A manufacturer changes its shipping carton. Purchasing sees a lower unit price, the warehouse sees a different packing method and the EPR team sees a new weight. Kodo’s cost analysis connects those effects so management can assess the result for the whole operation.
A cheaper carton can be a useful improvement. It can also require more filling, take longer to pack or increase damage in transit. A lighter component may reduce material use without changing the carrier’s invoice. An error in the packaging catalogue can distort the calculation before anyone considers a physical change.
Our Packaging and EPR cost savings analysis brings these questions into one assessment. We establish the current costs, compare specific alternatives and show the expected benefit after the related costs and investment.
The service is intended for manufacturers, importers, distributors, retail chains and e-commerce businesses whose packaging volumes or complexity justify a detailed review. We can start with one site, product family or costly packaging configuration rather than the whole company.
A separate assignment alongside regular EPR work
Extended producer responsibility, or EPR, is the framework behind packaging responsibilities and associated reporting and contributions. Regular representation and reporting work addresses the agreed compliance administration.
A cost analysis asks an additional commercial question: what could the business change, and would that change pay for itself? It draws on packaging records but also needs purchasing prices, packing methods, logistics and technical constraints.
This is an individually scoped, separately priced assignment. It is not automatically included in the basic annual representation fee. A company can commission it while keeping its existing reporting arrangements. Implementation, ongoing measurement and system integrations are agreed separately where needed.
Establish what the business spends today
The starting point is a documented baseline: the current position against which every alternative will be compared. We agree the legal entity, countries, period, products and cost boundary first.
The evidence usually comes from several departments:
- Purchasing supplies packaging prices, supplier specifications and commercial terms.
- Product or production teams supply bills of materials, component quantities and packaging versions.
- Warehousing and fulfilment provide consumption, packing configurations, dispatches and returns.
- Sales and accounting provide quantities, destinations, relevant dates and previous costs or reports.
We need the empty weight of each packaging component, not the weight of the filled product. A product identifier, often called an SKU, must connect to the packaging actually used during the relevant period. A carton introduced in September should not silently replace the earlier specification in a calculation for the whole year.
Country and physical flow matter too. We distinguish Czech deliveries, documented exports, internal movements and returnable circulation. We examine who receives and unpacks the goods and where each packaging component actually ends its journey. A billing address alone may not answer those questions.
Any different reporting treatment needs supporting evidence and the applicable country and period rules. Changing a transport route or calling a delivery an export is not itself an EPR saving. Destination-market costs and responsibilities belong in the assessment as well.
Find data errors before comparing new packaging
We trace the relationship from SKU to packaging configuration, individual components and actual quantities. Common problems include grams entered as kilograms, packs treated as individual items, outdated specifications, duplicated assemblies and components counted both separately and within a complete set.
Material or flow assignments can also be wrong. A shipping carton added by a warehouse may be missing, while a shared outer carton may have been allocated in full to every product inside it.
These checks matter in both directions. Correcting an overstated weight may reduce a reported amount. Finding a missing component may increase it. We identify that as a correction to the records, separately from savings created by a new packaging design or process.
EKO-KOM’s own audit overview describes comparisons between sales and calculation inputs, checks of dispatch areas, weighing and classification. Our commercial analysis can use these kinds of controls to establish reliable inputs; it is separate from a formal system audit. EKO-KOM — audit scope
Missing evidence remains an open item. An unknown component weight does not become zero, and an unsupported assumption does not become a confirmed saving.
Compare changes across the whole operation
Once the baseline is sufficiently supported, we develop alternatives with the responsible staff and suppliers. Each option is evaluated at a comparable production or sales volume.
| Possible change | Where a benefit might arise | What could reduce or reverse it |
|---|---|---|
| Lighter or better-sized packaging | Lower purchase cost, material use or relevant weight-based contributions | Lower strength, extra protection or more damage |
| Fewer layers or different components | Less material and simpler packing | Product compatibility, separation or labelling requirements |
| Suitable single-material construction | A simpler material combination or easier handling | Higher unit price or insufficient barrier performance |
| Revised outer carton and void fill | Better fit, lower consumption and less packing work | New equipment settings, handling time or breakage |
| Better carton and pallet utilisation | Fewer cartons, pallet positions or shipments | Load limits, stability and customer delivery constraints |
| Returnable crates, pallets or IBCs | Repeated use instead of repeated purchases | Return transport, cleaning, losses and low actual reuse |
These are possibilities to calculate, not claims that every company can benefit from all six. A monomaterial is useful only when it performs the required function. A smaller box improves freight costs only if the carrier’s pricing or the actual number of shipments changes.
