Appendix D
Packaging Waste Prevention Partnership
Rejuvenation – Manufacturing and Order Fulfillment Operations
Introduction
Rejuvenation is America's largest manufacturer and a leading direct marketer of period-authentic lighting
and house parts. Homeowners and design professionals alike order its products via mail order, online or
through the company's retail stores in Portland and Seattle.
Order fulfillment for both retail stores and direct-to-customer sales (mail order, Internet) is conducted at
Rejuvenation’s facility in Northwest Portland. Order fulfillment is co-located with Rejuvenation’s inhouse manufacturing facility, where many of the fixtures that Rejuvenation sells are made. Products
made by other vendors, such as plumbing fixtures, are also warehoused at the order fulfillment center.
Rejuvenation has a solid and long-standing commitment to environmental values, including waste
prevention and recycling. "It's part of who we are," says Alysa Rose, Rejuvenation General Manager.
"We feel strongly that we have both an opportunity and an obligation to try to make things better through
our actions." According to Rejuvenation’s web site, “The significance of the smallest change made by one
store, one department or even one person at a time can be impressive. All told, these small changes create
and maintain the momentum that pushes sustainability to the forefront of Rejuvenation's business
practices.”
Shipping and receiving everything from glass lamp shades to switch plates and highly-polished brass
lamp fixtures, Rejuvenation is a major user of packaging, particularly corrugated boxes. Even though
corrugated is highly recyclable and can be made with high levels of recycled content, its manufacture –
like that of all packaging materials – still requires energy and creates pollution.
This appendix describes an effort by DEQ to help Rejuvenation evaluate a box reuse program where spent
boxes from the manufacturing and warehousing operations are used to ship products to customers. DEQ,
with the assistance from Metro and the City of Portland, conducted a first-of-its-kind “box reuse” study,
which evaluated the effectiveness of Rejuvenation’s pre-existing box reuse effort. The study
demonstrated relatively small opportunities for improvement, because the box reuse effort was already
highly successful. Box reuse has cut Rejuvenation’s purchase of new boxes by almost 25%, saving
approximately $23,000 (net) and reducing waste generation by approximately 30 - 40 tons per year.
No specific changes were made as a consequence of the box reuse study, although the data did form the
basis for a case study that can be used to promote box reuse to other businesses. However, in the two
years between when the box study was conducted and when the case study was developed, Rejuvenation
underwent a period of significant growth. Along the way, floor space and staff time were at a premium,
and the company’s box reuse efforts suffered. The baseline data coupled with follow-up and case study
development two years later helped Rejuvenation to identify the need to re-invigorate, expand, and
maintain its conservation efforts in this area.
Business Recruitment
DEQ recruited Rejuvenation based in part on the company’s reputation as an environmental leader and
the presumption that the company, with both manufacturing and order fulfillment operations, was a large
user of packaging. An initial meeting with Rejuvenation’s Vice President of Operations, John
Klosterman, was used to explain the goals of the DEQ/Metro packaging waste prevention project and to
D-1
explore Rejuvenation’s concerns and ideas. From this meeting, the two organizations agreed to
collaborate on a study of Rejuvenation’s box reuse efforts, focusing on the potential to increase the reuse
of corrugated boxes.
A preliminary exploration was also made of the quantity of inner-pack (void fill and cushioning) used to
ship fragile items to consumers. A conceptual framework that could be used to evaluate whether inner
pack was sufficient and/or overly protective was discussed, but implementation of the framework was
deferred due to methodological and data challenges as well as time and resource constraints.
A separate partnership was also formed with Rejuvenation’s retail operations in Portland; for details,
please refer to Appendix E.
Partnership Activities
The partnership between DEQ and Rejuvenation focused on one specific practice: the re-use of
corrugated cartons for shipping products to customers. Rejuvenation already was reusing some boxes for
this purpose, but did not know if its box reuse program had achieved its full potential or not. To answer
this question, DEQ designed a study to estimate the quantity of potentially reusable boxes that were being
recycled instead of reused. (Reuse is a higher priority than recycling, both for environmental and
economic reasons.)
The study was conducted between May 5 and May 12, 2003. The methodology for the study, as well as a
discussion of results, is provided in an attachment to this appendix.
To summarize, the study involved Rejuvenation locking down its corrugated baler for a period of one
week, and accumulating all of the materials that normally would be sent for recycling. At the end of one
week, a crew consisting of staff from Rejuvenation, DEQ, Metro, and Portland State University’s
Community Environmental Services program (on behalf of the City of Portland) sorted through this large
quantity of material. Potentially reusable boxes were further sorted and tallied based on size and level of
vendor/product/delivery markings.
Combined with estimates of current levels of box reuse, the study found a relatively small number of
potentially reusable boxes that were not already being separated for reuse. At the time of the study, it
appeared that Rejuvenation was in fact doing an excellent job at sorting boxes: between 90 and 97% of
boxes that could be reused (given existing criteria) were already pulled out for reuse. A report by DEQ
(see attachment) recommended four opportunities to increase reuse of boxes and save even more money
through further reductions in the purchase of new boxes:
• Improve sorting (a small number of boxes [estimated at 130 – 300 boxes/month] that met existing
criteria for reusability were found in the recycling.
• Increase use of boxes with markings for inter- and intra-company transfers. This would
potentially free up higher quality reused boxes for direct-to-customer shipments and lead to a net
reduction in new box purchases.
• Consider relaxing aesthetic standards regarding the absence of markings on boxes allowed to be
reused.
• Boxes not reused by Rejuvenation may be reusable by others.
After DEQ completed its report of findings, the company focused its attention on a major expansion of its
business – an expansion that, unfortunately, drew floor space, staff time, and management attention away
from the box reuse effort. As a result, Rejuvenation took no steps to implement these recommendations.
D-2
Figure 1.
Materials Accumulated for Sorting
Figure 2.
Sorting Underway by PSU Community Environmental Services
D-3
Figure 3.
Sample Reusable Boxes
Instead, In the winter of 2005, when DEQ recontacted Rejuvenation to prepare a case study of its box
reuse efforts, staff there estimated that the box reuse rate (“capture rate”) had fallen about 25%. The case
study that was subsequently developed reflects the lower level of box reuse, even as Rejuvenation
management identified a need and desire to refocus attention on the box reuse effort in order to regain the
exceptionally high level of box reuse realized in previous years.
Evaluation
Outcomes
Rejuvenation did not implement any of the recommendations contained in DEQ’s report regarding box
reuse. In fact, over time, the level of box reuse in the order fulfillment center fell. The subsequent
development of the case study (http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/packaging/cs/csrejuvenation.pdf)
confirmed this decline and led Rejuvenation management to make plans to re-evaluate the box reuse
effort with the goal of regaining, if not surpassing, its previous higher levels of reuse. One of the lessons
learned from this change is that the reuse program does require some level of attention, particularly
during times of rapid business expansion and transitions. Changes in the level of reuse reflect changes in
the level of attention given to the effort. Regardless, even at the lower level of reuse, Rejuvenation has
reduced its purchase of new boxes by approximately 25%, saving approximately $23,000 (net, after
subtracting out added labor required for sorting) and reducing material use (and waste generation) by
approximately 30 tons of material per year.
Barriers to Change
Initial recommendations made by DEQ were not pursued for a combination of factors, including
relatively low savings potential (because the box reuse program was already largely maximized), coupled
with management attention being diverted to the challenges of business expansion. Ironically, had
D-4
Rejuvenation not already been such a leader in waste prevention, the potential for new financial savings
would have been higher, potentially resulting in a greater likelihood of adoption of the recommendations.
Suggestions for Replicability
Working with a company that was already committed at all levels of the organization to environmental
improvement offered many advantages. Throughout the larger DEQ/Metro waste prevention packaging
project, Rejuvenation remained one of the most committed participants and demonstrated a high level of
responsiveness to the goals of the project. Ironically, Rejuvenation had already nearly maximized its
carton reuse effort prior to the partnership effort, so had relatively little opportunity for improvement.
The box reuse study represented a creative and innovative attempt to estimate the potential financial and
waste reduction benefit of increasing box reuse. Historically, activities involving the sorting of discards
at businesses have focused on sorting garbage in order to identify the presence of potential recyclables.
This study represented a move upward on the waste management hierarchy1, as it involved sorting
recyclables in order to identify the presence of potential reusables. To our knowledge, this was the first
time that this kind of study had been conducted. Businesses and waste prevention specialists interested in
repeating this type of study elsewhere may find the study methodology and discussion of results
(provided as an attachment to this appendix) to be useful.
1
Prevent waste, then reuse, then recycle, etc.
D-5
Results of Rejuvenation Box Sort
Prepared by David Allaway, Oregon DEQ
with assistance from Marta McGuire, Metro
August 19, 2003
Introduction
While many businesses recycle their waste
corrugated boxes, reuse can be even better for
the environment – and the bottom line – than
recycling. Rejuvenation’s Northwest Portland
facility is currently conducts extensive reuse
of corrugated boxes.
In May 2003, a box sort study was conducted
at Rejuvenation’s facility to identify
additional opportunities for increased reuse of
corrugated materials. For seven days
beginning Monday, May 5, 2003,
Rejuvenation’s Northwest Portland
manufacturing and shipping facility locked
down their corrugated baler and stockpiled all
discarded corrugated boxes and other
corrugated material. This material was sorted
on May 12 by a group of individuals from
Rejuvenation, the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), Metro, and
Portland State University Community
Environmental Solutions (representing the
City of Portland). This report summarizes the
key findings of the box sort. The
methodology used during the sorting event is
described in an appendix to this report.
The box sort identified opportunities to
increase reuse of boxes and save money
through decreased purchased of new boxes.
Recommendations are as follows:
1. Improve sorting. Currently, only the
cleanest boxes, with no mailing
information and minimal other
markings, are pulled out for reuse as
customer shipping boxes. A small
number of boxes (estimated at 130 –
300 boxes/month) that meet these
criteria were found in the recycling.
2. Increase use of boxes with markings
for inter- and intra- company
transfers (if possible). A larger
number of boxes sent to recycling are
not reused because of mailing
information and other markings on the
boxes. Rejuvenation currently does
not want to ship items to customers in
these boxes. However, some of these
boxes would be appropriate for use in
inter- and intra-company transfers,
where aesthetic and delivery
considerations are less demanding.
All of the boxes used for inter- and
intra-company transfers are already
reused. If the current inter- and intracompany boxes are the same premier
quality (unmarked) also used for
customer shipments, then
Rejuvenation could save on box
Key Findings and Recommendations
At Rejuvenation’s Northwest Portland
facility, boxes are reused to ship parts to offsite suppliers, to ship products to
Rejuvenation’s retail store, and to ship
products directly to customers who order
from Rejuvenation’s catalog. Customer
shipments account for the largest use (and
reuse) of boxes at Rejuvenation. Given
Results of Rejuvenation Box Sort.doc
existing criteria for selecting boxes for reuse,
Rejuvenation employees are doing an
excellent job at sorting boxes: between 90 97 percent of boxes that could be reused
(given existing criteria) are already pulled out
for reuse.
