Life cycle assessment of single-use plastic items and their alternatives in Australia and New Zealand

The study was commissioned to inform future direction and implementation of single-use plastic policies and education campaigns promoting alternative materials and practices. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is just one of many resources that may be used to inform policy development. 

The interjurisdictional partnership included the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (WA), New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (NSW), Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (QLD), Green Industries SA (SA), Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (VIC), Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (TAS), City and Environment Directorate (ACT) and Department of Lands, Planning and Environment (NT).  

Lifecycles (Life Cycle Strategies Pty Ltd) was contracted to undertake the analysis in 2023 and it was completed in 2025. The final reports were independently reviewed and adhere to the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards, which outline the principles and framework for life cycle assessment, providing guidelines for evaluating the environmental impacts of products throughout their life cycle. 

The product groups studied included takeaway containers with lids, hot beverage cups with lids, cold beverage cups with lids, barrier/produce bags without handles and plastic film products (bin liners and agricultural mulch films). In each product group, the environmental impacts of a common single-use plastic product were assessed and compared with alternative products (such as single-use compostable, single-use paper, and reusable plastic and non-plastic products). 

LCA studies have significant limitations including modelling of each environmental indicator, the selection of input data to best reflect current average scenarios and the boundaries selected for study. Care must be taken in their application. 

Overall findings 

• Reusable food and drinkware had the lowest life cycle impact for the indicators of climate change and particulate matter in a bring-your-own or dine-in scenario. The impacts of reusables are sensitive to grid electricity sources and washing choices, with dishwashers bringing lower impacts compared to hand washing items. Reusable containers, as part of an exchange scheme, have lower impacts when items are returned after use by low carbon emission transport or by existing collection methods. The life cycle studies compared reusable products based on assumption of 25-100 total uses.  

• Paper-based certified compostable cups and containers were typically second lowest in environmental impact of items reviewed, after reusable products. Production was the most critical life stage in terms of environmental impact. The life cycle studies looked at best-case scenarios for recycling and composting, which may not be achievable. It should be noted that jurisdictions have varying policy positions on compostable products and their impact on the food and garden organics stream, which is also informed by infrastructure and processing systems in place.  

• Single-use plastic high-density polyethylene (HDPE) produce bags were second lowest in environmental impact in the bag category due to their light weight. The impacts of single-use conventional plastics were high on marine and terrestrial litter due to their material properties and high on climate change due to their production and manufacturing life stages.  

• The impacts from compostable material like polylactic acid (PLA), polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate (PBAT) and sugarcane bagasse relate largely to their production life stage. 

Findings on takeaway food containers  

• A life cycle assessment was conducted on four types of takeaway containers: single-use polypropylene (PP) plastic, single-use certified compostable paperboard lined with polylactic acid (PLA), single-use aluminium with a laminated foil paper lid and reusable stainless steel with a Tritan plastic lid.  

• When considering all impact categories, in a regionally averaged scenario across Australia and New Zealand, the reusable container (stainless steel base and Tritan lid) had the lowest impact of all material types. After approximately 22 reuses, the container (in a bring-your-own model) outperformed all single-use takeaway containers modelled.  

• An exchange scheme for reusable containers and/or cups has the potential for much higher customer take-up than the bring-your-own model but the collection transport has a large effect on the product’s overall life cycle impact. To keep its impact low, existing collection methods like kerbside, backhaul from other deliveries and/or low carbon collection like bike couriers need to be considered.   

• Of the single-use options assessed, the certified compostable paperboard container with a PLA lid had the second lowest climate change impact, followed by the single-use plastic container. Their climate change impact reduces if their end-of-life is optimised, that is, if the PLA-lined paperboard base and PLA lid are composted, and if the PP base and lid are recycled. 

Findings on cups with lids for cold beverages  

• A life cycle assessment was conducted on four 480ml cups designed for takeaway cold beverages: single-use polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic, certified compostable paperboard lined with polylactic acid (PLA), certified compostable plastic cups and one reusable styrene-acrylonitrile resin (SAN) plastic cup modelled on 100 uses.  

• When considering all impact categories, in a regionally averaged scenario across Australia and New Zealand, the reusable cold cup had the lowest impact especially for indicators of climate change and particulate matter. After approximately 40 uses, the reusable bring-your-own cup outperformed the three single-use cups modelled. 

• The compostable PLA-lined paperboard (unlidded) cup was a close second in terms of climate impact. When coupled with the higher-impact, wholly-PLA lid, the lidded cup’s impact was higher but still ranked second in terms of climate and particulate matter. This cup’s ranking was unchanged whether landfilled or composted at end-of-life, but the optimised end-of-life pathway of composting improved all key indicators for the paperboard cup.  

