Food packaging use and post-consumer plastic waste management: a comprehensive review

In 2021, the packaging sector emerged as the largest source of plastic waste in Europe, accounting for about 40% of the total demand for plastics. On average, an EU citizen produced 35.9 kg of waste from plastic packaging, with a 27% increase over the last 10 years. Despite advances in material efficiency and sustainability efforts, the average recycling rate of plastic packaging in the EU was around 40% in 2022, significantly lower than that of paper and cardboard packaging (83.2%) and metals (76.9%). The Food and Beverage (F&B) sector is an extensive user of packaging, driving the demand for innovative solutions to maintain food quality and safety while minimizing environmental impact. In light of these challenges, this comprehensive review examines the expanding use of packaging within the F&B sector and the management of post-consumer plastic waste at the EU level. It scrutinizes the technical, economic, and regulatory trade-offs in packaging deployment and disposal, emphasizing the need for supply chain collaboration to devise effective solutions. The study provides an overview of EU regulations on health and safety, sustainability, and labeling requirements for F&B packaging materials and products. It also explores the optimization of packaging for food business operators and supply chain management practices as well as current waste management strategies for post-consumer plastic waste, focusing on mechanical and chemical recycling and adherence to regulatory targets. Additionally, it identifies barriers to adopting sustainable packaging alternatives and discusses the impact of packaging design on recyclability and consumer acceptance. The study concludes with future research and industry opportunities, highlighting innovative packaging solutions that balance health and safety, sustainability, and cost-effectiveness.

1 Introduction

Global food consumption has been steadily increasing since 2015 (Statista, 2022), with projections indicating that food demand will grow by at least 35% between 2010 and 2050 (Van Dijk et al., 2021). It is estimated that the average individual consumes food three times per day (Ada et al., 2023), and, in the large majority of cases, this food comes with packaging. Packaging serves different functions, including containment, protection, handling, transport, storage, convenience, information and presentation (Robertson, 2005; ISO/IEC, 2018) and it is therefore widely used in many industries. In developed countries, packaging constitutes approximately 2% of the gross national product, with most packaging materials being utilized in the food industry (Ncube et al., 2021). This underscores the integrated nature of foods and their packaging, a concept frequently addressed in the literature as the “product-package” perspective (Rezaei et al., 2019).

In the EU, the packaging industry is a significant economic sector, with the market valued at approximately EUR 153 billion in 2024 and expected to grow to EUR 186 billion by 2029 (Fachpack, 2024). The Food and Beverage (F&B) sector drives this growth, carrying a demand for innovative solutions to maintain food quality and safety while minimizing impact on natural resources. According to the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD) (European Parliament, 2018), packaging consists only of:

⁃ Primary packaging, or sales packaging, is the packaging conceived so as to constitute a sales unit to the final user or consumer at the point of purchase.

⁃ Secondary packaging, or grouped packaging, is intended to group a certain number of sales units, either for sale to the final user or consumer. This type of packaging can be removed from the product without affecting its characteristics.

⁃ Tertiary packaging, or transport packaging, is designed to streamline the handling and transportation of multiple sales units or grouped packages, thereby mitigating the risk of physical damage during transit. It does not include containers used for road, rail, ship, or air transport.

A wide range of materials are used for packaging, including glass, paper and cardboard, metals such as steel and aluminum, plastics, and wood; more than two-thirds of all packaging materials are used in the F&B sector alone (Ncube et al., 2020). Each material offers unique properties that make it suitable for different types of packaging needs and food to be packed. Secondary and tertiary packaging are generally made up of homogenous materials, making them easier to collect, reuse and recycle (Sæter et al., 2020). This contrasts with primary packaging, which can come in more complex combinations, since in F&B applications it must guarantee optimal performance in protecting foodstuffs. In addition, secondary and tertiary packaging solutions are commonly used across various sectors–and mainly in logistics operations–while primary packaging tends to be more specific to certain industries in terms of technical and regulatory requirements. In the context of this manuscript, primary packaging is also referred to as food packaging.

Among the other materials used, plastics have a critical importance in primary packaging, fulfilling the need of different stakeholders and accommodating a wide range of products. Their versatility is widely recognized, and they are extensively employed in the F&B sector as well as across multiple market segments, including building and construction, automotive, electrical, and electronic. Among the fossil-based plastics, polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyvinylchloride (PVC), polyethylene (PE) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) have been extensively used for food packaging (Ncube et al., 2021). In the last decades, bio-based polymers such as polylactic acid (PLA) also entered the market. Table 1 represents packaging materials widely used in F&B, with examples of applications.

Table 1

Table 1. Overview on most used packaging materials in F&B applications.

Although the contribution of plastic packaging production to the total life cycle GHG emissions for most food products is less than 10% (Kan and Miller, 2022), plastic waste can persist and accumulate in the environment (Guillard et al., 2018), especially in marine ecosystems where it harms the wildlife and leads to long-term ecological damage (Gündoğdu et al., 2024). As of today, it is estimated that at least 5 billion tons of plastic waste are dispersed in the environment globally (Geyer et al., 2017; Sonke et al., 2022), with debris residence times that can range from hundreds of years to millennia (Chamas et al., 2020; Sonke et al., 2022; Dey et al., 2024). The F&B sector is a significant contributor to this pollution (Phelan et al., 2022), and single-use plastics employed to pack beverages, fresh meats, fruits, and vegetables are of particular concern (Dey et al., 2021). The extensive use of packaging in the F&B sector is raising concerns also in the European Union, where the packaging sector is the major source of plastic waste (European Environment Agency, 2023b). In the attempt to address these concerns, the EU issued stringent regulations to reduce pollution as well as increase customer expectations, thus rendering traditional packaging insufficient for current time (Schaefer and Cheung, 2018). However, despite the efforts to increase the circular use of packaging materials, the average recycling rate for plastic packaging in the EU is not increasing at the rate required by its increasing production volumes (Eurostat, 2023). This highlights the need to identify the current gaps preventing a wider adoption of circular strategies in the use of food plastic packaging as well as the trends and opportunities to enhance waste management and reverse the growing trend of plastic waste volume.

This comprehensive review examines the dual focus of the use of packaging by operators in the F&B sector on one side, and the management and recycling of post-consumer waste on the other, with the aim of promoting circularity within EU systems. It evaluates the trade-offs among technical, economic, and regulatory factors related to packaging use and disposal, and identifies barriers that currently hinder the adoption of sustainable packaging alternatives or processes for end-of-life management. These trade-offs are addressed with a supply chain perspective—rather than focusing on isolated businesses—emphasizing that this approach is essential to generating benefits for all stakeholders, including consumers. Hence, the review discusses how packaging optimization should involve collaboration among supply chain actors to develop solutions that are not only effective but also facilitate recycling and promote closed-loop systems. Key areas of focus are packaging use and waste management. For the former, this manuscript analyzes the key aspects involved in the optimization of packaging for food business operators, for instance considering material selection, design, and functionality to enhance food protection and preservation. The second focus area is addressed by exploring current strategies for managing post-consumer plastic waste, including the existing recycling alternatives, and identifying barriers to the adoption of sustainable alternatives. By adopting this dual focus, the review aims to provide an understanding of the challenges and opportunities in achieving a circular economy for food packaging. It highlights the need for innovative solutions that not only meet regulatory requirements but also promote sustainability and consumer acceptance.

This manuscript is structured as follows. Section 2 delineates the methodology utilized to conduct the comprehensive literature analysis, aimed at achieving the objectives of this review. This section elaborates on the conceptual framework of the packaging value chain and introduces the key stakeholders within the F&B sector addressed in this study. Section 3 provides an overview of the regulations on packaging materials and products in force in the EU. Health and safety requirements, sustainability, and labeling are discussed as the three main areas of food packaging regulations together with their implications on the development of new solutions. Section 4 examines packaging use by food businesses from production to retail, delving into the specific needs of various stakeholders concerning packaging. It highlights the factors that should be considered when optimizing packaging, distinguishing between primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging. Collaboration is emphasized as a prerequisite for effective supply chain management, guiding packaging optimization towards shared benefits for all stakeholders. Section 5 delves into waste management and recycling of post-consumer waste, with a focus on plastic packaging, which poses severe challenges for ecosystems and human health. After reviewing the state of the art of recycling methods, the impact of packaging design on recyclability and consumer acceptance is discussed as a key enabler of circularity, helping to maintain the value of packaging materials and products for as long as possible. Both Sections 4, 5 identify the barriers limiting packaging use and plastic recycling, respectively. Finally, Section 6 discusses opportunities and future directions for research and industry, presenting examples of innovations in food packaging that ensure health and safety, sustainability, and cost-effectiveness in implementation.

2 Methods

This review was produced within the framework of the MAGNO project (grant number “101135258”), funded by the EU under the Horizon Europe programme. MAGNO aims to enhance packaging effectiveness, sustainability, efficient usage, and end-of-life processes (reuse and recycling). It also promotes innovative business practices in EU food systems through novel strategies, such as efficient recycling and reuse of packaging solutions, as well as the adoption of new circular business practices aligned with the Circular Economy Action Plan’s (CEAP) mission. Building on these objectives, this review investigates packaging intended for F&B applications, with a particular focus on plastics. The packaging value chain is conceptualized as comprising four stages: design, manufacturing, use, and waste management. Within the use stage, a packaging product comes into contact with a food product, forming the “product-package” system (Rezaei et al., 2019). This study specifically addresses the use of packaging by food operators and the management of post-consumer packaging waste at the EU level. Regarding packaging use, these research questions were investigated: a) What factors are currently driving F&B actors in the adoption of packaging solutions?; b) What are the current barriers and challenges faced by these actors? For post-consumer packaging waste, the following questions were investigated: c) What is the current state of recycling systems in the EU?; d) What are the current barriers and challenges in the end-of-life management of post-consumer packaging waste? The interrelation of these stages with packaging design and manufacturing is also considered, as they significantly influence the safety, quality, sustainability, cost-effectiveness, and regulatory compliance of packaging solutions. By addressing these aspects, this review highlights the current knowledge gaps in EU food systems and identifies areas where improvements are needed to achieve circularity.

The results would be beneficial to industry professionals in the F&B sector and the broad academic audience dealing with advancements in packaging sustainability and innovation. To address the research questions, a semi-systematic approach was adopted (Snyder, 2019), with the research framework including regulatory analysis, literature search, qualitative analysis, snowballing approach, clustering and writing, depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Figure 1. The research framework employed to conduct this literature review.

First, to identify relevant regulations for packaging in F&B applications, a study of the EU regulatory landscape was conducted. This involved consulting institutional websites of the EU, including those dedicated to press communications, to determine the regulatory compliance prerequisites for packaging in this specific context and general regulatory decisions. The search encompassed various legislative acts (frameworks, directives, regulations, strategies) applicable to different types of packaging and materials, excluding those addressing specific packaging solutions such as active and intelligent packaging materials. Three overarching topics emerged from the selected EU laws and policies: safety, sustainability, and labeling. The findings were synthesized in a hierarchical tabular format to enhance clarity, presenting overarching frameworks first, followed by directives, strategies, and regulations (more detail in Section 3). The identified regulatory themes informed the initial keywords for the subsequent literature search, which included terms such as “safety”, “food safety”, “traceability”, “consumer awareness”, “labeling”, “sustainability”, “single-use plastics”, and “contamination”.

The literature search was divided into two areas of investigation: Packaging use in F&B and post-consumer packaging waste management. This division reflects the scope of packaging use by food operators and the disposal of packaging waste. Keywords identified from the regulatory analysis were combined with terms such as “technical”, “economic”, “challenges”, “hurdles”, “barriers”, “market”, “prices”, “incentives”, “innovations”, and “opportunities”, which are relevant to the research questions and the objectives sought. The initial criteria for article selection included: a) only peer-reviewed articles, book extracts, and conference proceedings in English; b) preference for articles published from 2020 onwards; and c) articles with more than 20 citations. Articles on specific packaging solutions or targeting precise environmental issues were excluded to focus on common issues for different operators in the F&B sector, including primary producers, processors, logistic providers, and retailers, as well as the end-of-life operators of packaging waste. Therefore, the search queries included combinations such as “Food AND packaging AND (Barriers OR hurdles)”, “F&B AND packaging AND Challenges”, and “Plastic AND Waste AND Management AND (Challenge OR Challenges)”, adding to these queries the keywords emerging from the regulatory analysis and those pertaining to technical and economic aspects, as needed. This literature search yielded an initial batch of 50 articles. Articles meeting the criteria were documented, and a summary of their main findings was drafted. From this qualitative analysis, it emerged that the most recurrent thematic areas were packaging optimization, focusing on packaging performance and functions, supply chain management, focusing on collaboration among stakeholders, packaging recyclability, focusing on extending the lifecycle of products, and consumer acceptance toward innovative packaging. Subtended in these areas, different packaging solutions are mentioned (i.e., smart packaging, nanopackaging), as well as different technologies, materials and related performance encompassed in recycling systems (i.e., NIR scanning, manual sorting, performance degradation).

At this stage, it was deemed necessary to deepen these aspects. Hence, the snowballing approach was adopted to identify additional relevant papers by reviewing the references of the initially selected articles. In this case, primary criteria b) and c) were not strictly adopted, while still considering criterion a). Indeed, a secondary criterion was considered: d) articles that may not meet the primary criteria but are deemed highly relevant due to i) the number of citations (>100), such as older foundational studies or ii) articles with fewer citations but promising contributions to the field in light of innovative packaging solutions or approaches addressed. Around 250 articles were considered and divided according to the two areas of investigation (i.e., packaging use in F&B and post-consumer packaging waste management). The articles were analyzed in scope, goal, and results, and a summary of their findings was drafted. Subsequently, articles were further clustered according to the main thematic areas that emerged during the first literature search (i.e., packaging optimization, supply chain management, packaging recyclability, and consumer acceptance). These clusters were linked to the relevant F&B stakeholders or end-of-life operators. This provided the foundation for the manuscript.

The manuscript was drafted with regulatory requirements as the backbone of the discussion, as these are obligations that must be fulfilled by packaging materials and products. The description was enriched with technical and economic challenges and opportunities found within the two areas of investigation with the previous literature searches, thereby addressing multiple topics and perspectives. This approach highlighted the complex trade-offs between regulatory, economic, and technical aspects for a variety of stakeholders, comprehensively reflecting major trends, needs, gaps, and opportunities.

