The Joint Research Centre (JRC) has published in February 2024 the long awaited study applying the life cycle analysis methodology (LCA) in order to compare and assess reusable and single use packaging in different scenarios. The study with the title "Exploring the environmental performance of alternative food packaging products in the European Union" is seen as the study to prepare the decision on Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) and as the official answer to some studies prepared by the single use industry (Mc Donald, paper industry, etc.).



The research incorporated six case studies, categorised into four scenarios evaluating the environmental impacts of both single use and reusable packaging products (called multiple use packaging), including packaging used in the hotel, restaurant and catering sector, such as cups, trays, beverage containers, and glass bottles used for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. In addition, the study assessed the environmental performance of single use and multiple use packaging in a dine-in restaurant case study. The following scenarios were investigating (including short summary of results): 



• Scenario 1: Reusable cups (polypropylene) in 15 cycles compared with single use cups (cardboard + LDPE coating) for drinks to-go and the assumption (“not every reusable cup is returned”) -> Reusable cups are better than single use in 13 categories, in 4 categories worse (climate change, ecotoxicity freshwater and 2 x resource use (fossil and mineral).

• Scenario 2A: The same for food to-go -> similar results like for cups

• Scenario 2B: Reusable box (polypropylene) with 15 cycles compared to single use aluminium box with cardboard lid -> reusable box is better than single use in 15 categories, in 2 categories worse (resource use, fossil and mineral)

Note:

• In all three scenarios, electricity and transport has the largest (negative) effect on reusable packaging.

• Planets Reuse assessment: for both the impacts will be smaller in the future or can be influenced (shorter transport routes and use of renewable energies are important).

• It has to be noted that transport with private cars (to bring the bottles/containers back) is taken into account. On average 2.5 km. This explains the poor results in climate chance and resource use as one of the decisive factors. This transport needs to be reduced.

• Water, often argued to be used a lot to wash reusable packaging, plays a minor role, as water consumption is also very high in the production of cardboard in all three scenarios (box or/and lid).

• Scenario 3A: Reusable PET bottle in 10 cycles with single use aluminium cans for drinks (beer, cola, etc.) -> the reusable PET bottle is worse in 10 categories, better only in 7. In the category "MRD" (=resource use, minerals and metals) the impact is over 20,000% higher for PET bottles. This is mainly related to the recycling content. 75% is assumed for aluminium and only 7% for PET bottles.

• Scenario 3B: Reusable glass bottle in 20 cycles with single use glass bottle for beer -> reusable bottle is significantly better in 16 categories, exception is the category land use

• Scenario 4: Reusable glass bottle for wine with 20 cycles with single glass bottle -> similar result as for beer

• Scenario 5: “Hamburger menu eaten in-house” reusable plates and cups (both PP) in 100 cycles compared to single use cardboard boxes for hamburgers, cardboard for french fries and paper cups for drinks -> reusable set is significantly better in 15 categories, in 2 worse (ionizing radiation and freshwater toxicology).

Note: for all scenarios: the resource use categories are influenced a lot by the recycling content taken into account. Assumptions are: for aluminium 75%, for glass 34%, for PET bottles 7%, for PP and cardboard 0%.



📣 The study is providing new LCA data from an objective institute valid for the European market.



🌎 The data is provided for European level. Language is English. 



⏰ Published in Februar 2024 as preliminary results. Full report is expected.  



💻 Link to the study is provided at  the website of the JRC .