Reusable packaging for connected fridges: a good idea?

By signing the charter for delivered catering in 2021, Foodles committed to the initiatives led by the French Ministry for Ecological Transition to eliminate plastic. At that time, the whole sector was turning to deposit schemes, seen as the "miracle solution" to the throwaway culture.

This led Foodles to ask itself some questions: is it possible to set up a deposit system that is both environmentally sound (more sustainable than a single-use product) and economically viable (at an acceptable cost for the end consumer)? If so, which material should be used to minimise environmental impact?

After more than two years of large-scale testing, Foodles is now sharing some lessons learned from these projects.

Foodles tests the deposit scheme

In 2021, Foodles launched its "deposit trial", initially choosing ultra-resistant glass containers, despite the reluctance of its caterer partners.

It first seemed essential to develop a secure system to make it easier to return containers to catering areas. This system is linked to electronic payment, with a sum advanced by the customer, which is refunded to them when the container is returned. The idea is to make the experience as simple as possible: a barcode is scanned when the dish is placed in the dedicated unit.

Disappointing results

After months of large-scale testing on a representative sample of customers (about twenty), Foodles began to doubt the viability of this model.

Despite significant efforts (secure unit, adapted logistics and stepped-up communication), return rates were low. Between losses (containers not returned) and breakages, containers were on average reused only 7 times.

Worse still, the glass containers, despite handling precautions, broke regularly. This led Foodles to switch to resin containers for the rest of the tests. However, this change did not improve the situation. Instead of glass breakages, it was scratches on the resin (which make bacteriological checks unreliable) and discolouration from sauces that caused problems.

The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): expectations versus reality

Faced with these disappointing initial results, Foodles commissioned a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) from Greenly to evaluate whether deposit schemes are really an environmentally sound solution in its case. The aim was to find the most suitable packaging for its model of delivering meals in connected fridges.

The LCA assesses the environmental impact of three types of packaging: returnable glass, returnable resin and disposable bagasse (made from sugar cane pulp and corn starch), while taking into account Foodles' operational constraints.

LCA results: are deposit schemes really eco-friendly?

The results are clear: for glass to be more environmentally friendly than disposable bagasse packaging, it must be reused 400 times, and resin 21 times.

To give an idea, one use cycle at Foodles lasts about 15 days. This means that:

• Resin must be used for about a year.
• Glass, on the other hand, would have to be used for 16 years (yes, 16 years!).

With an average of 7 cycles achieved during the tests, Foodles is still a long way from reaching these targets.

Surprised by these results, Foodles called on another organisation, Aktio, to confirm the data. The results confirm that disposable bagasse is far more environmentally friendly than deposit schemes, whatever type of container is used.

Although bagasse is not a perfect solution, it remains the most suitable for Foodles' current needs.

Conclusion: deposit schemes are not suited to Foodles' model

Beyond its environmental impact, Foodles estimated that the cost of a deposit scheme (transport, washing, losses due to low reuse) amounts to about €2 per meal, a cost that is difficult to absorb in the current economic context marked by inflation.

There is no perfect packaging solution, but it is certain that deposit schemes are not suited to Foodles' delivery model, because of the low reuse rate achieved.

Finally, as Foodles' various scope 3 carbon footprint assessments show, packaging matters, but it is just as crucial to look at the content of meals to reduce their carbon footprint.