Search this site

Sustainability in packaging is no longer a positioning choice. It is a procurement requirement. Retail buyers ask for it, end consumers expect it, and regulatory frameworks across major markets are beginning to mandate it. The question most brands are actually grappling with is not whether to make their packaging more sustainable, but how to do it without the cost increasing in proportion to the ambition. In our experience, the cost concern is largely misplaced. The most effective sustainability improvements we have delivered for clients have reduced cost alongside environmental impact. Not as a trade-off. As a consequence of doing the engineering properly. The reason is straightforward. Most non-recyclable elements in paperboard packaging, foil laminates, foam inserts, plastic stickers, and soft-touch film exist because they were specified at a point in time when the alternatives were less developed, more expensive, or simply not considered. Today, viable substitutes exist for almost every one of them, and in most cases the substitute costs less to produce, requires fewer process steps, and performs as well or better than what it replaces. The starting point is knowing which route makes sense for your specific pack. Route 1: Replace Virgin Board with Recycled Board The simplest material change available to most brands is replacing virgin paperboard with recycled board. The recycled board uses post-consumer fibre rather than freshly harvested timber, reducing the raw material footprint of the pack at source. Beyond the environmental benefit, recycled boards are generally less expensive than virgin boards. It is one of the few sustainability changes where the commercial and environmental case point in the same direction without any trade-off between them. For brands managing large volumes across multiple SKUs, the cost savings compound meaningfully. Route 2: Specify FSC-Certified Paperboard FSC certification from the Forest Stewardship Council guarantees that the paperboard used in your packaging can be traced to responsibly managed forests, with every link in the supply chain individually certified. This is not a label that a manufacturer can self-declare. The mill, every intermediary supplier, and the packaging manufacturer must each hold certification independently. For brands that carry FSC claims on their retail packaging, working with a certified manufacturer is not optional. The chain of custody must be unbroken and documentable at audit. A practical note: if FSC-certified board has previously appeared more expensive in your supplier's quotations, the difference is often a function of the specific board grade or the supplier's procurement relationships rather than an inherent cost premium. In many markets, FSC and non-FSC boards of equivalent grade can be sourced at the same cost. It is worth asking your supplier to check alternative sources before accepting a cost increase as fixed. Route 3: Eliminate Non-Recyclable Materials and Processes This is where the most significant sustainability gains are available for brands whose current packaging uses plastic-based lamination, hot foil, or foam inserts. Each of these has a well-tested replacement that delivers equivalent aesthetic or functional performance. Soft-touch and matte lamination can in many cases be replaced with coating technologies that produce the same tactile finish without the plastic film substrate. The surface feel is comparable. The recyclability is substantially improved. Hot foil stamping can be replaced with gravure printing using metallic inks, online metallic offset printing, or cast-and-cure foiling solutions. Each alternative eliminates the polyester foil carrier from the finished pack. The visual result, when the process is executed correctly, is not a visible downgrade. It is a different production route to the same shelf outcome. Foam inserts used to construct cavities for primary packaging can, in most structural applications, be converted to die-cut paper compartments. The engineering challenge is achieving the same drop-test performance with a paper structure that foam achieves through material properties. This is solvable through precise dimensional design of the paper compartment, but it requires a manufacturer willing to invest the development time to get the geometry right before production begins. None of these changes require the brand to accept a different-looking pack. The requirement is a willingness on both sides to go through a sampling and testing process before committing to production. Three Sustainable Packaging Cases Where We Delivered Both Himalaya Ayurveda Soap Himalaya wanted to replace gold hot foil on their soap carton with a sustainable alternative that maintained the visual finish exactly. We replaced it with gold ink applied through gravure printing, resolved the ink peel-off risk using textured UV coating, and achieved precise three-way registration across offset, gravure, and embossing in a continuous production flow. Read full case study Gurkha and Guns Whisky The brief was to eliminate a circular plastic Gurkha logo sticker that was being manually applied to each carton. We replaced it with an embossed and foiled logo applied directly to the carton surface using a combined 3D embossing and foiling tool engineered in a single pass to hold exact registration on a highly detailed artwork. Read full case study Venus Snap by Gillette Gillette asked us to replace the foam used in the inner compartment of the Venus Snap rigid box with a paper-based alternative that matched the drop-test performance of the original. We engineered a die-cut FFB paper compartment built to the precise dimensions of the product, achieving full drop-test compliance through structural design rather than material density. Read full case study How Kumar Printers Can Help? At Kumar Printers, sustainability work is not a separate service. It is part of how we approach every packaging development brief. We hold FSC Chain of Custody certification, ISO 14001:2015 environmental management certification, and have maintained zero water discharge from our manufacturing processes since 2012. We have access to recycled and FSC-certified boards across a range of grades, and our converting capabilities cover every substitution route described in this guide, from coating alternatives to lamination to die-cut paper structural engineering. For brands that want to redesign a pack from the ground up to meet sustainability targets, we can support that process. For brands that want to make targeted changes to specific materials or processes while keeping the existing design intact, we can do that too. The starting point in either case is a conversation about which elements of your current pack are driving the environmental and cost outcomes you want to change. Both structural design consultation and physical sampling on all new sustainability briefs are offered at no cost. Write to us at kppl@kumarprinters.com or visit www.kumarprinters.com to start that conversation.