3 EU regulatory landscape on packaging materials and products

In line with the European Green Deal and the ambition to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, the Circular Economy Action Plan (European Commission, 2020) was implemented in March 2020 to promote sustainable growth by transitioning the EU to a circular economy. The sectors of plastics, packaging, and food have been identified as key for this transformation given their intensive resource use and potential for circularity, offering significant opportunities for improvements and potential benefits (European Commission, 2020; European Parliament, 2024b). CEAP addresses products placed on the EU market by incorporating sustainability throughout their whole lifecycle, aiming to prevent and reduce waste and alleviate pressure on natural resources. Concurrently, the action plan promotes a culture of sustainability for EU consumers, empowering them to make environmentally conscious choices when purchasing goods. The EU regulatory landscape on packaging materials and products, with the CEAP as its overarching framework, addresses packaging at every stage of the value chain, from design to post-consumer waste management, and for all types of materials used as well as packaging types. This regulatory landscape includes directives, regulations and strategies, among other instruments. Directives are legislative acts that establish objectives for member states to achieve, while allowing flexibility in the methods of implementation at the national level–i.e., national laws. In contrast, EU regulations are binding legislative acts that are directly applicable and enforceable in their entirety across all member states (European Union, 2024). Strategies, on the other hand, are broader plans that outline the EU’s long-term goals and priorities in a specific area. These are not legally binding but provide guidance and direction for future legislations and policy actions. Table 2 presents the EU regulatory landscape for packaging materials and products relevant to the F&B sector, with a focus on legislations and plans governing packaging use and waste management addressed in this manuscript. Directives, regulations, and strategies are categorized by the type of packaging concerned, the materials involved, and the stages of the value chain addressed. It is worth noting that all these legislative instruments can also cover stages of the packaging value chain not within the scope of this manuscript, such as packaging design and manufacturing, which are nonetheless coherently reported.

Table 2

Table 2. EU strategies, directives and regulations in force on packaging materials and products relevant to the F&B sector.

Packaging waste directives and regulations are a clear example of the practical implementation of the CEAP objectives. These have evolved significantly over time so as to achieve circular systems for packaging in the EU. The PPWD (Directive 94/62/EC), firstly established in 1994, is the centerpiece of packaging waste legislation, setting mandatory targets for member states, yet allowing flexibility in implementation. The directive emphasizes proper packaging life cycle management, addressing design, use, and waste management across all materials and applications, from industrial to household. However, its transposition into national laws has led to uneven application in the EU, creating disparities. To address these, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) has been currently agreed by the European Parliament after being proposed on 30 November 2022, to amend the PPWD. This transition marks a fundamental change, promoting consistent rules across the members. The PPWR goes beyond the scope of the PPWD, introducing specific measures to tackle urgent challenges such as excess packaging and insufficient recycling. Key advances include mandatory recyclable design requirements by 2030, large-scale recyclability by 2035 and reducing excess packaging through reuse strategies (more detail in Section 5). In addition, the PPWR requires the incorporation of minimum recycled content into packaging products, promoting closed-loop recycling systems and aligning with the mission of CEAP (European Council, 2024). These measures aim to address the 20% increase in packaging waste mass observed in the EU between 2009 and 2020 (European Parliament, 2024a). The PPWR represents a step forward in promoting a circular economy for packaging in a cost-efficient way (European Council, 2024) by setting specific requirements for sustainable packaging design and integrating objectives for large-scale recycling and reuse. As stated by the European Commission, the objective of the PPWR is to ensure that “all packaging on the EU market is reusable or recyclable in an economically viable way by 2030” (European Commission, 2023).

3.1 Food packaging regulations

In the F&B sector, EU regulations on packaging materials and products are essential to safeguard consumer health and safety. Around 8,000 substances are permitted for use in food packaging production (Catherine et al., 2016; Gündoğdu et al., 2024). The safety of packaging is strictly controlled to prevent the release of harmful chemicals into food until it is consumed (Wrona and Nerin, 2019). Additionally, sustainability has become a critical aspect of packaging, with efforts focused on reducing environmental impacts while preserving functionality and ensuring economic viability (Pauer et al., 2019). Food packaging that is not designed to be environmentally friendly throughout its life cycle significantly contributes to sustainability issues (Hussain et al., 2024), particularly when its disposal is not properly managed (De Pilli et al., 2021). Furthermore, the disclosure of information regarding food and packaging is imperative for ensuring health and safety, as well as promoting awareness of sustainable consumption and disposal practices. In the following sections, the main EU regulations addressing health and safety, sustainability and labeling of food packaging are discussed.

3.1.1 Health and safety

Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 (Regulation EC No, 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2021) establishes the fundamental principles and requirements for materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and drinks, known as food contact materials (FCMs). The regulation requires that FCMs do not release substances in quantities that could endanger human health or alter the food’s composition, taste, or odor. It applies to all materials used for food contact, including plastics, metals, and paper. Key requirements include proper labeling, the safety assessment of substances used in FCMs, and full traceability and documentation of packaging materials and products throughout the supply chain. FCMs may contain around 352 chemicals classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic to reproduction (Zimmermann et al., 2022) by the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (UNECE, 2023). Empirical evidence confirms the presence of 127 of these chemicals in FCMs, with 85 of them having a known potential to migrate into foodstuffs (Zimmermann et al., 2022).

The regulation on FCMs also mandates that these materials and articles be manufactured in a way that does not compromise food safety and quality, in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006 (Commission Regulation (EC), 2008) on good manufacturing practices.

Plastics dominate the market share among all FCMs for F&B applications (Kan and Miller, 2022) due to their versatility, good performance, including durability, and cost-effectiveness (Navarre et al., 2022). The Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 establishes specific technical requirements for food contact plastics. This regulation imposes measures, controls, and monitoring to ensure food safety. It mandates the authorization of substances used in plastic packaging products, adherence to both specific (i.e., targeting individual substances) and overall migration limits, as well as compliance testing. In a recent review by the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids requested by the European Commission (EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP), 2020), specific migration limits for substances were re-examined and proposed. Notably, three substances were identified as having significant potential health risks: salicylic acid, styrene, and vinyl laurate.

Finally, Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1,616 (Commission Regulation (EU), 2022) has been recently established to address the safety requirements for recycled plastics intended for food contact, as contamination can hinder the reuse of materials after recycling. Recycling processes must employ approved technologies that are designed to decontaminate used plastics to a safe level. The full approach to decontamination is governed by the European Food Safety Authority. This regulatory framework ensures that FCMs meet stringent safety requirements, thereby promoting public health in the food packaging industry (Commission Regulation (EU), 2022).

3.1.2 Sustainability

The sustainability impacts of food packaging are a critical area of concern, particularly regarding waste generation. Food packaging, while essential for preserving product quality and extending shelf life, often results in significant waste. Among various materials used, plastic packaging stands out due to its widespread use and the challenges it presents in waste management. If not properly managed, this waste can enter the environment, causing harmful impacts on both ecosystems and human health (Navarre et al., 2022). Single-use plastics (SUP), in particular, have been identified as a significant contributor to pollution, especially in marine environments. As the food and beverage sector is one of the main users of single-use packaging (Phelan et al., 2022), the resulting environmental impacts are aggravated, emphasizing the urgency of adopting sustainable practices to reduce waste and promote a circular economy.

In response to these concerns, the EU adopted the Plastic Strategy in 2018 (European Commission, 2018), which is now integrated into the CEAP. This strategy aims to protect the environment and reduce marine litter, greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on imported fossil fuels by promoting more sustainable design, manufacturing, consumption, use and recycling of plastics. To reinforce this commitment, the EU implemented the SUP Directive (Directive (EU), 2019), targeting specific plastic products frequently found in litter and that have viable, more sustainable alternatives. This directive significantly impacts plastic products used in F&B applications. It bans the market placement of items such as straws, expanded polystyrene food containers and cups. Moreover, it mandates that member states adopt measures for a sustained reduction in the consumption of other SUP products. The directive also introduces measures such as design requirements to ensure caps and lids remain attached to containers, labeling requirements to inform consumers about proper disposal, and extended producer responsibility schemes to manage waste and clean-up efforts.

3.1.3 Labeling

Labeling is essential for providing consumers with critical information about food products, while also promoting sustainability and ensuring health and safety. Accurate labeling encompasses details about contents, nutritional value, and potential allergens, thereby facilitating informed purchasing decisions. Additionally, clear labeling supports environmental and social sustainability by encouraging responsible consumption and proper disposal of packaging materials.

Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (Regulation EU No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2018), known as the Food Information to Consumers (FIC) regulation, mandates comprehensive labeling requirements to enhance transparency and consumer protection. It sets mandatory information on food labels, including the name of the food, origin, ingredients list, allergens information, date of minimum durability, any special storage conditions and/or conditions of use. The regulation also requires a standardized format for nutrition information. Complementing the FIC regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (Regulation EC No, 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2014) governs the use of nutrition and health claims on food labels. Its primary goal is to ensure a high level of consumer protection by preventing misleading claims and harmonizing regulations across member states. The regulation covers both nutrition claims, such as “low fat” or “high fiber,” and health claims, which link food to health benefits. Claims must be clear, accurate, and scientifically substantiated. Health claims, in particular, require authorization from the European Food Safety Authority and must meet specific nutrient profiles to prevent misleading information on foods. Non-compliance can result in penalties, including fines and product removal. In summary, both regulations promote responsible food consumption by utilizing packaging as a medium to convey essential information to consumers. Labels may also include details about the environmental impact of food production, such as carbon footprint, water usage, and sustainable farming practices, encouraging consumers to choose products with lower environmental impacts. Similarly, by knowing the origin of food, consumers can decide to support local and sustainable food systems, reducing the carbon footprint associated with long-distance transportation. As discussed by (Steenis et al., 2017), labeling is part of the verbal design features of packaging, which consumers rely on when making their decisions, along with structural features (shape, size, material type, etc.) and graphical features (colors, imagery, graphics, etc.), as well as beliefs and other associations forming judgments. Packaging can play a significant role in implicitly cueing sustainability, with labels acting in the cue utilization process, thereby leading to more sustainable choices.

Furthermore, the EU’s increasing focus on plastic packaging recyclability is evident through the introduction of labels under the CEAP, which indicate the recyclability of packaging and provide guidance on proper material separation, thereby encouraging environmentally responsible consumer choices (Sazdovski et al., 2022). The EU has also introduced a voluntary ecolabel scheme for packaging to identify products that meet specific environmental criteria (Tobi et al., 2019). However, the adoption and implementation of these ecolabels can vary significantly among EU countries (Albu and Chitu, 2012; Kijek, 2015). For instance, while countries like France and Italy have developed their own distinct recycling logos—such as the Triman logo in France—other nations may not have harmonized labeling standards in place (Albizzati et al., 2023). This inconsistency can lead to consumer confusion and hinder effective recycling practices, highlighting the need for a unified approach to packaging labels across the EU.

4 Results

4.1 Packaging use of food business operators

Food Business Operators (FBOs) are the natural or legal persons responsible for ensuring that the requirements of food law are met within the activities performed throughout the production, processing, and distribution of food (Regulation (EC), 2002). In the following, FBOs are defined as any organization (i.e., legal person) in the food industry–from ingredient production to finished products, including primary production–logistics, retail, e-commerce and food service. This section explores the aspects related to the use of packaging as means for these actors to fulfil roles and responsibilities within the supply chain.

FBOs rely on packaging to contain, protect, store, transport, and distribute F&B products. They are driven by the need to find and use optimal packaging solutions to support these operations (Dörnyei et al., 2023). The range of materials available for packaging production is increasing due to the advancement of research, carrying many differentiations. Consequently, this progress has led to a variety of packaging solutions with unique characteristics, providing FBOs with a broad spectrum of options depending on diverse products and considering technical issues, shelf life, environmental impact, cost, consumer acceptance, and regulatory compliance (González-López et al., 2023). Furthermore, the integration of smart and innovative technologies in the packaging industry is on the rise and provides new solutions, such as freshness indicators and interactive labels for a better consumer experience (Halonen et al., 2020; Abekoon et al., 2024), which lastly enhances packaging attributes. All these factors help define the “optimal” packaging choices for FBOs, making this dependent on business and supply chain contexts. Packaging optimization involves balancing functionality, cost, and environmental impact along with consumer preferences, experience, and acceptance (Agarwal et al., 2023; Nair et al., 2023).

4.1.1 Factors for packaging optimization in F&B applications

Food protection and preservation are the primary functions that packaging serves (Lindh et al., 2016; Schmidt and Schmidt, 2019; Garba, 2023). According to (Lindh et al., 2016), the function of protection, which includes preservation, unfolds several features or properties (i.e., prominent or distinctive qualities or characteristics) of packaging, such as mechanical, barrier, thermal and sealing properties. These features can also indirectly contribute to sustainable development. For instance, enhanced barrier properties of packaging can reduce the risk of human health hazards, while optimized mechanical properties may decrease food waste. In this regard, packaging optimization seeks to accommodate these requirements as effectively as possible. This applies regardless of packaging type, as protection and preservation enable retaining the safety and market value of food until it reaches the consumer. Primary packaging, in particular, is subject to more stringent requirements regarding materials that can be used and technical specifications in F&B applications. Nevertheless, protection is cumulative and relies on the combined action of primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging (and even beyond), depending on the external conditions that foods encounter along the supply chain. For example, strawberries can be packed with plastic clamshell containers with ventilation holes to allow air circulation, reducing moisture buildup and preventing mold growth; cardboard boxes can be used to host multiple clamshell containers, providing an additional layer of protection against impacts during handling and transportation; wood pallets can be used to stack cardboard boxes, securing the whole content against dust and temperature fluctuations with shrink wraps, further providing stability for long distance transportation. If any of these packaging solutions is not optimized for food protection and preservation, the results can include reduced nutritional value due to decay or spoilage, poor food attractiveness, or worse, food waste and economic losses, as damaged products may be rejected by customers (Versino et al., 2023). Therefore, FBOs have a strong interest in considering food protection and preservation when optimizing packaging (Sarkar and Aparna, 2020), as they must address potential shocks, damage, or any other externalities that may alter food characteristics and/or possibly be a source of health risks. Besides this, packaging serves many other functions, from traceability to advertisement and warranty (Schmidt and Schmidt, 2019). Table 3 outlines the factors that FBOs should consider in optimizing packaging for F&B applications. It specifies the relevance of these factors to primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging, denoted as low (+), medium (++), or high (+++). A blank cell indicates negligible or null relevance.

Table 3

Table 3. Factors that FBOs should take into account when optimizing packaging solutions for F&B applications (Marsh and Bugusu, 2007; Svanes et al., 2010; Lindh et al., 2016; Sohrabpour et al., 2016; Siracusa and Rosa, 2018; Fadiji et al., 2019; Gardas et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019; Ozcan and Arman Kandirmaz, 2020; Sarkar and Aparna, 2020; Vermeir and Roose, 2020; Alamri et al., 2021; Ilhan et al., 2021; Mesa et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022; Versino et al., 2023). The relevance of each factor toward each packaging type is indicated as low (+), medium (++) or high (+++). A blank cell denotes negligible or null relevance.

