[LINK] "less packaging" vs "less damage"

[Karl Auer]

On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 13:12 +1000, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> the real solution is that those that value "less packaging" more then
> "damaged goods" should pay for that value to be realised. the solution of
> course is for these people to take the stuff to recycling themselves.

You are missing the point. Better/less packaging is possible at NO
additional cost to the manufacturer/supplier, they just need a bit of
incentive (legislation) to find and use it. The actual effect wherever
this has been tried has been a BETTER bottom line.

> but it is far more annoying to have to deal with damaged
> goods improperly packed, phone calls, returns, frustration of not being able
> to use something you have paid for. no thank you.

You assume that less packaging is going to cause damage. It doesn't
necessarily, vast numbers of products are overpackaged or
inappropriately packaged for marketing or other reasons (like
ignorance). You also assume that the only response to being made
responsible for their packaging is that manufacturers will use less,
leading to damage. Wrong again. What they do is move to packaging that
is easier to dispose of or reuse. In the case of food, people buy the
stuff with the least packaging, all other things being equal. That leads
directly to a market advantage for any company that can produce
effective minimal packaging. And this isn't lefty waffle, this is
hard-nosed fact, and has been for years in many countries. It *does*
work.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)                   +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/                  +61-428-957160 (mob)