For many operators, these losses have long been accepted as an unavoidable cost of doing business. However, as supply chain costs rise and expectations around the circular economy grow, the industry is beginning to question whether this assumption still holds.

Insights from recent engagements with bakeries, logistics specialists and equipment pooling provider CHEP suggest that bread crate losses are not driven by negligence, but by structural dynamics within the supply chain. The implication is important. If losses are structural, they may also be solvable.

Bread crates as operational infrastructure

In many bakery operations, bread crates are viewed primarily as packaging. In practice, they function more like operational infrastructure that supports daily production and distribution.

Bakery dispatch teams depend on a steady supply of crates to maintain production flow and meet delivery schedules. When crates are unavailable, the consequences are immediate. Distribution schedules tighten, drivers face delays and alternative packing solutions must be found.

Crate availability therefore plays a direct role in operational efficiency and service reliability.

Other sectors that rely on reusable transport equipment increasingly treat these assets as shared infrastructure rather than disposable packaging. Centralised pallet and container pooling networks manage recovery, maintenance and redeployment to keep assets circulating efficiently. Similar thinking is now beginning to influence how the baking sector approaches bread crate management.

Understanding where losses occur

Engagements with bakery operations consistently indicate that crate losses rarely originate at the bakery itself.

Within dispatch environments, processes are typically structured, loading points are controlled and accountability is clear. The complexity emerges further downstream once crates enter retail environments and distribution networks where custody becomes fragmented.

Retail storage constraints, irregular return practices and competing operational priorities can all disrupt the flow of crates back into circulation. Over time, these conditions have contributed to the normalisation of crate loss across the industry.

Rather than investing in structured recovery mechanisms, many operators have adapted by replacing missing crates. While this approach helps maintain operational continuity in the short term, it can mask the scale of the underlying issue. At industry level, even relatively small loss percentages translate into significant asset exposure and replacement costs.

Why visibility matters

To better understand these dynamics, a bread crate recovery pilot conducted between July and September 2025 brought together bakeries, CHEP and an independent reverse logistics specialist.

As Conor Powell, Manager: Development RPCs, CHEP Sub-Sahan Africa, who led the pilot implementation, explains: “What stood out during the pilot wasn’t just the volume of crates we were able to recover, but how quickly behaviour shifted once there was a visible, structured process in place. Store teams became more engaged, accountability improved and crates that would typically sit idle started moving back into the system. It reinforced that recovery isn’t only about logistics, it’s about creating awareness, consistency and shared responsibility across the value chain.”

Although the pilot focused on recovery activity, one of the most significant insights was behavioural. The introduction of a consistent and visible recovery presence at store level appeared to change engagement patterns and improve return discipline.

When store teams recognised that crate flows were actively monitored and managed, equipment circulation improved. The pilot also highlighted practical realities that influence recovery outcomes, including store access windows, labour constraints and storage limitations. These factors illustrate why recovery initiatives often struggle when they rely solely on ad hoc or driver led return processes.

Reframing the economics of recovery

One of the most persistent barriers to recovery initiatives is the perception that dedicated collection activity represents an additional cost for already pressured supply chains.

However, evaluating recovery in isolation provides only part of the picture. When crates are lost, businesses incur replacement expenditure, increased procurement costs and operational disruption linked to reduced equipment availability. Recovery initiatives protect the existing asset base and extend equipment utilisation.

Experience from global pooling networks shows that coordinated equipment recovery can deliver broader system benefits. These include improved asset availability, lower lifecycle costs and reduced environmental impact because fewer replacement units need to be manufactured.

Viewed from this perspective, recovery becomes less about adding operational cost and more about protecting supply chain resilience.

A strategic opportunity for the industry

Bread crate losses are often treated as routine operational leakage. Yet at industry scale they represent a meaningful efficiency opportunity.

As supply chains become more interconnected and sustainability expectations intensify, the ability to maintain effective circulation of reusable transport equipment will become increasingly important. Efficient recovery and redeployment of assets supports both operational performance and circular economy outcomes.

Industry collaboration involving bakeries, retailers, logistics providers and sector bodies could play an important role in quantifying national loss exposure and identifying practical managed and controlled recovery solutions. Pooling specialists such as CHEP, with decades of experience managing reusable equipment networks globally, can contribute expertise in network design, recovery logistics and equipment lifecycle management.

Turning shrinkage into strategy

Perhaps the most important shift required is conceptual. Bread crates should no longer be viewed simply as packaging subject to inevitable loss. Instead, they should be recognised as operational equipment whose circulation requires active management.

Insights emerging from industry engagements and pilot initiatives point to a clear conclusion. Losses are largely structural, recovery improves when it is visible and coordinated and the economics of recovery must be measured against availability protected rather than activity cost alone.

Modernising supply chains presents an opportunity to rethink long-standing assumptions. Coordinated equipment stewardship can improve efficiency, strengthen service reliability, and advance circular outcomes. In this context, shrinkage need not remain an accepted loss but can be repositioned – through the right operating models and collaboration as a meaningful driver of value.

By Gerhard Stander, Director, Retail & Agriculture, CHEP Sub Saharan Africa