Rahm Emanuel, a former member of the Obama administration, once quipped that “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” suggesting that crises present unique opportunities for action that might otherwise be unattainable. But let’s add a twist to this adage: perhaps we should also consider the strategy of creating crises where none exist. In simpler terms, “never let a blessing go unchallenged.”
This brings us to the recurring debates surrounding “excessive packaging.” Just last year, the Public Interest Research Group took aim at Amazon for its use of excessive plastic packaging. Meanwhile, Canada’s Institute for Research on Public Policy is advocating for the Canadian government to emulate the EU and China’s approaches to “excessive” grocery packaging. In a similar vein, the Public Interest Research Group of Illinois has initiated an online petition urging Costco CEO Ron Vachris to abandon oversized packaging for its products.
The term “excessive” carries substantial weight, yet its definition remains elusive. Why would a profit-driven corporation squander resources on tape, bubble wrap, and cardboard when cutting down on those costs could lead to higher profits? If shareholders were aware of such waste, one can only imagine the backlash. Although regulations have made leveraged buyouts trickier, corporate leaders still need to tread carefully and ensure they’re maximizing profits.
Moreover, what might appear as “excessive” to one person could serve a legitimate purpose for a business. Take theft prevention, for instance; larger packaging can deter shoplifters. A loose Funko Pop toy is far easier to pocket than one sealed in a bulky plastic bubble. Thus, what some deem “wasteful” packaging may actually be a cost-effective alternative to security measures. Market research indicates that consumers often prefer the convenience of self-service shopping, even if it comes with a bit more packaging.
Additionally, packaging itself serves as a form of advertising. Consider the eye-catching designs of cereal boxes; the battle over shelf space between grocers and cereal manufacturers is a fascinating saga of marketing. When a company adopts what seems like a puzzling strategy, it’s prudent to assume there’s a rationale behind it that merits further consideration.
Recently, I’ve rekindled my interest in collecting, and I’ve observed the emphasis on “box art” in toy hunt vlogs. For collectors, the so-called “excessive” packaging is often a part of the product’s allure. Funko Pops, for example, come in visually appealing boxes. Recent Star Wars action figures are packaged in retro designs reminiscent of the original toys from the late 1970s and early 1980s. The figures displayed in my office—characters like Hondo Ohnaka, Greef Karga, and Bo-Katan Kryze—remain in their original packaging because, quite frankly, it’s just too cool to toss aside.
My recent foray into eBay has further eroded my faith in the “excessive packaging” narrative. Boxes, mailers, tape, bubble wrap, labels, and printer ink come with costs and space requirements that can strain budgets. When a package becomes bulkier or heavier, shipping costs inevitably rise. For casual sellers like me, a little extra tape might not seem like a big deal. But for giants like Costco and Amazon, which ship an astonishing 3.5 million packages a day, every penny counts. Just a penny saved on each package could contribute nearly $13 million annually to Amazon’s profits—an enticing incentive for any business.
So, are corporations like Amazon and Costco genuinely squandering resources on unnecessary packaging? I remain skeptical, and I suspect they don’t require much prodding from environmental advocates to cut back on waste—after all, they have financial motivations to do so already. It may not be wise for activists to allocate their limited resources praising companies for actions they were likely going to take anyway.
Art Carden is a Professor of Economics & Medical Properties Trust Fellow at Samford University.
