The KPIs to track when managing a reusable packaging program

A reuse program that measures nothing always ends up costing more than planned, or disappointing on the environmental front, because nobody sees the problem coming until it has taken hold. The indicators presented here are not new: a European technical standard, CEN/TR 14520:2005, already proposes assessing the performance of a reuse system by the number of rotations or the reuse rate, the choice depending on the type of system. What is most often missing is not the definition of these indicators, but the rigor with which they are tracked over time.

Return rate, the foundational indicator

The return rate measures the share of packaging put into circulation that actually comes back into the loop over a given period. It is the most frequently cited indicator in studies on reuse, because it determines almost every other result, economic and environmental alike. An older document from Citeo (France's packaging eco-organization) states that a system only achieves a favorable environmental outcome if the return rate exceeds 90%, a high threshold rarely reached in current pilots. For the EU packaging regulation, Zero Waste Europe proposes more gradual benchmarks: at least 60% return after three years of operation, then 90% after five years.

In France, the gaps between channels remain marked. A study covered by Carenews reports rates of 11.9 to 18.6% in some retail networks, 8.4% in pharmacies, and only 1.1% in other chains. The return rate should therefore be tracked by collection channel, not as an overall average that would mask the weak points of the system.

Average number of cycles per unit

This indicator counts how many times the same packaging unit has been used before being withdrawn from the loop, whether through wear, loss or downgrading. It differs from the theoretical number of cycles announced by the manufacturer, which corresponds to a service life under ideal conditions. In its reference framework for the EU regulation, Zero Waste Europe recommends a minimum average of 10 rotations before end of life within five years of operation. This is an indicative benchmark, not a mandatory standard, but it gives a useful order of magnitude for assessing whether a program remains profitable.

Tracking this indicator requires unit-level or batch-level traceability, without which it becomes impossible to tell a unit on its second cycle from another on its thirtieth. This is one of the points where a lack of upstream tracking makes any cost-per-rotation calculation approximate.

Cost per rotation, the economic summary

Cost per rotation aggregates all expense items spread over each use: the purchase price of the packaging divided by the number of cycles actually achieved, the cost of return logistics per cycle, the cost of cleaning per cycle, and a share of the cost of replacing lost or unusable packaging. A calculation method common in English-language logistics literature calls this total the container life cycle cost, which covers purchase price, maintenance, cleaning and transport.

This cost per rotation is then compared with the full cost of equivalent single-use packaging, material, void fill and labor included. The result of this comparison is never fixed: it shifts every time the return rate, the number of cycles or the length of the logistics loop changes, which calls for regular monitoring rather than a one-off calculation made when the program is launched.

Loss rate, the most often overlooked blind spot

The loss rate is the share of packaging that never comes back into the loop, whether destroyed, thrown away by mistake, or simply kept by the customer. The sources consulted for this article do not provide a single standardized definition of this indicator: one common formula, which we propose here without it coming from an official standard, is to divide the number of units not returned over the period by the number of units put into circulation at the start of that same period. It is best to set this formula explicitly when the program is launched, distinguishing permanent loss from simple downgrading due to wear, two phenomena with different causes and remedies.

One warning comes up in several industry analyses: a monthly loss rate of a few percent seems negligible on its own, but it compounds over the year and can, without anyone noticing, sharply reduce the average number of rotations actually achieved compared with the initial target.

How to combine these indicators into a dashboard

These four indicators should be read together, not in isolation. A high return rate guarantees nothing if the average number of cycles stays low because the packaging wears out too quickly. A cost per rotation that looks good on paper can become unrealistic if the loss rate measured in the field far exceeds the one used in the initial calculation. The most robust practice, documented in several professional guides, is to track returns from a pilot batch for six to twelve months before rolling out a program, rather than relying solely on data supplied by the packaging manufacturer.

Tracking by channel, by packaging type and by period remains the best safeguard against averages that hide significant gaps. A program that is just starting must accept that its first figures are provisional, and that the dashboard will become more accurate as real cycles replace the initial assumptions.

← All articles