Final Project Report GlassRite – Food, Ready to Drink and Soft … - Generic... · 2011-04-12 ·...

Final Project Report

GlassRite – Food, Ready to Drink and Soft Drinks

Lightweighting Generic Containers: An Investigation Into Barriers and Solutions.

Project code: RSI001035 Research date: January 2008 Date: June 2009

WRAP helps individuals, businesses and local authorities to reduce waste and recycle more, making better use of resources and helping to tackle climate change.

Written by: Mark Richmond - Faraday Packaging Partnership

Front cover photography: Clear Glass Containers WRAP and Faraday Packaging Partnership believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its web site: www.wrap.org.uk

GlassRite – Food, Ready to Drink and Soft Drinks 1

Executive summary Introduction The WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) funded ‘ContainerLite’ project piloted the approach of using the whole supply chain to demonstrate the ability to reduce container weights in food and beverage categories whilst not affecting market share. Subsequent work reviewing this project calculated that between 10% and 20% of material could typically be removed from the average glass container. Rolling this out across the food and beverage sector could potentially achieve glass savings of 100,000 tonnes per annum. Eager to capitalise on the ContainerLite project, WRAP issued a call for tenders to exploit this potential in the category areas of wine, food and beer, under the banner of ‘GlassRite’. Whilst undertaking the trials to lightweight food, ‘Ready to Drink’ (RTD)1 and soft drink packaging, changing the design of generic containers (a single container design which may be produced by several different glass manufacturers for a range of food and beverage applications) was identified as a potential barrier to lightweighting in this category. The GlassRite project steering group agreed to undertake additional research to examine barriers to lightweighting generic containers and Faraday Packaging Partnership was contracted to undertake the work. This report therefore supports the wider GlassRite projects, and examines the issues associated with the lightweighting of generic containers. Project Background Generic containers represent an off-the-shelf solution for glass packaging as these containers are offered to the market directly from the glass manufacturers as well as through container merchants. Generic containers represent a large proportion of the total glass packaging used in the UK, particularly on retailer own-brands in categories such as jams, pickles and pour-over cooking sauces. The barriers to lightweighting generic containers, raised by the industry, ranged from brand confidence through to costs and technical issues in glass manufacture and product filling processes. Dialogue with project partners indicated that these concerns and barriers appear to differ throughout the various elements of the supply chain, with certain issues being more prevalent in some sectors than others. It was therefore clear that a better understanding of the barriers facing the food and beverage sector was required in developing and adopting lightweight generic containers. Additional research was therefore proposed to investigate the issues further. The objectives of the work were to:

Identify and establish barriers and problems that prevent the lightweighting of generic glass containers.

Identify potential solutions to the barriers identified in the research.

Provide recommendations for individual sectors of the food supply chain as to what can be done to

encourage lightweighting of generic containers in future.

Method Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a sample of representatives from the main sectors of the supply chain that use generic containers. This included retailers, contract packers and glass manufacturers. British Glass also provided assistance. Interviews focused around nine key issues listed below. Data were then extracted from the responses and grouped according to the key issues. In addition to gathering qualitative data on the themes identified, the questionnaire also asked participants to provide a magnitude estimation on how prevalent they believed a problem to be within their sector. This data was secondary to establishing the causes of barriers and was intended to be indicative of the extent of barriers considered.

1 RTDs are ready to drink alcoholic beverages

Results Potential barriers to lightweighting generic containers within the food and soft drink sectors were examined, including:

brand image;

container shape;

brand owner confidence;

manufacturing capabilities, processes and infrastructure;

margins for additional lightweighting;

financial cost;

transport and logistics;

filling line and process compatibility; and

market demands for lightweighted containers.

The results indicated that the prevalence of these barriers is not uniform across the different sectors. For most of the issues examined, there appeared to be a clear divide between issues perceived to be barriers by glass manufacturers and those perceived by retailers and packer fillers. An example of this relates to margins for additional lightweighting and manufacturing processes, capabilities and infrastructure where retailers and packer fillers reported no barrier whilst the glass manufacturers reported a high barrier. Recommendations A key element in identifying and qualifying potential barriers was to develop recommendations to facilitate the lightweighting of generic containers in the future. The recommendations are divided into specific actions that could be adopted by different sectors of the supply chain and are summarised below. The fact that clear recommendations have been provided by industrial respondents would suggest that the industries involved in producing, using and handling food and beverage packaging believe that future lightweighting of generic containers is viable. The implementation of these individual solutions would be most effective if a holistic approach was taken, involving all supply chain partners. Glass Manufacturers As the producers of glass containers, glass manufacturers were identified as key to overcoming some of the barriers identified. Specific actions that could be adopted in this sector include:

Assessing opportunities for lightweighting in advance of mould renewals.

Collaborative working between glass manufacturers where the same generic container is produced by more

than one glass manufacturer to overcome some supply chain issues.

