Life Cycle Assessment

Hitt et al. (2022)

This paper examines the potential for reusable container systems to reduce waste in restaurant takeout, addressing environmental and economic impacts compared to single-use packaging. Using a parametric life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost model, it analyses greenhouse gas emissions, energy, water use, and costs in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and assesses the role of customer behaviour. Findings show that reusable containers generally perform better environmentally, but their benefits diminish if customers make separate trips to return containers or excessively wash them at home. The study highlights how customer actions significantly influence the environmental outcomes of reusable systems.

Le Fourgon, WeLoop (2023)

This document is the background report of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) study for Le Fourgon returnable glass bottle system. The scope of the product under study covers the production, use, and end-of-life of returnable glass bottles returned and reused with the deposit system from Le Fourgon, for water, milk, and beer.

The LCA Centre, Corplex (2023)

This Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) report by Corplex examines the environmental impact of its reusable AkyPak® Flower Box, made of polypropylene, compared to single-use cardboard boxes. The study assesses carbon emissions and other ecological indicators and reveals that the AkyPak® box reaches a lower carbon footprint than the cardboard box after six uses. With a life expectancy of over 40 cycles, the box is shown to be durable and effective in reducing environmental impact. Corplex employs a cradle-to-cradle design, enabling the box’s material to be recycled and repurposed without degradation, aligning with circular economy principles and supporting zero-waste goals.

Eunomia (2023)

This report examines the challenges in Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) of reusable versus single-use packaging for takeaway, comparing two industry-commissioned studies with academic analysis. It highlights issues like low return rates, assumptions around washing and transport, and the impact of transparency on credibility. Key findings stress that suboptimal designs in reuse LCAs can skew results, underscoring the need for future-focused systems. The report advocates for realistic assumptions and robust data in evaluating reuse policy, aiming for improved sustainability insights for the fast-food packaging sector.

Eunomia (2023)

This study involved modelling to measure the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from reusable takeaway packaging compared to single-use equivalents. The results indicate that, for most types of takeaway packaging used in Europe, reuse through a safe, efficient system for collection, washing, inspection, and redistribution has potential to yield greater environmental benefits than recycling or discarding single-use containers. The study also highlights key aspects to optimise in designing and operating reuse systems.

Giraffe Innovation, CLUBZERØ (2024)

This report, carried out by Giraffe Innovation Ltd, presents the results of an environmental assessment of CLUBZERO 12oz cup and CLUBZERO 800ml container using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. The analysis shows the output modelling of the environmental impacts of the cup and lid materials and the food container and lid materials, manufacturing, supply chain, washing energy and detergent use and end of life disposal. The results are compared to indicative paper, polystyrene (EPS) and ceramic cups for the cup report and compared to disposable polypropylene, aluminium, bagasse and EPS containers and reuse of ceramic plates for the food container report.

Re-Viu, sykell (2024)

The report evaluates the environmental impact of Sykell’s EINFACH MEHRWEG reusable packaging system, now in use across 6,000 points in Germany, through a life cycle assessment (LCA). The LCA, compliant with ISO standards and the EU’s Environmental Footprint recommendations, examines seven types of reusable containers and cups compared to single-use alternatives. It identifies environmental “hotspots” and aims to support Sykell in minimising their footprint and communicating sustainability benefits effectively. The study was conducted by an LCA expert and reviewed by an independent panel.

Eunomia (2024)

This report is an Addendum to the main report, titled ‘Assessing Climate Impact: Reusable Systems vs. Single-use Takeaway Packaging’ (hereafter referred to as the ‘main report’). The main report demonstrated the potential greenhouse gas (GHG) savings from implementing a reuse system for takeaway items compared to single-use alternatives. The aim of this Addendum is to build on the main report and apply the ‘per serving’ climate impact within the context of reuse schemes in two European cities: Aarhus (Denmark) and Berlin (Germany).

Nordic Council of Ministers (2024)​

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 ecommerce 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.

Sinkko et al., JRC (2024)

This study aligns with the EU’s goals for a circular economy by examining the environmental impacts of single-use and multiple-use packaging in sectors like hotels, restaurants, and catering, including products such as beverage containers and trays. Using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) models, it compares environmental outcomes across six case studies in four scenarios. The findings show that environmental impacts vary by packaging type and reuse frequency, with single-use packaging having lower climate impacts in some cases, while reusable options often excel in water use and broader ecological impact categories.

Generic filters
Search in excerpt