As a general observation, the relevance of these factors varies depending on specific products, sales methods (e.g., single package, multiple subpackages grouped in a single package), and sales channels (e.g., retail, e-commerce, local markets). While factors such as cost are universally considered across all types of packaging and determine their affordability for both FBOs and consumers (Popovic et al., 2019; Stoica et al., 2020), other factors may exhibit higher variability and should be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Some of those are relevant for specific food products based on their peculiarities. For example, ease of handling (i.e., the ability of a package to be easily moved from one location to another) is particularly important for bulky products, such as a leg of cured ham contained in a cardboard box, whereas it is less relevant for smaller products. Similarly, ease of use (i.e., the easiness in accessing and utilizing the product, especially for end-users) is critical for liquids, where the primary packaging must be designed and optimized for convenient and/or repeated access, while it may be less relevant for solids packaged in single-use solutions. Finally, other factors may exhibit relevance to food products in general, as packaging plays a primary role in ensuring the safety of food products and protect them against contamination. For this reason, factors such as durability (i.e., the ability of packaging to perform its own functions at the anticipated performance level under expected conditions of use) (Mesa et al., 2022) or migration (i.e., the transfer of chemical compound between the package and the product it contains) (Alamri et al., 2021) are crucial in the design and optimization of food packaging. When considering sales methods and channels, some factors may be addressed by multiple packaging types simultaneously or transferred among packaging types, typically primary and secondary. Aesthetic appeal, for example, is often optimized in primary packaging for F&B applications (e.g., a single package of snacks) but can also be served by secondary packaging (e.g., small carton case containing stacked snacks sold individually, frequently contained in a primary package made by plastic materials). In other cases, both packaging types are designed to be appealing (e.g., single packages of chips grouped with display packaging). Furthermore, it is worth noting that the factors in Table 3 are interdependent, and optimizing for some may influence others, even at different stages of the supply chain. For instance, the shape of the packaging affects stackability, which is crucial for efficient logistics operations (Han, 2013). However, the shape also impacts the aesthetic appeal of packaging, influencing consumer choice and brand differentiation (Vermeir and Roose, 2020). These trade-offs underscore the necessity of a supply chain perspective for packaging optimization.

In addition to the factors in Table 3, further needs are considered when optimizing different packaging solutions based on the intended use. For example, breathability is crucial for the primary packaging of fresh produce, as controlling oxygen and gas exchange between the food and the external environment is necessary to prevent spoilage (Robertson, 2005; Bishop and Hanney, 2008). Similarly, leak resistance is essential for packaging jams or beverages and is addressed by primary packaging. Once leak resistance is ensured, secondary packaging should focus on shock and vibration resistance to protect primary packages during transportation and handling (Coles et al., 2003). To conclude, packaging optimization in F&B applications requires a comprehensive evaluation of multiple factors and needs. While Table 3 offers generally applicable insights, it is essential to adopt a tailored approach when developing specific solutions for F&B products. This ensures that all relevant factors are considered, leading to optimized packaging that meets the unique requirements of each product and its supply chain.

4.1.2 Integration of packaging strategies in supply chain management

Packaging is a critical determinant of global supply chain efficiency, influencing operational costs and performance (Sohrabpour et al., 2016; Molina-Besch et al., 2019) across various segments, including inventory management, warehousing, and transportation operations (Morashti et al., 2022). The environmental and societal impacts of packaging are increasingly garnering stakeholder interest, necessitating collaboration among supply chain actors to adopt innovative solutions (Morashti et al., 2022). The evolution of Supply Chain Management (SCM) as a discipline highlights a shift from isolated business operations to interconnected networks, emphasizing the benefits of collaboration among stakeholders (Chen et al., 2020). Modern global supply chain strategies aim to integrate circular economy principles into traditional business operations and management (Solomon et al., 2024), addressing resource recovery, efficient use, and waste reduction from product design and manufacturing to distribution, consumption, and end-of-life management. Therefore, effective packaging strategies must adopt a supply chain perspective to advance sustainability while maintaining competitiveness for supply chain actors (Sohrabpour et al., 2016). In the F&B sector, integrating packaging strategies in SCM should support product safety, quality, and compliance with regulations and standards in addition to supply chain efficiency (i.e., food loss reduction) and sustainability (i.e., food waste reduction, packaging recycling, etc.). Recent studies focus on the development and optimization of sustainable packaging alternatives to achieve these objectives.

Abbate et al. (2023) examined the environmental benefits and social implications of using recyclable and biodegradable plastic packaging in the Italian egg industry. The study addressed the supply chain stages associated with the packing, inner and outer logistics, and distribution operations. By using a bio-based material (e.g., PLA) that met both regulatory requirements (i.e., food contact materials) and company needs (i.e., packaging transparency), a 14% decrease in GHGs emission was observed. Zambujal-Oliveira and Fernandes (2024) explored sustainable packaging in the circular food supply chain using the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach. Criteria such as recyclability, food safety, packaging material, and environmental impact are used to study sustainable product-package designs that minimize food losses at each stage of the supply chain. Conversely, Rezaei et al. (2019) examined the influence of sustainable packaging criteria, derived from an extensive supply chain analysis, on packaging design within a specific food company. Their criteria encompassed environmental, social, and economic performance, addressing the diverse needs and perspectives of producers, distributors, and consumers. Utilizing the MCDM approach, the study focused on three products to determine optimal packaging designs.

In logistics, the number of studies focusing on sustainable packaging systems is similarly increasing as global trade and e-commerce drive up the volume of packaged goods (Escursell et al., 2021; Cano et al., 2022; Morashti et al., 2022). Sustainable packaging must take into account handling methods, transport modes, facility dimensions, and communication needs to optimize the system, presenting high complexity (Coles et al., 2003). Innovation in this area requires internal (i.e., company level) transformations, such as adopting new packaging materials and processes, and external transformations, such as collaborating with supply chain partners to ensure compatibility and efficiency (García-Arca et al., 2014; García-Arca et al., 2017). Smart packaging solutions have been shown to enhance sustainability and efficiency in logistics. They provide real-time data on product conditions, enabling managers to make informed decisions (Johansson, 2009; Kabadurmus et al., 2023). Technologies such as time-temperature indicators (TTIs) and radio frequency identification (RFID) devices help extend the shelf-life of products and maintain their freshness, increase food safety, and facilitate the exchange of quality information with consumers (Kaushani et al., 2022; Ganeson et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2020) highlighted that the adoption of TTIs and RFID reduces food loss and waste along the supply chain by enhancing product traceability. Nonetheless, smart packaging adoption requires cross-collaboration to enable real-time monitoring and data collection; these solutions must leverage SCM principles to ensure an effective implementation into the food system. However, the costs associated with their manufacturing technologies and limited marketing strategies currently impact their market penetration.

The integration of packaging solutions promoting efficiency and sustainability in logistics can lead to significant improvements also in retail (Saghir, 2002; García-Arca et al., 2014), for instance by facilitating the exchange of relevant information on the package itself or enhancing the sustainability of packaging logistics. Retail serves as the interface between the upstream stages of the food supply chain and consumers. It holds demand information (Lemos and Castro, 2021) and manages contracts with suppliers, hence playing a primary role in collecting the needs of both producers and consumers and fostering a collaborative approach to adopt packaging solutions that meets both upstream and downstream necessities. Furthermore, the increasing presence of e-grocery and e-commerce is exacerbating the challenges of last mile deliveries and the atomization of parcel flows (Morganti et al., 2014), increasing sustainability concerns and fostering the adoption of sustainable packaging, as consumers’ demand and willingness to pay for eco-friendly options are increasing (Singh et al., 2018).

4.1.3 Barriers and challenges in food packaging use

FBOs face difficulties in adopting sustainable packaging, given its higher uncertainty on costs and benefits and generally requires more investment compared to conventional options (Afif et al., 2022). A systematic review by (Afif et al., 2022) underscored the complex trade-offs between environmental, logistical, and marketing requirements of sustainable packaging, which complicate the decision-making process for optimal solutions. Firms must develop packaging that is both attractive and environmentally friendly, while still being able to protect and promote the product. Large firms are more likely to address this multi-criterion decision-making due to their substantial financial resources, awareness of regulations, and understanding of consumer preferences compared to small firms (De Koeijer et al., 2017). also examined these trade-offs in packaging development, focusing on the need to balance sustainability with other critical indicators such as costs and technical challenges. The authors discuss the interrelations among stakeholders involved in the development process and the responsibilities they bear in ensuring sustainable product-packaging solutions. In most cases, marketing actors are reported to lead the decision-making processes for sustainable packaging as the main intermediaries between development teams in the business context (De Koeijer et al., 2017).

On top, effective SCM emerges as of concern to the F&B sector as an integrated supply chain approach can significantly improve the performance of food chains of fresh produce (Veena et al., 2011). Sharing information and improving logistics efficiency throughout the supply chain is crucial as the perishability of food products requires timely fulfillment of operations among a large number of intermediaries. Temperature-controlled supply chains for fresh produce face infrastructural deficiencies (roads for transport, facilities for food storage) in many areas of the world (Bharti, 2020; Kitinoja et al., 2021; Olowosoke, 2022), failing to maintain food quality and safety. This is noticeable in developing countries, while developed countries experience food loss due to inefficiencies in post-harvest management processes and operations relating to pre-cooling, packing, transportation and storage (Onwude et al., 2020; Stellingwerf et al., 2021) rather than infrastructural challenges. Additionally, fresh produce supply chains face seasonality (De Castro Moura Duarte et al., 2024), labor shortages and foreign competition (Chanda et al., 2021), and adverse effects imposed by climate change (García-Flores et al., 2022), thus needing adaptability to a series of unfavorable conditions and cumulated uncertainties. According to literature studies, losses throughout these supply chains can be attributed to a lack of coordination in matching supply and demand between actors (Mason et al., 2015; Song and He, 2018), and, in turn, losses create an imbalance between demand and supply (Anand and Barua, 2022) in a feedback loop.

Coordination among FBOs from production to distribution is at the center of the challenges for effective SCM in the F&B sector. Optimal food product-package systems are essential to maximize revenues and ensure food is consumed and marketed effectively. In this regard, food waste is the predominant issue in developed countries including the EU (Gheorghescu et al., 2019; Jeremić et al., 2024), with poor coordination among supply chain stakeholders as a relevant cause. Stellingwerf et al. (2015) demonstrated that logistics collaboration in the Dutch food retail sector can enable high-frequency supply instead of large, infrequent batches. As a result, the food quality increases and food waste decreases, achieving environmental and economic benefits. Similarly, Pérez Mesa and Galdeano-Gómez (2015) discussed the positive benefits of coordination strategies of horticultural exporting firms in Spain - among the main suppliers of European markets - whose primary customers are retailers. These latter, serving as intermediaries between upstream supply chain actors and consumers, must balance various requirements and preferences concerning the adoption and optimization of sustainable packaging. Leveraging their insights into consumer preferences and sales data, retailers can influence and support upstream practices. However, the potential environmental and economic benefits of sustainable packaging may be compromised if retailers compel suppliers to “overpack” products based solely on shelf-life considerations, as discussed by Dörnyei et al. (2023).

Finally, consumer attitudes influence the adoption of sustainable packaging by FBOs (Siddiqui et al., 2022). Although many consumers are aware of the benefits and environmental impact of sustainable packaging, this awareness does not consistently translate into purchasing behavior (Orzan et al., 2018; Hamid et al., 2022). Negative consumer attitudes shaped by motivational (i.e., personal and ethical identification), cognitive (driven by the information on the product), and behavioral (involving trade-offs regarding time, cost, and others), barriers (Boz et al., 2020) hinder the implementation of sustainable packaging, in addition to value chain complexity. Factors such as price, quality, convenience (e.g., ease of food preparation), appearance, and brand often drive consumers’ decision-making (Rai et al., 2023). Additionally, consumers, irrespective of their country of origin, often lack understanding of the sustainability impacts associated with the production, transportation, and retail stages of packaging (Boz et al., 2020; Dörnyei et al., 2023). This lack can hinder the acceptance of innovative solutions, such as nano packaging (Siddiqui et al., 2022), which hold promise for addressing issues such as food waste. Therefore, it is necessary to enhance consumer awareness and education about sustainable packaging through public awareness campaigns, labeling initiatives, and by stakeholders of the food and packaging value chains as well as policymakers (Boz et al., 2020). These efforts can help overcome the challenge of creating a “sustainability culture” among the general public, encompassing both packaging and food as well as their interrelationship.

4.2 Waste management and recycling

The widespread use of plastic has raised growing concerns about its environmental impact and the complex challenges associated with managing its end-of-life (Thompson and Pahl, 2018). In 2021, the packaging sector emerged as the largest source of plastic waste in Europe, accounting for about 40% of the total demand for plastics (European Environment Agency, 2023b), and contributing substantially to the generation of plastic waste. In that year, each EU citizen produced an average of 35.9 kg of waste from plastic packaging. Over the last 10 years, this amount has increased by 27%, with an increase of 7.5 kg per capita between 2011 and 2021 (Eurostat, 2023). However, this increase in plastic waste volume has not been accompanied by a corresponding rise in recycling rates, despite advances in material efficiency and sustainability efforts within the sector. In the EU, the average recycling rate of plastic packaging was around 40% in 2022 (Statistics Eurostat, 2024d). In comparison, the recycling rates for paper and cardboard packaging reached 83.2% (Statistics Eurostat, 2024c), metallic packaging achieved around 76.9% (Statistics Eurostat, 2024a), while glass packaging stopped at 75.6% (Statistics Eurostat, 2024b). Although plastic packaging does not constitute most of the total waste, the significant per capita increase over the years, combined with low recycling rates, underscores the urgent need to enhance waste management systems within the EU, as remarked by the growing regulatory pressure. Figure 2 shows the variability in plastic recycling rates across EU countries: Slovakia, Germany, and Slovenia lead with rates exceeding 50%, whereas France, Denmark, and Malta lag behind with rates below 30% (Eurostat, 2023).

Figure 2

Figure 2. The recycling rate of plastic packaging waste in the EU-27 in 2021 (Eurostat, 2022; Eurostat, 2024).

These disparities show that, while some countries have developed more effective recycling systems, others still face significant challenges that must be addressed to reduce these disparities. This requires targeted actions, as highlighted by the European Environment Agency (European Environment Agency, 2023a). The agency points out that many EU member states face challenges in meeting recycling targets due to insufficient infrastructure, inconsistencies in waste collection systems, and a lack of economic incentives for recycling. Furthermore, it emphasizes the need for harmonized approaches across countries, including investments in advanced sorting technologies, stronger enforcement of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, and policies that promote the design of more recyclable packaging materials.

One of the significant challenges facing the packaging industry delves around the concept of recyclability. Recently, the PPWR introduced specific criteria for packaging to be deemed recyclable, providing an initial definition to guide manufacturers in developing sustainable packaging solutions. According to the PPWR (Proposal for a revision of EU legislation on Packaging and Packaging Waste, 2022), packaging can be considered recyclable if:

1) It is designed for recycling.

2) It is efficiently collected.