Design families of containers with common features such as finish and footprint. This could potentially allow

greater flexibility on filling lines and enable future lightweighted containers to be used more widely.

Explore the feasibility of producing lightweight variants of existing generic containers. This would allow for

contract packers to make a gradual move to lightweighted generics which could assist in overcoming some of

the issues relating to filling line compatibility and container shape.

Promote data available on performance of lightweighted containers to help provide greater confidence along

the supply chain.

Examine opportunities for the development of new forming technologies within the UK (i.e. the solid blank

process, a new glass forming technique which provides greater control over material distribution within the

mould). This could allow additional margins of weight reduction to be realised.



Contract Packers Contract packers have been identified as pivotal players in the generic container supply chain, interfacing with glass manufacturers, retailers and transport companies. They can therefore use this role to facilitate the development and uptake of lightweight generic containers by:

Expressing the needs for lightweight generics to glass manufacturers to assist in creating a demand.

Working with other contract packers, where appropriate, to approve lightweight designs of containers that

are used in high volumes by just a few contract packers.

Identifying opportunities for filling lines to be adapted to be more receptive to lightweighted containers. This

may involve using modelling equipment to identify high impact areas along lines where adjustments can be

made to equipment.

Installing only flexible filling line equipment in future to allow for a variety of containers to be processed

including lightweighted container.

Retailers Retailers ultimately make the decision on container selection for own-branded products. With the own-brand sector accounting for the majority of generic container use, retailers have been identified as important players in driving the demand for lightweight generic containers. Some actions that can be taken by retailers to improve this role include:

Examining options for using lighter weight generic containers on premium lines and using other elements of

pack design to differentiate from other price points.

Working with contract packers to source lightweight containers across product ranges. This could lead to

increased lightweighting by creating a consolidated approach by retailers and contract packers.

Working with distribution networks to improve handling of glass packed products and creating a better

handling ‘environment’ for lightweighted containers.

Retailers need to be mindful that cost savings are not always inherent in lightweighting generics due to the

capital costs that are often incurred.

Transport and Logistics Organisations Although not questioned as part of the investigation, the investigation found that transport and logistics companies working on behalf of retailers have an important role to play in allowing for the use of lightweighted generics. From the findings, it would appear that transport and logistics companies need to have regard for the products they are handling and should employ techniques as appropriate.


Contents 1.0 Background .............................................................................................................................. 5

55666688889

101011121314151617181819191920202122

1.1 Study Background ................................................................................................................. 1.2 Generic Containers - Context..................................................................................................

1.2.1 Generic Container Characteristics............................................................................... 1.2.2 Generic Container Uses ............................................................................................. 1.2.3 Market Share ............................................................................................................

1.3 Aims and Objectives .............................................................................................................. 2.0 Method .....................................................................................................................................

2.1 Approach .............................................................................................................................. 2.2 Data Collection Technique...................................................................................................... 2.3 Respondent Recruitment and Procedure ................................................................................. 2.4 Data Analysis and Presentation...............................................................................................

3.0 Results ................................................................................................................................... 3.1 Brand Image ....................................................................................................................... 3.2 Container Shape.................................................................................................................. 3.3 Brand Confidence ................................................................................................................ 3.4 Manufacturing Capabilities, Processes and Infrastructure ....................................................... 3.5 Margins for Additional Lightweighting ................................................................................... 3.6 Financial Cost...................................................................................................................... 3.7 Transport and logistics......................................................................................................... 3.8 Filling line and process compatibility ..................................................................................... 3.9 Market demand for lightweighted containers ......................................................................... 3.10 Other barriers......................................................................................................................

4.0 Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 4.1 Glass Manufacturers ............................................................................................................ 4.2 Contract Packers ................................................................................................................. 4.3 Retailers ............................................................................................................................. 4.4 Transport and Logistics Organisations...................................................................................

5.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ Appendix 1 – Interview questionnaire prompt sheet ........................................................................