Page 1
August 19, 2003
purchases as follows: marked but still
reusable boxes would be used for
inter- and intra-company transfers,
thus freeing up more premier-quality
boxes for customer shipments.
Background: Current Reuse and Use of
New Boxes
Rejuvenation staff estimated the quantities of
boxes used and reused as follows:
3. Consider relaxing aesthetic
standards. By relaxing aesthetic
standards, Rejuvenation would be able
to draw on a larger number of boxes
for reuse in customer shipments. This
would further reduce the number of
new boxes purchased (by an estimated
200 boxes/month).
4. Boxes not reused by Rejuvenation
may be reusable by others. After
Rejuvenation makes any changes
desired to maximize its internal
utilization of reused boxes, DEQ and
Metro will help to identify some
opportunities for external reuse.
Background: Corrugated Box Use
Rejuvenation’s Northwest Portland facility
conducts several activities that involve the
receipt and use of corrugated boxes.
Component parts are received from suppliers
in boxes for use in on-site manufacturing.
Certain manufacturing steps (specifically,
plating) occur off-site and boxes are used to
transport partially-finished product between
Rejuvenation and the plating site.
Rejuvenation’s catalog, internet and telephone
orders are also fulfilled from this site. Items
shipped to customers from Northwest
Portland include products made and/or
assembled on-site by Rejuvenation, as well as
already-finished products that are purchased
from other companies. The Northwest
Portland facility also ships some items to the
company’s retail store in Southeast Portland,
and also processes returns.
The flow of corrugated boxes through the
facility’s processes is detailed in the diagram
below.
Results of Rejuvenation Box Sort.doc
Page 2
•
Intracompany (Will Call, retail stock
replenishment): approximately 760
boxes/month (175 boxes/week) are
sent from the Northwest Portland site
to the Southeast Portland retail store.
100% of these boxes are reused
vendor boxes (boxes that vendors have
shipped parts in). The retail store
reuses or recycles the boxes once they
receive them.
•
Inter-company (Inventory Control,
shipments of unplated parts and
assemblies to Eastside Plating, other
vendors): approximately 320
boxes/month (75 boxes/week). Again,
100% of these boxes are reused
vendor boxes.
•
Outer boxes for direct shipment to
customers (via UPS, etc.):
approximately 7,800 small parcel
shipments/month (1,800/week). Each
“small parcel shipment” consists of an
outer box with product(s) and void fill
inside. If the product(s) was
manufactured off-site (by a third
party), such as a switch plate, it is
typically packaged inside an inner
(vendor-provided) box as well. Of the
7,800 outer boxes, approximately
4,000/month are purchased new. This
means that the remaining 3,800/month
are reused boxes, and that 49% of all
outbound outer boxes (sent to
customers) are new.*
Purchase of new boxes for outbound
shipments are detailed in the table at the end
of this report.
August 19, 2003
*(Note: the 7,800/month total was estimated by Staci
Govi in a 4/21 e-mail; the 4,000/month new box total
was estimated from data provided by Staci in an e-mail
dated 8/4, and the number of reused boxes was
estimated by subtracting new boxes [4,000/month]
from total boxes [7,800/month]. An alternative
calculation yields different results, as follows: Staci
also estimated in her 4/21 e-mail that Rejuvenation
reuses approximately 700 vendor boxes/week for
outbound shipments, or 3,031/month, which is lower
than the 3,800 estimated above. Combined with the
estimate of 4,000/month purchased new, this would
result in approximately 7,030 boxes used/month, and
that 43% of all outbound outer boxes [sent to
customers] are new.)
•
Of the 374 boxes sorted into Group A, most
of them were smaller than 9” x 9” x 9”. The
smallest box currently purchased new for
outbound shipments by Rejuvenation is 12” x
12” x 12”. Only 31 of the 374 boxes in
Group A could be used to replace an existing
box that is purchased new.
Assuming this represents a typical week, this
means that approximately 130 boxes/month
that are currently recycled are readily reusable
by Rejuvenation (for outbound shipments to
customers). Given that somewhere between
3,000 and 3,800 boxes are currently pulled
each month for this purpose, if only 130
boxes/month are missed, then we can
conclude that Rejuvenation employees are
doing an excellent job at pulling out boxes
targeted for reuse (96 – 97 percent of boxes
targeted are sorted out for reuse).
Results of Box Sort
Approximately 30 – 50 percent (by weight) of
the material separated for corrugated
recycling was not sorted. This material
consisted mainly of items such as very small
boxes, inserts, dividers, tubes, and some
chipboard.
The remaining material was sorted into three
categories:
ƒ
Group A (374 boxes): Potentially
reusable by Rejuvenation.
ƒ
Group B (476 boxes): Boxes
Rejuvenation was unwilling to reuse at
the time of the sort, but others might
be willing to reuse.
ƒ
Group C (126 boxes): Boxes that
were damaged or structurally unsound,
and not likely to be reused by anyone.
To be classified in Group A (“potentially
reusable by Rejuvenation”), a box needed to:
•
•
•
•
be free of staples,
be structurally sound,
be larger than 5” x 5” x 5”,
be free of postage, address labels,
tracking codes, bill-of-lading packets,
Results of Rejuvenation Box Sort.doc
or other markings that could cause
confusion in the mailing process, and
have no or only a very small amount
of other markings on the box (tags,
vendor names, writing, etc.)
Another 39 boxes in Group A might be usable
to replace existing boxes (purchased new) but
are slightly smaller than the smallest box
currently purchased by Rejuvenation (12” x
12” x 12”). These boxes may be larger than
the 12” box on one or two sides but
somewhere between 10” and 12” on at least
one side (and may be as small as 10” x 10” x
10”). Including these boxes in the total above
means that roughly 300 readily reusable
boxes/month (31/week + 39/week, multiplied
by 4.33 weeks/month) are currently being
recycled rather than reused. If these boxes are
reusable, then between 90 – 92 percent of
boxes targeted are sorted out for reuse, still an
excellent accomplishment.
Among the Group B boxes, DEQ has
analyzed the various features that make them
currently non-reusable by Rejuvenation, given
Page 3
August 19, 2003
larger than the 12” box on one or two sides
but somewhere between 10” and 12” on at
least one side (and may be as small as 10” x
10” x 10”).
Rejuvenation’s current standards. Of the 476
boxes sorted into Group B, only 46 were free
from staples (staples make boxes difficult to
flatten and reuse) and were also free of
markings that could cause confusion in the remailing process (address labels, routing bar
codes, bill of lading pouches, and postage).
The only reason these 46 boxes were put into
Group B as opposed to Group A was because
of vendor markings or other box markings
that make the box appear to be reused (some
of the boxes are heavily marked with tags,
labels, and other markings). Thus, these 46
boxes (200/month) are not reusable for
outbound shipments for purely aesthetic
reasons.
It is possible that these boxes could be used
for inter- and intra-company shipments. If
boxes currently re-used for inter- and intracompany shipments are currently “Group A”
quality (free of external markings), then using
these “Group B” (marked) boxes for interand intra-company shipments could free up as
many as 250 reused boxes/week for use in
external (customer) shipments.
Numbers of new boxes currently purchased
per month, and estimates of the number of
potentially reusable boxes tossed out
(recycled) each month, are shown by box size
in the following table.
Of these 46 boxes, 32 are larger than the
smallest box purchased by Rejuvenation (12”
x 12” x 12”) and the other 14 boxes may be
“Group A”
Number
Purchased
New/Mo.
10x10x50
50
12x12x12
500
20x20x40
150
14x14x68
50
14x14x20
650
15x15x18
700
18x18x20
900
19x19x8.5
100
22x22x15
300
24x24x18
150
26x26x20
100
10x10x40
350
Total
4000
Size
Right
Size1
126
Almost
Right
Size2
0
294
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
303
169
4
4
134
Subtotal
169
“Group B” – printing and
markings only
Almost
Right
Right
Subtotal
Size1
2
Size
4
4
35
61
95
0
0
9
4
13
13
9
22
9
22
30
9
9
17
9
9
4
4
0
0
82
113
195
1
Boxes that are at least the same size as the purchased box, in all three dimensions.
Boxes are smaller than the purchased box by no more than 2” in one or two dimensions. Boxes may be
larger in other dimensions. For example, a box that is 16” x 30” x 16” would be classified as “almost right
size” for a 15” x 15” x 18” box.
2
Results of Rejuvenation Box Sort.doc
Page 4
August 19, 2003
Simplified Process Flow Diagram*
Cardboard Box Use at Rejuvenation, Inc.
New boxes
Other supplies, process
chemicals, etc.
Parts in boxes
~4000
boxes/month
Boxes returned
from plater
Component parts
received from
suppliers
Products in
boxes
Internal
manufacturing
activities
Parts
Unfinished
product
(unplated)
Products in
boxes in
outer boxes
Products in
boxes (some
double-boxed)
Shipping to retail store
(restock, will call)
Products in
boxes (some
double-boxed)
Finished
products
~320 boxes/month
Outer
corrugated boxes
Box sorting
Shipping to
customers
Unfinished
product
(plated)
Plating (off-site)
Finished products
received from
suppliers
Corrugated
boxes
Finished
products
Other packaging
materials
~760 boxes/month
~3000-3800
boxes/month
Boxes
Rejuvenation
wants to reuse
Boxes
Rejuvenation
doesn’t want to
reuse
Box recycling
~4300 boxes/month
8/15/2003 9:30 AM
*Note:
*Note:Only
Onlyparts,
parts,products,
products,and
andboxes
boxesare
arefully
fully
shown.
Other
material
flows
(not
fully
shown)
shown. Other material flows (not fully shown)include
include
process
inputs,
process
wastes,
on-size
shredding
process inputs, process wastes, on-size shredding
ofofpaper
paperfor
forbox
boxfill,
fill,other
otherpackaging
packagingmaterials,
materials,etc.
etc.
Appendix
“Box Sort” Study Protocol for Rejuvenation Inc.
David Allaway, Oregon DEQ
Goal of Study: Inventory the sizes, types, and reusability of corrugated boxes currently discarded
(recycled) by Rejuvenation’s factory in Northwest Portland, for the purposes of increasing reuse of these
boxes. Rejuvenation is already reusing a significant number of boxes; almost all other boxes are recycled.
A box weighing 0.5 pounds might generate $0.02 in recycling revenue (if Rejuvenation were paid $80/ton
for old corrugated containers). The same box, if reused, might save $0.25 to $0.40 in avoided purchasing
costs.
While recycling of the boxes is environmentally preferable to disposing of them, reuse has even lower
environmental impacts.
Overview:
• Create an inventory of boxes currently discarded at Rejuvenation’s factory in Northwest Portland;
• Compare this inventory against current quantities and types of new boxes purchased for outbound
shipping;
• Help Rejuvenation to save money and further reduce resource consumption and pollution by reusing
boxes rather than recycling them; and
• For those boxes which Rejuvenation doesn’t want to re-use in-house, but are potentially reusable by
someone else, make it easier for Rejuvenation to find organizations to reuse the boxes by categorizing
the numbers, types and sizes of boxes available.