3) It is sorted into defined waste streams without affecting the recyclability of other waste streams.

4) The resulting recyclates are of sufficient quality to substitute the primary raw materials.

5) It can be recycled at scale

The ability of recyclates—particularly plastics—to replace primary raw materials is often limited by their quality. During the recycling process, plastics are exposed to heat, pressure, and mechanical stress, which can degrade their physical properties. According to (Golkaram et al., 2022), the properties of recycled materials are heavily influenced by factors such as plastic-type, recycling method, and contamination levels in the waste stream. As a result, these material changes often restrict the use of recyclates to lower-performance applications, as the higher quality required for more demanding uses, such as in automotive or construction, cannot be achieved. Recyclability, however, extends beyond mere technical feasibility. There must be consumer access to recycling programs, recyclers must be capable of processing the material, there must be a market for the recycled product, and the performance of recyclates must be comparable to that of virgin materials. Furthermore, innovative materials need to demonstrate that they can be collected and sorted in sufficient quantities and must be compatible with existing recycling systems. The product must be made from plastic that is collected for recycling, has market value, and/or is supported by a legislatively mandated program.

In response to escalating environmental challenges, the EU has intensified its efforts to advance the circular economy and boost plastic recycling rates. The European Green Deal and the CEAP are central to reducing plastic waste and improving recycling infrastructure across member states. These policies aim to curb the use of virgin plastics and foster innovation in recycling systems, driving cross-sectoral collaboration towards ambitious sustainability goals. They gained further momentum after the Chinese government implemented the “National Sword” policy in 2018, which effectively banned the import of plastic waste from foreign countries. This decision marked a turning point in global waste management, forcing developed nations, including European countries, to reconsider their reliance on waste exports. Between 2016 and 2018, plastic waste exports from the EU to China plummeted by around 95% boiling down to about 50 thousand tons (Brooks et al., 2018; Eurostat, 2020). This sudden shift put immense pressure on European recycling systems, exposing their limitations and accelerating the adoption of increasingly ambitious circular economy policies. In this regard, the PPWR aims to significantly reduce the environmental footprint of packaging, with an emphasis on plastic packaging. The regulation sets out targets for the reduction of packaging waste, reuse of materials, improvement of recycling rates, and increased recycled content in packaging products, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Table 4. Targets for reduction, reuse, recycling, and recycled content in the PPWR (Proposal for a revision of EU legislation on Packaging and Packaging Waste, 2022).

Moreover, recycling targets for packaging waste with specific additional targets for materials contained in packaging waste are defined in the PPWR. These targets are shown in Table 5.

Table 5

Table 5. Recycling targets in the PPWR for packaging waste and specific materials contained in packaging waste (Proposal for a revision of EU legislation on Packaging and Packaging Waste, 2022; European Commission, 2024). Targets are expressed in percentages by weight.

Reaching these targets is inherently demanding, and several member states have been identified as at risk of missing them (Amicarelli et al., 2024). In this context, Amicarelli et al. (2024) investigated the waste management of water-packaging in Italy, which has the largest consumption in the EU and the second largest worldwide, generating 1,311 kt of water-packaging waste per year. Beyond the environmental concerns raised, the authors emphasized that additional strategies must be implemented to meet regulatory requirements, such as replacing heavy bottles with lighter ones, particularly in the glass sector. Furthermore, the study highlights the role of public authorities in promoting tap-water programs, as replacing packaged water with tap water is the only effective strategy to eliminate material consumption and waste production, thereby aiding the country in achieving these targets.

4.2.1 Recycling systems for plastic packaging

After food plastic packaging materials have fulfilled their purpose, they are discarded and become post-consumer waste (PCW). Managing this waste stream is complex, primarily due to the wide variety of plastic types and the specialized processes required for their effective recovery and reuse. PCW is far more complex than post-industrial waste, which is generated during production and is typically more homogeneous, higher-quality grades, and easier to recycle (Ragaert et al., 2017; Schmidt et al., 2021). PCW consists of a diverse range of materials collected after product use, making it significantly more challenging to process (Lange, 2021). This challenge is further compounded by contamination, polymer degradation, the presence of additives, and the mixture of immiscible polymers, which negatively affect key properties like color, odor, and mechanical performance of the recycled material (Schmidt et al., 2021). European countries have developed different PCW management systems, which can vary significantly from country to country and internally between regions/municipalities of the same country (Ahmad et al., 2018; Tsimnadis and Kyriakopoulos, 2024). These variations in collection models, regulations, and infrastructure lead to inconsistencies in recycling rates and the quality of recovered materials (Tsimnadis and Kyriakopoulos, 2024). Addressing these issues requires effective collaboration among governments, municipalities, industries, experts, and the public, ensuring that all parties work together to improve the overall management of municipal solid waste (Soltani et al., 2015).

Recycling of post-consumer plastic packaging waste is conducted in three steps: collection, sorting, and reprocessing. The first step, collection, involves gathering plastic waste via different schemes, typically through “drop-off systems” or curbside collection programs (Ncube et al., 2021). The effectiveness of separate collection is significantly influenced by consumer participation (Thoden van Velzen et al., 2019). High response rates, driven by convenience, awareness, and incentives, are essential for achieving accurate sorting of waste and maximizing the efficiency of recycling systems. Collection rates exhibit high variability among EU countries. For instance, Lombardi et al. (2021) reported a difference in separate collection rates between Italy (53%) and the Netherlands (25%), highlighting the need for the expansion and qualitative improvement of packaging waste collection systems, especially in light of the increased recycling targets mandated by the EU.

Sorting follows as a distinct and challenging phase, requiring the categorization of materials based on type and quality, often hindered by a lack of specific waste streams according to the origin of packaging materials. Currently, plastic sorting relies on a combination of automated systems and manual intervention. Near-infrared (NIR) scanning is used to identify different polymer types, while optical systems separate plastics based on transparency and color. Effective sorting is vital, as contamination of key polymers like PET and HDPE with incompatible materials can severely hinder closed-loop recycling (Lange, 2021). Such contaminants lower the quality of recycled plastics, making it difficult to reuse them in new packaging or other food-grade products (Lange, 2021). To enhance sorting accuracy, complementary techniques such as X-ray scanning, density-based separation, electrostatics sorting, melting point detection, and fluorescent dye systems are also employed, with manual sorting playing a role in fine-tuning the process (Schyns and Shaver, 2021). It is estimated that the absence of dedicated material streams during collection and inadequate sorting limits the recycling industry’s efficiency, with operations running at only 40% of their potential capacity (Ncube et al., 2021). After collection and sorting, plastic materials are sent to specialized recycling plants for further processing. The existing recycling methods for plastics are typically categorized into four main types (Beghetto et al., 2021; Conesa et al., 2021; Ncube et al., 2021) as shown in Figure 3. Landfill disposal adds to these management pathways for plastic packaging waste.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Management pathways for plastic packaging waste, from recycling (primary to quaternary) to landfill disposal.

Primary recycling involves reintroducing pre-consumer waste, such as shredded plastics and industrial scrap, back into the extrusion cycle to produce new products made from the same material. This method allows manufacturers to reuse plastic waste from their production processes, leveraging uncontaminated, single-type polymers with properties close to virgin material (Singh et al., 2017), potentially supporting the circular economy by reducing the demand for new raw materials. For instance, both PET and HDPE are often recycled into new bottles or containers that serve the same purpose as those made from virgin plastic (Ncube et al., 2021). However, the efficiency of primary recycling still depends on careful sorting and cleaning of materials to ensure the quality of the recycled product.

Secondary recycling, or mechanical recycling, is the main and most widely used technology for plastic packaging (food and non-food) recycling and is focused on the three dominant packaging polymers: PE, PP, and PET (Lange, 2021). It consists of several steps: collection, screening, automatic or manual sorting, washing, shredding, extrusion, and granulation. This method enables the recycling of plastics waste for its use in various applications. Typically, due to the heterogenous composition as well as polymer degradation during its lifetime and reprocessing, these recycled plastics are used in lower-grade products (Lange, 2021). As an example, recovered HDPE from milk bottles can be repurposed to make items like crates and bins, while PP from yogurt containers can be recycled into consumer products such as toothbrushes (Ncube et al., 2021). PET has historically been an extensively studied polymer in the field of mechanical recycling, with a substantial body of research focused on enhancing its recyclability and recovery potential. The study of La Mantia and Vinci (1994) established a comprehensive understanding of PET’s behavior and properties throughout the recycling and recovery processes. The authors examined the maximum number of extrusion cycles PET can endure before becoming unsuitable for further reuse, revealing significant degradation in its mechanical properties over multiple recycling cycles. Their work also identified key factors limiting the long-term recyclability of PET, such as polymer chain degradation and contamination. Building on these insights, recent scientific efforts have been directed toward improving the mechanical and functional properties of mechanically recycled PET, particularly in food packaging applications. Masmoudi et al. (2020) explored the potential of blending virgin and recycled PET to achieve an optimal formulation for use in food contact materials. Their study demonstrated that a blend containing 30% recycled PET, and 70% virgin polymer exhibited the best balance between sustainability and performance (mechanical and thermal properties). Additionally, migration tests performed on the final product confirmed its compliance with EU regulations, validating its suitability for use in food packaging (Masmoudi et al., 2020). Research is also focusing on advancements in sorting, cleaning, and processing techniques. These innovations aim to further enhance PET’s recyclability, improve its circularity, and boost its performance in recycled applications, ensuring a more sustainable future for this material.

Tertiary recycling, or chemical recycling, is an advanced method for recycling plastic packaging, particularly useful for heterogeneous, complex, and contaminated plastic materials like multilayer packaging (Ragaert et al., 2017). It enables the production of high-purity polymers, making it a viable option for closed-loop recycling of post-consumer food packaging. Chemical recycling encompasses processes that alter the polymer chains to recover monomers or molecules with a low molecular weight (Dogu et al., 2021). These processes modify the polymer structure typically converting it into liquids and gases that can be used as feedstock for the production of new petrochemicals or plastics that are chemically identical to the replaced products (Meys et al., 2020). Chemical recycling avoids the performance degradation typically associated with mechanical recycling of plastics (Meys et al., 2020). Technologies like solvolysis, dissolution/precipitation, and pyrolysis, offer greater flexibility because they can handle difficult-to-recycle plastics. However, these technologies face several challenges. The efficiency of chemical recycling methods is significantly influenced by both the processing conditions and the nature of the feedstock (Dogu et al., 2021). Pyrolysis and gasification are energy-intensive processes that often rely on part of the feedstock as fuel to maintain the necessary reaction conditions, which reduces the overall yield of reusable materials and limits the efficiency of these technologies (Mong et al., 2022). In addition, the effectiveness of these processes depends on the cleanliness and sorting of the feedstock, as the presence of impurities can lower product quality, increase operational costs, and produce hazardous byproducts (Dogu et al., 2021; Shah et al., 2023).

In recent years, chemical recycling has gained momentum, drawing increasing attention from both researchers and industry leaders. Its potential to overcome the limitations of conventional mechanical recycling has made it a focal point for development, especially given its ability to handle complex, hard-to-recycle plastics and to face increasingly stringent sustainability targets such as the recycling rates of 55% imposed by the European Commission (Meys et al., 2020). Despite its potential, in 2022, chemical recycling accounted for just 0.1% of Europe’s total plastics production, highlighting its minimal contribution compared to the 13.2% achieved by mechanical recycling of post-consumer plastics (Plastics Europe, 2024). It is important to note that chemical recycling processes generally require a well-defined, pre-sorted feedstock, which presents a challenge regarding the waste streams they can effectively process. This dependence further limits the scalability and cost-effectiveness of chemical recycling, compared to more established mechanical methods.

In addition to efficiency, recycling systems must be evaluated from an environmental perspective to assess their sustainability. The scientific community remains uncertain about the environmental benefits that chemical recycling may provide compared to mechanical recycling and other waste management strategies, such as energy recovery, depending on the processed plastics. Current evaluations reveal a disconnection between the expected environmental benefits and the actual outcomes associated with chemical recycling, highlighting the need for further investigation. For instance, Shen et al. (2010) indicate that linear recycling pathways for PET through mechanical means present greater environmental advantages than circular pathways involving chemical recycling to convert plastics back into feedstock monomers. Even when mechanically recycled PET is ultimately incinerated, the overall mechanical recycling process tends to have a lower impact on greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption. Moreover, studies demonstrated that a significant volume of well-sorted plastic waste can be efficiently processed through mechanical recycling, retaining properties that are sufficient to substitute for virgin polymers (AITEC, 2008). Thus, while chemical recycling may present advantages in managing challenging materials, the environmental efficacy of this approach should be evaluated case by case. Thus, both mechanical and chemical recycling should be viewed as complementary approaches, with the optimal choice contingent on the specific characteristics of the waste stream and the materials involved.

Quaternary Recycling, also known as energy recovery, involves incinerating plastic waste to produce energy, typically in the form of heat or electricity. While this approach reduces the amount of waste sent to landfills, it is not considered a sustainable option since the plastic materials are not recovered but instead used to produce energy with the consequence of emitting CO₂ and other harmful substances. However, waste-to-energy is often used for plastic materials that cannot be recycled through mechanical or chemical methods.

Despite all the options discussed, the dominant form of waste disposal is landfill. Landfilling is the worst waste management option, although it is considered indispensable for accommodating nonrecyclable and noncombustible waste (Ncube et al., 2021). Due to its cost-effectiveness, around 60% of plastic waste ends up in landfills (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012), contributing to long-term environmental damage. Landfilling rates for plastic waste exhibit significant disparities across Europe (Ragaert et al., 2017). In nations where landfill bans are enforced, such as Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, and Sweden, less than 10% of plastic waste is directed to landfills. Conversely, in countries like Spain and Greece, over 50% of plastic waste is still disposed of in landfills.

4.2.2 Role of packaging design in recyclability and consumer acceptance

In an era where environmental sustainability and circular economy principles are at the forefront of global and EU policies, companies are increasingly urged to redesign their products to reduce environmental impact while adapting to shifting consumer expectations. The design phase plays a pivotal role in this process, influencing the recyclability and overall environmental footprint of the product. Moreover, product design can significantly shape citizen behavior, encouraging more sustainable consumption patterns and proper waste disposal, informing consumers, and facilitating separation and sorting of packaging waste (Nemat et al., 2020). The introduction, in 2021, of the EPR principle has marked a significant shift in this direction (Directive (EU), 2018). This regulation extends the responsibility of “producers” beyond just manufacturing, requiring them to ensure the sustainability of their products throughout the entire lifecycle, from design to disposal (Directive (EU), 2018). Notably, the definition of “producer” includes not only manufacturers but also those who first introduce a product into the European market, such as e-commerce platforms, marketplaces, and importers. This increase further the relevance of the design phase, as it must consider recyclability and minimize environmental impact right from the outset. According to Ahmad et al. (2018), the design phase determines about 80% of the environmental impact, being the most influential phase of the entire life cycle. Sustainable design not only facilitates proper waste management and recycling but also helps reduce costs, which are shared among different stakeholders under the EPR framework. Food plastic packaging represents a particularly challenging case, as it is designed to meet strict requirements aimed at extending the shelf life of products while ensuring high standards of quality, safety, and hygiene (Hahladakis and Iacovidou, 2018).