We separate straightforward record corrections from operating changes and supplier-dependent redesigns. The latter may require samples, packing trials, product-protection tests and approval before any benefit can be treated as achievable.
Returnable packaging needs a full-cycle calculation
An intermediate bulk container, or IBC, may look economical when its purchase price is divided by an optimistic number of uses. We instead examine the rotations the business can reasonably achieve, including time awaiting return, repair or cleaning.
A practical cost-per-use model allocates acquisition and eventual residual value across supported useful rotations, then adds return transport, cleaning, inspection, handling and expected loss or damage costs. The fleet size and storage required to keep deliveries running also matter.
The assumptions must be consistent. If early losses already reduce expected useful rotations, the same lost purchase value should not be charged again elsewhere in the model.
A returnable system can work well on a controlled loop and poorly on dispersed deliveries with low return rates. Commercial per-use costing also remains distinct from the packaging’s reporting treatment.
Make the arithmetic traceable
The calculations begin at component level:
Component mass in kg = empty component weight in kg × components per configuration × actual configurations used.
For specifications in grams, divide by 1,000 before calculating kilograms. Group the result by the relevant material, category, flow and period before applying a rate.
Weight-based charge = relevant mass in kg × applicable rate per kg.
If a rate is published per tonne, convert the kilograms to tonnes first. Actual fee calculations must follow the relevant schedule; other charges may also apply.
The operating comparison then combines packaging purchases, relevant EPR costs, affected transport, handling and other costs within the agreed boundary. Net annual savings are the original recurring costs minus the proposed recurring costs at comparable volumes. Extra recurring expenses belong in the proposed total.
Simple payback in years = total one-off project cost ÷ positive net annual savings.
One-off analysis, testing, tooling and implementation costs are shown separately from recurring costs. Simple payback does not capture every financing or cash-timing consideration; those can be added where relevant to the decision.
We avoid counting the same effect twice. A freight saving already captured by a lower carrier invoice is not added again as a separate reduction in pallet cost. Handling included in a supplier’s bundled price must not also be charged as an independent cost without adjustment.
An illustrative carton comparison
Consider a fictional operation using 100,000 identical shipping cartons annually. The original empty carton weighs 220 g and costs CZK 8.00; the proposed carton weighs 190 g and costs CZK 7.30.
For this demonstration only, assume every carton falls within the same weight-based charge calculation at an invented CZK 5 per kg in both variants. This is not an EKO-KOM rate or a quote for any country or period. Real analysis would establish the correct treatment and current rates.
| Annual calculation | Original | Proposed |
|---|---|---|
| Cartons used | 100,000 | 100,000 |
| Total empty carton mass | 22,000 kg | 19,000 kg |
| Purchase cost | CZK 800,000 | CZK 730,000 |
| Model weight-based charge | CZK 110,000 | CZK 95,000 |
| Additional recurring operating cost | CZK 0 | CZK 12,000 |
| Total of the compared costs | CZK 910,000 | CZK 837,000 |
The purchase difference is CZK 70,000 and the model charge difference is CZK 15,000. After the extra CZK 12,000, net recurring savings are CZK 73,000 a year.
Assume a total one-off project budget of CZK 100,000, including analysis, validation and implementation. This is a fictional combined budget, not Kodo’s service price. Simple payback is approximately 16.4 months. After that one-off cost, the first full year’s net benefit would be negative CZK 27,000.
Transport, other labour and damage are assumed unchanged and therefore excluded from both compared totals. That assumption requires testing before adoption. Reduced mass alone would not justify claiming an additional freight saving.
Volume matters too. At 80,000 cartons, keeping the same unit differences and the extra CZK 12,000 fixed annual cost, recurring savings fall to CZK 56,000. We test such sensitivities rather than presenting the highest-volume result alone.
What 5–10% means on a larger cost base
Our public offer uses a separate illustration: CZK 3,000,000 in annual packaging, EPR and related logistics spending. A 5% reduction equals CZK 150,000; 10% equals CZK 300,000.
