophy applies. Cost. When we display products we want our customers to look at it, to pick it up and get a feel for it. However we do not want to do that and then have to clean it after each use so we ask for clear blister packages. This saves cleaning supplies and labor. We also do not want to lock it behind a counter if possible because that reduces the impulse sales we might otherwise get. Please remember we are in business to make money and support our families along with those of our employees. So we want the products out and available to the hands of our consumers. Finally the packaging needs to be large enough to discourage shoplifting. Manufacturers resisted for years the need for larger packaging that discouraged shoplifting. After all they were paid by the retailer whether the product was sold or stolen. Companies now are often paid on items that sold through the register (referred to as scan based trading). So now it is in the interest of such companies to assist in marketing products to tempt impulse sales and reduce shrinkage through theft and/or damage. I am more than happy to display products in whatever manner my customers find appealing but damage and theft will result in higher prices or I will go out of business.
Organized Retail Theft (ORT) is a serious problem and affects retailers to the tune of about $30 to $37 billion per year as of 2007 (up from $25 billion in 2005). http://www.fbi.gov/page2/april07/retail040607.htm
Shoplifting estimates range from $9.5 to $11 billion per year in 2006. http://www.catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.90.html
Please note ORT and shoplifting are different although the effect on consumers is essentially the same. They raise prices. So taking into account ORT's and shoplifting's lowest estimates consumers are paying an estimated $39.5 billion more than they would have if no theft occurred.
This is not a simple problem and while I support the need to go green I also question the lack of a multi-pronged article examining the reasons behind decisions made by manufacturers, retailers and consumers.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
John the xcrazyalaskanrunnerMar 30, 2008 at 4:29 pm #1426240
Tom ClarkBPL Member
@tomclarkLocale: East Coast
I have worked for a large polyester manufacturer and currently work for a large food company, looking at packaging. While using 100% receclyable PET is step in the right direction, there are a few points to consider.
– PET bottles (not clamshells, trays or cups) are only recycled at a ~24% rate. The folks on most reclamation centers only have time to sort our with a few basic guidelines, while trying to toss out contamination. Only easily recognizable PET (soda, water) bottles typically make it through. Other PET articles or colored PET bottles are considered contamination and are tossed (except green PET sometimes that could go into a separate stream, depending on the location).
– I hope that the recycling rate for PET and other resins increase, but that means that the system and consumers have to change.
– Since the recycling rate is so low, and even if it got higher it still takes energy to recycle, so the best thing is to reduce, reduce, reduce. If consumers accept (prefer) it, the product can make it through the distribution system undamaged, and there is enough shelf distinction, then reduction makes sense both from a sustainability and productivity point of view.
– Biobased polymers (e.g., PLA, starch, etc.) are not recycled at all (at this time), but the industry is relatively new, so that needs to be taken into account and some tolerance accepted.
– Manufacturers will do what consumers want. That doesn't mean that they want to lose margin, so either consumers have to pay more or it has to be legislated (still higher cost).
– If consumers don't buy the final package, then companies will do what they can to get their message out and their product noticed.
TomApr 2, 2008 at 6:14 pm #1426812
Thank you for all of your thoughtful responses, insights and questions regarding the Green Waste article. One of the cornerstones of Backpacking Light is the continuous dialog with readers both on the website and otherwise. Your thoughts are instrumental to what we do and we thank you for your input and encourage more.
One of the major themes at Backpacking Light is innovation. How do you do more with less? How do you make it lighter, better for you and better for the planet? Finding ways to hold true to these driving factors of lighter and less is a big part of what we are all about. When the subject of lessening packaging waste came up in our office, of course we were interested. Specific to the outdoor world, companies have already been working for years to reduce their packaging waste and cost by using less materials, better materials, or in the case of some, hardly any materials at all. And while this is something that has been going on for a number of years in the industry, it is still relatively new. Innovation into how to package with less is what caught our eye. And those companies who still choose to use a great deal of packaging also got our attention. In an effort to give an accurate sampling of current packaging methods we offered just that—a sampling of packaging systems and styles.
However, in the resulting posts that have been generated since this article was published there have been what seems like a lot of the “yes, but” clauses. Yes, Patagonia is one of the front-runners when reducing their retail packaging, but they also send out catalogs. Yes, Sigg bottles have almost no retail packaging, but they still ship their products in boxes. Yes, Brunton uses blister packaging, but they use post-consumer PET to do it. Yes, bio-based polymers are biodegradable, but are faced with bias and cannot be recycled. Yes, excessive packaging and blister packs for smaller products may alienate the consumer from the product, but it might reduce theft.
