A Comprehensive and Multidisciplinary Framework for Advancing Circular Economy Practices in the Packaging Sector: A Systematic Literature Review on Critical Factors

Abstract

The packaging sector is undergoing a significant transformation driven by increasing environmental challenges and new European regulatory frameworks. The Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), following the European Green Deal and Circular Economy Action Plan, introduces five strategic priorities: waste prevention, recyclability, recycled content, compostable materials, and reusable systems. This framework aims to systematically review the current state of academic research in relation to these five intervention areas, assessing the extent to which the scientific literature supports the regulation’s circular economy objectives. The PPWR sets guidelines for key aspects such as packaging treatment, recycling targets, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and material optimization. These aspects are strongly linked to market dynamics, driving innovation and new developments in packaging design. This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the industry’s evolution, with a focus on the crucial role of the circular economy in addressing the persistent issue of packaging waste. By conducting a systematic literature review using the PRISMA method, the research explores the relationship between the regulation’s structural design and the European Commission’s priority areas. The results reveal that waste prevention and reusability are the most researched areas, particularly concerning environmental assessments and regulatory tools like EPR. Additionally, while recyclability has been studied from technical and environmental perspectives, there is still a lack of research on how it connects with supply chain and material market trends. Strengthening these connections could significantly enhance recycling efficiency and improve the sustainability of packaging systems. Furthermore, financial incentives and policy strategies could play a key role in facilitating the transition to a circular economy. Addressing these gaps will foster a more integrated understanding of sustainable packaging solutions.

