5 questions about tariff impacts on the packaging industry
Hammont Premier Packaging didn't wait until the Trump administration's tariff announcements this year to rethink its supply chain. The small New Jersey-based company, which sells clear boxes, bags and more, started diversifying sourcing and onboarding additional suppliers in North America and Europe more than 18 months ago.
Hammont realized that 'substrates imported from Asia, especially China, tend to be more susceptible to tariffs and logistical slowdowns,' CEO Isaac Link explained. In some instances, the company invested in local suppliers or redesigned products to reduce reliance on materials made only in China.
'The current climate demands flexibility,' Link said.
Shifting trade policy, frequent changes to tariffs and evolving legal challenges have created uncertainty for packaging companies, along with their customers and suppliers. Earlier this month, the U.S. and China agreed to a 90-day pause on higher tariffs, but relations remain uncertain. Meanwhile, tariffs on key trading partners such as Canada and Mexico have shaken supply chains, especially for businesses that started to diversify away from Asia to North America during the pandemic.
Although certain increased tariffs have only been in place a few months, 'the impact is already showing up in subtle but serious ways,' said Jennifer Dochstader, co-founder of LPC Inc., a marketing and research consultancy specializing in the global printing and packaging industry.
One example would be a brand that delays its product launch or rebrand because of tariff-related price hikes, she said.
'The ripple effect hits the flexible packaging printer, the label printer, the folding carton producer, the co-packer,' Dochstader said.
Tariffs and their effects on packaging supply chains have caused widespread uncertainty. Here are five questions packaging businesses face while navigating next steps.
The most immediate impact is cost.
Adam Peek, founder of Golden Rule Consulting and the People of Packaging Podcast, said a commercial printer that buys paper from Canada suddenly experienced skyrocketing costs for the largest item it sources. But the tariffs could be rolled back as quickly as they were enacted, Peek said, making it challenging for the packaging company to decide how to mitigate cost increases.
'The uncertainty in tariffs is creating a lot of stress and tension in the supply chain,' Peek said.
During spring earnings calls, Smurfit Westrock noted shifting some production among sites in Canada and the U.S., and Packaging Corporation of America noted that trade uncertainty led it to adjust some exports.
But many large packaging companies reported minimal anticipated effect from tariffs due to low exposure and domestic supply chains. In early May, Sealed Air noted most of its products aren't affected by tariffs because of an exemption for goods covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. And O-I Glass said just 4.5% of its global sales volume is exposed to new tariffs, mostly related to imports of filled containers from Europe.
Ardagh Metal Packaging's North America can-making operations are all in the U.S., and its 'suppliers, customers and end consumers are all mostly local to the region,' CEO Oliver Graham said.
Even in domestic packaging supply chains, knock-on effects of tariffs are still a possibility, said Anish Thanatil, North America lead for Boston Consulting Group's forestry, pulp, paper and packaging work. If consumer demand shrinks due to higher prices, packaging producers will feel the ripple effects up the supply chain. Or if companies need to purchase equipment to add more paper manufacturing capacity, machinery and parts may be subject to tariffs.
'Everything that's made in the U.S., in some way, is going to be impacted by tariffs,' Peek said. 'We've built a global economy.'
Packaging leaders have managed their supply chains through disruptive times over the last decade. Tariffs enacted during the first Trump administration pushed many businesses across industries to diversify their sources of supply. Then, the COVID-19 pandemic imparted similar lessons about diversification and holding buffer inventory.
'We learned a lot during the COVID pandemic on how to navigate through the unknown and the chaos,' Peek said. 'Being single-sourced as a company for critical packaging components is maybe not the best idea.'
Many companies started to more actively understand the risks in their supply chain during that time, according to Thanatil.
He added that many firms have a playbook so they can refer back to how they managed supply chains during COVID and use those same strategies today. But the current tariff situation bears some key differences.
'In COVID, you knew that you had to plan for at least a year or two. Here, we don't know the timeline,' Thanatil said. 'People are more prepared than they were during the pandemic, but there's also more uncertainty.'
Multiple companies have discussed the potential to alter packaging substrates or formats in light of tariff-driven supply chain changes.
P&G plans to look 'for every opportunity to mitigate the impact, including sourcing flexibility and productivity improvements,' along with price hikes for consumers, CFO Andre Schulten said on an April earnings call, before the 90-day tariff pause with China began. Schulten said P&G's largest tariff impacts come from raw materials, as well as packaging materials and finished products sourced from China.
Last month, Hammont switched the color of one of its paper bags from a medium brown shade made in China to a darker shade available in India, Link said.
But for the most part, packaging manufacturers are holding off on major changes to materials and formats until they have a better sense of the longevity of the tariff situation.
'There's a lot of wait-and-see energy right now,' Dochstader said.
