Analysis: Single trip packaging vs returnable packaging

Running a manufacturing operation is a difficult job. Running one that spans multiple sites and / or suppliers, is even more difficult.

And this is even before talking about how to do it cost-effectively and efficiently.

There is a lot to consider. From managing the logistics and supply chain through to the manufacturing equipment and processes, raw material procurement, stock management and storage, as well as motivating and training an engaged workforce.

All of this (and much more besides) can make deciding whether to use returnable transit packaging or single trip packaging seem somewhat insignificant.

However, getting this right can have a surprising impact on your business’ manufacturing productivity, and therefore competitiveness, costs and ultimate success.

A key point to note here is that it is fairly common for packaging originally intended to be used as a single trip solution is repurposed and used again.

Whilst this could be argued makes it reusable packaging, it is technically termed as “opportunistic re-use”. So whilst this packaging will realise some of the benefits of reusable packaging in a more limited scope – such as reduced cost per trip and minimised waste – it is for the purpose of this guide still termed single trip.

Examples of this in practice include the (surprisingly common) re-use of wooden pallets until they become damaged, or corrugated boxes that have been used to ship specific components then being re-used to send other products or parts to another point on the supply chain.

Whilst not within the scope of returnable packaging, this does actually present an opportunity for many organisations that may not be ready to fully committing to a closed loop reusable setup.

There are a number of benefits of using single trip packaging, and that is why it is still popular across a wide range of industries and applications.

Firstly, the upfront cost of purchasing the packaging is lower, due to the lighter weight, more cost-effective materials (i.e. corrugated cardboard) that it is manufactured from.

This point is further enhanced by the fact that less packaging is also required in the short term, as there is not the need for the (potentially) empty return containers that are part of the returnable “loop”.

This not only makes the inventory easier to manage – and can even allow for a just in time stock holding service to be used – but also cuts down the need for collaboration (and the investment / effort this requires) from all entities within the supply chain.

A final advantage that single trip packaging is also inherently more flexible. If a product changes and a different size is required, once the existing stock is used a new version can be implemented immediately.

This also means it is easier to design / engineer specific characteristics into your packaging if required.

The main disadvantage of single trip packaging however is the ongoing costs. Whilst initially cheaper, there comes a point where having to constantly purchase new inventory overtakes the cost of setting up a returnable supply chain.

The environmental impact of single trip packaging is also higher (even through corrugated cardboard is easily and widely recycled), and the burden for this disposal or recycling is placed on the end user.

This can in certain situations make it less convenient for those in the supply chain, and can also lead to increased efforts required to comply with Packaging Waste Regulations.

Finally, the levels of protection offered by single trip packaging are usually lower than that of reusable packaging. This is due to corrugated being more susceptible to moisture and impact. This can, in turn, lead to higher numbers of items being damaged in transit, and the associated costs of returns, replacements and delays.

Returnable packaging is already well established in a number of manufacturing industries (being particularly prevalent in the automotive sector / supply chain) for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the “lifetime” costs of the packaging are lower. Although initially more costly (as a higher volume needs to be purchased, and the more durable nature of the materials used), their longevity and reusability make them the more cost effective long-term option.

This can actually provide significant savings over the course of a couple years, particularly for businesses using large volumes of standard corrugated cardboard boxes.

As a result of this, many companies now view returnable packaging as a capital investment, whereas single trip packaging is viewed as a “cost”.

Besides this, the handling of the packaging is usually improved – being easier to integrate handles, lids and even wheels – than single trip where the cost needing to be minimised inhibits the inclusion of such features.

As well as improving efficiency of handling, this also improves safety of any manual handling too.

The greater strength of the material used in returnable packaging also means that the contents are afforded more protection during shipping, reducing written of stock and the associate costs.

And if the containers are then also used “line-side”, the use of dividers and dunnage options for totes makes retrieval and stock checking the contents much easier than with corrugated packaging.

Finally, the environmental impact is also lessened due to decreasing the amount of packaging that needs to be disposed of or recycled – as well as the energy required to continually manufacture new packaging.

The disadvantages of returnable packaging is that there is a significantly greater upfront cost due to the materials used and also the requirement for additional inventory to ensure there is sufficient for use in all parts of the supply chain.

When not in use, the returnable packaging is also likely to take up considerably more space than single trip (which is usually supplied unassembled), leading to higher storage / warehousing costs (at least until the majority of containers are in the supply chain).

Certain systems, however, such as Rapitainer, can be folded flat and therefore returned at relatively low cost to alleviate this issue.

The cost of replacing damaged, lost or stolen containers is also higher, and can be significant if there is ongoing loss of the packaging.

Finally, they are less flexible to changes in requirements (i.e. new products or components that are different in size), although this can be mitigated by the use of internal dividers and dunnage.

GWP will be happy to offer your business genuinely impartial advice on what is the best solution for your specific market, product, application or current situation.

As a supplier of both single trip and returnable packaging for almost 30 years, we have the skills, know-how and manufacturing capabilities to ensure you see the maximum benefit from your packaging processes.

Setup and manage reusable packaging system

17 reasons to switch to returnable packaging

Analysis: Single trip vs returnable packaging

Returnable packaging containers – your options

Dividers and other enhancements for totes

Manufacturing productivity (11 tips to improve your performance)

8 overlooked benefits of material handling totes & containers