Final Report Reusable „Longspac‟ packaging Longspacs Trial Report Sept … · This pool size is based on total number of deliveries and reuses, as well as taking into account

Final Report

Reusable „Longspac‟ packaging

for delivery of kitchen components

at B&Q

Results from a trial with B&Q demonstrating the technical ability of the “Longspac” – a multi-trip packaging system – designed for efficient transportation of kitchen components to customers and to minimise risk of product damage.

Project code: RHI005-002 ISBN: 1-84405-436-5

Research date: Nov 2008 to Feb 2010 Date: May 2010

WRAP helps individuals, businesses and

local authorities to reduce waste and

recycle more, making better use of

resources and helping to tackle climate

change.

Document reference: WRAP, 2010, Reusable „Longspac‟ packaging RHI005-002.

Written by: Tim Hutchinson – Outpace

Kevin Corby – CEVA Logistics

Front cover photography: Reusable „Longspac‟ packaging

WRAP and CEVA Logistics 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

Reusable packaging for delivery of kitchen components at B&Q 3

Executive summary

This trial was a partnership project involving B&Q and CEVA Logistics which aimed to demonstrate the technical

ability and commercial viability of using a multi-trip packaging system – designed for efficient transportation of

kitchen components to customers‟ homes. The project commenced in November 2008 and completed in March

2010. This report sets out the methodology used for trial, details of the reusable packaging format and design,

as well as trial results and findings.

Background to the Trial

The trial was started in recognition of a previous project which successfully introduced a reusable packaging

format for kitchen worktops –„Carrierpacs‟, where B&Q and CEVA Logistics worked together to develop, trial and

subsequently roll out reusable packaging for home delivery of kitchen worktops at B&Q. This resulted in

substantial cost savings and environmental benefits. Following on from this success, further opportunities for

reusable packaging formats were explored.

Kitchens are a significant product category for B&Q, both in terms of sales and packaging materials required, and

„long‟ components are an essential part of any kitchen sold. „Longs‟ is the collective name given to long kitchen

components such as plinths, pelmets and cornices.

The original transit packaging format used for longs was a single-trip box consisting of single-flute corrugated

board wrap, designed to protect the product between the B&Q Showroom Fulfilment Centre at Branston and the

customer‟s home. With 290,000 cardboard longs boxes used annually, the cost is over £300,000 a year, plus

assembly time at Branston occupying one or two operators per shift. Customers also get left with the bulky

packaging waste to recycle or dispose of.

This results in over 400 tonnes of packaging ending up in the household waste stream annually. In addition,

with a retail price of up to £55 per item, continuing to minimise product damage is essential to avoid the

commercial and environmental cost of production, distribution and disposal of damaged and un-saleable stock.

Reusable Packaging Trialled – the ‘Longspac’

Packaging consultants Outpace Packaging Solutions worked with CEVA Logistics and B&Q to develop a multi-trip

plastic package called „Longspac‟. The packs were twice the weight of the single-trip corrugate format, made

from a woven plastic (polypropylene) outer and a corrugated plastic (polypropylene) inner. During the trial, the

Longspac was tested for its robustness to ensure it protected the product from damage during delivery to the

customer, as well as the technical performance of the pack to achieve multiple reuses. In order to demonstrate

commercial viability, it was agreed by the project team that achieving 20 trips would be the key performance

indicator (KPI) for this trial.

Trial Results

In total, 573 Longspacs were trialled during this project. Initial samples were tested and demonstrated that the

Longspacs could be reused up to 12 times, which gave sufficient encouragement for more thorough trialling. 48

Longspacs were then trialled to test three different end closure variations, with this part of the trial

demonstrating that the Longspac could achieve up to 21 reuses.

The next stage of the trial was to test the Longspacs on a larger production scale with 400 packs manufactured

and delivered to B&Q. However, the majority of these Longspacs failed due to design and manufacturing issues,

which then had to be addressed before progressing. The final Phase of the project was to manufacture a further

100 Longspacs, addressing previous design issues, which were then trialled for twelve weeks and successfully

demonstrated that the Longspac could achieve an average of 22 reuses.


Environmental and Cost Benefits

By the end of the trial the Longspacs had demonstrated an average of 22 trips, had diverted over 3,200Kgs of

cardboard from the waste stream, and had delivered several thousand longs products to the customer with no

reported damage.

If the Longspac is reused 20 times, it is calculated that a pool size of 14,500 reusable Longspacs would be

sufficient to cover both seasonal variation in delivery volumes and the cycle time for Longspacs to return through

the system. This pool size is based on total number of deliveries and reuses, as well as taking into account cycle

time and loss rate which would be important factors to consider.

Approximate annual usage of 290,000 single-trip corrugated Longs boxes at 1.5kg = 435 tonnes, which

equates to approximately 457,000 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents.

The weight of reusable packaging used (for the same 290,000 deliveries) would be 14,500 x 3.06kg = 44.37

tonnes, which equates to approximately 130,000 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents.

Considering solely packaging material inputs, this gives a net saving of approximately 400 tonnes per annum

and 327,000 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents1.

As well as reducing the amount of packaging used by 400 tonnes per year, achieving 20 reuses would save over

£150,000 annually.

The Longspac demonstrated that it could be commercially and environmentally beneficial, and in order to realise

these benefits the whole supply chain and delivery network need to be engaged and the reusable packaging

must be managed as an asset.

B&Q and CEVA Logistics were encouraged by the results from this trial and were confident that this project has

demonstrated the viability of switching from single-trip to multi-trip packaging for longs products. The project

team, having fine-tuned the optimum materials specifications for the Longspac for commercial adoption, ordered

2,000 Longspacs for use across a range of „longs‟ products at B&Q. These Longspacs have been used more than

20,000 times and saved over 30 tonnes of cardboard packaging2 and will accumulate further packaging savings,

as well as cost savings, as they continue to be reused.

B&Q and CEVA Logistics had already successfully rolled out the „Carrierpac‟, the award winning reusable

packaging format for home delivery of kitchen worktops3. Building on this experience they have undertaken

initial trials of the „Longspac‟, with promising results, and subsequently started to roll out this packaging format

across Longs products. Although reusable packaging is not always environmentally or commercially preferred,

this trial has demonstrated that for Longs products at B&Q, reusable packaging can help to optimise packaging

and minimise waste, reduce costs and help B&Q to deliver the targets to the Home Improvement Sector

Commitment4.

1 The carbon impact associated with the „material inputs for the packaging‟ is calculated by using generic carbon conversion

factors, for corrugated material and polypropylene (PP), to calculate carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions figures. These

carbon conversion figures are taken from WRAP‟s Courtauld Commitment Carbon Methodology. For the PP carbon conversion

figure, an average of the rigid/boxes figure and the flexible/film figure has been used.

2 The number of uses and packaging savings were calculated in September 2010 by the Branston project team.

3 The WRAP and B&Q trial demonstrated that multi-trip packaging can be commercially viable for kitchen worktops, but is dependent on tightly controlled logistics and tracking. A case study and full report about the trial are available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/retail/case_studies_research/case_study_1.html.

