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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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