Disposable cardboard boxes or reusable plastic crates - which packaging is more sustainable? On behalf of the Stiftung Initiative Mehrweg (SIM), two Fraunhofer Institutes have analysed the background and correlations of the ecological effects of disposable cardboard and reusable plastic crates.
Away from plastic and towards paper, cardboard or paperboard - how sustainable is the new packaging trend? In the current report „Reusable plastic crates vs. disposable cardboard crates - two packaging systems in competition“, the Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety and Energy Technology UMSICHT and the Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics IBP explain the background and correlations of the ecological effects of disposable cardboard crates and reusable plastic crates on behalf of the Stiftung Initiative Mehrweg (SIM). A general study based on this Discussion on the topic of single-use vs. reusable should provide guidance for policy-makers, to set the right course for a functioning circular economy of the future.
Plastic or cardboard, disposable or reusable: the question of which packaging solution is more sustainable is not easy to answer. Among other things Comprehensive life cycle assessments are required that take into account the manufacturing process, transport, utilisation and recycling at the end of life. Fraunhofer Institutes have already produced several studies and life cycle assessments on plastic packaging, reusable systems and recycling solutions, and have also analysed emissions from plastics into the environment. The aim was now to provide policymakers and industry with balanced recommendations for action to enable more sustainable production and consumption methods, minimise the use of resources and significantly reduce plastic waste and emissions.
In the current report, the researchers come to this conclusion, that reusable plastic crates are ecologically superior to disposable cardboard crates in most cases. In their report, they refer to a total of four studies, two new studies commissioned by the European Federation of Corrugated Board Manufacturers (FEFCO), prepared by VTT and Ramboll, and two studies conducted by Fraunhofer UMSICHT and Fraunhofer IBP on behalf of the Stiftung Initiative Mehrweg (SIM), and also explain the general challenges and limitations of comparative studies on environmental impacts.
The reasons for discrepancies in the results of comparative life cycle assessments are often due to different parameters, data used or modelling approaches.
„We therefore recommend that comparative life cycle analyses be carried out on the basis of transparent, realistic parameters that are agreed in advance in a multi-stakeholder process. In addition to the competing associations, civil society should also be involved. It is the task of politicians to facilitate this dialogue.“
Jürgen Bertling from Fraunhofer UMSICHT and lead author of the study
The basic recommendation of the scientific teams for deciding between plastic or cardboard as a packaging material is: The waste hierarchy enshrined in European law (1. avoidance, 2. reuse - here in particular also the topics of repair or cleaning - 3. material recycling, 4. thermal utilisation and finally 5. disposal) must be maintained, strengthened and also implemented. It should only be possible to deviate from this order if another solution is demonstrably advantageous in terms of all relevant sustainability categories.
This also includes littering, product protection and technological sovereignty. This is because disposable packaging contributes significantly more to littering than reusable packaging. Reusable plastic packaging can protect products better due to the higher material usage, which is designed for multiple uses, and has a higher wet strength. Reusable systems also reduce dependence on imports as they promote regional logistics and transport solutions.
In principle, a high recycling rate is good for a circular economy, However, the focus should be more on the reuse rate of the secondary material for the same and at least equivalent purpose. This is the only way to avoid downcycling - the recycled material is only suitable for products that do not have to meet particularly high quality requirements, such as a palisade - and to achieve a genuine circular economy. The authors of the study also recommend Transparent monitoring of the key parameters of the returnable systems - circulation figures, breakage and shrinkage rates and end-of-life recycling rates to enable a fair comparison of solutions.
Source: Fraunhofer UMSICHT