4 The Home Improvement Sector Commitment is a voluntary agreement between WRAP and the UK Home Improvement sector

which aims to reduce the environmental impact of home improvement products. More information can be found at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/retail/home_improvement/.

http://www.wrap.org.uk/retail/case_studies_research/case_study_1.html

http://www.wrap.org.uk/retail/home_improvement/


Contents

1.0 Introduction and Background .................................................................................................... 6 1.1 B&Q and the Packaging Challenge ........................................................................................ 6 1.2 Previous Reusable Packaging Project Team Experience - „Carrierpac‟ ....................................... 6 1.3 Kitchens and „Longs‟ Components ......................................................................................... 7 1.4 Original Packaging for „Longs‟ Components ............................................................................ 7 1.5 Requirements for a New Packaging Format............................................................................ 8 1.6 Developing the Business Case for Reusable Packaging ............................................................ 9

2.0 Trial Objectives and Methodology ............................................................................................ 10 2.1 Trial Objectives ................................................................................................................. 10 2.2 Project Timeline ................................................................................................................ 10 2.3 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Engaging the Distribution Chain .......................................................................................... 11 2.5 Trial Partners .................................................................................................................... 12

3.0 Results and Findings ................................................................................................................. 13 3.1 Initial Longspac Designs and Testing .................................................................................. 13

3.1.1 Description of Initial Longspacs Prototype ............................................................... 13 3.1.2 Results from Initial Evaluation Samples ................................................................... 14

3.2 Phase 1 of the Trial ........................................................................................................... 15 3.2.1 Longspac Design Tested ........................................................................................ 15 3.2.2 Results from the Phase 1 Trial ................................................................................ 16 3.2.3 Revisions to Longspac Specification ........................................................................ 17

3.3 Phase 2 of the Trial ........................................................................................................... 18 3.3.1 Results from Phase 2 Trial ..................................................................................... 18 3.3.2 Revisions to Longspac Specification ........................................................................ 18

3.4 Phase 3 of the Trial ........................................................................................................... 20 3.4.1 Results from Phase 3 Trial ..................................................................................... 20 3.4.2 Feedback from Staff and Drivers ............................................................................ 22

4.0 Analysis and Discussion ............................................................................................................ 24 4.1 Longspac Performance....................................................................................................... 24 4.2 Environmental Benefits ...................................................................................................... 26 4.3 Costs and Benefits ............................................................................................................. 27

5.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 28

List of Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. 30


1.0 Introduction and Background

This section provides background information to the trial including an outline of the environmental challenges

facing B&Q regarding packaging and details of a previous reusable packaging trial that the project team

undertook. Introductory information is also provided on the trial including: an outline of typical kitchen and

bathroom components; a description of current packing used; key requirements for the development of a

reusable packaging format; as well as the development of the business case for reusable packaging.

1.1 B&Q and the Packaging Challenge

Since 1990, B&Q has aimed to take a positive approach to the challenges that social responsibility presents and

has developed solutions that not only address its environmental and social impacts but also add value to its

business and its reputation.

B&Q has committed to become a One Planet Home ® business. One Planet Home is based on the global One

Planet Living initiative based on ten principles of sustainability developed by BioRegional and WWF. This

initiative encourages individuals, businesses and manufacturers to live within our fair share of the Earth‟s

resources. In the UK this means reducing our carbon emissions by 90% and our Ecological Footprint by two-

thirds by 2030.

http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/content/knowledge/one_planet_living/pdf/opl_commitment.pdf

Packaging is just one aspect of B&Q‟s overall environmental impact but, as a component of most consumer

products, packaging utilises significant quantities of material resources and is a highly visible component of

global waste streams. B&Q believes that well designed packaging can provide environmental and commercial

benefits in terms of product protection and brand enhancement. B&Q‟s aim is to minimise the amount of

packaging associated with its products and, where packaging is unavoidable, to reduce the impact of its use.

In September 2009, B&Q became a founding signatory of the Home Improvement Sector Commitment, an

initiative to deliver increased resource efficiency in the sector through packaging and waste reduction.

Signatories committed to work with WRAP to achieve a 15% packaging reduction and a 50% reduction in waste

to landfill by the end of 2012, against a 2007 baseline, as well as to help customers to recycle more.

http://www.wrap.org.uk/retail/home_improvement/index.html

1.2 Previous Reusable Packaging Project Team Experience - „Carrierpac‟

In 2004, Outpace and Storsack developed a bespoke design for reusable packaging for B&Q‟s kitchen worktop

using a two-piece polypropylene (PP) construction. The Carrierpac design incorporates a woven outer and inner

„liner‟ made of polypropylene Correx®; Outpace and Storsack are joint inventors of this design and have an

agreement to this effect which is covered by various European and global patents. The same patents and

agreement cover the latest „Longspac‟ design.

The reusable worktop Carrierpac has been a major success story for B&Q, CEVA Logistics and Outpace. Since its

full scale introduction on Jan 8 2008, each year it saves B&Q over £1 million and diverted from landfill around

1,200 tonnes of single-trip packaging. Further information on the trial of the Carrierpac for kitchen worktops at

B&Q, and the subsequent roll out of these formats across all their worktops, can be found at:


From a packing and logistics point of view, one of the major benefits for the new trial was that the whole

distribution chain - from B&Q‟s Showroom Fulfilment Centre, at Branston, to the regional depots and delivery

teams - was now familiar with the „reuse‟ concept. Importantly they had observed the benefits of Carrierpac and

could see the potential benefits of a reusable packaging format for longs components that would also make their

jobs easier.

http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/content/knowledge/one_planet_living/pdf/opl_commitment.pdf

http://www.wrap.org.uk/retail/home_improvement/index.html



Based on this past experience and knowledge, the same partnership worked together to draw up designs for a

reusable packaging solution for longs components for this project.

1.3 Kitchens and „Longs‟ Components

Kitchens are a significant product category for B&Q, both in terms of sales and packaging materials required.

B&Q has been home delivering kitchens to customers for the last eight years through its Showroom Fulfilment

Centre at Branston, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire.

Long components are an essential part of any kitchen sold. „Longs‟ is the collective name given to long kitchen

components such as plinths, pelmets and cornices. Typically up to three metres in length, they are usually

manufactured from profiled and laminated MDF. They can weigh up to 1.5 Kgs and sell for up to £55.00. The

generic „longs‟ term also includes items such as seals and worktop edging strips. These latter items sell in less

significant quantities and, although they were not the main products considered when considering a reusable

packaging format, these products can be prone to damage - so containment and protection are very important.

Figure 1: Pictures of a typical pelmet, plinth and cornice used in a kitchen. The aim of this project was to trial a

reusable packaging format, a Longspac, for the home delivery of these types of long kitchen components.

Customer satisfaction is extremely important to B&Q. It is B&Q‟s aim to achieve 100% success in delivering

every product in first class condition on time and in full. With this ambition, Longs require significant packaging

to avoid transit damage and scuffing of the corners, edges and presentation surface. Any dents or scratches are

likely to lead to the item being rejected by the customer, returned to B&Q and scrapped. At a retail price of up

to £55 per item, minimising product damage is essential to avoid the wasted cost of production, distribution and

disposing of damaged and un-saleable stock.

1.4 Original Packaging for „Longs‟ Components

Suppliers deliver the long components either in an MDF box with a banded lid in quantities of 200 items per box,

or loose-strapped to a double-length pallet. Some plinths are wrapped in corrugate, some in polythene. Most

cornices and pelmets are individually bagged in polythene.

Plinths, pelmets and cornices are sold singly at SKU5-level and their individual wrapping is not sufficient for the

full journey to the customer. Once taken out of the MDF bulk supply box, or removed from the supply pallet,

they have very little packaging. As they are then vulnerable to become damaged during transit, they are put

into a corrugate box for delivery to customer.

A UK manufacturer of corrugated board packaging materials supplies the corrugate. The weight of an empty

corrugated pack is 1.5kgs and a fully loaded longs box could weigh over 7kg. Pallets of pre-scored, continuous

fanfold corrugate are cut to length, and folded to the appropriate size, taped into shape, one end taped closed,

and then product(s) are placed into it. After picking and checking, the open end is also sealed with tape. Once

folded into shape, the box is 126mm tall (internally), 188mm wide and 3100mm long.

Adding the additional corrugated packaging for home delivery has successfully reduced levels of damage. The

project team identified that there may now be an opportunity to reduce costs and annual packaging usage whilst

maintaining the reduction in damage levels. This was the key driver in developing reusable packaging formats

for longs products. Another identified issue with the corrugated longs boxes was that due to their very long and

5 SKU - Stock Keeping Unit


thin format and handling requirements they could look in poor state (e.g. if torn or if exposed to rain / wet

conditions) and reflect poorly on the brand values B&Q require.

Figures 2 and 3: These pictures show the corrugated boxes protecting „longs‟ components and attached labels

for onwards delivery to customers.

The current packaging format relies on consumers to recycle the corrugated board packaging which, for longs

boxes, is typically too large for doorstep recycling boxes and bins. This creates inconvenience for customers,

who may need to cut up the packaging to fit into their recycling bin or have to transport the packaging to a

council recycling centre.