Box Sorting Protocol:
1. Rejuvenation has identified the week of May 5, 2003 as a “typical” week in which generation of
waste corrugated boxes is expected to be close to average.
2. During this week, the recycling compactor will be disabled. Rejuvenation will continue to pull out
boxes for reuse as normal; all other boxes (that would normally be discarded and recycled) will be set
aside in the warehouse. Boxes can be flattened if necessary due to storage space constraints.
3. Following seven days of accumulation, a box sort will be conducted on May 12 by David Allaway
(DEQ), Marta McGuire (Metro), Jonathan Budner (a volunteer with the Master Recyclers) and two
students (Darren Nichols and Isaac Castellano) from the PSU Community Environmental Services
program - (hereafter referred to as “the sort team”). On-site assistance will be provided by Stacy
Govi (Rejuvenation Shipping Supervisor).
4. Boxes will be sorted into three categories, as follows:
A. Boxes that are potentially reusable by Rejuvenation as outer shipping cartons.
B. Boxes not reusable by Rejuvenation, but still potentially reusable by others.
C. All others (boxes not reusable by anyone).
These three categories reflect a preferred hierarchy of reuse. Boxes in categories A that Rejuvenation
chooses not to reuse in-house may be reusable for others (Category B).
Rejuvenation has identified criteria for what types of boxes are potentially reusable in-house.
All boxes potentially reusable by Rejuvenation must meet the following criteria:
Rejuvenation box sort appendix.doc
1
May 7, 2003
•
Structurally sound, rigid, all flaps intact (ignoring damage caused when the boxes were opened
in-house).
•
No staples; easily flattened for storage.
•
Edge Crush Test (ECT) at least 32 or Bursting Strength (BS) at least 200#. (See the table at the
end of this document for a correlation between ECT, BS, and recommended maximum product
weights. However, most packages received from other countries will not have an ECT or BS
label.)
•
Within a certain size range. Rejuvenation ships via UPS and maximum carton size for UPS is a
carton where length + girth = 130 inches. In this formula, length = the longest dimension of the
box, and girth equals two multiplied by the second and third longest dimensions added together.
If the dimensions of a box are D1, D2, and D3, and D1> D2 > D3, then we measure D1 + 2 x (D2 +
D3). (The term “length” has a different meaning when recording the size of boxes; see below.)
•
No postage, address labels, UPS scan code labels, etc. that might cause confusion in the remailing process if not removed/covered.
•
No bill-of-lading pouch (stuck to the outside of the box).
•
No printing that indicates that the box originally was used for shipping substances that are
hazardous (poisonous, reactive, explosive, flammable, etc.).
•
Minimal vendor or product markings (“no more than a few words”).
•
Minimal other aesthetic blemishes.
Once boxes that are potentially reusable by Rejuvenation have been pulled out, a simpler set of
criteria is used to determine whether or not boxes are reusable by others, or have no reuse potential.
Boxes are potentially reusable by others if they are:
•
Structurally sound, rigid, all flaps intact (ignoring damage caused when the boxes were opened
in-house).
For reuse by other organizations, boxes may be reused for an application other than direct-tocustomer shipping, where exterior marking/printing is not as much of an issue.
5. For boxes sorted as potentially reusable by Rejuvenation (Category A), count/tally them using the
tally sheet (attached).
6. For boxes sorted as potentially reusable by others (Category B), count/tally them using the tally sheet
(attached). This tally sheet records all of the information in Category A, plus:
•
The presence (or lack) of staples.
•
Whether or not there is a bill-of-lading pouch (and if so, how removable it is).
•
Whether or not there are address labels (and if so, how removable they are, and their size).
•
Whether or not there is other postage or tracking information (and if so, how removable they are,
and their size).
•
Whether or not there is any other printing on the box (company names, hazard warning labels,
etc.), and if so, its size.
•
Whether or not there are any other marks or blemishes.
In all cases, when recording carton sizes, sizes are measured in terms of three dimensions. These
dimensions are expressed in inches of Length x Width x Height. In this case, Length (L) is the longer
Rejuvenation box sort appendix.doc
2
May 7, 2003
side of the opening and Width (W) is the shorter. Dimensions may be obtained from printing on the
outside of the box; however, if the box has been sized down (scored), use the actual measured void
height, not what’s printed on the box.
7. Non-reusable boxes will be counted.
8. Once all boxes have been accounted for, photographs will be taken of the three piles. Any boxes that
Rejuvenation is ready to re-use can be removed for re-use; all other boxes will be recycled.
Analysis:
Tallies will be tabulated. Results for boxes “potentially reusable by Rejuvenation” will be compared
against lists and quantities of new boxes currently purchased. Barriers to increased box reuse will be
determined at that time, along with strategies to overcome those barriers.
A rough estimate of percentage of boxes currently recycled that are potentially reusable by Rejuvenation
(and potentially reusable by others) will be calculated.
After Rejuvenation has maximized its reuse of boxes (at a level to be determined by Rejuvenation), we
can begin seeking users of those reusable boxes that are not wanted by Rejuvenation.
Increased box reuse as well as results of this study and a description of the process approach will be
written up as a case study for the purposes of educating other businesses about the potential of box reuse.
This case study would also include current levels of box reuse by Rejuvenation.
Rejuvenation box sort appendix.doc
3
May 7, 2003
Addendum: Bursting Strength, Weight Limits, and Edge Crush Test
The following table could be used to define sorting criteria and/or categories. ECT cartons will
typically have lower properties then BS cartons so the following table is for comparison only and
should not be considered exact.
CORRUGATED BOARD STRENGTH CHART (US)
Single Wall Corrugated
Bursting Strength
Max Weight Limit (lbs)
Edge Crush Test
125#
20
23 ECT
150#
35
26 ECT
175#
50
29 ECT
200#
65
32 ECT
275#
95
44 ECT
350#
120
55 ECT
Double Wall Corrugated
Bursting Strength
Max Weight Limit (lbs)
Edge Crush Test
200#
80
42 ECT
275#
100
48 ECT
350#
120
51 ECT
400#
140
61 ECT
500#
160
71 ECT
600#
180
82 ECT
Rejuvenation box sort appendix.doc
4
May 7, 2003
Appendix E
Packaging Waste Prevention Partnership
Rejuvenation – Portland Retail Store
Introduction
Rejuvenation is America's largest manufacturer and a leading direct marketer of period-authentic lighting
and house parts. Homeowners and design professionals alike order its products via mail order, online, or
through the company's retail stores in Portland and Seattle.
The Portland retail store, which started in 1977 at 900 square feet in size, now occupies 38,000 sq. feet on
the first and second floors of the historic Neustadter Building, near downtown Portland. The store
combines period-authentic reproduction lighting manufactured by Rejuvenation, with period furniture,
hardware, plumbing, decorative accessories, millwork, and architectural salvage.
Rejuvenation has a solid and long-standing commitment to environmental values, including waste
prevention and recycling. "It's part of who we are," says Alysa Rose, Rejuvenation General Manager.
"We feel strongly that we have both an opportunity and an obligation to try to make things better through
our actions." According to Rejuvenation’s web site, “The significance of the smallest change made by one
store, one department or even one person at a time can be impressive. All told, these small changes create
and maintain the momentum that pushes sustainability to the forefront of Rejuvenation's business
practices.”
This appendix describes an effort by DEQ to help Rejuvenation’s Portland retail store communicate
environmental concerns to one of its suppliers, Sunrise Specialties. (DEQ’s work with Rejuvenation’s
manufacturing facility is described in a separate document, Appendix D.) After DEQ completed its initial
work with Rejuvenation’s retail staff, the company reorganized its purchasing department and several key
staff left. This employee turnover posed a challenge to program evaluation, although Rejuvenation did
recontact Sunrise and learned that a major packaging change was, in fact, implemented. However, the
change made by the supplier was not the change recommended by Rejuvenation. The new package is
more readily recyclable and also contains more recycled content than the original package. But it also
uses more material overall, and thus runs contrary to the waste prevention goals of this project as well as
the state’s statutory waste generation goals.
Business Recruitment
Rejuvenation’s retail store was one of the easiest participants to recruit for the DEQ/Metro project. In
some regards, they recruited themselves when an employee contacted Metro’s Recycling Information
with an information request. As part of their retail environmental management system, Rejuvenation was
working on a sustainable purchasing plan and had an employee task force examining the kinds of packing
materials that vendors use to ship products. Rejuvenation asked Metro for “someone . . . who has
expertise on the environmental impacts of various types of packing material from Styrofoam to cardboard
. . . [and who] would be willing to do some training for us.”
Metro forwarded Rejuvenation’s request to DEQ, and DEQ promptly contacted Rejuvenation. After a
few telephone conversations, DEQ and Metro were asked to attend the store’s next sustainable purchasing
committee meeting.
E-1
Partnership Activities
At this meeting, DEQ provided a summary overview of environmental considerations of different
common packaging materials and the complications involved in comparing materials, such as polystyrene
and corrugated, for their environmental impact. This was the information that Rejuvenation had
originally requested.
However, DEQ and Metro had recently been provided with a simplified packaging life cycle analysis
software called MERGE. Developed by the Alliance for Environmental Innovation, in conjunction with
SC Johnson, Clairol, and Mead Johnson Nutritionals, MERGE is a PC-based software application that
uses basic input data available to any designer to quickly generate environmental profiles of products or
product design alternatives. MERGE allows users to readily compare these profiles to each other or to
other product groups. DEQ offered to make MERGE available to Rejuvenation through the evaluation of
one or more vendor packages, and Rejuvenation accepted.
Several members of the store’s sustainable purchasing committee then presented examples of vendor
packaging that they thought might have good redesign potential and also were from vendors that staff
thought Rejuvenation might be able to influence. Among these options, one stood out as having the
highest potential for improvement, and became the focus for the duration of the project.
The product was a plumbing assembly set for claw-foot tubs. Produced by Sunrise Specialties of
Oakland, California, the set included piping and fixtures (handles, showerhead) associated with the
shower. The plumbing set also included an optional large metal shower curtain ring. Because some
customers want the ring while others do not, Rejuvenation ordered the set from Sunrise in two different
forms: with and without the ring.
The shower curtain ring was the largest of the items in the set. Sets containing the curtain ring thus
required more packaging. Rejuvenation ordered more sets without the shower ring than with.
Regardless, Sunrise was using the same large packaging for both sets. Figure 1 illustrates the baseline
package used by Sunrise for both types of plumbing sets. The package consisted of a large tray made of
expanded polystyrene foam with cavities cut to fit the various parts, the parts were also wrapped in
polyethylene film. The tray was covered with a sheet of expanded polystyrene and then placed into a
bleached corrugated box.
After measurement and evaluation of the existing (baseline) package, and some evaluation of alternatives,
DEQ presented several different options to Rejuvenation. All options involved the introduction of a
smaller tray. Two different materials were evaluated for the tray: expanded polystyrene and hexacomb
(paper). For both of these materials, DEQ presented two different options:
• A smaller tray and smaller carton for orders without the curtain ring; a larger tray and carton for
orders with the curtain ring.
