3. Literature Review
3.1 Packaging statistics and reduction targets
The Nordic countries have set packaging waste reduction targets as part of their efforts to promote sustainable production and consumption. In 2018, the Nordic Council of Ministers set a joint target to reduce the consumption of plastic carrier bags by 50% by 2025. This target was set in recognition of the environmental impact of single-use plastics and the need to reduce their use.
In addition, the Nordic countries have established extended producer responsibility schemes to promote the recycling and reuse of packaging waste. These schemes place the responsibility for the collection and recycling of packaging waste on the producers, who are incentivised to reduce the amount of packaging they use and increase the use of recycled materials.
Each Nordic country has also set its own packaging waste reduction targets. For example, Finland has set a target to reduce the amount of packaging waste generated by 15% by 2025, while Norway aims to increase the recycling rate of plastic packaging to 50% by 2025.
3.1.1 Denmark
Denmark has set waste reduction targets for both household and industrial waste. For household waste, the government has set a target to reduce the amount of household waste sent to incineration or landfill by 50% by 2030 compared to 2010 levels. To achieve this goal, the government has implemented a range of measures, such as increasing recycling, reducing food waste, and promoting the circular economy.
The overall packaging waste generated in Denmark by packaging material and its sources is presented in Figure 1. It must be noted that the cardboard and paper packaging were not reported individually but they include other cardboard and paper waste. However, based on a recent report from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, there is an estimation of e-commerce packaging to be around 29,000 tons of cardboard, 2,000 tons of paper and 3,000 tons of plastic.
Figure 1 Packaging waste generated by material in Denmark 2020 (Miljøstyrelsen, 2022).
3.1.2 Sweden
Data for Sweden was obtained from the Sweden Environment Agency (Naturvardsverket) and summarizes the output of packaging in Sweden from both the household and Industrial levels for various material types; as seen in Figure 2 – Packaging waste generated by material in Sweden for 2020, below. Paper and cardboard generate the most overall amount of waste compared to other materials.
Figure 2 Packaging waste generated by material in Sweden for 2020, (Naturvårdsverket, 2022).
3.1.3 Finland
Centre for Economic Development, Transport and Environment (ELY) compiles and delivers packaging and packaging waste statistics in Finland to the European Commission annually. Statistics have been provided since 1997.
The statistics are based on information reported annually by producers and producer associations. The statistics do not include all packaging used in Finland, as the figures are missing, for example, companies with a turnover of less than one million euros, imports by private parties, online shopping, and so-called free passengers. The figures for Åland are also not included in the statistics. In the years 2012-2019, the recycling rates of fiber (cardboard and paper), glass, metal, plastic, and wood have developed in a positive direction.
Figure 3 Packaging waste generated by material for Finland in 2019.
3.1.4 Norway
Figure 4 summarises packaging waste generated in Norway by material in 2020, packaging and printed materials account for most of the paper waste in Norway. Around 78% of the paper and cardboard packaging that is collected goes to material recycling, while the rest mainly goes to incineration with energy utilisation. In 2020, approx. 27,000 tonnes of metal packaging were collected (via take-back schemes). In 2020, around 28% of the plastic packaging from Norwegian households and businesses was recycled (Miljødirektoratet, 2022).
Figure 4 Packaging waste generated by material in Norway for 2020 (Miljødirektoratet, 2022).
3.2 Policy review
To ensure a relevant LCA-study a policy screening was performed at the beginning of 2023. The aim is to consider factors such as changing circumstances, new information or evidence, and stakeholder feedback. The outcome of a policy review aims to produce a knowledge base and serve at a framework and guidance to the selection of case products which to include in the LCA-study.
3.2.1 The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive
A cornerstone in European waste legislation is the directive on packaging waste which is aimed at reducing the environmental impact of packaging waste. It establishes rules for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste and sets targets for member states to achieve in this area. The directive also establishes a producer responsibility principle, which requires producers to contribute to the costs of waste management and to take measures to reduce the environmental impact of packaging waste. The directive was first introduced in 1994 and has been updated several times, most recently in 2018. The overall goal of the directive is to promote a circular economy and reduce the amount of packaging waste generated, while ensuring that packaging is managed in an environmentally sound manner.
2022 Proposal for a Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation
In November 2022 a proposal for a revised packaging and packaging waste regulation was released by the European Commission. The aim of this proposal is mainly to include measures to reduce the generation and therefore the environmental impacts of packaging and packaging waste by increasing recycled content in packaging, tackle excessive packaging, reducing packaging waste and promoting reuse and recycling in the packaging design (European Commission. 2022).