1.5 Requirements for a New Packaging Format Following on from the identification of longs components as a good opportunity for a reusable packaging solution, requirements for a new multi-trip format were identified. The key requirements were to:

Provide appropriate protection to the product during handling and transport, to minimise damage to

packaging and product

Match or reduce current packaging costs

Match or improve on current packing and handling time

Minimise the risk of personal injury through user-centric design considerations that particularly address the

risks of finger injury and back problems

Be of the same dimensions to fit in with the current shipment systems

Protect the product in damp and wet conditions

Allow the product to be extracted without the use of tools that could both damage the product and increase

the risk of personal injury (i.e. avoiding the use of knives)


Trips Versus Savings

-£250,000

-£200,000

-£150,000

-£100,000

-£50,000

£0

£50,000

£100,000

£150,000

£200,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

No of Trips

£

Where possible, use packaging materials that incorporate recycled content and can be easily segregated for

recycling at end of life.

Ensuring that damage (to packaging and product) is minimised will help reduce the overall environmental impact

associated with the product, which includes the waste of resources used to create components that become

damaged and un-saleable, and the impact of increased delivery mileage arising from replacing products.

As well as commercial and environmental drivers to use reusable packaging systems, consumer benefits are also important. Requirements for the new reusable packaging format also included improving the customer experience, specifically to:

Reduce or eliminate the amount of packaging left with the consumer when the product is delivered

Deliver purchased products to customers in presentable packaging

Reduce instances of customer dissatisfaction and complaints relating to damaged goods and delays in

receiving components while damaged goods are replaced.

1.6 Developing the Business Case for Reusable Packaging

Once an initial concept and outline trial had been agreed, a business case was created that included labour costs,

packaging costs, likelihood of trips achieved, potential costs of the reusable packaging, and other factors to show

what level of reuse would be required to make Longspacs commercially viable as illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4: The Potential Costs and Cost-Savings of Longspacs based on Number of Trips Achieved.

Depending on the specification of the reusable packaging, it was estimated that the Longspac could become cost

effective when it reached ten trips or more. For example, using Correx® with a thicker specification (e.g.

700gsm) would require at least 17 reuses to break even, whilst a specification of 400gsm for the Correx® would

require fewer reuses (around 15). Based on a „worst case scenario‟ using a higher specification for the Longspac

and on past experience from the „Carrierpac‟ trial, it was anticipated that the Longspac would be technically

capable of substantially exceeding 11 reuses. Allowing some contingency, it was agreed that 20 trips should be

the key performance indicator (KPI) for this trial.

Other trial indicators included: collating feedback from operatives, drivers and customers relating to the design,

practicalities and performance of the Longspac; the actual delivery of kitchen longs to the customer in a

Longspac without incurring any damage to the components; and the amount of single trip packaging and

damaged products entering the waste stream through the commercial roll-out of the Longspac to B&Q kitchen

long components.


2.0 Trial Objectives and Methodology

This section of the report sets out the objectives of the trial and the project timeline. A description of the

methodology used is also provided including details of how the supply chain was engaged to ensure that staff

and drivers were aware of the trial to test a reusable packaging format for kitchen and bathroom components. A

list of trial partners is also included.

2.1 Trial Objectives The objectives of the trial were to:

demonstrate that Longspacs remain fit-for-purpose for 20 reuses, in order that they are commercially viable

in addition to reducing packaging and waste;

recycle Longspacs that are no longer robust enough to be reused;

deliver kitchen longs to the customer in a Longspac without incurring any damage to the longs products;

generate positive feedback from operatives, drivers, customers, supply chain and logistics relating to the

design, practicalities and performance of the Longspac;

review the design of the Longspac, accommodating feedback from all stakeholders, allowing further

improvement of the design, properties and performance of the Longspac;

develop a cost benefit appraisal of the Longspac upon trial completion based upon the results of the trial and

commercial-scale production of the Longspac; and

reduce the amount of packaging and product waste entering the waste stream through enabling the

commercial roll-out of Longspac for B&Q kitchen long components.

2.2 Project Timeline

The project commenced in 2008 with the development of the first Longspac design followed by several testing and trial phases; the project completed in March 2010. A full timeline of activities and trial dates is set out below.

Table 1: Timeline of Activities and Trial Dates

Year Project Phase Description

2008 Initial design and testing

The first Longspac designs produced

Early modifications to Longspac reviewed

A design agreed for initial testing

Different variants of the Longspac were tested

Phase 1 Trial commenced with 48 Longspacs

Testing of 3 different end closure designs

2009 Phase 2 Order placed for 400 Longspacs

Testing of circular woven designs (switching from flat woven options to an innovative circular woven design)

Testing of different adhesive methods

Modifications and revised design of Longspac

Phase 3

100 Longspac supplied for final trial

Circular woven with stronger 700 gsm virgin Correx®

Sewn end closures with no adhesive

2010 Project completed Project written up and results disseminated

The above timeline highlights the design iterations after each project phase, from the initial Longspac prototypes

and samples, through to the final Longspac specification.


2.3 Methodology Initial Longspac Design and Testing

The aim of this part of the trial was to produce samples of a reusable packaging format to be used for kitchen

components during home delivery. Samples were to be provided to B&Q and CEVA Logistics for initial review

and testing. It was anticipated that early modifications to the design would have to be made following feedback

from the wider project team and a design to take forward to trial would need to be agreed.

Phase 1 of the Trial

This stage of the trial aimed to test approximately 50 Longspacs to demonstrate that they could perform

technically to achieve 20 reuses, as well as identifying feedback on different designs. It was anticipated that

more than one design may be tested depending on the outcome of the initial testing stage. The Longspacs were

numbered for tracking purposes and the packs were to be used for home deliveries between B&Q‟s Showroom

Fulfilment centre, in Branston, through to the customer.

Following this trial stage, it was expected that the design would need to be further refined, in terms of which of

the designs performs best and from feedback from all operatives involved with packing, delivery, return and

inspection of the Longspacs.

Phase 2 and 3 of the Trial

Following results from the previous trial, a modified specification was to be agreed and several hundred

Longspacs ordered for the second phase of testing. This stage of the trial aimed to test the manufacturing of

Longspacs on a „semi production‟ scale. This was an important part of the trial as it would give a better

indication of production costs, such as labour and materials.

However, due to manufacturing and design issues (which are presented later in this report), these Longspacs

could not be fully trialled and instead a further 100 Longspacs had to be manufactured, addressing the design

issues, and then tested for the final stage of the trial (Phase 3).

2.4 Engaging the Distribution Chain

Prior to the start of Phase 1, a B&Q briefing note was issued: „Business Improvements Briefing Note‟. The trial

objectives were summarized to all CEVA Logistics employees at the Showroom Fulfilment Centre through a

project „flyer‟ and displayed on notice boards. Specific and detailed training was given to all personnel directly

involved.

Before the start of Phase 2, further staff training took part and a further briefing note was issued. Copies of the

briefing notes and the full Business Improvement Programme communications can be found in the Appendices to

this report.


2.5 Trial Partners

A number of organisations were involved in the trial:

B&Q is the leading DIY retailer in the UK through its nationwide stores and direct retailing through

www.diy.com. Kitchens represent a very large product category for the company and therefore opportunities to

improve efficiency, reduce costs and waste within this category are a key priority.

CEVA Logistics provides world class supply chain solutions for large and medium-size national and multinational

companies across the globe. As an industry leader, CEVA offers customers complete supply chain design and

implementation in contract logistics and freight management, alone or in combination. CEVA‟s integrated global

network has facilities in over 170 countries and more than 46,000 employees; all dedicated to delivering

consistently excellent operations and supply chain solutions. For the year ending 31 December 2009, the Group

reported revenues of €5.5 billion. For more information, please visit www.cevalogistics.com

Outpace is a packaging consultancy specialising in package design, implementation and procurement with a

strong background in environmental expertise concerning the reduction, reuse and recycling of packaging.

Outpace worked with Storsack to develop the Longspac packaging format and with B&Q to address the problems

identified with the current packaging and delivery system. Outpace provided management and administrative

co-ordination for the trial, reporting to both B&Q and WRAP.

Storsack UK has expertise in the manufacture of woven polypropylene fabric and is the world‟s largest

manufacturer of woven polypropylene big bags (e.g. for building materials such as aggregate). Storsack

developed the Longspac concept with Outpace, supplied the woven polypropylene „outers‟ and assembled the

two-piece Longspac for delivery to B&Q.