• A smaller tray and smaller carton for all parts; a second corrugated carton, without the tray for the
optional curtain ring.
Engineering drawings of the baseline system and alternatives were prepared by Pack Edge Development
and provided to Rejuvenation. These are included as an attachment.
E-2
Figure 1.
Baseline Shower Fixture Packaging (Without Shower Curtain Ring)
MERGE analysis and comparison of likely costs were also conducted. The MERGE analysis involved
different variations of the major systems. For each system involving expanded polystyrene, DEQ used
MERGE to evaluate four different options:
• 30% post-consumer bleached corrugated with 0% post-consumer polystyrene.
• 30% post-consumer bleached corrugated with 30% post-consumer polystyrene.
• 80% post-consumer unbleached corrugated with 0% post-consumer polystyrene.
• 80% post-consumer unbleached corrugated with 30% post-consumer polystyrene.
For hexacomb options, since MERGE did not have data specific to hexacomb, DEQ simplified the
analysis by merely comparing a bleached 30% post-consumer outer corrugated carton(s) against an
unbleached 80% post-consumer counterpart, and used the category of “other paper” (assuming no postconsumer content) to profile the hexacomb tray.
Thus, the MERGE analysis could be used to compare not only different packaging designs against each
other (polystyrene vs. hexacomb; small/large tray vs. small tray for all shipments plus second box for
curtain rings), but also the benefit of increasing recycled content (and replacing bleached corrugated with
unbleached corrugated) within any given packaging system.
The cost analysis involved estimating material costs (costs to the fabricator including labor, but not
including storage, mark-up, printing, or costs for materials common to all systems such as polybags and
tape) as well as freight costs to a hypothetical end customer, since the majority of these fixtures sold by
Rejuvenation are sold via catalog or internet sales to customers not located in Portland. To simplify the
E-3
cost analysis, cost differentials were not estimated for higher vs. lower levels of post-consumer content,
allowing the discussion of costs to focus on differences in packaging systems as opposed to levels of
recycled material. This was consistent with the project’s focus on waste prevention and avoided the
challenges inherent in surveying material costs for different levels of post-consumer content.
Following an additional meeting with Rejuvenation staff to present and discuss the results, Rejuvenation
asked DEQ to simplify the analysis by eliminating the larger tray option. This reduced the analysis to a
comparison of the following three basic systems:
• Baseline system: large polystyrene tray in large corrugated carton used for all products.
• Smaller polystyrene tray in small corrugated carton used for all products. Optional curtain ring
shipped separately without tray in a second corrugated carton.
• Smaller hexacomb tray in small corrugated carton used for all products. Optional curtain ring
shipped separately without tray in a second corrugated carton.
As before, cost estimates were provided for each of these three basic systems, and MERGE results were
reported for a larger number of variations (in recycled content and bleached vs. unbleached corrugated) in
these systems.
Rejuvenation’s buyer for Sunrise also agreed that he would share the redesign concepts and discuss the
benefits of redesign in a few months when he met with Sunrise (at a national convention). The buyer also
mentioned that Rejuvenation may eventually start manufacturing a competing product itself, and in this
case, would be sourcing packaging materials directly. So the design engineering and evaluation may
eventually help Rejuvenation, if it pursues that course of action. DEQ offered assistance in whatever
areas Rejuvenation may need help with.
The resulting MERGE and cost evaluation, including descriptive notes, are provided as an attachment to
this appendix. All analyses were made using an assumption (provided by Rejuvenation) that the company
purchases 12 shower sets per month, 8 of which do not include a curtain ring.
Summary Results of Cost and MERGE Analysis
The cost comparison demonstrated likely cost savings for both redesigned systems (smaller polystyrene
tray and smaller hexacomb tray), when compared against the existing design. Cost savings were
projected in both materials/labor, as well as outbound freight, as the new packages would be smaller on
average. Details are provided in the attachment to this appendix.
The MERGE analysis also demonstrated the potential for environmental benefits, in almost all categories,
for all of the options evaluated. Full details are attached, and are summarized below. DEQ reported
MERGE scores in six categories: non-recyclable material, packaging resource consumption, packaging
energy consumption, virgin materials content, packaging “bad actors”, and packaging greenhouse gases.
(These are defined in the attachment). To allow for an easy comparison of options, DEQ normalized all
MERGE scores for the (assumed) baseline package (30% post-consumer content bleached corrugated,
0% post-consumer content polystyrene tray; large tray and carton used for all shipments) so that they all
equaled 100. Scores less than 100 would indicate an environmental improvement, while scores greater
than 100 would indicate the opposite.
Comparing the large polystyrene tray against the smaller polystyrene tray with the curtain ring shipped
separately in a second carton, and holding recycled content/bleaching constant, the redesigned smaller
tray reduced MERGE scores an average of 44% (MERGE scores range from 45 in “bad actors” to 66 in
resource consumption, compared to baseline scores of 100). For the smaller hexacomb tray, results were
much more variable, averaging a 27% reduction from the baseline (but ranging from 2 for “bad actors” to
135 for resource consumption). Hexacomb results are potentially less reliable since this was evaluated
using a broadly defined “other paper” category in MERGE.
E-4
MERGE also reported significant benefits to be realized by increasing post-consumer content.
Interestingly, however, the analysis also showed that these benefits tend to be comparable to or less than
the benefits of changing to the smaller polystyrene tray (and maintaining lower levels of post-consumer
content). This is illustrated in Figure 2. Put differently, in this example, redesigning the package to use
less material has greater environmental benefits (according to MERGE) than keeping the existing
(inefficient) design but increasing recycled content (and switching from bleached to unbleached
corrugated). Interesting, the packaging redesign (smaller tray) also offers a clear potential for cost
savings (both in materials and freight), whereas the same can’t be said as easily regarding increasing postconsumer content. Of course, the greatest environmental benefits results from implementing both of these
strategies: redesigning the package to use less material (waste prevention) and increasing the postconsumer content.
Figure 2.
Selected MERGE Results
Packaging System
Baseline: All shipments use large polystyrene
tray and corrugated carton
Carton:
30% post-consumer
content; bleached.
80% post-consumer
content; unbleached.
Polystyrene Tray:
0% post-consumer
content.
30% post-consumer
content.
All shipments use small
polystyrene tray and
corrugated carton; optional
curtain ring shipped in
second carton
30% post-consumer
content; bleached.
0% post-consumer content.
MERGE Scores*:
Non-recyclable
100
100
55
material
Packaging resource
100
65
66
consumption
Packaging energy
100
77
51
consumption
Virgin materials
100
59
58
content
Packaging “bad
100
84
45
actors”
Packaging greenhouse 100
71
62
gases
*Baseline is defined to equal 100. Lower scores indicate environmental improvements.
Evaluation
Results
More than 20 months after DEQ completed this analysis, an attempt was made to recontact Rejuvenation
staff to learn what, if any, outcomes had resulted from this project. Unfortunately, the previous buyer,
who had been DEQ’s primary point-of-contact, had left Rejuvenation. Further, the company had
reorganized, moving all purchasing functions to the company’s corporate offices. DEQ contacted
Rejuvenation’s new buyer for Sunrise Specialties, and had to explain the project from scratch and attempt
to enlist her help. Fortunately, upon seeing the packaging drawings and analysis, the buyer concluded
E-5
that DEQ had, in fact, made a significant effort to assist Rejuvenation. Better yet, the buyer and the
company’s purchasing manager (who was also unfamiliar with the project) agreed to re-contact Sunrise to
find out if any changes had been made as a result of the earlier buyer’s requests.
After talking with Sunrise, Rejuvenation reported:
1. Sunrise claims that in 2004, with the help of packaging and logistics experts, they changed
packaging for many products they sell. They did not, however, implement the recommendations
from Rejuvenation/DEQ.
2. The new package design for all faucet and shower sets uses molded pulp as interior material.
They have eliminated the use of foam in these packages and significantly decreased the usage of
foam company-wide.
3. Sunrise claims that since 2003, they have used substantially less packaging material overall.
Rejuvenation confirmed that the shower assembly is now packaged in a tray made from molded pulp.
The new packaging is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3.
New Molded Pulp Shower Fixture Packaging (Curtain Ring Included)
E-6
The new packaging consists of two custom-molded trays and a die-cut scored corrugated sheet. The die
cut corrugated scored sheet is used to hold the parts into the molded pulp tray while loading and provides
an extra layer of protection while shipping. The trays and sheet are placed into the same size and style of
box that was used previously.
From a waste and environmental perspective, Sunrise’s change has mixed results. For this package,
Sunrise eliminated its use of expanded polystyrene foam by replacing it with a two molded pulp trays and
a corrugated sheet. From a recycling perspective, this may be viewed as a positive change because the
polystyrene foam had very limited recycling opportunities. In contrast, the corrugated layer is widely
recyclable, and the molded pulp trays can be recycled in communities with mixed paper programs
(although it is not considered to be a particularly high value grade of paper, and it has to be cut or torn
into smaller pieces to fit into most recycling containers).
From a weight-based waste generation perspective, however, the change is not a positive one. The outer
carton remains unchanged, and an expanded polystyrene tray and assembly weighing 1.9 pounds (with a
pre-manufactured polystyrene weight of 2.2 pounds) has been replaced with molded pulp trays weighing
2.8 pounds and a corrugated insert weighing an additional 1.9 pounds. On a pound-for-pound basis, the
weight of packaging used for a complete assembly (including corrugated box and cut scrap from the
polystyrene tray) has increased from 4.8 pounds to 7.3 pounds,; a 54% increase.
And what of broader environmental considerations, such as those evaluated by MERGE? Unfortunately,
MERGE does not contain data specific to molded pulp production, so MERGE cannot be used to compare
the new package against the baseline and DEQ proposals evaluated earlier. The new design would likely
score better than the original design in the areas of “non-recyclable material” (the new design is easier to
recycle) and “virgin materials content” (the new design uses fewer pounds of virgin materials).
However, the Franklin Associates study commissioned by DEQ does contain data on production of
expanded polystyrene (both virgin and 100% post-consumer content) and molded pulp (100% postconsumer content). Figure 4 shows the results of a simple comparison of cradle-to-production resources
and emissions using data from Chapter 2 of the Franklin Associates study, applied to the weights of the
inner materials only (not the corrugated carton, and not including the polyethylene wrap that surrounds
individual pieces). This analysis does not include energy and emissions associated with transporting the
packaging from the manufacturer to Sunrise, or transporting the packaged product from Sunrise to
Rejuvenation and then on to the final customer. However, experience elsewhere suggests that the
marginal difference in transportation-related emissions and resources between these two options may be
small relative to the cradle-to-production emissions and resources reported in Figure 4.
The result of this evaluation shows that the new package reduces energy use (from both total and nonrenewable sources) and is comparable to the previous package in greenhouse gases. On the negative side,
it results in higher levels of wastes and emissions (except greenhouse gases) in all categories evaluated.