Regulations can serve as a crucial catalyst for driving innovation within the industry, pushing companies to rethink packaging solutions to meet increasingly ambitious environmental targets while maintaining product functionality and consumer appeal. A clear example of this is Directive (EU) 2019/904 on SUP, which mandates that plastic caps and lids remain attached to beverage containers. This regulation aims not only to reduce plastic litter, particularly small components like caps but also to enhance the overall recyclability of packaging. The design choices made by manufacturers can either facilitate or hinder the recycling process, depending on factors such as material selection and how these materials are combined, the inclusion of labels or adhesives, and the overall structure of the packaging. Designing with mono-materials instead of multi-layered ones, for instance, simplifies recycling (Zhu et al., 2022), as it eliminates the need to separate different components. Additionally, choosing sizes, colors, adhesives, and materials that are compatible with recycling processes can further enhance the recyclability of packaging and improve the quality of recycled materials. Today, approximately 10%–11% of PET, PP, and PE plastics used in packaging are black or dark in color, which is a challenge for sorting plants using NIR spectroscopy scanners, as these instruments struggle to detect them (Eriksen and Astrup, 2019).

Moreover, packaging design significantly influences consumer purchasing decisions. Packaging that is not only aesthetically appealing but also functional and sustainable enhances brand perception and fosters purchasing intention (Steenis, 2019). The everyday choices and behaviors of private consumers play a key role in this system (Borrello et al., 2020). Although product end-of-life responsibility is shared across the value chain, the system’s effectiveness depends on consumers properly separating and disposing of waste. Well-designed packaging can make this process easier, increasing public acceptance and encouraging responsible behavior (Nemat et al., 2019). Today’s consumers, who are increasingly aware of the environmental impact of their choices, tend to prefer products with packaging that is clearly labeled as recyclable or made from recycled materials (Rokka and Uusitalo, 2008). Eco-labels that highlight a brand’s sustainability efforts build consumer trust (Taufique et al., 2017). In an age of growing environmental awareness, companies that communicate transparency and commitment to sustainability gain a competitive advantage.

4.2.3 Barriers and challenges of plastic recycling

Although post-consumer plastic waste recycling is increasingly promoted as a means to achieve a circular economy in Europe, it faces significant challenges due to technical, economic, and structural limitations (Vogt et al., 2021). Substantial improvements are needed in the upstream phases of the recycling chain, such as collection and sorting systems (Antonopoulos et al., 2021; Friedrich et al., 2021), which determine to a large extent the final quality of secondary raw materials (Hahladakis and Iacovidou, 2019). The choice of sorting method and its efficiency are strongly shaped by the origin of the plastic streams. The source impacts not only the level of contamination but also influences the selection of the most appropriate sorting techniques to ensure effective processing. Plastic waste sourced from households typically exhibits higher contamination levels than that from industrial or commercial sources, thereby complicating the recycling process (Lubongo and Alexandridis, 2022). Industry professionals also highlight hurdles in the automatic sorting of tanglers, films, black (or dark) plastics, and plastic objects composed of multiple polymers or polymer blends (Ragaert et al., 2017; Lubongo and Alexandridis, 2022). Manual sorting, while an alternative, is constrained by throughput limitations (expensive in time and costs). Consequently, sorting technologies such as NIR are often coupled with various physical sorting machines to ensure high purity levels, particularly for high-value plastics such as clear PET and HDPE (Hahladakis and Iacovidou, 2019). Additionally, manual sorting can be also replaced by AI-based sorting systems to enhance efficiency and accuracy (Bernat, 2023).

From an economic perspective, the high costs of recycled materials, driven by complex recycling processes and the limited availability of high-quality waste, combined with constrained demand, represent significant obstacles to their competitiveness (Miller et al., 2014). Figure 4 illustrates how food-grade recycled PET (rPET) prices consistently exceed those of virgin PET over the analyzed period (2020–2024), even during spikes in crude oil prices caused pandemic-related disruptions and geopolitical tensions, such as those related to the Russia-Ukraine war (Zhang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2024).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Prices in the EU market of virgin PET versus food-grade rPET from January 2020 to October 2024 (Businessanalytiq, 2024a; Businessanalytiq, 2024b).

This price gaps, particularly pronounced during the 2022 and 2023 peaks, underscore the economic challenges recycled PET faces in competing with virgin plastics. For example, in June 2022, the cost of a ton of virgin PET in the EU was around $1.770, while food-grade rPET reached around $3.630. Despite regulations aim to increase recycled content in packaging with the PPWR targets, the recycled plastic market remains constrained by high production costs and strong competition from cheaper virgin materials (Pohjakallio, 2020).

Moreover, waste collection and sorting infrastructures vary considerably among EU member states and within regions of the same country. This fragmentation in collection and recycling methods hamper the effective realization of a circular economy system at the EU level. Companies face barriers in developing packaging solutions that can be recycled at scale, as significant incompatibility between waste management infrastructures across the EU persists, making it challenging to achieve high recycling rates even for traditional packaging. In many areas, existing recycling facilities are not sufficiently developed to handle the growing volumes of plastic waste, nor do they have the most advanced technologies to ensure high-quality recycling (Horodytska et al., 2022). For instance, as a result of these economic and technical challenges, nowadays only clear, or even translucent, PET is recovered and recycled, due to its high marketability (economic value) and flexibility to be easily recycled into new products and/or dyed (technical value) (Sarda et al., 2022). Colored plastics, in particular, are considered to have a lower market value because of their inability to be dyed into other colors. They are primarily used to produce darker shades or black plastic, which makes it difficult for recyclers to compete with the virgin material market. However, advanced recycling methods, such as dissolution or other forms of chemical recycling, could help addressing this challenge. These techniques can separate pigments and contaminants, enabling the recovery of high-purity polymers that can be reused in a wider range of applications, potentially improving the economic viability of recycling-colored plastics.

5 Future directions and opportunities

Overall, while continuing to improve the functionalities that a packaging solution must have, two coexisting factors are considered for innovation in packaging use: sustainability and cost-effectiveness. FBOs primarily aim to enhance efficiency in terms of costs and resource utilization, while maintaining a strong focus on consumer health and safety (Cammarelle et al., 2021; Yan et al., 2022; Kishore et al., 2024). Indeed, food safety should be seen as including both innovation and sustainable processes (Varghese et al., 2022). To achieve these improvements, significant efforts are directed towards advancing food packaging, particularly through the design of new solutions. Despite design being only the first brick of the packaging value chain, its effects on all subsequent stages are substantial. It ensures that packaging meets the current needs of both FBOs and consumers, as well as close the loop and provide the basis for new life for packaging waste. This is because the modern retail organization and structure of supply chains necessitates products with extended shelf-life, which often relies on advancements in processing and packaging techniques (Poças and do Céu Selbourne, 2023). Fresh produce and vegetables exemplify this trend, as there has been a significant increase in packaging use within general markets. Consequently, innovation places high demands and attention on research toward packaging design, as the development of new packaging solutions aims not only to extend shelf life, maintain the freshness of food products, and reduce food waste, but also to optimize supply chain logistics and improve overall operational efficiency (Pandiselvam and Nevárez-Moorillón, 2023; Hussain et al., 2024).

Advancements are proceeding toward intelligent packaging, active packaging, vacuum packaging and modified atmosphere packaging systems, which help to enhance these functionalities while trying to meet quality and safety requirements (Geyer et al., 2017; Ayoub et al., 2018; Gündoğdu et al., 2024). This includes improving barrier properties (e.g., oxygen, moisture, UV radiation) and adding active components into the packaging that interact with food to preserve its organoleptic characteristics (Fadiji and Pathare, 2023). Edible coatings are an example of active and intelligent packaging being investigated, as they can incorporate antimicrobial agents and antioxidants to suppress lipid oxidation and microbial activity, thereby extending shelf life and preserving food (Yaashikaa et al., 2023). Ongoing research in the field is uncovering the effects of active components on human health (Chan, 2022; Pandiselvam and Nevárez-Moorillón, 2023), for instance nanoparticles (Salgado et al., 2021), and in preventing additives in food coatings and films from altering the sensory appeal, physical attributes, or chemical characteristics of the food product (Yaashikaa et al., 2023). The latter aspect is of major importance in increasing consumer acceptance of new packaging alternatives.

Nonetheless, considering the packaging and its lifecycle, it is pivotal to trace and track it to build a circular environment (Ringsberg, 2014; Clark et al., 2019); this is also a requirement of regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 concerning food contact materials. Multiple stakeholders benefit from comprehensive packaging traceability, depending on the type of packaging they are dealing with: the food industry can enhance recall effectiveness and ensure sustainable procurement; logistics providers can enhance service quality through proper storage, handling, and distribution of food according to specific needs, such as refrigeration; and consumers can gain insights into the food’s origin through labeling (Morashti et al., 2022; Zhou and Xu, 2022).

Technological solutions currently available facilitate packaging tracking from production to disposal. Advanced coding and tracking systems, such as QR codes, smart labels, RFID tags, and near-field communication chips are integrated into the packaging to provide detailed information about the product’s origin, processing, and distribution. This allows consumers to make informed choices (Wang and Li, 2006; Machado et al., 2019; Violino et al., 2019; Gegeckienė et al., 2022). These systems enhance traceability (Müller and Schmid, 2019) and are appropriate for packaging reusability (Ellsworth-Krebs et al., 2022), as they show excellent durability against repeated washing and heating (Hakola et al., 2024). Novel digital watermarks are also emerging as a powerful technology to enhance packaging recycling (Digital Watermarks Initiative, 2023), particularly plastic packaging. They consist of codes printed on the packaging surface, invisible to the human eye but detectable by cameras. Codes can carry extensive information about the packaging and its contents (Sharma, 2016), such as the manufacturer, product SKU, plastic-type, composition for multi-layer packaging, and intended use, whether for food or non-food applications. This information allows for accurate packaging identification and enables it to be directed to the appropriate waste stream upon entering a sorting facility, for instance, separating packaging for food and non-food applications. The result is higher quality recyclates to produce new packaging. Digital watermarks are particularly appealing due to their cost-effectiveness compared to RFID tags, and due to their anti-counterfeit capabilities, which offer an advantage over already cost-efficient QR codes (Nguyen et al., 2019).

The efforts to increase and innovate packaging traceability along the supply chain jointly contribute to strengthening the sustainability line, advancing the circular economy in the EU, and enabling the PPWR reuse and recycling targets to be met. Furthermore, to increase packaging recyclability and meet regulatory targets, mono-materials are being explored as a potential replacement for multi-layer systems. According to Carullo et al. (2023), several converters are adopting this strategy. In their study, the authors compared the functional properties (barrier properties, heat sealability, and mechanical performance) of a fully recyclable PE-based packaging with other marketed multi-layer solutions. This comparison was supplemented with a life cycle assessment to evaluate the environmental profiles of all solutions. Results showed that the mono-material solution had similar or enhanced functional properties of multi-layer packaging, with a generally lower environmental impact.

However, there is a need to incentivize companies to adopt sustainable packaging solutions and practices to help them overcome financial barriers, which are often encountered during the initial stages of industrial implementation. As a fact, the cost of greener packaging solutions is still an impediment to the adoption of newer alternatives. Yang et al. (2024) discussed how a combination of dynamic rewards (e.g., tax incentives, subsidies, or direct financial support) and penalties (e.g., fines, fees) lead to steadier adoption rates of green packaging by logistics companies. Collaboration among stakeholders is the most significant element in overcoming the challenges of the whole packaging industry, as the transition to circular economy practices occurs at different speeds and levels across the supply chain (Salvioni and Almici, 2020). Although sustainable practices are viewed differently depending on the perspective of different actors - which affect implementation choices - packaging companies have moved from unilateral solutions to system-wide interventions (Maione et al., 2022). The integration of upstream and downstream circular solutions over time exemplifies this systemic shift. As reported by Maione et al. (2022), brand owners, distributors or users have shown growing interest in downstream solutions and have engaged in the end-of-life management of their packaging waste. In addition, new stakeholder configurations are emerging, as companies covering upstream functions (e.g., raw material producers) of the value chain have become prominent plastic recyclers by converting part of their operations (Maione et al., 2022). This highlights the effectiveness of the systemic vision in creating new market opportunities and implementing novel technologies, but most importantly in achieving concrete development for the industry.

Author contributions

LO: Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Visualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. AP: Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization, Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. GM: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing–original draft. AG: Visualization, Investigation, Writing–review and editing. LG: Writing–review and editing. WH: Writing–review and editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This manuscript is published as part of the project “CONQUERING NEW STRATEGIES TO PREVENT AND REDUCE PACKAGING POLLUTION (MAGNO)” under a Creative Common Public Domain Dedication. MAGNO has been funded by the European Research Executive Agency (REA) under the Horizon Europe programme, grant number 101135258. Funded by the European Union.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all MAGNO project partners for their collaboration and support, with special thanks to Phil Rosenow, Juan Antonio Pavón Losada, and Ignacio Fernández-Pacheco Ruiz for their valuable contributions throughout the project. The authors are grateful to the Research Executive Agency and the European Union for funding this research.

Conflict of interest

Authors LO, AP, and GM were employed by DNV Business Assurance Italy S.r.l. Author AG was employed by DNV Business Assurance Italy S.r.l. Author LG was employed by HOLOSS–Holistic and Ontological Solutions for Sustainability.

The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Author disclaimer

Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or REA. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

Abbreviations

CEAP, Circular Economy Action Plan; EPR, Extended Producer Responsibility; FBOs, Food Business Operators; FCMs, Food Contact Materials; F&B, Food and Beverage; FIC, Food Information to Consumers; MCDM, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making; NIR, Near-Infrared; PCW, Post-Consumer Waste; PPWD, Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive; PPWR, Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation; SCM, Supply Chain Management; SUP, Single-Use Plastics; TTIs, Time-Temperature Indicators; RFID, Radio-Frequency Identification.