Kaysersberg Plastics (part of the DS Smith group) was selected to manufacture the protective corrugated

polypropylene „inner‟ (Correx®) for supply to Storsack to assemble with the „outers‟ to form the Longspacs.

WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) provided part-funding towards the cost of the trial as a result of

the project team submitting a successful submission in response to an open tender for R&D funding towards

reusable packaging trials in the retail supply chain.

http://www.cevalogistics.com/


3.0 Results and Findings A summary of results from the project is set out below with further details provided in the subsequent sections:

Initial designs and testing – initial development of the Longspac design. Isolated samples were reused

up to 12 times, which gave sufficient encouragement for the project to proceed to more thorough trialling.

Phase 1 - 48 Longspacs were trialled with three different end close variations; the packs averaged 11 trips

with one Longspac achieving 21 reuses.

Phase 2 - 400 Longspacs were manufactured and trialled but the majority of these packs failed due to

design and manufacture issues, and as a result this stage of the trial was cut short (3 weeks).

Phase 3 – final trial with 100 Longspacs over 12 weeks. The packs averaged 22 delivery trips.

3.1 Initial Longspac Designs and Testing

3.1.1 Description of Initial Longspacs Prototype

Longspac samples were first manufactured in March 2008 and provided to B&Q and CEVA Logistics for initial

review. The first Longspac design had a lay flat construction to allow longs components to be placed inside the

open Longspac and then the sides and ends folded over to contain the components.

Although similar in concept to the award-winning Carrierpac (for kitchen worktops), the „Longspac‟ had to be

designed to withstand far greater „crush‟ resistance, as in certain situations only one component may go into a

Longspac yet this may be stored and delivered underneath fully loaded Longspacs.

Figures 5 and 6: First Longspac design with lay flat format shown open and then closed

A woven plastic - polypropylene (PP) - outer and a corrugated plastic (also PP) inner were used. Manufacturing

learning was carried over from Carrierpac, which involved specific details around stitching, adhesives, handle

attachment and the folding, creasing and incorporation of the inner plastic Correx®.

Figure 7: Longspac construction of PP Correx® and outer PP fabric

Single wall „inner‟ PP Correx®

Heavy Duty „outer‟ PP Fabric


The outer PP fabric incorporated an anti-static treatment in order to maintain physical appearance. The „outer‟

used 3% factory regrinds and the remainder was virgin polymer, used for its strength and tensile properties.

The Correx® „inner‟ liner can be made from reprocessed polypropylene. During the trial both virgin Correx®

and Correx® with recycled content were tested.

The inner Correx® was manufactured by Kaysersberg Plastics based in Gloucester, UK, and transported to

Storsack‟s site in Yorkshire for assembly. The woven outer was manufactured in Ukraine. The final assembly of

the „inner‟ and „outer‟ was carried out in the UK, close to the point of use due to the bulkiness and light-weight

nature of both Correx® and the assembled Longspacs.

Move to end-filling of Longspac

An early modification to the design was made. Following testing of the fully open-able wrap-around Longspac

design, it was considered more practical to have an end-filled Longspac design. The design was altered to

reflect this, sealing the long length of Longspac when first assembled, leaving the open ends for placing and

retrieving the product. This change removed a potentially significant cost of having a reusable closure system

(such as Velcro®) along the longest length of the pack.

Figure 8: Picture shows the early design where the pack is fully open-able along the long side. This design was

revised early on to a format where only the ends opened.

3.1.2 Initial Evaluation of Samples

A small number of early samples were trialled on an ad-hoc basis - this allowed initial design ideas to be tested

prior to further expenditure and development. This constituted an ideas-evaluation stage. This initial testing

demonstrated that up to 12 reuses could be achieved.


3.2 Phase 1 of the Trial

3.2.1 Longspac Design Tested

48 Longspacs were ordered for Phase 1 of the trial. These were supplied in November 2008 and had a number

of specification changes to increase strength, durability and performance, based on the review of results from

the initial testing. These changes are set out in the text below.

Change in Dimensions and Material Specification

The Longspacs were manufactured to the new length of 3.1 m, to allow the long components that were slightly over 3m to fit. The width was increased slightly to allow an exact fit of 4 Longspacs across the width of the transport stillages, improving stability. The outer fabric was increased in thickness. The woven fabric was increased from 75 GSM to 120 GSM. This fabric is held together by a coating of polypropylene which was increased from 25 GSM to 30 GSM. The thicker the woven fabric and coating, the stronger the fabric. The width of the Velcro® fastener increased from 40mm to 50mm.

Pull handles added

Moving to end-filling of the Longspacs means that „Long‟ components are secured within the pack by closing

both ends using a three flap folded closure secured in place by a tab of Velcro®. At each end of the Longspac a

black carrying handle was sewn into the pack, to be used mainly to pull the Longpacs from the Stillage, in which

filled Longspacs are placed for transport to the customer, and (although not their primary purpose) could also be

used to carry the Longspacs from the delivery vehicle to the customer‟s door.

Figure 9: Picture shows two different handle attachments options considered in the initial testing.

Need for a Centre Join

The Longspac was manufactured in one full length (3.1m) eliminating the need for a centre join. However, a

centre join was created to allow the Longspac to fold in half for easy return once empty. Part of this stage of the

trial investigated whether delivery teams would find this feature useful - i.e. would the delivery crews fold the

empty Longspac in two for return - and also would the fold present a weak-point in the design where structural

failure might occur?

End Close Design Variations

Of these 48 packs, three variations to the end closure design were tested during Phase 1 trial, these were as

follows:


Design A [18 packs] had folded ends attached with glue „tape‟ (instead of a hot melt polypropylene adhesive

applied by a glue gun). They had external pull handles reinforced with a stitched webbing rip stop.

Design B [18 packs] were as above, with the ends profiled and attached with glue tape but not wrapped.

Design C [12 packs] had separate ends attached only with sewn PP fabric (i.e. the Correx® for the end

pieces is separate from the Correx® for the main body of the pack). This was to allow internal pull handles

without rip stops (which were considered less likely to tear away from the fabric). They had folded ends

glued with glue tape.

Figures 10 and 11: Pictures show two of the three variants for end-closures tested in Phase 1 of the trial –

Design option A (Figure 10) and C (Figure 11) are shown below; design option B is not shown. Figure 10 also

shows clearly how the packs were numbered for tracking purposes.

3.2.2 Results from the Phase 1 Trial

The 48 Longspacs trialled generally performed well, with the average number of reuses being 11 and one pack

successfully exceeding the KPI target for 20 reuses (achieving 21 trips) after 7 weeks.

Results indicated that:

For end closure designs, neither design variation (A, B or C) performed better in terms of number of

reuses. Design B had tidier unfolded ends, with the main advantage of appearing visually the neatest. In

terms of damage to packs, Design C was least preferred because the tape came away on some packs.

Feedback from the operators and delivery teams reported that the Longspacs were not being folded in

half for return. This meant that the Longspacs did not need a centre fold and could, therefore, be made from

one piece Correx®, which had the benefit of reducing manufacturing costs. On this basis, designing the

ends of the Longspac to be made from separate pieces of Correx® was preferred, as this allowed the main

Correx® body to be made from one piece.

As a result of the above findings, the end-closure design specified for Longspacs for the next stage of the

trial was based on a combination of designs B and C – using separate pieces of Correx® for the ends (as in

Design C) with profiled ends and attached with glue tape but not wrapped (as in Design B).

The adhesive tape on many packs came off or showed signs of coming off along the longest side of the

Longspacs. Attempts to repair the packs by both CEVA and Storsack were not successful. It was agreed that

the failing tape would need to be designed out for the next stage of the trial.


3.2.3 Revisions to Longspac Specification

The Development of an Innovative ‘Circular-Woven’ Outer

Two options were identified to address the need to design out the tape:

Option 1: To make the pack from a heavy duty flat woven PP fabric sewn the complete length of the

Longspac; or

Option 2: To manufacture a light woven circular fabric as a seamless tube.

In order to help progress agreement on the next specification, one sample of each was produced. Initial

feedback was that the sewn option (1) looked robust. However, production time and costs escalated due to the

long length (3.1 m) that had to be sewn and the need for a high degree of accuracy. As a result option 1 was

not pursued and for Phase 2 of the trial, it was agreed to produce 400 units of the circular fabric (option 2).

