When a company questions its packaging, the first reaction often consists of comparing purchase prices. How much does disposable packaging cost? How much does a reusable alternative cost? Which solution seems the simplest to implement?
But today, this reading is no longer sufficient. Companies must also integrate another question, which has become central: What is the real impact of their packaging from an environmental point of view?
It is in this context that the company carbon footprint takes on all its importance. Because choosing packaging no longer comes down only to choosing a logistical support. It is also making a choice in terms of resource consumption, production, waste production, transport, lifespan and organization of flows.
Faced with this, a question often comes up: should disposable packaging be kept or should one move to reusable packaging? The answer cannot be based on intuition, nor on a marketing promise. It requires comparing the two models seriously, before deciding.
Why has comparison become indispensable ? :
For a long time, packaging was considered a secondary subject. It was evaluated mainly on practical criteria: protecting, transporting, storing, shipping. As long as the function was ensured, the rest came second.
Today, this is no longer the case. More and more companies are starting a company carbon audit, structuring a carbon footprint calculation or responding to requirements linked to the mandatory carbon footprint. In this context, packaging can no longer be seen as a simple logistical detail. It becomes an item to analyze, sometimes more strategic than it appears.
Why? Because packaging has an impact at several levels: its manufacturing, its material, its transport, its frequency of use, its end of life, and sometimes the logistical operations it imposes. Comparing a disposable model and a reusable model therefore makes it possible to get out of a too short-sighted vision, centered only on the unit purchase.
The trap of a too quick comparison :
Many companies still compare disposable packaging and reusable packaging in an incomplete way. They look on one side at the purchase price of a disposable unit, and on the other at the price of a more robust reusable support. Result: reusable seems more expensive at the start.
But this comparison is misleading, because it does not take into account the number of uses. Disposable packaging must be bought again at each rotation. Reusable packaging, on the other hand, spreads its impact and its cost over several cycles.
This is exactly why the notion of total cost of ownership is essential. And this reasoning also applies from the carbon point of view. One does not compare only two objects, one compares two systems of use.
Disposable packaging can seem light, simple, economical. But if it must be produced, transported and then eliminated at each use, its cumulative impact quickly becomes significant. Conversely, reusable packaging may require more material at the start, but become more interesting as it is reused in good conditions.
What the carbon footprint must really compare :
Comparing the carbon of disposable packaging and reusable packaging does not consist only of looking at the material. That would be a frequent mistake. The right reasoning must integrate the whole cycle of use.
It is necessary in particular to take into account:
- The manufacturing of the packaging
- The nature and quantity of material mobilized
- The number of possible rotations
- The transport conditions
- The possible logistical returns
- Storage
- End of life
- The waste generated
- The additional operations needed
This is where the subject also joins reflections on plastic recycling. Because disposable packaging is not neutral simply because it is theoretically recyclable. Recycling can limit part of the impact, but it removes neither the initial production nor the logic of permanent replacement.
In other words, recyclable packaging is not automatically equivalent to reusable packaging in terms of carbon impact.
Disposable: a simple, but repetitive logic :
The main advantage of disposable is its apparent simplicity. It is available, known, easy to integrate into what already exists. It is used, then it is removed. It is a direct functioning, which does not require return organization or fleet management.
This is why it remains very present in packaging, pallet wrapping, certain transport protections or one-off flows. But this simplicity masks a more repetitive reality: at each use, the same cycle of purchase, use and elimination must be reproduced.
From the carbon point of view, this repetition counts enormously. A disposable support, even light, can end up weighing heavily if the volume of use is high. In an industrial or logistical logic, frequency transforms the detail into a significant item. This is particularly true in companies working on their industry carbon footprint or on a company carbon footprint across several sites.
Reusable: relevant provided that it is well :
Conversely, reusable packaging only becomes interesting if it is actually reused in good conditions. This is an essential point. A more robust, more technical or heavier-to-produce packaging will not automatically be better if its rotation rate is low or if its use remains poorly organized.
