Category: Uncategorized

Europe is entering a stage in which the circular economy must move beyond a collection of individual experiments. The most important question today is: how do we move from successful pilots to solutions that work permanently, conveniently, and at scale?

From single-use to a system

Experience from the Change(K)now! project shows that reusable systems can operate successfully in institutional catering, at public events, and in takeaway food services. This means that the question “Can this work?” has largely been replaced by a much more difficult one: “What must be done to make it work everywhere, consistently, and at the right scale?”

Many initiatives implemented so far have been local and temporary. Pilots demonstrated the feasibility of solutions, but they often relied on temporary funding, unusually committed participants, and favourable local conditions. As a result, they did not automatically translate into permanent structural change. This is what creates the “pilot-to-system gap.”

Awareness alone is not enough

One of the most practical conclusions of the Policy Brief is the need to move away from placing excessive emphasis on consumer education. Information campaigns help build understanding and acceptance, but they cannot compensate for a poorly designed system.

If the nearest return point is far away, deposit rules are complicated, or users do not know where they can return a container, even a high level of environmental awareness may fail to translate into action. Participation in a system is determined to a large extent by convenience, accessibility, simplicity, clear rules, and compatibility with everyday habits.

Policy should therefore focus less on constantly persuading people and more on creating conditions in which the circular option becomes the simplest and most natural choice.

Infrastructure – the backbone of reuse

A reusable system does not end with the container itself. It requires an entire circulation loop: use, return, washing, redistribution, and reuse. For this cycle to function efficiently, return points, logistics, washing facilities, operational standards and — in larger systems — identification and tracking tools are required.

The density and visibility of return infrastructure are particularly important. When containers can be returned easily and in many locations, participation and the number of reuse cycles increase. When returning requires extra effort, the efficiency of the entire system falls.

In the long term, this means reuse infrastructure should be treated as part of normal urban infrastructure — much like public transport or waste management.

Interoperability instead of more isolated systems

Scale will also not emerge if every city, restaurant, or operator creates an entirely separate system. Users should not have to wonder whether a particular container can only be returned to the place where they obtained it.

The more compatible and interoperable a system is, the easier it becomes to use. Common standards are needed for issues such as packaging formats, deposit logic, container identification, and data structures. At the same time, markets should avoid becoming dependent on a single operator. An open system should allow multiple providers to work together.

Local authorities as architects of change

Cities and municipalities are among the most important target groups for these recommendations. This does not mean that a local authority should operate the entire system itself. Its role is more strategic: it can establish requirements, integrate reuse criteria into public procurement, develop infrastructure, coordinate stakeholders, create stable demand, and monitor performance.

Public procurement can play an especially important role. Schools, hospitals, and other public institutions purchase large volumes of food services. Incorporating circularity criteria into tenders can therefore shape the market and create predictable demand for suppliers.

Public events as laboratories for change

Large municipal events offer several advantages: a limited space, clearly defined rules, large numbers of users, and high public visibility.

Project experience indicates that making reusable packaging mandatory — when supported by suitable infrastructure, communication, and enforcement — can quickly turn reuse into the standard rather than the exception. This is why one of the priority recommendations is to introduce mandatory reusable packaging at public events above a defined size threshold.

There will be no scale without partnerships

Neither local government, business, nor consumers can deliver this transition alone. Reusable systems operate at the intersection of public responsibility and private service provision.

Local authorities can create the conditions and rules. Operators contribute technology and operational expertise. Food-service businesses integrate the system into day-to-day customer service. Logistics providers make container circulation possible, while users ultimately determine actual return rates.

Public-private partnerships are therefore not an optional addition to the system — they are one of its fundamental mechanisms.

Ten actions that can accelerate the transition

Change(K)now! identifies ten priority directions for policymakers. Together, they form a practical roadmap from political declaration to systemic implementation:

1. Introduce reusable-packaging requirements at large public events.
2. Include reuse criteria in public procurement.
3. Develop dense and visible return infrastructure.
4. Ensure interoperability and compatibility between systems.
5. Introduce economic instruments that discourage single-use packaging, where legally possible.
6. Provide greater legal clarity on hygiene, liability, and system operation.
7. Structure public-private partnerships.
8. Use procurement and regulation as tools for market creation.
9. Design systems around user convenience and default circular choices.
10. Monitor performance, define effectiveness criteria, and measure real environmental benefits.

From niche solution to the new normal

The coming years will determine whether reuse remains an environmentally friendly alternative for especially committed users or becomes a normal part of how European cities operate.

Change(K)now! makes one point very clearly: this transition is possible. The technologies already exist. Pilots have demonstrated feasibility. Operational experience is available. The next step is to connect these elements into a system that is convenient enough for consumers, predictable enough for businesses, scalable enough for cities, and environmentally effective.

Because the future of the circular economy is not thousands of additional pilots. The future lies in solutions that stop being pilots because they simply become the new normal.

If You wonder how the project Change(k)Now! can support your organisation – please contact us directlyCONTACT

#CircularEconomy #ReusablePackaging #CircularCities #SustainableCities #WastePrevention #GreenProcurement #ReuseSystems #LocalGovernment #ChangeKnow #Interreg #BalticSeaRegion

On 19 August 2026, an online meeting was held with representatives of various stakeholder groups, including local government, businesses, civil society organisations, and individual consumers (who are, of course, also members of each of the preceding groups). During the seminar (organized in the formula of roundtable), we analysed and discussed both the opportunities and the challenges associated with implementing the circular economy and the PPWR in Poland in three different contexts: institutional catering, green events, and takeaway systems. The feedback and opinions collected during the meeting provide a basis for presenting both general conclusions and specific recommendations for each stakeholder group. We invite you to read the following analysis.

General Conclusions

The note indicates that the successful implementation of reusable packaging systems depends primarily neither on technology alone nor on declared environmental awareness. The key factor is designing the entire system: one that is convenient for the user, economically viable for businesses, feasible for municipalities to organize and finance, and supported by appropriate education and communication.

The experience of Venloop, Vytal, and the Change(k)now! project partners also shows that the most promising implementations are those launched first in a controlled environment – for example, at an event, in a canteen, public office, school, campus, or selected urban area – and then scaled on the basis of real-world data.

Particularly significant is the Venloop pilot result, which achieved an 86% packaging return rate. This demonstrates that reuse solutions can achieve high effectiveness when the return process is simple and user barriers are systematically removed.

Recommendations for Municipalities

For municipalities, the main recommendation is to move away from isolated environmental initiatives and towards building a local reuse ecosystem.

Municipalities should first:

• identify areas with the highest implementation potential, especially municipal events, catering in schools and other public institutions, and local food service businesses;
• begin with a pilot project with a clearly defined scope, duration, and success indicators;
• include reuse requirements in public procurement and contracts with event operators;
• provide an appropriate number and distribution of return points;
• monitor return rates, the number of reuse cycles, system costs, and the number of single-use packages avoided;
• involve businesses, system operators, and civil society organizations from the design stage.

The experience presented during the INFODAY also shows that one of the biggest barriers for municipalities is financing the initial phase. Therefore, first implementations should be treated as demonstration projects financed, among other sources, through project funding, national programmes, and EU funds.

The most important shift is therefore from asking: “Should we promote reusable packaging?” to asking: “How should we design a local system in which using reusable packaging becomes the easiest choice?”

Recommendations for Businesses

For businesses, the most important conclusion is that reuse should be treated as an operational and business model, not merely as an environmental initiative.