References

Abbate, S., Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Giardino, G., and Passaro, R. (2023). Coming out the egg: assessing the benefits of circular economy strategies in agri-food industry. J. Clean. Prod. 385, 135665. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135665

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Abekoon, T., Buthpitiya, B. L. S. K., Sajindra, H., Samarakoon, E. R. J., Jayakody, J. A. D. C. A., Kantamaneni, K., et al. (2024). A comprehensive review to evaluate the synergy of intelligent food packaging with modern food technology and artificial intelligence field. Discov. Sustain 5, 160. doi:10.1007/s43621-024-00371-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ada, E., Kazancoglu, Y., Gozacan-Chase, N., and Altin, O. (2023). Challenges for circular food packaging: circular resources utilization. Appl. Food Res. 3, 100310. doi:10.1016/j.afres.2023.100310

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Afif, K., Rebolledo, C., and Roy, J. (2022). Drivers, barriers and performance outcomes of sustainable packaging: a systematic literature review. Br. Food J. 124, 915–935. doi:10.1108/BFJ-02-2021-0150

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Agarwal, A., Shaida, B., Rastogi, M., and Singh, N. B. (2023). Food packaging materials with special reference to biopolymers-properties and applications. Chem. Afr. 6, 117–144. doi:10.1007/s42250-022-00446-w

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahmad, S., Wong, K. Y., Tseng, M. L., and Wong, W. P. (2018). Sustainable product design and development: a review of tools, applications and research prospects. Resour. Conservation Recycl. 132, 49–61. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.020

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

AITEC (2008). Resource savings and CO2 reduction potential in waste management in Europe and the possible contribution to the CO2 reduction target in 2020. Available at: https://www.aitecweb.com/Portals/1/Repository/Pubblico/Area%20Tecnica/Pubblicazioni/Resource_savings_and_CO2_reduction_potential_in_waste_management_in_Europe_and_the_possible_contribu.pdf?ver=4P2FcxD0YY4nRIK7fF3e3A%3D%3D (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

Alamri, M. S., Qasem, A. A. A., Mohamed, A. A., Hussain, S., Ibraheem, M. A., Shamlan, G., et al. (2021). Food packaging’s materials: a food safety perspective. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 28, 4490–4499. doi:10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.04.047

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Albizzati, P. F., Cristobal, G. J., Antonopoulos, I., Egle, L., Foster, G., Gaudillat, P., et al. (2023). Harmonised labelling of waste receptacles with matching product labels. JRC Publ. Repos. doi:10.2760/09021

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Albu, A. G., and Chitu, I. B. (2012). The European ecolabel – advantages and perspectives for development in Romania. Bull. Transilvania Univ. Brasov. Ser. V Econ. Sci., 9–14.

Google Scholar

Amicarelli, V., Rana, R. L., Lombardi, M., Fellner, J., Tricase, C., and Bux, C. (2024). Material flow analysis and carbon footprint of water-packaging waste management. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 106, 107517. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107517

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anand, S., and Barua, M. K. (2022). Modeling the key factors leading to post-harvest loss and waste of fruits and vegetables in the agri-fresh produce supply chain. Comput. Electron. Agric. 198, 106936. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2022.106936

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Antonopoulos, I., Faraca, G., and Tonini, D. (2021). Recycling of post-consumer plastic packaging waste in the EU: recovery rates, material flows, and barriers. Waste Manag. 126, 694–705. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2021.04.002

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ayoub, A., Hameed, F., and Bandral, J. D. (2018). Food packaging technology and its emerging trends: a review. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 7, 3363–3378. doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2018.710.390

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Beghetto, V., Sole, R., Buranello, C., Al-Abkal, M., and Facchin, M. (2021). Recent advancements in plastic packaging recycling: a mini-review. Materials 14, 4782. doi:10.3390/ma14174782

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bernat, K. (2023). Post-consumer plastic waste management: from collection and sortation to mechanical recycling. Energies 16, 3504. doi:10.3390/en16083504

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bharti, A. (2020). “Supply chain management and strategy implementation for perishable goods,” in Supply Chain and logistics management: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications, (IGI global), 284–302. doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-0945-6.ch014

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bishop, C., and Hanney, S. (2008). “Environmentally compatible packaging of fresh agricultural and horticultural produce,” in Environmentally compatible food packaging. Editor E. Chiellini (Writtle College, United Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing), 459–477. doi:10.1533/9781845694784.3.459

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Borrello, M., Pascucci, S., Caracciolo, F., Lombardi, A., and Cembalo, L. (2020). Consumers are willing to participate in circular business models: a practice theory perspective to food provisioning. J. Clean. Prod. 259, 121013. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Boz, Z., Korhonen, V., and Koelsch Sand, C. (2020). Consumer considerations for the implementation of sustainable packaging: a review. Sustainability 12, 2192. doi:10.3390/su12062192

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brooks, A. L., Wang, S., and Jambeck, J. R. (2018). The Chinese import ban and its impact on global plastic waste trade. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat0131. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat0131

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Businessanalytiq (2024a). Businessanalytiq food-grade rPET price index. Available at: https://businessanalytiq.com/procurementanalytics/index/rpet-food-grade-price-index/(Accessed December 7, 2024).

Google Scholar

Businessanalytiq (2024b). Businessanalytiq | PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) price index. Available at: https://businessanalytiq.com/procurementanalytics/index/pet-price-index/(Accessed December 7, 2024).

Google Scholar

Cammarelle, A., Bimbo, F., Lombardi, M., and Viscecchia, R. (2021). “Health and eco-innovations in food packaging,” in Sustainable packaging. Editor S. S. Muthu (Singapore: Springer), 31–70. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4609-6_2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cano, J. A., Londoño-Pineda, A., and Rodas, C. (2022). Sustainable logistics for E-commerce: a literature review and bibliometric analysis. Sustainability 14, 12247. doi:10.3390/su141912247

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carullo, D., Casson, A., Rovera, C., Ghaani, M., Bellesia, T., Guidetti, R., et al. (2023). Testing a coated PE-based mono-material for food packaging applications: an in-depth performance comparison with conventional multi-layer configurations. Food Packag. Shelf Life 39, 101143. doi:10.1016/j.fpsl.2023.101143

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Catherine, S., Barbara, R., Simone, G., Eddo, H., Anja, M., Filipe, A. L. J., et al. (2016). Non-harmonised food contact materials in the EU: regulatory and market situation: BASELINE STUDY: final report | Policy Commons. Available at: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/2163967/non-harmonised-food-contact-materials-in-the-eu/2919590/(Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

Chamas, A., Moon, H., Zheng, J., Qiu, Y., Tabassum, T., Jang, J. H., et al. (2020). Degradation rates of plastics in the environment. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8, 3494–3511. doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b06635

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chan, R. B. Y. (2022). A review of packaging-related studies in the context of household food waste: drivers, solutions and avenues for future research. Packag. Technol. Sci. 35, 3–51. doi:10.1002/pts.2611

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chanda, S., Bhat, M., Shetty, K. G., and Jayachandran, K. (2021). Technology, policy, and market adaptation mechanisms for sustainable fresh produce industry: the case of tomato production in Florida, USA. Sustainability 13, 5933. doi:10.3390/su13115933

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, S., Brahma, S., Mackay, J., Cao, C., and Aliakbarian, B. (2020). The role of smart packaging system in food supply chain. J. Food Sci. 85, 517–525. doi:10.1111/1750-3841.15046

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Clark, N., Trimingham, R., and Storer, I. (2019). Understanding the views of the UK food packaging supply chain in order to support a move to circular economy systems. Packag. Technol. Sci. 32, 577–591. doi:10.1002/pts.2474

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Coles, R., McDowell, D., and Kirwan, M. J. (2003). Food packaging technology.

Google Scholar

Commission Regulation (EC) (2008). No 2023/2006 of 22 December 2006 on good manufacturing practice for materials and articles intended to come into contact with food. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2006/2023/2008-04-17/eng (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

Commission Regulation (EU) (2022). 2022/1616 of 15 September 2022 on recycled plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foods. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1616/2022-09-20/eng (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

Conesa, J. A., Nuñez, S. S., Ortuño, N., and Moltó, J. (2021). PAH and POP presence in plastic waste and recyclates: state of the art. Energies 14, 3451. doi:10.3390/en14123451

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

de Castro Moura Duarte, A. L., Picanço Rodrigues, V., and Bonome Message Costa, L. (2024). The sustainability challenges of fresh food supply chains: an integrative framework. Environ. Dev. Sustain. doi:10.1007/s10668-024-04850-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

De Koeijer, B., De Lange, J., and Wever, R. (2017). Desired, perceived, and achieved sustainability: trade-offs in strategic and operational packaging development. Sustainability 9, 1923. doi:10.3390/su9101923

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

De Pilli, T., Baiano, A., Lopriore, G., Russo, C., and Cappelletti, G. M. (2021). “An overview on the environmental impact of food packaging,” in Sustainable innovations in food packaging. Editors T. De Pilli, A. Baiano, G. Lopriore, C. Russo, and G. M. Cappelletti (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 1–14. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80936-2_1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dey, A., Dhumal, C. V., Sengupta, P., Kumar, A., Pramanik, N. K., and Alam, T. (2021). Challenges and possible solutions to mitigate the problems of single-use plastics used for packaging food items: a review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 58, 3251–3269. doi:10.1007/s13197-020-04885-6

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dey, S., Veerendra, G. T. N., Babu, P. S. S. A., Manoj, A. V. P., and Nagarjuna, K. (2024). Degradation of plastics waste and its effects on biological ecosystems: a scientific analysis and comprehensive review. Biomed. Mater. and Devices 2, 70–112. doi:10.1007/s44174-023-00085-w

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Digital Watermarks Initiative (2023). HolyGrail 2.0, driven by AIM - European brands association and powered by the alliance to end plastic waste. Available at: https://www.digitalwatermarks.eu (Accessed September 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

Directive (EU) (2018). 2018/852 of the European parliament and of the Council of 30 may 2018. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/852/oj/eng (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

Directive (EU) (2019). 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/oj (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

Dogu, O., Pelucchi, M., Van de Vijver, R., Van Steenberge, P. H. M., D’hooge, D. R., Cuoci, A., et al. (2021). The chemistry of chemical recycling of solid plastic waste via pyrolysis and gasification: state-of-the-art, challenges, and future directions. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 84, 100901. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2020.100901

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dörnyei, K. R., Uysal-Unalan, I., Krauter, V., Weinrich, R., Incarnato, L., Karlovits, I., et al. (2023). Sustainable food packaging: an updated definition following a holistic approach. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2023.1119052

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) Silano, V., Barat Baviera, J. M., Bolognesi, C., Chesson, A., Cocconcelli, P. S., et al. (2020). Review and priority setting for substances that are listed without a specific migration limit in Table 1 of Annex 1 of Regulation 10/2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food. Available at: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/6124 (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

Ellsworth-Krebs, K., Rampen, C., Rogers, E., Dudley, L., and Wishart, L. (2022). Circular economy infrastructure: why we need track and trace for reusable packaging. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 29, 249–258. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.10.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Eriksen, M. K., and Astrup, T. F. (2019). Characterisation of source-separated, rigid plastic waste and evaluation of recycling initiatives: effects of product design and source-separation system. Waste Manag. 87, 161–172. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2019.02.006

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Escursell, S., Llorach-Massana, P., and Roncero, M. B. (2021). Sustainability in e-commerce packaging: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 280, 124314. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124314

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

European Commission (2018). Plastics strategy. Available at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/plastics-strategy_en (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

European Commission (2020). Circular economy action plan. Available at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en (Accessed September 16, 2024).

Google Scholar

European Commission (2023). Packaging and packaging waste directive (PPWD) - directive (EU) 2018/852 | circular cities and regions initiative. Available at: https://circular-cities-and-regions.ec.europa.eu/support-materials/eu-regulations-legislation/packaging-and-packaging-waste-directive-ppwd-directive (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

European Commission (2024). Packaging waste. Available at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/packaging-waste_en (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

European Council (2024). Council of the European union | packaging. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/packaging/(Accessed December 5, 2024).

Google Scholar

European Environment Agency (2023a). European Environment Agency | Many EU Member States not on track to meet recycling targets for municipal waste and packaging waste. Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/many-eu-member-states/many-eu-member-states-not (Accessed December 7, 2024).

Google Scholar

European Environment Agency (2023b). Nearly 40 percent of plastic demand comes from the production of plastic packaging. Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/maps-and-charts/nearly-40-percent-of-plastic (Accessed October 15, 2024).

Google Scholar

European Parliament (2018). Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01994L0062-20180704.

Google Scholar

European Parliament (2024a). European parliament | think tank - revision of the packaging and packaging waste directive. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2023)745707 (Accessed December 5, 2024).

Google Scholar

European Parliament (2024b). How the EU wants to achieve a circular economy by 2050. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20210128STO96607/how-the-eu-wants-to-achieve-a-circular-economy-by-2050 (Accessed September 16, 2024).

Google Scholar

European Union (2024). European union | types of legislation. Available at: https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law/types-legislation_en (Accessed December 5, 2024).

Google Scholar

Eurostat (2020). EU exports of recyclables to China fallen sharply. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20200709-01 (Accessed October 30, 2024).

Google Scholar

Eurostat (2022). Source dataset - packaging waste by waste management operations. doi:10.2908/ENV_WASPAC

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Eurostat (2023). EU packaging waste generation with record increase. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20231019-1 (Accessed August 22, 2024).

Google Scholar

Eurostat (2024). Packaging waste by waste management operations. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_waspac/default/table?lang=en (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

Fachpack (2024). Fachpack. Available at: https://www.fachpack.de/en/fachpack-360/2024-2/countries-market-report/packaging-market-in-europe-an-overview (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

Fadiji, T., Coetzee, C. J., Berry, T. M., and Opara, U. L. (2019). Investigating the role of geometrical configurations of ventilated fresh produce packaging to improve the mechanical strength – experimental and numerical approaches. Food Packag. Shelf Life 20, 100312. doi:10.1016/j.fpsl.2019.100312

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fadiji, T., and Pathare, P. B. (2023). Technological advancements in food processing and packaging. Processes 11, 2571. doi:10.3390/pr11092571

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Friedrich, K., Koinig, G., Tschiggerl, K., Pomberger, R., and Vollprecht, D. (2021). Challenges to increase plastic sorting efficiency. IJETI 2. doi:10.51626/ijeti.2021.02.00023

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ganeson, K., Mouriya, G. K., Bhubalan, K., Razifah, M. R., Jasmine, R., Sowmiya, S., et al. (2023). Smart packaging − A pragmatic solution to approach sustainable food waste management. Food Packag. Shelf Life 36, 101044. doi:10.1016/j.fpsl.2023.101044

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Garba, A. I. (2023). “Food preservation packaging,” in Food processing and packaging technologies - recent advances (IntechOpen). doi:10.5772/intechopen.110043

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

García-Arca, J., Garrido, A. T. G.-P., and Prado-Prado, J. C. (2017). “Sustainable packaging logistics”. The link between sustainability and competitiveness in supply chains. Sustainability 9, 1098. doi:10.3390/su9071098

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

García-Arca, J., Prado-Prado, J. C., and Gonzalez-Portela Garrido, A. T. (2014). “Packaging logistics”: promoting sustainable efficiency in supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distribution and Logist. Manag. 44, 325–346. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0112

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

García-Flores, R., Allen, S., Gaire, R., Johnstone, P., Yi, D., Johnston, J., et al. (2022). “Understanding and building resilience in food supply chains,” in Food engineering innovations across the food supply chain. Editors P. Juliano, R. Buckow, M. H. Nguyen, K. Knoerzer, and J. Sellahewa (Academic Press), 1–14. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-821292-9.00017-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gardas, B. B., Raut, R. D., and Narkhede, B. (2019). Identifying critical success factors to facilitate reusable plastic packaging towards sustainable supply chain management. J. Environ. Manag. 236, 81–92. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.01.113

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gegeckienė, L., Venytė, I., Karpavičė, J., Tambo, T., Vaitasius, K., and Pauliukaitis, D. (2022). Near field communication (NFC) technology in the packaging industry. GRID 2022 11th Int. symposium Graph. Eng. Des. Novi Sad, 3-5 November 2022 Proc., 495–501. doi:10.24867/GRID-2022-p54

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., and Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700782. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1700782

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gheorghescu, I. C., Velcotă, I. I., Martin, A. R., and Bălan, I. M. (2019). Food waste A major problem in the European union. Lucr. Științifice Manag. Agric. 21, 65.

