A pallet leaves the warehouse intact and arrives damaged, returns follow, and waste quietly accumulates. Despite advances in materials, automation, and logistics technology, transport damage remains a persistent packaging problem for businesses across sectors.
It is costly, environmentally damaging, and often underestimated because it sits between departments rather than squarely within one.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
Search terms such as transport damage, packaging failure, protective packaging, and supply chain damage continue to trend for a reason.
As supply chains stretch, e-commerce grows, and sustainability targets tighten, the ability of packaging to protect products in transit has become central to operational performance, not just an engineering detail.
Packaging design still lags behind real transit conditions
Many packaging formats are designed around idealised assumptions: stable loads, limited handling, predictable journeys. Real transport conditions are far harsher. Products experience vibration, compression, drops, humidity changes, and repeated handling across warehouses, vehicles, and distribution hubs.
When packaging is optimised primarily for material reduction or shelf appeal, protective performance can suffer. Lightweighting initiatives, while valuable for reducing material use and transport emissions, sometimes remove critical strength or cushioning without sufficient testing. The result is packaging that performs well on paper but fails under real-world stress.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataStandardised testing protocols help, yet they do not always reflect modern logistics realities. Mixed loads, faster fulfilment cycles, and higher handling frequency introduce variables that older packaging specifications were never designed to manage.
Without regular review and validation, packaging designs quickly fall out of step with how goods actually move.
For businesses, this gap shows up as damaged stock, increased returns, and strained customer relationships. Transport damage is rarely a single-point failure; it is the cumulative effect of small design compromises exposed by demanding supply chains.
Supply chain complexity increases risk
Global supply chains have become longer and more fragmented. A single product may pass through manufacturers, co-packers, third-party logistics providers, and last-mile couriers before reaching its destination. Each transfer introduces handling variation and risk.
Packaging that works well in one leg of the journey may fail in another. Long-distance shipping exposes goods to prolonged vibration and stacking pressure, while last-mile delivery increases drop risk and manual handling. E-commerce has intensified this challenge, as individual parcels face different stresses from palletised freight.
Responsibility for transport damage is often unclear. Packaging teams, logistics providers, and procurement functions may each assume another party owns the problem.
This fragmentation slows improvement and allows damage rates to persist as an accepted cost of doing business.
From a sustainability perspective, transport damage has a hidden impact. Damaged products represent wasted materials, wasted energy, and often wasted packaging that must be replaced. The environmental footprint of a broken item frequently outweighs the footprint of the packaging that failed to protect it.
Sustainability pressures can unintentionally worsen damage
Sustainable packaging goals have reshaped design priorities. Reducing plastic, cutting weight, and increasing recyclability are now common targets. These aims are valid, but when pursued without equal focus on protection, they can increase transport damage.
Replacing proven materials with alternatives that lack equivalent strength or moisture resistance can raise failure rates. Removing secondary or tertiary packaging to reduce material use can leave products vulnerable during stacking and transit.
In these cases, sustainability gains on paper are offset by losses through breakage and returns.
Damage also drives inefficient behaviours. Extra void fill, over-packaging of replacements, and expedited shipping to satisfy customers all add emissions and cost. What begins as a well-intentioned packaging change can ripple through the supply chain with unintended consequences.
A lifecycle view helps resolve this tension. Packaging that slightly increases material use but significantly reduces damage often delivers better environmental and commercial outcomes. Protecting the product remains one of the most effective sustainability actions available.
Why the problem persists
Transport damage is still a packaging problem because it sits at the intersection of design, logistics, cost control, and sustainability. Each function optimises for its own priorities, while damage emerges from the system as a whole.
Data gaps compound the issue. Damage is not always tracked consistently, root causes are hard to isolate, and feedback loops between customers, logistics teams, and packaging designers are often weak. Without clear visibility, problems repeat rather than improve.
There is also a cultural element. Damage rates that are seen as “normal” rarely trigger redesign, even when they represent significant waste. In competitive markets, incremental losses can be absorbed quietly instead of addressed structurally.
Moving towards more resilient packaging
Reducing transport damage starts with acknowledging it as a strategic issue rather than an operational nuisance. Packaging design must be informed by real transit data, including handling frequency, load patterns, and environmental exposure.
Cross-functional collaboration matters. When packaging engineers, logistics teams, and sustainability leads work from shared metrics, trade-offs become clearer and better decisions follow. Testing protocols should evolve alongside supply chains, reflecting how products are actually shipped today.
Most importantly, protection should be recognised as a sustainability outcome, not a competing priority. Packaging that prevents damage protects resources, reduces waste, and supports customer trust.
Why transport damage is still a packaging problem comes down to misalignment, not lack of knowledge.
Businesses that close the gap between design intent and transport reality can cut costs, reduce environmental impact, and build packaging systems that perform where it matters most: in the real world.