However, there were a number of challenges manufacturing the circular-woven outer, which had to be designed

specifically for this project. Although woven-tube technology is used in other applications (e.g. for some bags),

as far as the project team are aware - this was the first time that this technology was used for such a small

diameter construction.

The material was manufactured by Storsack in its factory in Ukraine, which has the capability to manufacture to

the size required on its smallest circular weaving looms. Each piece of polypropylene tape (that is woven

together to make the fabric) was 3mm wide.

It became apparent that it was critical to get the tolerance correct between such a small diameter of circular

woven fabric and the rigid square Correx® inner component of the Longspac. If the diameter of the fabric is too

small the assembled inner Correx® will not fit, if it is too tight it will crush the Correx® (once in place) and if it is

too large it will not grip the Correx® and be loose.

Messaging on Packs

The woven polypropylene outer allowed printing on packs, to enable appropriate information to be portrayed

including branding, handling instructions and messaging emphasising that the packaging is returnable and

reusable. Longspacs ordered for Phase 2 of the trial were printed with these messages.

Figure 8: Messaging printed on Longspacs.

Longspac Not to be left at

customer point of delivery

Longspac Not to be left at

customer point of delivery

Property of B&Q

These 3 markings to be repeated

on both vertical sides

Serially numbered from

001 to 500



3.3.1 Results from Phase 2 Trial

The aim of Phase 2 of the trial was to test the Longspacs on a large production scale with 400 packs

manufactured and delivered to B&Q. However, during this phase, a number of design and manufacturing issues

were identified which led to the trial being cut short and the 400 Longspacs being taken out of circulation.

These issues are detailed below, together with changes to the manufacturing process and further design

refinements.

Strength of Correx®

Early in Phase 2 it became apparent that the strength and rigidity of the Longspacs when stacked was not

satisfactory. This had not been a problem during Phase 1 of the trial. The lack of rigidity of the Longspacs was

thought to be caused by the Correx® used, as the specification was different to that used for the 48 Longspacs

in Phase 1 of the trial. One variant in the specification was the amount of carbon black incorporated, which is

added to ensure uniform colour across the Correx® when recycled plastic is used. The increased quantity of

carbon black may have resulted in the difference in rigidity.

Further Testing of Glue Tape and Adhesives

Storsack had previously carried out research on available bonds, tapes and adhesives that could be used for the

Longspac. Results from this research are presented in a short report and spreadsheet in the Appendices.

Building on this research, two methods were used to attach the fabric outer to the Correx® for the 400

Longspacs during this Phase of the trial. Of the 400 ordered, the first 1 to 189 were made with glue tape

and Longspacs 190 to 400 were made with a spray adhesive. This was done so that it could be determined if

one method outperformed the other.

Over half of the 400 Longspacs failed due to a lack of adhesion between the Correx® and the fabric on the end

closures, which led to the Correx® end pieces becoming detached. It was found that the spray adhesive did not

perform well, with these packs completing very few trips before being redundant. The end closures that used

glue tape generally performed better, however, the manufacturing issues with lower strength Correx® led to all

the Longspacs being removed from circulation.

As a result of these issues, all 400 of the circular woven Longspac were taken out of circulation after three

weeks; the maximum number of trips achieved by any single Longspac was 5 before the trial was stopped. All

400 Longspacs were recycled at J & A Youngs (see the Analysis Section for further details on recycling of

Longspacs).

3.3.2 Revisions to Longspac Specification Following the learning from Phase 2 of the trial, the Longspac specification using the circular woven fabric was modified in two main ways:

The specification was revised to 700 GSM virgin materials (still made from the circular woven outer fabric).

The recycled content of the Correx® was reduced (thereby reducing the amount of carbon black).

The end flaps were made from a woven polypropylene sandwich that trapped the Correx® in position which

designed out the need for adhesive.

Based on the above changes, two samples were manufactured and delivered in early October 2009. These were

quickly assessed for strength and functionality. They were made of 700 GSM Correx®, almost twice that of the

original 400 GSM, which ensured better strength and rigidity but led to increased weight of the Longspac.

Although there are clear strength benefits, the thicker 700 GSM Correx® was difficult to insert into the circular

woven fabric and Storsack had to adjust the Correx® by 1 or 2 flutes to allow for this.

The project team were confident that these two samples were satisfactory and so a further 100 Longspacs were ordered based on this revised design. These were delivered in early November 2009, with the target of achieving 20 trips by the end of February 2010 during Phase 3 of this trial.


Figure 12: Picture shows Longspacs during Phase 2 of the trial in stillages awaiting filling at Branston.

Figure 13: Picture shows Correx® ends of a Longspac glued to woven polypropylene fabric.



CEVA Logistics on behalf of B&Q delivered products in Longspacs from the central Showroom Fulfilment Centre

to 12 „out bases‟ and 33 local warehouses called Installation Centres (IC) during Phase 3 of the trial. An IC‟s

function is to store all the components of a kitchen (nearer to the customer) until it is 100% complete and ready

for delivery. They act as delivery hubs and are located throughout the UK. Although beneficial to the customer

delivery process, components such as worktops and longs can be held for several weeks waiting for the direct-

from-manufacturer items to arrive at the IC. This extended delivery period has implications for the cycle time for

reusable packaging and therefore the pool size of reusable packaging units that would be required to fulfil all

orders.

Therefore, to advance the trial it was identified that the Longspacs should avoid the ICs and only be delivered on

routes local to Branston. This would allow a quicker return time.

3.4.1 Results from Phase 3 Trial

During this Phase, it was possible to achieve 2 to 3 complete delivery cycles of the Longspac per week once

picking, packing, loading, delivery, return, off-loading, inspection and return for re-packing functions were

accommodated.

Even with briefing notes and training it proved difficult to track the reusable packaging and to ensure that all of

the packs were returned. Forty Longspacs were accidently delivered to Installation Centres (ICs) that were not

participating in the trial and were not recovered as the teams at ICs had not been fully briefed because the

Longspacs were intended to only run on direct home delivery routes local to Branston.

The trial ran for twelve weeks, during which data was collated for the number of Longspacs used on each

delivery run out of Branston. The average number of reuses was 22; this figure was calculated by recording the

cumulative number of times the Longspacs were used and dividing by the 100 „pool‟ to give the mean average.

This average includes those Longspacs that were delivered to ICs and did not continue to circulate after the

eighth delivery run. If these 40 Longspacs are excluded, then the average number of trips will be substantially

higher than 22 trips.


Figure 14: Graph illustrates (during Phase 3 trial) the number of Longspacs on each delivery run out of Branston. The table below shows the same data in tabular format.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Delivery Runs from Branston

Qu

an

tity

of

Lo

gs

pa

cs

Delivery run number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

No. of Longspacs 100 98 95 95 93 92 92 90 50 50 48 48 47 50 47 47 46 46 47 45 41 39 39 40

Cumulative number of trips 100 198 293 388 481 573 665 755 805 855 903 951 998 1,048 1,095 1,142 1,188 1,234 1,281 1,326 1,367 1,406 1,445 1,485

Average no. of trips 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 15

Delivery run number 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

No. of Longspacs 40 38 37 37 37 34 33 32 33 32 30 30 33 36 36 38 38 37 35 34 32 29

Cumulative number of trips 1,485 1,523 1,560 1,597 1,634 1,668 1,701 1,733 1,766 1,798 1,828 1,858 1,891 1,927 1,963 2,001 2,039 2,076 2,111 2,145 2,177 2,206

Average no. of trips 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 22 22

40 'irrecoverable' at an IC and then onto customers


Figure 15: The table below shows the end fate of Longspacs used during Phase 3 of the trial.

Number of Longspacs Fate

40 Delivered to an Installation Centre (IC) and not returned

29 Longspacs not returned to the SFC at Branston

(other than those that went to an IC)

2 Damaged and withdrawn from circulation

29 Remaining at end of trial and still circulating

100 Total (pool of Longspacs)

At the end of the trial, 29 Longspacs were counted as still in circulation. This figure may increase as Longspacs

are returned from installation centres following the end of the trial. Remaining Longspacs continued to be used

beyond the end date of the trial and into May 2010, and it is anticipated that the average number of reuses

Longspacs achieved would have increased well beyond 22 trips.