• The PET cup and lid ranked poorly in the current end-of-life scenario but with an optimised end-of-life (more recycling) its impact decreased. 

Findings on cups with lids for hot beverages 

• A life cycle assessment was conducted on four 240ml cups designed for takeaway hot beverages: single-use polyethylene (PE)-lined paperboard cup with an polystyrene (PS) lid, certified compostable paperboard lined with polylactic acid (PLA) with bagasse lid and two reusable cups, hard acrylonitrile butadiene styrene plastic and stainless steel cups with reusable polypropylene (PP) lids, modelled on 100 uses for a cafe wash and consumer wash respectively.  

• When considering all impact categories, in a regionally averaged scenario across Australia and New Zealand, the reusable plastic cup that was cafe-washed had the lowest impact of all cup types modelled in the current end-of-life pathways. After approximately 15-20 uses, it outperformed both single-use cup systems modelled. 

• The impact of reusable cups on the indicator for water scarcity was very sensitive to washing choices, with washing in commercial dishwashers (cafe-washed) being more water-efficient than domestic dishwashers, and much more than handwashing. However, when comparing the two reusable options, the material of the reusable cup still had a larger impact than the wash method for both climate change and water scarcity indicators. 

• The reusable stainless steel cup, washed in the consumer home dishwasher, had the lowest climate impact overall when it was recycled (optimised end-of-life). 

• Under current end-of-life scenarios, the two single-use paperboard hot cups (unlidded) have similar overall impacts, with the compostable cup having slightly lower impact. Their differences were on indicators like litter and land use impact. Coupling with lids can change this ranking, for example the bagasse lid worsens the overall climate impact of the compostable lidded cup as bagasse as a sugarcane byproduct has higher emissions associated with its production and manufacture. 

Findings on produce/barrier bags 

• A life cycle assessment was conducted on four types of produce bags typically used for fresh produce. This included three common single-use bags – high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic, certified compostable polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate and thermoplastic starch (PBAT-TPS) bioplastic bag, a paper bag and one reusable recycled polyethylene terephthalate (rPET) mesh bag. 

• This life cycle assessment study found that modelling was highly contextual to material, regional and assumption inputs.  

• When considering all impact categories, in a regionally averaged scenario across Australia and New Zealand, the reusable mesh produce bag had the lowest impact in most categories and after a small number of total uses (six) it outperformed the single-use produce bags.  

• Optimising the end-of-life pathways through composting and recycling reduced the environmental impact of the single-use options. 

• Modelling showed that when compostable and paper bags were composted or recycled (respectively), results became more comparable with single-use plastic.  

• The certified compostable PBAT-TPS bags had a lower material impact compared to HDPE per kilogram for climate change. However, compostable bags are almost twice as heavy as conventional plastic bags, meaning their impacts per bag are higher.  

• The impacts were higher for bags with organic elements for climate, particulate matter and land-use indicators due to production life stage impacts from agriculture and fossil feedstock and their heavier weight.  

• HDPE plastic bags had a significantly higher marine litter impact than other bags studied.   

Findings on plastic film products (bin liners and agricultural mulch film) 

• The life cycle assessment studied plastic film materials such as bin liners and agricultural mulch films to understand their life cycle impacts prior to end-of-life in landfill, waste-to-energy or degradation on land. 

• A life cycle assessment was conducted on three types of bin liners: conventional plastic low-density polyethylene (LDPE), certified compostable polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate and thermoplastic starch (PBAT-TPS) plastic and oxo-degradable LDPE (OXO-LDPE). 

• In a regionally averaged scenario across Australia and New Zealand, LDPE bin liners had the lowest impact ranking on climate change and particulate matter.   

• Further modelling investigated an optimised end-of-life pathway via waste-to-energy facilities. It highlighted the significance of offsetting conventional energy production, particularly by biogenic carbon in the PBAT-TPS bin liners, reducing its climate change impact to be lower than the fossil-fuel-based bin liners.   

• A life cycle assessment conducted on agricultural mulch film looked at single-use LDPE plastic, single-use certified soil-biodegradable PBAT-TPS plastic and an oxo-degradable OXO-LDPE film. 

• OXO-LDPE had the highest impact ranking for marine litter, which was linked to microplastics. Also, for water scarcity due to the water used for electricity to produce the degradable additive, cobalt. 

• LDPE and PBAT-TPS films had comparatively similar impacts on climate and particulate matter.  

Frequently asked questions