This study is reported by IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute on behalf of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and investigates the environmental impact of reusable packaging for takeaway food and beverages. The report serves as a basis for a government assignment carried out by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the National Food Agency to produce guidance and guidelines for reusable food boxes and cups (M2021/02087). In the new regulation (2021: 996) on disposable products, increased requirements for reuse of packaging are in place from January 2024 including registration of reuse systems at the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. There are also requirements for actors to inform their customers about the environmental impact of the use of disposable packaging and about the benefits of reduced consumption of the packaging.
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has commissioned this study to develop knowledge on the environmental impact of reusable packaging and to show advantages of these over single-use packaging, based on the entire life cycle from the manufacture of reusable packaging to several use cycles, and waste management. Materials that were analyzed for mugs are fossil-based plastics, biobased plastics, and steel, and for boxes materials are fossil-based plastics, biobased plastics, glass, and steel.
A system analysis (LCA) was applied to answer the following questions in the study:
How (when and how) brought reusable cups and lunchboxes should be used?
Which materials for reusable cups and lunchboxes should be used to maximize environmental benefits?
Results show that raw material extraction dominates for all material alternatives, except for fossil plastics where the incineration in the waste stage also has a significant climate impact. If not accounting for the fact that glass or steel can be used more times than plastic, glass and steel have a much higher impact than plastic due to higher weight since steel also has a greater climate impact per kg of material when manufacturing the material. Still the study signals that fossil-based plastic (in this study PP) is probably the worst material from a climate point of view, which is largely due to the fact that incineration of the container sooner or later contributes to fossil climate impact.
The bio-based plastic alternative is good from a climate point of view, mainly because the combustion of a bio-based material does not contribute to fossil climate impact, but also because the impact of production of the material is lower, although this is uncertain as the data used in this study is based on an LCA published by a single supplier. For steel packaging the challenge in the analysis was partly to try to do this material justice as it can be used more times than the plastic materials, but also that it has been difficult to define a product weight that is representative in comparison with the other materials. The study also shows that glass (which is only related to food boxes in this study) is a good option. The choice of material for mugs or boxes is thus important and should involve consideration of the durability of the material(s) in terms of number of usages.
Transport has a relatively small impact overall, but the transport to "users" is visible even if it means less than the cleaning. The heavier the mug/box is, the greater the impact from transport. The cleaning is an important part but is relatively small compared to the raw material phase of packaging production. Non-centralized cleaning has not been analyzed but should give a lower impact (due to no transport), but possibly a higher impact (due to less efficiency), and this could possibly weigh each other out, but has not been analysed.