By Nienke Nijholt & Eva van der Wolf
At Enviu, we have often spoken about the potential of reusable wine bottles and why reuse of those bottles makes sense. For the planet and for the supply chain. But now, we can go one step further because we have the data to prove it.
In collaboration with Eva van der Wolf, graduate of Wageningen University, and supported by the Province of Zuid-Holland, we conducted a deep dive into the environmental impact of reusable versus single-use bottles. Thanks to a comprehensive life cycle analysis (LCA), we can now back it up with facts: reuse is not just a promising idea, it clearly outperforms single use.
The case for circular wine packaging
Each year, millions of wine bottles are sold, enjoyed, and discarded. While we often choose our wines based on flavor or origin, we rarely consider the packaging. But we should. Because the bottle accounts for nearly half of the wine industry’s total carbon footprint (Ponstein et al., 2018).
At Enviu, we believe it is time to replace that linear system with a circular one. Over the past six months, Eva van der Wolf, graduate of Wageningen University, joined our team to research the environmental potential of reusable wine bottles. Her work combined scientific insights with practical industry scenarios.
The conclusion is clear: with the right system in place, reusable bottles can lead to major reductions in environmental impact.
Modelling the impact
Glass production is energy intensive. It requires heating raw materials to temperatures above 1450 degrees Celsius [2]. Most wine bottles are used once, then discarded or recycled. This cycle comes at a cost to the environment.
To understand the true potential of reuse, Eva reviewed 18 life cycle assessments (LCAs) comparing single-use and reusable glass. Only five of those studies focused specifically on wine bottles. These studies showed promising CO₂ reductions from switching to a reusable alternative ranging from 33% to 83%. However, each had a key limitation. They only looked at one or two of the following factors: the number of reuse cycles, return rates, or transport distances, but never all three together. Most also focused solely on CO₂ emissions, sometimes complemented by other potential system improvements. None of them provided the full picture.
Eva conducted her own life cycle assessment (LCA) providing a comprehensive overview of these three factors, measuring the environmental impact across 18 different impact categories. These categories, known as ‘midpoint indicators’, assess specific environmental effects such as carbon emissions, water use, and how much natural resources are used up. This allowed for careful comparison of how reusable bottles really stack up against the single-use bottles.
Her data came from both scientific literature and real-world practice. The reusable bottles from our partner Walraven Sax are already on the market and being collected via in-store return machines. After transportation, they are washed by PAKT before being filled again, meaning reliable data is available.
Eva’s model focused on a typical 750 ml reusable wine bottle, the same volume as a regular one, although slightly heavier to prevent breakage. The baseline assumed five reuse cycles as the maximum possible per bottle due to wear, breakage, and quality loss, and a 50 percent return rate, meaning each bottle is used on average about 2 times. This represents a conservative scenario; in scaled-up systems, much higher return rates and more reuse cycles are achievable. For comparison: the Bruine Nederlandse Retourfles, an award-winning Dutch beer bottle based on a similar system, is reused up to 20 times and achieves return rates of almost 100 percent [3].
What the results show
In this baseline scenario (with a maximum of five reuse cycles, 50 percent return rate), the reusable bottle outperformed the single-use bottle in 15 out of 18 environmental impact categories.
It did show slightly higher impacts in three areas:
- Mineral resource scarcity (MRS): primarily due to waste treatment and reduced recycling benefits in the reusable system. Since fewer bottles are recycled in a reuse model, the system receives fewer credits for avoided resource extraction, leading to higher apparent impact. However, as reuse increases and the demand for new bottle production declines, this effect is progressively offset over time.
- Water consumption (WC): mainly due to reduced recycling credits similar to MRS. Again, as reuse cycles increase, the environmental burden from producing new bottles diminishes, balancing out this higher water use.
- Terrestrial ecotoxicity (T-Ecotox): largely driven by the additional transportation required to return the bottles.
But here’s the good news: even in this modest setup, the Global Warming Potential was already 11 percent lower for reusable bottles. And it gets better. As return rates increase, performance improves across nearly all indicators: at a 90 percent return rate, the reusable bottle performs better in 17 out of 18 categories. Only T-Ecotox consistently remains higher for reusable bottles.
