The design and selection of wood in a pallet can impact the final environmental performance of a pallet. So, not every design is created equal when it comes to meeting new sustainability standards.
The Pallet Enterprise recently discussed this issue with internationally-recognized pallet design expert, Dr. Marshall (Mark) White, professor emeritus at Virginia Tech and founder and president of White & Company LLC.
Pallet Enterprise: Price is still number one… right when it comes to pallet purchasing decisions? How is sustainability becoming a bigger part of the conversation?
Mark White: European companies that have established manufacturing capability in North America, they’re pushing decarbonization hard. And they’re pushing it to the packaging vendor suppliers to demonstrate that they have a program of decarbonization, and they want to see real results. This connects with new laws developing in Europe as well as public pressure to respond to climate change concerns.
A company that I recently met with said, yes, price is still number one. But in fact, the vice president of sustainability is sitting right there in the meetings with top executives for supply chain and purchasing. So, sustainability is moving up in importance.
Pallet Enterprise: How do sustainability concerns impact pallet design, wood selection, etc.?
Mark White: One quick warning: you have to be very careful in making plastic vs. wood comparisons. The reason is that there are a lot of variables to consider.
We have recently done a very peripheral dive into sustainability. We’re very familiar with wood and its scientific properties. We’re very familiar with its lifecycle. The National Wooden Pallet & Container Association recently put out the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for wood pallets, which contains some good baseline information. And if you look at decarbonization and reduce it down to a very basic level within a material like wood, it basically comes down to two metrics. It’s mass in the pallet and the number of times it is re-used or mass per use. If you can reduce mass per use, you will likely reduce the carbonization of that supply chain from the forest to the pallet manufacturer and actually to their customer. Because the less the mass, the less energy to transport, the less energy to manufacture.
If you look at manufacturing impacts, mass has a huge impact. And then, when we get to the use side, it’s how many times you use the pallet. So, if you look at global warming potential (GWP), that’s carbon equivalent, CO2 going into the atmosphere, I would be hard pressed to find an exception to low mass, more reuse as the best way to demonstrate decarbonization. And tools, such as Best Pallet™ and Best Load™ softwares, allow you to reduce mass and increase reuse cycles. And that’s the beauty of these tools. They basically give you the fundamental metrics you need to demonstrate to a customer that you’re decarbonizing.
Now the customers go way beyond this. They ask, “How do you address worker safety, eliminate child labor, ensure compliance with diversity objectives, etc.?” How do you affect these other societal impacts? After all, the three pillars of sustainability are economic prosperity, environmental impact, and human health and welfare. These major companies are demanding a program that covers all three of those areas. What I’m talking about in decarbonization is just really that one component of environmental impact. However, if you improve the efficiency of a supply chain, you’re having a positive impact on societal economics. You’re having a positive impact on society by being able to deliver a product from a manufacturer at minimal cost, and that has a positive impact on commerce and the workers making those products.
The same thing goes with health and welfare. When you apply these techniques of sustainability and optimizing the design of packaging and pallets, you make those supply chains safer. And so, you really are impacting the three legs of the tripod in this global view of sustainability.
Best Pallet and Best Load can calculate a sustainability score based on the ratio of empty packaging to the total mass of the unit load. And of course, we predict in the case of pallets, its durability and how many times it can be reused. The parameters are generated for everyone to show decarbonization, But
I tell everybody also, you’re making the supply chain safer if you use this systematic approach to design, which I helped pioneer.
Pallet Enterprise: The issue of mass is complex. The lighter the pallet, the less environmental impact when the pallet is in transport. But generally, if you take wood out of the pallet or you don’t use as high of a grade of fasteners, that’s going to affect the longevity and the number of uses for the pallet. It seems that reuse and the carbon used in transport are somewhat at odds with each other.