Businesses should:

• start with customer segments where high return rates are achievable;
• minimize the number of actions required from the consumer;
• integrate the system with existing payment, sales, and customer service processes;
• assess solutions such as Tap-to-Pay, QR codes, automatic deposit refunds, and other digital solutions;
• monitor the actual cost per packaging circulation cycle;
• measure packaging losses, return rates, number of cycles, logistics costs, and washing costs;
• seek cooperation with other businesses, because open systems become more attractive as the number of return points increases.

The Venloop and Vytal cases show that competitive advantage does not come from simply offering reusable packaging. The real advantage lies in providing a more convenient and better-functioning circulation system for that packaging.

It is also important to prepare for new regulatory conditions. PPWR should be treated not only as a compliance obligation, but also as an incentive to test business models early that may become market standards in the coming years.

Recommendations for Non-Governmental Organizations

The role of NGOs should evolve from traditional “awareness raising” towards facilitating real behavioural change and supporting systemic transformation.

NGOs can be particularly effective in:

• explaining to consumers how new systems work;
• creating simple guides, maps, and tools showing where reusable solutions are available;
• running campaigns directly linked to specific implementations;
• collecting user feedback;
• identifying social and behavioural barriers;
• acting as an intermediary between residents, municipalities, and businesses;
• documenting good practices and supporting their replication in other locations.

The experience of the Buy Responsibly Foundation shows that education alone is not enough. Consumers must have access to a real alternative.

The most effective NGO model can therefore be described as:

information → access → experience → behaviour reinforcement.

NGOs can also play an important role as independent observers of pilot projects by assessing social acceptance and identifying elements of the system that require improvement.

Recommendations for System Users

From the consumer’s perspective, the most important recommendation concerns not so much changing attitudes as minimizing the effort required to participate in the system.

A well-designed system should allow users to:

• obtain packaging easily;
• return it quickly and conveniently;
• access a large number of return points;
• understand clear rules regarding return deadlines and any applicable fees;
• use the system without having to learn a complicated procedure;
• immediately find information on where the packaging can be returned.

The Vytal experience points to a particularly important conclusion: users may resist change when it is presented as an additional obligation, but they are much more likely to accept solutions that are convenient and naturally integrated into the purchasing process.

Therefore, the objective should not be to persuade consumers to “sacrifice convenience for the environment.” The system should instead be designed so that:

the more circular choice is also the easier choice.

Key Shared Recommendation

The most important conclusion from the INFO DAYS can be summarized in one principle:

Do not design only the reusable packaging. Design the entire system through which it circulates.

In such a system:

• the municipality creates the conditions and scale for implementation,
• the business provides an efficient operational and economic model,
• the NGO builds understanding and supports behavioural change,
• and the user ultimately determines the success of the system through actual use and return of the packaging.

For the future activities of Change(k)now!, it would therefore be particularly valuable to develop local circular-economy demonstrators, in which all four stakeholder groups are involved from the outset and results are measured using a common set of KPIs: return rate, number of cycles, cost per use, number of single-use packages avoided, user satisfaction, and the economic sustainability of the system.

If You wonder how the project Change(k)Now! can support your organisation – please contact us directly CONTACT

#CircularEconomy #ReusablePackaging #CircularCities #SustainableCities #WastePrevention #GreenProcurement #ReuseSystems #LocalGovernment #ChangeKnow #Interreg #BalticSeaRegion

The growing popularity of takeaway food brings convenience, but it also creates enormous quantities of disposable boxes, cups and containers. These packages may be used for only a few minutes, while their environmental impact lasts much longer. The Change(K)now! publication presents five pilots demonstrating how municipalities, businesses and system operators can develop reusable packaging in different environments: food markets, local restaurants, public urban space, workplaces and smart vending. Their shared objective is straightforward: reduce disposable packaging without making the service less convenient for users.

Hamburg: two models for two types of customers

Weekly food markets in Hamburg compared two approaches. The first was bring-your-own containers. The second was a circulating system of operator-owned reusable bowls. The tests took place at markets with different customer profiles. Goldbekmarkt had many regular customers, while Isemarkt attracted more spontaneous visitors. The results showed that customer behaviour directly affects the success of a reuse system. Bring-your-own containers worked naturally for regular customers who could plan their visit. Occasional visitors needed an easily accessible deposit-based option. The main lesson is that operators should study user behaviour before selecting a model. In many urban environments, combining several approaches may be the strongest solution.

Anykščiai: a shared system for local food businesses

Anykščiai Municipality developed a reusable takeaway system for restaurants and cafés. Sixteen businesses joined a shared container pool with a deposit of €3–4. The system required no app or QR code. It relied on simple rules and trust between residents, businesses and the municipality. This is an important example for smaller towns. A municipality can initiate the system, purchase standardised containers and provide coordination, allowing participating restaurants to avoid separate investments in full infrastructure. The voluntary nature of participation required continuous communication and trust-building. Even so, the pilot demonstrated that shared local infrastructure can support a transition away from disposable packaging.

Copenhagen: making returns as easy as disposal

Copenhagen tested a citywide reusable packaging system supported by reverse vending machines and a digital deposit. Thirty-eight public return points were installed in the city centre. The system included Torvehallerne food hall and other local takeaway businesses. Public return infrastructure addresses one of the most important challenges in reuse: customers do not have to return packaging to the original vendor. They can use a convenient public return point, while the digital system manages the deposit refund. The model requires strong coordination between the municipality, technology providers and businesses. Its success also depends on clear communication and reliable infrastructure. Copenhagen’s experience can be summarised in one principle: reuse becomes mainstream when returning packaging is as easy as throwing it away.

Tallinn: removing disposables changes behaviour

Two workplace canteens in a shared ministerial building in Tallinn completely removed disposable takeaway packaging. Users could bring their own containers, use a deposit system or purchase a reusable container. The pilot showed that removing disposable options significantly reduced waste without reducing service efficiency. Employees adapted quickly, and reusable solutions became the default choice. Closed environments such as office buildings, campuses and public institutions are especially suitable for reusable systems. Users regularly return to the same location, making behaviour change and return logistics easier to manage. Convenient return infrastructure, staff training and clear communication were essential.

Venloop: smart vending and reusable jars

The Polish Venloop pilot tested meals sold in reusable jars through vending machines in an office environment. The model combined three vending machines, digital sales and return tracking, and meals with a long shelf life. This reduced the need for frequent deliveries and prevented food waste. During the 120-day pilot:
• 45 of 102 onboarded users made a purchase,
• the return rate reached 85%,
• active users placed an average of 3.8 orders,
• 170 jars were successfully returned,
• approximately 6 kg of waste was avoided.

The pilot was not yet optimised for its full net climate balance. Energy consumption per order was relatively high at low utilisation. However, it confirmed the behaviours needed for future scaling: users made repeat purchases and returned the jars.

As the same infrastructure handles more orders, the cost and emissions per order should decline.

Shared lessons from the five pilots

Although the pilots differed in technology and location, they point to similar success factors.

1. The model must match the local context. A regular food-market customer behaves differently from a spontaneous city-centre user. Office workers have different needs from users of public urban infrastructure.
2. Returns must be simple. The more effort required to return a container, the lower participation becomes. Return points should be visible, convenient and logically located.
3. Infrastructure must be reliable. Containers, return machines, deposits, washing and transport form a single chain. Failure or insufficient capacity in one part can disrupt the entire circulation system.
4. Communication creates trust. Users need to understand how the deposit works, where packaging can be returned and why the system has been introduced. Staff must be able to explain the process clearly.
5. Data enables scaling. Monitoring returns, sales, losses, costs and infrastructure utilisation helps improve the system and assess its real environmental and economic effects.

