Cardboard versus returnable packaging: what single-use packaging really costs in industry

Contents

• Why the price per unit is not the price of packaging
• What single-use cardboard packaging really costs
• What returnable industrial packaging really costs
• Availability and part protection
• Comparing cost profiles: what hides behind the invoice price
• Where PPWR shifts the economics in favour of returnable packaging
• When cardboard still makes sense
• When to choose standard packaging and when a custom solution
• How to calculate the real costs for your company

Every procurement manager knows how cardboard looks on an invoice: a simple figure, no upfront investment, an easy case to make in an internal approval process. A cardboard box seems cheap. The problem is that the invoice price is only a fraction of the full picture of what single-use packaging actually costs an industrial company.

Let us do the maths together. A standard 5-ply corrugated box measuring 400 × 300 × 200 mm costs roughly CZK 22–29 at typical order volumes. A comparable plastic KLT box, the R-KLT 4315, retails at around CZK 216. On the invoice, then, KLT loses by a ratio of roughly 10:1. But convert the KLT price to a cost per cycle at a conservative service life of 200 cycles, and a single use works out at approximately CZK 1. A cardboard box costs the full purchase price every time it is used — always CZK 22–29. The reason is simple: in industrial and transport logistics, cardboard boxes are rarely reused. The real comparison is therefore CZK 1 versus CZK 22. And that is before EPR fees, disposal costs, and damage to shipments — all of which count against cardboard.

If the packaging decision also involves your logistics department (and in most industrial operations it does), the key question is different: will the packaging be there when the line needs it, and will the parts reach the customer undamaged? We address that dimension of the comparison in a separate section below.

This article covers:

• why price per unit is a poor indicator,
• which cost items companies routinely overlook when calculating packaging costs,
• how packaging economics change in the context of PPWR and EPR fees,
• how to approach the comparison practically in your own situation.

Why the price per unit is not the price of packaging

A packaging comparison in procurement practice usually looks like this: a cardboard box for X, a plastic KLT box for Y. The difference is typically anywhere from tens of percent to several multiples. Judged by the line on the invoice, cardboard wins easily.

The problem is that we are comparing two fundamentally different things. The KLT box comes back and goes out again — and again, for dozens or hundreds of cycles. The cardboard box is discarded after a single use. We are comparing a price per unit with a price per transport performance, and those are two entirely different quantities.

And even before we get to the per-cycle calculation, there is a whole range of costs that never enter the comparison at all — although they are genuinely there in the budget. From 2028, one further item will be added that most calculations do not mention today.

What single-use cardboard packaging really costs

Purchase price: the visible part of the costs

The purchase price of a cardboard box is indeed low compared with the price of plastic packaging. A standard 5-ply corrugated box measuring 400 × 300 × 200 mm costs approximately CZK 22–29 excluding VAT for orders from 15 units; at pallet quantities (240 units and above), the price falls towards CZK 22 (Source: eobaly.cz, July 2026).

A comparable plastic R-KLT 4315 container (400 × 300 × 147 mm) retails at around CZK 216 excluding VAT per unit (Source: enprag.cz, 2026). Used boxes can be bought from Czech e-shops from roughly CZK 96 excluding VAT (Source: pkgroup.cz, 2026).

At retail quantities, then, a box costs approximately CZK 22 and a KLT container approximately CZK 216 — almost ten times as much. Convert the KLT price to a cost per cycle at a conservative service-life estimate of 200 cycles, however, and it comes out at roughly CZK 1 per use. With a cardboard box, the cost per use always equals the purchase price: the box is consumed the first time it is used.

Storing empty packaging

Single-use cardboard is normally supplied flat — around 380 folded boxes in the 400 × 300 × 200 mm format fit onto a single EUR pallet (1,200 × 800 mm). Such a stock is compact, but every box requires assembly before use: folding, tucking the base, or sealing it with adhesive tape. Larger manufacturers therefore often keep a stock of pre-assembled boxes, which cannot be stacked and take up considerably more space.

On top of that, every use adds a waste stream: cardboard to be processed and hauled away. Warehouses have to set aside space for a baler or a container for waste paper.

Empty KLT containers (the R-KLT 4315 has a maximum stacking load of 600 kg) can be safely stacked 8–10 layers high. Once back from the loop, they go straight into circulation again, with no waste stream whatsoever.

Handling and staff time

A cardboard box has to be received, placed, unpacked, then flattened and taken away for processing. In an industrial operation with high shipment volumes, that time is not negligible. Handling returnable packaging has a different profile: the empty box comes back and returns to the line. The circulation of reusable packaging on a fixed cycle is organisationally predictable.