Most packaging problems are not obvious until they are expensive. A product that sits on shelf while competitors move. A new SKU that tests well in design reviews but underperforms at retail. A premium product housed in packaging that communicates mid-market. These are not design failures in the conventional sense. They are the result of decisions made without a clear picture of what the packaging needs to do, where it needs to do it, and who it needs to do it for. The average consumer makes a purchase decision within seven seconds of seeing a product on shelf. In that window, the packaging is doing all the work. The brand name, the product claim, the price point, the quality signal, all of it is communicated before the consumer reads a single word. Packaging Finishing Should Follow Brand, Not Category Convention The most common mistake we see in packaging briefs is the assumption that premium automatically means more. More foil. More UV. More embossing. More processes layered on top of each other because the product is positioned at the high end of its category. That logic gets the relationship backwards. The packaging finish should follow the brand identity, not a general idea of what premium looks like. A brand with a minimal design philosophy communicates quality through restraint. A heavier-weight board, a specific uncoated paper stock, a precisely considered use of whitespace- these carry more weight on shelf than a foil stamp applied because it felt expected. The tactile quality of the substrate itself becomes the signal. The opposite is equally true. Certain markets, and certain categories within them, expect richness, layering, and visual complexity. In alcobev, gifting, and segments of the Middle Eastern retail market specifically, packaging with a combination of foil, UV, embossing, and print depth is not excessive. It is what the consumer is looking for. Delivering it well requires an experienced packaging and printing manufacturer with deep technical knowledge of how multiple finishing processes interact with each other in terms of registration, pressure, alignment, and substrate behaviour, because every additional process is another point where the pack can fail if the execution is not precise. The discipline is knowing which printing and packaging solution your brand and your market call for, and then executing it without compromise in either direction. Packaging Design for the Context, Not Just the Product Packaging that works in one retail context frequently underperforms in another. A pack designed for a planogrammed shelf sits differently to one designed for a peg, a flat-lay e-commerce photograph, or a transit shipper that doubles as the retail presentation. These are not the same design problem. Before a structural brief is finalised, we want to understand where this pack lives. What is the primary purchase environment? Is the consumer seeing it at shelf height or overhead? Is the first impression a photograph or a physical encounter? Is the unboxing moment relevant to the purchase decision, or does the pack need to do its entire job from the outside? These questions change structural decisions, finish decisions, and information hierarchy decisions. A pack that is not designed with its context in mind is a pack that is working at a disadvantage from the moment it reaches the consumer. Premium Packaging & Finishing Processes as a Considered Investment Hot foil stamping, embossing, spot UV, textured coatings, window pasting, conventional and UV printing: we offer all of these in-house, and we apply them as considered tools, not default additions. Every finishing process we recommend to a client is recommended because it serves a specific function in the pack: creating contrast, signalling quality at a distance, providing a tactile interaction that reinforces the brand positioning, or solving a structural challenge. We do not recommend a finish because it is fashionable or because it inflates the per-unit cost. We recommend it when it earns its place. Where graphic design is concerned, we do not offer in-house artwork services. What we do offer is detailed guidance on which finishes complement specific design directions, how different processes interact at the print and post-press stage, and where specification changes can improve the output without increasing the budget. The packaging design process, done well, is an extension of the brand's marketing investment. A well-executed pack does the same work on shelf that a media placement does in a feed: it earns attention, communicates value, and prompts action. The brands that treat packaging design with that level of seriousness consistently outperform those that treat it as a procurement decision. How Can Kumar Printers Contribute to Your Packaging & Printing? Our starting point with every client is the product itself. Before we discuss structure, material, or finish, we want to understand what the product is, what it stands for, and what its packaging needs to communicate to a consumer who has never seen it before. That understanding drives every structural and finishing decision that follows. We have applied this process to packaging launches for Gillette, Lotte, Beam Suntory, Diageo, and others across pharmaceutical, FMCG, alcobev, and personal care categories. The brief is different every time. The process is the same. You can also check our portfolio If you are reviewing existing packaging that is not performing the way it should, or developing a new pack from brief to production, we are happy to start that conversation. Write to us at kppl@kumarprinters.com or visit www.kumarprinters.com Also read: Are My Current Packaging Suppliers Still the Best Option as My Needs Evolve?