There is no single model for everyone.

• The publication’s central lesson is that no universal reuse model exists. A system must be adapted to its location, users and logistics.
• A food market may need both bring-your-own containers and a deposit system. A small town may create a shared packaging pool. A large city may invest in public reverse vending machines. A workplace can remove disposable options entirely, while smart vending can combine reusable jars with digital monitoring.
• The direction is nevertheless shared: reuse should be convenient, intuitive and economically viable.
• When returning packaging becomes as easy as throwing it away, reuse stops feeling like an experiment and becomes a natural part of everyday life. 🌍💚

If You wonder how the project Change(k)Now! can support your organisation – please contact us directly

#CircularEconomy #ReusablePackaging #CircularCities #SustainableCities #WastePrevention #GreenProcurement #ReuseSystems #LocalGovernment #ChangeKnow #Interreg #BalticSeaRegion

Large public events generate enormous amounts of waste within a very short period. Festivals, races, fan zones, sporting competitions and city celebrations attract thousands of visitors who purchase food and drinks from temporary vendors. Traditionally, this has meant thousands of disposable cups, bowls and containers.

Eight Change(K)now! pilots demonstrate that reusable systems can operate even in crowded and highly dynamic event environments. The key element is not only the cup or container, but the entire system: deposits, returns, washing, transport, communication, staffing and data.

Hamburg Port Anniversary: automated returns

At the Hamburg Port Anniversary, organisers tested a reverse vending machine for reusable cups. Visitors returned their cups directly to the machine and received a cash deposit refund. The pilot achieved a 98.1% return rate, with 1,300 cups successfully recovered. The solution reduced pressure on beverage vendors during peak hours.

However, the machine required constant monitoring. A full collection bag or empty cash box could stop the process. Technology simplified returns, but did not eliminate the need for operational support.

Hamburg Sunset Series: reusable cups during a race

Around 700 runners used nearly 3,000 reusable cups. The cups were distributed at a refreshment station and returned to baskets positioned along the course. The system worked because it was intuitive. Safety was the main concern: cups left on the track could become a tripping hazard. Basket placement, signage and pre-event communication were therefore essential.

UEFA EURO Fan Zone Hamburg: mandatory reuse at scale

The EURO 2024 Fan Zone attracted approximately 614,000 visitors. A mandatory reusable system applied to every food and beverage vendor. The event avoided around 384,000 disposable cups and 30,000 disposable food containers. Consistent rules, central return stations, washing logistics, volunteers and multilingual communication were crucial. The pilot also highlighted the importance of a secure deposit model. An initial cash-based solution encouraged professional cup collection and theft. Introducing tokens stabilised the system.

Copenhagen Sprint: digital returns and social impact

The Copenhagen cycling event used reverse vending machines connected to a digital deposit platform. The system achieved an 87.54% return rate, recovered 23,750 items, diverted 71 kg of waste and saved approximately 1,111 kg of CO₂. Visitors could donate their deposit to charity, and 21% of returns used this option. The return process became both an environmental action and a way to support the community.

Copenhagen Street Days: closing the loop in an open city

The urban sports festival used eight return stations, digital deposits and a donation option. The overall return rate reached 89.17%, while bowls and trays achieved 99.6%. More than half of returned deposits were donated. Mixing reusable and disposable packaging caused confusion. A consistent system across all vendors produced the strongest results.

Riga City Festival: returns must be easier than purchases

In Riga, cups had to be returned to the same vendor that issued them. Although the pilot reduced disposable cup use, return queues became mixed with purchasing queues. Deposit handling was another challenge. Many visitors paid by card, while vendors needed cash for refunds. The conclusion was clear: the return system must be easier than the purchasing process. Central return points and digital refunds can improve both visitor experience and vendor efficiency.

Tallinn Song and Dance Celebration: multiple systems at one event

The Estonian Song and Dance Celebration attracted around 120,000 visitors and 40,000 performers. Reusable systems covered performer catering, public food courts and meal deliveries to accommodation schools. This was one of the most complex pilots. The case showed that multiple service providers and return models can operate at the same event, but only with strong coordination, training, monitoring and visual communication.

MAD Liepāja Youth Festival: a shared system for many vendors

The youth festival introduced shared reusable cups and a central return point offering card or cash deposit refunds. Approximately 16,000 people attended. The system reduced disposable packaging and supported environmental awareness among young visitors. Voluntary participation was the main limitation. Not all caterers joined, and some were concerned about pre-financing deposits. Clear rules and shared financial support can make adoption easier.

What makes event reuse systems work?

• Consistent rules. Reuse works best when every vendor follows the same requirements.
• Convenient returns. Return stations must be visible, central and easy to access.
• Simple deposits. Refunds should not require complicated apps or long queues.
• Operational support. Machines and digital systems need staff and rapid maintenance.
• Communication. Signs, screens, social media, volunteers and multilingual guidance directly affect return rates.
• Data. Monitoring provides evidence for future scaling and investment.

The key lessons

• There is no single model for every event. A running race needs a different system from a fan zone, an urban festival or a cultural mega-event.
• Yet the central principle remains the same: returning packaging must be simple, the system must be consistent and responsibilities must be clearly assigned.
• When these conditions are met, events can become powerful laboratories for behaviour change—showing thousands of people that reuse is convenient, modern and possible at scale. 🌍💚

If You wonder how the project Change(k)Now! can support your organisation – please contact us directly

#CircularEconomy #ReusablePackaging #CircularCities #SustainableCities #WastePrevention #GreenProcurement #ReuseSystems #LocalGovernment #ChangeKnow #Interreg #BalticSeaRegion

Schools, hospitals, workplace canteens and public catering systems serve hundreds or thousands of meals every day. Their scale also creates enormous demand for disposable boxes, cups, plastic films and transport packaging.

Yet that same scale means that even a relatively small operational change can produce a significant impact. Replacing one frequently used disposable item with a reusable alternative can prevent thousands of pieces of waste every month.

Experiences from Hamburg, Copenhagen, Lahti and Tallinn demonstrate the wide range of approaches available. The pilots covered deposit systems, RFID technology, green public procurement, supply-chain optimisation, reusable transport trays and packaging-free food service.

🏫 Hamburg: deposit systems in school canteens

Two vocational schools in Hamburg tested reusable RECUP cups and REBOWL containers. Students and staff could receive takeaway food and drinks in deposit-based packaging and return the items after use. The pilot showed that reuse can be integrated into everyday canteen operations without major disruption. User convenience, however, was essential.

Return points need to be accessible, the rules must be simple, and information about the deposit and environmental benefits must be clear. Some students viewed carrying or returning containers as an inconvenience. Technology must therefore be supported by effective communication and behaviour-change measures.

📊 Copenhagen: using data to improve reuse

Copenhagen tested RFID-enabled reusable food containers through its EAT school food programme. The technology generated data on container use, return rates and operational performance. This information supported better decision-making, helped identify weaknesses and allowed the system to be optimised over time.

The pilot demonstrated that digital tracking can support the scaling of reusable systems. Initial implementation can nevertheless increase staff workload and requires investment in containers, technology and logistics. The return process must remain simple. Technology cannot replace accessible infrastructure or clear user guidance.

