Article
Carbon Footprint of Single-Use Plastic Items and
Their Substitution
Luca Di Paolo 1, Simona Abbate 1, Eliseo Celani 2, Davide Di Battista 1,* and Giovanni Candeloro 2
Citation: Di Paolo, L.; Abbate, S.;
Celani, E.; Di Battista, D.; Candeloro,
G. Carbon Footprint of Single-Use
Plastic Items and Their Substitution.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su142416563
Academic Editor: Silvia Fiore
Received: 3 November 2022
Accepted: 7 December 2022
Published: 10 December 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays
neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/license
s/by/4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416563
1 Department of Industrial and Information Engineering and Economics, University of L’Aquila,
67100 L’Aquila, Italy
2 Plastic Free Certification s.b.r.l., 64020 Bellante, Italy
* Correspondence: davide.dibattista@univaq.it; Tel.: +39-0862434485
Abstract: Single-use plastic is having a significant environmental impact and its reduction is a
mandatory step to reduce plastic pollution worldwide. Indeed, the time that a plastic item can
persist in the environment is very long and it is well known that it can produce devastating effects
in particular in seas and oceans. Moreover, production, use and disposal of plastic items have a
significant impact also on the greenhouse effect; this can be estimated in a life cycle approach, by
evaluating their carbon footprint. In this work, a review of the carbon footprint evaluation of dif-
ferent single-use plastic categories has been carried out, developing a methodology to immediately
evaluate the benefits related to their substitution with compostable and bio-plastic and/or multi-
ple-use items and materials. The result of the novel methodology developed is a certain number of
matrixes, which can categorize impact values in order to compare them with replacement with
bio-based plastic materials or multi-use things. Finally, the methodology was tested and validated
through a case study, where a plastic reduction plan was proposed and implemented and the CO2
equivalent reduction was assessed, demonstrating a reduction potential related to a replacement by
bioplastic or other materials equal, respectively, to 73% and 90%.
Keywords: carbon footprint; single-use plastic; LCA; plastic free
1. Introduction
In recent years, awareness concerning environmental issues related to plastic has
been increasing dramatically. Plastics’ resistance to biodegradation and their consequent
long-life persistence produce a negative environmental impact hard to abate. In this
context, an increase in plastic global production from 2 Mt to 380 Mt has been observed
from 1950 to 2015, of which approximately 80% is petrochemical [1], such as PE, PVC, PP,
PS and PET [2]. It is worth emphasizing that, despite the massive production, only 30%
is currently used and between 1950 and 2015, plastic waste amounted to 6300 Mt; of this,
12% has been incinerated and 9% has been recycled [3]. Every year 10–20 million tons of
plastics leak into the oceans [4] and their accumulation is found in the convergence
zones of each subtropical gyre, but today plastic debris has been found in different seas
and shores around the world [5,6]. Through photodegradation and other weathering
processes, plastic fragments are dispersed in the ocean [7]. Generation and accumulation
of plastic pollution also occur in closed bays [8], gulfs and seas surrounded by densely
populated coastlines [9,10], watersheds [11] and rivers estuaries [12]. The most im-
portant environmental implications of plastic in marine environments are entanglement,
ingestion, smothering by animals, hangers-on and alien species invasions [13]. More re-
cently, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused an increase in the use of single-use plastic
items due to the need to reduce contact among people and the increase in take-away
products [14,15].
The life span of plastic is estimated to be hundreds to thousands of years but is likely
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563 2 of 17

far longer in deep sea and non-surface polar environments [11,16].

Regarding the damage to human health, recent studies have detected microplastics
in human blood, lungs and placenta, and have highlighted that children are more vul-
nerable, drawing attention to the possible consequences. At the moment, it is not known
whether microplastics move between organs in a respiratory or a hematic way, and there
is still no proof of the contamination of the entire food chain, but scientific research is
currently considering correlations with the development of systemic diseases, some tu-
mor types and damage to neurodevelopment [17,18].
In May 2019, the EU approved a pioneer piece of legislation to reduce single-use
plastics; it aims to preserve our environment by reducing marine litter, greenhouse gas
emissions and our dependence on imported fossil fuels. The Single-Use Plastic Directive
is a part of the European Strategy Circular Economy action plan and defines different
actions that apply to different product categories, with a view to their progressive elim-
ination [19,20].
Many countries have transposed the directive into national laws for local applica-
tion; for example, in France, marketing of single-use plastic packaging must end by 2040,
and, to achieve this goal, reduction, reuse and recycling targets will be set by decree, with
progressive targets [21]. However, the difficulty in implementing policies in this regard is
evident and often the initiatives are scattered and entrusted to local entities [22]. Perhaps
the lack of clear standards in many countries is noteworthy, generating confusion and
regulatory and infrastructural issues [23].
Today, environmental legislation oversees a varied and lively market that is sharply
expanding, in parallel with an increase in the sensitivity of civil society towards climate
and environmental issues. As reported by Symbola, the Foundation for Italian Quality,
“reconstructing a quantitative picture of the diffusion of environmental certifications at
an international level is not a very simple undertaking: due to the multiplicity of subjects
in the field, to the fragmented availability of data, to the heterogeneity and the credibility
of the sources” [24]. In this regard, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) analyses take on great
importance with regard to obtaining independent assessments and thus preventing
greenwashing [25].
There are over 450 players in the world that provide environmental certifications,
with an annual growth of 6.2% (2017 data) [24]. There is a variety of programs that are
diverse and differentiated by subject, methodology and geography, including certifica-
tions in management systems, product quality, energy consumption, reduction of food
waste, responsible management of raw materials, etc.
In Italy, according to data from the Institute for Environmental Protection and Re-
search (ISPRA) from 2018, over 20 thousand companies have obtained a “green” envi-
ronmental management system certification under programs such as ISO 14001, Emas or
Ecolabel.
Globally, ISO 14001 is the most widespread program, according to IEMA data, with
an annual growth rate of 8% (2016 data) [26]. The EMAS standard, on the other hand, a
direct competitor of ISO 14001 but limited to Europe, had a growth of 40% between 2013
and 2014 (latest data available) [27].
Another reference program in Europe is Ecolabel, the European Union’s ecological
quality mark that distinguishes products with a reduced environmental impact. The
number of EU Ecolabel products has been increasing during recent years, now reaching
the unprecedented level of 89,357 products (goods and services) [28].
Another important environmental certification is the Environmental Product Dec-
laration (EDP). It is a global program addressing claims concerning the environmental
impact of the life cycle of products and services. The international EPD system is the first
and longest operational EPD program in the world, originally founded in 1998. It refers
to third-party environmental standards such as ISO 14025, EN 15804 and ISO 14067. To
date, over 400 organizations from nearly 50 countries publish their EPDs through the
program [29].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563 3 of 17