In conclusion, the recommendations made by Rejuvenation (co-developed by DEQ) to Sunrise were not
implemented, although Sunrise did make a significant packaging change. It is impossible to claim direct
causality between Rejuvenation’s communications of packaging concerns to Sunrise and Sunrise’s
packaging change. At a minimum, it is probably safe to say this communication contributed to Sunrise’s
interest in evaluating packaging options. Sunrise did reduce its use of expanded polystyrene foam, which
was one of Rejuvenation’s concerns and an objective of the DEQ/Rejuvenation redesign proposal. Where
the DEQ project wasn’t successful was in Sunrise incorporating waste prevention considerations. The
new package is neither smaller nor more efficient than the old package, and its weight is actually 54%
higher.
E-7
Figure 4.
Simplified Comparison of Cradle-to-Production
Resources and Emissions for Production of Internal Packaging/Trays
Sunrise Specialties Shower Fixture, Before vs. After – Per 1,000 Packages*
Metric
“Before”: Expanded
Polystyrene (Assume 0% postconsumer content)
“After”: Molded Pulp (assume
100% post-consumer content)
and corrugated (assume 38%
post-consumer content)
71
Total Energy (MM BTU)
134
Non-Renewable Energy (MM
BTU)
132
59
Production Solid Wastes
(pounds)
966
1,339
Particulate (pounds)
6
13
Nitrogen Oxides (pounds)
36
51
Sulfur Oxides (pounds)
48
101
CO (pounds)
20
45
Greenhouse gases** (pounds
CO2 equivalent)
10,589
10,341
Waterborne Suspended Solids
(pounds)
5
10
Waterborne BOD (pounds)
1
5
Waterborne COD (pounds)
4
19
*Polyethylene film used to wrap products and outer corrugated carton are not included as these materials
are common to both systems.
**Excludes forestry and waste management related emissions.
The packaging change made by Sunrise has advantages for recycling, but increases total waste generation.
Other environmental considerations (energy use, global warming, atmospheric and waterborne emissions)
are mixed. On the positive side, if Rejuvenation does decide to manufacture this product directly, then it
has several packaging designs available.
Barriers to Change
Barriers included the following:
• Insufficient influence in supply chain management. Rejuvenation is not Sunrise’s largest
customer and so had limited leverage to bring about change.
• Confusion regarding the environmental benefits of easy-to-recycle vs. difficult-to-recycle
materials. Sunrise changed to a package which it felt was an environmental improvement
because it eliminated polystyrene and improved the recyclability of the package. The idea that
easy-to-recycle materials are inherently environmentally “superior” is a popular concept in the
United States, but isn’t necessarily true. Sunrise may have been less interested in evaluating the
solution that optimized waste prevention (smaller tray for orders without the ring) because of
confusion over environmental benefits, and a belief that a solution that maximized recyclability
was inherently preferred.
• Staff turnover. The departure of Rejuvenation’s buyer and the reorganization of Rejuvenation’s
purchasing operations disrupted the project. In the final analysis, this posed a relatively small
problem, as the new purchasing staff was quick to pick up where her predecessor had left off.
E-8
Suggestions for Replicability
Providing the analysis of environmental burdens of different packaging scenarios proved to be a valuable
resource that was appreciated by Rejuvenation, and shed valuable light on the trade-offs between the
sometimes competing goals of optimizing recyclability, recycled content, and waste prevention. The use
of MERGE and/or other life cycle analysis tools can help packaging users and specifiers make better
informed decisions.
The attempt to influence change through supply chain management was challenging but valuable.
Particularly if a user of packaging is a major customer of a product supplier, the user may be able to
leverage a much larger, system-wide change by attempting to exert influence over upstream packaging
decisions. Even if these efforts are unsuccessful in the short-term, they can help set the stage for
increased awareness and packaging improvements at a later date.
E-9
Results of MERGE Environmental Analysis for Shower/Tub Fixtures Set for Rejuvenation, Inc.
Revised 3/14/2003
Parts only (no ring):
assume 8 shipments/month
Large polystyrene tray in
corrugated shipping carton (no change)
Smaller polystyrene tray (redesigned) in
smaller corrugated shipping carton
Smaller hexacomb tray (redesigned) in
smaller corrugated shipping carton
Parts + Ring:
assume 4 shipments/month
Large polystyrene tray in
corrugated shipping carton (no change)
Parts: smaller polystyrene tray (redesigned) in
smaller corrugated shipping carton
Ring: separate corrugated shipping carton
Parts: smaller hexacomb tray (redesigned) in
smaller corrugated shipping carton
Ring: separate corrugated shipping carton
Shipping carton(s)
bleached (B)/unbleached (UB)
% post-consumer content
B
30%
UB
80%
B
30%
UB
80%
B
30%
UB
80%
B
30%
UB
80%
B
30%
UB
80%
Polystyrene tray(s)
% post-consumer content
0%
0%
30%
30%
0%
0%
30%
30%
N/A
N/A
Hexacomb tray
bleached/unbleached
% post-consumer content
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
UB
0%
UB
0%
100
66
86
68
99
74
100
99
90
92
85
97
100
65
77
59
84
71
55
66
51
58
45
62
55
41
41
34
44
43
55
65
47
54
38
60
55
40
37
30
37
42
62
135
38
96
2
106
62
110
28
73
1
87
BASELINE
Relative MERGE scores (see note 3)
(baseline = 100; lower is better)
Non-recyclable material
Packaging resource consumption
Packaging energy consumption
Virgin materials content
Packaging "bad actors"
Packaging greenhouse gases
100
100
100
100
100
100
Estimated material cost, 12/month (see note 1)
Savings (cost), relative to baseline
<--------<---------
$186.84
$0.00
--------->
--------->
<--------<---------
$97.32
$89.52
--------->
--------->
$143.28
$43.56
Cost of freight to retail customer, 12/month (see note 2)
Savings (cost), relative to baseline
<--------<---------
$301.32
$0.00
--------->
--------->
<--------<---------
$218.68
$82.64
--------->
--------->
$224.36
$76.96
Material + freight cost
Material + freight savings (cost), relative to baseline
Reference column (for discussion purposes):
$488.16
$0.00
A
B
$367.64
$120.52
$316.00
$172.16
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
NOTES (February 19, 2003)
1. Assumes relatively large orders at a time (120 – 144 pieces). Costs are materials cost to the fabricator
and fabrication labor only, and do not include freight, storage, fabricator’s mark-up, printing, or costs
for other materials not shown (poly bags, tape, etc.). Costs are higher if smaller quantities of
packaging are purchased, as illustrated in the following table:
Quantity
30
60
120
Current Shower Pack
$23.09
$17.78
$15.57
Current Ring-Only Box
$7.85
$4.72
$3.15
Redesigned Expanded Polystyrene
(EPS) Shower Pack
$12.78
$8.92
$7.06
Redesigned Hexacomb Shower Pack
144
$2.89
$10.89
For the sake of simplicity, the table assumes that higher levels of recycled content are available at
roughly the same cost as the lower levels of recycled content. This is more likely to be true for the
corrugated boxes than for the polystyrene trays. For both materials, certain minimum order sizes may
be needed.
2. Freight costs assume UPS ground shipments from Portland to a residential address in the Chicago
area (chosen because it is a major metropolitan area relatively near the geographic center of the U.S.
population). Unit freight costs are as follows:
3.
Existing Package without Ring (29 x 4 x 40, 18#)
Existing Package with Ring Inside (29 x 4 x 40, 28#)
Ring Package Only (24 x 2 x 31.5, 10#)
Redesigned EPS Package Only (17 x 4 x 35, 15#)
Redesigned Hexacomb Package Only (17 x 4 x 35, 16#)
$25.11
$25.11
$11.19
$14.78
$15.49
Existing Package without Ring + Ring Carton (banded together) (29 x 6 x 40, 28#)
Redesigned EPS Package + Ring Carton (banded together) (24 x 6 x 35, 25#)
Redesigned Hexacomb Package + Ring Carton (banded together) (24 x 6 x 35, 26#)
$44.70
$25.11
$25.11
“MERGE scores” refer to the weighted results from the MERGE software. Each packaging
assembly (carton + tray) was scored individually, and then results were weighted together for
different combinations of assemblies (for example, 8 parts-only/month in the redesigned polystyrene
tray and 4 parts+ring orders/month in the existing polystyrene tray). The MERGE scores use
information from publicly-available data sets on environmental burdens. DEQ makes no guarantees
regarding the accuracy of this data. The six environmental criteria are defined in MERGE as follows:
A. Packaging Resource Consumption
A measure of the quantity (weight) of material inputs required to produce the product's packaging and
delivery system. Material quantity includes materials consumed in the acquisition and processing of
raw materials used in the packaging and delivery system and in their manufacture. This metric
includes the weight of all of the inputs required to obtain raw materials for and manufacture each
component material (which hence includes the weight of these components themselves).
B. Packaging Energy Consumption
A measure of the quantity of energy consumed to produce the packaging and delivery system of the
product. Energy includes that used in the acquisition and processing of raw materials used in the
packaging (primary and secondary) and delivery system and in their manufacture. The metric does
include the energy required to obtain and process raw materials for and to manufacture each
component material used in the delivery system and packaging.
C. Virgin Materials Content
A measure of the weight of the components of the product's delivery system and primary and
secondary packaging comprised of materials that are not derived from post-consumer recycled
materials.
D. Non-recyclable Materials Content
A measure of the weight of the components of the product's delivery system and primary and
secondary packaging not comprised of readily recyclable materials, based on actual current U.S.
recycling rates for each material. While many materials may be technically recyclable, this metric
uses actual U.S. recycling rates as a direct means of assessing what amount of the materials used in a
product’s delivery system and packaging can reasonably be expected to be recycled after use.
E. Packaging "Bad Actors"
A measure of the extent to which MERGE-defined "bad actor" chemicals are feedstocks or serve as
intermediates in the production of packaging materials, summed across the components of the
packaging system using the weight of each per product unit. “Bad actor" chemicals are those that
appear on a designated set of external, widely-used lists of chemicals known or suspected to pose
risks to human health or the environment:
1. Toxic Air Contaminants designated under California AB 1807
2. Priority Pollutants designated under the Federal Clean Water Act
3. Chemicals with Permissible Exposure Limits designated under the Federal Occupational Safety
and Health Act
4. Toxic Release Inventory Chemicals designated under Section 313 of the Federal Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
5. Maximum Contaminant Levels designated under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
6. Hazardous Constituents designated in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 261,
Appendix VIII pursuant to the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
7. Carcinogens and Reproductive Toxins designated under California Proposition 65
8. Greenhouse Gases designated by the International Panel on Climate Change
9. Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Chemicals designated by USEPA
10. Ozone Depleting Substances designated under the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
The weight, per ton of final material, of each "bad actor" feedstock or intermediate is multiplied by
the number of "bad actor" lists on which the "bad actor" appears. These weighted quantities for each
of the "bad actors" involved in the production of a given material are then summed. The final metric
score is calculated by: (1) multiplying the weighted sum for a given material by the weight of the
packaging component using that material; (2) adding up these values across all of the packaging
components, (3) converting units from pounds per ton to grams per kilogram of final material, and (4)
normalizing the summed value based on amount of the product used per week, so as to allow its
comparison to other products on an equivalent-use basis. Although the score is nominally expressed
in units of grams per week of use, these units are meaningless. The final score should be considered
unitless, but in relation to a score for another formulation still reflects the relative amount of
packaging "bad actors."
