Ecommerce and sustainability: packaging and green logistics, between real demand and empty gestures

Ordering something online and having it arrive in a box three times bigger than necessary, stuffed with bubble wrap, inside another plastic bag, is an experience that generates more and more pushback, especially among younger buyers. It's not just an aesthetic or personal-values issue for the customer: data shows a growing percentage of consumers, especially under 40, factor in a store's packaging and environmental policy when deciding where to buy, and some are even willing to pay a bit more for lower-impact shipping.

Why this is no longer just "to feel good about"

For years, sustainability in ecommerce was treated almost as an optional brand gesture, something nice to communicate but with no real impact on sales. That's changing for three specific reasons. First, excess packaging cost is a real expense that can be cut without harming the customer, so optimising packaging isn't just eco-friendly, it's also a margin improvement. Second, certain marketplaces and platforms are starting to penalise or favour visibility based on seller sustainability criteria. And third, there's more and more European regulation (mandatory recyclable packaging, restrictions on unnecessary single-use plastics) gradually turning what used to be voluntary into, bit by bit, mandatory.

Where the real room for improvement is in packaging

• Match box size to the product. This is the change with the best effort-to-result ratio: it reduces the filler material needed, lowers shipping cost (many couriers charge by volume, not just weight) and directly cuts transport footprint, because more orders fit in the same truck.
• Replace bubble wrap with paper or recycled cardboard alternatives. Crumpled kraft paper filler protects most products reasonably well and is fully recyclable, unlike bubble wrap.
• Paper tape instead of plastic. A small but visible change to the customer, which reinforces the perception of care at almost no extra cost.
• Remove unnecessary packaging layers. Many boxes carry double wrapping (a plastic bag inside the box, on top of the box itself) that adds no real protection, only serving an aesthetic or "unboxing" function that can be redesigned more sustainably.

Green logistics: beyond the box

Packaging is the most visible part, but not the only one. Green logistics includes decisions like consolidating shipments (grouping several orders from the same area instead of sending them separately), offering the customer a "slower but greener" delivery option (grouped with other shipments on the route, instead of urgent and individual), and choosing carriers already investing in electric or hybrid fleets for urban routes. None of these decisions require the store to build its own logistics infrastructure: it's mostly about choosing well among the options regular carriers already offer.

The greenwashing risk: when communicating badly is worse than not communicating at all

Here's the trap many brands fall into: advertising sustainability without any real change behind it. Slapping an "eco-friendly" label on the website without having changed anything in the actual packaging, or making vague claims ("committed to the planet") with no concrete data to back them up, produces the opposite of the intended effect once an attentive customer spots it: instead of building trust, it raises suspicion that the brand is lying about other things too. Honest, specific communication ("our boxes are 100% recycled cardboard, no plastic filler since 2029") works far better than a generic statement with no substance.

A specific case: the cosmetics brand that cut costs and improved reputation at the same time

A natural cosmetics brand redesigned its packaging, moving from a generic box with plastic filler to a box sized to fit the product with recycled paper filler and paper tape, communicating the change clearly on social media with before-and-after photos. The result was twofold: shipping cost dropped noticeably as box volume shrank, and spontaneous customer mentions on social media praising the new packaging generated organic publicity no paid campaign had achieved with that intensity before.

How to start without overspending

You don't need to redesign the entire packaging at once or take on a high cost from day one. The sensible path is: first, audit your current packaging and identify the most obvious excess material (there's almost always something easy to remove without losing protection). Second, test small, measurable changes (box size, filler type) on part of the catalogue before rolling them out everywhere. Third, communicate the real changes you make, with concrete data, instead of waiting until "everything is perfect" to start talking about it.

The packaging supplier's role in all this

Many small businesses assume the packaging options available are whatever their regular supplier offers by default, without actively asking about more sustainable alternatives. In practice, many packaging suppliers already carry a catalogue of recycled or lower-impact options that aren't proactively offered because the customer never asks. Simply asking explicitly what more sustainable alternatives exist within the same price range, or requesting a comparative quote, often reveals options the business didn't even know were available without switching suppliers.

How to involve the customer in the decision

Some stores have started offering the customer the choice, right at checkout, between standard packaging and lower-impact packaging (sometimes with a small cost difference, sometimes with none), turning sustainability into a shared decision rather than a silent imposition from the brand. This approach has an added advantage: it generates real data on how many customers genuinely value this option when they have to actively choose, information far more reliable than an opinion survey asking whether they "care about sustainability" in the abstract.

Sustainability as a selling point, not just a cost

It's common to think of sustainable packaging only as a cost or a regulatory obligation, but for a growing share of customers it's also an active selling point, something that can be mentioned on the product page, in the confirmation email, or in advertising itself, not just on an "about us" page almost nobody visits. Brands that manage to turn their real sustainable packaging work into a concrete sales message (not a vague slogan, but specific data: "this box saves X grams of plastic compared to the sector's standard packaging") usually get an extra marketing return on top of the environmental improvement itself, simply by clearly communicating something they were already doing.

How to audit and redesign packaging over a quarter, step by step

The first month is spent measuring, not changing anything yet. Current boxes for the five or ten best-selling products get weighed and measured, average filler material used per order gets calculated, and the regular carrier is asked for an exact breakdown of how they bill (by weight, by volume, or a combination of both), because without that figure it's impossible to know how much can really be saved by shrinking box size. In parallel, it's worth checking what more sustainable material options the current packaging supplier already offers without switching providers, something that often turns out surprisingly accessible once you simply ask.

The second month is for a controlled test: a small group of products (not the whole catalogue) gets switched to the new packaging format, while tracking real shipping cost, transport incidents (breakage, damage) and any spontaneous customer comments about the change. It's important to resist the temptation to roll the change out to the entire catalogue at once during this phase: an undetected problem at small scale (say, the new filler doesn't protect a specific fragile product well) is far cheaper to fix across ten orders than across ten thousand.

The third month, with the test data in hand, is when the decision gets made to scale the change to the whole catalogue, fixing whatever failed in the initial test, and the public communication of the change gets prepared with concrete data (not before, to avoid announcing something not yet confirmed to work well). This order (measure, test small, scale, communicate) avoids the most common mistake in this kind of project, which is announcing a sustainability change before fully verifying it, forcing a public walk-back later if something doesn't go as expected.

It's worth setting aside, within that same quarter, time to actively gather customer feedback, not just wait for it to arrive spontaneously on social media. A simple question in the post-delivery follow-up email ("what did you think of the new packaging?") generates far more responses than relying solely on voluntary mentions, and provides concrete data on whether the change is landing as expected before considering the project finished. Closing the loop with real data, not just the internal feeling that "it went well," is what allows deciding with confidence whether it's worth investing further in the next phase of packaging improvement.

It's also worth comparing, before considering the project closed, the total cost of the new packaging against the old one under equal conditions (same order volume, same time of year), because comparing different months with different seasonality can lead to wrong conclusions about whether the change was genuinely profitable or whether the observed difference simply reflects more or less was sold that month for other reasons.

Frequently asked questions