Rethinking Pallet Design

Traditionally, packaging regulation focused on materials, such as reducing plastic, increasing recycled content, or changing substrates.

The EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) challenges that mindset.

It is now clear that material substitution alone is insufficient. The regulation requires companies to assess how packaging functions throughout the supply chain. As a result, palletization, once considered a logistics detail, is becoming central to packaging strategy.

From “What Is It Made Of?” to “Why Do We Need It?”

Historically, secondary and tertiary packaging that performed adequately in transit was seldom questioned.

The PPWR takes a different approach, prompting organisations to ask:

• Is this packaging necessary?
• Is it justified by function, or simply by convention?
• Could the same outcome be achieved with less material or a different configuration?

This is important because items like stretch wrap, stabilising films, trays, and pallet components often fall into a grey area, especially when used for retail grouping instead of actual transport protection.

As regulators focus more on “non-essential” packaging, companies are expected to justify both what they use and why they use it.

Often, these justifications are required at the pallet level.

Stretch Wrap Restrictions Expose Structural Dependencies

Restrictions on stretch wrap for retail collation do not occur in isolation.

When stretch wrap is removed or reduced:

• Case stability can change
• Pallet patterns can become less tolerant
• Maximum pallet heights often need review
• Damage risk can increase unless loads are re-engineered

Many organisations are finding that stretch wrap has often compensated for deeper structural issues, such as:

• Suboptimal case design
• Inefficient pallet patterns
• Inconsistent pallet rules across sites or regions

When stretch wrap is no longer available as a solution, these weaknesses become apparent quickly. This is why a seemingly narrow compliance change often leads to broader redesign efforts. Here the stretch-wrap-specific PPWR discussion links directly into pallet design and supply-chain performance.)

PCR Content Changes Load Behaviour, Not Just Sustainability Metrics

Where plastic packaging is still allowed, the PPWR’s minimum post-consumer recycled
(PCR) content requirements add complexity.

From a palletisation perspective:

• PCR films and plastics can behave differently under compression
• Variability in recycled feedstock can affect consistency
• Downgauging is often used to offset higher material costs – but a technically
  ‘weaker’ film may not be suited for downgauging

As a result, pallet configurations that previously performed reliably may no longer do so under new material specifications.

Precision is important here: analytical tools can indicate risk, such as reduced case strength or tighter stability margins, but only physical transit and handling tests can validate performance.

This distinction is critical. Compliance-driven material changes can unintentionally undermine pallet performance unless design assumptions are reviewed and, if needed, tested.

Palletisation Is Becoming a Compliance Risk

A less visible but significant shift is how palletisation is now viewed internally.

It is moving from being seen as:

• A warehouse optimisation issue
• A transport efficiency lever

To being recognised as:

• A regulatory exposure point
• An audit vulnerability
• A retailer compliance risk

As documentation and justification requirements increase, organisations are increasingly expected to demonstrate:

• Why a pallet is configured the way it is
• Why specific packaging elements remain necessary
• Whether alternative configurations were considered and assessed

In this environment, relying on informal, experience-based knowledge without documentation is increasingly difficult to justify.

Why This Is Catching Companies Off Guard

Many organisations assumed that packaging regulation would:

• Affect material specifications
• Sit primarily with sustainability or procurement teams

They did not anticipate how deeply these changes would affect multiple functions.

Palletisation sits at the intersection of:

• Packaging engineering
• Logistics and operations
• Sustainability
• Cost optimisation

When one part of the system changes, problems often emerge elsewhere, such as higher damage rates, reduced pallet density, or increased transport movements. This is why narrow, one-dimensional fixes often fail to achieve the intended results.

Organisations Are Doing Differently??

Companies adapting most effectively are not waiting for enforcement deadlines.

They are:

• Mapping pallet configurations by SKU, by market and by channel.
• Distinguishing retail-facing packaging from transport-critical packaging
• Reviewing pallet stability assumptions under new material constraints
• Identifying where pallet patterns are sensitive to change
• Understanding compliance requirements, testing, validating and documenting
  packaging solutions that cover E2E delivery is becoming essential.

R&D leaders in this area recognize palletization as a design variable, to be managed alongside materials cost and operational risk. It is no longer just a downstream constraint or ‘somebody else’s problem’.

The Bigger Signal from the PPWR

The PPWR is not solely about reducing packaging waste.

It signals a shift in regulatory expectations. Packaging systems, including pallets, are now expected to be:

• Measurable
• Defensible
• Justified by function

Palletisation is increasingly the point where regulatory scrutiny, retailer requirements, and sustainability claims intersect.

And it is often where weak assumptions are hardest to hide.