The Plastic Free Certification (PFC) Benefit Society proposal is part of this varied and
diversified scenario, the first and only company on a global level to propose a registered
operating standard that focuses on the use of single-use plastics and the related envi-
ronmental impact. The main value element proposed by PFC is the certification service,
accompanied by tutoring and consultancy services and capable of enhancing the envi-
ronmental commitment in the transition to a plastic free state. Among competing entities,
PFC is the only one that bases its certification methodology on a registered and protected
regulatory standard. It is a methodological tool that defines four operational phases
(Plastic Assessment, Definition KPI, Plastic Reduction Plan, Deployment), aimed at
structuring and coordinating an incremental process of reducing packaging and dispos-
able plastic materials.
In this work, firstly, a review of the Life Cycle Assessment of single-use plastic items
was performed. The study aimed to highlight the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
that are avoided thanks to the reduction, deletion or substitution of single-use plastic
items. Reduction or deletion policies have a clear impact on plastic waste direct pollution
decrease, but often they also reduce the life cycle greenhouse emissions of these compo-
nents. Secondly, a novel specific methodology was developed and it resulted in a com-
prehensive matrix of carbon footprint values for different single-use plastic items and
relative substitution with compostable plastic or multiuse material. In this way, the re-
duction of CO2 equivalent emissions can be immediately calculated after a reduction plan
for single-use plastic items. Finally, a case study was implemented in order to validate
the methodology and test the carbon footprint matrixes proposed: plastic reduction plans
were proposed and achieved CO2 equivalent reduction in the cases assessed, laying out
the path to a plastic free state.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology to be referred to is the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA, ISO 14040),
which records every environmental impact of a product (good or service) with the cra-
dle-to-grave approach, from the raw material for its creation extracted from the subsoil,
to the end-of-life management (waste), passing through all the production, assembly,
transport, distribution and use phases. When this methodology is applied only to envi-
ronmental impact related to global warming (greenhouse effect), it is called carbon foot-
print (ISO 14067) because carbon emissions (in the carbon dioxide form, CO2) are the
main cause of global-scale impact in this category.
Indeed, the developed procedure starts from bibliographic research on scientific
papers, international reports and publications on LCA and carbon footprint analysis of
single-use plastic items. This research allowed the obtaining of CO2 equivalent values
that are emitted during some products’ or some products’ categories’ life cycles. Usually,
software is used to evaluate the impact assessment, linked with a specific database:
Ecoinvent one is by far the most used and it can be seen as a common base for different
plastic objects. Therefore, this research allowed the use of group single-use plastic items
in some significant categories, for which the dataset would be more complete and espe-
cially would be of greater interest for businesses in evaluating benefits from plastic object
removal.
For all the categorized items, all the common plastic materials (PET, PVC, HDPE,
LDPE, PP, PS) were considered. With this approach, it was possible to produce summary
tables, in the form of double-entry matrixes, where each product or material category is
identified with a kg CO2eq/kg plastic value.
The functional unit, i.e., the unit used in estimates of impact, is in fact kg of plastic,
set from the weight of the individual object. This is by far the most used functional unit in
the literature for such analyses, since it enables one to compare different objects with
different uses. Only in a few cases have different functional units been adopted, referring,
for instance, to the number of items [21,30].
The categories identified are those in Table 1.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563 4 of 17

Table 1. Product categories identified.

Categories

Films

Garbage bags

Bottles

Detergent bottles

Cutlery

Other (general cases and packaging)

For all the categories considered, the same boundaries and scenarios were consid-
ered in order to obtain the best comparison level among categories and, above all, among
substitution scenarios within the same product category in Table 1. The life cycle ap-
proach considered is presented in Figure 1: in the cradle-to-gate section, the extraction of
raw materials (oil-based or biological ones) is considered, as well as the production of
different types of plastic and the manufacturing of products for each category; the use
phase is neglected with regard to single-use items—it is considered only for multi-use
ones (referring to a suitable number of instances of reuse); the end-of-life scenario is
represented by a proper share of incineration, recycling and waste disposal in landfill. In
upstream and downstream phases, the average European values for energy- and
transport-related emissions were considered [31,32].

Figure 1. Boundaries of the LCA analyses on single-use plastic items and substitution.

2.1. Plastic Films

In particular, the category “films” refers to the packaging—primary, secondary or
tertiary—used to wrap many products [24,33], including packaging for food [34,35].
Primary packaging refers to the film directly in contact with the product; secondary in-
cludes packaging used to wrap specific quantities of primary packages; tertiary packag-
ing includes larger containers for warehousing and storing packed things. In this case,
the function of the items is to cover or contain or keep together more than one product.
The functional unit can be square meters of film, but different materials have different
grammage (i.e., kg/m2) and, so, measuring by weight makes it easier to compare items
across different categories.
For films, the most used material is LDPE, with very few examples of PP and PET
films, which have higher costs [36]. For the substitution scenario, bio-based plastics are
considered, among which PLA is the most used one. Particular attention was paid to
Mater-Bi® material [37,38], which is a biodegradable and compostable bio-plastic used for
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563 5 of 17

films, bags and packaging in general. This material, indeed, received an environmental
certification which indicates that is has some impact according to ISO 14024 standards
and specific Product Category Rules (PCR) that define the evaluation impact methodol-
ogy [39,40]. This methodology was reproduced here, but with the referenced input values
of the other categories here considered and the scenario appropriate for end-of-life, with
no incineration.

2.2. Garbage Bags

The category “garbage bags” includes the various sizes (expressed in volume) of
garbage bags [30], and various plastic materials such as HDPE, LDPE and PP. Many Life
Cycle Assessments (LCAs) aim to compare the environmental performance of different
garbage bags. In particular, plastic materials are compared with alternative materials
(paper, biodegradable plastic, kraft paper, cotton, biodegradable and reusable polypro-
pylene non-woven bags) using a cradle-to-grave approach and the waste management is
characterized by a mix of three different end-of-life scenarios: incineration, landfill and
recycle [21,41].
The Life Cycle Assessment of garbage bags is usually influenced by parameters such
as the number of bags needed to fulfill the functional unit, the weight, the surface and the
biodegradability [21]. The most used functional unit is referred to as one bag equivalent
[21,42].