1. Introduction

Sustainability has become a critical focus in global policy, requiring integrated solutions that balance environmental protection, social equity, and economic development [1,2]. Within this context, packaging plays a central role. It ensures product integrity, enables logistics, influences consumer behaviour and contributes significantly to environmental pressures [3,4]. The definition of packaging by the scientific community has changed over time. It now encompasses any material used to contain, protect, deliver, or preserve products [1,5]. The primary purpose of packaging is to safeguard products during distribution, storage, transport, trade, and use [6]. Additionally, packaging should be designed to allow for reuse whenever possible [7]. The growth of international supply chains has resulted in a higher demand for packaging and, consequently, increased waste [8]. The packaging industry has expanded significantly, contributing to global GDP (Gross Domestic Product) while also putting considerable pressure on environmental systems [1]. In many countries, packaging waste accounts for 15 to 20% of total municipal solid waste [9]. The European Commission estimates that, without intervention, packaging waste could surpass 100 million tonnes by 2040 [10]. This scenario highlights the necessity for strong policy frameworks and innovative strategies for packaging design and lifecycle management. In response to this context, the European Commission has introduced the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), which builds on Directive 2018/852/EU. This regulation focuses on five key areas: waste prevention, recyclability, recycled content, compostable packaging, and reusable packaging. It is part of the European Green Deal and the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP). The goal is to reduce packaging waste, promote a circular economy through optimized design, increase recycled content in packaging materials and promote a functional single market for secondary materials [2]. While regulatory ambition is increasing, industry practices often lag behind. Many packaging materials still remain non-recyclable or overly complex in their composition [11]. The literature highlights the need to transition towards eco-design principles that minimize the use of virgin resources, prioritize post-consumer recyclates, and ensure effective performance throughout the supply chain [7,12]. The European Commission also aims to enhance environmental sustainability by setting reduction responsible for the proper disposal of the packaging waste generated by their products [13]. This system not only shifts the financial burden from public administration to producers, but also encourages innovation, improves recycling rates, and reduces public costs. However, there are some challenges associated with EPR, such as incomplete cost coverage, administrative complexity, and the need for harmonization. Therefore, careful management is required to ensure the effectiveness of the system [14]. The regulation imposes limits on hazardous substance concentrations in packaging, requires compliance for market placement, and mandates manufacturers to reduce packaging weight and volume while considering safety and functionality [15]. It also establishes provisions for compostable packaging and introduces specific targets to increase the use of recycled materials in packaging, with a focus on plastic products. Manufacturers are obliged to ensure that a predetermined percentage of plastic material in packaging is derived from post-consumer plastic waste. Recent scientific literature indicates that manufacturers have only recently begun to tackle the issue of overpackaging by implementing concrete initiatives aimed at creating more environmentally sustainable outer packaging [16]. Driven by scientific and technological advancements, the integration of circularity principles into packaging design and production processes, supported by regulatory frameworks, compels the industry to adopt policies that promote eco-design and sustainable production practices. This shift represents a crucial step toward more efficient and sustainable resource management [13]. Additionally, environmental pressures related to the use of materials and waste generation from disposable packaging necessitate a move away from single-use packaging. Studies suggest that reusable packaging systems have environmental and potential economic benefits over single-use systems [4,17,18]. Moreover, the importance of packaging design has been emphasized in relation to logistics and environmental performance. Design choices impact fill rates, transportation efficiency, and associated emissions, as extensively reviewed in the recent literature [19]. Several systematic literature reviews have explored the drivers and barriers of sustainable packaging, highlighting performance outcomes and industry dynamics, and revealing key factors that influence its adoption and implementation [20]. Additionally, [21] noted the importance of sustainable packaging within supply chain management, particularly in the context of the circular economy. They emphasized that aligning design strategies with logistics can enhance both environmental and economic benefits. As a result, manufacturers and retailers have a significant impact on developing future packaging policies and directly influence the market [22]. The importance of designing packaging with an eco-design approach takes on further significance within the supply chain system, with significant impacts on logistics costs and environmental sustainability [10]. Eco-design and sustainable packaging are crucial for minimizing the environmental impact of products. Ecodesign optimizes the life cycle of products, reducing their negative effects on the environment by using fewer resources and limiting harmful emissions. Innovations in packaging design aimed at making packaging environmentally friendly would benefit manufacturers, transport companies, and meet consumer expectations focused on sustainability [23]. By adopting eco-design and sustainable packaging, significant contributions can be made towards preserving the planet for future generations [24]. An alignment between science and policymakers is essential for achieving a transition towards sustainable packaging. Despite the extensive research on sustainable packaging, there remains a lack of clarity regarding how well this academic work aligns with the specific priorities and requirements outlined in the PPWR. Although numerous literature reviews have explored various aspects of sustainability in packaging, such as material innovation, environmental impacts, and economic considerations, these analyses are often conducted in isolation and do not explicitly reference or systematically link their findings to the structured intervention areas and policy goals established by the PPWR. Consequently, there is a significant gap in understanding whether and how current scientific findings are necessary to address unresolved policy challenges. This study is motivated by two main factors. First, the PPWR signifies a significant shift in EU packaging policy. It introduces binding obligations focused on waste prevention, recyclability, reusable formats, compostable applications, and minimum recycled content, which will fundamentally transform packaging markets. However, the scientific evidence that could guide the design and implementation of these obligations is currently fragmented across various disciplines, sectors, and policy instruments. Second, previous reviews on sustainable packaging and the circular economy have not provided a systematic assessment, broken down by pillar, of how existing research aligns with the PPWR framework. Furthermore, these reviews do not pinpoint critical gaps that may hinder regulatory compliance and industry practices. This review seeks to address these issues by organizing the literature according to the intervention areas outlined in the PPWR and identifying cross-cutting improvement dimensions. The goal is to create a structured evidence base that can support both policy refinement and corporate decision-making as we transition toward circular packaging systems.

