Why traceability is the blind spot of packaging reuse

Packaging reuse has a well-rehearsed message: less waste, less virgin material, a credible alternative to single-use cardboard. Yet this message rarely rests on evidence. How many times is a package actually reused before it is discarded? The question still largely lacks a verifiable answer, and the only way to settle it is to take the word of the company publishing its own figures.

These questions are not trivial. They have become the sector's central point of friction, and yet no player has made them an editorial subject in their own right.

A sector that communicates impact, not proof

Reusable packaging manufacturers tend to stress the same arguments: less cardboard, a smaller carbon footprint, less single-use plastic. In principle, these arguments are sound. Packaging designed for ten use cycles is indeed better than single-use packaging, provided it actually completes ten cycles.

That is usually where the message stops. Few players explain how they measure the actual number of cycles, what share of their packaging actually comes back, and what happens to the packaging that never returns. The environmental benefit of reusable packaging only exists if the loop is closed. Without proof that it is, the argument remains a promise.

Returns, the weak point the whole sector knows about

Returns are universally seen as the Achilles' heel of reuse in e-commerce. La Poste (the French postal service) puts it bluntly in its communication on the subject: the return of reusable packaging remains the strategic challenge of sustainable e-commerce, precisely because it is the stage where the system can collapse.

The experiments run so far in this market point to the same friction points: the logistics cost of returns, cleaning the packaging, managing flows, and the risk of loss along the way. Reuse only becomes profitable at very large scale, and that scale cannot be built without reliable tracking of what goes out, what comes back, and what disappears in between.

A reuse business model rests entirely on this equation: the manufacturing cost of a package must be amortized over enough cycles. Without reliable data on the actual return rate, there is no way to know whether the equation holds, or to correct it in time.

What regulation is starting to require

France has set a framework that makes this subject non-negotiable. The decree of 8 April 2022 sets annual targets for reused packaging placed on the market: 5% in 2023, up to 10% in 2027, for companies that place more than 10,000 units of packaged products on the market per year. A statement of intent is not enough to verify these targets. Citeo (a French packaging eco-organization) requires a detailed monthly declaration: collection method, number of reusable packaging units collected, date and place of collection, identification of the consolidation point and of the service providers involved. Supporting documents may be required during spot checks.

The extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme for commercial and industrial packaging, created by the decree of 17 November 2025, extends this logic to around 1.7 million French companies. Its entry into force, initially scheduled for 1 July 2026, was postponed to 1 January 2027 by the government (announcement of 28 July 2026). To tackle this, GS1 France launched Le Pack't, an alliance that brings together nineteen initial reuse players, including three approved eco-organizations and sixteen operators, around a common traceability language. MOBIUSpack is one of these initial members. The signal is clear: the ability to prove reuse is becoming a condition of market access, not a marketing extra.

Why this subject remains an editorial blind spot

Across the entire reusable packaging sector, only one player explicitly mentions traceability: RE-ZIP, which equips its packaging with a QR code and an app to track the return of each unit. But this mention remains a product argument, a feature listed on a spec sheet. It has never become an in-depth subject, explained, put in context, and linked to regulation and measurement practices.

This absence does not mean the subject lacks importance. It has more to do with how young the sector is: reuse players first had to prove that the concept worked at small scale before turning to rigorous measurement. EPR regulation and the European timetable for the packaging regulation change that priority. Traceability is no longer a technical detail; it is becoming the condition for the credibility of reuse itself.

The opportunity for those who address the subject now

A player that explains how it measures, documents and proves its return rate does more than educate: it answers a question its business customers, logistics partners and EPR schemes are already asking, and one that almost no one answers publicly today.

Treating traceability as an in-depth subject, rather than a line on a product sheet, means answering a question few players in the sector have explored in depth so far. It also means building trust with EPR schemes at a time when their requirements for proof are tightening significantly.

← All articles