Part 2 in the Series: ‘Can the Box Make the World a Better Place?’
On November 29th 2007 Sainsbury’s announced they would no longer be packaging their Premium Chopped Tomatoes in cans. Instead, they would be using Tetra Pak’s ‘Tetra Recart’ package – a small rectangular box made from paperboard. Compared to a can, a box makes 33% more efficient use of space, because when transporting a can you are also transporting the unused space surrounding its cylindrical shape.
A Box is either a cube or a rectangular cuboid. It is capable of tessellating three-dimensional space, which means the solid can be infinitely repeated without gaps or overlap. A Sainsbury’s lorry full of cartons of tomatoes is basically one large rectangular cuboid containing hundreds of smaller rectangular cuboids arranged inside without gaps or overlap, and this minimal wasted space means the box is very spatially efficient. If box-like packaging was to replace cans on a large scale, the increase in spatial efficiency would mean fewer lorries on the road, and a smaller carbon footprint from our food.
With 343 people per square kilometre, Japan is one of the world’s most densely populated countries and efficient use of space is valued highly. So it is unsurprising that it was the Japanese who developed the square watermelon (seen here in a previous post). Its shape is achieved using glass boxes, and as with the Tetra Recart package, the benefits include easier shipping and storage. However, in this instance the product also becomes more functional:
Some people find [melons] a problem to store in their fridge or to cut because they roll around. These square melons will make it easier than ever to eat because they can be served in long strips rather than in the crescent shape. – Sean Poulter
So a box-like watermelon is more spatially efficient and more functional. But if the contents of a square box are not square, do we still see these improvements? A pizza is round, but a pizza box is not. As a result, there is still unused space; it’s just inside the box instead. So should we be using round pizza boxes?
John Harvey, inventor of the round pizza box, believes so: ‘it’s what a pizza box should look like, and it works so much better than what’s out there now.’ The circular box arrives at stores pre-assembled, and is stronger than the traditional pizza box. The round shape makes for a snug fit and removes the risk of a pizza losing its shape. However, production is complex and expensive, and it takes up more space in transit than the square box, which ships flat.
The simplicity of the traditional pizza box has allowed it to capture the market, and the economies of scale resulting from its success have only made it more competitive. But does this mean we are using an inferior product because of price? In this case it seems not. John Harvey may love it, but the round pizza box has received mostly negative feedback, including complaints that the snug fit makes access difficult and messy compared to the traditional pizza box. The square pizza box may have empty space, but the access it provides to the pizza means it is not unused.
So the box as a product and packaging can offer spatial efficiency, improved functionality, and economic benefits. But if we expand our interpretation of what the box is, do these benefits still exist? That question and more will be explored in Part 3.