Transitioning substrates is not a quick and easy choice for packaging firms nor their customers, Thanatil said. He gave the example of a company that's considering switching from a tin can to paper, because most tinplate is sourced globally while paper for food cans is produced domestically. A CPG would need to test the material and possibly install new manufacturing lines to fill the new can type – none of which can happen in the short time frame in which the U.S. is imposing tariffs.
For that reason, Thanatil projects that major shifts in substrates or formats are 'on a back burner' for two to three months as businesses await the possibility of greater clarity.
Metal is among the packaging materials most vulnerable to geopolitical shifts. Two-thirds of metal for food packaging in the U.S. is imported, and most tinplate capacity has been shut down in the U.S., Thanatil said.
Conversely, flexible and rigid plastics, along with paper, are at an advantage because of their domestic supply chains, Thanatil said.
In many cases, products are manufactured in one place but packaged in another, exposing the goods to tariffs. Many CPGs import raw materials and then manufacture or package domestically, Dochstader said. In the case of electronics, products are manufactured overseas, so the packaging is produced in the same region.
'We're not going to make packaging here for iPhones and then ship it to China. That would be ridiculous,' Peek said.
Clorox noted its tariff exposure is 'relatively limited' because 'we tend to manufacture closely to where we sell our products,' CFO Luc Bellet said on a May earnings call. But he added that most of the tariff impact is on packaging and raw supplies.
Because the tariff situation remains fluid, experts advised working to make supply chains more resilient, while focusing on long-term packaging trends.
For example, younger generations show preferences toward sustainable packaging and healthier eating, Thanatil said. Making a packaging change that results in lower exposure to tariffs but doesn't align with sustainability goals may not be a worthwhile tradeoff.
Diversifying suppliers, reshoring production and reengineering designs are all possibilities to make the supply chain better able to absorb shocks.
'If you're a procurement person, you have to be willing to entertain new potential opportunities,' Peek said.
He emphasized that doesn't mean moving all orders over to the vendor with the least tariff exposure. In fact, now is the time to strengthen long-term vendor relationships, not abandon suppliers if they raise prices, sources said.
'They're reacting to cost pressures of their own,' Dochstader said. She advised that companies ask their vendors questions to clarify what's driving pricing and to consider design tweaks or lower minimum order quantities.
Link said that when Hammont rolls out 'unavoidable price hikes,' it does so with advanced warning. And it will honor old pricing until the company and its customer agree on a date for the new pricing, even if it comes at a cost to Hammont.
'Everyone is in the same boat here just waiting for this to pass,' Link said.
Open communication is important on the customer side, too. Packaging companies sometimes keep supplier information close to the vest with vague specifications so customers can't seek alternative quotes.
'That veil has to be ripped to just create ultimate transparency and communication with your customers,' Peek said. 'That's how you'll navigate through everything in a world that's hard to navigate right now.'
Peek advised packaging executives to stay informed on changing trade policies, but cut through the noise by focusing on what they know is true — and use that to guide decision-making.
'You're not going to disrupt your entire supply chain just because there's a tariff policy in place this week that could change next week,' Peek said.
Recommended Reading
Are tariff-era changes to fiber supply chains here to stay?
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why a Fed rate cut could lead to bad news for Big Tech stocks
Investors are looking for an interest rate cut — but the market may not respond as expected when it comes. "I think that the market's going to have to come to grips with the Fed is going to cut rates, and is it going to be the right move for the Fed to make now?" Jim Bianco of Bianco Research said on Opening Bid. July's Consumer Price Index (CPI) report showed core inflation rose 0.3%, the largest increase in six months. "Last year they cut rates, and the market decided it wasn't the right move," Bianco added. "And it shot yields on the 10 [year Treasury] and the 30-year up over 100 basis points." Bianco said the real inflationary pressure is building due to Trump's tariffs, and the impact could be significant. While some of the costs may be eaten by exporters or corporations, others will be passed on via price hikes. "There's about an extra $250 to $300 billion of tariffs that are going to be collected over the next year ... tariffs were running around $8 billion a month. Now they're running nearly $30 billion a month," he noted. Bianco expects Fed Chair Jerome Powell to provide some clarity at the Fed's annual Jackson Hole Economic Symposium later this month. And if Powell signals a September cut isn't coming, the backlash could be intense — including renewed political pressure from President Trump, who has previously floated the idea of firing the Fed chair. "If he says he's not going to cut rates, I would then put Trump firing him back into the play," Bianco said. The Fed's decision could also have an outsized impact on megacap tech stocks. The largest 10% of US companies now account for 76% of total market capitalization, the highest concentration on record, according to market data platform Barchart. The concentration makes the entire market vulnerable to shifts in interest rates. As yields go higher, money could move out of stocks and into bonds. Bianco warned that if 10-year Treasury yields hit 5%, it could trigger profit-taking in Big Tech stocks. Bianco advised investors to stay cautious when chasing the market's most popular names. "If you want to play some of these Mag 7s, you have to be prepared for big gains and big losses," he said. "Some think it's all a one-way street ... until it isn't." Francisco Velasquez is a Reporter at Yahoo Finance. He can be reached on LinkedIn and X, or via email at Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices


CNN
16 minutes ago
- CNN
Capitol Crime Busters - Inside Politics with Dana Bash and Manu Raju - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
CNN Inside Politics 40 mins First: President Trump says his unprecedented takeover of the Washington, DC police could extend to other cities across the country. But is the new White House push. about public protection or political posturing? Or maybe both? Plus: The Texas House just failed to meet a quorum for the fifth time in a row as the Republican governor warns redistricting is inevitable. And: The president picks a MAGA loyalist to run the nation's most important economic statistics agency, leaving Wall Street questioning whether crucial data can still be taken at face value.