Reusable becomes relevant when it fits into a coherent flow: regular rotations, recovered supports, repeated use, relatively stable format, adapted logistical organization. This is where the return logic becomes decisive.
A reusable crate, for example, can very well reduce the overall impact of a flow if it circulates many times, if it effectively protects the products and if it avoids the use of complementary disposable protections. A cover replacing stretch film can become very interesting on standardized pallets, inter-site shuttles or repetitive internal flows.
Reusable is therefore not an abstract promise. Its interest depends directly on the system in which it is used.
The key role of the number of rotations :
If there is one central element in the carbon comparison, it is indeed the number of rotations. The more reusable packaging is used, the more its manufacturing impact is spread over time. Conversely, if this number is low, the benefit can decrease.
This is why it is risky to decide only on a general principle such as “reusable is always better” or “disposable remains simpler”. The right approach consists of analyzing real uses.
In certain very regular flows, reusable quickly becomes more interesting. In others, very dispersed or difficult to control, the gain can be less obvious. It is not an ideological question, but a question of conditions of use.
In other words, carbon is not judged only on the object. It is judged on the real functioning of the flow.
Compare before deciding, not after :
A frequent mistake consists of first choosing an orientation, then looking afterwards for arguments to justify it. Some companies decide to switch to reusable because it seems more virtuous. Others keep disposable because it seems more practical. In both cases, the risk is the same: making a decision before having really compared.
Yet a good carbon footprint should precisely make it possible to avoid this bias. It is not used only to communicate or to respond to a regulatory requirement. It is used to clarify trade-offs.
Comparing before deciding makes it possible to better answer several questions:
- Is the flow sufficiently repetitive?
- Is the recovery of packaging realistic?
- Are the products adapted to a reusable solution?
- Does the volume justify a system change?
- Is disposable really the simplest, or simply the most usual?
These questions are often more useful than a too theoretical comparison between two materials.
Carbon must not be separated from logistics :
Comparing disposable and reusable only from the environmental angle would also be a mistake. Carbon cannot be isolated from logistical functioning. A solution that is good in theory, but very difficult to manage in the field, risks not holding up over time.
This is why the subject must be linked to operational realities: optimization of internal flows, stability of formats, storage, handling, organization of returns, frequency of transport, preparation methods. A good carbon solution is a solution that also holds up in practice.
The comparison between disposable and reusable must therefore be global. It must integrate at the same time the environment, costs, field feasibility and logistical performance.
The false shortcut of recyclable or biodegradable :
When a company hesitates to switch to reusable, it may be tempted by an intermediate solution: staying in disposable, but with a material presented as “less bad”. This is where subjects such as biodegradable plastic film or recyclable plastics come in.
These options can have an interest in certain cases, but they must not avoid the real comparison. Because they often leave intact the logic of single use. One continues to buy, use and throw away. The problem is sometimes softened, but rarely transformed.
The right question is therefore not only: “can disposable be made a little better?”
The real question is rather: in which flows can one get out of disposable?
A simple method to compare well:
To seriously compare the carbon of packaging, a company can follow a simple logic:
- Identify the most repetitive flows
- Spot the largest volumes
- Distinguish one-off uses from recurring uses
- Evaluate the possibilities of return logistics
- Compare the impact of a disposable support used at each rotation with that of a reusable support over several cycles
- Also integrate the total cost of ownership and operational feasibility
This approach makes it possible to get away from preconceived ideas and to decide on more solid bases. Loopipak does it for you.
Conclusion :
Comparing the carbon of disposable and reusable packaging before deciding has become indispensable. Not only to respond to objectives of carbon footprint or company carbon audit, but above all to avoid choices that are too quick.
Disposable keeps an apparent simplicity, but it rests on a repetitive logic of production, use and waste.
Carbon footprint of packaging: comparing disposable and reusable before deciding