The packaging industry is under growing pressure to shift toward circular solutions, yet many comparisons between single-use and reusable packaging rely on incomplete data or misleading assumptions. A new study, conducted by Dutch researchers Mieke van den Berg and Prof. Roland ten Klooster, aims to fix that. Their model highlights system behavior over multiple rotations and exposes the factors that most influence environmental impact. For packaging professionals preparing for PPWR requirements and reuse targets, this study offers both clarity and caution.
Table of Contents
Why Many Reuse Comparisons Are Unreliable
Researchers found that numerous Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies comparing single-use and reusable items miss essential elements of how reuse systems actually work.
Their review of 18 published LCAs shows significant gaps:
- Return rates often missing
- Loss and breakage rates ignored
- Pool size not considered or based on guesswork
- Real transport capacities not modeled
- Single-use components inside reuse systems overlooked
- Washing impacts simplified or missing
- System transport treated inconsistently
As a result, many published reuse studies compare an ideal single-use system with a hypothetical, untested reuse model. This leads to conclusions that may look convincing on paper but fail in real systems.
The Four Factors That Matter Most
The authors identify four factors with the strongest impact on whether a reuse system performs better than single-use.
- Single-use components in a reuse system: These include labels, caps or secondary packaging used in every rotation. Because they occur repeatedly, they can dominate total system impact.
- Constant factors per rotation: Washing, return transport and fixed energy or water use repeat every cycle. If these constant impacts are higher than the full impact of the single-use alternative, the reuse system will never reach a breakeven point.
- Pool size vs system size: A functioning reuse system needs a minimum number of items circulating. Too large a pool raises the production footprint; too small causes shortages. Pool size directly shifts the breakeven point.
- Loss percentage: Losses from consumers, transport or operations drive replenishment. High losses can eliminate the environmental advantage of reuse entirely.
Case Studies: Buckets, Boxes and Bottles
To show how these factors play out in reality, the study models three systems: reusable flower buckets, reusable transport boxes and reusable glass beverage bottles.
Flower buckets
Lightweight PP buckets highlight how repeated transport and washing can dominate the system impact even when losses are low.
Flower transport boxes
In this closed-loop case, tertiary packaging becomes a major driver of emissions. As rotations increase, the proportion of constant impacts rises, showing how important it is to minimize recurring system burdens.
Reusable glass bottles
The RGB example shows the challenge of heavy packaging. A 933 g reusable bottle requires twice the pallet volume of a 32 g PET bottle, doubling transport emissions. Even with recycling and multiple cycles, breakeven was not achieved under the modeled conditions. Reducing the weight helped, but did not reverse the overall result.
A Framework for Fair and Transparent Comparisons
One of the key contributions of this study is the structured equation-based method to compare reuse with single-use systems. The method includes:
- Break-even calculation across rotations
- Separate treatment of constant and variable impacts
- Realistic treatment of losses and replenishment
- Inclusion of single-use components in reuse systems
- Factors outside standard LCA software
The authors argue that LCA results alone are not enough. Reuse assessments require additional modeling to capture the behavior of the system across time, especially when rotation numbers vary or losses occur unpredictably.
What This Means for Packaging Professionals
This study gives the industry a practical, system-level perspective on reuse:
- Reuse only works when constants like washing and transport are kept low.
- Pool size must match real demand, not theoretical estimates.
- Loss rates must be measured and managed; assumptions are not enough.
- Weight, material choice and product design influence more than production impact alone.
- Reuse must be evaluated as a dynamic system, not a one-time LCA snapshot.
As the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) accelerates interest in reusable formats, this research warns against simplified claims and highlights the need for grounded, transparent modeling.
Conclusion
The study shows that fair comparisons between single-use and reusable packaging require more than standard LCA practices. It offers a structured way to understand how reuse systems actually behave, rotation by rotation, and which factors decide whether they outperform single-use solutions. For packaging professionals, well-designed reuse systems can deliver benefits, but only when pool size, losses, constant system impacts and single-use components are fully understood and carefully managed.
For the full study and all underlying calculations, visit the official publication and explore the complete methodology directly.