1.0 Background Optimising packaging design provides opportunities for reductions to be made in packaging materials. Environmental benefits arising from this include reductions in materials placed into the waste stream as well as a decrease in the energy and material consumption in manufacturing. In some cases, packaging reduction may also provide opportunities for cost reductions across the supply chain resulting from the use and handling of less material and the creation of less waste. 1.1 Study Background The WRAP funded ‘ContainerLite’ project piloted the approach of using the whole supply chain to demonstrate the ability to reduce container weights in food and beverage categories whilst not affecting market share. Subsequent work reviewing this project calculated that between 10% and 20% of material could typically be removed from the average glass container. Rolling this out across the food and beverage sector could potentially achieve glass savings of 100,000 tonnes per annum. Eager to capitalise on the success of the ContainerLite project, WRAP issued a call for tenders to exploit this potential in the category areas of wine, food and beer, under the banner of ‘GlassRite’. The GlassRite project has encountered difficulties including generic containers in lightweighting trials due to a variety of issues raised by industrial partners. These have ranged from brand confidence, through to costs and technical issues in glass manufacture and product filling processes. Dialogue with project partners has indicated that these concerns and barriers appear to differ throughout the various elements of the food and beverage supply chain, with certain issues being more prevalent in some sectors than others. In addition to this, concerns and barriers identified by one sector of the supply chain are frequently dismissed or diminished when speaking to representatives from other sectors of the supply chain. The reasons put forward for different barriers existing also appears to differ between the various supply chain sectors. It was therefore clear that a better understanding of the barriers facing the food and beverage sector was required in developing and adopting lightweight containers. The project team also recognised that the benefit of such work would be greatly increased if practical suggestions were produced to inform the various supply chain sectors of actions they can take to lightweight generic containers. An outline proposal to undertake research to examine barriers to lightweighting generic containers was put before the GlassRite project steering group who agreed that the work could provide a way for the suite of GlassRite projects to target the large amount of glass in circulation within the generic sector. The work was undertaken by Faraday Packaging Partnership to support the wider GlassRite projects, and examined issues associated with the lightweighting of generic containers. 1.2 Generic Containers - Context The term ‘generic’ or ‘standard’ glass container refers to a single container design which may be produced by several different glass manufacturers for a range of food and beverage applications. Generic containers represent an off-the-shelf solution for glass packaging as these containers are offered to the market directly from the glass manufacturers as well as through container merchants. This provides flexibility in the procurement of glass containers as it enables various quantities to be bought; from small batches of several hundred units through to volumes in excess of 50 million units per annum. As an alternative to using generic containers, brand owners may opt to produce a brand-specific design for their product ranges. This involves investment in an individual mould set from which unique containers are made. These containers are referred to as ‘proprietary’ containers as they are not available to the wider market and are generally associated with a particular brand (i.e. Coca-Cola, Uncle Bens etc.).


1.2.1 Generic Container Characteristics Generic containers have different characteristics to proprietary containers, which are important when considering glass lightweighting. These include: Generic containers tend to be simple in design and less elaborate than many proprietary containers with a

functional shape suited to the product category to which they serve. Decorative features such as embossing or engraving are often absent, with standard diameter finishes to accommodate a range of closures. The simple design also means that generic containers have been lightweighted throughout their evolution, although this does not necessarily preclude further opportunities for weight reduction.

The ownership of generic container designs can be spread across many different companies. In the food and beverage sector this tends to be shared between one or more glass manufacturer. Examples have also been identified where the design of a generic mould is owned by container merchants. The shared ownership of generics is manifested in the fact that several glass manufacturers may produce variants of the same container.

The lack of ownership by brand owners means that they have little or no influence on the design and visual appearance of generic containers. Therefore, brand owners and retailers using generic containers tend to ‘get what they are given’.

A single generic container may have a range of different applications in terms of the contents that they are filled with. An example of this is a 450ml jar, which is hot filled with cooking sauces as well as being used for pickles and table condiments.

In addition to sales direct from manufacturers, generic containers are also supplied via container merchants, which further diversifies the end users of the containers. This also has the effect of severing direct communication lines between those using generic containers and glass manufacturers.

1.2.2 Generic Container Uses Generic containers are frequently taken by large retailers for their own brands and by small-medium proprietary brands that are unable to invest in their own container design. The product types that typically use generic containers include: cooking sauces; jams; coffee; pickles; mineral water; and table sauces and condiments.

1.2.3 Market Share The dependence from leading retailers and brands alike means that generic containers account for approximately 33% of the total container glass in circulation in the UK. From the perspective of the GlassRite: Food, RTDs and Soft Drinks project, this provides a large share of the market for engagement in the project. If lightweighting were to be achieved in this sector then significant weight reductions and environmental savings could be produced. 1.3 Aims and Objectives This work has the principal intention of stimulating lightweighting activity within the generic containers market by investigating barriers and identifying appropriate practical solutions. In order to stimulate this activity, the research will focus on the following three aims:

1. Identify the potential barriers that prevent the lightweighting of generic glass containers. 2. Identify potential solutions to the barriers identified in the research. 3. Provide recommendations for individual sectors of the food supply chain as to what can be done to

lightweight generic containers in future.


These aims can be broken down into specific objectives to form a programme of work: To identify barriers and problems that have been reported to date with existing partners. To establish the extent of barriers amongst a sample of the food and beverage supply chain. To establish the causes of barriers amongst a sample of the food and beverage supply chain. To identify potential solutions to barriers as proposed from an industrial perspective. To analyse collected data in a way that identifies practical solutions to identified problems. To present research findings and practical solutions in a report. To produce a case study for the wider dissemination of findings and recommendations.

On completion, the research will provide information to the industrial partners involved in GlassRite and the wider food supply chain on the problems and solutions that could be applied.