Damage to goods in transit

Cardboard packaging wears out under repeated handling, absorbs moisture, or loses its structural stability. For parts with higher protection requirements — painted surfaces, dimensional accuracy, ESD sensitivity — weakened packaging is a direct risk of scrap.

The cost of a complaint or a damaged shipment almost never makes it into a packaging comparison. Yet it is a cost with a direct link to the packaging decision.

Disposal and waste processing

Discarded cardboard has to go somewhere. An industrial plant pays for collection, and potentially for baling and hauling waste paper away. Depending on shipment volumes, this can be an item of varying size. It adds a fundamental asymmetry to the comparison with returnable packaging: cardboard generates disposal costs with every use, returnable packaging in principle none.

EPR fees: a regulatory cost that is arriving now

This is where the economics of cardboard packaging change fundamentally — and so far it is not visible in most companies’ calculations.

The EU packaging regulation (PPWR, Regulation (EU) 2025/40) introduces a system of eco-modulated EPR fees. Companies placing packaging on the market pay fees into extended producer responsibility schemes (in the Czech Republic primarily EKO-KOM). Criteria for recyclability classes A, B, and C will enter into force from 2028. From 2030, EPR fees will then be directly graduated according to the packaging class.

Cardboard packaging contaminated with product residue, multi-layer packaging, or packaging that is difficult to separate from its filling may end up in a less favourable recyclability class and mean a higher fee. What is more, an EPR fee for cardboard packaging arises with every use: every discarded box generates one.

It is important to understand who actually pays the EPR fee. The EPR obligation falls on whoever first places the packaging on the market in a given member state — that is, the manufacturer or supplier of the packaging, not necessarily its user. That cost is nevertheless reflected in the purchase price of the packaging that you pay. In a rental model for returnable packaging, the EPR obligation remains with the supplier. How this is set up at Lemmacon is explained in our article EPR in practice.

What returnable industrial packaging really costs

Upfront investment or rental

A plastic KLT box, a KTP container, or a plastic pallet costs an order of magnitude more to acquire than its cardboard equivalent. That is a fact no honest analysis will conceal. The question, however, is what you are buying for that money.

Acquiring your own pool of returnable packaging is a CAPEX investment with a return spread across many cycles. The alternative is renting from a packaging supplier, where you pay for transport performance without the upfront capital burden. Both models have their logic and different effects on the budget.

Price converted to a cost per cycle

The key metric for comparison with cardboard is the cost per cycle — that is, what a single use of returnable packaging costs. A plastic KLT box typically has a service life of hundreds of cycles; with proper care, thousands of cycles are not unusual. A KTP container or a plastic pallet has a comparable or even longer service life.

The upfront investment or rental fee spread across the number of cycles gives a price that, in most scenarios with a regular logistics loop, works out more favourably than comparable cardboard packaging — and that is before we add disposal, EPR, and damaged shipments on the cardboard side.

Servicing, cleaning, and losses

Returnable packaging is, of course, not maintenance-free. It needs to be cleaned, inspected and, where necessary, repaired. Repair tends to be a problem with single-piece plastic packaging — but multi-part constructions such as KTP boxes allow only the damaged component to be replaced, and the packaging is fully functional again. Losses of packaging within the logistics loop — units left at a customer’s site, mix-ups, theft — are equally a real cost. These costs can be measured and managed: tracking packaging through systems such as LemmaTrack makes it possible to identify losses in real time and reduce them systematically. A logistics manager can, for example, receive a notification if packaging deviates from its planned route. That protects not only the packaging itself against theft, but also the goods stored in it.

EPR and the regulatory advantage

Returnable packaging within a closed reuse system does not incur an EPR fee with every transport performance – after use, it does not become waste but returns to circulation. Under PPWR, from 2028–2030 this advantage will become increasingly visible in the price.

In a packaging rental model, the supplier — Lemmacon, for instance — additionally bears primary EPR responsibility for the packaging it owns. The customer is relieved of that obligation: they are not adding new packaging to the system that would generate an EPR liability. The transfer of EPR responsibility in the rental model is examined in detail in our article EPR in practice.

Availability and part protection

The financial comparison is only part of the picture. For a logistics department, two questions are decisive that the invoice price does not answer: will the packaging be on site at the moment it is needed? And will the part reach the customer undamaged?

Returnable packaging in a managed pool brings a predictability that cardboard cannot offer. The cycle is closed, the number of units in circulation is traceable, and the supplier can guarantee the availability of clean packaging within defined deadlines. Cardboard packaging works as a consumable: new stock, new order, new risk of a shortfall if a delivery fails or a supplier’s capacity fluctuates.

