When you calculate the carbon footprint of packaging in Pickler, you may notice that we do not automatically lower the score just because a package is labelled “reusable” or “refillable”.

This can feel surprising. Reusable packaging often sounds like an obvious win for the planet. But from a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) perspective, the environmental impact of reusable packaging depends on much more than the packaging itself.

The reason is simple: reuse is not just a packaging attribute. It is a system outcome.

A reusable package can reduce environmental impact when it is reused enough times in an efficient system. But to calculate that benefit, you need reliable data about what happens after the package is sold, used, returned, cleaned, and used

again.

Without that real-world data, applying a reuse discount would mean guessing. And guessing can make a package look more sustainable than it actually is.

In an LCA, it is important to define what is being measured. This is often called the system boundary.

For single-use packaging, the boundary is usually more predictable. You can calculate the impact of the raw materials, production, transport, and end-of-life, such as recycling or disposal.

Reusable packaging is different. It is not only a product. It is part of a reuse system.

To calculate the true impact of reusable packaging, you also need to understand what happens after the first use:

These factors differ strongly between customers, regions, product flows, and distribution models. Because Pickler cannot know how every specific return system performs in practice, we do not include a default reuse benefit in the standard footprint calculation.

To give a reusable package a lower footprint, the impact of producing that package is usually spread across the number of times it is actually used.

For example, if a sturdy crate is used 20 times, the production impact can be divided across 20 uses. But if it is only used 2 times in practice, the impact per use is much higher.

That difference matters.

A package may be designed for 20 uses, but the real number of uses depends on return behaviour, loss, damage, sorting, operational errors, and whether users participate correctly in the return system.

That is why Pickler does not reduce a product’s footprint based on expected or theoretical reuse cycles. The actual trip rate needs to be measured, not assumed.

Reusable packaging often has a higher production footprint than a single-use alternative.

This is because reusable packaging usually needs to be stronger, thicker, or heavier so it can survive multiple trips, washing, handling, and transport.

As a result, reusable packaging often starts with a higher environmental impact. It only becomes the better option once it is reused enough times to offset that higher production impact. This is often called the break-even point.

If a reusable package does not reach its break-even point in practice, it may not deliver the expected environmental benefit.

Because Pickler cannot verify whether a specific reuse system reaches that break-even point, we calculate the footprint of the physical packaging item itself. We do not automatically assume future reuse benefits.

Reusable packaging needs a return flow. Empty packaging has to be collected, transported, sorted, and brought back into the system. This is often called backhaul or reverse logistics.

This extra transport can add significant impact.

If return logistics are efficient, reuse can still reduce the total footprint. But if packaging travels long distances, returns in small volumes, or is transported inefficiently, the return impact can reduce or even cancel out the benefit of reuse.

Because return logistics differ strongly between systems, Pickler cannot apply one reliable default value for reusable packaging.

Reusable packaging often needs to be cleaned before it can be used again.

The impact of cleaning depends on factors such as:

A highly efficient industrial washing process can have a very different impact from a smaller or less efficient cleaning setup.

Because cleaning impact is specific to the actual reuse system, Pickler does not apply a generic cleaning assumption in the standard footprint calculation.

Reusable packaging systems also need to account for system loss.

System loss includes packaging that:

Losses directly affect the environmental performance of a reuse system. If many packages are lost, more new packaging needs to be produced to replace them. This reduces the benefit of reuse.

Because loss rates differ strongly between systems and are often difficult to verify, Pickler does not include default loss assumptions in the standard footprint calculation.

Pickler calculates the footprint of packaging based on data that can be consistently assessed, such as:

Pickler does not lower the footprint because a package is:

You can still add reuse-related information in Pickler, such as whether the packaging is reusable, the designed number of reuse cycles, and reuse instructions. This supports circularity documentation and PPWR-related product information.

These fields describe the intended design and use of the packaging, but they do not prove the actual environmental performance of the reuse system.

Pickler does not take re-use cycles for reusable packaging into account in its standard footprint calculations because reuse depends on the actual performance of the full reuse system.

The main reasons are:

Reusable packaging can be a sustainable option, but only when the reuse system performs well in practice. Because this requires system-specific data, Pickler does not include assumed reuse benefits in the standard footprint calculation.