Â鶹ÒùÔº

A new Europe-focused study reveals that polyethylene (PE), the most widely used packaging material in Europe, has lower life cycle global warming potential (GWP)—often used to assess greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—than conventional packaging alternatives, such as paper, metals, and glass, in most applications. The finding arrives as the came into force in February 2025, offering policymakers valuable insights for work on delegated acts that could directly or indirectly lead to the substitution of plastic packaging by alternatives.

The research, conducted by a team including leading packaging and life cycle assessment (LCA) experts from the University of Applied Science Vienna, Austria, Circular Analytics TK GmbH, Austria, Michigan State University School of Packaging, United States, and in collaboration with ExxonMobil, was recently published in .

The research team and the study adhered to ISO standards 14040/14044 requirements for conducting an LCA. Their assessment was based on sampled formats, data from high-volume PE packaging, and alternatives selected from Austria and Germany. All scenarios were modeled to cover the packaging life cycle from cradle (raw material extraction) to end-of-life, excluding the use phase (e.g., breakage rates and product loss due to packaging performance).

They evaluated 50 real-world packaging formats across five end-use applications. These included pallet wraps, collation packaging, rigid non-food containers, heavy-duty sacks, and flexible food packaging. They also include commonly known products such as shipping and transport packaging materials, collation packaging for drink containers, shampoo and cosmetic bottles, heavy-duty sacks, and food wraps.

Key findings:

• PE packaging showed lower life cycle GWP in 34 out of 50 (68%) applications evaluated in Europe.
• When evaluated against paper and multi-material options, PE packaging demonstrated lower life cycle GWP in 19 of 35 cases.
• Replacing PE packaging with alternative materials, including paper, paper multimaterials, glass, and metals, would increase life cycle GWP emissions by up to 6.96 million tons of CO₂ equivalent—a rise of 40–64%.
• This substitution would also increase packaging weight by at least 244%, adding material, transport, and waste burdens.
• No clear environmental advantage was found for alternatives in water use, measured as water scarcity, or fossil resource use.

The results call for a more nuanced, data-driven approach when discussing packaging material substitution policies.

The study's policy implications offer timely insights for regulators and companies as they work to meet the new European PPWR requirements. The study underscores the importance of considering environmental trade-offs when selecting packaging materials and highlights the benefits of PE-based packaging in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and packaging weight.

"Polyethylene packaging plays a critical role in preserving and protecting goods across value chains, and our study demonstrates its potential environmental advantages over many recognized alternative materials," said Manfred Tacker, lead author of the study. "These insights are vital for regulators and companies aiming to implement sustainable packaging solutions."

"This study improved our understanding of the potential environmental impacts of packaging by evaluating PE and alternative packaging materials. It highlighted that policymakers should holistically assess product-packaging systems to effectively reduce GWP and other environmental impacts across the supply chain, emphasizing that LCA can be a valuable tool to inform such evaluations," said Rafael Auras, co-author and a professor at the Michigan State University School of Packaging.

The findings offer valuable insights for policymakers, industries, and sustainability advocates reevaluating materials in the drive toward a circular economy.