Executive Summary

In an effort to facilitate a shift towards greater sustainability in the Nordics, this study provides an in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts associated with different types of packaging. Emphasis is placed on reusable packaging, investigating its lifecycle impacts from production to disposal and contrasting it with conventional, single-use packaging.

The packaging solutions under investigation cover takeaway containers and e-commerce packaging. In the takeaway sector, these are one reusable and one single-use. In the e-commerce sector, these are one reusable and returnable packaging, as well as two single-use variants made from LDPE film and paper, respectively.

As policymaking and corporate strategy increasingly lean towards sustainability, this comprehensive review and comparative lifecycle assessment serves as an informative guidepost. It offers robust, evidence-based insights to public authorities and private corporations alike, aiding decision-making processes in their pursuit of implementing and promoting environmentally friendly packaging solutions.

The following types of packaging are studied:

Table 1 Studied product systems

Commissioned by the Nordic Working Group for Circular Economy (NCE) under the Nordic Council of Ministers, this study sheds light on the environmental consequences and advantages of reusable packaging in the Nordics.

An additional goal of the study is to indicate a recommended number of reuses for which the reusable solution shows benefits. The hope is that these findings, while not definitive, will guide public authorities and private businesses in pursuing improved practices with lower environmental impact. This study could serve as a steppingstone towards understanding and promoting more environmentally friendly packaging solutions in the Nordics.

A policy review was performed to ensure a relevant study. The aim was to consider factors such as changing circumstances, new information or evidence, and stakeholder feedback. The outcome of the policy review has produced a knowledge base and guide recommendations for which cases to include in the study. The review concluded that the European Commission envisages ambitious goals to cut packaging waste, thereby driving the increasing adoption of reusable alternatives across diverse industries.

In addition to the policy review, a comprehensive review of previous relevant comparative LCA studies was conducted. This review utilised past insights from comparing single-use vs. reusable transportation packaging and takeaway and beverage packaging within the Nordics. The results from these studies showed that three out of four reports deemed the reusable option more environmentally friendly than the single-use counterpart. In the selected literature, the success factors for reusable packaging systems were many use cycles, low transport distances, packaging weight, material choice, and recycled content. Overall, the literature review showed the lack of life cycle assessment studies of reusable vs. single-use packaging in the Nordics.

The selection of the investigated packaging field in this comparative LCA study was based on findings from the literature review and discussions with the steering committee. A desk-based-research was carried out to identify relevant reusable packaging systems from companies operating in the Nordics. Each identified reusable alternative was evaluated to be able to choose the most relevant packaging field for this study. Based on the evaluation of the reusable alternatives, e-commerce and takeaway containers were selected as the field to be assessed.

The research showed that numerous solutions were available for reusable containers suitable for takeaway food or beverages. For this case study, it was decided to investigate solutions for food containers made from plastic based on the results of a rating matrix, which evaluated criteria such as the potential to gain new knowledge, being in line with existing and upcoming regulations, the potential of waste reduction and technical feasibility for implementation. As the single use counterpart, a conventional plastic container was chosen.

When researching reusable packaging solutions fit for e-commerce, a few solutions were found, stretching from packaging solutions made of plastic and fibre. Plastic bags are expected to be more durable than fibre-based alternatives; therefore, plastic shipper bags can potentially be looped more times in a circular system. The one selected for this case study was a reusable bag made of woven polypropylene. As the single use counterpart, a conventional single use plastic bag (SUPL) and a conventional single use paper bag (SUPA) was chosen.

The environmental assessment of the takeaway and e-commerce packaging was carried out through a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA has a standardised structure and standardised review and reporting requirements to account for the potential environmental impact of the resources necessary to produce, use, and dispose a product.

In order to compare the single-use and reusable takeaway containers, the functional unit is formulated. The functional unit enables the comparison of different products or systems. The comparison between reusable and single-use packaging solutions must consider “what?”, “how many times?”, “where?”, and "how well?”. A volumetric function is used, accounting for the fact that the packaging solutions might weigh differently based on their materials.

The functional unit for takeaway containers is defined as the following:

For the e-commerce packaging, the functional unit is defined as:

The assumed reuse rates for the takeaway containers and e-commerce packaging are 90% and 75%, respectively. The assumptions are tested with a break-even analysis.

The studied system comprises all life cycle stages from cradle to grave, including the return logistics and cleaning for the reusable systems. For both reusable systems, it was assumed that the distance from the customer to the return point was the same as to the picked-up point. For the reusable takeaway container, the packaging was assumed to be cleaned by the user before returning, as well as at the service point (restaurant) with a professional dishwasher.

The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method used was the Environmental Footprint 3.1, from which 13 impact categories are reported. The results were not normalised or weighted due to the comparative nature of the assessment (ISO, 2006b). Therefore, it is not possible to compare the results across impact categories.

This study presents a comprehensive comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of takeaway packaging options. The results of the study established that in terms of environmental impacts, reusable containers are generally less impactful than single-use containers across 11 out of 13 impact categories.

Raw materials and manufacturing stages were key contributors to the environmental impacts of single-use packaging. For reusable containers, the impacts were more evenly distributed across life cycle stages, from raw material acquisition to the manufacture and use phase.

