Comparative life cycle assessment of corrugated cardboard box and reusable plastic crate
Haikonen, Sanni (2026)
2026
Ympäristö- ja energiatekniikan DI-ohjelma - Programme in Environmental and Energy Engineering
Tekniikan ja luonnontieteiden tiedekunta - Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences
This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Hyväksymispäivämäärä
2026-06-12
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202606127323
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202606127323
Tiivistelmä
Globalization and urbanization are causing food supply chains to become longer and more complex, while current systems are contributing to global warming and the overuse of natural resources. As a result, reducing the environmental impacts of packaging and critically examining them is an important goal in the transition toward a circular economy and more resource-efficient supply chains.
This study examines the environmental impacts generated during the life cycle of two types of secondary packaging and compares them using life cycle assessment (LCA). The study compares a reusable plastic crate (RPC) and a single-use corrugated cardboard box (CCB) for transporting bananas from South America to Central Europe. The supply chain includes automated distribution center handling of the products, which places demands on the secondary packaging. The aim of this study was to identify the factors influencing the environmental impacts of secondary packaging in the supply chain and to compare the selected secondary packaging options. Another purpose of the study was to determine how the number of reuse cycles of a reusable plastic crate affects its environmental impact and how many times the plastic crate must be used for it to be more environmentally friendly than a corrugated cardboard box.
The results of the life cycle assessment showed that, across all selected environmental categories, the reusable plastic crate has slightly lower environmental impacts compared to the corrugated cardboard box. The carbon dioxide emissions from the plastic crate are 5% lower than those from the corrugated cardboard box. However, the differences are small, indicating that both packaging solutions can be environmentally competitive depending on the circumstances and the system. According to the results, the plastic crate must be used 10 times for it to be a more environmentally friendly secondary packaging option than the cardboard box. For both secondary packaging options, most carbon dioxide emissions occurred during the use phase due to long intercontinental transport at controlled temperatures. Reducing the environmental impact of the transportation phase affects the environmental impact of the entire supply chain.
Based on the results, it can be concluded that despite the higher weight of plastic crate, it is a competitive option for secondary packaging even for long transport distances. The strengths of the plastic crate include efficient return logistics enabled by its foldability and the material’s durability under various conditions. The properties of plastic remain unchanged, for example, when exposed to moisture, and it retains its performance throughout the supply chain, making it well-suited for automated handling processes.
The study shows that reusable packaging systems are competitive option when reuse rates are high and logistics are efficient. At the same time, the results emphasize that environmental impact assessments must consider the entire supply chain and all its stakeholders to identify the system that is most beneficial for the environment.
This study examines the environmental impacts generated during the life cycle of two types of secondary packaging and compares them using life cycle assessment (LCA). The study compares a reusable plastic crate (RPC) and a single-use corrugated cardboard box (CCB) for transporting bananas from South America to Central Europe. The supply chain includes automated distribution center handling of the products, which places demands on the secondary packaging. The aim of this study was to identify the factors influencing the environmental impacts of secondary packaging in the supply chain and to compare the selected secondary packaging options. Another purpose of the study was to determine how the number of reuse cycles of a reusable plastic crate affects its environmental impact and how many times the plastic crate must be used for it to be more environmentally friendly than a corrugated cardboard box.
The results of the life cycle assessment showed that, across all selected environmental categories, the reusable plastic crate has slightly lower environmental impacts compared to the corrugated cardboard box. The carbon dioxide emissions from the plastic crate are 5% lower than those from the corrugated cardboard box. However, the differences are small, indicating that both packaging solutions can be environmentally competitive depending on the circumstances and the system. According to the results, the plastic crate must be used 10 times for it to be a more environmentally friendly secondary packaging option than the cardboard box. For both secondary packaging options, most carbon dioxide emissions occurred during the use phase due to long intercontinental transport at controlled temperatures. Reducing the environmental impact of the transportation phase affects the environmental impact of the entire supply chain.
Based on the results, it can be concluded that despite the higher weight of plastic crate, it is a competitive option for secondary packaging even for long transport distances. The strengths of the plastic crate include efficient return logistics enabled by its foldability and the material’s durability under various conditions. The properties of plastic remain unchanged, for example, when exposed to moisture, and it retains its performance throughout the supply chain, making it well-suited for automated handling processes.
The study shows that reusable packaging systems are competitive option when reuse rates are high and logistics are efficient. At the same time, the results emphasize that environmental impact assessments must consider the entire supply chain and all its stakeholders to identify the system that is most beneficial for the environment.