2.3. Bottles
The category “bottles” includes all types of single-use plastic bottles and therefore
involves different weights [43,44]. Liquid food packaging has been demonstrated to have
a higher environmental impact contribution compared to solid food packaging and it
should be prioritized for sustainability improvement [45]. Following the cradle-to-grave
methodology excluding retail, production and transport of secondary and tertiary
packaging, the factor that has the greatest influence on CO2eq emissions is the end-of-life
of the product. In the case of incineration, there is a very high CO2eq value, which has an
impact on the whole LCA. The best alternative material to plastic is PLA, which allows
greater reduction of emissions at the end-of-life of the product and makes the process
circular since the compost obtained can be used as a natural fertilizer [46]. The CO2eq
balance of biopolymers is neutral since the CO2 released during the production phases is
balanced by that consumed during the growth of maize plants.

2.4. Packaging
The category “other packaging” includes all those particular types of packaging,
other than films, which have different characteristics and shapes [47,48]. Similar consid-
erations can apply for films, but the data are average values and involve clamshells,
containers, bags, food trays, cases and other primary, secondary and even tertiary pack-
aging [49]. Pallets have also been focused on, demonstrating the reduced carbon footprint
resulting from the use of to wooden pallets compared to plastic ones [50].
Plastic packaging is used in many sectors: nursery, field, post-harvest, retailers,
consumers and landfill [34]; the types of plastic used in food product packaging are PP,
PET, PE, PA, EVOH and APET [51]; PET is the least preferred option [47]
Different disposal methods have been compared to evaluate how recycling influ-
ences the impact of plastic packaging [52,53].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563 6 of 17

2.5. Detergent Bottles

In addition, the category “detergent bottles” includes single-dose containers used
for hygiene-related products in general [54,55]. This category is particularly important for
hotels and residences in general. In this category, the functional units used are often dif-
ferent: our purposes are effectively met using the amount of active content (dose) for a
certain washing load [56]. The dose for a single-use detergent can vary between 10 mL
(for sachet-like primary packaging) and 40 mL (small bottle-shaped packaging). With this
functional unit, the allocation process can play an important role since the same factory
usually produces a different variety of products, co-products or side-products by
changing the formulation of the detergent. However, the plastic bottles are quite the
same and, so, the functional unit here proposed is kg of plastic, similar to the other cat-
egories studied.
The main materials are HDPE or more generally PE, in terms of extrusion of granu-
lates obtained by polymerization of ethylene, PP and PET produced by injection stretch
blow moulding [57]. Extrusion usually requires lower energy and it is cheaper, while in-
jection moulding allows higher freedom in shaping. The choice of kind of plastic can also
be imposed by content characteristics (for instance, UV reactivity or chemical resistance
[58]). An average weight of 7 g per single-use bottle can be estimated. Sometimes, poly-
imide plastic (PI) can also be used for sachet-like single-dose shower gel or other cos-
metics. Therefore, the substitution can be done with bio-based plastics or paper-based
products for sachets. Actually, the use of dispensers in bathrooms, showers and toilets is
the most practiced impact reduction, having the possibility to be refilled thousands of
times with a higher content of detergent.

2.6. Cutlery
Finally, the category “cutlery” includes all disposable plastic tableware—plates,
forks, knives, spoons, mixers, etc.—considering the average impact among these different
product categories [59]. Following a cradle-to-grave approach, the materials that are most
often used to replace plastic are PP and PS, which ensure a great reduction in CO2eq val-
ues when composting is used as end-of-life treatment [60,61].

2.7. Generic Plastic

Some more general reports have also been identified [62,63] which have made it
possible to develop the category defined as “other”, which includes all the objects of the
most various nature that can be considered disposable. In these reports, the CO2 emis-
sions related to plastic objects, in different materials, are estimated throughout the
product life cycle: starting from the extraction of petroleum products, to the refining
process to obtain plastic material, to processing in order to obtain finished products and
the end-of-life, divided into “incineration”, “recycling” and “landfill” [64].

2.8. Single-Use Plastic Substitution

The second phase of the assessment allows an analysis of the impact in terms of
greenhouse gas emissions, and also an analysis of the hypotheses of single-use plastics
substitution. Three main scenarios have therefore been identified: (a) use of products
made of compostable plastic materials; (b) use of reusable objects several times; (c) per-
manent disposal of plastic products by the process reorganization. Only in the latter case
is CO2 emission reduced to zero.
In the other two cases, it is necessary to compare the CO2 value estimated by the life
cycle of the compostable plastic object and the multipurpose object with the value of the
initial case, obtaining a net benefit [65,66]. An overview of the biodegradable plastic
materials used in place of fossil-based plastic is given in Table 2 (PLA, PHA, bio-PET,
bio-PE, etc.) [62,67]. In addition, the literature analysis takes into account tetrapak,
kraftpaper and wood as well as objects in multi-use material (glass, aluminum) [68,69].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563 7 of 17

Table 2. Bio-based alternatives to some of the most widely used fossil-based plastics.

Fossil-Based Plastics Equivalent or Approximate Bio-based Alternatives

PP Bio-PP, Bio-PPT, PLA, PHA, PHB, TPS, cellulose based
PE Bio-PE, PLA, PHB, PHA, starch- and cellulose-based polymers, PBS
PS PLA, PHA, TPS, cellulose-based polymers
PET Bio-PET, PEF
PVC Bio-PVC, PHA, starch- and cellulose-based polymers
PUR Bio-PUR

In this way, the benefit obtained from the replacement of single-use plastic objects,
and the difference in the carbon footprint with the considered hypotheses of substitution,
is clear and allows one to direct the choice of replacement towards opportunities that
further reduce the equivalent CO2 associated with the product chain (Figure 2). It is also
appropriate to point out that, in the case of multi-use material, the impact is divided into
the average number of times an item is used.

Figure 2. Flowchart of the proposed procedure. On the left, the section on impact assessment when
single-use plastic objects are used and on the right when these are replaced by compostable mate-
rials or multi-use objects. Input data from a plastic assessment report.