For parts of higher value or with specific surfaces — painted body panels, displays, ESD-sensitive electronics — cardboard packaging additionally represents a material risk. Every further round of handling reduces its structural stability and protective function. A plastic box retains its properties throughout its service life; a custom-designed insert for a specific part eliminates contact with the outer packaging and damage in transit.

Comparing cost profiles: what hides behind the invoice price

To illustrate the method, consider a scenario: a regular transport route within the Czech Republic running all year round. The table below shows which cost items enter the comparison and which are most often left out.

Where PPWR shifts the economics in favour of returnable packaging

PPWR (Regulation (EU) 2025/40) is enforceable from 12 August 2026. For packaging economics, it has three specific effects that are already beginning to influence cost comparisons.

Eco-modulation of EPR fees: from 2028, a cost based on recyclability class

Criteria for recyclability classes A, B, and C will enter into force from 2028. From 2030, EPR fees paid into schemes such as EKO-KOM will be graduated according to the packaging class: packaging with better recyclability (class A) will cost less in fees, packaging in the worst class (C) considerably more.

As we have already noted, returnable packaging within a closed reuse system does not incur an EPR fee for each transport performance. Eco-modulation is therefore a direct cost argument for switching to returnable packaging in regular logistics flows.

The void space rule: a cost for unused space

From 1 January 2030 (or three years after the relevant implementing acts are issued, whichever is later), empty space in transport packaging must not exceed 50% of its total volume. Filling materials count towards the empty space. It will therefore not be possible to fill the space with bubble wrap or paper filling and consider the requirement met.

Returnable packaging within a reuse system is explicitly exempt from this requirement (Article 24(5) PPWR). Companies affected by this rule that today use standard cardboard boxes with filling will have to either redesign their packaging solution or switch to packaging designed specifically for the part being transported. Both options represent a transition cost.

Reuse targets: what the obligation means for industrial flows

PPWR sets reuse targets for transport packaging: 40% for general transport packaging by 2030 and 100% for B2B transport within a single member state.

An important clarification: cardboard and corrugated boxes are explicitly exempt from this 100% target (Article 29(4) PPWR). Cardboard is therefore not excluded from the regulation across the board, but nor is it required to be replaced by returnable packaging in every case. From an economic standpoint, this means the regulation in itself does not compel a switch under all circumstances. What is beginning to compel companies, however, are rising EPR costs and void space compliance requirements.

When cardboard still makes sense

The direct comparison could end here. An honest analysis, however, must acknowledge that returnable packaging is not the right choice always and in all circumstances.

Cardboard makes sense:

• in one-off or irregular shipments where no logistics loop for returning packaging is in place;
• when shipping to destinations outside established customer pools (exports to third countries, customers outside a shared network);
• for highly specific shipments where the cost of designing and managing returnable packaging would outweigh the benefits;
• as a temporary solution when ramping up a new production line or for seasonal production with limited frequency.

If your company uses cardboard even where a regular logistics loop exists and returning the packaging is technically and organizationally feasible, that is a situation in which economic analysis will probably reveal room for optimization.

When to choose standard packaging and when a custom solution

The comparison above works with the most common scenario: cardboard or standardized plastic boxes. An honest analysis, though, has to go one step further and name one more comparison that arises in practice.

If you buy standardized KLT or KTP boxes in larger volumes and need nothing beyond that, a direct manufacturer will probably offer you a lower price than a reseller. Lemmacon will not win that comparison, and does not try to.

The calculation changes where a standard box is not enough. Specifically:

• The part being transported has specific dimensions or a specific surface. A generic box will not protect such a product. A painted part, a display, ESD-sensitive electronics — a cardboard divider will not do. You need packaging with an insert designed specifically for the part, eliminating contact with the outer packaging and the risk of damage to the product.
• Shipment density matters to you economically. Packaging designed specifically for a given part can increase the number of units per pallet and reduce the number of journeys required. At that point, the price of the outer packaging stops being decisive and the logistics costs for the whole shipment start to govern.
• You need traceability and pool management. You will buy a standard KLT more cheaply elsewhere. Without a tracking system, however, you do not know where your packaging is, how much of it is missing and what the losses cost you annually. It is, of course, possible to buy the packaging from one supplier (typically a manufacturer) and the tracking system from another.

In other words: the more specific the part being transported and the higher the demands on protection or shipment efficiency, the less the price of the packaging decides — and the stronger the case for a custom solution.

How to calculate the real costs for your company

A cardboard-versus-returnable comparison generalizes poorly. It depends on transport volumes, distance, the weight and dimensions of the packaging, the value of the part being transported, your existing logistics loop system, and on whether you are considering buying your own pool or renting.