The argument sounded convincing. At least at first. At Sustainability in Europe, Peter Désilets met a representative of the world's largest manufacturer of potato crisps in Barcelona. He asked him why the company was not actually switching to reusable packaging - such as sturdy reusable boxes with a resealable option. After all, this could save more than 30 per cent in volume. The answer: films are much easier to store, whereas entire silos would have to be available for reusable containers.
"At first I thought: 'He's already got a point'," says the Managing Director of Pacoon, "but my second thought was: 'When the bags are packed, he transports this 30 per cent air to the retailer's shelf'." And that also means: 30 per cent more space required in the warehouse, during transport and on the shelf. 30 per cent less space for stocking and therefore an increased risk of out-of-stock. 30 per cent more handling requirements for employees in the warehouse and at the POS. Not particularly environmentally friendly or economical.
And Peter Désilets no longer found the argument quite so convincing.
Why reusable packaging is not more expensive than disposable packaging
Reusable or disposable? The debates about the "right" type of packaging and the downstream process are sometimes quite emotional. And not all the facts always come into their own. Especially when it comes to the overall costs.
Peter Désilets and his team have estimated the costs for the crisps manufacturer. "We estimated the disposal fees for the bags and the outer carton, theCO2 emissions from transport and the material costs for cardboard and film and compared them with the reusable alternative: if you add the rental costs for reusable containers and reusable boxes instead of the outer cartons with the costs for cleaning and return, you get pretty much the same cost level."
Désilets emphasises that this does not take into account the image gain, the handling and storage cost benefits for the supply chain and retailers, or even the convenience benefits for consumers. "Of course, we could only make assumptions about what the carton or bags cost in disposable packaging, but we also took a rather generous approach to cleaning and sorting costs. So there is still room for optimisation when handling the reusable system," says Désilets.
PPWR and new taxes push reusable packaging
Pacoon's calculations did not even take into account some other cost drivers:
With the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, the European Commission wants to minimise waste and recycle more packaging material. The PPWR also sets quotas for the use of recycled materials. The European Commission gives the member states a little leeway when setting the quotas in terms of the time horizon. However, the direction is clear and the extent to which this will increase the costs of bag film, for example, is still completely open.
Added to this are additional costs due to taxes such as the Single Use Plastic Directive, which is now also to be passed on to distributors in Germany and other EU countries. National taxes on packaging also play a role here: for example, the Single-Use Plastic Fund Act, which aims to offset the costs of public waste disposal. As a result, Peter Désilets considers a tripling of the current fees of the dual system to be realistic. "The PPWR will increase the pressure to find new solutions for disposable bags. However, the required recycling and, in particular, recyclate utilisation rates for single-use bags will certainly increase costs by 30% or more. Added to this are fees that were not even fixed at the time, such as for the deforestation certificates for the outer carton. Suddenly the calculation looks even more favourable for reusable packaging," says Peter Désilets.
A different approach to sustainability: the long journey of disposable packaging
However, even disposable packaging that is easy to recycle does not come off any better in the cost comparison with reusable packaging. Above all, Peter Désilets disputes the argument that reusable packaging takes longer to transport: "Unless single-use plastics are incinerated immediately, the transport distances are often no shorter than with reusable packaging. The transport chain for recycling also adds up to enormous distances. The route from the collection containers to the large sorters alone can sometimes be up to 300 kilometres, and the sorted bales can travel another few hundred kilometres to the recyclers."
This is followed by transport to the film manufacturer or injection moulding company, to the converter or to the filler or packer. "A lot of air is also transported, at least during the first two transport steps. Reuse should therefore come before recycling. The more often reusable packaging is used, the more it pays off in terms ofcarbon footprint and costs."
Peter Désilets emphasises that it is not only the pressure from the PPWR that speaks in favour of reusable systems, but also economic facts. "Companies should therefore plan in good time and gather experience so that they don't have to react later out of necessity." And this involves much more than just changing the containers: Machine processes, storage, transport and circulation, even of empty containers, must be checked as part of the changeover to new packaging solutions.
Disposable does not automatically mean plastic packaging
Reusable packaging is definitely gaining ground. Particularly in the HoReCa and to-go sector, but - also driven by the PPWR - also increasingly in transport packaging. Since 1 January 2023, for example, the reusable packaging obligation has been in force in Germany.
Catering establishments that offer takeaway food and drinks must also offer reusable packaging as an alternative to disposable packaging. So reusable is good - and disposable is bad?
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. At least as long as the take-back infrastructure continues to lag behind expectations, disposable packaging will not disappear completely. One solution is obvious: environmentally friendly disposable packaging. PureGreen in Ludwigshafen, for example, a company that produces to-go containers and other packaging for food and drinks based on alternative materials and has been supported by Pacoon since 2020, has specialised in this. The range includes coffee cups made from renewable sugar cane fibre material, which are suitable for hot drinks up to 100 °C or cold drinks and can then be recycled in waste paper or composted if required. The one-sided PLA barrier accounts for less than 5 % of the material. This means that many charges are much lower, which in turn results in price advantages of over 1 cent per cup.
Sustainable: a comprehensive system for reusable packaging
At the same time, there are still questions to be answered in the reusable sector. Especially if you are looking at complete systems rather than individual products. In 2020, Pacoon developed "CYRCOL", a concept for a sustainable packaging solution that integrates the key components: Sustainability through reusability, maximum convenience for consumers and consideration for the needs of retailers.
CYRCOL relies on product-as-a-service instead of proprietary systems, on rental concepts, on independent cleaning stations and on an optimised return system. The result is a system that is very convenient for consumers but can also be easily integrated into retailers' circular economy systems. A system for sustainable packaging that has a fundamentally modular structure and can therefore react flexibly to the market at any time.
A key aspect of this is the decoupling of the reusable containers from ownership and the brand: neutralisation is also provided for in the course of cleaning - so new branding can be applied here and the containers do not have to be returned to the brand owner. The impact on sorting and transport costs is obvious.
"We have spent the last few years working with brand owners on the dimensions of a glass container and have now settled on one size. This can be used to fill a variety of products, from sauces to jams, spreads, honey, tinned and dried products. Next, we want to have a small series produced, including chemical hardening, to see how much weight we can save in the jar itself compared to traditional reusable containers. We expect to save 30-50% on glass - and of course on weight," says Peter Désilets. Pacoon then wants to use these samples to approach manufacturers and promote a market test in which as many producers as possible share the costs and gain experience. The sustainability expert has already worked out the concept for the market test with partners. Depending on the number of partners, each company could spend around 10,000 to 15,000 euros to gain important insights into how such a system could be implemented in production.
At the same time, Pacoon is working with a crate manufacturer on a new crate design that saves up to 40 % space when empty and is very flexible in use. This is because the reusable crates usually take up just as much space when they are filled or transported as empties. And the sustainability consultants do not want to accept the lid as a disposable lid either. A reusable lid concept is to be developed with a partner. The approaches to this have already been discussed and the material options explored.
From 2027, the retailer also wants to introduce new codes in its checkout system, which will also enable serialised tracking of the packaging elements. Until then, Pacoon wants to further develop the system and make it available to the market. "Our aim is to ensure that the use of our reusable system ultimately costs no more than the disposable version, perhaps even less. In ecological terms, the manufacturer would win anyway. Experience has shown that the CO2 footprint is better from the 5th to 10th round with reusable packaging - the best conditions for fast-moving items," says Peter Désilets.