Google Scholar

Golkaram, M., Mehta, R., Taveau, M., Schwarz, A., Gankema, H., Urbanus, J. H., et al. (2022). Quality model for recycled plastics (QMRP): an indicator for holistic and consistent quality assessment of recycled plastics using product functionality and material properties. J. Clean. Prod. 362, 132311. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132311

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

González-López, M. E., Calva-Estrada, S. de J., Gradilla-Hernández, M. S., and Barajas-Álvarez, P. (2023). Current trends in biopolymers for food packaging: a review. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2023.1225371

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Guillard, V., Gaucel, S., Fornaciari, C., Angellier-Coussy, H., Buche, P., and Gontard, N. (2018). The next generation of sustainable food packaging to preserve our environment in a circular economy context. Front. Nutr. 5, 121. doi:10.3389/fnut.2018.00121

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gündoğdu, S., Bour, A., Köşker, A. R., Walther, B. A., Napierska, D., Mihai, F.-C., et al. (2024). Review of microplastics and chemical risk posed by plastic packaging on the marine environment to inform the Global Plastics Treaty. Sci. Total Environ. 946, 174000. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174000

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hahladakis, J. N., and Iacovidou, E. (2018). Closing the loop on plastic packaging materials: what is quality and how does it affect their circularity? Sci. Total Environ. 630, 1394–1400. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.330

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hahladakis, J. N., and Iacovidou, E. (2019). An overview of the challenges and trade-offs in closing the loop of post-consumer plastic waste (PCPW): focus on recycling. J. Hazard. Mater. 380, 120887. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.120887

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hakola, L., Hakola, E., Palola, S., Tenhunen-Lunkka, A., and Lahtinen, J. (2024). Durable and sustainable smart tags for identity management and condition monitoring: case study for reusable packaging and recyclable data carriers. Packag. Technol. Sci. 37, 107–121. doi:10.1002/pts.2781

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Halonen, N., Pálvölgyi, P. S., Bassani, A., Fiorentini, C., Nair, R., Spigno, G., et al. (2020). Bio-based smart materials for food packaging and sensors – a review. Front. Mater. 7. doi:10.3389/fmats.2020.00082

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hamid, M., Ravichanthiran, K., and Martony, O. (2022). Consumers’ behaviour towards sustainable packaging: a study among the students and alumni of faculty of food science and nutrition universiti Malaysia sabah. Bull. Culin. Art Hosp. 2, 7–19. doi:10.17977/um069v2i12022p7-19

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Han, J. H. (2013). Innovations in food packaging. Available at: https://shop.elsevier.com/books/innovations-in-food-packaging/han/978-0-12-394601-0 (Accessed October 11, 2024).

Google Scholar

Hoornweg, D., and Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: a global review of solid waste management. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10986/17388.

Google Scholar

Horodytska, O., Cabanes, A., and Fullana, A. (2022). “Plastic waste management: current status and weaknesses,” in Plastics in the aquatic environment - Part I: current status and challenges. Editors F. Stock, G. Reifferscheid, N. Brennholt, and E. Kostianaia (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 289–306. doi:10.1007/698_2019_408

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hussain, S., Akhter, R., and S. Maktedar, S. (2024). Advancements in sustainable food packaging: from eco-friendly materials to innovative technologies. Sustain. Food Technol. 2, 1297–1364. doi:10.1039/D4FB00084F

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ilhan, I., Turan, D., Gibson, I., and ten Klooster, R. (2021). Understanding the factors affecting the seal integrity in heat sealed flexible food packages: a review. Packag. Technol. Sci. 34, 321–337. doi:10.1002/pts.2564

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

ISO/IEC (2018). Guide 41:2018(en). Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:guide:41:ed-2:v1:en (Accessed November 25, 2024).

Google Scholar

Jeremić, M., Matkovski, B., Đokić, D., and Jurjević, Ž. (2024). Food loss and food waste along the food supply chain – an international perspective. Probl. Ekorozwoju 19, 81–90. doi:10.35784/preko.5991

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Johansson, O. (2009). On the value of intelligent packaging - a packaging logistics perspective. Lund University. Packaging Logistics.

Google Scholar

Kabadurmus, O., Kayikci, Y., Demir, S., and Koc, B. (2023). A data-driven decision support system with smart packaging in grocery store supply chains during outbreaks. Socio-Economic Plan. Sci. 85, 101417. doi:10.1016/j.seps.2022.101417

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kan, M., and Miller, S. A. (2022). Environmental impacts of plastic packaging of food products. Resour. Conservation Recycl. 180, 106156. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106156

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kaushani, K. G., Rathnasinghe, N. L., Katuwawila, N., Jayasinghe, R. A., Nilmini, A. H. L. R., and Priyadarshana, G. (2022). Trends in smart packaging technologies for sustainable monitoring of food quality and safety. RSIS International. Available at: https://rsisinternational.org/virtual-library/papers/trends-in-smart-packaging-technologies-for-sustainable-monitoring-of-food-quality-and-safety/(Accessed October 11, 2024).

Google Scholar

Kijek, T. (2015). Modelling of eco-innovation diffusion: the EU eco-label. Comp. Econ. Res. Central East. Eur. 18, 65–79. doi:10.1515/cer-2015-0004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kishore, A., S, M. A., Kumar, P., Singh, A., Kumari, K., and Kumar, N. (2024). Innovative packaging strategies for freshness and safety of food products: a review. Packag. Technol. Sci. 37, 399–427. doi:10.1002/pts.2800

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kitinoja, L., Tokala, V. Y., Mohammed, M., and Mahajan, B. V. C. (2021). “Cold chain and its importance—current global status,” in Cold chain management for the fresh produce industry in the developing world (CRC Press).

Google Scholar

La Mantia, F. P., and Vinci, M. (1994). Recycling poly(ethyleneterephthalate). Polym. Degrad. Stab. 45, 121–125. doi:10.1016/0141-3910(94)90187-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lange, J.-P. (2021). Managing plastic Waste─Sorting, recycling, disposal, and product redesign. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 9, 15722–15738. doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c05013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lemos, F. K., and Castro, L. de P. (2021). Food retail as the coordinator agent of food supply chain: challenges and opportunities for reducing loss and waste. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 12, 246–254. doi:10.18461/ijfsd.v12i3.88

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lindh, H., Olsson, A., and Williams, H. (2016). Consumer perceptions of food packaging: contributing to or counteracting environmentally sustainable development? Packag. Technol. Sci. 29, 3–23. doi:10.1002/pts.2184

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lombardi, M., Rana, R., and Fellner, J. (2021). Material flow analysis and sustainability of the Italian plastic packaging management. J. Clean. Prod. 287, 125573. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125573

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lubongo, C., and Alexandridis, P. (2022). Assessment of performance and challenges in use of commercial automated sorting technology for plastic waste. Recycling 7, 11. doi:10.3390/recycling7020011

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Machado, J. G. de C. F., Nantes, J. F. D., and Leonelli, F. C. V. (2019). Do I know what I eat? The use of QR code in food packaging to provide traceability information. Available at: https://ijaers.com/detail/do-i-know-what-i-eat-the-use-of-qr-code-in-food-packaging-to-provide-traceability-information/(Accessed September 23, 2024).

Google Scholar

Maione, C., Lapko, Y., and Trucco, P. (2022). Towards a circular economy for the plastic packaging sector: insights from the Italian case. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 34, 78–89. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2022.09.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Marsh, K., and Bugusu, B. (2007). Food packaging—roles, materials, and environmental issues. J. Food Sci. 72, R39–R55. doi:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00301.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Masmoudi, F., Alix, S., Buet, S., Mehri, A., Bessadok, A., Jaziri, M., et al. (2020). Design and characterization of a new food packaging material by recycling blends virgin and recovered polyethylene terephthalate. Polym. Eng. and Sci. 60, 250–256. doi:10.1002/pen.25278

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mason, N., Flores, H., Villalobos, J. R., and Ahumada, O. (2015). “Planning the planting, harvest, and distribution of fresh horticultural products,” in Handbook of operations research in agriculture and the agri-food industry. Editor L. M. Plà-Aragonés (New York, NY: Springer), 19–54. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2483-7_2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mesa, J. A., Gonzalez-Quiroga, A., Aguiar, M. F., and Jugend, D. (2022). Linking product design and durability: a review and research agenda. Heliyon 8, e10734. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10734

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Meys, R., Frick, F., Westhues, S., Sternberg, A., Klankermayer, J., and Bardow, A. (2020). Towards a circular economy for plastic packaging wastes – the environmental potential of chemical recycling. Resour. Conservation Recycl. 162, 105010. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Miller, L., Soulliere, K., Sawyer-Beaulieu, S., Tseng, S., and Tam, E. (2014). Challenges and alternatives to plastics recycling in the automotive sector. Materials 7, 5883–5902. doi:10.3390/ma7085883

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Molina-Besch, K., Wikström, F., and Williams, H. (2019). The environmental impact of packaging in food supply chains—does life cycle assessment of food provide the full picture? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24, 37–50. doi:10.1007/s11367-018-1500-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mong, G. R., Chong, C. T., Chong, W. W. F., Ng, J.-H., Ong, H. C., Ashokkumar, V., et al. (2022). Progress and challenges in sustainable pyrolysis technology: reactors, feedstocks and products. Fuel 324, 124777. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124777

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Morashti, J. A., An, Y., and Jang, H. (2022). A systematic literature review of sustainable packaging in supply chain management. Sustainability 14, 4921. doi:10.3390/su14094921

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Morganti, E., Seidel, S., Blanquart, C., Dablanc, L., and Lenz, B. (2014). The impact of E-commerce on final deliveries: alternative parcel delivery services in France and Germany. Transp. Res. Procedia 4, 178–190. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2014.11.014

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Müller, P., and Schmid, M. (2019). Intelligent packaging in the food sector: a brief overview. Foods 8, 16. doi:10.3390/foods8010016

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nair, S. S., Trafiałek, J., and Kolanowski, W. (2023). Edible packaging: a technological update for the sustainable future of the food industry. Appl. Sci. 13, 8234. doi:10.3390/app13148234

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Navarre, N., Mogollón, J. M., Tukker, A., and Barbarossa, V. (2022). Recycled plastic packaging from the Dutch food sector pollutes Asian oceans. Resour. Conservation Recycl. 185, 106508. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106508

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ncube, L. K., Ude, A. U., Ogunmuyiwa, E. N., Zulkifli, R., and Beas, I. N. (2020). Environmental impact of food packaging materials: a review of contemporary development from conventional plastics to polylactic acid based materials. Materials 13, 4994. doi:10.3390/ma13214994

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ncube, L. K., Ude, A. U., Ogunmuyiwa, E. N., Zulkifli, R., and Beas, I. N. (2021). An overview of plastic waste generation and management in food packaging industries. Recycling 6, 12. doi:10.3390/recycling6010012

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nemat, B., Razzaghi, M., Bolton, K., and Rousta, K. (2019). The role of food packaging design in consumer recycling behavior—a literature review. Sustainability 11, 4350. doi:10.3390/su11164350

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nemat, B., Razzaghi, M., Bolton, K., and Rousta, K. (2020). The potential of food packaging attributes to influence consumers’ decisions to sort waste. Sustainability 12, 2234. doi:10.3390/su12062234

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nguyen, H. P., Retraint, F., Morain-Nicolier, F., and Delahaies, A. (2019). A watermarking technique to secure printed matrix barcode—application for anti-counterfeit packaging. IEEE Access 7, 131839–131850. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2937465

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Olowosoke, C. B. (2022). Indiscriminate food insecurity: road transportation management contribution in low/middle income economy. Int. J. Res. Publ. Rev., 4758–4766. doi:10.55248/gengpi.2022.3.6.52

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Onwude, D. I., Chen, G., Eke-emezie, N., Kabutey, A., Khaled, A. Y., and Sturm, B. (2020). Recent advances in reducing food losses in the supply chain of fresh agricultural produce. Processes 8, 1431. doi:10.3390/pr8111431

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Orzan, G., Cruceru, A. F., Bălăceanu, C. T., and Chivu, R.-G. (2018). Consumers’ behavior concerning sustainable packaging: an exploratory study on Romanian consumers. Sustainability 10, 1787. doi:10.3390/su10061787

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ozcan, A., and Arman Kandirmaz, E. (2020). Natural ink production and printability studies for smart food packaging. Color Res. and Appl. 45, 495–502. doi:10.1002/col.22488

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pandiselvam, R., and Nevárez-Moorillón, G. V. (2023). Editorial: sustainability and efficiency of food packaging: from food preservation to sale. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2023.1335769

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pauer, E., Wohner, B., Heinrich, V., and Tacker, M. (2019). Assessing the environmental sustainability of food packaging: an extended life cycle assessment including packaging-related food losses and waste and circularity assessment. Sustainability 11, 925. doi:10.3390/su11030925

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pérez Mesa, J. C., and Galdeano-Gómez, E. (2015). Collaborative firms managing perishable products in a complex supply network: an empirical analysis of performance. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 20, 128–138. doi:10.1108/SCM-06-2014-0185

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Phelan, A., Meissner, K., Humphrey, J., and Ross, H. (2022). Plastic pollution and packaging: corporate commitments and actions from the food and beverage sector. J. Clean. Prod. 331, 129827. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129827

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Plastics Europe (2024). Plastics Europe | the circular economy for plastics – a European analysis 2024. Available at: https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/the-circular-economy-for-plastics-a-european-analysis-2024/(Accessed December 7, 2024).