The proposal sets ambitious and specific targets for reuse/refill for 2030 and 2040. Table 2 lists the targets for the relevant product categories in this study. Targets for takeaway packaging (containers) are 80% and 40% reusable containers for beverages and food respectively in 2040 (European Commission. 2022). At the conclusion of this report, the proposal remained in hands of the co-legislators.
Table 2 Re-use and refill targets set up in the proposed regulation (European Parliament, 2023)
From 1 January 2030 | From 1 January 2040 | |
|---|---|---|
Cold or hot beverages (filled into a container at the point of sale for take-away) | Share of beverages made available in reusable packaging or by enabling refill 20% | Share of beverages made available in reusable packaging or by enabling refill 80% |
Take-away ready-prepared food (intended for immediate consumption with no need of any further preparation, and typically consumed from the receptacle) | Share of products made available in reusable packaging or by enabling refill 10% | Share of products made available in reusable packaging or by enabling refill 40% |
Transport packaging (pallets, plastic crates, foldable plastic boxes, pails and drums for conveyance or packaging) | Share of packaging used that is reusable 30% | Share of packaging used that is reusable 90% |
Transport packaging (e-commerce) Operators using transport packaging for the transport and delivery of non-food items sold via e-commerce | Share of such packaging used is reusable packaging 10% | Share of such packaging used is reusable packaging 50% |
Transport packaging (pallet wrappings and straps) | Share of such packaging used is reusable packaging 10% | Share of such packaging used is reusable packaging 30% |
The goal for reusable packaging in 2040 is 90% for transport packaging (pallets, crates etc.) and 30% for wrapping and straps. Furthermore, there is an ambitious goal of 90% reusable packaging in 2040 when it comes to e-commerce (boxes, bags etc.).
The full list of use and refill targets is placed in Appendix A.
3.2.2 Waste Framework Directive - Extended producer responsibility
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is part of the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) and requires that businesses – including brands, importers, and manufacturers – share the cost of packaging waste disposal. In practice, this involves that the producers or importers needs to pay a fee to a national EPR organisation that manages and finance the waste collection and treatment of the products at end-of-life.
Initially introduced as a concept by Thomas Lindhqvist from Sweden in 1990, EPR is typically understood to involve a shift in responsibility (administratively, financially, or physically) from governments or municipalities to producers as well as an encouragement of producers to take environmental considerations into account during the design and manufacture phases of product development. Ideally, this leads to financial benefits for producers who reduce e.g. packaging or make their packaging more recyclable. And even better – consumers who choose products or packaging with less environmental impact than others should ideally have cost savings as well.
The directive is perceived to help reduce the amounts of packaging placed on the market and if fee is increased in the future it could result in a shift towards more reusable packaging solutions.
3.2.3 The EU-commission’s Circular Economy Action Plan
The EU Commission's Circular Economy Action Plan is a set of initiatives and proposals put forward by the European Commission with the aim of transforming the EU into a more circular economy. The plan is intended to promote sustainable consumption and production, and to reduce waste and pollution. It includes a range of measures such as setting targets for recycling and reducing landfill, supporting the development of new business models and technologies, and creating a level playing field for sustainable products. The plan also includes measures to improve the environmental performance of products, such as setting eco-design requirements and creating a labelling scheme for circular products.
For packaging the action plan includes the following actions (European Commission, 2020):
- reducing (over)packaging and packaging waste, including by setting targets and other waste prevention measures;
- driving design for re-use and recyclability of packaging, including considering restrictions on the use of some packaging materials for certain applications, in particular where alternative reusable products or systems are possible or consumer goods can be handled safely without packaging;
- considering reducing the complexity of packaging materials, including the number of materials and polymers used.
The plan was first announced in 2015, and updated in 2020, with the aim of achieving a more circular economy by 2030.
3.2.4 The Single Use Plastics Directive (EC 2019/904)
The Single Use Plastics Directive is a European Union directive that aims to reduce the environmental impact of certain single-use plastic products. The directive came into force in 2019, and Member States had until July 2021 to transpose the directive into national law.
The directive bans certain single-use plastic products, such as cutlery, plates, straws, and balloon sticks, places a 90% collection target for plastic drinks bottles, and states that Member States must impose consumption reduction measures for single use-products such as cups for beverages and food containers. It also requires manufacturers to contribute to the costs of waste management and clean-up of litter.