2.0 Method 2.1 Approach The project required data to be collected from industrial partners across the food and beverage supply chain in relation to a number of pre-identified issues. A simple brainstorming exercise provided a list of nine issues that are potential barriers to lightweighting generic containers. They are: brand image; container shape; brand owner confidence; manufacturing capabilities and infrastructure; margins for additional lightweighting; financial costs; transport and logistics; filling line / process compatibility; and market demands for lightweighted containers.

The purpose of the work is to explore the extent of these issues along with the reasons behind them. This requires data to be collected from respondents who have industrial experience of these barriers and are therefore able to provide accounts of them along with personal views, opinions and thoughts. In addition to this, the investigation was also required to collect data on potential solutions to the barriers identified. A qualitative approach was therefore selected as it allows for a detailed picture of the issues identified to be explored in depth with the participants from the different sectors of the food packaging supply chain. 2.2 Data Collection Technique A questionnaire was designed for use in a semi-structured interview. This allowed the researcher to focus discussions around issues identified throughout the project whilst providing respondents with the opportunity to freely describe their experiences, views, opinions and thoughts. To ensure that the structured element did not limit the extent of issues presented by the respondents, an opportunity was provided at the end of the interview for additional issues to be identified and explained. The project management team agreed that this approach fitted the data requirement of the investigation. In addition to gathering qualitative data on the themes identified, the questionnaire also asked participants to provide a magnitude estimation on how prevalent they believed a problem to be within their sector. This data was secondary to establishing the causes of barriers and was intended to be indicative of the importance of barriers considered. 2.3 Respondent Recruitment and Procedure Participants for the research were identified and approached using contacts from the GlassRite project database. A minimum of two respondents were recruited from the following sectors, which are known to be the principal players within the generic container supply chain: glass manufacturers; contract packers; and retailers.

A respondent was also recruited from the glass manufacturers’ confederation to provide additional data from a wider glass industry perspective, and this interview also acted as a pilot to identify any problems and weaknesses with the approach selected. This also helped to examine and validate each issue prior to approaching the supply chain. Appointments were made with respondents who were visited by the researcher to conduct the interviews. Participants were briefed on the background to the research and the structure of the interview. Assurances relating to confidentiality of information were provided to ensure that respondents did not withhold information valuable to the investigation. Consequently all information in the report has been made anonymous to protect individual partners. A copy of the questions asked during the interview can be found at Appendix 1.


The researcher verbally asked the questions from the questionnaire to stimulate discussion and completed the response sheet in-line with respondents’ answers. The researcher prompted respondents to elaborate further where it was felt an incomplete answer was provided although care was taken not to lead participants to answer in a given manner. 2.4 Data Analysis and Presentation Data obtained from respondents were grouped into themes according to the issues identified at the outset of the investigation. The key points from each response were extracted out of the interview transcript to allow a wider picture of each theme to be built up. This also allowed for comparison of responses from different sectors of the supply chain to take place. The ultimate aim of the data analysis was to provide a snapshot of the issues and barriers including reasons that underlie barriers and the sectors of the supply chain in which barriers are most prevalent. After identifying the key issues within each theme, the analysis then turned to identifying potential solutions that could be implemented to overcome barriers and facilitate the lightweighting of generic containers. Responses provided by respondents formed the basis of this, with additional input from the project manager where potential solutions became apparent.


3.0 Results This section provides an overview of the information obtained from respondents. For each of the issues identified, information is presented on the perceived magnitude of each barrier within the different sectors of the supply chain. A summary of reasons why these issues represent barriers to lightweighting generic containers is also provided. It should be noted that statistical analysis has not been undertaken on this data due to the nature of the data obtained and the size of the sample questioned. The term ‘significant’ in the text below therefore refers to any finding that appears to be prominent against other findings. 3.1 Brand Image Brand image had been identified as a potential barrier to lightweighting due to concerns raised by retailers and brand owners that the appearance of lightweighted containers could have a detrimental effect on the quality perception of a product. It is therefore not surprising that these sectors of the supply chain reported brand image as a significant issue as illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1 Magnitude estimation of Brand Image as a barrier to lightweighting generic containers.

The other sector to rate brand image as a significant barrier was the contract packer sector which works for retailers to produce own-brand products. Discussions with contract packers indicated that selection and sourcing of containers was frequently the responsibility of this sector, which could explain this finding. Glass manufacturers did not generally perceive brand image as an issue due to the fact that they produce containers upon demand from their customers who specify design concepts. Despite identifying brand image as a significant barrier, responses varied depending on the price point of the product being considered for lightweighting. Responses show that the effect of brand image is of greater importance at the premium end of the market than at the budget and mid-range price points. At the premium end of the market, retailers and contract packers reported a desire for individuality in the image of some products, which is consequently reflected in container selection. Again, all respondents indicated that this desire increased with the quality of the product being considered. This was further supported by a retailer stating that containers used for premium-end products must have an appeal to reflect that price point and the image of the product. It was also pointed out that many premium ranges attempt to replicate certain characteristics of the leading branded product, which also drive the selection of generic container shape.