Most packaging quality problems do not announce themselves dramatically. They accumulate quietly across print runs like a colour that drifts batch to batch, a dimension tolerance that nobody has formally documented, a structural inconsistency that only shows up after the product reaches retail. By the time the issue is visible, it has already done damage, either to the product, the brand, or the relationship with the buyer. The good news is that fixing most quality problems does not require changing suppliers, overhauling your supply chain, or starting from scratch. In our experience, the majority of recurring quality issues come down to three root causes: specifications that were never formally documented, testing standards that were never agreed between the buyer and the supplier, and quality checks that happen too late in the process to prevent the problem from shipping. Addressing these three things, systematically and in sequence, resolves more quality issues in your secondary packaging than any change of supplier will. Start with a Written Specification for Every Pack You cannot measure quality against a standard you have not defined. The first step is to ensure that every packaging product in your range has a formal technical specification document that captures every variable capable of affecting quality. For most paperboard packaging, that specification should cover at minimum: Pack dimensions and dimensional tolerances Overall GSM of the finished pack Fluting specification, where corrugated is involved Functional strength parameters such as ECT or bursting strength Scuff testing requirements Any raw material requirements that are non-negotiable Moisture percentage of the finished material For print quality, your printing supplier should be able to provide a shade card with three reference cartons, including standard, light, and dark, that define the acceptable range. Every production batch should fall within that range. If no shade card exists, request one before the next run. Once your packaging or printing specifications are in place, every delivery from your packaging and printing supplier should arrive with a certificate of analysis that documents the sampling approach used for that lot, and confirms how each parameter was tested against the specified tolerance. This makes quality visible and auditable, rather than something that is assessed informally on arrival. Where possible, your internal team should test incoming batches against the specification and raise any variance with your supplier immediately, with samples retained as documentation. The faster a quality issue is flagged with evidence, the faster it can be resolved permanently. Document Issues with Enough Detail to Enable a Permanent Fix When a quality problem occurs, the temptation is to resolve the immediate situation and move on. This is how the same problem reappears three shipments later. When you identify a defect, document it properly. Record how many units were affected, what the defect is, and preserve physical samples wherever possible. This information is what allows a competent supplier to conduct a genuine root cause analysis rather than a superficial fix that addresses the symptom without resolving the cause. Your supplier should come back to you with a CAPA document: a Corrective and Preventive Action plan that explains what caused the issue, what corrective action was taken on the affected batch, and what preventive action has been built into the production process to stop the same issue from occurring again. A packaging and printing manufacturer or supplier who cannot produce a CAPA, or who produces one that only addresses the current batch without identifying a process-level fix, is telling you something important about their quality management capability. If you need to conduct the root cause analysis yourself before engaging your packaging or printing supplier, a simple three-step approach works well in most situations. First, define the problem precisely: what is the defect, where in the pack does it occur, and at what frequency. Second, work backwards to the source using either a fishbone diagram or the five whys method, both of which are effective tools for tracing a visible defect back to its process-level origin. Third, identify specific corrective or preventive actions, each with a clear owner, a deadline, and a measurable definition of success. When to Consider an Alternative Supplier? There is a difference between a quality issue and a recurring quality problem. Most issues, when documented properly and communicated clearly, can be resolved by a capable supplier without any disruption to your supply chain. If you are experiencing the same issue repeatedly across multiple batches, and your supplier has not been able to implement a fix that holds, that is a signal worth taking seriously. It either means the issue is inherent to their process or technology, or that they lack the technical depth to diagnose and resolve it at the root cause level. In either case, reaching out to an alternative supplier and presenting the specific problem is a reasonable next step. A fresh set of eyes with a different process often identifies a solution quickly. When adding a new supplier for quality reasons, a practical approach is to segment your production by risk level: keep stable, high-volume SKUs with your existing supplier while assigning complex, high-value, or