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

[Deus Ex Machina]

Karl Auer [kauer at biplane.com.au] wrote:
> 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*

I am happy to beleive it if you show me real evidence.

Vic