Damage to Longspacs

Two Longspacs were damaged by having the Velcro® fastener cut off. This is thought to have happened in the

transport stillage where a Longspac was trapped by fully loaded Longspacs above it and the driver has not been

able to pull the Longspac out and therefore chose to cut the Velcro® tag off in order to access the products

inside. This could be corrected by sewing the tag onto the body rather than the end.

3.4.2 Feedback from Staff and Drivers

The delivery crews were delighted with the new Longspacs and a quote from a B&Q delivery driver said,

“Brilliant, much better than before, makes my job a lot easier”. Staff on site at Branston also liked the new

format as the process of inspecting a returned Longspac is far less time consuming than had been required to

assemble the single use corrugate packaging format.

As the delivery crews were now able to unfasten the Velcro® closure and pull the Longs components out of the

Longspac they adopted a new system of leaving the Longspacs in the Stillage (on the vehicle). With the original

cardboard boxes, they had to pull these from the stillages and carry them into the customer‟s house (as they

were not so easy to open).

In addition, drivers reported that previously customers sometimes asked the B&Q delivery team to take back the

empty packaging, which could be time consuming in removing this from the vehicle and taking it to the onsite

recycling area. By leaving the Longspac in the vehicle, this issue was eliminated.


Figures 16 to 19: Pictures show Longspacs in use during Phase 3 of the trial from empty Longspacs in stillages

awaiting inspection and reuse, filling at Branston for delivery and, finally, returned Longspacs ready for reuse.


4.0 Analysis and Discussion

Following results from the trial, this section of the report discusses the technical performance of the Longspac

together with the environmental and commercial benefits of using this reusable packaging format.

4.1 Longspac Performance

Technical Performance

During the trial a number of design issues were experienced including loss of Correx® rigidity due to high carbon

black content and failure of glue tapes and adhesives, as well as challenges in the manufacturing process itself –

with the development of the innovative circular woven fabric. Each of these challenges led to modifications to

the Longspac design and an iterative process of testing and refinement.

Despite these challenges, during the final stage of the trial Longspacs confidently demonstrated that they were

fit for purpose and capable of multiple trips – achieving an average of 22 reuses. The Longspac was designed to

protect products during transportation and handling, but at around 3.0 kg, this is twice the weight of the single-

trip cardboard packaging. However, as the Longspac will perform on average 22 trips, the weight of the

materials used in the pack are spread over the number of trips it makes.

The Longspacs used in the final trial incurred little damage. Two Longspacs were damaged by having the

Velcro® fastener cut off; the Longspacs remaining at the end of Phase 3 had only minor surface damage, scuffs,

scratches and score marks.

Anti-static additives proved successful with very little airborne dirt attraction to the woven outer. The Longspacs

also provided good water resistance, which is important as some Longs products are at risk of being left outside

in the open for periods (e.g. at some out-bases). Also, when the stillages were returned, Longspacs could be

offloaded in the open and therefore need to be at least resistant to rain. The pull handles proved popular with

drivers and those handling the pack.

The dimensional tolerances of the Longspac allowed a better fit for rows of four Longspacs in the stillages than

had been possible with the current corrugated board specification. Feedback from the trial was that the

Longspacs appeared to withstand both stacking and overhang forces better than the corrugated board

specification (especially where the corrugate had been exposed to damp conditions) – see Figure 20 below. This

has been demonstrated in situations whereby, as a result of a customer non-delivery and the boxes being

dragged out and back into the stillages and delivery vehicles, the original corrugated longs boxes were not

always fit for the return journey. These issues are likely to be driven by a combination of both ensuring the

packaging performance specification is fit for purpose (for corrugated board boxes or Longspacs) and also

ensuring appropriate handling through the system.


Figure 20: Picture of returned products – showing corrugated box as well as the returnable Longspac (from

Phase 3 trial).

Weight of Longspacs

The total weight of the final Longspac design for Phase 3 trial, including handles, and Velcro fittings, was 3.06kg.

This comprised:

2.420kg polypropylene Correx® main body

0.186kg polypropylene Correx® end pieces (2 units, 0.093kg each)

0.454kg circular woven polypropylene outer, handles and Velcro fittings.

Recycled Content and Recyclability

The inner black Correx® sheets at 700 GSM each weigh 2.6 kg and can include reprocessed polypropylene.

Once they have completed a number of trips and are no longer fit for purpose, they are fully recyclable. The

Velcro® seal is polyamide (not polypropylene). However, this does not impact on the Longspacs recyclability, as

there is an insignificant amount by overall weight. The Longspacs are taken off site by J & A Young for

recycling. J & A Young has confirmed they can be reprocessed into recycled polypropylene granules, which are

then sold on to a variety of companies making products as diverse as door handles and castor wheels.

The project team felt that, in the future, it may be possible to reduce to a 550 GSM Correx® and potentially

re-introduce recycled content into the Correx® at an appropriate strength and rigidity. There was speculation

that carbon black in the recycled content Correx® may have contributed to the issues experienced. Tests could

be undertaken to trial recycled Correx® (with carbon content) to ensure stacking and crush strength or

alternatives to carbon black could be tested in the future.


4.2 Environmental Benefits

When assessing the environmental benefits of a reusable system against a single-trip format, there are a wide

range of factors that could be considered including: materials used in each packaging format; waste arising from

each system; impacts associated with transportation and the return trip for reusable packaging; recycled content

of packaging; end-of-life management for the packaging; and, importantly, impacts associated with changes in

product damage.

At the start of the project, damage to Longs products was not considered significant and damage reduction was

not a key driver for the introduction of a reusable packaging format. However, the project team recognised that

maintaining low levels of product damage, or eliminating damage altogether, was an important success criterion

for the trial. This was achieved as during the trial there were no reported damages to Long products.

Details of end-of-life management and recycled content have been covered earlier in the Technical Performance

Section of the Analysis. The following text highlights impacts associated with material use, waste arisings and

from transportation.

Waste Reduction

The current single-trip corrugated board transit pack weighs 1.5 kg. The weight of a Longspac (based on the

specification used in Phase 3 of the trial using 700 GSM Correx®) is 3.06kg. The Correx®, fabric and handle

specifications are all variable and these specifications need careful consideration for the individual product ranges

and distribution systems to maximise commercial and environmental benefit.

If the Longspac specification for the Phase 3 trial is used and 20 reuses are achieved; it is calculated that a pool

size of 14,500 reusable Longspacs would be sufficient to cover both seasonal variation in delivery volumes and

the cycle time for Longspacs to return through the system. This pool size is based on number of deliveries and

reuse rate.

Approximate annual usage of 290,000 single-trip corrugated Longs boxes at 1.5kg = 435 tonnes, which

equates to approximately 457,000 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents.

The weight of reusable packaging used (for the same 290,000 deliveries) would be 14,500 x 3.06kg =

44.37 tonnes, which equates to approximately 130,000 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents.

Considering solely packaging material inputs, this gives a net saving of approximately 400 tonnes per annum

and 327,000 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents6.

Logistic Efficiencies

Impacts associated with the Longspac return-trip back to Branston are unlikely to be significant, as the packs

come back in the same delivery vehicle utilising an existing closed-loop.

If Longspacs were rolled out across all Longs products, 290,000 single-trip corrugated board boxes would not be

used annually, which would lead to a reduction in the quantity of corrugated material transported to Branston.

This transport saving must be balanced against impacts associated with the delivery of Longspacs to Branston

and end-of-life recycling of these packs.

The current cardboard longs boxes are delivered from Oldham (Lancashire) compared to Thirsk (North Yorkshire)

for the Longspac. By weight, most of the Longspacs components are UK sourced, such as the Correx® which

accounts for 2.5kg of the total 3.06kg Longspac weight. The next heaviest component, at almost 0.5kg, is the

fabric which is imported from the Ukraine.

6 The carbon impact associated with „material inputs for the packaging‟ are calculated by using generic carbon conversion

factors, for corrugated material and polypropylene (PP), to calculate carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions figures. These

carbon conversion figures are taken from WRAP‟s Courtauld Commitment Carbon Methodology. For the PP carbon conversion

figure, an average of the rigid/boxes figure and the flexible/film figure has been used.