- For Mineral resource scarcity, at a 70 percent return rate, the reusable bottle outperforms single-use after just 7 reuse cycles, and at 90 percent return rate, after only 2.
- For Water Consumption, the reusable bottle performs better than single-use at a 70 percent return rate with more than 2 reuse cycles.
- Transport distance within the Netherlands does not significantly affect the comparison. The system still holds up even when bottles travel longer routes to being returned and washed. According to literature, this becomes a more significant factor from 400 or 800 km onwards.
The takeaway?
Even under modest conditions, with a maximum of five reuse cycles and a 50 percent return rate, reusable wine bottles already emit 11 percent less CO₂ than single-use bottles.
As return rates rise, so do the environmental benefits. At a 70 percent return rate, reusable bottles begin to outperform single-use ones even in impact categories where they initially had higher burdens, such as water use and mineral resource depletion. At 90 percent return rate, the reusable bottles perform better in 17 out of 18 environmental impact categories.
The conclusion is simple: from a holistic perspective, the reusable bottle reduces environmental impact compared to the single-use bottle. Even small-scale adoption makes a measurable difference. Zoom out to the scale of the market, and the opportunity becomes impossible to ignore.
A useful comparison
Recently, Dutch supermarket chain Jumbo removed the plastic caps from their cartons of organic milk. This small tweak, each cap weighs just ~2.38 grams, adds up to around 23,000 kilograms of CO₂ savings per year.
Now compare that to wine bottles. Switching just 220,000 wine bottles to a reusable format achieves that same saving. And those 220,000 bottles make up only 0.055 percent of the total number of wine bottles sold in the Netherlands.
In other words: with a fraction of the volume, we can create a similar or even greater impact. The product stays the same. The bottle simply gets another round of use.
What it takes to make reuse work
Reusable bottles need a well-designed system. The research shows three things are essential:
- Return rates of at least 70%,
- At least 2 or more reuse cycles,
- And manageable transport distances.
The higher the return rates and number of reuse cycles, the greater the reduction in the environmental impact of the reusable bottle.
The good news? None of these are out of reach.
The Dutch beer bottle system proves it can be done: high return rates and reuse cycles are already achieved there. We can build on existing logistics networks and return infrastructure in supermarkets, and especially in a compact country like the Netherlands, transport distances can be kept short.
Beer already runs on reuse. Wine can be next.
Now is the time to act
Reusable wine bottles are not a futuristic concept. Several front runners are already proving it works. And through our initiative Mission Reuse, together with partners like PAKT, wine importers and retailers, we are learning what it takes to bring this system to scale, from the ground up.
This topic is gaining traction. A recent motion in Dutch parliament called for a deeper exploration of the potential of reusable glass. And regional governments are stepping up too. The Province of South Holland, for example, believes in the power of system change and is supporting our work to make reusable wine bottles a reality.
Reusable bottles are a practical step forward that can be implemented today. Even small-scale adoption can already save thousands of kilograms of CO₂. The environmental return on investment is high. The operational shift is minimal. The potential for impact is massive.
If you are part of the wine supply chain, whether as a producer, distributor, retailer, policy advisor or logistics provider, this is your moment to explore reuse. The opportunity is on the table. Let’s not waste it.
Want to learn more or join the movement?
Sources:
1 Ponstein, H. J., Meyer-Aurich, A., & Prochnow, A. (2018). Greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options for German wine production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 800–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.206
2 Polák, M., & Němec, L. (2011). Glass melting and its innovation potentials: The combination of transversal and longitudinal circulations and its influence on space utilisation. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, 357(16–17), 3108–3116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2011.04.020
3 Nederlandse Brouwers. (2023). Nu ook hervulbare bierflesjes en fusten mogelijk voor craftbouwers. https://www.nederlandsebrouwers.nl/nieuws/actueel/nu-ook-hervulbare-bierflesjes-en-fusten-mogelijk-voor-craftbrouwers/