Summarizing the whole procedure developed, and shown in Figure 2, the following
path has been lain out:
(a) A specific literature review was performed in order to merge the carbon footprint
values (kgCO2eq) of several studies of single-use plastic items and their substitution
(Sections 2.1–2.7);
(b) The items individuated were categorized (Table 1);
(c) For each category, an average value of specific carbon footprint (kgCO2eq/kg item)
was calculated depending on the material used (conventional fossil-based plastic or
sustainable alternatives—bio-based material or multi-use item);
(d) Specific two-dimensional matrixes were constructed using the carbon footprint
values calculated, where product categories and material are the input elements;
(e) Collecting simple primary data (i.e., product to be substituted, weights, number of
items and materials), it is possible to use the matrixes to directly evaluate the carbon
footprint of the initial items and their sustainable substitution, comparing each to
assess the possible benefits in terms of CO2eq saved.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563 8 of 17

2.9. Main Influence Parameters

The conducted analysis allows one to evaluate the parameters that most influence
the values of equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of single-use plastic products [70].
Among these, end-of-life management [53], the possible phases of the transporting of raw
material, semi-finished and finished products [24,71] and the energy mix of electricity
production in the geographical context of reference [72] certainly have a strong impact.
In particular, Table 3 shows the percentage contributions to global warming of each
stage of plastic material production: polymer production, from crude oil extraction to
raw material production, causes the greatest impact in terms of greenhouse gas emis-
sions, followed by end-of-life management and the manufacturing process [61]

Table 3. Percentage contribution of each stage to global warming.

Stage % Contribution to Global Warming

Polymer 45–60%
Transport of the polymer 1–2%
Manufacturing process 10–20%
Distribution and use phase 3–5%
End-of-life 20–25%

The percentage contributions shown in Table 3 are strongly influenced by end-of-life

management: incineration has the highest GWP value, four orders of magnitude higher
than landfill and two orders of magnitude higher than recycling [51]. In a scenario in
which only incineration is used as waste treatment, the percentage contribution of the
end-of-life phase to global warming impact is very high, reaching a contribution value
near 50% (Figure 3).

Polymer Transport and use phase

Manufacturing process End-of-life

LDPE-
incineration

LDPE-landfill

LDPE-recycling

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 3. Percentage contribution of each stage to global warming, considering three scenarios of
end-of-life for LDPE material.

Furthermore, another parameter that plays an important role is Land Use Change
(LUC), which contributes at least 10% of the carbon footprint of bioplastic products, es-
sentially due to the release of CO2 resulting from land clearing and the subsequent im-
plementation of mono-cultivation of biomass to produce biopolymers [61].
These considerations allow one to understand the complexity of LCA analyses of
single-use items in plastic and alternative materials, which are strongly influenced by
methodology, boundaries and geographical context, especially considering that the
management of waste also varies greatly among geographical contexts (Table 4) [73,74].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563 9 of 17

Table 4. Waste management by country.

% Contribution End-Of-Life Managment

Geographical Context
Incineration Recycling Landfill
U.S. 14% 6% 80%
Italy 36% 31% 33%
Spain 19% 42% 39%
France 43% 24% 33%
Germany 61% 38% 1%
U.K. 45% 32% 23%

Considering other impact categories makes the analyses more complex but also
more complete and should allow one to take into account, for example, water consump-
tion involved in bioplastics, which is about 20 times higher than for HDPE and LDPE, or
the littering phenomenon.
The latter in particular is not generally considered in LCA analyses, even if the sci-
entific literature already defines littering indicators to evaluate its impact potential in
terms of environmental release, dispersion and persistence: in this sense, bioplastic and
plastic from fossil fuel seem to have the same performance [25,30], validating arguments
that focus on plastic reduction and reuse, instead of substituting a plastic single-use item
for a bio-based, biodegradable or compostable one [75].

3. Results and Discussion

The results of the developed procedure have been organized in a matrix form (Table
5) in order to be easily used for a quick evaluation of the environmental impact of the
item used. The values of kgCO2eq obtained in the literature review (and given in Sections
2.1–2.7) are presented in a look-up table, where the two inputs are plastic material and
item category, as outlined earlier (Table 5). In the analysis, kgCO2eq indicates the weight
of the item, with the average calculated for each category in the literature review. The
look-up table presents the specific CO2eq emissions for each category and for each type of
plastic material. It is important to note that not every material can be used for each cate-
gory since some items are made only with specific kinds of plastic. The “other” category
row is the only one entirely filled out, since it groups several different objects.

Table 5. Final classic plastic carbon footprint values expressed in kg CO2/kg plastic.

Categories PVC PP PET HDPE LDPE PS PU PE

Films 3.000
Garbage bags 3.200 4.130
Bottles 6.400
Detergent bottles 4.268 5.298 4.478 4.528 4.503
Cutlery 2.638 2.670 3.800 4.018
Other (general cases and packaging) 4.438 4.268 5.298 4.478 4.528 5.608 7.628 4.503

The same procedure was applied to the possible substitution of single-use plastic
items, as referenced in Sections 2.1–2.8. A look-up table was developed in which the same
categories were considered, but with bio-based plastics and reusable materials (Table 6).
Therefore, in this matrix, for each categorized item, it is possible to evaluate the carbon
footprint for the different possibilities of replacement with compostable plastic or mul-
ti-use items. The specific values of kgCO2 per kg of bio-based plastic can be calculated via
the methods of the literature review presented here and the environmental impact can be
calculated when the weight of the item itself is known; if multi-use items are considered,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563 10 of 17

the number of possible reuses has to be estimated for the specific emission value, which is
divided by this number of reuses themselves.

Table 6. Alternative more sustainable materials’ carbon footprints (values expressed in kg CO2/kg
item).

CATEGORIES PLA PHA Compostable Paper Wood Tetrapak Glass Kraftpaper

Films 2.300 - 2.798 - - -
Garbage bags 3.500 1.310 0.420
Bottles 2.480 2.000 0.0087
Detergent bottles 2.703 1.903 3.058
Cutlery 3.762 1.270 1.400 1.623
Other (general cases and packaging) 2.703 1.903 3.058 3.940 3.250 0.570

Thanks to these two look-up tables, for each item category, a direct comparison in
terms of kg CO2eq/kg of weight is possible. For instance, Table 7 presents this comparison
for the category “other”, which is the most complete category, subtracting the emission
value of the substitution material from the single-plastic one. However, this comparison
can be fair only if the substitution item is exactly the same as the single-use one. Other-
wise, the right weight should be considered for the new item, and the final difference is
expressed in absolute terms of kgCO2 per item and not in specific emission per weight.

Table 7. Substitution matrix: difference between fossil-based and sustainable values of carbon
footprint of single-use items in the general plastic category.