At the lower end of the market these issues were described as less of a concern and consequently less of a barrier to the use of lightweighted containers. Important considerations at this price point included customer expectations and recognising a product as belonging to a given category. An example was provided by one respondent to illustrate this point: customers would not expect to find jam packed in a tall narrow jar used for olives, and therefore in considering lightweighting options care should be given to ensure that any container used conforms to the expectations of that category. Finally, one retailer stated that a generic container used at the budget price point would not be used for premium products as a means of differentiation. The key finding from respondents is that these reasons illustrate why brand image is important to retailers and brand owners although individually they do not represent barriers to lightweighting. Rather, they are all contributing factors which brand managers must take into account when approving a change. Therefore, a potential solution to the barrier associated with brand image is demonstrating to brand managers that lightweighted containers need not diminish brand value. 3.2 Container Shape Although container shape contributes significantly to brand image, it was included in the investigation from a technical perspective. The issues explored as part of this barrier related to changing the physical dimensions of generic containers as a result of lightweighting. Container shape was found to be one of the most reported barriers, as a change in profile as a result of lightweighting has the potential to impact on all areas of the supply chain. Figure 2 Magnitude estimation of container shape as a barrier to lightweighting generic containers.

Within the glass manufacturing sector, container shape itself can represent a barrier to lightweighting. One glass manufacturer expanded on this identifying that the potential for lightweighting varied across different container shapes. For example, there is more difficulty in reducing the weight of a short, squat jar than there is a taller, wider jar. Another barrier facing glass manufacturers is the potential re-tooling costs associated with a shape change; in the generic container market, tooling costs are absorbed by individual glass manufacturers. The glass manufacturing sector also highlighted potential filling line issues as a result of changing container shape. From the perspective of individual glass manufacturers, generic containers are supplied to a range of customers and are consequently used on a variety of different filling lines. If the dimensions of a container were to be altered significantly, then this may affect glass manufacturers’ ability to supply to all of their customers as a result of differing filling line tolerances (discussed in section 3.8 below). This was a view reflected by the contract packer sector who identified that high costs associated with change, to accommodate different sized containers, would be a significant barrier.


Concerns from retailers regarding shape change related to transport and shelving efficiencies, which could be affected if the footprint of lightweighted containers was significantly larger than its predecessor. With limited shelf space in-store, a trend of moving to containers with a wider footprint could have implications for stocking and shelf display. As with brand image, decisions relating to changing container dimensions would be taken by a brand or category manager, therefore requiring their input into container selection. The trade association response also highlighted that container shape can affect functionality. Therefore, any lightweighted design with a significant shape change must allow for the extraction of the product (e.g. a product extracted from a jar with a spoon would not be placed in narrow necked container). 3.3 Brand Confidence Brand confidence had been highlighted as a potential issue as concerns had been raised over the suitability of lightweighted glass to perform to the same standard as current containers. These fears over performance appeared to be driven by fears over customer complaints and lost profits as a result of breakages. Consequently, if a brand believed that adopting a lightweight container would increase this, then they would be less likely to make the change. Figure 3 Magnitude estimation of brand owner confidence as a barrier to lightweighting generic containers.

The investigation found brand owner confidence to be less of a barrier than may have been anticipated due to rigorous performance testing undertaken by glass manufacturers. Glass manufacturers stated that the production of container glass to minimum standards helps to provide confidence that all products produced are fit for purpose. Contract packers stated that these minimum standards provide confidence for using lightweighted containers although there is a degree of reticence within the sector on changing from containers that are already known to perform. At the other end of the supply chain, retailers stated that confidence in lightweighted glass was of no concern to them as they would expect their suppliers to only source containers that are fit for purpose.


3.4 Manufacturing Capabilities, Processes and Infrastructure A common statement made by the supply chain throughout the initial phase of the project was that they would use lighter weight, generic containers if they were available from manufacturers. The capability of manufacturers to produce lightweighted variations of generics was therefore included as a barrier. Figure 4 Magnitude estimation of manufacturing capabilities, processes & infrastructure as a barrier to lightweighting generic containers.

The glass manufacturing sector responded to this issue by reiterating their capability to produce lightweight containers using existing infrastructure. This was exemplified by examples of lightweighted containers, which had achieved best in class (BIC) status. The manufacturing sector also expressed confidence in future capability to produce lightweight containers through the adoption of new glass forming techniques such as ‘solid blank’ which provides greater control over material distribution within the mould. Despite the confidence expressed by the manufacturing sector, some issues were raised by the contract packer sector in relation to designing lightweight generics that are compatible with filling lines. This was expressed by one respondent who stated that whilst glass manufacturers have the ability to produce increasingly lightweight containers, contract packers might not necessarily have the ability to fill them due to inflexible filling lines. This point was further explored and the results are presented along with other filling line issues in section 3.8 below.