🛒 Lahti: changing packaging before it reaches the canteen

Lahti adopted a systemic approach. Instead of focusing only on canteen operations, the city incorporated nine packaging sustainability criteria into public tender documents and supplier contracts. The criteria addressed the reduction of fossil-based plastics, improved recyclability, reusable transport packaging and the minimisation of unnecessary empty space.

The strength of this approach lies in its reach. A requirement included in a large procurement contract can influence entire product categories and the practices of multiple suppliers. Most of the criteria were considered capable of being implemented without increasing municipal expenditure. Lahti also examined wholesale and inbound transport packaging. Opportunities included thinner plastic films, pallet lids, fibre-based bands and reusable transport boxes supported by RFID tracking.

Progress requires cooperation between producers, wholesalers and public buyers. Cost, equipment compatibility, hygiene requirements and uneven market readiness remain important barriers.

🏥 Tallinn: approximately 600 fewer boxes every day

One of the clearest measurable impacts was achieved in two large hospitals in Tallinn. Previously, every sandwich prepared for a patient was transported in an individual plastic box. The pilot introduced large reusable Gastronorm trays with lids. Sandwiches were transported in bulk and served on reusable plates at the hospitals.

The change eliminated approximately 600 disposable boxes per day across two hospitals and eight buildings. It also reduced transport volume and improved delivery efficiency. Environmental benefits were combined with savings for the catering company and hospitals. However, the change increased washing requirements and affected staff routines. Management support, adequate infrastructure and carefully designed operational procedures were therefore essential.

🍪 Tallinn schools: from paper wrapping to packaging-free sales

Two Tallinn schools tested paper sandwich wrapping, reusable glass bowls and packaging-free sales of selected products such as cookies and rice waffles. The simplest measures showed the greatest potential for continuation. Bulk products required relatively minor operational changes and were positively received.

Other solutions were less successful. Paper-wrapped triangular sandwiches dried out quickly, while reusable bowls increased washing workloads and limited takeaway options. In one school, this negatively affected sales. The pilot produced valuable practical knowledge: solutions must match the food product, cafeteria layout, available washing infrastructure and user behaviour.

🌱 Shared lessons from the pilots

Four principles connect the different case studies.

Convenience comes first. Returning packaging cannot be significantly harder than disposing of a single-use alternative.

Infrastructure matters. Institutions need return points, storage space, adequate container stocks and sufficient washing capacity.

Cooperation is essential. Canteen operators, users, facility managers, suppliers and public authorities all play a role.

Communication enables change. Users need to understand how the system works, why it is being introduced and what is expected of them.

♻️ Systemic change, not a one-off campaign

Packaging reduction should not be treated as a temporary awareness campaign. It needs to be incorporated into public procurement, supplier contracts, logistics, staff training and daily institutional routines. No single solution will work in every setting. This is why pilots, monitoring and continuous adaptation are so important.

Hamburg, Copenhagen, Lahti and Tallinn demonstrate that circular institutional catering is not a distant vision. It consists of practical decisions that schools, hospitals, caterers and municipalities can begin making today. 💚

If You wonder how the project Change(k)Now! can support your organisation – please contact us directly

#ChangeKnow #CircularEconomy #ReusablePackaging #InstitutionalCatering #GreenProcurement #LessPlastic #WastePrevention #ZeroWaste #SustainableCities #Reuse #Interreg #BalticSeaRegion #wielorazowo #NaWynos #LocalGovernment #ChangeKnow #Interreg #BalticSeaRegion

Single-use cups, takeaway boxes and food packaging may serve their purpose for only a few minutes before becoming waste. However, the problem does not end with an overflowing bin. Disposable packaging also creates waste-management costs, consumes raw materials and increases environmental pressure.

A growing number of European cities have therefore recognised that isolated promotional campaigns are not enough. For reusable packaging to become an everyday standard, cities need long-term frameworks that combine local strategies, regulations, public procurement, return infrastructure and cooperation with businesses and residents.

The experiences of Anykščiai, Riga, Liepāja, Lahti, Tallinn and Copenhagen demonstrate that there is no single pathway towards a circular economy. However, all six cities follow one crucial principle:

A reusable system must not only be environmentally beneficial. It must also be simple, convenient and workable in everyday practice.

Why do cities have such an important role?

Municipalities are uniquely positioned to influence local food-service systems. They organise public events, manage public spaces, operate schools and other institutions, procure catering services and cooperate with local restaurants and businesses.

This means that cities can act at several levels simultaneously. They can:

• introduce regulations and operational guidance,
• establish requirements for public events and catering services,
• support the purchase and distribution of reusable packaging,
• organise deposit systems and return points,
• run information and awareness campaigns,
• test solutions through pilot projects.

The greatest challenge is moving from a general commitment—such as “we want to reduce waste”—to practical answers.

Who purchases the containers? Where can they be returned? Who is responsible for washing them? How should deposits be managed? How can hygiene be guaranteed? What happens when packaging is not returned?

Only when these questions are addressed can a reuse system continue functioning after the initial pilot project has ended.

Anykščiai: local regulation as the foundation of a reuse system

The Lithuanian municipality of Anykščiai demonstrates how a relatively small town can establish the legal and organisational conditions needed for reusable takeaway packaging.

The process began with direct dialogue involving local restaurants, cafés, business representatives and municipal departments. A working group was then created to reconcile the municipality’s environmental objectives with the operational needs of local businesses.

In November 2024, the Municipal Council adopted a regulation covering the use of reusable food containers. It defined principles for reusable packaging, deposit-return rules, cooperation mechanisms, hygiene requirements and procedures for container distribution and information sharing.

Importantly, the regulation did not remain a stand-alone policy document. The municipality also provided financial, infrastructural and educational support to participating businesses. Agreements were signed with 16 cafés and restaurants that joined the reusable takeaway initiative.

The Anykščiai example shows that even a small municipality can initiate systemic change when responsibilities are clearly defined and local businesses are involved from the beginning.

Riga: bridging the gap between regulation and practice

In Riga, the starting point was a municipal regulation prohibiting disposable cups during street trading at public events.

However, the regulation alone could not answer every practical question.

Vendors and event organisers needed guidance on system selection, logistics, washing, deposit accounting, visitor communication and cooperation with reusable-system operators.

The city therefore began preparing a practical implementation framework. The process involved waste-management experts, municipal officials, event organisers, vendors and deposit-system providers.

Experience from a decentralised reusable cup system tested during the Riga City Festival in August 2025 also became an important source of practical knowledge.

The Riga case illustrates that good regulation should be supported by clear implementation guidance. Businesses need to understand not only what is required, but also how they can meet the new requirements.

The planned framework is intended to cover different operational models, technical requirements, storage and washing procedures, financial arrangements, communication tools and examples of potential service providers.

Liepāja: different tools for different public spaces

Liepāja is developing reusable cup solutions for public events, beaches, swimming areas, coastal cafés and other public spaces.

The city uses different policy tools depending on its legal authority and the characteristics of each location.

Where the municipality has sufficient regulatory powers, it introduces binding requirements. In other areas, it relies on recommendations, guidance, stakeholder dialogue and educational activities.

From 1 January 2026, beverages sold at public events may no longer be served in non-reusable cups. A deposit system for reusable plastic cups will be required. At beaches and swimming areas, the municipality currently promotes reusable cups through recommendations.

The city has also been preparing practical guidance for caterers and event organisers, supported by stakeholder meetings and a socio-economic feasibility study.