high-visibility formats to a partner with stronger QA infrastructure. This improves quality where it matters most without creating the operational disruption of a full supplier transition. How We Approach Quality at Kumar Printers? Over 60 years of supplying packaging to the pharmaceutical industry and to global brands including P&G, Gillette, Nestle, Diageo, Beam Suntory, and Lotte, we have seen the full range of quality challenges that packaging buyers encounter. The problems are rarely unique. What differs is how systematically they are approached. Our quality process is built around three commitments. We work with clients to formally document their packaging and printing specifications before production begins, so both teams have a shared, written standard to work from rather than a verbal understanding that degrades over time and across personnel changes. Our internal production process incorporates raw material testing before printing begins, quality checks at each stage of the production workflow, and a final batch approval checkpoint before anything leaves the facility. Our in-house quality control laboratory carries out all testing, and every supply is accompanied by a certificate of analysis that documents compliance against each specified parameter. When a quality issue arises, we engage in root cause analysis and provide a formal CAPA, not a workaround. Our goal in every case is a permanent fix built into the process, not a reassurance that the next batch will be checked more carefully. If you are dealing with a recurring quality issue, whether functional or aesthetic, and have not been able to find a lasting resolution, reach out to us. We are genuinely happy to look at the problem, identify the root cause, and suggest a practical path to eliminating it. Get in touch at kppl@kumarprinters.com or visit www.kumarprinters.com Also read: Why a CAPA Plan is Essential in Packaging and Manufacturing?

Rising input costs, fragmented supply chains, and legacy packaging decisions often leave companies unknowingly overspending on their packaging. Reducing packaging costs, however, can be a simple process which can help achieve considerable savings, in the range of 10-20% of a packaging budget. In our user-friendly action plan, we provide an overview of the main components and drivers of packaging costs and how these can be optimised. Let's start with the basics. Any paperboard packaging has three main cost elements: 1. Raw materials cost They normally comprise paper, ink, coating, various films and foils and adhesive. Paper is typically the largest component of the total cost of raw materials. 2. Production process costs These are the costs of production, normally broken down into press (printing). post press (die cutting, folding, etc.) and manual work (box making, etc.). 3. Freight and logistics costs If you are purchasing your packaging locally or from within the same country, the cost of storage and transportation may be a small fraction of the total packaging cost. If you are importing, these costs can sometimes add up to almost 50% of your landed price, and hence it's worth considering how to optimise these. While the ratio of each of these costs remains relatively similar for different products within a category of paperboard packaging (folding cartons, Corrugated/ litho-laminated cartons and rigid boxes), they can vary between each category. At Kumar Printers, we provide end-to-end packaging solutions, managing everything from design and production to printing and final supply, tailored to meet the specific needs of B2B businesses, and are able to provide cost optimisation options for each aspect of the packaging production process. Action Plan for Optimising Packaging Costs Now that we have a high-level overview of our costs, let us take a deep dive into our action plan for optimising these costs: Cost comparison across suppliers Right-sizing & Light-weighting Freight and logistics optimisation Cost and quantity optimisation How can Kumar Printers help you? Step 1: Supplier Cost Comparison The simplest way to identify cost savings on packaging is to reach out to new suppliers and request quotes for your packs. Different suppliers have access to varied raw material supply chains, use different technologies for converting and may thus provide very different quotations for the same product. For example, a packaging company that uses offset printing will be more cost-effective for larger quantities, while a printer utilising a digital press may be cheaper for smaller run jobs. Similarly, a packaging manufacturer based in a country that relies on imported paper such as the United Kingdom, France or Germany would have very different raw material costs compared to a packaging supplier based in the USA, China or India, where paper production is a large industry. Take some time to source quotes from suppliers in different geographies and those with different technologies at their disposal, so that you have fresh pricing options to compare. Most suppliers offer free quotations and only need your product specifications to process a quote. Consider starting the process with your least complex or highest volume packs, as these will offer the most scope for cost savings with the lowest risk. This process can unlock opportunities for cost reduction and supply chain de-risking without making any changes to the packaging itself. Case Study: Pros