At the moment the directive does not include single use packaging within transport, but the directive ultimately aims to phase out unnecessary single-use plastics. In the future our definition of “unnecessary single-use plastics” could change and the directive could be updated to include additional products. Such an update could increase the need for reusable alternatives and therefore the directive is important to follow.
3.2.5 Conclusions from the policy review
The policy review finds it clear that the European commission have an ambitious goal to reduce packaging waste and one way is to foster reusable alternatives. The proposed update of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive ambitiously includes targets for reusable packaging within transport and takeaway with up to 90% reuse in 2040. Even though this is a proposal, it shows the level of ambition and direction from the commission. It demonstrates that the landscape for packaging enviably will change radially in the future.
Directives such as the Extended Producer Responsibility and the Single Use Plastics further supports the direction to reduce packaging and packaging waste by increasing packaging cost and banning certain unnecessary plastic products.
The overall direction is set to move towards a more circular economy by collecting and recycling more waste, while at the same time reducing consumption. The path forward is likewise to avoid fossil-based materials and single-use whenever possible, which results in a need for more reuse systems.
3.3 Life Cycle Assessments literature
Previous LCA studies comparing single-use vs reusable in transportation packaging and takeaway and beverage packaging within the Nordics were reviewed to gain knowledge on previous work done in the field. Some of the key words used to find the studies include “LCA”, “reusable”. “packaging”, “transport”, “refill”, “takeaway”, “Nordics”.
A list of 70 different articles was initially found and the research was additionally narrowed down with the following criteria:
- Packaging type: the studies should focus on transport packaging (e.g. crates, drums, pallets, e-commerce, among others) and for the takeaway and beverage packaging (hot and cold cups, containers, cutlery, among others)
- Geographical representativeness: The studies should have been done in any of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway)
- Time representativeness: Only publication from 2010 onwards were considered
- Comparative LCA: life cycle assessments comparing single use packaging versus reusable options were
Several LCA studies comparing single-use vs. reusable options from other geographical locations within Europe were also reviewed, as well as LCAs for single use packaging. However, after the exhaustive review, only a total of four reusable packaging LCAs within the Nordics were found to be compliant with the criteria and additional two studies outside the Nordics. These studies can be found in Table 3. Three of them were for transport packaging (two for crates, and one for e-commerce), and one in the takeaway and beverage category (beer cups in festivals).
Table 3 Literature found for LCAs done on reusable packaging in the Nordics.
Packaging type | Category | Company | Geography | Findings | Reference |
SRS reusable box vs Corrugated cardboard | Commercial and Industrial/Goods sold/crates | Svenska Heterosystems | Sweden | In all calculated scenarios, the result has indicated that the SRS fully boxed system contributes to a reduced environmental impact compared to similar distribution systems with corrugated cardboard. | (Svenska Retursystem; Linköpings Universitet, 2016) |
Reusable plastic crate vs recyclable cardboard box | Commercial and Industrial/Goods sold/crates | Stora Enso Oyj and the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) | Finland | They concluded that the recyclable CCB box system was a more environmentally friendly option than the reusable HPDE plastic crate system in all the studied impact categories based on the defined boundaries and assumptions. | (Koskela, Dahlbo, Judl, Korhonen, & Niininen, 2014) |
E-commerce reusable packaging vs mailing bag and boxes | E-commerce | Re-zip | Denmark | The result indicates that for the full life cycle, a RE-ZIP bag used 10 times saves 313 grams CO2eq (42%) in comparison with 10 single-use mailing bags. But it also leads to slightly higher water consumption | (Deloitte, 2021) |
Reuse vs. single use beercup | Food and beverage | Øyafestivalen | Norway | Festivals that currently have a disposable system can achieve a significant climate benefit by introducing a collection system and sending the glasses for material recycling, for example through a deposit scheme. | (Lyng & Sadeleer, 2021) |
Different reusable vs single use packaging type (bottle, bucket, crates, cups, etc.) | Commercial/Industrial/Food and beverage | Zero Waste Europe | Europe | Success of a reusable packaging is dependent on different factors, such as number of cycles, transport distances, packaging weight, choice of material, and recycled content. | (Zero Waste Europe, Reloop, 2020) |
E-commerce reusable vs single use packaging | E-commerce | Fashion for good | Worldwide | This research demonstrated the clear impact case for reusable packaging, in some instances presenting more than an 80% reduction in CO2eq emissions compared with a single-use alternative | (Fashion for good, 2021) |
According to the findings of the retrieved studies, three out of the four reports for the Nordic countries found the reusable option to be more environmentally friendly that the single-use option. The recyclable cardboard box resulted in lower environmental impacts than the reusable crate, indicating that the material selection and origin is also of importance. Overall, the literature review revealed the lack of life cycle assessment of reusable packaging vs single-use in the Nordics.