This provides an important lesson for other municipalities: cities do not always need to wait for one comprehensive piece of national legislation. The transition can be introduced gradually by matching each instrument to the municipality’s actual powers and to the specific public space involved.

Lahti: the circular economy begins with public procurement

The Finnish city of Lahti focused on packaging used in institutional catering and public procurement.

Together with Päijät-Hämeen Ateriapalvelut, the city developed a strategic roadmap for integrating sustainability considerations into food-packaging procurement.

The purpose was to translate broad environmental ambitions into measurable criteria that could be used when purchasing products and selecting suppliers.

This is particularly important because public procurement creates stable and substantial demand. When a city requires suppliers to reduce unnecessary packaging, improve recyclability, use renewable materials or provide reusable solutions, it sends a clear signal to the entire market.

The Lahti roadmap links long-term strategic objectives with practical procurement tools.

It also demonstrates that environmental criteria must be economically justified and adapted to market capacity. Successful implementation requires dialogue with suppliers, training for procurement staff and a clear explanation of why new sustainability requirements are being introduced.

A strong cooperation structure was therefore created between municipal departments, catering services and project partners.

Tallinn: a long-term circular economy development plan

In June 2025, Tallinn adopted its Circular Economy Development Plan 2035. The plan establishes a common direction for circular products, services, municipal operations, public events and public procurement.

Reusable food-service systems are not treated as an isolated campaign. Instead, they are integrated into the city’s wider circular economy transition.

The plan includes measures such as:

• reusable tableware requirements at public events,
• training programmes for municipal staff and event organisers,
• campaigns promoting reusable tableware and refillable water,
• expansion of reusable takeaway packaging,
• food reuse initiatives using reusable containers,
• circular procurement requirements for school meals and catering services.

The strategy was created through a broad co-creation process involving municipal departments, national authorities, universities, experts and other stakeholders.

By embedding reuse in a long-term development plan, Tallinn increases the likelihood that these measures will continue after individual projects or funding programmes have ended.

Reusable packaging becomes part of municipal procedures, procurement requirements, public communication and future investment decisions.

Copenhagen: using pilot projects to strengthen a wider strategy

Copenhagen has incorporated reusable packaging into its Resource and Waste Strategy 2030.

This allows the city to connect lessons from pilot projects, public events and infrastructure initiatives with long-term waste-prevention and resource-efficiency planning.

The strategy combines reuse targets with circular procurement, stakeholder engagement, communication, monitoring and support for testing and scaling reusable packaging systems.

The Copenhagen example demonstrates that a pilot project creates the greatest value when it functions as a learning process.

A pilot should not be treated as a one-off demonstration. It should generate evidence that helps the city improve return logistics, user communication, financial models, operational responsibilities and infrastructure planning.

The lessons can then be used to expand successful solutions to additional districts, institutions, events and food-service environments.

By incorporating reusable packaging into a broader municipal strategy, Copenhagen connects practical experiments with long-term policy development.

What do successful municipal strategies have in common?

Although the six cities have taken different approaches, several common success factors can be identified.

1. Clear political leadership. The transition requires a clear political decision that reducing single-use packaging is a municipal priority. Without leadership support, it is difficult to secure funding, establish cooperation between departments or maintain activities over the long term.

2. Cross-departmental cooperation. Reusable packaging systems involve environmental policy, procurement, legal affairs, finance, public events, education, infrastructure and waste management. They cannot be implemented effectively by one municipal department acting alone.

3. Early involvement of businesses. Restaurants, cafés, caterers and event organisers understand the daily operational challenges of food-service systems. Involving them during the design phase helps prevent the creation of solutions that appear effective in policy documents but are difficult to implement in practice.

4. Combining regulation with practical support. A legal requirement can accelerate change, but businesses also need guidance, infrastructure, preparation time and access to suitable services. Regulation is most effective when it is accompanied by practical implementation tools.

5. Convenience for users. Even the most environmentally ambitious system will struggle if returning a cup or container requires a complicated registration process, a long queue or a difficult search for a return point. The return process must be intuitive, visible and easily accessible.

6. Communication and education. Residents and visitors need to understand why a deposit is charged, where packaging can be returned, how refunds work and how hygiene is guaranteed. Clear communication builds trust and reduces resistance to new systems.

7. Pilot projects connected to long-term planning. Pilot projects are valuable when their results inform future regulation, procurement, infrastructure and communication. Without a pathway for scaling, even a successful pilot may remain an isolated experiment.

From a one-off pilot to lasting change

The most important message from these European cities is that strategy and practical implementation must be developed together.

Regulations alone are not enough. Nor is it sufficient to purchase a batch of reusable cups or run a short awareness campaign.

A functioning reuse system requires an entire ecosystem that includes:

• regulation,
• public procurement,
• deposit and refund mechanisms,
• collection and washing logistics,
• financing,
• communication,
• stakeholder cooperation,
• data collection and monitoring.

There is no single model that will suit every municipality.

A small town with a compact network of restaurants will need a different solution from a major capital city. A coastal destination may need a different approach from an office district, school system or large public event.

However, the overall direction is shared: reusable packaging should gradually become a normal part of municipal services, events and local food systems.

The easier it is to borrow, use and return packaging, the faster reusable systems will stop being perceived as an environmental experiment and start becoming an ordinary feature of everyday life.

Change begins with strategy—but its true value becomes visible only when a resident can easily receive, use and return reusable packaging. ♻️🌍

If You wonder how the project Change(k)Now! can support your organisation – please contact us directly

#CircularEconomy #ReusablePackaging #CircularCities #SustainableCities #WastePrevention #GreenProcurement #ReuseSystems #LocalGovernment #ChangeKnow #Interreg #BalticSeaRegion

The September Purge: Europe’s War on Hidden Chemical Dangers

The European Union’s total ban on triphenylphosphine oxide (TPO) in cosmetic products, effective September 1, 2025, represents more than regulatory housekeeping—it embodies Europe’s increasingly aggressive stance against chemical ingredients that may pose long-term health risks even when present in trace amounts. This prohibition reflects a fundamental shift in consumer protection philosophy, where the precautionary principle trumps industry convenience and where European regulators are willing to disrupt global supply chains to eliminate substances that most consumers have never heard of but encounter daily.

The TPO Chemical Profile Triphenylphosphine oxide presents a complex regulatory challenge:

Industrial Applications: Widely used as catalyst and flame retardant in various manufacturing processes Cosmetic Function: Serving as stabilizer, antioxidant, and processing aid in beauty products Ubiquitous Presence: Found in everything from lipsticks and foundations to shampoos and moisturizers Trace Concentrations: Often present in minute quantities as manufacturing byproduct rather than intentional ingredient Detection Challenges: Requiring sophisticated analytical methods to identify and quantify

The Health Concerns Scientific research has identified multiple potential risks associated with TPO exposure:

Endocrine Disruption: Potential interference with hormonal systems affecting reproduction and development Skin Sensitization: Allergic reactions and contact dermatitis in sensitive individuals Bioaccumulation: Substance potentially building up in body tissues over time Environmental Persistence: Chemical stability leading to long-term environmental contamination Synergistic Effects: Unknown interactions with other cosmetic chemicals creating amplified risks

The Regulatory Evolution The TPO ban reflects Europe’s increasingly precautious approach to chemical safety:

REACH Regulation: Comprehensive chemical registration and evaluation system identifying problematic substances Cosmetics Regulation: Specific rules governing safety and composition of beauty products Scientific Committees: Expert panels evaluating emerging evidence about chemical risks Stakeholder Consultation: Industry and consumer group input informing regulatory decisions International Coordination: Cooperation with other regulatory agencies worldwide

The Industry Impact Cosmetic manufacturers face significant challenges adapting to the TPO prohibition:

Reformulation Costs: Expensive research and development to replace TPO in existing products Supply Chain Disruption: Need to verify TPO absence throughout complex ingredient networks Testing Requirements: Enhanced analytical testing to ensure compliance with ban Market Timing: Pressure to reformulate products before September 1 deadline Competitive Implications: Companies with TPO-free formulations gaining market advantages

The Consumer Perspective Most cosmetic users remain unaware of TPO presence and the reasons for its prohibition:

Ingredient Literacy: Limited consumer understanding of chemical names and functions Trust Assumptions: Belief that regulated products are inherently safe Price Sensitivity: Potential cost increases from reformulation affecting purchasing decisions Brand Loyalty: Consumer attachment to specific products potentially containing TPO Health Awareness: Growing concern about chemical exposure driving demand for “clean” cosmetics

The Global Implications Europe’s TPO ban influences international cosmetic regulation and trade:

Regulatory Leadership: EU standards often becoming global benchmarks for chemical safety Trade Barriers: Non-compliant products excluded from lucrative European market Harmonization Pressure: Other countries considering similar bans to maintain trade relationships Innovation Incentives: Global companies developing TPO-free alternatives for worldwide use Competitive Dynamics: European companies potentially gaining advantages in TPO-free product development

The Scientific Debate The evidence supporting TPO prohibition remains subject to ongoing scientific discussion:

Risk Assessment: Evaluation of exposure levels versus potential health effects Study Limitations: Challenges in conducting long-term human health studies Mechanistic Understanding: Incomplete knowledge of how TPO affects biological systems Dose-Response Relationships: Uncertainty about safe exposure levels and thresholds Alternative Assessments: Comparative safety evaluation of TPO replacement chemicals

The Precautionary Principle Europe’s approach reflects philosophical commitment to preventing potential harm:

Burden of Proof: Requiring industry to demonstrate safety rather than regulators proving harm Uncertainty Management: Acting on potential risks even without definitive scientific proof Long-term Thinking: Prioritizing future health outcomes over immediate economic considerations Democratic Values: Reflecting European public preferences for strict chemical regulation Risk Communication: Transparent discussion of scientific uncertainty and regulatory rationale

The Enforcement Challenge Implementing the TPO ban requires sophisticated monitoring and compliance systems:

Analytical Methods: Developing standardized testing procedures for TPO detection Market Surveillance: Regular testing of cosmetic products for banned substances Import Controls: Screening products from countries with different regulatory standards Penalty Frameworks: Establishing meaningful consequences for non-compliance Industry Cooperation: Working with manufacturers to ensure voluntary compliance

The Economic Calculations The TPO ban involves complex cost-benefit analysis:

Health Benefits: Potential reduction in allergic reactions and long-term health risks Economic Costs: Industry reformulation expenses and potential price increases Innovation Stimulus: Regulatory pressure driving development of safer alternatives Competitive Effects: Market advantages for companies already using TPO-free formulations Social Values: European willingness to pay for enhanced chemical safety

The Alternative Development Replacing TPO requires identifying safer chemical alternatives:

Functional Equivalents: Chemicals providing similar stabilizing and antioxidant effects Safety Profiles: Comprehensive evaluation of replacement chemical risks Performance Testing: Ensuring alternatives maintain product quality and effectiveness Cost Considerations: Economic viability of TPO replacements for widespread use Innovation Opportunities: Potential for breakthrough technologies eliminating need for chemical additives

The Consumer Education Need Successful implementation requires informed public understanding:

Chemical Literacy: Educating consumers about cosmetic ingredients and their functions Risk Communication: Explaining scientific rationale for TPO prohibition Product Labeling: Clear identification of TPO-free products for conscious consumers Media Coverage: Responsible reporting about chemical risks and regulatory responses Industry Transparency: Manufacturer communication about reformulation efforts and timeline

The International Harmonization Europe’s TPO ban may influence global cosmetic regulation:

Regulatory Convergence: Other countries potentially adopting similar prohibitions Trade Facilitation: Harmonized standards reducing barriers to international commerce Scientific Cooperation: Shared research and risk assessment across regulatory agencies Industry Standardization: Global companies adopting single formulations meeting strictest standards Consumer Protection: Worldwide improvement in cosmetic safety through European leadership

The Technology Innovation The TPO ban stimulates development of advanced cosmetic technologies:

Green Chemistry: Environmentally friendly alternatives to traditional chemical additives Nanotechnology: Novel approaches to product stabilization and preservation Biotechnology: Biological alternatives to synthetic chemical ingredients Smart Formulations: Products adapting to individual skin needs without problematic additives Analytical Advances: Improved methods for detecting and quantifying trace chemicals

The Long-term Vision The TPO prohibition represents broader transformation in cosmetic regulation:

Chemical Minimalism: Trend toward products with fewer synthetic additives Transparency Requirements: Enhanced disclosure of ingredient sources and functions Personalized Safety: Customized products based on individual chemical sensitivities Circular Economy: Sustainable cosmetic production and packaging systems Global Standards: Worldwide convergence on strict chemical safety requirements

The Industry Adaptation Cosmetic companies are developing various strategies for TPO compliance:

Reformulation Programs: Systematic replacement of TPO across product lines Supply Chain Audits: Comprehensive verification of ingredient sources and processing Alternative Research: Investment in developing safer chemical substitutes Consumer Communication: Marketing campaigns highlighting TPO-free formulations Regulatory Engagement: Active participation in policy development and implementation

The Broader Implications The TPO ban reflects changing relationships between regulation, industry, and consumers:

Regulatory Activism: Government willingness to intervene in markets for public health Consumer Empowerment: Informed consumers driving demand for safer products Industry Responsibility: Corporate accountability for long-term health and environmental effects Scientific Integration: Evidence-based policy making incorporating latest research findings Democratic Participation: Public involvement in regulatory decision-making processes

Conclusions:

1. The European Union’s total ban on triphenylphosphine oxide in cosmetic products, effective September 1, 2025, represents far more than the prohibition of an obscure chemical—it embodies Europe’s commitment to protecting consumers from potential health risks even when the science remains uncertain and the economic costs are substantial.

2. This regulatory action reflects a fundamental philosophical shift in how societies balance economic interests against public health concerns. Rather than waiting for definitive proof of harm, European regulators have chosen to act on emerging evidence suggesting that TPO may pose risks to human health and the environment. This precautionary approach prioritizes long-term safety over short-term convenience and industry profits.

3. For consumers, the TPO ban represents both protection and disruption. While most people have never heard of triphenylphosphine oxide, they encounter it daily in products they trust to enhance their appearance and well-being. The prohibition ensures that future cosmetic use won’t expose them to a potentially harmful substance, but it may also result in higher prices, reformulated products, and temporary market disruptions as manufacturers scramble to comply.

4. The cosmetic industry faces significant challenges in adapting to the new reality. Companies must invest heavily in reformulation, supply chain verification, and analytical testing to ensure compliance. Those that have already developed TPO-free alternatives may gain competitive advantages, while others may struggle to maintain product quality and affordability while meeting the September deadline.