4.3 Costs and Benefits

The commercial viability of using Longspacs compared with single-trip packaging depends on a number of

variables, such as the:

Relative purchase cost of single-trip packaging (corrugated cardboard and tape) and the Longspac;

Number of reuses that can be achieved;

Loss rate of Longspac per delivery cycle;

Difference in product damage rates between single-trip packaging and Longspac;

Time and resources required for packaging and handling using single-trip packaging versus Longspacs;

Cost of operating a closed loop system to track, inspect and clean Longspacs; and

Length of time taken for the Longspac to complete each distribution and return cycle.

Seasonal variation in deliveries and the impact this has on the pool of reusable packaging required

The key consideration in the commercial viability of Longspac will be the extent to which these variables can be

predicted, controlled and improved upon. As an example, the calculation below illustrates the issue of

commercial viability for the cost of Packaging Recovery Notes (PRNs) necessary to demonstrate compliance with

the packaging waste regulations. PRNs equivalent to the obligation for single-trip packaging are required each

time it is used, but only for the first usage of reusable packaging.

Comparative cost of buying PRNs for single-trip packaging versus Longspacs:

Single-trip packaging

For 290,000 corrugated board Longs boxes at 1.5 kg each

Weight of single-trip packaging 435 tonnes per year

Average PRN price for paper (2009) £9.50 per tonne

Cost of packer/filler and seller obligation £2,400

Reusable packaging (Carrierpac)

For 14,500 Longspacs at 3.06 kg each

Weight of Carrierpacs required (20 trips) 44.37 tonnes

Average PRN price for plastic (2009) £43.75 per tonne

Cost of packer/filler and seller obligation £694

The initial business case developed for Longspacs highlighted that the reusable packaging format becomes commercially viable after 11-17 trips (depending on the specification). This trial set a key performance indicator of reaching 20 trips, and during the trial it was demonstrated that this level of reuse is technically viable. If this level of reuse can be achieved during roll out across longs products at B&Q, substantial savings in the order of £150,000 / per year will be realised, particularly in terms of packaging cost-savings and labour costs. Purchasing 290,000 cardboard longs boxes annually is costing B&Q over £300,000 a year. Using Longspacs, in place of the cardboard single-trip packaging format, would reduce packaging costs by more than 50% a year. Financial savings would also be made from reduced assembly time.


5.0 Conclusions

Reusable Packaging Benefits

Within the final stage of the trial, Longspacs averaged 22 trips. Some Longspacs were lost during the final trial,

due to distribution route errors or not returned to the Showroom Fulfilment Centre (SFC), resulting in 29 of the

100 Longspacs used in Phase 3 continuing in use at the end of the trial. This reflects the importance of effective

training, awareness, monitoring and incentives to ensure effective operation of the closed loop and return of the

packaging to the national SFC.

The trial prevented around 3,200Kg of single-trip corrugated board packaging from entering the domestic waste

stream. If this packaging format is rolled out to all B&Q‟s long product home deliveries, the multi-trip Longspac

has the potential to reduce packaging waste by more than 400 tonnes per year.

Although damage to longs products was not a key concern (as levels were negligible), no damage was reported

and no customer complaints were received during the trials. Damage to packaging was reduced as Longspacs

were found to withstand periods outside with no detrimental effect (unlike the single-trip corrugated board

packaging which would absorb moisture and lose strength in wet conditions).

Labour and time cost savings were demonstrated because, unlike the single-trip corrugated boxes, the reusable

packaging format did not have to be cut, folded or assembled on site prior to the picking and packing of the

longs products. The Longspacs arrived folded flat and ready for packing. However, the Longspacs did require

logging at the returns centre, inspection for cleanliness and damage, removal of previous documents/labels and

folding ready for the next trip. Overall, labour and time requirements for the reusable packaging format were

more cost effective compared to the single-trip packaging system.

In addition to demonstrating the technical ability of Longspac to deliver products to customers efficiently, using a

reusable packaging format also enhanced the customer‟s experience. The product, upon arrival, was

professionally presented and the customer was not left with bulky packaging, which may have been difficult to

dispose of. Removal of the packaging on-site, allowed any immediate issues to be resolved (e.g. wrong

component or obvious damage), which enabled the product to be returned immediately and allowed a faster

response to failed deliveries.

Feedback from drivers and distribution centre staff was positive, with drivers reporting that the pulling handles

made manoeuvring and handling within stillages easier. Avoiding the use of tape also reduces the risk of

product damage and personal injury when opening the pack as sharp tools are not needed.

Commercially Attractive

The business case developed by CEVA Logistics (at the outset of the project) highlighted the potential cost

benefits of using multi-trip packaging versus single-trip for longs products at B&Q. Commercially, the break even

point for a Longspac was estimated to be when the reusable packaging had completed between 11 and 17

reuses or trips depending on the final specification of the Longspac. The KPI for number of reuses was set at 20

trips for the trial. Data indicated that exceeding this level of reuse is achievable and that the Longspac could be

commercially successful if introduced across the full range of longs products7.

The Longspac provides an opportunity to physically demonstrate B&Q‟s commitment to resource efficiency and

packaging reductions and provides a platform for positive corporate environmental messages on-pack for both

distribution colleagues and customers. Due to the life expectancy of the multi-trip Longspacs, printing could be

added to allow on-pack promotion and provide the potential for a quality presentation to customers – although

the value of this would be limited if delivery drivers continued to leave the Longspacs in the stillage on the

vehicle at point of delivery.

7 This break even point compares to around 7 or 8 trips for the reusable packaging format previously developed for kitchen

worktops - the „Carrierpac‟, which breaks even sooner due to higher original damage rates to worktops and the high value of

the products to be transported.


B&Q and CEVA Logistics were encouraged by the results from this trial and were confident that this project

demonstrated the commercial and environmental viability of switching from single-trip to multi-trip packaging for

longs products.

The project team, having fine-tuned the optimum materials specifications for the Longspac for commercial

adoption, ordered 2,000 Longspacs for use across a range of „longs‟ products at B&Q. These Longspacs have

been used more than 20,000 times and saved over 30 tonnes of cardboard packaging8 and will accumulate

further packaging savings, as well as cost-savings, as the Longspacs continue to be reused.

Further Opportunities for Reusable Packaging

Following the roll out of the Longspacs, B&Q will continue to consider further opportunities for reusable

packaging solutions in other product areas. Other products and components could benefit from using a reusable

packaging format, similar to the Longspac, particularly those that are difficult to handle / transport and prone to

damage. However, reusable packaging is not always the most appropriate solution and material use and the

supply chain situation of each case should be examined before implementing any packaging changes. For some

products and supply chains, a single-trip packaging format may be environmentally preferential. For reusable

packaging to be viable, it is essential that there is the potential to return the packaging in an efficient closed-loop

operation, whether that is for a business-to-business or business-to-customer application. Establishing this

closed-loop is one of the key challenges to be overcome if the benefits of reusable packaging formats – both

environmental and commercial – are to be realised.

8 The number of uses and packaging savings were calculated in September 2010 by the Branston project team.


List of Appendices

1. Briefing Notes and Business Improvements Programme Communications

2. Research on Bonds, Tapes and Adhesives


Appendix 1 – Briefing Notes


Business Improvements Briefing Note

Reusable Longs Boxes - ‘Longspacs’ Background Following on from the success of Carrierpacs, a Business Case has shown the benefit of introducing reusable longs boxes. This Briefing Note is intended to tell you about reusable longs boxes, which are known as Longspacs, and to tell you how they will be introduced. Why Change? Some 280 – 290,000 cardboard longs boxes are used each year at Branston. These are made up by operatives from fold-flat cardboard, and are single-use boxes. The cost of the cardboard is over £300,000 a year, with the operative‟s time being an extra cost. These cardboard boxes are costly to the environment too, because each one weighs about 1.5Kgs, is used just once, and then goes into the waste stream. Where Are We Now? We have already run some early trials and have developed a prototype reusable Longspac. These prototypes were developed jointly by us, Storesack UK and Outpace Ltd and at all stages our warehouse staff and drivers have been involved, in that we have canvassed their views and made developmental changes accordingly. We now have 48 Longspacs of the latest development stage serially numbered and in use. The serial numbering is for trial purposes only, and the target for these is at least 20 trips each. They have gone out on Branston routes firstly, but will be sent to Outbases for our colleagues there to see and handle. The Longspac is made of polypropylene and is fully recyclable at the end of its life – it is considerably „greener‟ than its cardboard equivalent. What is vital to ensure the business benefits and grows stronger is that these are never left at any delivery point during the trial - this includes DSPs. The Future Provided these 48 prototype Longspacs successfully complete 20 trips each, we will be able to switch on production of 500 Longspacs to further demonstrate their effectiveness and economic viability. Once we have done that, and assuming there are no irresolvable issues, we will convert to these Longspacs for all onshore uses. Once these are in full use, we will track them by quantity dispatched, rather than by serial number. Please contact me or Mykle Alexander for further information.