Those percentages refer to that defined combined cost base, not automatically to EPR fees alone. They are scenarios, not achieved client results or a guaranteed range. Any implementation costs and recurring consequences must be included before calling the result a net saving. This illustration and the carton model are separate examples, not amounts to add together.
From the first discussion to a pilot decision
The assignment follows a practical sequence:
Loading diagram…
Read diagram as text
flowchart TD
S["Agree products, markets and cost boundary"] --> D["Collect and check source records"]
D --> B["Establish the documented baseline"]
B --> V["Compare feasible packaging and process options"]
V --> T["Test volumes, prices, reuse and operating costs"]
T --> R["Present net benefit, payback and open questions"]
R --> C["Client decides: proceed, pilot or defer"]
classDef source fill:#ffffff,stroke:#ded5ca,color:#282623;
classDef process fill:#e8ded1,stroke:#c7b8ac,color:#282623;
classDef review fill:#ece2e5,stroke:#c2adb3,color:#57373f;
classDef result fill:#282623,stroke:#282623,color:#f8f4ed;
class S,D source;
class B,V process;
class T,R review;
class C result;We begin by agreeing the coverage, deliverables and price. Existing exports and documents can be enough to start; an API integration is not a prerequisite. We identify the largest cost drivers and missing evidence before spending time comparing marginal items.
Options are then tested against purchase prices, volumes, logistics assumptions and, where relevant, reuse cycles. Product protection, supplier capability and operating constraints are considered with the client’s responsible staff.
Kodo prepares the analysis and recommendations. The client approves changes. A pilot can establish packing time, damage, transport effects or return rates before wider implementation. A recommendation to defer a change until evidence is available is a useful result too.
What management receives
The final output should make a decision possible. It includes:
- A breakdown of current costs by the agreed products, packaging and markets.
- A list of inconsistencies, their effects and the evidence needed to resolve them.
- Comparable original and proposed costs, with assumptions and uncertainties visible.
- Expected net benefit, one-off project costs and payback where supported.
- Priorities based on benefit, effort, technical readiness and operational risk.
- Named next steps: who needs to supply a specification, obtain a quote, approve a correction or organise a trial.
The result distinguishes corrections ready for approval, operational measures that can be introduced and redesigns needing a pilot. It should explain the conclusion rather than leave management to interpret a long spreadsheet alone.
Documents and communication for the agreed work can stay together in the Kodo Portal. Connected data tools can help maintain consistent records and revisions. They cannot supply a missing specification or prove that a new carton protects the product. Our related article explains the ERP-to-EPR data workflow.
Practical questions
Do we need to change our EPR representative?
No. The cost analysis can be commissioned separately while existing registration and reporting arrangements remain in place. We agree the scope and access to the necessary evidence before starting.
Can correct reporting make our costs higher?
Yes. A review may identify missing components or understated quantities. Correcting those records is separate from finding an economically better packaging design or operating method.
Is a specific saving guaranteed?
No. The outcome depends on documented costs, feasible changes and the evidence supporting the assumptions. We show the calculation, related costs and any conditions that need testing.
The main conclusion
A useful packaging saving survives the full comparison: materials, EPR, logistics, handling, protection and the cost of making the change. Start with a defined part of the operation and evidence that can be traced back to actual packaging and movements. Then compare alternatives on the same basis.
How Kodo can help
Kodo’s Packaging and EPR cost savings analysis connects the records and operating costs behind that comparison. Send us the product group, markets and data already available. We will agree an initial scope and prepare an individual proposal, priced separately from regular representation and reporting.
Technical approval and implementation remain with the responsible client teams and suppliers. Legal or country-specific reporting questions are assessed with the relevant specialists where needed.
Discuss your packaging costs with Kodo
Related reading
- Czech packaging EPR: a data review before reporting
- From ERP to EPR: packaging data across EU markets
- Estimate Czech packaging fees in the Kodo Portal
Sources and example assumptions
- Kodo — Packaging and EPR cost savings analysis: scope, outputs and individual pricing
- EKO-KOM — published audit overview: completeness, weighing and classification controls
Prepared on 31 October 2026. Both financial examples are hypothetical; all carton prices, the model charge and the project budget are invented inputs, not current tariffs, service quotations or client results. Actual reporting treatment and rates require verification for the relevant country, period and packaging flow. This article explains the service and does not replace product testing or legal advice.