5. Perhaps most significantly, Europe’s TPO ban demonstrates the continent’s growing influence over global cosmetic standards. When the world’s largest cosmetic market prohibits a substance, manufacturers worldwide often find it more economical to eliminate that ingredient entirely rather than maintain separate formulations for different markets. This “Brussels Effect” means that European regulatory decisions increasingly shape global product standards.

6. The ban also reflects changing consumer expectations about cosmetic safety. Modern consumers are increasingly sophisticated about ingredient lists, more concerned about long-term health effects, and more demanding of transparency from manufacturers. The TPO prohibition responds to these evolving preferences while potentially accelerating the trend toward “clean” cosmetics with minimal synthetic additives.

7. From a scientific perspective, the TPO ban represents both precaution and uncertainty. While evidence suggests potential risks from TPO exposure, definitive proof of harm remains elusive. This regulatory approach acknowledges that waiting for complete scientific certainty might mean accepting preventable health risks, especially when safer alternatives are available.

8. The September 1 implementation date creates urgency for all stakeholders. Manufacturers must complete reformulation and testing, regulators must prepare enforcement mechanisms, and consumers must prepare for potential changes in their favorite products. The success of this transition will influence future regulatory approaches to emerging chemical risks.

9. Ultimately, the TPO ban symbolizes Europe’s vision of consumer protection in the 21st century: proactive rather than reactive, precautionary rather than permissive, and willing to prioritize long-term health over short-term economic considerations. Whether this approach proves wise will depend on the balance between enhanced safety and economic costs, but it clearly establishes Europe as the global leader in cosmetic safety regulation.

10. The countdown to September 1 has begun, and with it, a new chapter in the relationship between chemistry, commerce, and consumer protection. The TPO ban may be just the beginning of a broader transformation in how societies regulate the chemicals that surround us daily, starting with the products we apply to our skin in pursuit of beauty and well-being.

11. For the companies, who coughed by surprise – we would like to offer help within LIFE FIT FOR REACH Project, where we are offering help in identifying substitutes to the chemicals, which are on the list of Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC). Please register to our contact form:

Introduction: What is the Shanghai Ranking (ARWU)?

The Shanghai Ranking, officially known as the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), is one of the most prestigious global university rankings. It was established in 2003 by Shanghai Jiao Tong University and evaluates institutions primarily based on academic and research performance. Its criteria include the number of Nobel Prize winners among alumni and staff, the number of highly cited researchers, and the volume of articles published in top-tier journals like Nature and Science.

The 2023 ranking once again confirmed the dominance of American and British universities, but it also showed the advancement of institutions from Asia and continental Europe.

---

TOP 10 Universities in the World in 2023

1. Harvard University (USA) – 1st place (consistently for years!)
2. Stanford University (USA)
3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (USA)
4. University of Cambridge (United Kingdom)
5. University of California, Berkeley (USA)
6. Princeton University (USA)
7. University of Oxford (United Kingdom)
8. Columbia University (USA)
9. California Institute of Technology (Caltech) (USA)
10. University of Chicago (USA)

Key Observation:

• 8 out of the top 10 universities are American, with two British institutions (Cambridge and Oxford) maintaining their elite status.
• Why? These universities have enormous research budgets, employ the most distinguished scientists (including Nobel laureates), and attract the best students from around the world.

---

Which Universities Are Advancing the Fastest?

1. Chinese Universities – The Scientific Powerhouse of the East

• Tsinghua University (22nd place) and Peking University (29th) – both in the TOP 30.
• Fudan University and Shanghai Jiao Tong University are in the TOP 100.
• Why? Massive government investment in science, collaboration with Western universities, and programs designed to attract international researchers.

2. Singapore – A Tiny Country with a Big Scientific Impact

• National University of Singapore (NUS) – 71st place
• Nanyang Technological University (NTU) – 88th place
• Why? Strong funding for technology and engineering, and a high degree of openness to international collaboration.

3. Continental Europe – A Stable Presence

• ETH Zurich (Switzerland) – 20th place (the highest-ranked in continental Europe)
• Karolinska Institutet (Sweden) – 39th place (a leader in medicine)
• University of Copenhagen (Denmark) – TOP 100
• Why? High levels of research funding, strong academic traditions, and international cooperation.

---

Why Are Some Universities So Highly Ranked? Key Success Factors

1. Money = Better Science
   • Harvard has an endowment of approximately $50 billion (larger than the GDP of some countries!).
   • American and British universities receive huge grants from the government and private companies.
2. Nobel Laureates and World-Class Scientists
   • The ARWU ranking heavily rewards universities whose alumni or staff have won Nobel Prizes.
   • For example, Cambridge and MIT each have several dozen Nobel laureates associated with them.
3. Prestigious Publications
   • Universities in the TOP 100 regularly publish in Nature and Science, which boosts their score.
4. International Collaboration
   • The best universities attract students and scientists from all over the world, creating global research networks.

---

What Are the Implications?

• Science is a financial race – Without significant funding, it is difficult to compete with Harvard or MIT.
• Asia is rising in power – China and Singapore are investing heavily in science and are already catching up with the West.
• Europe maintains its standard but lacks giants – ETH Zurich and Karolinska Institutet are excellent, but they don’t have the budgets of American universities.
• Poland is far behind – The absence of a Polish university in the TOP 300 shows that without greater investment in science, advancement is difficult.

---

Summary

The Shanghai Ranking shows that science is a global game of prestige, money, and talent. American and British universities still rule, but Asia and continental Europe are gradually increasing their presence. Poland still has a lot of catching up to do, but the example of China shows that consistent investment can yield results.

Could Poland ever join the world’s elite? It’s possible, but it would require significantly greater funding for science, attracting international talent, and better collaboration with global research centers.

In today’s industrial landscape, managing chemical risks is a critical component of environmental and occupational safety. Companies handling hazardous substances must comply with stringent regulations while minimizing their environmental footprint. The Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), a robust EU environmental management framework, can play a pivotal role in enhancing Chemical Risk Management (CRM) by integrating systematic monitoring, compliance assurance, and continuous improvement.

This article explores how EMAS and CRM can be synergized to improve regulatory compliance, operational safety, and sustainability performance.

---

Understanding EMAS and Chemical Risk Management (CRM)

EMAS: A Framework for Environmental Excellence

EMAS is a voluntary EU certification that helps organizations establish an Environmental Management System (EMS), ensuring legal compliance, transparency, and continuous environmental improvement. Key elements include:

• Environmental Policy & Legal Compliance – Ensuring adherence to regulations such as REACH, CLP, and Seveso III.
• Risk Assessment & Mitigation – Identifying and reducing environmental impacts, including those from hazardous chemicals.
• Performance Tracking & Reporting – Publicly disclosing environmental data, verified by third-party audits.

Chemical Risk Management (CRM): Safeguarding People and the Planet

CRM involves:

• Hazard Identification – Assessing chemical risks to workers, communities, and ecosystems.
• Exposure Control – Implementing safety measures (e.g., substitution, engineering controls, PPE).
• Regulatory Compliance – Meeting requirements under REACH, CLP, OSHA, and other chemical safety laws.
• Emergency Preparedness – Developing response plans for chemical spills or accidents.

---

The Synergy Between EMAS and CRM

Integrating EMAS with CRM enhances both environmental and occupational safety performance while ensuring compliance with evolving regulations. Key benefits include:

1. Enhanced Regulatory Compliance

• EMAS requires organizations to monitor and comply with environmental laws, including chemical safety regulations.
• CRM processes (e.g., safety data sheets, exposure limits) can be systematically tracked within the EMAS framework.