3.5 Margins for Additional Lightweighting It had been stated frequently that glass containers were already approaching the point where they are as light as can possibly be. The research explored this to see whether it was an actual or perceived barrier. Figure 5 Magnitude estimation of additional margins for lightweighting as a barrier to lightweighting generic containers.

Margins for additional lightweighting did not appear to be a significant barrier to lightweighting amongst the representatives questioned. One issue that was apparent from the responses is that certain elements of the supply chain do not feel informed about the margins by which glass containers could be lightweighted in the future. At the glass manufacturing end of the supply chain, it was stated that additional margins would be created with the advent of new technological and forming processes such as solid blank technology. This was exemplified by one respondent with a forecast of a move towards BIC over the next few years, and a potential reduction of up to 20% over the next decade. This would appear to demonstrate that the market is not currently producing fully optimised containers. One commonality between respondents was that margins varied between different product ranges. It was widely accepted that unit saving opportunities could be found at the premium end of the market, with lower unit savings to be had at the everyday ranges. However, when volumes are applied to these margins to give tonnage savings it appears that there may be significant savings to be made in both sectors. A lack of knowledge was expressed predominantly by the brand owners and retailers who sit at the opposite end of the supply chain to those actually designing containers. These groups stated that they were uncertain how much further lightweighting could be undertaken on existing containers. It is therefore important for these groups to understand lightweighting opportunities in the future so that they can make realistic packaging reduction requests to the supply chain.


3.6 Financial Cost Financial cost had been included in the investigation as concerns had been raised in two key areas. The first is that the production of lightweighted containers can be costly, involving significant capital investment. The second relates to the price reduction demands made by retailers and brand owners as a result of material reduction in the product. Figure 6 Magnitude estimation of financial cost as a barrier to lightweighting generic containers.

Manufacturers reported that the financial costs associated with routine lightweighting are insignificant, particularly if the work is undertaken in conjunction with mould renewal. This would appear to reduce the need for large capital investment, and thus the barrier of cost. However, these costs rise sharply for lightweighting that requires the development of new processes such as the solid blank process. Therefore, if the supply chain is looking to move to, and beyond, the current best in class, cost could be considered to represent a significant barrier. Responses from contract packers illustrated a different aspect of the cost potentially required to utilise lightweighted generic containers. Changes in design may require change to be made on filling lines to enable new containers to be processed. One example provided as an illustration was a capital cost of £20,000 per filling line to run a lightweighted bottle. When multiplied across five filling lines this cost presents a significant barrier for this sector. The level of this investment varies with one respondent stating that the level of cost is generally commensurate with the magnitude of change. To compound the high cost of change parts to contract packers, the pressure from retailers demanding price reductions as a result of lightweighting further amplifies financial cost as a barrier within this sector. Retailers responded to the issue of cost by assuming that they would not expect any development costs to be passed on to them in relation to generic containers. As mentioned above, retailers commonly expressed lightweighting as an opportunity to demand price reductions.


3.7 Transport and logistics A common concern expressed throughout industry prior to this work was that the use of lightweighted containers may increase susceptibility to breakages during warehousing and transport. Figure 7 Magnitude estimation of transport and logistics as a barrier to lightweighting generic containers.

Transport and logistics appears to be most prevalent as a barrier within the retailer and contract packer sectors where glass containers are stored and transported between various distribution and retail facilities. This issue was also noted by the trade association. The primary reason cited by respondents was an anxiety that lightweighted containers would lead to increased breakages in transport systems. This concern appears to be driven by the financial losses associated with an increase in failure rate. One retailer explained that it would be difficult to make a change to a lightweighted container without full confidence that breakages would not occur, given the tight profit margins on many of the lines using generic containers. It is interesting to point out that this concern over potential breakages was not identified by retailers in the ‘brand confidence’ issues covered in section 3.3 above. At a technical level, one contract packer pointed out that handling techniques vary between different distribution facilities, which, in turn, can affect the failure rate of glass containers. An example was given where a single generic container is supplied into two different distribution centres where glass container failure rates differ significantly. This was attributed to human error and handling techniques that were not appropriate to glass as a material. The point made by this example is that the adoption of lightweight glass containers may not necessarily increase breakage rates, although breakages may increase if certain handling techniques are employed and due care is not applied. At the other end of the supply chain, glass manufacturers stated that transport and logistics is of little concern, pointing out that container glass is produced to a minimum standard that satisfies the demands placed upon it throughout its storage and transportation.


3.8 Filling line and process compatibility Compatibility of generic containers to operate on different filling lines had been identified as a barrier to their lightweighting. This was particularly prevalent in discussions with the glass manufacturing sector, which is generally cautious in relation to changing the profile of generic containers. Figure 8 Magnitude estimation of filling line issues as a barrier to lightweighting generic containers.

Glass manufacturers rated filling line compatibility the most significant barrier to lightweighting generic containers for two reasons: 1. Generic containers are supplied for use on a variety of filling lines. Any change in the design of a generic,

as part of the lightweighting process, may result in certain filling lines being unable to run the new container. From a manufacturer’s perspective, this could affect future sales as well as confidence and trust amongst their customer base.

