Why The Cheapest Material May Be The Most Expensive Choice

Rory Chandler, Business Development Manager at Albis UK, explains the factors processors should consider when comparing materials, moving away from a cost-only approach to maximize productivity.

Albis

For a long time, purchasing decisions in the plastics industry have been dominated by a single figure: price per kilogram. However, in recent years, the economics of plastics processing have changed significantly. Rising energy prices and labor costs continue to shift the profitability balance, with processors increasingly recognizing that machine utilization, energy consumption, overall equipment effectiveness (OEE), and labor efficiency have a strong impact on bottom-line performance.

From material price to unit cost

Traditionally, material selection has focused on performance, compliance, and price per kilogram, with the lowest-cost option typically chosen once these requirements are met. However, this approach overlooks the other costs involved in transforming materials into finished components. The key is the total cost of producing the final product.

For example, a material with a slightly higher cost per kilogram but a shorter cycle time can significantly reduce manufacturing costs. A faster cycle means higher output from existing equipment, lower unit costs, and the ability to generate additional revenue without investing in new machinery when demand exists. In many cases, the financial impact of increased productivity far outweighs the savings from lower material prices.

Practice of High-Productivity Materials

BASF’s High Productivity Plus portfolio—comprising the Ultraflow and Ultradur grades for injection molding—is a prime example of this approach. These polyamide- and PBT-based materials are engineered to enhance flowability, accelerate crystallization kinetics, and enable processing at lower melting temperatures compared to conventional grades. Results from a collaboration between BASF and TE Connectivity, a leading manufacturer of connector and sensor solutions, demonstrate that cycle times were reduced by up to 36%, throughput increased by 30%, and energy consumption decreased by 15–22%, all while maintaining part quality. These figures illustrate the significant potential benefits.

Recent ALBIS customer trials have demonstrated that potential gains can be significantly enhanced under appropriate application conditions. In these trials, Ultramid B3EG6 HPP achieved a cycle time reduction of over 50% compared to standard PA6-GF30, while maintaining critical dimensions and mechanical properties. Although results vary across different applications, they highlight the substantial impact of material selection on productivity.

Capacity without capital investment

An often-overlooked benefit of reducing cycle time is the release of machine capacity. Many mold manufacturers face the challenge of increasing output without investing in additional machinery, molds, or factory space. Shortening cycle times offers an alternative path: by boosting part production speed by 20% to 30%, existing assets are leveraged to create additional manufacturing capacity. This can delay or even eliminate the need for investment in extra equipment.

Procurement decisions that reduce expenditures may be deemed successful, but if they lead to increased production costs in other parts of the process, the overall impact on profitability may be less positive than initially anticipated. Therefore, the relevant metric is not merely material savings, but the decision’s economic impact on the entire production process.

The Hidden Costs of Material Variability

The same total cost logic applies beyond cycle time: material consistency, scrap rates, and process stability also impact component economics. In sectors such as furniture, the emphasis on sustainable business practices has accelerated the adoption of recycled materials. For brand owners and plastic processors, the wide range of available sustainable thermoplastic technologies and their associated price points present new challenges. While it is relatively easy to compare recycled materials based on recycled content, environmental data, or price per kilogram, assessing their stability in production environments is more difficult.

The collaboration between ALBIS and office furniture manufacturer Orangebox exemplifies this challenge. Various recycled PA6 materials were evaluated. Although some lower-cost materials appeared attractive from a procurement standpoint, significant fluctuations in material quality led to processing difficulties and increased scrap rates. In certain applications, waste levels rose from approximately 3% to as high as 15%, resulting in material waste, increased machine time, energy consumption, quality inspections, and rework. The apparent savings achieved through material procurement were quickly eroded by the hidden costs associated with inconsistent material quality.

April Stacey, Regional Sales Manager at ALBIS, collaborated with Orangebox and its manufacturing partners to evaluate and implement MOCOM’s ALTECH ECO product line. The improved consistency and process stability significantly reduced scrap rates while maintaining the required recycled content. As a result, manufacturing costs were lowered, and confidence in part quality increased. ALTECH ECO is positioned as a “near-to-prime” solution, combining recycled content with the consistency and quality needed for demanding technical applications.

Productivity of the entire process

Technologies that reduce non-productive time can enhance the efficiency of the entire manufacturing process. In injection molding and extrusion, purging agents such as GranaClean can shorten material and color changeovers, extend machine runtime, and reduce material waste. Processing aids and specialized additives can further increase throughput, accelerate cooling, or optimize the crystallization of materials such as polypropylene, polyethylene, and PVC. While these benefits may appear limited in isolation, their cumulative impact over many production hours should be evaluated within the context of specific processes.

Practical Total Cost View

The common theme is that materials are no longer viewed merely as costs, but as tools for enhancing manufacturing performance. Therefore, when comparing materials, process engineers should model the entire process, including cycle time, processing temperature, scrap and rework, changeover time, energy consumption, quality consistency, and available machine capacity. Rather than simply asking, “How much does this material cost per kilogram?” it is more useful to ask, “What is the cost per finished product? How much can productivity be improved?”

In industries where profit margins are under continuous pressure, processors that focus solely on material prices risk missing out on greater opportunities. The most competitive manufacturers will be those that leverage materials, additives, and process technologies to maximize productivity and reduce manufacturing costs.