MMM Group is calling for brands and manufacturers to take a broader view of packaging cost as regulation, recyclability, production performance and supply-chain efficiency increasingly translate into direct commercial consequences.
The Group says unit price remains an important consideration, but judging packaging primarily on purchase cost risks overlooking expenditure created elsewhere in the system, from production-line disruption and excess material to transport inefficiency, product loss and late-stage redesign.
The commercial implications of packaging performance are also becoming increasingly visible across Europe. Under the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, producer financial contributions under Extended Producer Responsibility will be linked to packaging recyclability performance grades. The Regulation requires the European Commission to establish an EU-wide framework for modulating those contributions, creating a clearer connection between packaging design, recyclability and producer cost.
Uwe Theis, Director Packaging Technology at MM Group, said: “Unit price matters, but it is only one line in the packaging cost equation. A specification that appears efficient at the point of purchase can create additional costs through material use, production losses, transport, product damage or end-of-life fees.
“The important question is therefore not simply ‘what does this pack cost to buy?’ but ‘what does this packaging decision cost across the complete system?’ That requires different functions to look at the evidence together before the specification is fixed.”
The pressure to take this wider view is increasing. According to Eurostat’s latest packaging waste data, the EU generated 79.7 million tonnes of packaging waste in 2023, equivalent to 177.8kg per person. Although this was lower than in 2022, packaging waste per person remained 21.2kg higher than in 2013.
The European Commission has also warned that, without further action, EU packaging waste was projected to increase by 19% by 2030, with plastic packaging waste rising by as much as 46%.
At the same time, PPWR is introducing requirements intended to reduce unnecessary packaging. Under Article 10, by 2030 packaging placed on the market must be designed so that its weight and volume are reduced to the minimum necessary to ensure functionality.
The Regulation also introduces a maximum 50% empty-space ratio for certain grouped, transport and e-commerce packaging, applying from 1 January 2030 or three years after the relevant implementing acts enter into force, whichever is later. Importantly, the legislation recognises circumstances where space is needed to ensure packaging functionality and protect products.
That distinction matters across the packaging industry. Reducing material may lower one cost, but if the resulting pack performs poorly during converting or filling, increases product damage, reduces pallet efficiency or creates disruption further through the supply chain, the saving can quickly disappear.
The same applies to recyclability. Packaging performance at end of life is influenced by design, material combinations, coatings, adhesives, labels and the collection and recycling infrastructure available in the market where the pack is sold. A decision that improves one metric in isolation can therefore create a disadvantage elsewhere.
Uwe Theis, Director Packaging Technology at MM Group, continued: “Regulation is making some costs that previously sat outside the immediate packaging calculation much more visible. But the answer is not simply to remove material or chase one performance metric.
“Packaging still has to protect the product, perform reliably in production and distribution, meet regulatory requirements and work within the relevant end-of-life system. Optimising one element at the expense of another can simply move cost and risk somewhere else.”
This is why packaging decisions increasingly need input from more than one function. Procurement may focus on purchase cost, operations on equipment performance, logistics on transport efficiency, sustainability teams on material and end-of-life performance, and marketing on consumer and brand requirements.
Bringing those perspectives together earlier gives businesses a better chance of identifying trade-offs before specifications are locked in and adjustments become expensive.
Uwe Theis, Director Packaging Technology at MM Group, added: “At MM, we see this directly when working with customers on packaging development and production performance. Our teams look not only at the pack itself, but at how it runs on production lines, how material is being used and where changes can improve efficiency without compromising the protection or functionality the product requires.
“That experience reinforces the wider point. The strongest packaging decisions are rarely made by optimising a single number. As commercial, operational and regulatory requirements become more closely connected, businesses need a clearer picture of the complete impact of the choices they make.
“The organisations that understand those connections early will be in a much stronger position to control cost without compromising the performance their products and supply chains depend on.”