2. Manufacturers normally design containers with knowledge of filling line conditions. With generic containers being supplied to large numbers of fillers this information may not necessarily be available. Therefore, in designing generic containers, glass manufacturers must include a degree of safety to prevent breakages on some filling lines. This could be a potential barrier because manufacturers may not necessarily be able to produce generic containers at their optimum weight even if it is technically feasible to produce them.

Contract packers cited additional technical issues relating to filling line flexibility which could present barriers to the filling of lightweighted containers. This included container shape, as respondents reported that angular containers are more difficult to process than round cylindrical designs. Flexibility of filling lines to handle different containers is further complicated by the age of some filling lines, which are unable to process some modern designs. Retailers indicated that filling line issues were of little importance as processing activities are not directly undertaken. Respondents from the retail sector revealed that overcoming filling line issues falls within the responsibilities of their suppliers. The only way in which this could be a potential barrier for retailers is if costs associated with filling line changes are passed on to the retailer.


3.9 Market demand for lightweighted containers Conversations with glass manufacturers had suggested that the lightweighting of generic containers had fallen behind the recent progress made on proprietary containers due to a lack of demand from the supply chain. Figure 9 Magnitude estimation of market demands as a barrier to lightweighting generic containers.

This concern appears to be unique to glass manufacturers who rated this issue higher than any of the others covered by the research. Responses from manufacturers stated that a clear demonstration of demand for lightweighted generics is fundamental to their design and manufacture, given the level of investment required for their development. It is interesting that this issue was also rated as a significant barrier by the glass manufacturers’ trade association, which pointed out that a clear and stable demand will be of greater importance for the smaller manufacturers. Other areas of the supply chain did not generally perceive demand to be a significant barrier to the adoption of lightweighted generics. One retailer, however, did comment that the demand of consumers for environmentally friendly packaging needs to be articulated along the supply chain more effectively. 3.10 Other barriers Respondents were asked to identify additional issues not covered in the discussion which may present barriers to lightweighting generic containers. Few responses were given, and those that were in some way related to the above nine categories and have therefore been grouped within the appropriate result categories.


4.0 Recommendations This section provides recommendations for each sector of the supply chain that could potentially be implemented to facilitate the design, manufacture and use of lightweighted generic containers. The following recommendations have been based on a mixture of suggestions made by respondents during data collection, and by the interpretation of the researcher. The recommendations have been presented by sector to provide a clear indication to companies of the practical actions that they could follow. 4.1 Glass Manufacturers As the producers of glass containers, glass manufacturers are key to overcoming some of the barriers identified in this investigation. Specific actions that could be adopted in this sector to facilitate the lightweighting of generic containers include: Assessing opportunities for lightweighting in advance of mould renewals. By undertaking assessments and

engaging customers in advance of replacing forming equipment, manufacturers could potentially identify weight savings along with any supply chain issues that would need to be resolved to implement a lightweighted design.

Working with other glass manufacturers where the same generic container is produced by more than one glass manufacturer. This would assist in overcoming supply chain issues and may provide an opportunity for the large development costs to be spread across different companies.

Designing families of containers with common features such as finish and footprint. This could allow for greater flexibility on filling lines enabling future lightweighted containers to be used more widely.

Exploring the feasibility of producing lightweight variants of existing generic containers. This would allow for contract packers to make a gradual move to lightweighted generics, which could assist in overcoming some of the issues relating to filling line compatibility and container shape.

Making data available on performance of lightweighted containers. This would help to provide greater confidence along the supply chain.

Examining opportunities for the development of solid blank forming technology within the UK. This could allow additional margins of weight reduction to be realised.

4.2 Contract Packers Contract packers can be seen as a pivotal player in the generic container supply chain, interfacing with glass manufacturers, retailers and transport companies. They can therefore use this role to facilitate the development and uptake of generic containers by: Expressing the need for lightweighted generics to glass manufacturers and thereby creating a clear demand

for the lighter product. This could provide manufacturers with the confidence required to explore options and invest in additional equipment as necessary.

Working with other contract packers where appropriate to approve lightweighted container designs that are used in high volumes by just a few contract packers.

Identifying opportunities for filling lines to be adapted to be more receptive to lightweighted containers. This may involve using modelling equipment to identify high impact areas along lines where adjustments can be made to equipment.

Continuing to work with manufacturers to trial new lightweighted designs and concepts on filling lines to identify new opportunities and confirm suitability of prototypes.

Updating filling lines using flexible equipment that will allow for a variety of lightweighted containers to be processed.