and Cons of Digital and Offset Printing Offset and Digital are two of the most commonly used technologies for packaging printing. They are considered broadly equal in terms of quality of print; there are differences in unit economics due to variations in machine setup and maximum speeds. Overall, Digital Printing is a better option for newer brands that need greater flexibility and lower costs for smaller orders, while larger brands that need larger quantities of packaging will find offset printing to be more cost-effective. For more information on the relative advantages and disadvantages of digital vs offset printing, read our detailed blog post. Also read: Offset vs Digital Printing: What Works Best for Your Packaging Orders? Step 2: Right-sizing & Light-weighting Take a second look at your currently in-use cartons and boxes, keeping in mind the size, weight and fragility of your products. Well-designed packaging needs to fulfil 2 basic requirements: Protection: Packaging should keep the main product/ primary packaging safe and secure through the entire supply chain journey. Information: The pack should be large enough for the printed product information to be clear and legible. Once these requirements are met, any further increases to pack size or material thickness do not add any additional value, only cost. Since raw material cost makes up anywhere from 60-80% of a carton's costs, optimising carton size (right-sizing) and paperboard thickness (light-weighting), if done correctly, can yield immediate and substantial cost savings. Pro Tip Step 3: Freight and Logistics Optimisation For those companies importing their packaging or sourcing from a distant location, it may be worth exploring in detail how to best optimise freight costs. If your supplier is quoting a delivered/ landed rate to you, feel free to ask for an ex-works price and source a separate quotation for the transportation to your factory. If there are any savings to be unlocked by organising your own pickup, this is an easy way to spot them. Also, consider whether palletisation is strictly necessary for transportation via sea. It may be cheaper to receive material without palletisation and then palletise at your factory or at the receiving port (or not at all). This can enable you to fit 20% more material into a container and has a negligible impact on product safety during transit by sea. Lastly, review the design of the packaging itself. Is it suitable for optimal long-distance freight costs? Consider switching from conventional rigid boxes to a collapsible rigid box format, or even consider packing smaller boxes into larger ones. Step 4: Cost - Quantity Optimisation Many companies prefer to source smaller batches of packaging to optimise for storage space and to achieve greater flexibility in their product mix. What is not intuitively understood by many packaging buyers, however, is the cost savings that can be unlocked by increasing the quantity ordered. Consider the case study below, where we have taken a rigid box and calculated production and freight costs for quantities from 1000 pieces all the way up to 200,000 pieces. These are real but simplified prices (in USD) that show the relationship between quantity and cost. As you can see, the biggest drop in price is unlocked by increasing the order size from just 1000 to 5000. Further increases in order size slowly and steadily reduce the price further. To understand the inverse relation between order size and unit price, consider the following factors: Production fixed costs - These costs can be related to items and tools like cutting dies, foiling blocks and printing plates or can be associated with machine setup times. Logistics fixed costs: Certain international logistics charges like customer clearance, document submission, etc., are fixed and chargeable regardless of the size of the shipment. Logistics variable costs: As the size of a shipment increases, the cost per CBM or KG normally reduces. If the cost of one CBM of cargo is 100X on a less-than-container-load (LCL) basis, the per CBM cost after booking a 20-foot container is 70X, and the per CBM cost for a 40-foot container is 40X. How can Kumar Printers help you? At Kumar Printers, we understand that most manufacturing industries are under increasing cost pressures, with uncertain supply chains and inflation eating into margins for businesses around the world. In this context, any cost savings in a major spend category can translate into a competitive advantage for your business. For all our export customers, we aim to help you reduce your packaging spend by 15-20%, even after including freight costs. Our cost reduction strategy has the following elements: A constant focus on efficient procurement, production and logistics ensures that we can offer competitive rates for your current products without any changes to specifications. For customers who can collaborate with our product design teams and are open to incorporating their suggested changes into their packs, these cost savings can be increased further. Additionally, to ensure full transparency on our pricing, we are happy to offer prices at various quantity tiers and in terms as per your preference (Ex Works, FOB, DDU, DDP), so that you can compare various options and pick the one that suits you best. Reach out to us today for a free quote and let us discuss how we can help you optimise your packaging budget.

