Cost and Waste Comparison of Reusable and Disposable Shipping Containers for Cut Flowers

Abstract

Logistics is a fundamental component of the post-harvest processes, especially in the floricultural sector where the products have to be marketed in short times after the cutting because of their fragility. In the previous years, new approaches to efficiently manage the logistical function and to reduce costs and environmental impacts have been consolidated. In this paper, the investments for two different containers for flower transportation, one disposable and one reusable, are compared, considering a specific supply chain located in central Italy. All data were provided by stakeholders. These were divided into four groups: purchasing, administration, logistical and disposal costs. For the reusable containers, a reverse logistical system, to collect the return components, was hypothesised by using the network analysis tool of the geographic information system (GIS). Results show that the use of a reusable system, which assures a production with less waste and less environmental pressures, is also economically advantageous. Reusable containers involve an initial investment but became cheaper from the second year of the investment and also remained convenient, considering all the costs related to the return collection of the items. Reusable system permits a financial advantage of approximately 140k€ in total and 21k€ for each year, considering all the nine years of analysis. Logistics is responsible of the great contribution of total cost in both the reusable and the disposable container (88% and 76%), probably because of the high fragmentation in the delivery service to sale points. Reverse logistics represents the 17% of the reusable container total costs. Product delivery from FT to the DC. The number of pallets shipped from FT to the DC was calculated by the monthly list of orders, considering a transport with a truck loaded with a maximum of 18 pallets. The distance was determined finding the shortest route between the two points with NAT. Finally, the two values were multiplied for the cost per pallet per kilometre, provided by FT.Product delivery from the DC to SPs. In this case, the yearly cost for transportation was calculated for each SP considered in the SC. Single values were obtained multiplying the constant cost (provided by FT) for the number of pallets ordered and for the distance from the DC determined with NAT. 208 P. MENESATTI ET AL.

Sustainability Assessment of a Self-Consumption Wood-Energy Chain on Small Scale for Heat Generation in Central Italy

“…The estimated saving using the thermal energy produced was 56.7 €·MWh , referring to a net annual thermal energy produced of 279 MWh. The economic analysis was conducted using the constant prices method [22,24,26,27], and did not include the annual changes in energetic costs factors such as wage or oil price. This latter, particularly in Italy, are very variable because strongly influenced by government taxes [27].…”

“…The economic analysis started from the year of initial investment to purchase the heating power plant. For the long-term period, the analysis was conducted using financial formulas based on the Net Present Value (NPV) method [22,[25][26][27]. NPV criterion is defined as a sum of present values of annual net incomes earned over the period.…”

The Operational, Economic and Environmental Benefits of Returnable Packaging Under Various Reverse Logistics Arrangements

“…Under this arrangement, the disposable packaging requirement was completely eliminated and replaced with the returnable packaging. In the figure, TH According to [24][25][26][27][28][29][30], the total effective packaging cost under a reverse logistics scheme entails five cost components: the disposable packaging cost, importer inland cost, ocean freight cost, exporter inland cost, and packaging cleaning and repairing cost. Nevertheless, the authors failed to discuss the calculation methods associated with these cost components.…”

“…According to [26], the returnable packaging considerably lowered the costs associated with the routine packaging purchase and disposal, but the scheme required a large initial investment. [24,[27][28][29][30] documented that the inland transportation and ocean freight costs were the main considerations in the deployment of returnable packaging; but failed to discuss the mathematic model used in the cost calculation.…”

Comparison of Disposable Dunnage and Reusable Cradles in Container Shipping of Steel Rolled Coils: A Case Study in South Korea

“…There have been various researches comparing the use of reusable and disposable packages. Menesatti et al . compared reusable and disposable shipping containers for cut flowers, analysing them in terms of cost and waste.…”