4.3 Retailers Ultimately, retailers decide which containers are used for their own-brand products. With the own-brand sector accounting for the majority of generic container use, retailers are important in driving the demand for lightweight generic containers. Some actions that can be taken by retailers to improve this role include: Examining options for using lighter weight generic containers on premium lines by using other elements of

packaging to differentiate from other ranges. Working with contract packers to source lightweight containers rather than just expecting financial savings

from their suppliers. It would appear that a greater demand for lightweighted generics could be created by a consolidated approach by retailers and contract packers.

Working with the distribution network to improve handling of glass packed products, creating a better handling ‘environment’ for lightweighted containers.

Avoiding demanding instant cost reductions as a result of container lightweighting. As described in the results, the lightweighting of generics can require significant capital investment at various points in the supply chain and a reduction in material doesn’t necessarily equate to an instant saving in cost.

4.4 Transport and Logistics Organisations Although not questioned as part of the investigation, the investigation found that transport and logistics companies working on behalf of retailers have an important role to play in allowing for the use of lightweighted generics. From the findings, it would appear that transport and logistics companies need to have regard for the products they are handling and should employ techniques as appropriate.


5.0 Conclusions The research has confirmed that barriers to lightweighting generic containers do exist within the food, RTD and soft drink categories, demonstrated by the fact that all of the pre-identified issues included in the study received some level of recognition from at least one of the supply chain sectors. The findings also indicate, however, that the prevalence of barriers is not uniform across different sectors of the supply chain. For most of the issues examined, there appeared to be a clear divide between issues classed as barriers by glass manufacturers and those identified by the retail or packer filler sectors. Two examples of this relate to margins for additional lightweighting and manufacturing processes, capabilities and infrastructure where the retail and packer filler sectors reported these were not a barrier whilst the glass manufacturing sector claimed it to be a significant barrier. Although not investigated directly by the research, the findings could indicate that these differences exist due to the different perspective on the supply chain taken by each sector. For example, when explaining their responses, the retail sector tended to view barriers from a commercial perspective whilst glass manufacturers referenced more technical issues. There is the potential that this could influence responses, particularly given that some of the barriers related to commercial issues whilst others related to technical issues. The research also identified differences amongst different sectors regarding the reasons behind various barriers. Although this variation is not explicitly identified in the findings it is possible to look at responses from different sectors to gain an understanding of what is driving the barriers. Explanations for this, again, appear to be divided into commercial and technical issues with retailers focusing on price whilst manufacturers focus on technical capabilities. Interestingly, the contact packing sector cited both commercial and technical reasons as to why barriers exist. Other potential drivers identified in the responses that could explain the difference in barriers and their causes include an understanding of the other sectors of the supply chain and the levels of communication between different sectors. This was expressed on several occasions where respondents did not recognise an issue as a barrier due to a lack of understanding. For example, one retailer felt unable to comment on potential margins for additional lightweighting due to a lack of knowledge of manufacturing systems and the wider glass industry as a whole. This conclusion could point towards the need for better dialogue and awareness between different sectors of the supply chain. Critically, the study has identified a suite of actions that could be undertaken to overcome some of the barriers identified to facilitate the future lightweighting of generic containers. These actions vary between different supply chain sectors ranging from a routine assessment of opportunities such as upon mould renewal or product re-launch through to influencing economic elements of the supply chain such as the availability and demand for lightweight generic containers. Whilst specific actions have been identified for each of the sectors in the supply chain, the implementation of these individual solutions would be most effective if a holistic approach was taken, involving all supply chain partners.


Appendix 1 – Interview questionnaire prompt sheet 1. Barriers and Obstacles to Lightweighting Generic Food Containers a. Which of the following do you consider to be barriers to lightweighting: For each please provide a magnitude and a brief explanation as to why: NB where respondents highlight specific problems, the interviewer shall enquire into specific solutions

i Brand Image (___/10) ii Container shape(___/10) iii Brand owner confidence (___/10) iv Manufacturing capabilities/processes/infrastructure (___/10) v Margins for additional lightweighting (___/10) vi Cost (___/10) vii Transport / Logistics (___/10) viii Consumer perception/confidence (___/10) ix Container performance (___/10)



x Filling line compatibility (___/10) xi Market/demand for lighter weight generics (___/10) xii Demand for lighter weight containers (___/10) xiii Imported containers at lighter weight and reduced cost (___/10) b. Are there any other issues that you perceive to be barriers to the lightweighting of generic food containers? (Please provide details) 2. Solutions / Overcoming Barriers to Lightweight Generic Food Containers a. What could be done within your sector of the supply chain to facilitate the development, uptake and use of lighter weight generic food containers? b. What can be done in the following sectors of the supply chain to facilitate the development, uptake and use of lighter weight generic food containers? i. Manufacturing ii. Packer-Fillers iii. Brand Owners iv. Transport and logistics v. Retailers

www.wrap.org.uk/retail

Final Project Report GlassRite – Food, Ready to Drink and Soft … - Generic... · 2011-04-12 ·...

Documents

Transcript of Final Project Report GlassRite – Food, Ready to Drink and Soft … - Generic... · 2011-04-12 ·...