2. Improved Hazard Identification & Risk Reduction

• EMAS promotes lifecycle thinking, encouraging substitution of hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives.
• CRM data (e.g., toxicity levels, storage conditions) feeds into EMAS risk assessments, supporting preventive action.

3. Transparent Reporting & Stakeholder Trust

• EMAS mandates public environmental statements, which can include chemical safety performance.
• Verified CRM data (e.g., reduced chemical emissions, safer handling practices) strengthens corporate sustainability reporting under frameworks like CSRD.

4. Operational Efficiency & Cost Savings

• Reducing chemical waste and optimizing usage aligns with EMAS-driven resource efficiency.
• Lower risks of non-compliance fines and workplace incidents lead to long-term cost reductions.

---

Practical Steps for Integration

1. Align EMAS EMS with CRM Processes
   • Incorporate chemical risk assessments into EMAS environmental reviews.
   • Track chemical usage, emissions, and incidents within the EMAS monitoring system.
2. Leverage EMAS for Compliance & Best Practices
   • Use EMAS audits to verify compliance with REACH, Seveso III, and industrial emissions directives.
   • Adopt green chemistry principles (e.g., safer substitutes, closed-loop systems) as part of continuous improvement.
3. Strengthen Emergency Preparedness
   • Integrate chemical spill response plans into EMAS emergency procedures.
   • Train employees on both environmental and chemical safety protocols.
4. Enhance Reporting & ESG Alignment
   • Include CRM metrics (e.g., reduced hazardous substance use) in EMAS environmental statements and ESG reports.
   • Use EMAS verification to add credibility to sustainability disclosures.

---

Challenges & Opportunities

Challenges:

• Data Complexity – Harmonizing CRM data with EMAS indicators requires structured systems.
• Regulatory Evolution – Keeping up with changing chemical laws (e.g., EU Green Deal, PFAS restrictions).

Opportunities:

• Competitive Advantage – Demonstrating leadership in safe and sustainable chemical management.
• Innovation – Developing low-impact chemical processes that align with circular economy goals.

---

Conclusion

The integration of EMAS and Chemical Risk Management creates a powerful approach to sustainability, compliance, and workplace safety. By leveraging EMAS’s structured environmental management system, companies can systematically reduce chemical risks, improve transparency, and meet regulatory demands.

For organizations handling hazardous substances, this integration is not just a compliance exercise—it’s a strategic opportunity to build resilience, enhance reputation, and drive long-term sustainability.

---

Is your organization ready to strengthen its chemical risk management with EMAS? Stay ahead of regulatory demands and explore best practices at the upcoming “FUTURE WITH EMAS” conference on November 6-7, 2025, in Warsaw. Reserve your spot now by contacting us through the contact form!

#EMAS #EnvironmentalManagement #SustainableBusiness #CRM #Sustainability #Business #FitforREACH #POMInnO

In today’s business landscape, sustainability is no longer optional—it’s a necessity. Companies are increasingly expected to demonstrate their commitment to environmental and social responsibility. Two key frameworks that help organizations achieve this are EMAS (Eco-Management and Audit Scheme) and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance). While EMAS focuses on environmental management, ESG encompasses a broader range of sustainability criteria. Integrating these frameworks can provide a robust foundation for sustainable business practices and compliance with evolving regulations.

---

Understanding EMAS and ESG

EMAS: A Focus on Environmental Excellence

EMAS is a voluntary EU framework designed to help organizations evaluate, report, and improve their environmental performance. Key features include:

• Environmental Management Systems (EMS): Aligned with ISO 14001, EMAS requires organizations to establish and maintain an EMS.
• Legal Compliance: Organizations must demonstrate adherence to environmental regulations.
• Transparency: Regular environmental reporting and third-party verification ensure credibility.
• Continuous Improvement: EMAS encourages ongoing efforts to reduce environmental impacts.

ESG: A Holistic Approach to Sustainability

ESG criteria evaluate a company’s performance in three areas:

1. Environmental: Climate change mitigation, resource efficiency, pollution control.
2. Social: Labor practices, human rights, community engagement.
3. Governance: Ethical business practices, transparency, anti-corruption measures.

ESG reporting is becoming mandatory for many companies under regulations like the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).

---

The Synergy Between EMAS and ESG

Integrating EMAS with ESG reporting offers several advantages:

1. Data Collection and Standardization

EMAS provides a structured framework for collecting environmental data, such as energy consumption, carbon footprint, and water usage. This data is directly applicable to the “E” (Environmental) pillar of ESG, streamlining the reporting process.

2. Credibility and Verification

EMAS requires third-party verification, ensuring the accuracy of environmental data. This enhances the reliability of ESG reports, which are increasingly scrutinized by investors and regulators.

3. Risk Management

Both frameworks emphasize identifying and mitigating risks—EMAS for environmental risks and ESG for broader sustainability risks. Combining these approaches helps organizations build resilience.

4. Regulatory Alignment

With the CSRD expanding sustainability reporting requirements, EMAS-certified organizations are better positioned to meet these demands, as they already have systems in place for environmental compliance and data tracking.

5. Operational Efficiency

EMAS promotes resource efficiency and waste reduction, which align with ESG goals. For example, reducing energy consumption (tracked under EMAS) directly supports ESG targets like lowering carbon emissions.

---

Practical Steps for Integration

1. Leverage Existing Systems
   • Use EMAS-certified EMS to gather environmental data for ESG reports.
   • Align EMAS indicators (e.g., energy use, emissions) with ESG metrics.
2. Expand Beyond Environmental
   • Complement EMAS with social and governance policies to cover all ESG pillars.
   • Implement frameworks like ISO 26000 (Social Responsibility) for the “S” and “G” aspects.
3. Engage Stakeholders
   • Involve employees, suppliers, and customers in sustainability initiatives, as required by both EMAS and ESG.
4. Third-Party Assurance
   • Ensure ESG reports are verified, similar to EMAS audits, to build trust with stakeholders.

---

Challenges and Opportunities

Challenges:

• Data Complexity: Integrating data from EMAS into broader ESG reports can be resource-intensive.
• Regulatory Uncertainty: Evolving ESG regulations (e.g., potential deregulation under the “Omnibus” proposal) may require adaptability.

Opportunities:

• Competitive Advantage: Companies with EMAS and strong ESG performance can attract investors and customers.
• Innovation: Sustainability-driven processes can lead to cost savings and new business models.

---

Conclusion

The integration of EMAS and ESG is not just about compliance—it’s a strategic opportunity to build a sustainable, resilient, and transparent business. By leveraging the strengths of EMAS for environmental management and expanding into social and governance areas, organizations can meet regulatory demands, enhance their reputation, and contribute to a more sustainable future.

For companies yet to adopt these frameworks, now is the time to start. The synergy between EMAS and ESG is clear: together, they provide a comprehensive pathway to sustainability excellence.

---

Is your organization ready to integrate EMAS and ESG? Contact sustainability experts today to begin your journey toward holistic sustainability reporting. This topic will be one of the important elements of the agenda for the upcoming “FUTURE WITH EMAS” conference, which is planned for November 6-7, 2025, in Warsaw. Reserve the date now and leave email through the contact form to receive further detailed information about the conference.

#EMAS #EnvironmentalManagement #SustainabilityLeadership #CSRD #ESGReporting #ESG #SustainabiltyReporting #Industry #SustainableDevelopment #FitforREACH #FuturrewithEMAS #POMInnO