Like many publishers, we’re actively trying to make our games more environmentally sustainable. But the games themselves are only part of the equation, as our fulfillment centers ship tens of thousands of packages worldwide every year (e.g., the third printing of the Nesting Box is shipping now, and Expeditions will ship in July). What can we do to ensure the freight and fulfillment processes are also eco-friendly?
Fortunately, publishers do have some control over those processes. Today we’re joined by Brandon from Fulfillrite to discuss three things you can do to make your fulfillment process better for Mother Earth.
***
Eighty percent of consumers will wait for more sustainable shipping.
Yeah, I didn’t believe that when I read it the first time either, but Digital Commerce 360 did their research before they published that statistic. People are starting to seriously care about the environment and shopping behavior is changing as a result.
Board gamers are no different. Fortunately, shipping your campaign in an eco-friendly way is easier than ever, not to mention affordable!
As it turns out, the quickest path to making your shipping more eco-friendly is to focus on minimizing waste and maximizing efficiency. With that in mind, here are 3 simple things you can request to cut down on your carbon footprint.
1. Pack Shipping Boxes as Tightly as Possible
If Patchwork’s taught me anything, it’s that you don’t want to leave space unfilled unless you absolutely have to. That’s true when it comes to packing board games for shipments too.
Just about every package, once shipped out of its order fulfillment center, needs to go on a mail truck, the vast majority of which run on gasoline. Trucks have a finite capacity and the smaller the packages on-board, the more can fit in the truck, meaning less fuel is used per package.
So what can you do to make your fulfillment process a little greener? Ask your order fulfillment center to pack your games as tightly as possible in boxes that are just slightly bigger than the game itself. That way, you won’t have five inches of empty space in every shipping box. This also tends to be a little cheaper too, since you save on postage and reduce the risk of goods being damaged in the mail, which is often enough to offset the additional cost of buying the perfect sized shipping boxes in bulk.
Every cubic inch counts here!
2. Use Sustainable Inner Packaging
Remember when Wingspan phased out plastic components, opting for more sustainable options derived from sugarcane or sorghum? As it turns out, there are a lot of amazing alternatives to plastic these days. And thank goodness – plastic baggage comes with environmental baggage. So much so that reducing the amount of plastic you ship is one of the most trusted ways to prove your brand actually cares about sustainability. (See this HubSpot white paper on sustainable fulfillment, page 7.)
But even if your game is already manufactured, you can make some positive change here. All you have to do is ask your fulfillment center to use biodegradable or recyclable materials instead of plastic. Crumpled recycled paper and cardboard void filler blocks are good options.
[Friendly reminder from Jamey: As consumers, when we recycle cardboard boxes, make sure to separate and throw away–not recycle, unless your locality specifically offers this rare option–any plastic sheets or bubble wrap. Those sheets clog up the recycling machines that process cardboard. Source: How to Save a Planet]3. Consolidate Your Freight Shipments
A moment ago, I said that mail trucks have a finite capacity, meaning the more that goes on-board, the less fuel is used per package. This principle applies to massive freight cargo ships as well.
Many board game creators manufacture their games relatively close to one another in China or Hong Kong. That means many games end up shipping out of the same handful of ports. If you ask your freight broker or order fulfillment center for help, you can sometimes have your shipment combined with others. That way you end up shipping full container loads instead of partial ones. This minimizes fuel consumption and can help cut down on your cost too, often without adding much extra time to your fulfillment timetable.
***
These are just a few ideas to make you think. What other simple ways do you think crowdfunding creators can make their shipping processes more efficient? Let us know in the comments below!
Also read:
If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.
13 Comments on “3 Easy Ways to Make Game Fulfillment More Eco-Friendly”
Leave a Comment
If you ask a question about a specific card or ability, please type the exact text in your comment to help facilitate a speedy and precise answer.
Your comment may take a few minutes to publish. Antagonistic, rude, or degrading comments will be removed. Thank you.
I think publishers can also consider a smaller footprint as possible with their games. I’m impressed with how much game Devir packs into their smaller boxes.
I applaud all that you’re doing and also raising awareness about sustainable options and actions, Jamey! Consumers do business with companies who are doing better for the planet. If we can start influencing the entire supply chain, we can hopefully offset the damage we’ve done!
Thanks Vera! I agree that it’s worth examining every level of the supply chain from start to finish.
“Every cubic inch counts here!” “This also tends to be a little cheaper too”
Normally, when fulfilling to end customers, fulfillment centers consider volumetric vs. actual weight, and you are charged only on what is greater.
For board games that don’t have a half-empty box, actual weight is usually much greater than actual weight.
Why is it then cheaper if the parcel is a little smaller? Wouldn’t that only make a difference if the volumetric weight is greater than the actual weight?
Apart from the cost part for publishers, it obviously leads to less fuel consumption for the trucks.
