{{item.videoDuration}}
{{item.title}}
{{item.text}}
{{item.videoDuration}}
{{item.title}}
{{item.text}}
In a world increasingly focused on sustainability, the mantra “reduce, reuse, recycle” has evolved to become a ubiquitous rallying cry - both for corporates and individuals. However, current evidence suggests that while “reduce” and “recycle” have progressed significantly in recent years, “reuse” has been lagging behind. Nevertheless, the pressure to increase reuse is growing, especially in packaging. In fact, many F&B companies are now shifting towards returnable packaging to achieve this. This article explores when and where this is the best way forward, and when alternatives may be preferable.
Return, reuse, repeat
Although reuse has been identified as a key pillar of the shift to a more circular economy, it does not really exist as a single packaging format or activity. Reuse is probably better understood as being a broad category of solutions that set out to enable a reduction in single-use packaging. In this context, reuse includes refilling, refurbishing (or repairing), and returning packaging, which this article focuses on.
Returnable packaging is durable packaging designed to be used multiple times for the same purpose as it was initially intended. Returnable packaging is different from packaging typically addressed by mandatory Deposit Return Schemes (DRS), in which single-use packaging is returned and recycled, but not necessarily reused. Some examples of returnable packaging include refillable glass bottles, kegs in the beer industry, or plastic crates used to transport other packaging.
Returnable packaging is recovered after use, often via the incentive of a deposit. A systematic approach covering the cycle of production, collection, and reuse needs to be implemented for a Returnable Packaging System (RPS) to work – and it must be fully integrated into the sales and logistics functions of the businesses that operate them.
Unintended consequences of returnables?
Although often lauded as the most desirable form of packaging, under the wrong circumstances returnable packaging can have negative impacts on both circularity and carbon emissions.
While returnable packaging almost always shows a significant emissions reduction as a result of reusing the packaging itself and reducing end-of-life impact, the nature of Returnable Packaging Systems generally means an increase in emissions across the production, delivery, and/ or recovery part of the value chain. We thus need to compare the full impact of the system against that of the equivalent single-use alternative. This approach should also be used to compare the system cost in a commercial evaluation.
EPR = Extended Producer Responsibility
The recovery logistics and sorting and washing are the most obvious additions, but there are often other under-appreciated impacts. These can depend greatly on the packaging itself and the single-use alternative you are comparing it to, but perhaps the most consistent difference relates to the impact of the format itself. Returnable primary packaging generally requires returnable secondary packaging to facilitate its safe storage and return from the trade. This is often achieved using crates that decrease pack density (i.e., fewer units per pallet). As a result, it requires more space in storage, production and critically during delivery, thereby decreasing efficiency and increasing emissions.
It is also worth noting that emissions are not the only consideration when it comes to Returnable Packaging Systems. Other environmental impacts, such as water use, and end-of-life impact may be material to your evaluation. Water use, in particular, can be critical in communities where access to clean water is poor or water is generally scarce.
The right packaging format moving forward
In general, a Returnable Packaging System may not be the best solution when:
- 1The achieved return or recovery rate is too low, or the damage rate is too high
- 2Logistics impacts are particularly high due to distance or mode of transport, rendering recovery logistics less feasible
- 3Preparation for reuse (sorting, cleaning, etc.) has a high environmental footprint in energy, water, waste, and cost
- 4Benchmarked single-use packaging alternatives have particularly low emissions and cost
- 5Returnable packaging compares poorly to single-use in terms of recyclability and recycled content
F&B companies must therefore evaluate:
- The mechanisms that must be in place to ensure a sufficiently high reuse rate
- How to mitigate incremental environmental and economic impacts of RPS, e.g., additional transport, sorting, etc.
- How costs compare on a System-level rather than for individual packaging items sold
- How to take advantage of existing infrastructures, where they operate
At the same time, they should not lose sight of investment and improvements for existing single-use pack formats.
There have been many businesses, in particular in the beverage industry, who have successfully implemented a viable RPS. It remains important to note, however, that most businesses using RPS do not use returnables for 100% of their packaging. RPS are best used on a fit-for-purpose basis, often in combination with single-use packaging and refillable packaging.
We believe that the future of packaging will undoubtedly see an increase in the use of reusable packaging, although there is no “one size fits all approach”. In fact, the greatest challenge to the success of returnable packaging lies not in the RPS, but in how businesses can change the behavior of consumers to support the effective return and recovery of their packaging.
This is the second edition from our series of detailed deep dive articles on packing optimization. Also check out our further blogs in the 'Related content' section below.
David Drew, Tim Martiniak, and Ben Coxon have also contributed to this article.
{{filterContent.facetedTitle}}
{{contentList.loadingText}}
{{contentList.loadingText}}
Contact us