Los Angeles Times
17 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Tariff ‘Mission Accomplished' hype is just that
On May 1, 2003, George W. Bush announced, 'Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.' He was standing below a giant banner that read, 'Mission Accomplished.' At the risk of inviting charges of understatement, subsequent events didn't cooperate. But it took a while for that to be widely accepted. We're in a similar place when it comes to President Trump's experiment with a new global trading order. 'Tariffs are making our country Strong and Rich!!!' proclaims Trump, making him not only the first Republican president in living memory to brag about raising taxes on Americans, but also the first to insist that raising taxes on Americans makes us richer. MAGA's mission-accomplished groupthink relies primarily on three arguments. The first is that Trump has successfully concluded a slew of beneficial trade deals. The truth is that some of those deals are simply 'frameworks' that will take a long time to be ironed out. But Trump got the headlines he wanted. The second argument is a kind of populism-infused sleight of hand. The 'experts' — their scare quotes, not mine — are wrong once again. The White House social media account crows, 'In April, 'experts' called tariffs 'the biggest policy mistake in 95 years.' By July, they generated OVER $100 BILLION in revenue. Facts expose the haters: tariffs WORK. Trust in Trump.' But the high-fivers are leaving things out. The most-dire predictions of economic catastrophe were based on the scheme Trump announced on April 2, a.k.a. 'Liberation Day.' Trump quickly backed off that plan ('chickened out' in Wall Street parlance) in response to a bond and stock market implosion. Saying the experts were wrong under those circumstances is like saying experts opposed to defenestration were wrong when they successfully convinced a man not to jump out a window. The third argument, made by the White House and many others — that tariffs are working because they're raising money — is a response to a claim no one made. To my knowledge, no expert claimed tariffs wouldn't raise money. The estimates of these revenues from Trump world are stratospheric. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick expects somewhere between $700 billion and $1 trillion per year. Last month, the government collected $29 billion. It's likely this number will significantly increase as more tariffs come online and businesses run down the inventory they stockpiled earlier this year in anticipation of more tariffs to come. Normally, Republicans don't exult over massive revenues from tax hikes. But Trump's defenders get around this problem by insisting that money is 'pouring' and 'flowing' into America from someplace else. It's true that tariff revenue is pouring into the Treasury, but that money is coming out of American bank accounts, because American importers pay the tariff. Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent cannot deny this when pressed. So yes, tariffs are 'working' the way they're supposed to; the problem is Trump thinks tariffs work differently than they do. It's possible some foreign exporters might lower prices to maintain market share, and some American businesses might absorb the costs — for now — to avoid sticker shock for inflation-beleaguered consumers, but what revenue is generated still comes from Americans. Ultimately it means higher prices paid here, reduced profits for businesses here or reduced U.S. trade overall. Sometimes, when pressed, defenders of the administration will concede the true source of the revenues, but then they say the pain is necessary to force manufacturers and other businesses to build and produce in the United States. It's backdoor industrial policy masquerading as trade policy. That, too, might 'work.' But all of this will take time, no matter what. And, if it works, that will have costs, too. Manufacturing in America is more expensive — that's why we manufacture so much stuff abroad in the first place. If this 'reshoring' happens, our goods will be more expensive, and less money will 'pour in' from tariffs. It's difficult to exaggerate how well-understood all of this was on the American right until very recently. But the need to grab any argument available to declare Trump's experiment a success has a lot of people not only abandoning their previous dogma but leaping to the conclusion that the dogma was wrong all along. Maybe it was, though I don't think so. The evidence so far suggests that problems are looming. The dollar is weakening. Prices continue to rise. The job market is reeling. The stock market (an unreliable metric, according to MAGA, when it plummeted after Liberation Day) is holding on, thanks to tech stocks. The truth is we won't have real evidence for a while. It's worth remembering that Americans don't live by headlines and press releases and they don't live in the macro economy either. Declaring 'Mission Accomplished' for the macro economy won't convince people they're better off in their own micro-economies when they're not. @JonahDispatch