Hi Juma,
This is a great point! You are right that there are usually two measurements that can be used to determine postage price – actual weight and volumetric weight. Games, being dense, do tend to have a greater actual weight than volumetric weight.
Still, if you make packages a little smaller, even the seemingly trivial reduction in cardboard, shrink wrap, and so on, can make a difference. Couriers like UPS will often have pricing tiers, so if you manage to get a game from, say, 2.02 pounds to 1.98, you could end up saving a bunch.
Outside of end customer shipping, there’s also freight where even a 2% reduction in size and weight can really be amplified! You might also see some marginal savings on the cost of packaging materials too.
You are definitely right to point out that the main benefit is in cutting down on fuel use, though. The cost savings – which are usually minimal, but still nice – are a secondary benefit, with a lot of variables.
Thanks for your comment – the nuances really matter when you’re talking about sustainability, and I think this is a good point to raise!
Every time I read one of your posts, be it a blog post or your newsletter, I realize once again why I love this company: great products with an eye toward being great citizens of the Earth.
Please never stop being you, Jamie. And never allow Stonemaier Games to stop being the amazing company it is.
Thank you, David! For this post I have to give credit to Brandon, but I’m happy to publish it and spread the word. :)
Oops! I meant to say “Please never stop being you, Jamey.”
I hate it when I get someone’s name wrong. :(
No worries! I know who you were talking about. :)
The opening statistic lacks a lot of context. That survey only asked how many additional days people are willing to wait, and 80% of consumers according to the survey are willing to wait *one day*, in order to combine purchases. Presumably they are thinking about Amazon, which suggests a “prime shipping day” to consolidate a series of orders into one package. That makes a lot of sense when you’re getting multiple items a week from one seller. Makes less sense applied to single board game purchases over a long period of time. Additionally, that willingness to wait drops to 15.6% after only three days. Customers might go slightly out of their way for sustainability, but not far.
The article also cites prices as the number one concern, indicating that sustainability is dropped as a concern for consumers from 66% in 2021 to 56.8% in 2023.
None of this means sustainability shouldn’t be a goal. It’s absolutely good to work towards. I just get bothered when data is miscited or left out in order to support a position.
Hi Jamey, as usual, all good points.
I am all for working greener and smarter. After all we are guests of our planet and need to leave it nicely for the future generations.
I started working for a printer in Spain last year and we are 100% advocating this.
Not here to push this, but to let you know our thoughts on this and how we want to do our part of working towards a healthier earth;
Our clients, of course, can choose any material they want, but we offer sustainable options at no extra cost for example.
We are also speaking to US publishers to consider printing closer to home. Divide printruns between China and Europe, not just print everything in one place. Then games to European backers or European partners do not even need to be shipped from China but can be delivered directly from Europe.
We even offer warehousing and fulfillment, so also there no extra gas or truck space is needed to move the goods from the factory to a fulfillment center.
Producing closer to where the products need to be (not just boardgames, products in general) leads to a huge reduction overall of your carbon footprint.
And being in Spain, the factory runs fully on solar power for a good chunk of the year. That part always makes me smile and, to be honest, proud too!
I am glad we as producers and consumers are collectively understanding the need for change and changes are (slowly) made.
So thank you for thinking about this, communicating this and actively exploring ways to implement this
Thanks for sharing this, Liesbeth! This ties well into James’ comment below about continental production/assembly.
re: Sustainability – A few other things to mention regarding the games themselves. The thin plastic trays that frequently do a poor job of holding the components (my deluxe version of Brass refuses proper storage). And adding to that issue are expansions that do not fit without tossing said insert. I realize that runs counter to minimizing box size (Furnace was probably the worst violator that I know of). Spot UV shows as a stretch goal. Do we release VOCs as a result to get some shinny on a box that will be buried amongst others? And there are the outside sleeves that are basically useless… Think gaming not glitzing!
I realize that game components may be sourced from many places but maybe we need to think of partial local (continental) production and/or assembly to minimize shipping. The cost (direct and indirect) of that – brought forward by the shipping container issue last year – might be looked at as what an economist might refer to as an externality. Engineers look at that and say you simply don’t want to deal with or consider such costs. While my game may be a tiny fraction of those costs, there is the environmental aspect overlooked. That would included the several hundred containers lost at sea each year (no U-boat required) carrying god know what.
This is approaching TL;DR so that’s it.
Thanks, James! I have some other articles that delve deeper into eco-friendly manufacturing and product design in case you’re curious: https://stonemaiergames.com/about/eco-friendliness/
I agree that it’s important for us to think through every component we put into games, including inserts (if any) and sleeves (which I don’t recommend). The research on spot UV is a bit mixed on whether it’s good or bad.
As for partial continental production, I’m glad you used the word “continental”, because game sales are worldwide. It’s much more economical and scalable to producing everything in one place rather than manufacture or assemble the same game in 4 or more different places worldwide. That said, we are looking into the option of assembling games in the US.