Other (general cases and packaging) PVC PP PET HDPE LDPE PS PU PE

kgCO2/kg 4.438 4.268 5.298 4.478 4.528 5.608 7.628 4.503
PLA 2.703 1.735 1.565 2.595 1.775 1.825 2.905 4.925 1.8
PHA 1.903 2.535 2.365 3.395 2.575 2.625 3.705 5.725 2.6
compostable
3.058 1.38 1.21 2.24 1.42 1.47 2.55 4.57 1.445
(bio-PET, bio-PP, bio-PE)
paper 3.94 0.498 0.328 1.358 0.538 0.588 1.668 3.688 0.563
wood 3.25 1.188 1.018 2.048 1.228 1.278 2.358 4.378 1.253
tetrapak 0.57 3.868 3.698 4.728 3.908 3.958 5.038 7.058 3.933

Application to a Case Study

In order to make the methodology clearer and to validate it, it was applied to real
case study data. In particular, data from a hotel and catering business were collected, in
terms of kind and amount of single-use plastic items (on a yearly basis) and the weights
of the objects. The goal of the company is to improve its sustainability rate by substituting
with bioplastics or other materials the following single-use plastic items: water bottles
(0.5 L), garbage bags (30 L), plates, spoons, forks, knives and cutlery bags. For each item
more than one alternative was analyzed, taking into account the following materials:
glass, tetrapak, PLA, paper, kraftpaper bio-plastic and wood.
The processing of the results was characterized by three main phases:
 Primary data collection referring to single-use plastic items to be replaced: product,
material, weight, annual consumption;
 Identification of alternative items: materials and weight;
 Calculation of carbon footprint using the substitution matrix, both for plastic items
and their alternatives.
Table 8 shows the overall single-use substitution for the selected items in the case
study. The rows indicate the product kind, the categorization proposed (according to
Table 1), the number of items consumed in a year, the weight of each product and the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563 11 of 17

material. Therefore, the initial carbon footprint impact can be evaluated using Table 5.
Hence, possible substitution objects with sustainable materials were identified, with
proper weight and new CO2 equivalent emissions calculated using Table 6. It is worth
highlighting that plastic water bottle is the product most impactful in terms of CO2
emissions (275.2 kg per month), but it is also the one that offers alternatives that guaran-
tee the biggest CO2 saving, both in absolute and percentage terms. In fact, by replacing
PET with glass bottles, a reduction in CO2 emissions amounting to 274.1 kg per year is
obtained, which corresponds to a percentage reduction equal to 99.6% compared to the
starting value. This is clearly due the fact that glass can be reused many times. Consid-
ering water bottles in tetrapak and PLA, the carbon footprint percentage reduction
reaches lower values of 75.4% and 79.7%, respectively.

Table 8. Case study on substituting single-use plastic.

Initial New
Annual New Delta
Weight CO2 Substituting CO2
Product Category Consump Material Weight CO2
(kg) Value Material Value
tion (kg) (kg)
(kg) (kg)
Glass 0.0573 1.1 −274.1
Water bottle 0.5 L Bottles 2252 0.0191 PET 275.2 Tetrapak 0.015 67.6 −207.6
PLA 0.01 55.8 −219.4
Paper 0.055 5 −7.4
Garbage
Garbage Bags 30 L 70 0.043 LDPE 12.4 Compostable 0.012 2.9 −9.5
Bags
Kraftpaper 0.15 4.4 −8
Compostable 0.011 21 −56.9
Plate Cutlery 1500 0.015 LDPE 77.9
Paper 0.011 16.5 −61.4
Compostable 0.005 17.9 −0.1
Spoons, forks and knives Cutlery 1500 0.004 PP 18
Wood 0.0025 4.8 −13.2
Other Paper 0.0021 12.4 −14.2
Pouch 1500 0.004 PP 26.6
packaging Compostable 0.003 13.8 −12.8

As concerns garbage bags, plates and cutlery bags, it is noted that bioplastics ensure
a comparable performance in terms of CO2eq emissions with respect to paper and
kraftpaper, although slightly lower. This does not apply to cutlery, for which wood en-
sures a lower carbon footprint value, with a reduction in CO2eq emissions equal 73.3%,
which is considerably larger than bioplastics (−0.55%).
Figure 4 shows the overall carbon footprint of single-use plastic items actually used
in the case study (470.1 kgCO2/year) and the reduction potential related to replacement
with bioplastic or other materials, equal to 73% and 90%, respectively. The bioplastic
scenario is indicated in the rows of Table 8 with compostable or PLA, while the other
materials scenario concerns the substitution of single-use plastic items with reusable
materials. It is important to note that, in the data reported in Figure 4, glass bottles and
paper garbage bags were considered in the “other materials” scenario.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563 12 of 17

450

400
kg CO2eq
350

300
kg CO2eq
250

200

150

100

50

0
Plastic Bioplastic Other materials

Figure 4. Carbon footprint of single-use items in plastic, compared to single-use bioplastic items
and other materials (multi-use ones) scenarios for the case study presented.

4. Conclusions
In this paper, a wide methodology to evaluate the environmental impact of sin-
gle-use plastics was developed, aiming at assessing the possible benefits related to the
substitution with more sustainable alternatives or the total use discontinuation of sin-
gle-use plastics.
The methodology starts from a literature review of studies that evaluated the
worldwide environmental impact of single-use plastic items, making use of the holistic
method of Life Cycle Assessment. In this way, all the products that are usually made
with single-use plastics were grouped into functional categories, having as a functional
unit the weight of the item. The analysis was limited to the carbon footprint of these ob-
jects, expressed in equivalent kg CO2. In the review, the life cycle of each plastic was
considered, from the extraction of the raw material to the production of the plastic, from
the manufacture of the items to the end-of-life. This final phase received particular at-
tention: incineration, recycling and disposal are the three possibilities and they signifi-
cantly influence the final carbon footprint performance of a plastic object.
This literature review developed a number of impact matrixes—look-up tables
where the impact of each category is expressed in terms of CO2eq emitted, depending on
the specific material of the item.
The same procedure was applied to potential substitution items: single-use items
made of bio-based plastics or objects made of reusable materials. In this latter case, the
single impact should be divided by the number of reuses. In the case of bio-plastics, the
geographical context can be not negligible, influencing the energy mix and end-of-life
management. Land use change and water requirement need further attention with re-
gard to bio-based materials, which can lead to unexpected higher carbon footprint values
or greater general environmental impact.
Finally, the procedure was tested on a real case study of a hotel and catering busi-
ness, where an assessment of single-use plastic was conducted in order to list all the sin-
gle-use items actually employed (cutlery, garbage bags, water bottles, etc.). With this
methodology, two scenarios were proposed: one considered replacement with objects
made of bio-based materials, with a potential CO2eq reduction equal to 73%; the second
scenario considered the introduction of multi-use objects, with a higher reduction, up to
90% on an annual basis. This test also aimed to find hot spots, in terms of carbon footprint
of items employed in the company, and to choose the substitution options that have a
higher carbon dioxide reduction potential. That it needs only a limited amount of pri-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563 13 of 17