F. Packaging Greenhouse Gases
A measure of the quantity of greenhouse gases (GHGs) released across the lifecycle of the materials
used in the packaging and delivery system of the product. GHG emissions include those resulting
from the acquisition and processing of raw materials used in the packaging (primary and secondary)
and delivery system, from the manufacture of the packaging materials, and from their recycling or
disposal after use. These gases and the major activities associated with packaging that generate them
are as follows:
•
Carbon dioxide: emissions from production and use of energy (involving combustion of fossil
fuels or waste materials such as landfill gas or municipal waste) expended in acquiring and
processing fuels and raw materials, in manufacturing, in transport and in recycling or disposal;
manufacturing process emissions, especially in the conversion of limestone to lime.
•
Methane: emissions from the acquisition and use of natural gas and from the production of oil
and coal; emissions from waste decomposition in landfills.
•
Nitrous oxide: emissions from use of fertilizers; emissions from combustion of fossil fuels or
waste materials.
•
Perfluorcarbons: emissions during primary aluminum smelting.
In addition, carbon-containing materials such as wood or paper can serve as "carbon sinks" rather
than sources. This metric accounts for such "carbon sequestration" in two situations: trees left
standing in a forest (for example, as a result of reducing tree harvests by increased use of recycled
paper); and the portion of paper deposited in landfills that does not degrade.
Appendix F
Packaging Waste Prevention Partnership
Williams-Sonoma/Pottery Barn
Introduction
Williams-Sonoma, Inc. is a major retailer of house wares with several different retail formats, the best
known including Williams-Sonoma and Pottery Barn. The company has more than 500 retail stores and
also conducts a major catalog and Internet sales operation. The corporation is headquartered in San
Francisco and had revenues of $2.75 billion in 2003. As of February 1, 2004, the company had
approximately 36,000 employees.
Of the businesses involved in this project, Williams-Sonoma’s participation was one of the most complex
and multi-faceted.
DEQ worked directly with two stores in Oregon, but most of our work was conducted with corporate
staff. Almost all of DEQ’s work with corporate staff was performed in conjunction with an internal waste
prevention “champion”, Nancy Himmelfarb. Nancy was a Vice President in Williams-Sonoma’s main
office where she served as associate general counsel and the Secretary to the corporation. Among her
many other responsibilities, Nancy served as the company’s unofficial environmental coordinator and was
active in advocating environmental improvements in a number of fronts.
Unfortunately, when Nancy left Williams-Sonoma in October of 2003, DEQ lost much of its access to
Williams-Sonoma, and the company lost a leading advocate for change. Despite this, the company made
a number of packaging changes during the course of the DEQ packaging project. Resulting savings have
not been fully evaluated. Two changes alone – reinforcing one style of shopping bag (to reduce doublebagging) and adding a smaller box for outbound shipments from stores – have savings estimated at more
than $250,000/year. Total savings from all changes are potentially many times higher.
Business Recruitment
DEQ recruited Williams-Sonoma as a result of work conducted by Washington County under the Metrofunded CTAP (Commercial Technical Assistance Program) service. While at Washington County
conducting business waste reduction technical assistance visits, Cindy Tatham visited the Pottery Barn
store at Washington Square and made the acquaintance of Nancy Himmelfarb, who was involved in a
coalition of large retailers working together on improving recycling programs in shopping malls. When
DEQ began recruiting business participants and asked regional CTAP staff about possible business
partners, Cindy mentioned Pottery Barn and connected Nancy with DEQ staff.
DEQ spoke with Nancy in March of 2002 and subsequently submitted a letter outlining the goals of
DEQ’s project and a first “”rough draft” list of possible packaging waste prevention opportunities.
(Interestingly, few of the specific ideas in this first list were pursued; most of the partnership work
involved other ideas for packaging improvement that were discovered in subsequent discussions.) Nancy
agreed to work with DEQ on refining this list and implementing cost-saving packaging measures and a
strong partnership was formed. Through Nancy, DEQ gained access to several key employees and
different business units within Williams-Sonoma. And in DEQ and its contractor, Nancy and her coworkers gained access to knowledge and analysis that helped them to more effectively identify and
advocate for packaging changes.
F-1
Partnership Activities
DEQ’s assistance to Williams-Sonoma was both proactive and reactive in nature. On the reactive side,
DEQ served as an “on call” technical resource and answered multiple questions from Williams-Sonoma.
On many occasions, Nancy asked DEQ to provide information on alternatives being discussed internally.
Proactively, DEQ also suggested a number of alternatives, and, when supported by Williams-Sonoma,
conducted additional research and evaluation of selected alternatives. This proactive work represented
packaging initiatives that Williams-Sonoma might not have undertaken on its own.
Core work performed by DEQ in support of Williams-Sonoma can be broadly categorized into two areas:
packaging improvements in the distribution system (including order fulfillment for catalog/Internet sales),
and retail store operations. Several initiatives were undertaken in both areas, oftentimes concurrent with
each other. To simplify discussion, these two areas are discussed separately.
Distribution System
Williams-Sonoma’s distribution system includes large distribution centers in Memphis, Tennessee and
Olive Branch, Mississippi. These facilities handle all in-bound products from vendors; in fiscal year
2003, approximately 61% of merchandise purchases were foreign sourced, from a total of 41 different
countries. Merchandise is shipped from the distribution centers to the retail stores. The distribution
centers also fulfill orders from Williams-Sonoma’s growing direct-to-customer catalog and Internet sales.
First Discussions. DEQ’s first substantial discussions regarding packaging waste in the
distribution system were in a June 2002 conference call involving Nancy Himmelfarb, Darryl Sudduth
(Vice President of Purchasing), Tom Whalen (Vice President of Quality), Scott Kopacek (Pack Edge
Development) and David Allaway (DEQ). In this meeting, the following problem areas and other
potential areas of improvement were identified:
• Damage to products due to inadequate packaging. Damage rates are tracked by SKU and
according to Williams-Sonoma are “way too high” in most categories. Many products are not
repackaged and so Williams-Sonoma is not aware of product damage until the customer receives
it. This makes it difficult to know if the damage occurred in transit to Williams-Sonoma’s
distribution centers, at the distribution centers, or in transit to the customer. Regardless, original
vendor packaging is clearly inadequate in some cases. Problems cross all countries and heavier
items (such as tables) are more likely to be damaged. Although Williams-Sonoma specifies
packaging requirements (including shipping and drop testing protocols), this continues to be a
problem. Some countries do not manufacture corrugated that is sufficiently strong for heavy
items and so are importing their corrugated from other countries to meet Williams-Sonoma’s
requirements.
• Overpackaging. With five different retail formats, each with 3 – 4,000 SKUs per season, the
distribution centers have to manage around 100,000 SKUs per year. Williams-Sonoma identified
that some overpackaging occurs with mixed orders where items are repacked into custom cartons
(this primarily occurs in the direct-to-customer catalog/Internet order fulfillment area).
• Dunnage alternatives. At the time of this discussion, Williams-Sonoma was primarily using
expanded polystyrene peanuts as a multi-purpose void fill at its distribution centers. Staff
identified peanuts as “a hassle”. An earlier experiment with corn starch peanuts backfired as the
corn starch peanuts “melted” in the high humidity and clogged up the pneumatic distribution
system. The distribution center had also tried using bubble wrap and found it to be more
expensive both for materials and labor.
• Carton alternatives. The direct-to-customer order fulfillment operation was using about nine
different sizes of cartons. While many products are breakable and must be shipped in a rigid
carton, the company does sell some soft goods (towels, linens, tablecloths) that could be shipped
F-2
in shipping bags. Williams-Sonoma expressed some concerns over shipping bags because of the
automated conveyor system with rollers, noting that bags might need to be placed in trays prior to
being shipped out.
At the end of this conference call, the group agreed to look further at vendor packaging, dunnage
alternatives, and carton alternatives. On vendor packaging, the group agreed to start with WilliamsSonoma’s dining chair packaging requirements. Unfortunately, despite several requests, WilliamsSonoma never sent Pack Edge Development its then-current specifications, so no further work was
performed in this area. Subsequently, Nancy shared with Tom Whalen a complaint from a store about
excessive packaging for products coming from India; Tom noted that overpackaging is likely occurring
because India can’t achieve U.S. corrugation standards. Tom asked for details from Nancy but DEQ does
not know how this discussion was concluded.
Similarly, Williams-Sonoma did not identify evaluation criteria for dunnage options, so DEQ was unable
to conduct any meaningful evaluation of options.
Focus Area: Shipping Bags. In contrast, changes were attempted involving shipping bags.
Nancy Himmelfarb and Dan Gaw (an active member of Williams-Sonoma’s “Green Team” in Memphis)
developed support to pilot test shipping bags for non-breakable items. In December 2002, DEQ sent to
Dan Gaw seven different bag samples (a combination of padded and unpadded, and all-paper, all-plastic,
and paper-plastic blends) along with a table summarizing suppliers, sizes, and distributor costs. Due to
other problems, including the installation of a new warehouse management software system, testing of the
shipping bags was delayed. In the meantime, Dan Gaw passed the bag samples on to Ken Dunaj (Vice
President of Distribution Operations) who started a pilot test in August of 2003.
According to Dan Gaw, the bags had “limited success” and the company chose not to continue their use.
Dan was not aware of the specific reasons, but speculated that challenges with the bags may have
included incompatibility with the existing conveyor system (small bags might get stuck and/or labels
might not be read properly by optical scanning equipment) and the relatively small number of orders that
are wholly comprised of non-breakable items (and thus don’t need to be put in a box). DEQ was
ultimately not successful at obtaining a definitive explanation of the decision not to continue with bags,
despite repeated efforts.
Focus Area: Corrugated Reduction. A second area where DEQ was able to provide some
substantial assistance involved box sizing and selection. Early in the partnership, DEQ identified several
potential opportunities involving corrugated shipping boxes: increasing recycled content, assuring that
boxes are not “over built”, and assuring that the selection of box sizes is optimized for the product mix,
and that distribution center staff are choosing the right sized box for each order.
At first, none of these ideas appeared to develop much traction. But in the months that followed, staff at
the Olive Branch Distribution Center organized a Green Team that began evaluating alternatives. Several
of DEQ’s initial proposals resurfaced in the Green Team’s meetings, and Williams-Sonoma
commissioned a study of options to reduce fiber in corrugated packaging. The study was conducted by
Box USA, a large box producer (Box USA was acquired by International Paper in 2004).
The Box USA study concluded that a reduction in board grade would result in greater shipping damage to
products. Box USA also conducted a packaging study over two days that included all operational packing
stations at the Olive Branch Distribution Center. Each employee was given a box chart that listed all the
current boxes being used by part number and size. As they packed each box, employees were asked to
identify the box part number and list whether the box was full, ¾ full, or ½ full. After reviewing the
tallied (and somewhat unscientific) results, Box USA concluded “. . . the current packaging being used at
F-3
the Olive Branch DC is meeting the current requirements and should not be changed.” Box USA noted
that of the 12 box sizes “being used”, three were never used, then concluded “Those items that had zero
usage during the two day study could be reviewed over a longer period of time to determine whether or
not they needed (sic). If its (sic) determined that these boxes are not needed then the Green Team has
accomplished its goal of fibre reduction.”