Results from sensitivity analysis tests also supported the base case - reusable containers consistently showed a lower environmental impact than single-use options in most tested categories. Factors like container weight, consumer behaviour (such as avoiding pre-washing during the use phase or avoiding energy-intensive transportation methods), and various end-of-life modelling parameters all demonstrated the relative environmental advantage of reusable containers.

Tests of different parameters influenced by consumer behaviour revealed that reuse rates are crucial for reusable containers; reaching the environmentally preferred break-even point requires a minimum of 6 uses. However, for the environmental benefits of the reusable containers in all impact categories, 14 repeated uses are necessary. Furthermore, environmental impact can be minimized by choosing low/no emission transportation methods and avoiding unnecessary cleaning.

The study highlights the significance of the number of reuses in a reusable container system to reach the potential environmental benefits. Thus, for successful implementation, strategic design and planning of the reusable container system are vital. Guidelines and incentives should be established to influence consumer behaviour positively. Encouragement to adopt behaviours like swift container return and avoiding redundant washing can improve the relative benefit of reusable systems. This approach could ultimately lead to the optimal use of the system and bring about its environmental benefits.

In conclusion, this study affirms the environmental preference for reusable takeaway containers in Nordic countries – demonstrating high robustness in 10 out of the 13 impact categories studied.

This study provides a thorough comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of e-commerce packaging options encompassing single-use plastic (SUPL), single-use paper (SUPA), and reusable systems. The core findings reveal that for most environmental impact categories, the single-use plastic system yields lower impacts compared to the reusable system, and the single-use paper system predominantly yields higher impacts than the reusable system.

The upstream life cycle stages, including raw material extraction and manufacturing, are key contributors to the environmental impacts of single-use and reusable systems. In the single-use system, raw material extraction followed by distribution were the main driving impacts. For the reusable system, the manufacturing stage played a relatively more dominant role, with the usage phase also creating a higher impact due to incorporated reverse logistics.

Of the 13 investigated impact categories, single-use plastic packaging offers environmental benefits in all categories, 12 of which showcase high robustness and one displaying medium robustness. Meanwhile, single-use paper packaging offers environmental benefits in 5 categories: one with high robustness and four with medium robustness. On the other hand, the reusable system presents less environmentally impactful results than the single-use paper packaging in 8 out of 13 categories; six of the eight demonstrate high robustness, while two categories show medium robustness.

A sensitivity analysis lends credibility to the findings as the results mostly conform with the core comparison, maintaining medium to high robustness. Even though certain individual assumptions modify the relationship between the compared systems, no single assumption or variation remarkably influences the results across a majority of impact categories. Transporting the package to the final client also had a minimal impact on the results.

Notably, the number of reuses has a significant impact on reducing the environmental burden of the reusable system. The higher the reuse rate, the lower the impact per use, suggesting the importance of designing a system that encourages high reuse rates. Four uses (75% reuse rate) were set as a baseline in the study, but a higher number of reuses (around 18 uses), or even lower upstream impacts, could shift the results to the benefit of the reusable system for most of the impact categories.

In summary, the study underlines that single-use plastic packaging is the more environmentally friendly solution compared to its reusable counterpart. Meanwhile, the reusable system shows potential benefits compared to single-use paper packaging, particularly under conditions of high reuse rates.

In general, outcomes of the study were largely robust, though there are influencing factors that could potentially affect the comparison between single-use and reusable packaging.

Primarily, the key stakeholders affecting these potential factors include the companies offering packaging solutions, packaging manufacturers, as well as users of the packaging. All these elements contribute to the complex task of determining the packaging option with the lowest environmental profile. Nevertheless, it was noted that with correct implementation, reusable packaging has substantial potential for lower environmental impacts compared to single-use alternatives. The determination to improve such solutions will be vital to enhancing the overall environmental performance of packaging on the market. This could also go beyond the solutions within the scope of the study, such as eradicating packaging altogether rather than substituting single-use packaging with a reusable solution.

Still, it is crucial to keep in mind that many variables influence the results of this study, which depend heavily on the specific circumstances and contexts. Hence, the figures presented should be used cautiously, considering the possible variability of each unique situation. The LCA should thus be viewed as a comprehensive examination of product systems that can give valuable insights and lead to fruitful discussion rather than offering definitive answers.

From this study, a number of conclusions and recommendations have emerged supporting transitioning from single-use to reusable packaging. In designing reusable packaging, factors such as durability, low weight, recyclability, and use of recycled materials are essential to consider. Also, establishing efficient reuse systems and incentivizing consumers to choose reusable packaging and return the packaging, is crucial.

Looking towards a European setting for the upstream stages, it became clear that local supply chains and less energy-intensive transportation can also play a role in reducing environmental impacts. Lastly, the study highlighted the importance of proper waste segregation and treatment at the end of a product’s life, supporting a more circular economy.

In conclusion, it’s evident that these factors make it a complex equation to achieve the lowest environmental impact. Yet, this study affirms the potential and value of embracing reusable packaging in Nordic countries with the correct set-up and incentives, leading to a more sustainable future.