mary data (number of items, categorization and weight) is one of the methodology’s
strengths.
Indeed, the developed procedure makes it easy to directly compare single-use plas-
tic items and their alternatives (bio-plastic objects or multi-use ones), evaluating the po-
tential benefits in terms of kg CO2eq of the replacement scenario. This can validate a sub-
stitution already in place or help decision makers and single citizens to take actions and
choices in the direction of the most sustainable scenario, also involving other environ-
mental impact categories. The matrix form is also easy to understand and to adapt to the
different categories of items determined and it is easy to introduce it into more complex
algorithms of environmental impact assessment or global sustainability index evalua-
tions, which could definitively be a future research direction. Indeed, the limitation of
carbon footprint analyses is related to the missing categories addressing other impacts
which can also be significant for plastic or bio-plastic objects (water footprint, energy
footprint, land use, toxicity, acidification potential, etc.).
This procedure is easy to update in order to consider new data from updated liter-
ature studies or particular item categories and it is also easy to contextualize it in a spe-
cific geographic context (i.e., with specific data on transport or on electric energy mix) or
to use it to consider specific sustainable materials and novel sustainable options contin-
uously under development.
This procedure can lead, also, to more widespread labeling and certification of plas-
tic free companies, assessing at the same time the related potential of carbon footprint
reduction. The final evaluation of CO2eq reduction, eventually, could extend the possibil-
ity to participate to immaterial financial markets of CO2, and this could enhance sin-
gle-use plastic substitution if a potential CO2 reduction is demonstrated.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.D.B. and G.C.; methodology, D.D.B.; software, S.A.
and L.D.P.; validation, L.D.P., S.A. and E.C.; formal analysis, L.D.P. and S.A.; investigation, L.D.P.,
S.A. and E.C.; resources, G.C. and D.D.B.; data curation, L.D.P., S.A. and E.C.; writing—original
draft preparation, L.D.P., S.A. and E.C.; writing—review and editing, D.D.B. and G.C.; visualiza-
tion, L.D.P. and D.D.B.; supervision, D.D.B. and G.C. All authors have read and agreed to the pub-
lished version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: Plastic Free Certification s.b.r.l. has been kindly acknowledged for technical
support and sharing relevant information about the plastic assessment and reduction action plans
development.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
APET Amorphous-PET
EVOH Ethylene vinyl alcohol
LDPE Low-density polyethylene
HDPE High-density polyethylene
PA Polyamide
PBS Polybutylene succinate
PE Polyethylene
PEF Polyethylene Furanoate
PET Polyethylene terephthalate
PHA Polyhydroxyalkanoates
PHB Polyhydroxybutyrate
PLA Polylactic acid
PP Polypropylene
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563 14 of 17

PS Polystyrene
PUR Polyurethane
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
TPS Thermoplastic Starch

References
1. Gross, M. Our planet wrapped in plastic. Curr. Biol. 2017, 27, R785–R788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.08.007.
2. Urbanek, A.K.; Rymowicz, W.; Mirończuk, A.M. Degradation of plastics and plastic-degrading bacteria in cold marine
habitats, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 102, 7669–7678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-018-9195-y.
3. Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J.R.; Law, K.L. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, 3–8.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782.
4. Raynaud, J. Valuing Plastics: The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods
Industry, 2014. Available online:
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/25302/Valuing_Plastic_ES.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y%0Awww.g
pa.unep.org%0Awww.unep.org/pdf/ValuingPlastic/ (accessed on 11 September 2022).
5. Eriksen, M.; Lebreton, L.C.M.; Carson, H.S.; Thiel, M.; Moore, C.J.; Borerro, J.C.; Galgani, F.; Ryan, P.G.; Reisser, J., Plastic
Pollution in the World’s Oceans: More than 5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea. PLoS ONE 2014,
9, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111913.
6. Cesarini, G.; Secco, S.; Battisti, C.; Questino, B.; Marcello, L.; Scalici, M. Temporal changes of plastic litter and associated
encrusting biota: Evidence from Central Italy (Mediterranean Sea). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 181, 113890.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113890.
7. Lebreton, L.; Slat, B.; Ferrari, F.; Sainte-Rose, B.; Aitken, J.; Marthouse, R.; Hajbane, S.; Cunsolo, S.; Schwarz, A.; Levivier, A.; et
al. Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is rapidly accumulating plastic. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22939-w.
8. Cooper, D.A.; Corcoran, P.L. Effects of mechanical and chemical processes on the degradation of plastic beach debris on the
island of Kauai, Hawaii. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010, 60, 650–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.12.026.
9. Turner, A.; Holmes, L. Occurrence, distribution and characteristics of beached plastic production pellets on the island of Malta
(central Mediterranean). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.09.027.
10. Eriksson, C.; Burton, H. Origins and Biological Accumulation of Small Plastic Particles in Fur Seals from Macquarie Island.
AMBIO J. Hum. Environ. 2003, 32, 380–384. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-32.6.380.
11. Barnes, D.K.A.; Galgani, F.; Thompson, R.C.; Barlaz, M.; Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global
environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 1985–1998. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0205.
12. Rakib, M.R.J.; Hossain, M.B.; Kumar, R.; Ullah, M.A.; al Nahian, S.; Rima, N.N.; Choudhury, T.R.; Liba, S.I.; Yu, J.; Khandaker,
M.U.; et al. Spatial distribution and risk assessments due to the microplastics pollution in sediments of Karnaphuli River
Estuary, Bangladesh. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12296-0.
13. Gregory, M.R. Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings-entanglement, ingestion, smothering,
hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 2013–2025.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0265.
14. Winton, D.; Marazzi, L.; Loiselle, S. Drivers of public plastic (mis)use—New insights from changes in single-use plastic usage
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 849, 157672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157672.
15. Rivas, M.L.; Albion, I.; Bernal, B.; Handcock, R.N.; Heatwole, S.J.; Parrott, M.L.; Piazza, K.A.; Deschaseaux, E. The plastic
pandemic: COVID-19 has accelerated plastic pollution, but there is a cure. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 847, 157555.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157555.
16. EU Commission. Single-Use Plastics: New EU Rules to Reduce Marine Litter; Ip/18/3927; European Commission: Brussels,
Belgium, 2018; pp. 1–3. Available online: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-3927_en.htm (accessed on 15 September
2022).
17. D’Ambrosio, C. Microplastiche e Nanoparticelle Nel Corpo Umano: Tutto Quello che c’è da Saper e. 2022. Available online:
https://economiacircolare.com/microplastiche-nel-corpo-umano/?fbclid=IwAR1d1OH3P5OId29JqMvX4x-5rTKm_Gp6LGyFP
OpPU_2QNP8OrSWSeDUZMF8 (accessed on 14 September 2022).
18. Leslie, H.A.; van Velzen, M.J.M.; Brandsma, S.H.; Vethaak, A.D.; Garcia-Vallejo, J.J.; Lamoree, M.H. Discovery and
quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environ. Int. 2022, 163, 107199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199.
19. Arbinolo, R. EU Agrees Unprecedented Cuts to Single-Use Plastics. Rethinkplasticalliance.Eu. 2018. Available online:
https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/2018/12/19/eu-agrees-unprecedented-cuts-to-single-use-plastics/ (accessed on 15
September 2022).
20. Siracusa, V.; Rosa, M.D.; Romani, S.; Rocculi, P.; Tylewicz, U. Life Cycle Assessment of multilayer polymer film used on food
packaging field. Procedia Food Sci. 2011, 1, 235–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profoo.2011.09.037.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563 15 of 17