Mark White: You’re right. They absolutely are. So, what you do is you take the number of cycles the light-weight pallet, when maybe one cycle and it weighs 40 pounds, so you have a metric of 40 pounds per use, but you take the heavier one, the 60 pounder, which lasts 20 cycles and divide what’s your mass per use? Three pounds per use. Or stated another way, you have eliminated the carbonization associated with the manufacture of 19 pallets. However, I am glad you brought up fasteners. As I have often said, fasteners are half the performance of wood pallets. If we use low-quality fasteners, the mass per use will increase because the durability of the pallet is reduced.
Most damage to pallets occurs at the connections. If because of fastener choice, the damage to the pallet during one or more uses increases, you have increased the carbon footprint of the pallet. On a damaged pallet, the product may have to be repacked and the pallet replaced. The more damaged the pallet, the less parts to be salvaged for re-use. So this is a case where an attempt to reduce pallet cost actually increases the carbon footprint of the pallet.
Pallet Enterprise: All the modeling is only worth so much because execution really matters when it comes to environmental performance. How does your software take supply chain management into consideration?
Mark White: All we can do is base our analysis on a scenario for an average supply chain. We can estimate that this is how many cycles a pallet can go without needing to be repaired. But we can’t really measure or predict the ability of success in managing a particular pallet network. We only assume that someone will manage it. And without proper management, you won’t achieve the sustainability you’re looking for because you won’t get the pallet or packaging reused. If, because of losses, you have to replace most of your pallet pool of a heavy durable pallet, a light weight less durable pallet may reduce the environmental impact. So, management that captures the pallet and repairs the pallet for reuse is key to reducing the environmental impact of pallet re-use.
Pallet Enterprise: What impact do wood species have on the sustainability discussion? Whether you’re using a solid species, maybe you’re using nothing but poplar, or maybe you’ve got a mixed species hardwoods?
Mark White: Well, species selection matters. The density of a wood species is one of the best predictors of the strength of the wood. Thus, we can reasonably expect that denser woods in a pallet renders it more durable and although the pallet weighs more the number of uses will increase and mass per use may decrease.
I think a more important issue is availability and to select from among different wood species options without sacrificing pallet performance. This includes switching back and forth between softwoods and hardwoods. Twenty years ago, we were using about as much softwood timber as we grew. That has changed and made softwood more available in some pallet markets. Generally, more available woods are lower cost. Doing this while reducing mass per use reduces both cost and environmental impact. Our software helps you to capture the benefits and understand these impacts of substituting wood species. Since the cost of the raw material is the largest cost of manufacturing the pallet, often reducing cost improves sustainability.
Pallet Enterprise: One of the issues when it comes to weight is how much water is in the pallet. So, I assume that if you have dried either a dried hardwood or a KD material, it’s going to be lighter and probably have a better environmental footprint, or am I wrong on that?
Mark White: No, you’re absolutely right. As wood dries it loses weight and below 30% moisture, it also gets stronger. Thus, the mass per use of the pallet made with dry wood will likely decrease, and the pallet carbon footprint will likely also decrease. If the wood is airdried the metric applies. However, kiln drying is a very energy intensive process.
This would tend to increase the carbon footprint. But that brings up an important issue, when we look at the EPD for wood pallets. It is typically on wood at 12% moisture. Kiln dried softwood is 19% and hardwood in pallets can be 50% moisture or more. So, for this and other reasons, we must be careful how we use the content of this and other EPDs.
Pallet Enterprise: So, I think I hear you saying that a more sustainable pallet may also be a lower cost pallet?
Mark White: Yes, these two principles of cost and sustainability often go hand in hand in wood pallets because the largest cost of making a pallet is the cost of the raw material. If we reduce the mass per use we have likely reduced both the cost per use and the carbon footprint.
Editor’s Note: White & Company offers pallet design software Best Pallet™ and total unit load optimization software Best Load™ in addition to consulting services and annual training events. For more information, call (540) 230-1233 or visit www.whiteandcompany.net/
