In essence, while this study provides valuable information for decision-making, it is paramount to appreciate the breadth and depth of variables influencing the conclusions. This LCA study should spark insightful discussion and serve as a robust foundation for a more comprehensive examination of the product systems under consideration.
8.1 Conclusions for the takeaway container analysis
The LCA of takeaway containers revealed that the reusable container system typically has less environmental impact than the single-use system across multiple impact categories. The assessment indicates that the reusable container system is potentially the environmentally preferred option over the single-use system for 11 out of 13 impact categories. The analysis results show that the most contributing life cycle stages to single-use packaging are the raw materials and manufacturing life cycle stages. In contrast, the impacts of the reusable container are more evenly distributed among raw materials, manufacturing, and use phases. Recycling and incineration do not significantly contribute to the life cycle impacts, except for the latter in the climate change impact category. Meanwhile, credits from materials and energy recovery constitute up to 34% and 22% for the single-use and reusable systems, respectively.
Fourteen sensitivity analyses focussing on production, use phase, and end-of-life were implemented to assess the robustness of the results. These include weight, transportation from the service point to the final user, pre-washing method, reuse rates, and changes in the end-of-life modelling parameters.
Most sensitivity analysis results correlate with the base case, where the reusable container is potentially the less impacting option compared to the single use in most of the impact categories. The observed variations are dependent on the design of the container, consumer behaviour, and modelling choices:
Variations of the different containers used in both single-use and reusable systems were tested by altering the weight. The weight was tested to evaluate the effects it has on the system. It was concluded that weight causes a change in the environmental impacts as it directly influences the whole system’s life cycle and is considered a crucial factor for the system. Even though the weight of the reusable container is higher than the single-use one, higher reuse rates mean less raw materials per packaging as these are allocated over all uses. An increase in the weight of the single-use container or a decrease in the weight of the reusable container results in increased environmental benefits for the reusable system.
Regarding factors affected by consumer behaviour, the following parameters were tested:
The variation of the reuse rate suggests that the break-even point where the reusable system is less impactful is reached at around 6 uses of the reusable container. However, for the reusable container to perform better in all impact categories, 14 uses are required.
Even though the use phase transportation and pre-washing did not substantially influence the system, it can be concluded that opting for no cleaning and transport methods such as walking or biking are environmentally preferred options. Conversely, handwashing and transportation by car resulted in the highest environmental impacts.
Furthermore, recycling plastic containers is a more favourable treatment than incineration for both systems’ end-of-life phases.
Modelling choices tested include credits for energy and materials recovery at the end-of-life stage. Even with a reduction of environmental impacts associated with the containers when modelling with avoided burden (e.g., A=0, B=0), results continue to favour the reusable container over the single-use system.
The correct configuration of the reusable system is crucial for the reusable container to result in the preferred option over the single-use system. The configuration could be to incentivise the users to return the containers to make sure there are guidelines for the best practices, like avoiding double washing, returning containers as soon as possible, and using low/no emission transport methods such as walking or biking.
To summarise, this study aimed to portray a realistic configuration for a takeaway container service in the Nordic countries. The reusable option emerged as the preferred option over the single-use system. The results demonstrate high robustness in 10 out of the 13 impact categories, while the remaining three show medium robustness (these three include the 2 impact categories where the single-use system was preferred).
8.2 Conclusions for the e-commerce analysis
The results of the LCA of single-use plastic and paper bags and the reusable woven plastic indicate that the majority of life cycle impacts for all systems come from the upstream life cycle stages—namely, raw material extraction and manufacturing.
The comparative assessment results of single-use plastic and paper bags vs. reusable woven plastic suggest that single-use plastic (SUPL) packaging consistently outperforms its reusable counterpart in the examined indicators. In contrast, the reusable system shows some advantages compared to the single-use paper system (SUPA).