21. L’Assemblée Nationale et le Sénat Ont Adopté, LOI no 2020-105 du 10 Février 2020 Relative à la Lutte Contre le Gaspillage et à
L’économie Circulaire. 2020. Available online: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000041553759/ (accessed on 14
September 2022).
22. Lima, L.R.; Gutierrez, R.F.; Cruz, S.A. Challenges in the context of single-use plastics and bioplastics in Brazil: A legislative
review. Waste Manag. Res. J. A Sustain. Circ. Econ. 2022, 40, 5548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X211055548.
23. Springle, N.; Li, B.; Soma, T.; Shulman, T. The complex role of single-use compostable bioplastic food packaging and
foodservice ware in a circular economy: Findings from a social innovation lab. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 33, 664–673.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.08.006.
24. Symbola. Certificare per Competere. Dalle Certificazioni Ambientali Nuova Forza al Made in Italy. 2016. Available online:
https://www.symbola.net/approfondimento/certificare-per-competere/ (accessed on 15 September 2022).
25. Santucci, S. Analisi LCA: Cosa è, a Cosa Serve e Come Combatte il Greenwashing. Economia Circolare.
https://economiacircolare.com/analisi-lca-life-cycle-assessment/ (accessed on 7 December 2022).
26. Iema.net. IEMA Reports 8% Growth in Global ISO 14001 Data. 2017; pp. 3–7.
https://www.iema.net/resources/news/2017/09/26/iema-reports-8-growth-in-global-iso-14001-data/ (accessed on 15 September
2022).
27. Alessi, D.Z.R.; Cesare, G.; D’Amico, M.; Nisi, A.; Nizzero, F.; Patriarca, M.; Rizzitiello, F.; Tropea, V.; Ubaldini, S. Certificazione
Ambientale-Ecolabel ISPRA. Annual Environmental reporting data, Rome, 2015; pp. 1–24. Available online:
https://www.isprambiente.gov.it/files2019/pubblicazioni/stato-ambiente/annuario-2018/18_Certificazione_ambientale.pdf
(accessed on 9 December 2022).
28. EPD. The International EPD System. 2022. Available online: https://www.environdec.com/home (accessed on 20 September
2022).
29. Ecolabelling Denmark. EU Ecolabel Key Figures. 2022. https://www.ecolabel.dk/en/about/ecolabels-in-figures (accessed on 15
September 2022).
30. Civancik-Uslu, D.; Puig, R.; Hauschild, M.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P. Life cycle assessment of carrier bags and development of a
littering indicator. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 685, 621–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.372.
31. Abbate, S.; di Paolo, L.; Carapellucci, R.; Cipollone, R. Urban context and neighbouring lands: How reforestation could have a
role in the implementation of Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plans. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 312, 10002.
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202131210002.
32. di Battista, D.; Barchiesi, C.; di Paolo, L.; Abbate, S.; Sorvillo, S.; Cinocca, A.; Carapellucci, R.; Ciamponi, D.; Cardone, D.;
Corroppolo, S.; et al. The reporting of sustainable energy action plans of municipalities: Methodology and results of case
studies from the abruzzo region. Energies 2021, 14, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14185932.
33. Alhazmi, H.; Almansour, F.H.; Aldhafeeri, Z. Plastic waste management: A review of existing life cycle assessment studies,
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105340.
34. Barlow, C.Y.; Morgan, D.C. Polymer film packaging for food: An environmental assessment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 78,
74–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.07.003.
35. Dahlgren, L.; Stripple, H. A Comparative LCA Study of Various Concepts for Shopping Bags and Cement Sacks; IVL Swedish
Environmental Research Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2016; p. 78.
36. Horodytska, O.; Valdés, F.J.; Fullana, A. Plastic flexible films waste management—A state of art review. Waste Manag. 2018, 77,
413–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.023.
37. Scaffaro, R.; Sutera, F.; Botta, L. Biopolymeric bilayer films produced by co-extrusion film blowing. Polym. Test. 2018, 65, 35–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.11.010.
38. Mistretta, M.C.; Botta, L.; Arrigo, R.; Leto, F.; Malucelli, G.; la Mantia, F.P. Bionanocomposite blown films: Insights on the
rheological and mechanical behavior. Polymers 2021, 13, 1167. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13071167.
39. Label!, LA MULTIETICHETTA ELABEL ! Regolamento. 2020. Available online:
https://www.multietichetta.it/website/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/eLabel-REGOLAMENTO_v3-1-rev.-20-gennaio-2020.pdf
(accessed on 1 October 2022).
40. PlasticEurope. Eco-Profiles Program and Methodology PlasticsEurope, Version 3; PlasticEurope: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2019; pp. 1–39.
41. Papong, S.; Malakul, P.; Trungkavashirakun, R.; Wenunun, P.; Chom-In, T.; Nithitanakul, M.; Sarobol, E. Comparative
assessment of the environmental profile of PLA and PET drinking water bottles from a life cycle perspective. J. Clean. Prod.
2014, 65, 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.030.
42. Ahamed, A.; Vallam, P.; Iyer, N.S.; Veksha, A.; Bobacka, J.; Lisak, G. Life cycle assessment of plastic grocery bags and their
alternatives in cities with confined waste management structure: A Singapore case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123956.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123956.
43. Tamburini, E.; Costa, S.; Summa, D.; Battistella, L.; Fano, E.A.; Castaldelli, G. Plastic (PET) vs bioplastic (PLA) or refillable
aluminium bottles—What is the most sustainable choice for drinking water? A life-cycle (LCA) analysis. Environ. Res. 2021, 196,
110974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.110974.
44. Voulvoulis, V.; Kirkman, N.; Giakoumis, R.; Metivier, T.; Kyle, P.; Midgley, C. Examining Material Evidence. The Carbon
Fingerprint; Imperial College London: London, UK, 2020; pp. 1–15.
45. Kan, M.; Miller, S.A. Environmental impacts of plastic packaging of food products. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 180, 106156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106156.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563 16 of 17

