Sustainability – The Pros and Cons of Reusable Containers versus Single-use Containers

More and more pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributor/wholesalers and clinical trial operators are interested in the pros and cons of reusable containers versus single-use containers. With minor changes in qualification and a simple inspection program, single-use shippers may be a new tool for your sustainability program.   

When it comes to sustainability, a new option exists other than the typical binary decision between reusable and single-use thermal shippers. The single-use container, an EPS or a polyurethane shipper, can potentially be used multiple times within the supply chain. When comparing single versus reusable, too often the conversation comes down to reusable container challenges: hard sided, molds, weight, and cost and convenience of a single-use container. On the sustainability side, too much emphasis is placed on reusing the packaging materials and not enough emphasis placed on the carbon footprint of these reusable containers.

Although the reusable containers are more robust in their design, these containers also weigh significantly more than a typical single-use thermal shipper. The issue with this additional weight is that every time you use them, shippers spend more money on the shipping process. This additional cost directly translates into a significantly higher carbon footprint. Shipping lighter packaging is an effective sustainability strategy because “greenhouse gas” emissions are almost exclusively driven by the weight of the shipper and the method of transport through the logistics cold chain. 

Before you make decisions from a sustainability point of view, not all logistics networks lend themselves to multiple-use packaging. First you must assess the destination facility. Do you have a reasonable chance to get the packaging back? What type of controls are in place to return your packaging? The return logistics program begins and ends with the destination site.

Additionally, multi-use vacuum insulated panel (VIP) shippers with phase-change materials (PCM) use different technology than a very simple and robust polyurethane or EPS shell. Just because you asked the consigner to attach a return label on it and ship it back to your distribution center - if they are willing to do so - are they able to do it in a way that they can ensure that the components are not damaged in transit?  Also, any type of sustainability program or reuse program requires more than just the destination side being willing to participate. You also need to factor in bulk collection and return process. It is not a cost-effective strategy to ask sites to return empty boxes on a one-to-one basis. It doesn’t make sense to say you’re trying to be sustainable by shipping product overnight and return it to you the next day, a single box at a time. Instead, a program would need to collect and move empty packaging in bulk. Sustainability programs with a reverse logistics component rely on a consolidated return to reduce the cost. Does the site have the space to collect before returning? What additional manpower and costs are involved?

[inlinead]

Let’s look at current single-use systems, and see if there is a chance for reuse and repurposing.  I don’t think anybody is going to make the argument that an EPS system with gel ice is as robust as a reusable one, but they might be robust enough to handle multiple shipments. A common argument for a traditional reusable shipper: “Here’s an EPS shipper that costs $10, and here’s a VIP/PCM shipper that costs $100, but if you use it 12 times, it’s cheaper.” However, you need to consider that the visual inspection process is not robust enough for a VIP and PCM container. The central question is how would you know that you could reuse it? Do you automatically just keep it for 20 uses? What happens if it fails at use number five? What happens if it could go 40 times?

The next question is what type of inspection and recertification process do you need to put in place to confirm that the reusable shippers are still viable. When doing the financial calculations, you can only estimate how many uses or shipments you will get out of the container. You may calculate that an average: 10, 15, or 20 uses. However, the issue is determining what type of inspection process to use to determine which ones are going to fail early and why they are failing. For example, there is no guarantee that a vacuum-insulated panel will not experience damage in transit.  A pinhole leak can completely degrade the insulation of the vacuum-insulated panel. Absorption of moisture over time can do the same thing. Will you retest the thermal chamber to verify if the shipper is still viable? Or do you risk putting it back in the system only to have one of the panels fail -- having a temperature excursion with potential loss of actual drug product? In addition, the phase change material itself can have leakage that can lead to odor and/or discoloration. An inspection process that does not confirm the physical integrity and thermal capabilities insert significant risk into any reusable container program.

In conclusion, when looking at a sustainability or reuse program, I think it is a false choice between an EPS or polyurethane shipper as a single-use container versus a reusable container with vacuum-insulated panels and phase-change material. Consider the idea of using both EPS and polyurethane for multiple uses where you have the ability to do upfront qualifications and some simple inspection steps to confirm reusability. Even two or three uses out of a traditional ‘single use’ EPS or a polyurethane shipper from both a cost and a sustainability perspective could be a more powerful combination than the heavy, bulkier, more expensive vacuum-insulated panels with phase-change systems on the market right now.

Repurposing is an attractive alternative.  Repurposing is done farther down the logistics cold chain. Distributors and wholesalers and even hospitals and clinics themselves repurpose single-use shippers all the time. The pharmaceutical companies are challenged by doing so because the qualification process only anticipates a single use shipper. However, if you change the qualification program for a multiple use, that gives the pharmaceutical companies opportunity to repurpose as well.  Qualifying what is a traditionally single-use container for multiple uses as part of the qualification process highlights other options available for your sustainability program.  

For more from Gary Hutchinson click here.