On September 25, 2023, the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission presented findings from a study delving into the environmental impacts of single-use versus multiple-use packaging products as part of the ongoing discussion over whether the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) should include reuse targets (FPF reported).
The JRC is the “science and knowledge service of the European Commission” meant to provide independent evidence to support EU policy development. The ongoing study, initiated in May 2023 and expected to run until November 2023, is focused on assessing the environmental performance of packaging for food and beverages. JRC researchers used a life cycle assessment-based approach to evaluate the environmental impacts from food contact article production to end-of-life. The assessments were grounded in broad array of data collection and analyses, including factors like the number of reuses, transport distances, energy mix, and end-of-life waste management. For each factor, JRC ran a sensitivity analysis to check assumptions and the importance each played in the final impact score.
Overall, washing and rinsing practices, particularly the use of hot or cold water and the associated electricity impacts, are spotlighted for their substantial influence on the environmental footprint of reusable packaging. Consumer behavior such as the distance traveled by car and the number of items transported simultaneously also highly influences the outcome of reuse items outside of a restaurant scenario. Single-use packaging had the greatest impact during the manufacturing phase, particularly the large amount of water necessary in the paper production process. Recycled content and recyclability were less important factors compared to other parameters. These findings can help to prioritize factors that genuinely amplify the sustainability of packaging in the food and beverage sector (FPF reported, also here).
JRC investigated four scenarios:
1. Beverages packaging – Single-use paper cup with a low density polyethylene (LDPE) lining and polystyrene (PS) lid vs. multiple-use polypropylene (PP) cup.
The multiple-use PP cup had lower impacts in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and water use, primarily due to the high environmental toll of paper production. The impacts of multiple-use cups were mainly associated with the reuse step, including washing and transport, while single-use cups’ impacts were tied to the manufacturing step.
2. Take-away packaging – Single-use cardboard tray with LDPE lining vs. multiple-use PP clamshell tray.
Similar to the first scenario, the multiple-use PP clamshell tray exhibited lower emissions and water use impacts due to the comparatively high impacts of paper production. The aggregated score performance favored multiple-use options.
3. Alcoholic beverages, wine – Single-use glass wine bottle vs. multiple-use glass wine bottle (thicker).
The JRC found “clear benefits for the multiple-use bottle, [performing] better in almost all impact categories” even though it was thicker (and thus heavier when transporting).
4. Dine-in restaurant – Single-use hamburger meal (paper trays for hamburger & fries + paper cup) vs. multiple-use hamburger meal (PP plate for hamburger & fries + PP cup).
The benefits of multiple-use products were “evident” in dine-in scenarios since there is no need for the consumer to bring back any reusable container. Despite the water needs for washing in the reuse process, water use impacts were lower for reusables due to the “large consumption of water for the paper pulping process.”
In all provided scenarios, multiple-use options demonstrated lower environmental impacts compared to single-use alternatives, particularly in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and water use. Consumer behavior and washing practices were highlighted as significant variables influencing the overall environmental impacts of these packaging case studies.
Reference
JRC (September 15, 2023). “Supporting the co-decision process of the PPWR: Environmental analysis of reuse scenarios.” European Environmental Bureau. (pdf).