46. Leejarkpai, T.; Mungcharoen, T.; Suwanmanee, U. Comparative assessment of global warming impact and eco-efficiency of PS
(polystyrene), PET (polyethylene terephthalate) and PLA (polylactic acid) boxes. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 125, 95–107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.029.
47. Verghese, K.; Lockrey, S.; Clune, S.; Sivaraman, D. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Food and Beverage Packaging; Woodhead
Publishing Limited: Sawston, UK, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857095664.4.380.
48. Finkbeiner, M. (Ed.) Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Management; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 359–370.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1899-9.
49. Johansson, M.; Löfgren, C. Comparing the Environmental Profile of Innovative FibreForm® Food Trays against Existing Plastic
Packaging Solutions (2017–2019); RISE-Research Institutes of Sweden: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2019; p. 87.
50. Weththasinghe, K.K.; Akash, A.; Harding, T.; Subhani, M.; Wijayasundara, M. Carbon footprint of wood and plastic as
packaging materials—An Australian case of pallets. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 132446.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132446.
51. Choi, B.; Yoo, S.; Park, S.I. Carbon footprint of packaging films made from LDPE, PLA, and PLA/PBAT blends in South Korea.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2369. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072369.
52. Madival, S.; Auras, R.; Singh, S.P.; Narayan, R. Assessment of the environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell
containers using LCA methodology. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 1183–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.03.015.
53. Post, L. Life Cycle Analysis of Three Polystyrene Waste Scenarios Biodegradation by Mealworms as an Alternative to
Incineration or Recycling. Bachelor’s Thesis, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden, 2020.
54. European Comission. Revision of European Ecolabel Criteria for Soaps, Shampoos and Hair Conditioners Preliminary results
from the technical analysis. Oper. Theory Adv. Appl. 2012, 274, 17–44.
55. Leissner, S.; Ryan-Fogarty, Y. Challenges and opportunities for reduction of single use plastics in healthcare: A case study of
single use infant formula bottles in two Irish maternity hospitals, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 151, 104462.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104462.
56. Sandrine, P.; Jérôme, P. Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules Guidance; PEFCR Guid. Doc.; European Commission:
Brussels, Belgium, 2018; p. 238. Available online:
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/PEFCR_guidance_v6.3.pdf (accessed on 7 October 2022).
57. Sphera. Sphera Solutions GmbH. (n.d.). Available online:
http://lcdn.thinkstep.com/Node/login.xhtml?stock=default&stock=default (accessed on 7 October 2022).
58. OECD. Case Study on Detergent Bottles. Available online:
https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk-management/sustainable-plastic-products-detergent-bottles.pdf (accessed on 12
September 2022).
59. Herberz, T.; Barlow, C.Y.; Finkbeiner, M. Sustainability assessment of a single-use plastics ban. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3746.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093746.
60. Franklin Associates. Life Cycle Inventory of Foam Polystyrene, Paper-Based, and PLA Foodservice Products; Franklin Associates:
Prairie Village, KA, USA, 2011; p. 149.
61. Moretti, C.; Hamelin, L.; Jakobsen, L.G.; Junginger, M.H.; Steingrimsdottir, M.M.; Høibye, L.; Shen, L. Cradle-to-grave life cycle
assessment of single-use cups made from PLA, PP and PET. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 169, 105508.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105508.
62. Dils, E. ETC/WMGE Report 3/2021: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Natural Capital Implications of Plastics (Including
Biobased Plastics). 2021. Available online:
https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-wmge/products/etc-wmge-reports/greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-natural-capital-impl
ications-of-plastics-including-biobased-plastics (accessed on 31 July 2022).
63. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Plastics. EPA’s Waste Reduction Model. 2015.
https://www.epa.gov/warm/versions-waste-reduction-model-warm (accessed on 9 December 2022).
64. Maga, D.; Hiebel, M.; Aryan, V. A comparative life cycle assessment of meat trays made of various packaging materials.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 5324. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195324.
65. Brandt, B.; Pilz, H. The Impact of Plastic Packaging on Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
Europe. Executive Summary. 2011, pp. 1–7. Available online:
https://plasticseurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2011-Denkstatt-Summary-E-GHG_Packaging.pdf (accessed on 9
December 2022).
66. Bishop, G.; Styles, D.; Lens, P.N.L. Environmental performance comparison of bioplastics and petrochemical plastics: A review
of life cycle assessment (LCA) methodological decisions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, 105451.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105451.
67. Bohlmann, G.M. Biodegradable packaging life-cycle assessment. Environ. Prog. 2004, 23, 342–346.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.10053.
68. Cappiello, G.; Aversa, C.; Genovesi, A.; Barletta, M. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of bio-based packaging solutions for extended
shelf-life (ESL) milk. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 18617–18628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17094-1.
69. Ferrara, C.; de Feo, G.; Picone, V. Lca of glass versus pet mineral water bottles: An italian case study. Recycling 2021, 6, 50.
https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling6030050.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16563 17 of 17

70. Dilkes-Hoffman, L.S.; Lane, J.L.; Grant, T.; Pratt, S.; Lant, P.A.; Laycock, B. Environmental impact of biodegradable food
packaging when considering food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.169.
71. Albrecht, S.; Brandstetter, P.; Beck, T.; Fullana-I-Palmer, P.; Grönman, K.; Baitz, M.; Deimling, S.; Sandilands, J.; Fischer, M. An
extended life cycle analysis of packaging systems for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18,
1549–1567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0590-4.
72. Zheng, J.; Suh, S. Strategies to reduce the global carbon footprint of plastics. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 374–378.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0459-z.
73. Plastics Europe,. An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data. 2021. Available online:
https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-facts-2021/ (accessed on 2 October 2022).
74. Plastics Europe. Plastics—The Facts 2020. 2020.
https://plasticseurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Plastics_the_facts-WEB-2020_versionJun21_final.pdf (accessed on 9
December 2022).
75. UNEA. Issues and Concerns. Engl. J. 2022, 83, 76. https://doi.org/10.2307/820419.