The “yes, but” clauses serve as proof that both consumers and manufactures are already looking at other aspects of being green regarding everything from fuel consumption, paper consumption and chemical use while at the same time being sensitive to the needs of the manufacturer, retailer and consumer. These are great points to make. These topics get all parties involved in thinking about the impact that these products have on the world we live in. And it is this type of dialog and thought that generates innovation that will create packaging that is better for the consumer, manufacturer and the planet.
However, the fact remains that packaging makes up about a third of the gross weight of American’s municipal solid waste. The standard PET plastic water bottle, the same plastic that is used in blister packaging, takes over 1,000 years to decompose. We can do better than this. And while no company is perfect, most are at the very least stepping up, finding new ways to do what they do even better.
This innovation, this type of dialog, and these types of challenges are what drive us at Backpacking Light. We continue to welcome your input and feedback.Apr 10, 2008 at 12:51 pm #1428000
George MatthewsBPL Member
>>> Organized Retail Theft affects retailers to the tune of about $30 to $37 billion
Shoplifting estimates range from $9.5 to $11 billion per year <<<
It looks like the protective packaging is not working. So find a better way.
It is interesting how retailers penalize the 90%, honest shoppers, because of the 10%, thieves. How much is spent on the prevention of thief versus the discouraged purchases? The retail industry needs to find a better way.Apr 13, 2008 at 10:31 pm #1428467
John SmithBPL Member
@jcar3305Locale: East of Cascades
The honest in any society will always pay the price for the dishonest. We pay for this through taxes (prisons and the legal system) higher prices as businesses are unwilling to close their doors due to the dishonest and through inconvenience such as not being able to meet friends and family at airport gates any longer.
I have worked in the retail industry for almost 25 years and have seen enormous changes in regards to theft. My time has been in the grocery industry and within that field there have been significant alterations designed to deal with theft.
3 recent examples:
1) Razors are now commonly locked behind single access units. These are difficult to get more than one package out of. However, this is in part to this being a hihg target area for organized retail theft. I personally have had one theft in recent months where someone in less than 2 minutes stole over $900 of razors. The consumer ultimately pays for that.
2) Sudafed and other similar products are now in many areas of the country only available behind the counter of pharmacies or behind customer service counters. The retail industry did not fight terribly hard to keep this from happening (even though it adds expense to selling the product) because in many areas it was not all that uncommon to have an over 50% theft rate on products used to make methamphetamines. And after all the extra cost of administering the program is just passed on to the consumer.
3) Powdered baby formula with prices of upwards of $27 per can are a huge item. The most likely targets are the brands tha tare specified by the US federal program, Women, Infants and Children (WIC). These items are targeted since by specifying specific items only they create an un-natural market for only those 2 or three items and those utilizing the WIC program have no choice except to purchase those. Any market can sell them and the checks are guaranteed. So if a market manager can purchase a $26 can of WIC approved formula for $10 then they will make a $16 profit. This is especially critical since almost every retailer sells infant formula at or slightly below cost from the manufacturer. So now retailers are creating new racks for a slow method of removing baby formula from their shelves to slow down would be thieves. In my store I have placed the products below the check stand counter so that they are available for customers but not readily available for thieves. However, this costs extra money that in the end will be passed on to all consumers.
There is not easy solution. In every way that I have heard of in the last 25 years to reduce theft there is always an added cost that will be passed on. It may not be fair but for a business to exist especially in the razor thin profits of retail-grocery (1.5 to 1.75%) the cost will be passed on.
john the xcrazyalaskanrunnerApr 14, 2008 at 1:55 am #1428478
Miguel ArboledaBPL Member
@butukiLocale: Kanto Plain, Japan
People tend to think of recycling as an endlessly repeatable enterprise, but don't realize that in most cases with each successive turnaround of the materials involved the quality of the materials goes down. There are only so many times wood pulp can be turned back into white paper before it is too soiled to reuse. And just making white paper involves using harmful chemicals that defeats the purpose of recycling in the first place. The only way that recycling can become truly efficient is if the degradation of the materials is figured into the whole process and the degraded materials themselves go on to serve another purpose. One time recycling is rather pointless.
I have worked in the graphic design industry for years and spent a lot of time around clients who wanted their brochures and pamphlets and magazines with the best quality printing that their budgets would allow. I don't know how many times I would sit with a client and have them hem and haw about eco-laws governing use of printing inks, many of which are extremely toxic and takes years to be eradicated from the environment. Very rarely did a client ever choose the eco-friendly version of the printing inks because they were so much more expensive. In our meetings the clients and printers would cup their hands over their mouths and mutter, "No one will ever know". I would say most work published on paper uses non-recycled paper and eco-damaging printing ink.Apr 16, 2008 at 5:46 pm #1428865
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.