Upon request by Nancy Himmelfarb, DEQ reviewed the Box USA study and issued a short report. DEQ
agreed with Box USA that reductions in board grade could increase product damage and the potential for
fiber reduction (waste prevention) was likely small. However, DEQ disagreed with Box USA’s findings
regarding box sizes. First, DEQ noted that eliminating from inventory boxes that aren’t being used would
not result in any fiber reduction. Rather, DEQ recommended that Williams-Sonoma should evaluate why
the three boxes were not used during the study. A subsequent discussion revealed that none of these three
box sizes were in inventory at the time of the study, and thus, had not been available to the packers!
Using Box USA’s data, DEQ also demonstrated that of the nine box types actually used at the Olive
Branch packing stations, four of them were being shipped out half full (or less) at least 25% of the time.
DEQ suggested that these and two other box sizes be further evaluated for either behavior changes
(employees need to use smaller boxes for smaller products) or procedural changes (packing stations need
to be stocked with smaller boxes). The advantages of adding smaller boxes include:
• Reduced fiber use and box costs. For many common box geometries, reducing box volume in
half while maintaining the proportion between length, width, and height results in a fiber
reduction of approximately 35%.
• Reduced dunnage (void fill) use and costs.
• Reduced freight costs (outbound).
• Improved customer satisfaction.
Potential disadvantages include potentially more complicated inventory management and packing station
set-up and potential increases in per-box prices.
In a subsequent telephone conference call between staff at Olive Branch, Nancy Himmelfarb, and DEQ,
Olive Branch staff agreed to try some changes, including:
• Providing individual packing stations with a few of each box size. At the time of the study,
packing stations were not provided with box options. Rather, each order was shipped to a
packing station in a tray. Someone on the conveyor line would look at the volume of each order,
choose a box, and add it to the tray. A strong incentive existed to oversize boxes, because if the
picker chose a box that was too small, the packer would not be able to proceed. Thus, to avoid
work stoppages, the box picker learned to consistently choose larger boxes. Supplying each
packing station with a small inventory of boxes and retraining the box picking staff would help to
eliminate this problem.
• Train box packers regarding box options.
• Consider adding smaller boxes if needed.
Subsequently, the Olive Branch DC rolled out a new inventory management system, called PKMS.
PKMS can be used to optimize box selection by recommending the “best sized” box for any combination
of SKUs. According to Dan Gaw, “a review was performed of the box sizing process instituted by
PKMS. Process issues were identified that were driving systematic selection of boxes that were too large.
Modifications have been implemented to correct the problem.” Despite repeated requests by DEQ,
Williams-Sonoma did not elaborate further on what kinds of process changes were made, or what the
resulting savings were, although they were likely quite large.
F-4
Other Assistance. DEQ provided assistance to Williams-Sonoma’s distribution system in two
other areas:
• In the 1990s, Williams-Sonoma had included in outbound shipments to customers a “dear
customer” letter that provided the phone number of the Plastic Loose Fill Council’s “Peanut
Hotline”. Green Team members were interested in reinstating this practice; DEQ provided a
critical review of the letter. Subsequently, Williams-Sonoma decided to eliminate the letter and
now prints information about the Peanut Hotline on the inside top flap of corrugated cartons
(“PACKING PEANUTS CAN BE RECYCLED CALL 1 800 828 2214 FOR A RECYCLING
CENTER NEAR YOU”).
• The Green Team also wanted to increase the level of post-consumer content in corrugated boxes
used by the Distribution Centers. At the time, the average level of post-consumer content was
24%, which is below the U.S. average. One of Williams-Sonoma’s existing box suppliers
informed the company that higher levels of post-consumer content would cause the boxes to
become structurally deficient, particularly given the high humidity of the Memphis area. DEQ
was able to obtain a written opinion from technical staff at Weyerhaeuser to debunk this
statement (and also noting that Weyerhaeuser’s company-wide average for corrugated is 63%
post-consumer content). Follow-up research in 2005 revealed that the only change in this area is
that the post-consumer content is now printed on the cartons.
Retail Stores
A few months into the partnership, discussion turned to packaging waste originating at retail stores.
Stores generate packaging waste in several areas:
• Packaging of products that customers take with them (walk-in traffic). Many products are
wrapped in tissue and then placed in retail bags. The stores also offer gift boxes and gift
wrapping.
• Mail/shipping packaging, for example, when a customer comes into a store and orders a product
to be shipped elsewhere as a gift, or if a product is on back-order. Materials used included tissue,
gift boxes, and gift wrapping, and then outer shipping cartons (corrugated), bubble wrap,
newsprint, and flowable expanded polystyrene loosefill.
• Waste is also generated from the unpacking of products shipped from the distribution centers.
Work began with Nancy Himmelfarb confirming that there were no formal policies or packaging
standards for retail stores. Nancy introduced the project to store managers of the Pottery Barn at
Washington Square and the Williams-Sonoma store in downtown Portland, and staff from DEQ and Pack
Edge Development visited both stores in August 2002 to observe packaging practices.
These initial visits gave DEQ a solid understanding of the packaging issues faced by the retail stores.
DEQ learned that the retail stores purchase packaging materials (and other store supplies) from a thirdparty supplier, Schwarz. DEQ also spoke with several store associates at each store and heard their ideas
for packaging waste prevention. For example, at one store, associates identified that they “routinely”
double-bagged certain sizes of retail bags. DEQ also observed several packaging waste prevention (or
reuse) practices already in place, most notably, the reuse of corrugated boxes and bubble wrap, and
production of shredded paper void fill from old office and bridal registry papers at the Pottery Barn store,
and box scoring and reuse of expanded polystyrene loosefill at the Williams Sonoma store. (Box scoring
involves taking an outbound shipping carton with extra head space, cutting down along the corners, and
folding the sides inwards on top of each other; it reduces the final height of the shipment and the
associated use of void fill.)
Preliminary estimates were that the Pottery Barn store was saving more than $6,000 per year in packaging
reuse. (This estimate was later revised to over $10,000 per year.) This finding led to an interesting
F-5
internal discussion which DEQ was only party to a portion of. Nancy featured the local Pottery Barn
example in a story about sustainability in an internal employee newsletter. She was also excited about the
savings potential for the company as a whole, and promoted the case study to other senior managers. She
then learned that the company had a policy against the reuse of vendor boxes for customer shipments.
Discussions with other staff revealed that the primary justification was a concern over aesthetics. DEQ
pointed out that the Pottery Barn store in Beaverton only used the cleanest and newest-looking boxes for
reuse (the vast majority of boxes are recycled, since the store ships out only a very small fraction of what
it receives). DEQ also pointed out that even the newest box can be damaged, scuffed, and marked during
transit, so once the parcel arrives at their home, customers may not be able to tell the difference between a
product shipped in a box that was unused at the time of shipping as opposed to a box that had been very
lightly used previously. Rather than put the local Pottery Barn’s reuse initiative at risk, Nancy felt that
the timing wasn’t right to push hard in this area, so discussion was put on the back burner, where it stayed
for the remainder of her tenure.
Wanting to document the savings from the box scoring, DEQ returned to the downtown WilliamsSonoma store in October 2002 and conducted a special “box scoring” study. On that day, staff were
informed to pack all outbound boxes “as normal” but to avoid taping them shut. In the afternoon, DEQ
reviewed all twenty outbound boxes, measured the dimension of the boxes both prior to and after scoring,
and measured (or in a few cases, estimated) the volume of the products inside the boxes. DEQ found that
all but one of the twenty boxes had been scored, and that the total amount of void space in the 20 boxes
was reduced by 39% through scoring. This translated (roughly) into a 39% reduction in expanded
polystyrene loosefill. The store was also reusing polystyrene loosefill from inbound shipments but
supplementing it with purchased loosefill. (Put differently, any reductions in loosefill use were
reductions in new, as opposed to reused, loosefill.) Assuming that box scoring reduces the purchase of
new loosefill, and that the day in October was typical, annual savings were estimated at $1,700.
DEQ then turned its attention to company-wide retail issues, starting with bag, box and void fill use at
stores. The store visits had identified potential opportunities involving double-bagging of retail bags by
store associates, retail bag sizes, box sizes, and methods to reduce the purchase of polystyrene void fill.
DEQ was uncomfortable making company-wide recommendations based on limited observations at only
two retail stores, and in particular was uncertain as to the scope and causes of the practice of doublebagging (were the bags actually insufficient for their contents, or were associates being overly
protective?). To better evaluate these issues, DEQ asked for data on the number of retail transactions as
well as procurement of selected packaging materials for a representative sample of Williams-Sonoma
stores.
After a significant effort to analyze the data, DEQ was able to quantitatively demonstrate the potential for
several improvements. Later in the partnership, DEQ conducted a similar analysis for a sample of Pottery
Barn stores. In total, procurement data (Schwarz) was reviewed for a three-month period at 47 WilliamsSonoma stores and for a 12-month period at 49 Pottery Barn stores. Examples of findings from this
analysis include:
• In both retail formats, we observed a few stores that did not purchase shipping cartons, suggesting
a scattered and relatively small level of box reuse (and significant potential to expand that
practice).
• Again in both retail formats, among stores who did purchase cartons, we found a few stores (10
Williams-Sonoma and 3 Pottery Barn) who purchased no expanded polystyrene, again suggesting
some reuse of vendor loosefill (and also suggestion potential for expansion).
• Comparing volumes of cartons purchased to volumes of loosefill purchased, DEQ found that the
Pottery Barn stores purchased enough loosefill to fill 21% of purchased carton capacity, and
Williams Sonoma stores purchased enough to fill 17% of purchased carton capacity. However,
F-6
•
•
there was considerable variation among stores, suggesting that some might be doing a better job
than others at loosefill and/or carton reuse.
While most stores purchase a variety of box sizes for outbound shipments, many were not taking
advantage of all six or seven box sizes available to them. Having fewer boxes in stock simplifies
inventory management slightly, but it increases the likelihood that some products are shipped in
boxes that are excessively large.
One size of Williams-Sonoma retail bags had a supplemental “bag bottom” that could be
purchased separately. The “bag bottom” is a rectangular piece of chipboard that fits into the
bottom of the bag and provides additional support and reinforcement. It appeared to reduce the
need for double-bagging. DEQ found that bag bottoms were not available for other bag sizes in
both the Williams-Sonoma and Pottery Barn retail formats. Further, when the bag bottoms were
used for this one bag size, use was very inconsistent. Half of the 47 stores evaluated were not
purchasing any, and usage rates for other stores averaged 11% but went as high as 52%.
Specific to retail bags, DEQ was unable to demonstrate a meaningful correlation between purchase of
bags and number of retail transactions. Based on the experience of the two Oregon stores, a significant
waste prevention opportunity likely existed involving retail bags and double-bagging, but the data from
the larger number of stores was inconclusive.
