Introduction: Packaging choices in the bottled water sector are often driven by perception and simplified sustainability narratives rather than comparative life-cycle evidence. This study addresses this gap by assessing the environmental and economic trade-offs among packaging systems and by outlining implications for circular communication and environmental education. Methods: An empirical Italian case study compared four small-format systems for delivering 1000 L of mineral water: 0.5 L PET bottles, 0.5 L one-way glass bottles, 0.33 L aluminium cans, and 0.5 L aseptic cartons. Harmonized and standardized cradle-to-grave Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) models were developed, including primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging, logistics, and end-of-life scenarios. LCA was performed using SimaPro with ReCiPe 2016 midpoint indicators, and eco-efficiency was evaluated by linking environmental burdens to value added. Sensitivity analyses assessed transport distance, recycled content, and lightweight carton design. Results: Glass showed the highest life-cycle costs and the worst environmental performance across most impact categories. For global warming potential, results per 1000 L were 933 kg CO₂-eq for glass, 513 for aluminium, 198 for PET, and 170 for carton. Raw materials were the main cost driver, accounting for 66% of total costs on average. Eco-efficiency, although potentially challenging in end-of-life management, identified carton as the best-performing option and glass as the least efficient. A lighter carton configuration reduced costs by 21% and impacts across the analysed categories by approximately 31%, while higher recycled content improved the performance of PET and aluminium. Conclusions: Packaging sustainability cannot be assessed based on perception alone. Materials often perceived as more sustainable may perform worse across the full life cycle, while lower-impact options may still face end-of-life constraints. These findings provide an evidence-based foundation for stakeholder engagement, environmental communication, and educational actions supporting informed circular packaging choices.
From Sustainability Narratives to Life-Cycle Evidence: Eco-Efficiency Assessment of Bottled Water Packaging Systems
Giovanni De Feo
;Giovanni Marmora;
2026
Abstract
Introduction: Packaging choices in the bottled water sector are often driven by perception and simplified sustainability narratives rather than comparative life-cycle evidence. This study addresses this gap by assessing the environmental and economic trade-offs among packaging systems and by outlining implications for circular communication and environmental education. Methods: An empirical Italian case study compared four small-format systems for delivering 1000 L of mineral water: 0.5 L PET bottles, 0.5 L one-way glass bottles, 0.33 L aluminium cans, and 0.5 L aseptic cartons. Harmonized and standardized cradle-to-grave Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) models were developed, including primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging, logistics, and end-of-life scenarios. LCA was performed using SimaPro with ReCiPe 2016 midpoint indicators, and eco-efficiency was evaluated by linking environmental burdens to value added. Sensitivity analyses assessed transport distance, recycled content, and lightweight carton design. Results: Glass showed the highest life-cycle costs and the worst environmental performance across most impact categories. For global warming potential, results per 1000 L were 933 kg CO₂-eq for glass, 513 for aluminium, 198 for PET, and 170 for carton. Raw materials were the main cost driver, accounting for 66% of total costs on average. Eco-efficiency, although potentially challenging in end-of-life management, identified carton as the best-performing option and glass as the least efficient. A lighter carton configuration reduced costs by 21% and impacts across the analysed categories by approximately 31%, while higher recycled content improved the performance of PET and aluminium. Conclusions: Packaging sustainability cannot be assessed based on perception alone. Materials often perceived as more sustainable may perform worse across the full life cycle, while lower-impact options may still face end-of-life constraints. These findings provide an evidence-based foundation for stakeholder engagement, environmental communication, and educational actions supporting informed circular packaging choices.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