Most companies do not question their packaging supply chain until something goes wrong. A missed shipment. An inconsistent print run. A supplier who cannot accommodate a new pack format. By the time these problems surface, they have already cost time, money, and in some cases, a product launch. The reality is that your business is not static, and your packaging supply chain should not be either. As you scale, enter new markets, introduce new SKUs, or update your sustainability commitments, the packaging suppliers that served you well at one stage of growth may not be the right fit for the next. This does not mean you need to replace them. It does mean you need to regularly assess whether the relationship is still working and whether the capabilities on both sides are still aligned. This guide covers the practical steps involved in doing exactly that. The Foundation: Clarity on Both Sides Before any formal vendor review, it helps to be honest about how most supplier relationships actually work. Packaging buyers often have a general sense of what they need but have never formally documented it. Suppliers, in turn, develop assumptions about a client's requirements based on past orders, without ever being told explicitly what good looks like. The result is a relationship that functions adequately in normal conditions but becomes fragile the moment requirements change or volumes grow. The most effective way to prevent this is straightforward: be explicit about your requirements and measure your suppliers against them on a consistent basis. Suppliers who receive clear, regular feedback know exactly where they need to improve. Buyers who understand their suppliers' actual capabilities, lead times, and process constraints are far less likely to be caught off guard. A mismatch between what a buyer expects and what a packaging supplier can actually deliver is the root cause of the vast majority of packaging supply chain problems. In most cases, it is not a failure of intent on either side. It is simply a failure of communication. Step 1: Conduct a Structured Vendor Performance Review A semi-annual or annual vendor performance review is one of the most useful and underutilised tools in packaging procurement. It does not need to be complicated, but it does need to be consistent. When evaluating your current suppliers, consider the following across each major area: Quality — What is the defect rate on incoming packaging? Are quality issues recurring or isolated? Are root causes being identified and addressed, or are the same problems appearing across multiple deliveries? Delivery — What is the on-time delivery rate? When delays occur, how much advance notice is given and how effectively are they managed? Communication — How responsive is the supplier to queries, specification changes, and escalations? Is there a designated point of contact who understands your account? Capability — Can the supplier handle your current requirements without outsourcing any part of the process? Do they have the capacity and technology to support your anticipated growth over the next 12 to 24 months? Compliance — Are all relevant certifications current? If your procurement requirements include FSC, BRC, Sedex, or GMI, is the supplier maintaining those standards consistently? The output of this review should be shared directly with your packaging suppliers. The goal is not to create a performance report for internal use; it is to give your suppliers the information they need to improve. The most effective packaging relationships are ones where both sides are working toward the same targets. Step 2: Define Clear Criteria Before Adding New Suppliers If your review identifies capability gaps that your current suppliers cannot address, adding new suppliers to your network is a reasonable response. But the qualification process matters. A new supplier who cannot consistently deliver to your standards creates more problems than it solves. A structured supplier qualification should cover the following areas: Certifications — Quality and ethical production standards are most reliably demonstrated through independent certification. Depending on your industry and geography, look for ISO 9001 for quality management, ISO 14001 for environmental management, BRC IOP for food-adjacent and consumer goods packaging, FSC Chain of Custody for responsibly sourced paperboard, GMI or G7 certification for colour consistency, and Sedex audit status for ethical supply chain compliance. Most certification bodies maintain searchable directories that allow you to verify a supplier's status directly, including the FSC, BRCGS, and G7 directories. Client Profile — A supplier's track record with clients in your industry is one of the most reliable indicators of their ability to handle your requirements. Look for evidence of experience with brands at a comparable scale and complexity to your own. Generic claims of capability are less useful than specific examples of similar work. Site Audit — Wherever possible, conduct a physical visit or supplier audit before formalising a new relationship. A site visit reveals things that a capability questionnaire cannot: the condition and maintenance of machinery, the training level of the production team, how quality checks are carried out on the floor, and how the facility is generally managed. If a physical visit is not practical, request a virtual audit or ask for references from existing clients in your sector. Step 3: Align Requirements and Capabilities Systematically Once you have