Google Scholar

Poças, F., and do Céu Selbourne, M. (2023). Drivers, advances, and significance of measures for effective circular food packaging. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2023.1140295

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pohjakallio, M. (2020). “Chapter 18—Secondary plastic products—examples and market trends,” in Plastic Waste and Recycling, Editor T. M. Letcher (Academic Press), 467–479. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-817880-5.00018-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Popovic, I., Bossink, B. A. G., and van der Sijde, P. C. (2019). Factors influencing consumers’ decision to purchase food in environmentally friendly packaging: what do we know and where do we go from here? Sustainability 11, 7197. doi:10.3390/su11247197

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Proposal for a revision of EU legislation on Packaging and Packaging Waste (2022). Available at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-packaging-and-packaging-waste_en (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

Ragaert, K., Delva, L., and Van Geem, K. (2017). Mechanical and chemical recycling of solid plastic waste. Waste Manag. 69, 24–58. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.044

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rai, S., Wai, P. P., Koirala, P., Bromage, S., Nirmal, N. P., Pandiselvam, R., et al. (2023). Food product quality, environmental and personal characteristics affecting consumer perception toward food. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2023.1222760

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Regulation (EC) (2002). Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European parliament and of the Council. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2002/178/oj/eng.

Google Scholar

Regulation (EC) (2014). Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European parliament and of the Council. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2006/1924/2014-12-13/eng (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

Regulation (EC) (2021). Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European parliament and of the Council. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/1935/2021-03-27/eng (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

Regulation (EU) (2018). Regulation (EC) No 1169/2011 of the European parliament and of the Counci. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/1169/2018-01-01/eng (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

Rezaei, J., Papakonstantinou, A., Tavasszy, L., Pesch, U., and Kana, A. (2019). Sustainable product-package design in a food supply chain: a multi-criteria life cycle approach. Packag. Technol. Sci. 32, 85–101. doi:10.1002/pts.2418

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ringsberg, H. (2014). Perspectives on food traceability: a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 19, 558–576. doi:10.1108/SCM-01-2014-0026

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Robertson, G. L. (2005). Food packaging: principles and practice. 2nd Edn. Boca Raton: CRC Press. doi:10.1201/9781420056150

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rokka, J., and Uusitalo, L. (2008). Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices – do consumers care? Int. J. Consumer Stud. 32, 516–525. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00710.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Saghir, M. (2002). Packaging information needed for evaluation in the supply chain: the case of the Swedish grocery retail industry. Packag. Technol. Sci. 15, 37–46. doi:10.1002/pts.565

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Salgado, P. R., Di Giorgio, L., Musso, Y. S., and Mauri, A. N. (2021). Recent developments in smart food packaging focused on biobased and biodegradable polymers. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2021.630393

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Salvioni, D. M., and Almici, A. (2020). Transitioning toward a circular economy: the impact of stakeholder engagement on sustainability culture. Sustainability 12, 8641. doi:10.3390/su12208641

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sarda, P., Hanan, J. C., Lawrence, J. G., and Allahkarami, M. (2022). Sustainability performance of polyethylene terephthalate, clarifying challenges and opportunities. J. Polym. Sci. 60, 7–31. doi:10.1002/pol.20210495

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sarkar, S., and Aparna, K. (2020). “Food packaging and storage,” in Research trends in home science and extension. Editor P. Singh (New Delhi, India: AkiNik Publications). doi:10.22271/ed.book.959

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sæter, F., Alvarado, I. O., and Pettersen, I. N. (2020). “Reuse principle for primary packaging circularity in the food system,” in DS 101: proceedings of NordDesign 2020 (Lyngby, Denmark), 1–12. doi:10.35199/NORDDESIGN2020.3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sazdovski, I., Bojovic, D., Batlle-Bayer, L., Aldaco, R., Margallo, M., and Fullana-i-Palmer, P. (2022). Circular economy of packaging and relativity of time in packaging life cycle. Resour. Conservation Recycl. 184, 106393. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106393

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schaefer, D., and Cheung, W. M. (2018). Smart packaging: opportunities and challenges. Procedia CIRP 72, 1022–1027. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.240

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schmidt, J., Auer, M., Moesslein, J., Wendler, P., Wiethoff, S., Lang-Koetz, C., et al. (2021). Challenges and solutions for plastic packaging in a circular economy. Chem. Ing. Tech. 93, 1751–1762. doi:10.1002/cite.202100110

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schmidt, S., and Schmidt, B. S. G. (2019). The role of packaging in logistics processes - impact on sustainable logistics in the food sector. Proc. Eng. Sci. 1, 235–246. doi:10.24874/PES01.02.020

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schyns, Z. O. G., and Shaver, M. P. (2021). Mechanical recycling of packaging plastics: a review. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 42, 2000415. doi:10.1002/marc.202000415

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shah, H. H., Amin, M., Iqbal, A., Nadeem, I., Kalin, M., Soomar, A. M., et al. (2023). A review on gasification and pyrolysis of waste plastics. Front. Chem. 10, 960894. doi:10.3389/fchem.2022.960894

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sharma, G. (2016). “Image-based data interfaces revisited: barcodes and watermarks for the mobile and digital worlds,” in 2016 8th international conference on communication systems and networks (COMSNETS), 1–6. doi:10.1109/COMSNETS.2016.7440021

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Shen, L., Worrell, E., and Patel, M. K. (2010). Open-loop recycling: a LCA case study of PET bottle-to-fibre recycling. Resour. Conservation Recycl. 55, 34–52. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.06.014

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Siddiqui, S. A., Zannou, O., Bahmid, N. A., Fidan, H., Alamou, A.-F., Nagdalian, А. А., et al. (2022). RETRACTED: consumer behavior towards nanopackaging- A new trend in the food industry. Future Foods 6, 100191. doi:10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100191

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh, N., Hui, D., Singh, R., Ahuja, I. P. S., Feo, L., and Fraternali, F. (2017). Recycling of plastic solid waste: a state of art review and future applications. Compos. Part B Eng. 115, 409–422. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh, S. P., Smith, K. D., Singh, J., and Rutledge, N. (2018). Packaging and logistics sustainability for the 21st century. 21st IAPRI World Conf. Packag. doi:10.12783/iapri2018/24463

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Siracusa, V., and Rosa, M. D. (2018). “8 - sustainable packaging,” in Sustainable food systems from agriculture to industry. Editor C. M. Galanakis (Academic Press), 275–307. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-811935-8.00008-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 104, 333–339. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sohrabpour, V., Oghazi, P., and Olsson, A. (2016). An improved supplier driven packaging design and development method for supply chain efficiency. Packag. Technol. Sci. 29, 161–173. doi:10.1002/pts.2194

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Solomon, N. O., Simpa, P., Adenekan, O. A., and Obasi, S. C. (2024). Circular economy principles and their integration into global supply chain strategies. Finance and Account. Res. J. 6, 747–762. doi:10.51594/farj.v6i5.1133

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Soltani, A., Hewage, K., Reza, B., and Sadiq, R. (2015). Multiple stakeholders in multi-criteria decision-making in the context of Municipal Solid Waste Management: a review. Waste Manag. 35, 318–328. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.010

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Song, Z., and He, S. (2018). Contract coordination of new fresh produce three-layer supply chain. Industrial Manag. and Data Syst. 119, 148–169. doi:10.1108/IMDS-12-2017-0559

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sonke, J. E., Koenig, A. M., Yakovenko, N., Hagelskjær, O., Margenat, H., Hansson, S. V., et al. (2022). A mass budget and box model of global plastics cycling, degradation and dispersal in the land-ocean-atmosphere system. Micropl.&Nanopl. 2, 28. doi:10.1186/s43591-022-00048-w

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Statista (2022). Worldwide volume of food consumption 2015-2027. Available at: https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1298375/volume-food-consumption-worldwide (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

Statistics Eurostat (2024a). Statistics eurostat - metallic. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/cei_wm020__custom_14298454/default/table?lang=en (Accessed December 9, 2024).

Google Scholar

Statistics Eurostat (2024b). Glass packaging. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/cei_wm020__custom_14298484/default/table?lang=en (Accessed December 9, 2024).

Google Scholar

Statistics Eurostat (2024c). Statistics | Eurostat - paper and cardboard packaging. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/cei_wm020__custom_14298380/default/table?lang=en (Accessed December 9, 2024).

Google Scholar

Statistics Eurostat (2024d). Statistics | Eurostat - plastic packaging. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/cei_wm020__custom_14298424/default/table?lang=en (Accessed December 9, 2024).

Google Scholar

Steenis, N. D. (2019). Consumer response to sustainable packaging design. doi:10.18174/501664

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Steenis, N. D., van Herpen, E., van der Lans, I. A., Ligthart, T. N., and van Trijp, H. C. M. (2017). Consumer response to packaging design: the role of packaging materials and graphics in sustainability perceptions and product evaluations. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 286–298. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.036

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Stellingwerf, H. M., Bloemhof, J. M., and Cruijssen, F. (2015). Logistics collaboration concepts for sustainability improvement in the Dutch food retail sector. Derby, UK: University of.

Google Scholar

Stellingwerf, H. M., Groeneveld, L. H. C., Laporte, G., Kanellopoulos, A., Bloemhof, J. M., and Behdani, B. (2021). The quality-driven vehicle routing problem: model and application to a case of cooperative logistics. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 231, 107849. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107849

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Stoica, M., Marian Antohi, V., Laura Zlati, M., and Stoica, D. (2020). The financial impact of replacing plastic packaging by biodegradable biopolymers - a smart solution for the food industry. J. Clean. Prod. 277, 124013. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Svanes, E., Vold, M., Møller, H., Pettersen, M. K., Larsen, H., and Hanssen, O. J. (2010). Sustainable packaging design: a holistic methodology for packaging design. Packag. Technol. Sci. 23, 161–175. doi:10.1002/pts.887

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Taufique, K. M. R., Vocino, A., and Polonsky, M. J. (2017). The influence of eco-label knowledge and trust on pro-environmental consumer behaviour in an emerging market. J. Strategic Mark. 25, 511–529. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2016.1240219

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thoden van Velzen, E. U., Brouwer, M. T., and Feil, A. (2019). Collection behaviour of lightweight packaging waste by individual households and implications for the analysis of collection schemes. Waste Manag. 89, 284–293. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2019.04.021

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thompson, R. C., and Pahl, S. (2018). Plastics, the environment and society: current consensus and future directions. doi:10.1039/9781788013314-00177

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tobi, R. C. A., Harris, F., Rana, R., Brown, K. A., Quaife, M., and Green, R. (2019). Sustainable diet dimensions. Comparing consumer preference for nutrition, environmental and social responsibility food labelling: a systematic review. Sustainability 11, 6575. doi:10.3390/su11236575

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tsimnadis, K., and Kyriakopoulos, G. L. (2024). Investigating the role of municipal waste treatment within the European union through a novel created common sustainability point system. Recycling 9, 42. doi:10.3390/recycling9030042

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

UNECE (2023). About the GHS | UNECE. Available at: https://unece.org/about-ghs (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

van Dijk, M., Morley, T., Rau, M. L., and Saghai, Y. (2021). A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050. Nat. Food 2, 494–501. doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00322-9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Varghese, S. M., Parisi, S., Singla, R. K., and Begum, A. S. A. (2022). “Food preservation,” in Trends in food chemistry, nutrition and technology in Indian sub-continent. Editors S. M. Varghese, S. Parisi, R. K. Singla, and A. S. A. Begum (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 45–53. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-06304-6_6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Veena, A., Nagendra Babu, K., and Venkatesha, H. R. (2011). Supply chain: a differentiator in marketing fresh produce. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1852187 (Accessed October 17, 2024).

Google Scholar

Vermeir, I., and Roose, G. (2020). Visual design cues impacting food choice: a review and future research agenda. Foods 9, 1495. doi:10.3390/foods9101495

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Versino, F., Ortega, F., Monroy, Y., Rivero, S., López, O. V., and García, M. A. (2023). Sustainable and bio-based food packaging: a review on past and current design innovations. Foods 12, 1057. doi:10.3390/foods12051057

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Violino, S., Antonucci, F., Pallottino, F., Cecchini, C., Figorilli, S., and Costa, C. (2019). Food traceability: a term map analysis basic review. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 245, 2089–2099. doi:10.1007/s00217-019-03321-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Vogt, B. D., Stokes, K. K., and Kumar, S. K. (2021). Why is recycling of postconsumer plastics so challenging? ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. 3, 4325–4346. doi:10.1021/acsapm.1c00648

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, J., Zhu, Z., Moga, L. M., Hu, J., and Zhang, X. (2019). A holistic packaging efficiency evaluation method for loss prevention in fresh vegetable cold chain. Sustainability 11, 3874. doi:10.3390/su11143874

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, X., and Li, D. (2006). “Value added on food traceability: a supply chain management approach,” in 2006 IEEE international conference on service operations and logistics, and informatics, 493–498. doi:10.1109/SOLI.2006.329074

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wrona, M., and Nerin, C. (2019). CHAPTER 7. Risk assessment of plastic packaging for food applications. 163, 191. doi:10.1039/9781788012973-00163

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yaashikaa, P. R., Kamalesh, R., Senthil Kumar, P., Saravanan, A., Vijayasri, K., and Rangasamy, G. (2023). Recent advances in edible coatings and their application in food packaging. Food Res. Int. 173, 113366. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2023.113366

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yan, M. R., Hsieh, S., and Ricacho, N. (2022). Innovative food packaging, food quality and safety, and consumer perspectives. Processes 10, 747. doi:10.3390/pr10040747

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yang, X., Dai, X., and Bin, H. (2024). The dynamics of rewards and penalties: governmental impact on green packaging adoption in logistics. Sustainability 16, 4835. doi:10.3390/su16114835

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yang, Z., Xu, J., Yang, L., and Zhang, X. (2022). Optimized dynamic monitoring and quality management system for post-harvest matsutake of different preservation packaging in cold chain. Foods 11, 2646. doi:10.3390/foods11172646

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zambujal-Oliveira, J., and Fernandes, C. (2024). The contribution of sustainable packaging to the circular food supply chain. Packag. Technol. Sci. 37, 443–456. doi:10.1002/pts.2802

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, Q., Hu, Y., Jiao, J., and Wang, S. (2024). The impact of Russia–Ukraine war on crude oil prices: an EMC framework. Humanit Soc. Sci. Commun. 11, 8–12. doi:10.1057/s41599-023-02526-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, Z., He, M., Zhang, Y., and Wang, Y. (2022). Geopolitical risk trends and crude oil price predictability. Energy 258, 124824. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2022.124824

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhou, X., and Xu, Z. (2022). Traceability in food supply chains: a systematic literature review and future research directions. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 25, 173–196. doi:10.22434/IFAMR2020.0065

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhu, Z., Liu, W., Ye, S., and Batista, L. (2022). Packaging design for the circular economy: a systematic review. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 32, 817–832. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2022.06.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zimmermann, L., Scheringer, M., Geueke, B., Boucher, J. M., Parkinson, L. V., Groh, K. J., et al. (2022). Implementing the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability: the case of food contact chemicals of concern. J. Hazard. Mater. 437, 129167. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129167

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar