Article

Fit for the Future: An Assessment of the Sustainability

Parameters of Liquid Dairy Product Packaging in the DACH
Region and the Implications of Upcoming Regulatory Changes
Michelle Klein 1,*, Charlotte Neumair 2, Mattia Primoceri 2, Manfred Tacker 2 and Silvia Apprich 1

1 Section Packaging Technology and Natural Resource Management, University of Applied Sciences Vienna,
Favoritenstrasse 226, 1100 Vienna, Austria; silvia.apprich@fh-campuswien.ac.at
2 Circular Analytics TK GmbH, Canovagasse 7/1/14, 1010 Vienna, Austria; m.primoceri@gmail.com (M.P.);

manfred.tacker@circularanalytics.com (M.T.)
* Correspondence: michelle.klein@fh-campuswien.ac.at

Abstract: The European Union aims for climate neutrality by 2050 and has proposed the
Packaging and Packing Waste Regulation (PPWR) to promote a circular economy, focus-
ing on reducing packaging waste. In this context, a comprehensive sustainability assess-
ment for liquid dairy product packaging, including beverage cartons, bottles and to-go
cups, in the DACH region (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) was conducted. The aim
was to consider various ecological aspects of environmental impacts and circularity. As
the aspect of recyclability is a core aspect in the PPWR, the calculation was of central in-
terest in this project. Here, major differences in the waste management infrastructure be-
tween countries could be identified. The majority of assessed packaging falls below the
PPWR’s 70% recyclability requirement, with Switzerland showing even lower recyclabil-
ity due to poor packaging collection and recycling infrastructure. Significant discrepancies
in packaging efficiency exist, indicating unnecessary resource consumption, especially in
Academic Editor: Célia C.G. Silva the case of to-go cups. Additionally, the carbon footprint of packaging materials can vary
Received: 2 December 2024 up to ten times within certain product categories, negatively impacting the environment.
Revised: 24 December 2024 Good results were identified for the use of certified renewable resources. Overall, the re-
Accepted: 7 January 2025 sults of the assessment demonstrate several areas for improvement in light of forthcoming
Published: 9 January 2025
regulatory requirements, which must be met in Germany and Austria.
Citation: Klein, M.; Neumair, C.;
Primoceri, M.; Tacker, M.; Apprich, Keywords: dairy; packaging; sustainability; circularity; milk; LCA; recyclability; packaging
S. Fit for the Future: An Assessment efficiency; recyclate; assessment
of the Sustainability Parameters of
Liquid Dairy Product Packaging in
the DACH Region and the
Implications of Upcoming
Regulatory Changes. Foods 2025, 14, 1. Introduction
195. https://doi.org/
The concepts of sustainability, the circular economy and food systems are of central
10.3390/foods14020195
importance in social and political discussions. A food system encompasses the entire pro-
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. cess of food production, processing, distribution, consumption and disposal. A sustaina-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
ble food system must be economically viable, socially beneficial and have a low environ-
This article is an open access article
mental impact. This ensures the current food security of the population and guarantees
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
future food availability [1].
Attribution (CC BY) license The packaging of food plays a pivotal role in the global food distribution system with
(https://creativecommons.org/license regard to sustainability. In the context of globalization and evolving consumer demand,
s/by/4.0/). the implementation of a circular economy in food packaging processes has become a mat-
ter of urgent concern [2].

Foods 2025, 14, 195 https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14020195

Foods 2025, 14, 195 2 of 20

Packaging serves to inform and attract consumers [3]. The primary function of food
packaging, nonetheless, is to protect food [4–7]. Effective packaging reduces food waste
and thereby the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, particularly for animal prod-
ucts. Packaging itself typically contributes only a small fraction of the GHG emissions of
the packaged product [8], representing approximately 4% of the CO2 equivalents for milk
packaging [9]. In contrast, dairy production in Germany accounts for 24% of the carbon
footprint of all packaged foods [10]. Since 93% of all food is packaged, dairy products
significantly impact the environment, making the dairy industry crucial for environmen-
tal considerations [9,10]. Consequently, the dairy industry represents a significant contrib-
utor to the environmental impact of food.
Materials used for food packaging must be affordable, easily processable and provide
food protection—often by offering excellent barrier properties against moisture, oxygen
and carbon dioxide. Among the materials that meet these criteria, plastics are often the
preferred choice for food packaging [11]; however the substitution of conventional pack-
aging materials with more sustainable alternatives, such as microbial biodegradable pol-
ymers from agro-food waste residues, could result in a notable reduction in the carbon
footprint [12].
In Europe, there is a significant discrepancy between the recycling of packaging and
the amount of packaging waste generated within the Member States. There is a clear op-
portunity to enhance waste management and the recycling of food packaging. The Euro-
pean Circular Economy Plan, adopted by the European Union, mandates more rigorous
recycling standards and reduced food waste. The objective of making Europe climate-
neutral by 2050 was defined in the ‘European Green Deal’ [13]. The European Union has
proposed a legislative framework for a Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation [14].
This would enforce strict measures to avoid generating packaging waste and promote the
reuse and recycling of packaging materials through intelligent design [14]. This also en-
forces the need to investigate the influence of food packaging design on sustainability and
circularity [15,16]

1.1. Dairy Products and Requirements for Dairy Packaging

The dairy industry represents the most significant agricultural sector in German-
speaking countries. In Germany (19%), Austria (18%) and Switzerland (20%), milk pro-
duction accounts for approximately one fifth of their respective agricultural sectors, with
a produced volume of 33.1 million tons of milk produced in 2020 in Germany, 3.38 million
tons in Switzerland in 2019 and 3.9 million tons in Austria in 2022 [17–19]. Given the sig-
nificance of the dairy sector in the DACH region (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) and
the considerable volume of dairy products that are packaged, it is imperative to identify
optimal packaging solutions for drinking milk and dairy products that align with the prin-
ciples of the circular economy and the forthcoming Packaging and Packaging Waste Reg-
ulation.
Milk, rich in proteins, lactose and fat, has an almost neutral pH, creating an ideal
environment for microorganisms that can affect its quality and safety, potentially leading
to contamination and alterations in taste. The pasteurization or sterilization of milk prior
to packaging eliminates microorganisms. Ultra-high temperature (UHT) milk is subjected
to a sterilization process and subsequently stored at room temperature, whereas pasteur-
ized milk is refrigerated. It is of vital importance to ensure that milk is stored in accord-
ance with the requisite conditions in order to maintain its quality and safety. Furthermore,
the packaging must protect against oxygen, light and undesirable odors and flavors from
the environment, whilst ensuring no interaction with the milk, in order to avoid the risk
of the migration of the packaging components [15,20,21].
Foods 2025, 14, 195 3 of 20

Transparent glass and plastic packaging materials fail to provide sufficient protection
against harmful wavelengths. The utilization of colored packaging materials or beverage
cartons offers an enhanced light barrier. Plastic bottles manufactured from HDPE can be
rendered more impermeable to wavelengths below 390 nm through the addition of tita-
nium dioxide [20,21]. The presence of oxygen, particularly in combination with light,
causes fat oxidation and leads to the development of undesirable flavors in milk. Glass
itself is completely impermeable to oxygen and therefore protects the product from addi-
tional oxygen ingress. Non-aseptic beverage cartons consisting of PE-coated cartons give
sufficient protection for fresh milk with a short shelf life. For products with a longer shelf
life, such as UHT milk, beverage cartons require an additional barrier (e.g., aluminum foil)
as an intermediate layer to provide additional protection against oxygen and light [20,21].
As milk is particularly susceptible to the absorption of foreign flavors or tastes, it is
crucial to select packaging materials with low aroma permeability. Glass, metals and pol-
yester are highly impermeable to flavors, while PE-coated paper or cardboard is highly
permeable. Here an additional barrier, such as aluminum foil, has proven beneficial for
proper protection [20,21].

1.2. Holistic Sustainability of Packaging

In order to ensure the sustainability of plastics, it is vital to prevent their disposal into
the environment. Furthermore, it is of the utmost importance to appreciate the value of
plastics and to design packaging in a way that allows for the highest degree of circularity
[22,23].
An holistic sustainability assessment is designed to evaluate all relevant aspects of
the sustainability of packaging, including country-specific collection and recycling sys-
tems. This approach is essential for sustainable product development, as it allows for the
consideration of potential conflicting objectives. This model is based on the three pillars
of product protection, circularity and the environment, as outlined in the Circular Pack-
aging Design Guideline [4,24].
According to the Proposal for the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, recy-
clable packaging is specifically designed for recycling, can be efficiently and effectively
collected separately and sorted into defined waste streams and can be recycled at large
scale into secondary raw material of a quality such that primary raw material can be sub-
stituted [14].
The Efficient Consumer Response (ECR) Guideline as well as the Circular Packaging
Design Guideline define direct and indirect environmental impacts [4,24]. Direct impacts,
related to the production and disposal of packaging, can be assessed through a life cycle
assessment. Indirect impacts can stem from product losses, such as premature spoilage or
poor emptying due to poor packaging design and are not included in the life cycle assess-
ment, as they are subject to scenarios. Non-quantifiable factors include the use of certified
materials, which has a positive impact on the sustainability assessment, and the ‘littering
potential’ (the potential for packaging or packaging components to end up in the environ-
ment instead of being disposed of properly) [24].

1.3. Packaging Design for Recycling

The efficiency of recycling is contingent upon the design of the packaging. In order
for packaging to be recycled, it must undergo collection, sorting and recycling processes.
Designing for recycling is of essential importance for sustainable packaging and is a re-
quirement of the current proposal for the PPWR [14]. Therefore, packaging should be de-
signed with reusable and renewable properties in order to minimize its environmental
impact [25,26].
Foods 2025, 14, 195 4 of 20

This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the sustainability of currently
used packaging formats for liquid dairy products in the DACH region based on selected
parameters. Further, the potential for the improvement of the available packaging on the
market regarding the aforementioned PPWR will be discussed.

2. Materials and Methods

Prior to the start of the project, relevant product categories for assessment were de-
fined and packaging formats available in selected supermarkets in Germany, Austria and
Switzerland identified.

2.1. Market Screening

Market screening was conducted in two selected full-assortment supermarkets
(SPAR and Billa) and one discounter (Hofer) in Austria. All dairy products from the rele-
vant product categories available online and offline were listed, and detailed information
concerning product types in combination with packaging specificities was analyzed for
each product category. The supermarkets SPAR and Billa have a market share of 34.6%
and 33.3%, respectively, in Austria; the share of HOFER is approximately 20%. Therefore,
an overall market share of 88% has been analyzed [27]. The market research was extended
to Germany and Switzerland for selected product categories in order to assess country-
specific differences in market offerings, by analyzing the available products and packag-
ing in store.

2.2. Materials
The packaging samples assessed in this benchmarking project were provided from
dairies or retailers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Further samples were procured
with the objective of encompassing a diverse array of packaging alternatives for each
product category. Overall, 76 samples were evaluated within the framework of the sus-
tainability assessment.

2.2.1. Product Categories

According to Codex Chapter B32 of the Austrian Food Code [28], different types of
milk products can be distinguished.
Fresh and ESL (extended shelf-life) milk were assessed together and considered sep-
arately from long-life milk, given that aseptic filling with a correspondingly longer shelf
life is intended for UHT milk [29].
Overall, 76 products were analyzed. Those can be subdivided into the mentioned
product categories as follows:
• Milk Products: (31)
o Fresh and ESL milk (17)
 ESL milk (9);
 Whole milk (4);
 Skim milk (4).
o UHT milk (14)
• Mixed Milk Products: (45)
o Fermented products (20)
 Butter milk (6);
 Yoghurt drink (9);
 Whey drink (5).
Foods 2025, 14, 195 5 of 20

o Non-fermented products (25)

 Coffee drink (9);
 Chocolate drink and cocoa (12);
 Protein drink (4).
The category of mixed milk products encompasses all mixed milk products as de-
fined in Codex Chapter B32/Milk and milk products/subcategories 5.1.2 and 5.1.3, in ad-
dition to all fermented milk products falling under subcategory 6.2 of the Austrian Food
Code [28]. The product category of ‘drinking yoghurt and yoghurt milk’ includes mixed
milk beverages whose names include the term ‘yoghurt’. Mixed fruit milk drinks were
combined with cocoa, chocolate and vanilla milk. Mixed milk drinks with increased pro-
tein content are defined as products with a protein content of at least 20% of the total
calorific value of the food, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims
made on foods [30].
In order to evaluate milk-based mixed drinks, it was necessary to distinguish be-
tween those products made from non-fermented milk and those made from fermented
milk. This categorization is based on subcategories 5.1.2. and 5.1.3 of Codex Chapter
B32/Milk and dairy products from the Austrian Food Code. While the Food Codex (sub-
categories 7.2 and 7.3) treats whey separately, for the purposes of this study it has been
categorized as a mixed dairy product made from fermented milk [28].

2.2.2. Packaging Types

As with the products analyzed in this study, the packaging formats available on the
market show a high diversity. In the case of liquid dairy products, these were primarily
composite beverage cartons of various designs, as well as bottles made of PET, HDPE or
PS (Table 1). An LDPE pouch with a 35% chalk content was also included in this segment.
Mixed milk drinks were available in cans made of aluminum or paper composites, as well
as to-go cups of various designs and materials. Reusable glass systems were not included
in this study due to the high variability in the environmental impact caused by transport
routes and circulation figures, as well as the resulting differences in the streamlined LCA.

Table 1. Types of packaging assessed in the different product categories.

Product Category PET Bottle HDPE Bottle PS Bottle Beverage Carton Pouch To-Go Cup Can (Aluminum) Can (Fiber)
ESL Milk 2 7
Skim Milk 3 1
Whole Milk 4
UHT Milk 1 13
Butter Milk 1 1 4
Yoghurt Drink 3 2 3 1
Whey Drink 2 3
Coffee Drink 2 5 1 1
Cacao 3 1 6 1 1
Whey Drink 3 1

2.3. Methods
The data for material composition and packaging measurements were obtained ei-
ther by an analysis of packaging specifications submitted by the participants of the project,
or they were evaluated by measurements in the laboratory using calipers, scales and an
FTIR spectrometer (Perkin Spektrum UATR L1600300 Spektrum TWO LiTa, Llantrisant,
UK) and attenuated total reflectance (ATR) if necessary.
Foods 2025, 14, 195 6 of 20

The selection of the relevant parameters to assess the sustainability of dairy product
packaging was based on the model for holistic sustainability assessment which is built on
three pillars: product protection, environment and circularity [4]. Eight parameters for
circularity and environment were selected, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Overview of assessed categories for environment and circularity according to the holistic
sustainability assessment for packaging method (adapted version based on [4]).

2.3.1. Environment: Direct Environmental Impact

Life cycle assessments have been demonstrated to be an effective tool for assessing
environmental impacts. The European Commission outlines 16 impact categories for the
preparation of life cycle assessments in the so-called product environmental footprint
(PEF). The PEF is based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) and measures the environmen-
tal impact potential of products. Among the various environmental impact categories that
can be quantified through life cycle assessments, the carbon footprint is the most well
known. This allows for the assessment of a product’s greenhouse gas emissions, which
are subsequently linked to global warming [31,32]. Other impact categories such as acidi-
fication or eutrophication are not included in the assessment.
In order to ascertain the direct environmental impact of the packaging, a streamlined
life cycle assessment was conducted. All 16 impact categories according to the European
PEF were calculated, but only the greenhouse gas emissions are tabled in this study. The
LCA is based on the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards [33,34], as well as the European
Commission’s regulations for product environmental footprints [31]. For the calculation,
information on the material composition and measurements of the packaging are entered
into the Packaging Cockpit software, Version 2.0.0 (https://packaging-cockpit.com/en (ac-
cessed on 30 September 2024) [35]. The impact category of climate change was considered,
and results are expressed in [kg CO2 eq].

2.3.2. Environment: Indirect Environmental Impact

The indirect environmental impact was quantified by measuring food residues fol-
lowing the application of newly developed, standardized methods for measuring tech-
nical emptiability. In this method, the packaging is emptied according to described con-
sumer handling instructions and based on the further development of prior published
Foods 2025, 14, 195 7 of 20

emptiability methods. The detailed procedures for each packaging type and the results
were published in [36].

2.3.3. Environment: Use of Certified Materials

The utilization of certified materials was evaluated through a qualitative approach.
The two selection options were “yes” and “no”. If the packaging incorporated FSC-certi-
fied fiber-based materials, the “yes” option was selected. Conversely, if no fiber-based
materials were employed or the fibers were not substantiated to be from FSC-certified
materials, the “no” option was selected.

2.3.4. Environment: Packaging Efficiency

The packaging efficiency is defined as the ratio of packaging weight to product
weight and packaging weight. In the case of filled samples, the actual product weight was
included in the calculation. Conversely, in the case of empty packaging samples, the la-
beled quantity of filling good was included in the formula instead of the weight of the
filling good. This method was first applied by [37] as the packaging to product ratio.
Packaging Efficiency = ( Weight Packaging⁄Weight Packaging + Weight Product) × 100

2.3.5. Circularity: Technical Recyclability

Technically recyclable packaging has to fulfill a number of criteria. Firstly, there must
be a collection and sorting structure for the materials in their respective countries. Sec-
ondly, it must be possible to assign items of packaging to a defined material stream ac-
cording to the state of the art in their respective countries. Once the packaging has been
sorted, it can then be utilized through a corresponding recycling process. The recyclate
must be of such a quality that it can be used as a substitute for virgin material with a
pricing that has market potential [4]
The technical recyclability of the packaging was calculated for Germany, Austria and
Switzerland using the software Packaging Cockpit, Version 2.0.0 (https://packaging-cock-
pit.com/en, accessed on 30 September 2024) [35]. For this, the detailed packaging infor-
mation was entered into the software based on the packaging specifications provided with
the packaging samples
The data set comprised information pertaining to the filling, including product cate-
gory, quantity or volume, country of assembly and distribution, packaging dimensions,
the main packaging body type and the types of packaging aids.
In order to complete the assessment, the following information is required for the
main body:
• Printing coverage in %;
• Flexible or rigid component;
• Presence of an NIR barrier;
• Information on material layers (each layer needs to be entered, and a detection layer
needs to be selected):
o Material;
o Material manifestation;
o Manufacturing type;
o Content of recyclate in %;
o Color;
o Mass in g;
o Material density.
In case the packaging contains a closure, the following data are necessary:
Foods 2025, 14, 195 8 of 20

• Type of closure;
• Printing coverage in %;
• Flexible or rigid component;
• Presence of an NIR barrier;
• Dimensions;
• Irreversible removal through consumption/usage;
• Removal for disposal by average consumer;
• Information on material layers (the same information as for the main body is rele-
vant).
If the packaging has decorative elements, additional information is needed:
• Type of decoration;
• Printing coverage in %;
• Covered surface area of main body in %;
• Presence of an NIR barrier;
• Dimensions;
• Irreversible removal through consumption/usage;
• Removal for disposal by average consumer;
• Adhesion to main body;
• Information on material layers (the same information as for the main body is rele-
vant)
Information on the material layer was obtained either from the provided packaging
specification or by identification through FTIR-ATR. Dimensions and weights were meas-
ured using scales (Ohaus Pioneer Precision, Model PX6202, Nänikon, Switzerland) and
calipers, and estimations were made of the print coverage and covered surface area for
bottles with sleeves. The assessment method for technical recyclability was based on the
current Circular Packaging Design Guideline published by the University of Applied Sci-
ences Campus Vienna [4].

2.3.6. Circularity: Use of Recyclate

Recyclate content is calculated as the weight percentage of post-consumer recyclate
of the whole packaging. The use of recycled materials in the production of packaging
items reduces the need for new raw materials, thereby contributing to a circular economy
[4]. This indicator is equal to the recycled content indicator described by [37].

2.3.7. Circularity: Use of Renewable Resources

The utilization of renewable raw materials is of significant consequence within the
context of the circular economy, as it reduces the necessity for non-renewable resources.
The results show the proportion of renewable materials as a percentage by weight in re-
lation to the total weight of the packaging, as formerly described by [37].

2.3.8. Circularity: Consumer Involvement

The consumer involvement criterion provides information on the extent to which end
consumers are required to perform active separation prior to disposal in order to enable
high-quality recycling. If separation by consumers is required, this should be indicated on
the packaging, and mechanical separation and subsequent separate disposal should be
facilitated, e.g., by perforations. It should be noted that the German minimum standard
only permits the separate assessment of packaging components if this is absolutely neces-
sary for the use and consumption of the product [38].
The categories are as follows:
Foods 2025, 14, 195 9 of 20

1. Separation action is required from consumers before disposal of the packaging AND
sufficiently labeled separation description;
2. Separation by consumers is required before disposal of the packaging AND insuffi-
ciently labeled separation description;
3. No separation step by consumers is required before disposal of the packaging.

3. Results
The results of the market screening and the assessment of the different parameters
for different product categories are presented below. Detailed results can be found in the
Supporting Information.

3.1. Market Screening

In order to assess the available packaging options on the market, a thorough market
screening was conducted (Table 2). This approach enabled the incorporation of a diverse
range of packaging types into the sampling. To avoid the inclusion of duplicates, it was
necessary to ensure that products were not included more than once in the sampling.
For Austria, the products of the online shops of BILLA, SPAR and HOFER were listed
and analyzed regarding the prevalent packaging type. Bottles made of HDPE and PET are
denoted as plastic bottles.

Table 2. Results of the market screening for liquid dairy products in Austria.

Number of Available Products on

Category Subcategory Packaging Type Market Share in %
the Market
Reuseable Glass Bottle 8 15
Fresh and ESL Milk Beverage Carton 41 79
Milk
Plastic Bottle 3 6
UHT Milk Beverage Carton 15 100
Beverage Carton 23 96
Buttermilk
Plastic Bottle 1 4
Cup 2 6
Yoghurt Drink Beverage Carton 3 9
Plastic Bottle 29 85
Beverage Carton 19 86
Whey Drink
Plastic Bottle 3 14
Aluminum Can 6 11
Cup 37 67
Mixed Milk
Reusable Glass Bottle 1 2
Products Coffee Drink
Beverage Carton 3 5
Plastic Bottle 3 5
Fiber-Based Can 5 9
Cup 6 8
Reusable Glass Bottle 2 3
Chocolate Drink, Vanilla Beverage Carton with Straw 9 13
Drink, Cacao Beverage Carton 17 24
Plastic Bottle 32 45
Fiber-Based Can 5 7

3.2. Technical Recyclability

The technical recyclability and direct environmental impact were assessed for all
product categories separately and for the three countries Germany, Austria and Switzer-
land.
The most prevalent types of packaging utilized in the dairy beverage sector are com-
posite beverage cartons and PET and HDPE bottles. In the case of fresh and ESL milk,
Foods 2025, 14, 195 10 of 20

most of the samples were beverage cartons, with the exception of one pouch and two PET
bottles. The range of results for all three countries falls between 60.55% and 81.66% in
terms of recyclability, due to different waste management systems and different waste
streams, as well as slight differences in the material composition and its thresholds. One
exception is a PET bottle, which achieved a recyclability score of 99.97%, with minor de-
ductions due to the use of dark printing ink on the sleeve. One illustrative example of the
discrepancies in waste management infrastructure between the three countries is the
pouch containing skim milk, which exhibited a 99.94% recyclability in Germany, a 98.46%
recyclability in Austria and an 0% recyclability in Switzerland, due to the absence of a
recycling stream.
In the category for UHT milk, the dispersion of results is similarly narrow, as 13 of
the 14 samples are beverage cartons. The range for recyclability lies between 61.65% and
79.80% in all three countries. One outlier is an opaque HDPE bottle with a recyclability of
below 1%. As the bottle is made of HDPE, it enters the recycling stream for PE. Thereby,
the paper label is considered as contaminating the waste stream, as it has been declared
unremovable due to the use of adhesives. Another contributing factor for non-recyclabil-
ity is the opaqueness of the bottle. The only recyclable component is the aluminum lid of
the bottle, which contributes only to 0.8% of the total packaging weight.
Germany, Austria and Switzerland exhibit notable differences in the recyclability of
packaging for mixed milk drinks (Figure 2) that are attributable to the variety of packaging
employed for mixed milk drinks, which encompasses a range of materials, including to-
go cups, aluminum or fiber-based cans, plastic bottles and composite cartons. The DACH
region displays considerable disparities in its recycling infrastructure, particularly with
regard to to-go cups. The packaging format with the highest recyclability percentage in
all three countries was PET bottles with a PET sleeve and an HDPE cap, as well as an
aluminum can, with a recyclability of over 99%. The least recyclable packaging was an
HDPE bottle with a PS sleeve, an additional paper label and an HDPE cap, with a recycla-
bility of 0% in Austria and Switzerland and a value of 5.18% in Germany.
Foods 2025, 14, 195 11 of 20
Foods 2025, 14, 195 12 of 20

Figure 2. Technical recyclability of product packaging for liquid dairy products for the countries
Austria (AT), Germany (DE) and Switzerland (CH) (a) in the different assessed categories and sub-
groups and (b) by comparing packaging types.

3.3. Direct Environmental Impact

A notable difference was observed in the carbon footprint of liquid dairy product
packaging (Figure 3). The weight and materials used are of pivotal importance in deter-
mining the footprint. The variations observed between the three countries can be at-
tributed primarily to differences in transportation distances and the composition of the
electrical grid. A closer examination of the UHT milk category reveals outliers with a CO2
eq of approximately 0.2 kg. These emissions stem from the use of an HDPE bottle, result-
ing in approximately three times higher emissions compared to beverage cartons. One
HDPE bottle containing UHT milk exhibited 0.222 kg CO2 eq. in total in Germany, of
which 0.126 is attributed to the manufacturing of the packaging, 0.00162 kg CO2 eq. to the
transport, 0.0146 kg CO2 eq. to the distribution and 0.0797 kg CO2 eq. to the end-of-life
treatment. Comparably, the emissions of a beverage carton (sample number T42) are 0.082
kg CO2 eq. in total, with 0.061 kg CO2 eq. for manufacturing, 0.00119 kg CO2 eq. for trans-
portation, 0.0108 kg CO2 eq. for distribution and 0.00905 kg CO2 eq. for end-of-life treat-
ment.

Figure 3. Carbon footprint of dairy product packaging in five product groups for the countries Aus-
tria (AT), Germany (DE) and Switzerland (CH).

Further, the results demonstrate that coffee drinks exhibit the most pronounced dif-
ferences in emissions across different packaging types. In Austria, Germany and Switzer-
land, the emissions associated with a fiber-based can are seven times those of an
Foods 2025, 14, 195 13 of 20

aluminum can and 3.5 times higher than those of a PET or HDPE bottle, with respective
values of 0.356, 0.315 and 0.450 kg CO2 eq.

3.4. Use of Certified Renewable Resources and Recyclate

It is a common practice to utilize renewable raw materials in the production of pack-
aging for milk, particularly in the case of composite beverage cartons. A total of 46 sam-
ples were found to contain renewable resources, with some cartons achieving up to
97.46% renewable content through the use of biologically based plastics, such as BIO-PE
for the LDPE layer and screw cap. In addition to the beverage cartons, a single fiber-based
can was evaluated and exhibited a renewable material content of 76.78%. The HDPE bottle
was accompanied by a label made of paper, which indicated a renewable material content
of 9.22%. The range of renewable content in beverage cartons across the assessed milk
categories was found to vary considerably, from 60.55% to 97.46%. The mean value for
ESL and fresh milk was found to be higher, at 82.38%, compared to the content of renew-
able materials used in packaging for UHT milk, which was found to be 73.78%. This dif-
ference can be attributed to the inclusion of additional aluminum layers in UHT milk
packaging, which affects the overall ratio of the material composition. All beverage car-
tons were constructed from certified materials.
In mixed milk drinks, renewable raw materials were predominantly confined to com-
posite beverage cartons and fiber-based cans, with the highest proportion observed in a
beverage carton (91.57%), in addition to one to-go cup with a fiber-based label. A mere six
samples were found to utilize certified materials, all of which were beverage cartons. Of
the 17 beverage cartons, 13 were composed of certified materials, while 4 were made from
fibers sourced from uncertified sources. The fiber-based can was composed of certified
fibers.
In the milk product category, the use of recyclate was limited to two PET bottles, with
values of 40.21% and 86.68%. The packaging with the highest proportion of recycled ma-
terial was a 100% rPET bottle with an HDPE cap, which was manufactured using virgin
material in accordance with the specifications, resulting in a recyclate content of 86.68%
in the overall packaging.
In the category of yoghurt drinks, three PET bottles contained recycled material to
the extent of 39.99%, 39.40% and 74.62%. One PET bottle for coffee drinks was found to
contain a similar content of recycled material, at 39.39%.

3.5. Packaging Efficiency

In the category of milk products, an LDPE pouch containing skim milk was observed
to demonstrate the most efficient packaging, with a value of 1.56%. A PET bottle demon-
strated a packaging efficiency of 2.85%, and beverage cartons of different designs varied
between 2.58 and 3.09%. For UHT milk, an HDPE bottle showed a packaging efficiency of
3.63%.
In the non-fermented mixed milk drinks product category, most of the analysis fo-
cused on smaller containers (230 mL to 500 mL). It is often observed that packaging effi-
ciency is negatively impacted by smaller portion sizes. The to-go cups, which consist of
several components, exhibited values between 3.36 and 4.57% in this category. The best
result was achieved by an aseptic composite beverage carton for drinking cocoa with a
value of 2.99%. The highest values were achieved by an HDPE and a PET bottle with 7.28
and 7.51%, respectively.
For both fermented and non-fermented mixed milk drinks, the results for PET bottles
show high variations, with values between 3.46 to 7.51%, and HDPE bottles expressed
packaging efficiencies of 4.82 to 7.43%. The least effective result was observed for the
smallest packaging, the LDPE pouch, with a value of 7.85%. The total weight of the
Foods 2025, 14, 195 14 of 20

packaging increases due to the inclusion of the HDPE spout, which weighs almost as
much as the pouch itself. Furthermore, the filling weight is only 70 g.

3.6. Consumer Involvement

It is not a requirement to separate the components of beverage cartons in order to
facilitate their recycling. In Austria and Germany, dedicated waste streams have been es-
tablished to ensure the separate recycling of specific materials. Therefore, the rating cate-
gory 3 was applied to all beverage cartons. The same rating was applied to PET and HDPE
bottles, where material combinations permitted separation during the recycling process
and the recyclability of all materials. This leads to the conclusion that the product catego-
ries for milk are fully evaluated with the rating category 3. With regard to fermented
mixed milk drinks, one PET bottle was assigned a rating of category 1, given that separa-
tion of the PS sleeve from the PET bottle for enhanced recycling is essential and addition-
ally indicated on the label for the consumer. In the case of other PET and HDPE bottles (n
= 5), a rating of 2 was assigned, as the requisite indication for the consumer was absent.
Regarding non-fermented drinks, three PET bottles and two to-go cups were assigned a
rating of category 1, while four PET bottles and three to-go cups were assigned a rating of
category 2. Beverage cartons, fiber-based and aluminum cans, as well as two PET bottles,
were assigned a rating of category 3.

4. Discussion
The assessment of the sustainability of packaging is a complex process, as it requires
consideration of a multitude of criteria. This study analyzed the packaging for milk and
mixed milk products on the German-speaking market for the product categories of ESL
milk, fresh milk, UHT milk, buttermilk, yoghurt drinks, whey drinks, coffee drinks, cacao
and protein drinks. In addition, key sustainability indicators were collected. The following
important findings were obtained:
1. A significant proportion of packaging on the market in Germany and Austria is be-
low the minimum recyclability requirement of 70% set out in the current draft of the
PPWR [14]. In Switzerland, the recyclability is even lower; this is due to the low num-
ber of established material collection streams and consequently high rates of incin-
eration;
2. Important factors determining recyclability are non-compatible material combina-
tions and packaging design, in particular the choice of fully sleeved packaging solu-
tions that can reduce sortability by NIR;
3. There are significant differences in the packaging efficiency of the packaging formats
on the market. Some packaging solutions are considerably heavier than their coun-
terparts, resulting in the unnecessary consumption of resources. Furthermore, the
carbon footprint of packaging materials reveals differences of up to five times for
certain product categories. This discrepancy in packaging efficiency has a detri-
mental impact on the environment.

4.1. Comparison of Recyclability and Carbon Footprint

When selecting sustainable packaging options, there can be a conflict between the
principles of recyclability and the reduction of carbon footprints.
From Figure 4, it can be seen that fiber-based beverage cartons showed the lowest
global warming potential (GWP), together with a fiber-based carton/can. The recyclability
of beverage cartons depends on the composition (mainly the plastic content) and lies be-
tween 53.30% and 80.47%. The aluminum can (green) performed well in the comparative
analysis, giving slightly higher GWP emissions than most of the beverage cartons but
Foods 2025, 14, 195 15 of 20

showing a recyclability of 100%. PET bottles are mainly well recyclable, with values be-
tween 99.95% and 89.00%, but the GWP for PET bottles is higher than for beverage cartons
and the aluminum can. One PET bottle was non-recyclable due to a full LDPE sleeve, re-
sulting in incorrect material assignment in the sorting plant. The final packaging type is
represented by bottles made of HDPE, marked in red, which exhibited the lowest recycla-
bility (0.00%) and a high carbon footprint (0.14 kg CO2 eq). The low recyclability of the
packaging format assessed was due to a sleeve preventing the NIR detection of the can in
an automatic sorting process, leading to an allocation in the wrong material stream. This
shows that simple Design for Recycling recommendations are not always followed, lead-
ing to non-sustainable packaging solutions on the market.

0.16

0.14
Carbon Footprint in kg CO₂ Eq

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Technical Recyclability [%]

Figure 4. Comparison of the results of the streamlined LCA and recyclability analysis for the prod-
uct category of chocolate drinks in Austria. Depicted are different packaging types in red (HDPE
bottle), yellow (PET bottle), blue (beverage carton), white (fiber-based can) and green (aluminum
can).

High variability was detected between packaging formats of a given type, such as
beverage cartons (0.03 to 0.08 kg CO2 eq), and between different packaging categories.
Differences between the GWP emissions of the packaging format with the lowest value
(0.03 kg CO2 equivalent) and the packaging format with the highest value (0.14 kg CO2
eq) are significant and show potential for improvement for many packaging formats on
the market.
In conclusion, the results for chocolate drink packaging demonstrate the necessity for
the further optimization of packaging to achieve the goals and objectives set by EU regu-
lations in regard to recyclability and environmental effects. This includes adapting mate-
rial combinations to ensure adequate separation in the recycling process, providing infor-
mation for consumers and incorporating perforations to enhance consumer engagement,
as well as implementing pre-sorting at the consumer level.
The results for recyclability and carbon footprint for other product categories such as
coffee drinks lead to similar conclusions, as the same packaging types are prevalent. For
product categories with a higher share of beverage cartons, the results are less diverse and
show accumulations of recyclability between 60 and 80% and a similar carbon footprint.
In the assessment of the carbon footprint, the quality of product protection is not
considered and could be topic for further research.
Foods 2025, 14, 195 16 of 20

4.2. Material Usage

The utilization of post-consumer recyclate in the food sector is constrained by legal
requirements [39], as the conversion of food packaging waste into new food packaging
material presents a number of challenges, including safety issues. The presence of unin-
tentionally added substances can reach relatively higher levels in food packaging made
from recycled materials [40] Therefore, the use of recycled materials from non-food plas-
tics is prohibited in the production of fresh food packaging, in accordance with the regu-
lations set by EU Regulation 10/2011 and EFSA standards. This is because recycled mate-
rials fail to fulfill the essential criteria for odor or contamination control [41] With regard
to plastics, the sole permitted use in the food sector is that of rPET for bottles.
This regulation also has an impact on this assessment. As can be drawn from the
results, very few samples contain recyclate. These were, with few exceptions, only found
in PET bottles. Another aspect is the use of renewable materials in order to substitute plas-
tics and, in the case of using renewable resources, to resort to material from certified
sources.

4.3. Implications for Future Legislation

The assessment of the sustainability of liquid dairy product packaging and its results
are highly relevant for upcoming regulations, indicating current potential for improve-
ment for the packaging industry.
The recyclability of packaging is a central point of the Packaging and Packing Waste
Regulation, stating in Article 6 that all packaging should be recyclable [14]. In order to
archive optimal recyclability, several factors in the design of packaging need to be consid-
ered. For one, packaging made of diverse materials must be separable so materials can
enter the correct waste stream. This means that materials need be detectable by NIR iden-
tification; therefore, sleeves covering a large quantity of the packaging surface should only
be used when compatible with the sorting process, mainly NIR detection. Additionally,
printing inks, as well as black-colored plastics, have been proven to inhibit recyclate qual-
ity [4].
Article 7 then states clear minimum limit values for recycled content in plastic pack-
aging. In the currently available version, the limit value for contact-sensitive packaging
made from PET is set to be 30% from 2030 onwards [14]. This limit was only met by 4 out
of the 15 sampled PET bottles. The limit for contact-sensitive packaging made from plas-
tics other than PET is set at 10%, which is also not achieved by the majority of available
dairy packaging options currently on the market.
With regard to the parameter of packaging efficiency, Article 9 of the PPWR states
vague limitations to the extent of packaging weight and volume [14] It states that “pack-
aging shall be designed so that its weight and volume is reduced to the minimum neces-
sary for ensuring its functionality taking account of the material that the packaging is
made of”. As packaging minimization has to happen on the account of the different pack-
aging materials, no direct switch from glass to plastic packaging is needed in order to
ensure a higher packaging efficiency. This Article includes the argument that double
walls, false bottoms and unnecessary layers have to be eliminated. Those characteristics
could not be identified in dairy packaging. The results of this study allow recommenda-
tions to be deduced, with one such recommendation relating to the filling volume and the
observation that optimized portion sizing enhances packaging efficiency. Furthermore,
this study demonstrates that a simplified design, as exemplified by to-go cups, can also
result in a reduction in material usage. However, significant variations in material usage
were identified for PET and HDPE bottles, ranging from 3.46% to 7.51% and from 4.82%
to 7.43%, respectively. This calls into question the efficacy of simplified designs in these
contexts. Beverage cartons, which share similarities in design and material composition,
Foods 2025, 14, 195 17 of 20

exhibit a minimal variation in packaging efficiency, as evidenced by the results for skim
milk, which range from 2.58% to 3.09%.

5. Conclusions
This comprehensive study provides a robust foundation for evaluating the current
sustainability of packaging for liquid dairy products on the market in German-speaking
countries. From the aforementioned findings, recommendations for action can be derived
to ensure that the dairy and packaging industry is able to fulfill the requirements of the
PPWR in the future. A key objective of the PPWR is to achieve a minimum of 70% recy-
clability [14]. This target has, thus far, only been met by a limited number of packaging
samples, highlighting a significant need for action regarding material composition and
combination, as well as the usage of colorants. Furthermore, there is a pressing require-
ment to enhance the efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of packaging. The
results for these two aspects exhibit considerable discrepancies.
The objective of the future optimization of packaging for dairy products needs to be
to minimize the consumption of resources and the negative environmental impact of the
packaging, while simultaneously improving the usage of recycled and renewable materi-
als. This necessitates a multi-dimensional optimization, which should not be limited to a
single criterion such as recyclability, regardless of its importance.
In the forthcoming years, the packaging industry and brand manufacturers will be
compelled to accord greater priority to sustainability in the development of new packag-
ing solutions or the modification of existing packaging, while ensuring product protec-
tion. As the EU tightens its regulations on packaging sustainability, it will become imper-
ative for brand manufacturers and the packaging industry to select solutions that not only
comply with legal requirements but also meet consumer expectations, reduce environ-
mental impacts and align with the principles of a circular economy. Those that proactively
invest in sustainable packaging innovation are likely to benefit from enhanced market
competitiveness and long-term success.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at:

www.mdpi.com/10.3390/foods14020195/s1, Supporting information: Assessment Data.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.N., M.K., S.A. and M.T.; methodology, C.N., M.K., S.A.
and M.T.; validation, C.N., M.K., S.A. and M.T.; formal analysis, C.N. and M.K.; investigation, C.N.,
M.P. and M.K.; resources, M.K. and C.N.; data curation, M.P., C.N. and M.K.; writing—original draft
preparation, M.K.; writing—review and editing, M.K., S.A. and M.T.; visualization, M.K.; supervi-
sion, S.A. and M.T.; project administration, M.K. and C.N.; funding acquisition, S.A. and M.T. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This work was created within a research project of the Austrian Competence Center for
Feed and Food Quality, Safety and Innovation (FFoQSI). The COMET-K1 competence center FFoQSI
is funded by the Austrian federal ministries BMK and BMDW and the Austrian provinces Lower
Austria, Upper Austria and Vienna within the scope of COMET—Competence Centers for Excellent
Technologies. The program COMET is handled by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency, FFG
(Funding number 36184885).

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in this study are included in the
article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Foods 2025, 14, 195 18 of 20

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their gratitude to all project participants who
provided product samples. Special thanks are directed to all the students and interns who were
involved in data collection, as well as the involved team members of the institute of Packaging and
Resource Management at FH Campus Wien and Circular Analytics. The authors would like to thank
Mary Grace Wallis for reviewing and providing comments on the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest: Authors Charlotte Neumair, Mattia Primoceri and Manfred Tacker were em-
ployed by the company Circular Analytics TK GmbH. They participated in the study in 2024. The
role of the company was to provide software and technical expertise, and it does not affect the ob-
jectivity and authenticity of the experiment. The remaining authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as
potential conflicts of interest.

References
1. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations FAO. Sustainable Food Systems: Concept and Framework; FAO: Rome,
Italy, 2018.
2. Kazancoglu, Y.; Ada, E.; Ozbiltekin-Pala, M.; Aşkın Uzel, R. In the nexus of sustainability, circular economy and food industry:
Circular food package design. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 415, 137778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137778.
3. Mendes, A.C.; Pedersen, G.A. Perspectives on sustainable food packaging is bio-based plastics a solution? Trends Food Sci.
Technol. 2021, 112, 839–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.03.049.
4. Gürlich, U.; Kladnik, V.; Pavlovic, K. Circular Packaging Design Guideline: Empfehlungen für Recyclinggerechte
Verpackungen—Version 05. 2022. Available online: https://www.ara.at/uploads/Dokumente/Guidelines-Circular-Packag-
ing/Circular-Packaging-Design-Guideline-V05_DE.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2024)
5. Ezeudu, O.B.; Agunwamba, J.C.; Ezeudu, T.S.; Ugochukwu, U.C.; Ezeasor, I.C. Natural leaf-type as food packaging material for
traditional food in Nigeria: Sustainability aspects and theoretical circular economy solutions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2021,
28, 8833–8843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11268-z.
6. Usmani, M.S.; Wang, J.; Ahmad, N.; Ullah, Z.; Iqbal, M.; Ismail, M. Establishing a corporate social responsibility implementation
model for promoting sustainability in the food sector: A hybrid approach of expert mining and ISM-MICMAC. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. Int. 2022, 29, 8851–8872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16111-7.
7. Al-Tayyar, N.A.; Youssef, A.M.; Al-Hindi, R. Antimicrobial food packaging based on sustainable Bio-based materials for reduc-
ing foodborne Pathogens: A review. Food Chem. 2020, 310, 125915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.125915.
8. Hanssen, O.J. Environmental impacts of product systems in a life cycle perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 1998, 6, 299–311.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(98)00031-6.
9. Reinhardt, G.; Gärtner, S.; Münch, J.; Häfele, S. Ökologische Optimierung Regional Erzeugter Lebensmittel: Energie-und
Klimagasbilanzen. 2009. Available online: http://ernaehrungsdenkwerkstatt.de/fileadmin/user_upload/EDWText/TextEle-
mente/Ernaehrungsoekologie/Regionale_Lebensmittel_IFEU_2009.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2024)
10. Reitz, A. Lebensmittelschutz ist Klimaschutz: Lebensmittelschutz durch Verpackungen: Auswirkungen auf den CO2-
Fußabdruck. Im Auftrag der:, Mainz/Wien. 2020. Available online: https://www.avu-online.de/wp-
content/uploads/2020/11/Klimaschutz-ist-Lebensmittelschutz-Studie-AGVU-denkstatt_November-2020.pdf (accessed on 6 June
2024).
11. Sangroniz, A.; Zhu, J.-B.; Tang, X.; Etxeberria, A.; Chen, E.Y.-X.; Sardon, H. Packaging materials with desired mechanical and
barrier properties and full chemical recyclability. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 3559. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11525-x.
12. Guillard, V.; Gaucel, S.; Fornaciari, C.; Angellier-Coussy, H.; Buche, P.; Gontard, N. The Next Generation of Sustainable Food
Packaging to Preserve Our Environment in a Circular Economy Context. Front. Nutr. 2018, 5, 121.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2018.00121.
13. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Eco-
nomic and Social Commitee and the Commitee of the Regions—Closing the Loop—An EU Action Plan for the Circular Econ-
omy. 2015. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:8a8ef5e8-99a0-11e5-b3b7-
01aa75ed71a1.0012.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (accessed on 22 July 2024)
Foods 2025, 14, 195 19 of 20

14. European Commission. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Packaging and Packaging Waste, Amend-
ing Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and Repealing Directive 94/62/EC. 2022. Available online:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0318_EN.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2024)
15. Otto, S.; Strenger, M.; Maier-Nöth, A.; Schmid, M. Food packaging and sustainability—Consumer perception vs. correlated
scientific facts: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 298, 126733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126733.
16. Testa, F.; Di Iorio, V.; Cerri, J.; Pretner, G. Five shades of plastic in food: Which potentially circular packaging solutions are
Italian consumers more sensitive to. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 173, 105726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105726.
17. Bundeministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft. Entwicklungen am deutschen Milchmarkt—Ein Überblick. Available
online: https://www.bmel.de/DE/themen/landwirtschaft/agrarmaerkte/entwicklungen-milchmarkt-de.html (accessed on 11
June 2024).
18. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Regionen und Wasserwirtschaft. Milchwirtschaft in Österreich. Available
online: https://info.bml.gv.at/themen/landwirtschaft/landwirtschaft-in-oesterreich/tierische-
produktion/milch/milchwirtschaft.html (accessed on 11 June 2024).
19. Bundesamt für Landwirtschaft BLW. Milch und Milchprodukte. Available online: https://www.blw.admin.ch/blw/de/home/na-
chhaltige-produktion/tierische-produktion/milch-und-milchprodukte.html (accessed on 11 June 2024).
20. Barukčić, I.; Ščetar, M.; Jakopović, K.L.; Kurek, M.; Božanić, R.; Galić, K. Overview of packaging materials for Dairy packaging.
Croat. J. Food Technol. Biotechnol. Nutr. 2021, 2021, 85–93.
21. Kontominas, M. Effects of packaging on milk quality and safety. In Improving the Safety and Quality of Milk: Effects of Packaging
on Milk Quality and Safety; Kontominas, M., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 136–158, ISBN 9781845698065.
22. Ncube, L.K.; Ude, A.U.; Ogunmuyiwa, E.N.; Zulkifli, R.; Beas, I.N. An Overview of Plastic Waste Generation and Management
in Food Packaging Industries. Recycling 2021, 6, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling6010012.
23. Stumpf, L.; Schöggl, J.-P.; Baumgartner, R.J. Circular plastics packaging—Prioritizing resources and capabilities along the sup-
ply chain. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2023, 188, 122261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122261.
24. Wohner, B.; Kladnik, V. Nachhaltigkeitsbewertung von Verpackungen: Eine Empfehlung der ECR Austria Arbeitsgruppe
“Nachhaltigkeitsbewertung”, Wien, 2020. Available online:
https://www.ecr.digital/wp_contents/uploads/whitepapers/ECR_Austria_Nachhaltigkeitsbewertung_INTERAKTIV.pdf
(accessed on 20 September 2024)
25. Nemat, B.; Razzaghi, M.; Bolton, K.; Rousta, K. Design-Based Approach to Support Sorting Behavior of Food Packaging. Clean
Technol. 2023, 5, 297–328. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol5010017.
26. Ragaert, K.; Huysveld, S.; Vyncke, G.; Hubo, S.; Veelaert, L.; Dewulf, J.; Du Bois, E. Design from recycling: A complex mixed
plastic waste case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 155, 104646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104646.
27. Statista GmbH. Marktanteile der führenden Unternehmen im Lebensmitteleinzelhandel in Österreich in 2019 und 2020. Avail-
able online: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/273211/umfrage/marktanteile-im-lebensmitteleinzelhandel-in-oester-
reich/ (accessed on 1 October 2024).
28. Bundesministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz. Österreichisches Lebensmittelhandbuch: IV.
Auflage Codexkapitel/B 32/Milch und Milchprodukte. 2023. Available online: https://www.verbrauchergesundheit.gv.at/Le-
bensmittel/buch/codex/B32_Milch_und_Milchprodukte.pdf?94wvih (accessed on 15 June 2024)
29. Rimbach, G.; Möhring, J.; Erbersdobler, H.F. Lebensmittel-Warenkunde für Einsteiger; Springer Berlin Heidelberg:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010.
30. European Commission. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament of of the Council of 20 December 206 on
nutrition and health claims made on foods. Off. J. Eur. Union 2006, 404, 9–25.
31. European Commission. Understanding Product Environmental Footprint and Organisation Environmental Footprint Methods; Publi-
cations Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2022.
32. International Standard. ISO 14067:2018; Greenhouse gases—Carbon Footprint of Products—Requirements and Guidelines for
Quantification, 2018th ed.; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
33. ISO 14040; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. International Organization for
Standardization, Vernier, Switzerland, 2006.
34. ISO 14044; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization
for Standardization, Vernier, Switzerland, 2006.
35. Packaging Cockpit GmbH. Packaging Cockpit: PSM Software—Packaging Specification Management Software. Available
online: https://packaging-cockpit.com/en/ (accessed on 30 September 2024).
Foods 2025, 14, 195 20 of 20

36. Klein, M.; Werner, C.; Tacker, M.; Apprich, S. Influence of Packaging Design on Technical Emptiability of Dairy Products and
Implications on Sustainability through Food Waste Reduction. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6335. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156335.
37. Brouwer, M.; Thoden van Velzen, U. Multi-dimensional sustainability assessment of product-packaging combinations: MuDiSa:
A calculation tool to assess the sustainability of product-packaging combinations in multiple dimensions of sustainability, Wa-
geningen, 2023. Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/633072 (accessed on 24 September 2024)
38. Stiftung Zentrale Stelle Verpackungsregister. Mindeststandard für die Bemessung der Recyclingfähigkeit von
Systembeteiligungspflichtigen Verpackungen gemäß § 21 Abs. 3 VerpackG, 2023. Available online:
https://www.verpackungsregister.org/fileadmin/files/Mindeststandard/Mindeststandard_VerpackG_2024.pdf (accessed on 9
December 2024)
39. European Commission. Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 of 14 January 2011 on plastic materials and articles intended
to come into contact with food. Off. J. Eur. Union 2011, 12, 1–89.
40. Restuccia, D.; Spizzirri, U.G.; Parisi, O.I.; Cirillo, G.; Curcio, M.; Iemma, F.; Puoci, F.; Vinci, G.; Picci, N. New EU regulation
aspects and global market of active and intelligent packaging for food industry applications. Food Control 2010, 21, 1425–1435.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.04.028.
41. Franz, R.; Welle, F. Recycling of Post-Consumer Packaging Materials into New Food Packaging Applications—Critical Review
of the European Approach and Future Perspectives. Sustainability 2022, 14, 824. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020824.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au-
thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.