identified a supplier worth evaluating seriously, the next step is a detailed capability assessment. The goal is to establish, with precision, where your requirements and the supplier's capabilities overlap, and where they do not. We recommend developing a standardised questionnaire for this purpose. The following questions form a practical starting point, which you should adapt based on your specific packaging formats and industry requirements: Question Which packaging formats do you produce in-house — folding cartons, rigid boxes, blister cards, corrugated boxes, pouches, tubes? Which post-press finishing processes are done in-house — foiling, embossing, lamination, window pasting, UV coating? What quality control processes are in place during and after production? What printing technology do you use, and at what press speeds? What is the minimum order quantity for each product line? What are standard production lead times for each packaging category? Are there any raw materials or processes with long procurement timelines that we should plan around? What paperboard grades, recycled materials, and speciality substrates can you source and convert? Are all processes handled in-house, or are any steps outsourced? What is your daily production capacity by product line? What are typical raw material procurement lead times? The answers to these questions will quickly reveal whether a supplier is genuinely set up to handle your requirements or whether there are structural limitations that will create friction over time. Pay particular attention to questions around outsourced processes, since any step that leaves the supplier's own facility introduces an additional point of risk in your supply chain. How Kumar Printers Can Help? Over the past 60+ years, we have worked with packaging buyers at every stage of business growth, from early-stage brands placing their first structured packaging orders to multinational procurement teams managing complex, multi-SKU programmes across multiple markets. We have worked with global companies including Venus, Gillette, Nestle, and Gurkha and Guns to develop and launch new packaging in the Indian market. Whatever the specific challenge, our team approaches every client engagement the same way: by understanding your requirements in detail before recommending anything. If your priority is cost reduction, our sales team can work through your current specifications and identify where savings are available. Where it makes sense, our product development team can suggest material alternatives or process adjustments that reduce cost without affecting pack performance or brand presentation. If you are looking to strengthen your sustainability credentials, we can advise on FSC-certified board options, plastic elimination strategies, and process changes that improve recyclability, all backed by our own certified supply chain. If you are dealing with quality problems, whether persistent defects, colour inconsistency, or structural failures, our team can help identify the root cause and implement a lasting fix rather than a workaround. All packaging development work, including structural design, sampling, and costing, is offered at zero or nominal cost to our clients. To get a free quote or to discuss your current packaging supply chain, write to us at kppl@kumarprinters.com. We are straightforward to work with, and we will tell you honestly what we can and cannot do for your business.

At Kumar Printers , we often get customer queries around MOQs and pricing for smaller quantities. Since we exclusively use offset printing at our factory, it is important for us to be able to explain to clients both the advantages and disadvantages of this technology, and how it compares to the most commonly used alternative: digital printing.  To understand the difference, let us explore a basic case study, comparing two packaging orders for folding cartons - one for 10,000 pieces and one for 100,000 pieces and analysing the difference in printing costs between offset and digital printing.  However, before diving in let us define a few key terms that will help us in our analysis.  Units per sheet (UPS) - This is the number of cartons or boxes that can be printed on a single sheet of board/ paper. If we have a job that is to be printed in 10 UPS an order for 100,000 units will be printed in (100,000/10) 10,000 sheets.  UPS of any job is normally determined by the dimensions of the carton and the sheet size the printing machine can accommodate.  Machine set up/ make ready -   This is the process during which a printing machine (offset or digital) is set up and prepared to print a new job. This process will be repeated for each new job that is loaded on the machine, after the previous job ends. If we print 5 jobs on a machine, we will have to repeat the make ready  process 5 times.  Machine speed- This is the average speed at which the printing machine can process jobs. In the case of most sheetfed printing machines, this is expressed in terms of sheets per hour (Sheets/hr). Key Assumptions for Our Case Study Let's say our job will be printed in the same sheet size on both machines and in  5 UPS . On that basis: Our small job will be 10,000/5 - 2000 sheets   Our big job will be 100,000/5 - 20,000 sheets   Machine setup time   Offset 1 hour / cost X Digital 10 mins/  Machine running speed Offset 8000 sheets per hour/ cost X Digital 3000 sheet per hour  mins/  The Key Takeaway From Our Scenarios Are: Also read: Why a CAPA Plan is Essential in Packaging and Manufacturing?