For single-use plastic packaging, all 13 investigated impact categories show environmental benefits—12 categories exhibit high robustness, while one shows medium robustness. For single-use paper packaging, environmental benefits are observed in 5 out of 13 impact categories—one displaying high robustness and four medium. The reusable system presents lower environmental impacts in 8 out of 13 categories, with six demonstrating a high robustness level and two medium.
Sensitivity analysis results are consistent with the base case comparison—offering medium to high robustness—examining variations concerning production-related choices, consumer behaviour, and modelling decisions. Individual assumptions alter the relationship between the compared systems to an extent but not across a majority of impact categories simultaneously. Variations in transporting the package to the final client do not influence the results remarkably.
In all three systems, the upstream impacts constitute the hotspot. The upstream impacts of the reusable systems is larger due to a more complex and robust packaging solution compared to the single-use packaging. The main impact on the conclusions comes from the reuse rate, as these upstream impacts can be distributed across multiple uses. The breakeven analysis shows that the reuse rate factor clearly influences the relationship between the single-use and reuse systems. The study adopted a baseline of 4 uses (75% reuse rate). However, more uses or lower upstream impacts could alter the results, which depends on how the reuse system is designed. As an example, the results for all sensitivity setups are calculated with a baseline of 10 uses (90% reuse rate). While results for this higher reuse rate presented a shift in some impact categories, they remained robust overall. This suggests again that the results are quite robust, and the reuse rate has to be higher than the respective break-even points to show clear benefits.
8.3 Overall conclusion and recommendations that could be derived from this study
Emerging policies focus on transitioning from single-use to reusable packaging. This study aimed to deepen understanding of the relative environmental impacts and potential benefits of reusing packaging in a Nordic context. The examined systems were single-use and reuse systems for e-commerce bags used in transport packaging and takeaway containers from the food and beverage sector. Even though the systems have different functional units and systems, there are some main overlaps in the conclusions.
The results of the base case comparison did not always result in the reusable option being the most environmentally beneficial across impact categories. Yet, the sensitivity analyses show how the results can benefit the reusable option by varying specific parameters. Therefore, the results of base case comparisons and sensitivity analyses indicate potential environmental benefits for reusable options when tweaking these parameters, i.e., packaging design, reuse systems, transports and end-of-life treatment.
When designing reusable packaging, several aspects should be considered simultaneously to allow the packaging solutions to have a longer lifetime (longevity) while decreasing the material resources needed to produce it: 1) It is important to manufacture durable packaging that can withstand multiple reuse cycles. 2) It is important to make the packaging as light as possible. 3) The recyclability of the used materials should be considered to allow for material credits. 4) The use of recycled material has the potential to reduce the environmental impact.
When establishing reusable systems, the goal should be to increase the reuse rates effectively. With higher reuse rates, the environmental benefits of reusable packaging could outweigh those of single-use counterparts. To facilitate this, efficient systems must be developed. This involves incentivising final users to choose reusable packaging and ensuring accessible collection, return, and cleaning processes for operating companies. Collaboration between key market stakeholders is crucial to bring about this change. This can be illustrated by considering the case of takeaway containers. Here, container manufacturers, companies providing reusable containers, takeaway restaurants, and takeaway delivery service companies could work in partnership to enhance the operation of reusable systems. As these efficient systems get implemented, and the concept of reusable packaging becomes more familiar to people, reuse rates are expected to increase.
The system was modelled with production in a European context, showing impacts on the distribution life cycle stage for most impact categories. Even though the impacts are not that high, the results emphasise the importance of using the local supply chain, which can lead to less energy-intensive transportation methods and shorter truck journeys.
Additionally, the waste disposal stage was also shown to be relevant when performing the sensitivity analysis. Proper separation and treatment of the packaging at its end-of-life can reduce the environmental impact of both single-use and reusable packaging. It can ensure that the disposed material can be optimally utilised to provide the highest benefits in its recovery process. Therefore, it is important to promote the proper handling of waste to reduce waste generation while conserving resources and contributing to a more circular economy society.