Packaging Waste: Prevention Before Recycling

When assessing the effectiveness of packaging, attention is often focused primarily on whether it can be recycled. Recycling is undoubtedly important, but it is only one stage in the life cycle of packaging.

Before that, there is a more fundamental question:

How much packaging material actually needs to be produced, transported and subsequently managed as waste?

This is the basis of waste prevention: using the minimum necessary amount of material without compromising the safety, hygiene, quality and protection of the packaged product.

Waste Prevention Comes Before Recycling

In the European waste hierarchy, prevention comes before reuse, recycling, other forms of recovery and disposal.

The logic is clear: waste that is not generated does not later need to be collected, transported, sorted, processed or disposed of.

In packaging, prevention does not mean indiscriminately reducing material. Packaging must continue to fulfil all of its essential functions:

• protecting the product;

• providing the required barrier properties;

• withstanding transport and storage;

• being compatible with the production process;

• enabling safe and convenient use.

Therefore, the goal is not the lightest possible packaging at any cost, but the minimum sufficient packaging system that reliably performs its intended function.

How Flexible Packaging Reduces Material Use

Flexible packaging can make an important contribution to waste prevention because it typically uses a relatively small amount of material in relation to the quantity of product it contains.

A study by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, IFEU, examined packaging used for fast-moving consumer goods in Europe, excluding beverages.

The study modelled a theoretical scenario in which rigid primary packaging was replaced with flexible packaging wherever such replacement was technically feasible. According to the model, the annual amount of primary packaging waste could be reduced by approximately 21 million tonnes.

This corresponds to a potential reduction of around 70% in annual primary packaging waste for the goods covered by the study.

The result shows how significant even small differences in the weight of an individual package can become when multiplied by millions of products across European supply chains.

These figures do not mean that every rigid package can or should be replaced. Different products have different technical, commercial and regulatory requirements. Rather, the study illustrates the scale of the potential for waste prevention when packaging formats are compared according to the amount of material required to perform the same function.

Resource Efficiency Is Not Measured by Recycling Rate Alone

Packaging with a high recycling rate is not automatically the most resource-efficient solution.

The recycling rate indicates what proportion of a material is recycled after use. However, on its own it does not show:

• how much material is required to produce the packaging;

• how much energy is used throughout its life cycle;

• how many primary raw materials are consumed;

• how much secondary and tertiary packaging is required;

• how much residual waste ultimately requires final treatment.

Two packaging formats may provide equivalent product protection while requiring substantially different amounts of material.

A heavier package may have a higher recycling rate, yet still require more raw materials and energy. A lighter solution may generate less waste overall, even where the recycling infrastructure for that format is not yet sufficiently developed.

For this reason, recyclability should be assessed together with:

• waste prevention;

• the quantity of materials used;

• product protection;

• energy consumption;

• the efficiency of the entire packaging system.

Why the Entire Packaging System Should Be Assessed

A second IFEU study proposes an assessment of resource efficiency based on three key indicators:

1. cumulative energy demand;

2. cumulative raw material consumption;

3. the amount of waste requiring disposal or other final treatment.

The method was applied in a comparison of packaging systems for 460 ml of pasteurised pasta sauce with a long shelf life. The study analysed a laminated flexible pouch, a steel can, a glass jar and a plastic container.

The comparison included not only the primary packaging, but also the necessary secondary and tertiary packaging. The flexible pouch was assessed under the conservative assumption that it was not recycled.

Even under this assumption, it showed better results across all three indicators.

Compared with the steel can system, the flexible pouch used approximately:

• 84% of the energy;

• 55% of the materials;

• 59% of the waste requiring final treatment.

Compared with the glass jar:

• 66% of the energy;

• 42% of the materials;

• 13% of the waste.

Compared with the plastic container:

• 65% of the energy;

• 85% of the materials;

• 38% of the waste.

These results do not prove that one packaging format is the best choice for every application. They show that packaging should be compared on the basis of equivalent functionality and at the level of the complete packaging system, rather than solely according to the material used or its declared recyclability.

Product Protection Remains the Leading Criterion

Reducing the weight of packaging only makes sense when the product remains reliably protected.

In food applications, insufficient barrier properties, weak seals, punctures or compromised packaging integrity can lead to:

• spoilage or contamination;

• product leakage;

• reduced shelf life;

• losses during transport and storage.

In such cases, the loss of the product may outweigh the benefit achieved by reducing the amount of packaging material.

A well-designed flexible package can combine several functions at a relatively low weight:

• barrier protection against oxygen, moisture, light and aroma loss;

• reliable heat sealing;

• mechanical strength;

• product containment and protection;

• compatibility with technological processes;

• portion control;

• provision of necessary information to the consumer.

Any reduction in material, however, should be confirmed through appropriate technical testing and an assessment of real production, distribution, storage and use conditions.

Prevention and Recycling Are Not Opposing Concepts

Waste prevention is not an argument against recycling.

Flexible packaging should continue to improve through:

• design for recycling;

• more efficient collection;

• reliable sorting;

• development of recycling technologies;

• creation of stable markets for recycled materials.

Where technically possible, packaging structures should become easier to identify, sort and recycle, without compromising product protection.

At the same time, replacing an efficient, lightweight solution solely because another format appears easier to recycle may increase the total amount of material entering the packaging system.

A better approach combines prevention and circularity:

• not using more material than necessary;

• maintaining reliable product protection;

• avoiding unnecessary packaging elements;

• designing with collection and recycling in mind;

• assessing the impact across the entire life cycle.

How Companies Should Assess Their Packaging

Packaging decisions should not be reduced to a single question:

“Can this package be recycled?”

The following questions should also be considered:

• Does the packaging provide the necessary product protection?

• Are its weight and volume limited to what is technically necessary?

• How much primary, secondary and tertiary packaging is used?

• How efficiently are raw materials and energy used?

• How much waste is generated after use?

• Can the packaging actually be collected, sorted and recycled?

• Does changing the packaging format create unintended consequences elsewhere in the supply chain?

This broader assessment allows decisions to be based on measurable indicators, rather than on assumptions about individual materials.

From Waste Management to Waste Prevention

The main advantage of flexible packaging is not only its low weight. It is its ability to perform multiple functions using a relatively small amount of material.

Data from IFEU studies show that this characteristic can create significant opportunities for waste prevention and improved resource efficiency. They also demonstrate why the recycling rate alone is not sufficient for a comprehensive assessment of packaging performance.

Responsible packaging solutions require prevention, resource efficiency and circularity to be considered together.

Collection and recycling systems must continue to develop, but the first question in the design of any package should remain:

Can the required function be achieved safely and effectively with fewer materials, fewer resources and less waste?

When the answer is yes, the benefit has already been created before the packaging reaches the waste management system.