Why I Stopped Chasing the 'Perfect' Industrial Packaging Vendor (And What I Look For Now)

Here's my position: the industrial packaging vendor that looks best on paper is rarely the one that saves your production schedule when things go sideways.

I've been the quality compliance gatekeeper at a mid-sized chemical manufacturer for six years now. I review every packaging specification before we commit—roughly 340 SKUs annually across drums, IBCs, and containerboard. In 2024, I rejected 11% of first deliveries due to spec deviations. That number used to be higher. Not because vendors got better, but because I got smarter about what to actually evaluate.

The Event That Rewired My Thinking

The PCA-Greif containerboard situation back in 2020 changed how I think about supplier evaluation entirely. When that acquisition reshuffled the deck, we had maybe six weeks of runway before our secondary packaging supply became uncertain. Our "perfect" vendor—lowest cost, acceptable quality—had zero flexibility because they sourced from a single mill.

I didn't fully understand the value of manufacturing footprint diversity until that scramble. One phone call to a vendor with multiple production facilities, and we had continuity. Cost us 8% more per unit. Worth every cent when the alternative was shutting down a filling line.

What the Analyst Reports Miss

I've read the bullish and bearish opinions on major packaging manufacturers—Greif included. The financial analysts talk about EBITDA margins and containerboard pricing cycles. Useful if you're buying stock. Basically useless if you're trying to figure out whether a vendor can actually deliver 2,000 steel drums to your Midwest facility in February when everyone's fighting for the same trucking capacity.

Everything I'd read about vendor selection said to prioritize unit cost and lead time. In practice, I found those matter less than:

• Geographic distribution of manufacturing (can they shift production if one plant has issues?)
• Portfolio breadth (if my drum supplier also does rigid containers, I have leverage and backup)
• Responsiveness to spec changes mid-order (this one's honestly hard to evaluate until you need it)

The Jobs Question Nobody Asks

Here's something I started paying attention to after 2022: vendor hiring patterns. When I'm evaluating a packaging partner, I actually look at their job postings. Greif jobs listings, for instance—are they hiring quality engineers or just sales reps? Expanding maintenance crews at specific facilities or cutting back?

I don't have hard data on correlation between hiring patterns and delivery reliability, but based on tracking this for three years, my sense is that vendors actively hiring production staff tend to have fewer capacity crunches six months later. It's a leading indicator that the financial reports don't capture.

(Note to self: actually build a spreadsheet tracking this properly instead of relying on gut feel.)

The Sustainable Packaging Trap

Every vendor now claims sustainable packaging solutions. I've sat through probably forty presentations on recycled content and carbon footprint reduction. Some of it's real. Some of it's marketing.

What I actually verify now:

Can they provide chain-of-custody documentation for recycled content claims? Not a brochure—actual batch-level traceability. In Q1 2024, we ran an audit on three vendors claiming 30%+ post-consumer recycled content in their drums. One couldn't produce documentation beyond a generic corporate sustainability report. That vendor's off our approved list now.

The conventional wisdom is that sustainability premiums are always worth paying for brand positioning. My experience with our customer base suggests otherwise—our B2B buyers care about verifiable claims, not marketing language. An unsubstantiated sustainability claim that gets challenged is worse than making no claim at all.

Responding to the Obvious Objection

"But you're overcomplicating this. Just find the cheapest reliable vendor and move on."

I used to think that too. Then I watched our operations team lose 72 hours of production because our low-cost drum supplier had a quality excursion they couldn't recover from quickly—no alternative manufacturing site, no buffer inventory, no plan B. The production downtime cost us roughly $180,000. The annual savings from that vendor? $23,000.

So glad I pushed for dual-sourcing after that incident. Almost let procurement talk me out of it to preserve volume discounts, which would have left us exposed again when shipping disruptions hit in late 2024.

What Actually Matters (Updated Framework)

After six years and probably 2,000+ packaging spec reviews, here's what I actually evaluate now:

Tier 1 (non-negotiable):

• UN certification documentation for hazmat packaging (no exceptions, no "we can get that")
• At least two manufacturing facilities within logistics range
• Quality contact who answers within 4 hours during business days

Tier 2 (strongly preferred):

• Portfolio diversity—drums AND containerboard AND rigids means they understand our full supply chain
• Willingness to hold safety stock (usually 2-3 weeks) at their cost
• Transparent pricing structure (I've rejected vendors who couldn't explain their surcharge logic)

Tier 3 (nice to have):

• Dedicated account manager (honestly, I'm not sure this actually improves outcomes—still evaluating)
• Digital ordering integration
• Sustainability certifications beyond the baseline

The Point I'm Actually Making

What was best practice in 2019 doesn't fully apply in 2025. The industrial packaging landscape shifted—consolidation, supply chain volatility, sustainability pressure. The fundamentals haven't changed (spec compliance, delivery reliability, reasonable cost), but the evaluation framework needs updating.

I'm not saying you need the biggest vendor or the most expensive option. I'm saying the selection criteria most procurement teams use—unit cost, lead time, maybe quality scores—misses the resilience factors that actually determine whether you're scrambling during the next disruption.

The vendors with global manufacturing footprint and diverse portfolios aren't just selling you packaging. They're selling you optionality. That's worth paying for. (Thankfully, my operations director finally agrees with me on this.)