In packaging and manufacturing , quality lapses can create significant disruptions across supply chains. Beyond immediate financial losses, they may erode client confidence and damage long-standing business relationships. For this reason, structured problem-solving methodologies such as  Corrective and Preventive Action (CAPA) are indispensable. A CAPA Plan is more than just a quick fix. It is a structured method that ensures problems are not only corrected in the short term but also prevented from recurring in the future. The process essentially  involves three critical steps: Identifying, recording and accurately describing the problem.  Identifying the root cause and understanding why the problem occurred in the first place. Designing and implementing corrective measures to fix the current occurrence of the problem, and preventive measures to eliminate the likelihood of recurrence. An effective CAPA Plan requires careful analysis and is a collaborative process across teams. Success is not measured by how quickly the immediate issue is resolved but by whether the corrective actions can truly prevent the same problem from resurfacing. Every step of the process must be documented to build a transparent record of accountability and continuous improvement, as well as for research and learning purposes. Using the 5 Whys framework to Conduct a Root Cause Analysis: A Case Study at Kumar Printers Out of the three steps in any CAPA process, the most critical is the root cause analysis (RCA) stage. There are many models for conducting a root cause analysis, including the 5-Whys and the fishbone diagram.  At Kumar Printers , we applied the 5 Whys analysis model to investigate an issue of wet and crumbled shippers in a packaging batch for one of our customers. Here’s how the process unfolded: Step 1: Describe the issue Problem Statement: Finished product shipper cartons were received in a damaged, wet, and crumpled condition at the client's factory.  Step 2: Investigation and RCA We conducted a physical inspection of the storage area, damaged material and the transport vehicle and were able to arrive at the root cause of the problem through the following 5 whys. Why 1:  Why were the shippers wet? Because water seeped into the packaging during transport. Why 2:  Why did water seep into the packaging? Because there was a gap in the body of the vehicle (the transport vehicle was not in good condition at the time of loading) Why 3:  Why were cartons packed in a damaged vehicle? The loading team was not aware of the vehicle damage.  Why 4:  Why did the loading team not detect damage to the vehicle? Visual inspection of the vehicle was not conducted before the loading.  Why 5:  Why was the vehicle inspection not carried out? Because responsibility for vehicle inspection was not fixed in the dispatch/ vehicle loading SOP.  By the fifth “why,” we have determined that the root cause of the issue was an insufficiently or poorly designed vehicle loading standard operating procedure (SOP).  The CAPA Plan in Action With the root cause identified, the CAPA Plan was developed and implemented as follows: Corrective Action: Immediate segregation of damaged shippers and re-shipment of goods to the client. Feedback was given to the commercial vehicle supplier on the damaged truck.  Preventive Action: Vehicle loading SOP was amended to include a checkpoint and checklist for visual inspection of all vehicles before commencing loading & the warehouse team was trained based on the updated SOP.  Documentation: The entire process—from problem identification to resolution—was recorded in a CAPA register, serving as proof of corrective measures as well as a point of additional reference for continuous improvement in the future.  Why This Matters? By applying the CAPA framework with the 5 Whys mode l, we not only resolved a costly incident but also strengthened our factory's long-term quality management system. Instead of treating the issue as an isolated mishap, the team transformed it into a learning opportunity that improved processes, reduced risk, and reinforced accountability. In industries such as packaging , where precision and trust are the foundation of success, this approach ensures that mistakes do not define outcomes. Instead, they become catalysts for smarter systems, stronger teams, and better results. Also read: Offset vs Digital Printing: What Works Best for Your Packaging Orders?