Longspacs are not to be left at any delivery point during the trial


Kevin Corby

Business Improvements Manager

SFC Branston

Tel: 0777 583 8541 or 01283 497538

10th December 2008 (reissued 19th Jan 09)



Longspacs Are Here

WHY INTRODUCE LONGSPACS?

The Longspac project was started in recognition of the success of Carrierpacs which themselves improve social

responsibility, give better product care and generate cost reductions.

WHAT STAGE ARE WE AT?

We have concluded a comprehensive trial during which time the Longspacs went through several developmental

stages. We have just purchased 2000 of the latest version, which we will start using from today, the 14th June

2010. These Longspacs are tough, durable and easy to use.

WHAT IS MY ROLE IN THEIR USE?

Your role will depend on your job or department, as follows:

SFC Operations:

Keep assembled as boxes. Flattening them causes wear and makes them harder to handle. Ensure any old labels have been removed before the Longspac is used. Do not use for Offshore (Scottish Islands, Ireland, etc) or for Carrier. Always put the quantity of Longspacs used onto the footprint.

Transport/Crews/Outbases/ICs

Keep assembled as boxes. Flattening them causes wear and makes them harder to handle. Never place other items on top of Longspacs to avoid crushing them. Do not leave outside unnecessarily to get waterlogged when it rains. Return empty/undeliverable Longspacs to the SFC quickly. Annotate the manifest with the quantity being returned. Never leave Longspacs with customers or stores.

SFC Returns

Keep assembled as boxes. Flattening them causes wear and makes them harder to handle. Record them inbound, and send a weekly report to me as per Carrierpacs. Never place other items on top of Longspacs to avoid crushing them. Do not leave outside unnecessarily to get waterlogged when it rains.

Isolate and notify me of any damaged Longspacs on their return. Remove any old labels before sending to them to Warehouse 3.

Longspacs, like Carrierpacs, are valuable, reusable assets – return them quickly for re-use: don’t leave

them with customers.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Kevin Corby


SFC Branston

Mob: 0777 583 8541

14th June 2010



Reusable Longs Boxes - ‘Longspacs’

Background

Following on from the success of Carrierpacs, we are introducing

reusable longs boxes. This note aims to tell you about reusable

longs boxes, which are called Longspacs, and to tell you how they

will be introduced. A note was first issued on Longspacs in last

December. Since then we have successfully run a trial of 48

prototype Longspacs, made some changes as a result of the trial,

and have now had deliveries of the new (possibly final version).

These will be rolled out across the network starting this week.

Why Change?

Some 280-290,000 cardboard longs boxes are used each year at Branston. These are made up by operatives

from fold-flat cardboard, and are single-use boxes. The cost of the cardboard is over £300,000 a year, with the

operative‟s time on top. These cardboard boxes are costly to the environment too, because each one weighs

about 1.5Kgs, is used just once, and then goes into the waste stream.

Where Are We Now?

We are due to receive 500 of the latest version of Longspacs and these are serially numbered for the trial. They

will start to be despatched this week, to as many Outbases as possible, and it is likely that most DSPs will see

them too.

It is vital to ensure the business benefits are delivered by ensuring these are returned to Branston for reuse as

soon as possible. Most importantly: The Future

Provided the 500 latest-version Longspacs continue to demonstrate

their effectiveness and economic viability we will start to convert to

these, replacing cardboard, for all onshore uses. However, in due

course, some offshore routes might be included, possibly starting with

Northern Ireland.

Please feel free to contact me, or Neil Wilkinson, for further

information.

Kevin Corby


SFC Branston

Tel: 0777 583 8541 or 01283 497538

20th July 09

LONGSPACS ARE NOT TO BE LEFT AT ANY CUSTOMER PREMISES


Appendix 2 – Research on Bonds, Tapes

and Adhesives


Selection procedure for adhesives to bond Correx to Polypropylene Suitable adhesive systems were tested to select the best adhesive to bond Correx to Polypropylene, giving recognition to the ease of application, useful bond strength, bond flexibility, health & safety issues and cost. Liquid Adhesives Solvent based contact adhesives were found to progressively attack the Correx, causing the substrate to melt, and were of no use. Tests on the PP were therefore not undertaken. Water based contact adhesives were tested on both Correx and PP, the adhesive did not attack either substrate, but bond strengths were extremely low when tested in peel, sheer and cleave. Whilst cost per unit was low, the time taken to apply and achieve the low levels of bond strength ruled this adhesive type out. Cyanoacrylates were able to bond both substrates together, but the lack of gap filling capability of the adhesive did not allow for sufficient bond strength to be achieved. The adhesive is also difficult to apply in sufficient quantity, due to the extremely short open time of this type of adhesive. PVA adhesives are unsuitable for this application, as the substrates are non porous, the adhesive performs best with a very thin bond line allowing for absorption into both substrates. As the application requires a high degree of gap filling between the open weave of the PP and the Correx, this type of adhesive was discounted. The bond line is also very inflexible. Two part structural adhesive Acrylic adhesives were tested and although were successful in bonding both substrates with only minor melting to the Correx, the bond line was too thick and inflexible to allow movement, and were therefore rejected. The open time of the adhesive was too long, and to achieve a bond of any strength the substrates needed to have constant pressure applied during cure time. Epoxy Adhesives were found to be effective in bonding both substrates, but were both expensive and difficult to apply, as well as having a cure time that was too long to enable then to be successfully used in a production situation. The bond line proved too thick as well. Urathane adhesives were both expensive and difficult to apply, and required expensive application systems. The bond strength was found to be very good, but too inflexible for the application. Hot Melt Adhesive Systems For ease of application of all the liquid adhesive systems, sprayable hot melt adhesive proved to be the easiest to apply. Various hot melt types were trialled, varying in length of open time and bond strength. To achieve a better bond strength, a shorter open time was required, and best results were achieved when pressure was applied to both substrates to aid lamination. Gap filling was amongst the best of all the liquid systems, although like all rubber based adhesives, bond strength diminished when subjected to low temperatures, but did not build up again when reintroduced to ambient temperatures. Wet grab was very good and the adhesive allowed for good bond flexibility. Adhesive Tape Systems Acrylic adhesives were tested and found to have too little wet grab for the Correx substrate, and therefore had very little bond strength, but were flexible. Temperature tests found the product only working in ambient (room) temperatures and above. They were, as a consequence found unsuitable. Extruded butyl rubber adhesive tape (without a carrier) have excellent wet grab capabilities, because of the thickness of the tape, their capability to flow into the open weave of the PP was found to be the best of all adhesives and tapes tested. At low temperatures the adhesive system became brittle, and bond strength drastically reduced however, when reintroduced to ambient room temperature and above, bond strength reverted to the original levels and remained excellent. The only negative to this tape was its difficulty to cut, due to the elastic nature of the product. Double sided synthetic rubber tape, proved the easiest to apply due to its easy tear characteristic, it has excellent gap filling capabilities and has very high wet grab to both substrates. Like the extruded butyl rubber system it suffered adhesion loss at low temperatures, but when reintroduced to ambient room temperatures it regained its original bond strength.

www.wrap.org.uk/retail

http://www.wrap.org.uk/retail

Documents

Final Report Reusable „Longspac‟ packaging Longspacs Trial Report Sept … · This pool size is based on total number of deliveries and reuses, as well as taking into account