Between March and August of 2003, DEQ worked on several drafts of a report of recommendations for
store operations. Periodic review by Nancy Himmelfarb helped to shape this report into a final version
that was released in August. The report used a combination of DEQ observations and Schwarz data to list
twelve recommendations, five of which were classified as “easy to implement”. Potential cost savings
were estimated for seven of these twelve recommendations.
Recommendations were summarized as follows:
Fairly Easy to Implement
A.
Reintroduce a small retail bag at Williams-Sonoma stores (estimated savings
$56,000/year).
B.
Re-educate Williams-Sonoma stores about the benefit of using (and availability of) the
Downtown Bag Bottom (estimated savings: $9,000 - $51,000/year).
C.
Consider providing a comparable Bag Bottom for other large bag sizes in the Pottery
Barn and Williams-Sonoma stores (estimated savings: $15,000 - $90,000/year).
D.
Consider introducing two new corrugated box sizes (estimated savings $22,000 $61,000/year).
E.
Educate store associates on methods to reduce the purchase of new polystyrene void fill,
including reuse, making void fill from waste paper, and carton scoring (estimated
savings: $34,000 - $259,000/year).
Other Recommendations
F/G. Determine the extent of double-bagging and the causes (potential gross savings: $47,000
- $297,000/year).
H.
Research a stronger plastic bag.
I.
Provide a larger linens gift box.
J.
Consider reducing the height of three shipping cartons by 2 inches each, if stores are not
already routinely scoring outbound cartons.
K.
At an appropriate time, reconsider the policy discouraging stores from shipping in reused
cartons.
L.
Assure that shipping cartons contain at least 30% post-consumer content.
F-7
Annual savings for the five “easy” measures were estimated to range from $137,000 - $516,000. The two
“other” measures with savings estimates (both of which addressed double-bagging) added $47,000 $297,000 in estimated annual savings. Savings from relaxing the policy regarding reuse of cartons were
not estimated but would likely add significantly to these numbers.1
Nancy Himmelfarb presented the report to a senior manager in store operations in September of 2003 and
reported to DEQ that the manager was very interested in the potential benefits. Additional discussions
were planned, but DEQ’s involvement ended when Nancy left Williams-Sonoma the following month.
In 2005 DEQ attempted to learn what changes had resulted from the earlier analysis. After repeated
requests, Williams-Sonoma staff eventually provided DEQ with an update on the status of the
recommendations. DEQ also re-visited the Portland Williams-Sonoma store to observe some of the
changes. As it turned out, Williams-Sonoma had made a number of changes to retail packaging, several
of which were very consistent with (although not exactly the same as) DEQ’s 2003 recommendations:
• Stores have been provided with equipment for Geämi, a perforated paper wrapping, to use instead
of expanded polystyrene. (However, the Portland store at least is continuing to use expanded
polystyrene – all of it reused – as a supplement to Geämi for particularly fragile items, as well as
for return-to-vendor shipments.)
• Bag Bottoms for the Williams-Sonoma “Downtowner” bags are now provided automatically –
every delivery to a store of Downtowner bags includes the same number of bag bottoms. This
change actually creates some waste of bag bottoms, as not every Downtowner bag needs a
bottom, so extras are tossed out. However, it also has the potential to significantly reduce doublebagging. Staff at the Portland Williams-Sonoma store estimate (anecdotally) that only 25% of
customers leaving with a Downtowner bag have it double-bagged, as opposed to 75% before
(when bag bottoms were not always available). This results in a reduction in packaging
production of roughly 5 pounds – and financial savings to the store of about $8 – for every 100
times a customer leaves the store with a Downtowner bag (even when the weight and cost of the
extra, unused bag bottoms is factored in). A bag bottom costs 84% less than a bag, so each time a
bag bottom eliminates the need for double-bagging, money is saved. The same is true from a
waste and materials perspective: the bottom weighs 66% less, and is mostly unbleached (with a
thin bleached layer), whereas the bag itself is made from bleached kraft. The benefits of this
strategy have not been formally evaluated, in part because of the difficulty of tracking the
frequency of double-bagging. If all Williams-Sonoma stores have experienced the same
reduction in double-bagging as the downtown Portland store, potential savings are more than
$230,000/year with reductions of 50 tons of packaging material/year.
• Educational materials are currently being developed to further reduce double-bagging in stores.
• At the time of DEQ’s assessment, six different sizes of corrugated boxes were made available to
Williams-Sonoma stores. Now, nine different sizes are provided, including two boxes that are
considerably smaller, and a box that is sized for long, narrow items. Box selection has also been
improved for Pottery-Barn stores. This change allows for better optimization of carton sizes.
Smaller boxes tend to cost less, require less void fill, and can contribute to lower outbound freight
costs. Insufficient data make the savings from this change difficult to estimate. The introduction
of the smallest box alone is estimated to reduce procurement and shipping costs (across all stores
in the Williams-Sonoma format) by $31,000 - $78,000 annually.
• Box scoring has also been made more convenient as many of the boxes are now pre-scored. For
example, at the time of DEQ’s first assessment, only two out of six carton styles at Williams1
All estimates of cost savings were based on extrapolations from data provided by Williams-Sonoma and
were not confirmed by Williams-Sonoma staff; thus, they should be viewed as preliminary, rough
estimates. Actual potential savings could be higher, or lower, than estimated.
F-8
Sonoma stores were pre-scored (although the Portland store managed to score all sizes of boxes);
now, seven of the nine carton styles are pre-scored. The impact of this change upon store
operations and procurement costs has not been evaluated due to insufficient data.
Several of DEQ’s recommendations were not implemented, including the following:
• Reintroduce a smaller bag at Williams-Sonoma stores (recommendation A): Not sufficient need
to warrant use.
• Introduce a bag bottom for larger Pottery Barn bags (recommendation C): Not implemented
because it wasn’t budgeted for.
• Allow stores to reuse clean corrugated for outbound shipments (recommendation K): the benefits
of this practice had been demonstrated by the Washington Square Pottery Barn store in 2002.
Regrettably, when DEQ recontacted that store in 2005 for a status update, a retail associate
informed DEQ that only new boxes are used, which is “a lot better because we don’t have to find
boxes and deal with torn, damaged boxes” (although upon further questioning, he revealed that he
was new and had no direct experience with the reused boxes).
DEQ provided assistance in a few other areas related to retail operations. In May of 2003, Nancy asked
for a survey that she could pilot test at a few retail stores. DEQ designed a survey that asked questions
about the frequency and possible causes of double-bagging, the size of existing gift boxes, use of box
scoring, interest in purchasing smaller shipping cartons, and reuse of loosefill. Nancy pilot tested the
survey with one store manager in June and this identified some potential improvements. Had Nancy
remained at Williams-Sonoma the survey would have been revised, and administering it to a larger
number of store managers would have provided additional data that could have supported many of the
recommendations in DEQ’s report.
Evaluation
Results
To summarize, Williams-Sonoma implemented the following changes:
• Tested shipping bags for direct-to-customer order fulfillment of non breakable items.
• Reviewed box sizes in the direct-to-customer order fulfillment center, identified process issues
that were driving systematic selection of boxes that were too large, and made modifications to
correct the problem.
• Began printing a message promoting the reuse of expanded polystyrene peanuts on the inside top
flap of corrugated cartons used in direct-to-customer order fulfillment. The level of postconsumer content is also printed on these boxes.
• Provided retail stores with a perforated paper wrapping to use instead of expanded polystyrene in
direct-to-customer shipments.
• All Williams-Sonoma retail stores are now provided with bag bottoms for the popular
“Downtowner” retail bag. This change significantly reduced double-bagging at the downtown
Portland store and may reduce double-bagging in other stores as well. If all stores experienced
the same reduction in double-bagging as Portland, potential savings across the company are more
than $230,000/year with reductions of 50 tons of packaging material per year.
• Educational materials are currently being developed to further reduce double-bagging in stores.
• A greater variety of box sizes have been made available to both Williams-Sonoma and Pottery
Barn stores for retail-to-customer order fulfillment. Smaller boxes tend to cost less, require less
void fill, and can contribute to lower outbound freight costs. The introduction of the smallest
box alone is estimated to reduce procurement and shipping costs by $31,000 - $78,000 annually.
• Box scoring has also been made more convenient as many of the boxes are now pre-scored.
F-9
Many of these changes were identified and recommended by the Oregon DEQ and in some cases, DEQ
provided a significant level of assistance to evaluate the potential benefits of these recommended changes.
In addition to the changes that were implemented, the assistance provided by DEQ to Williams-Sonoma
helped to educate several corporate staff regarding recycled content and waste prevention. Hopefully, this
education will help staff to make better decisions and implement more waste prevention ideas in the
future.
Finally, the data collected at the downtown Portland Williams-Sonoma store regarding box scoring and
void fills helped to inform part of the life cycle inventory analysis for e-commerce packaging that was
conducted as part of the larger DEQ/Metro packaging waste prevention project.
Barriers to Change
There were several barriers to implementing waste prevention changes in packaging within WilliamsSonoma. Key barriers include the following:
• Complexity and size of the organization.
• Staff turnover. Specifically, the departure of Nancy Himmelfarb, the corporation’s internal
environmental “champion” was a major (although not fatal) set-back to the momentum of the
project.
• Concerns over aesthetics. Williams-Sonoma and Pottery Barn formats are considered to be “high
end” retail, and this was a key reason in the decision not to expand the reuse of shipping cartons
for retail-to-customer shipments. In reality, this concern is misplaced; the earlier experience of
the Oregon Pottery Barn store was that with so many inbound boxes to choose from, the store was
able to meet all of its carton needs with reused boxes that were in excellent condition and with a
minimal amount of markings.
• Incorrect or misleading information from suppliers. On two separate occasions (described in
detail above - the Box USA study of box sizes and the evaluation of recycled content in
corrugated for the distribution centers), vendors or suppliers of Williams-Sonoma provided staff
there with information that was misleading or factually incorrect.
• Budget cycles. At least one decision (whether to provide “bag bottoms” for the larger Pottery
Barn bags) was deferred for the next budget cycle.
Suggestions for Replicability
Despite the many challenges during this partnership, several successes were realized. One of the reasons
for these successes was the groundwork established by Nancy Himmelfarb. Well placed within the
corporation, Nancy was successful at establishing a structure (green teams), as well as high-level support,
for packaging waste prevention and other environmental initiatives. The relationship between Nancy and
DEQ benefited both organizations. Nancy and her co-workers gained access to information, analysis, and
the credibility of third-party review that helped them to more effectively identify and advocate for
packaging changes, while DEQ gained access to several key employees and different business units
within Williams-Sonoma. Without this access, the partnership would not have been successful.
The cost/benefit analysis of retail packaging options conducted by DEQ was likely also a key factor that
contributed to the success of the project. Using data from Williams-Sonoma itself, coupled with
observations and measurements taken at local area stores, DEQ was successful at building a compelling
case for certain packaging changes. Without these estimates of company-wide cost savings, it is unlikely
that the changes involving box sizes, scoring, and bag bottoms would have been implemented.
F-10