3.4 Selection of case studies
Based on findings from the literature review, where it was highlighted that the success factors for reusable packaging systems are a high number of use cycles (and return-rate), low transport distances and packaging weight, material choice and recycled content.
A desktop-research was carried out to find possible reusable packaging product systems from companies operating in the Nordics. A detailed overview of the findings can be found in Appendix A. Each of the reusable alternatives found were evaluated to identify the most relevant.
A scoring matrix is developed for each selected relevant parameter, to subsequently evaluate each of the identified packaging categories. The evaluation is a qualitative assessment based on opinion and relative to the scope and goal of the project.
The parameters being evaluated are the following and are based on the requirements mentioned in the original project description from Nordic Council of ministers:
- Potential to gain new knowledge.
- Based on existing and upcoming regulations
- Potential for large waste volumes
- Replacing single use plastic packaging
- Technical feasibility for implementation
A scoring system was given for each parameter according to the following matrix, where:
- = not meeting expectations
0 = meets some expectations
+ = Fully meets expectations
The case categories were evaluated based on the knowledge gained during the literature review and in close collaboration with the steering committee appointed by the Nordic Council of ministers. The results can be observed in Table 4.
Table 4 Matrix rating of packaging types
Case category | New knowledge | Regulation targets | Potential Volume | Replace plastic | Technical Feasibility | Comment |
Reusable transport packaging | ||||||
E-commerce | + | + | + | 0 | + | less widespread, high potential |
Crates | - | + | + | 0 | + | Already well established |
Pallets | - | + | + | 0 | + | Already well established |
Drums | - | + | 0 | 0 | + | Already well established |
Looping Module cover | + | - | - | + | 0 | Low potential |
ClipLock | + | + | 0 | 0 | - | cumbersome return flow |
Reusable takeaway packaging | ||||||
Coffee cups | + | + | + | 0 | + | |
Food Containers | + | + | + | + | + | |
Beer/drink cups | 0 | + | 0 | + | + | Well established with events and festivals |
Food packaging (from the supermarket) | + | - | + | 0 | - | Out of scope (not transport nor takeaway) |
The best scores for the transport and takeaway are E-commerce and takeaway containers respectively, based on the criteria and the qualitative scoring system, and therefore, are selected as the objects of assessment of the study.
As researching reusable containers suitable for takeaway food or beverages numerous solutions were available, however often limited to smaller geographies such as larger cities. In the Nordics only a few market players were identified.
The takeaway category includes, slightly simplified, food and beverages. The volumes for food are expected to be greater than for beverages, furthermore it is not common to use reusable packaging for food. It is the authors opinion that the potential for improvements is larger for packaging of food than for beverages.
Soft drinks (such as soda, beer, juice etc.) are already covered by the public deposit systems in the majority of the Nordic countries ensuring recycling. Takeaway coffee is a challenge as the cups cardboard (and plastic liner) and not part of the deposit system. The cups are disposable and often does not get recycled, but there has been a strong focus on this case in recent time, resulting in a lot of reusable alternatives present on the market already.
Ultimately, it has been decided to investigate solutions for food as this seems to have the highest potential compared to beverages - Figure 5 illustrates a few examples of reusable packaging systems for foods.
Figure 5 Examples of reusable containers suitable for takeaway food.
The majority of the research reusable systems were made from plastic, only a minority were made from metal. Compared to metal, plastic is lightweight and therefore seems to be the most promising material. Therefore, a plastic container will be included as a case study.
When researching reusable packaging solutions fit for e-commerce, a few emerges although they do not seem common worldwide. A few companies operating in the Nordics were identified providing both shipper bags and boxes made from plastic or fibre – see Figure 6.
Figure 6 Examples of reusable packaging suitable for e-commerce.
The plastic shipper bags are versatile, does not require void filler material e.g., air pillows, packaging peanuts, or kraft paper (which boxes do), and is expected to be more durable than the fibre-based alternatives. Due to the many reuses, the plastic bags can potentially be looped many times in a circular system and are therefore chosen as a case study.