Previous research has begun to explore these intersections. Ref. [25] conducted a systematic review on the transition to sustainable packaging in accordance with evolving EU regulations; however, their analysis does not evaluate the extent of alignment between each pillar and the supporting evidence base. In parallel, [1] proposed regulatory and technical strategies to improve packaging waste management in accordance with EU requirements. They provided a policy-oriented and primarily conceptual synthesis of the instruments and challenges associated with implementation. Building upon these contributions, the present paper advances the literature by: (i) conducting a systematic review based on the PSALSAR framework, explicitly focused on the five intervention areas of the PPWR; (ii) cross-classifying the selected studies according to four dimensions of improvement: environmental impact, supply chain efficiency, packaging development, and regulatory compliance; and (iii) operationalizing this classification through the “Circularity Thermometers,” which act as a policy-research coordination diagram, highlighting where academic evidence is robust and where critical gaps remain for PPWR implementation. Despite these previous efforts, earlier reviews have not provided a comprehensive pillar-by-pillar mapping of the literature that aligns directly with the structure of the PPWR. However, there is still a lack of comprehensive mapping of the literature that aligns directly with the five pillars of the PPWR. The lack of alignment creates a knowledge gap: it is unclear to what extent scientific literature supports the implementation of the PPWR and where further research is needed to tackle its policy challenges. To address this issue, the present study conducts a systematic literature review specifically focused on the five intervention areas defined by the Regulation: waste prevention, recyclability, recycled content, compostable packaging, and reusable packaging. Due to the complex nature of packaging sustainability [26], this sector requires ongoing research and a multidisciplinary approach to effectively address its environmental, financial, and regulatory challenges. Most existing studies focus on individual areas rather than providing a holistic perspective. This examination will take place within the context of the First Action Plan for the Circular Economy (CEAP) introduced in 2015. Each intervention area will be evaluated concerning the various areas for improvement identified through the examination of different articles [10]. The focus will be on reducing environmental impact, optimizing supply chain efficiency, enhancing the packaging development process and ensuring compliance with existing regulations. This approach aims to identify current and future opportunities for the packaging industry from both industrial and circular economy perspectives. Additionally, the study seeks to establish a relationship between the areas of intervention identified by the Regulation and the existing scientific and economic literature on packaging. This connection will promote the effective implementation of circular economy concepts. The research will also explore critical aspects such as innovation, sustainability, and producer responsibility, which are vital for waste prevention, packaging minimization, reuse, and recycling. Furthermore, it will examine factors influencing not only the packaging sector but also aspects of marketing and design, which are often driven by aesthetic considerations or the desire to enhance product attractiveness [27]. To guide this investigation and provide a structured analysis, the following research questions have been formulated:

RQ1: To what extent does current academic literature address the five intervention areas defined by the PPWR, specifically, waste prevention, recyclability, recycled content, compostable packaging, and reusable packaging?

RQ2: How are the four improvement dimensions, environmental impact, supply chain efficiency, packaging development, and regulatory compliance, addressed in the academic literature across the five PPWR intervention areas?

RQ3: What are the key research gaps that may limit the successful implementation of the PPWR? How can academic literature promote innovation, Extend Producer Responsibility and integrate circular economy principles into packaging policies and practices?

Theoretical Framework

From a regulatory perspective, two pillars of the PPWR, compostable packaging and minimum recycled content, differ qualitatively from the more established areas of waste prevention, recyclability, and reusability. This Regulation introduces, for the first time at the EU level, a clearly defined set of obligations regarding compostable packaging. Only specific formats that are typically contaminated with bio-waste or intended to be treated alongside it—such as permeable tea and coffee bags, single-serve units, sticky labels attached to fruits and vegetables, and very lightweight plastic carrier bags—must be compostable, and only under strict conditions that adhere to industrial composting standards and demonstrate an overall environmental benefit compared to material recycling. Additionally, Article 7 of the PPWR establishes binding minimum post-consumer recycled content requirements for various categories of plastic packaging, with percentage thresholds that increase over time. These provisions aim to reduce the use of virgin plastic, support the development of markets for secondary raw materials, and facilitate the recycling loop for plastic packaging within the Single Market. Given that these obligations regarding compostable formats and recycled content are relatively recent, technically complex, and highly context-dependent, it is reasonable to expect that academic research has yet to engage with them as systematically as it has with longer-standing themes such as waste prevention, design for recyclability, and reuse systems. These themes have been central to both EU policy and scholarly debate for over a decade. Therefore, we anticipate that the pillars concerning compostable packaging and minimum recycled content will display comparatively larger gaps in policy research, both in terms of the volume of studies and the depth of analysis focused on implementation challenges, trade-offs, and unintended consequences. This includes issues such as contamination of recycling streams, availability and quality of recyclates, and the verification and certification of claims.

2. Methodology

This paper seeks to explore how the intervention priorities set by the European Commission, including Waste Prevention, Recyclability, Recycled Content, Compostable Packaging, and Reusable Packaging, are reflected in the academic literature and aligned with the objectives of the Regulation. Each intervention area will be evaluated concerning the various areas for improvement identified through the examination of different article enhancements [10]. The emphasis will be on minimise environmental impact, improve supply chain efficiency, enhance packaging development process and ensure compliance with existing regulations. To conduct the Systematic Literature Review (SLR), this paper adopts the PSALSAR framework proposed by [28]. The process unfolds across six sequential steps, namely: (i) Protocol, which involves defining the purpose of the study; (ii) Search, which entails determining the best approach to use when collecting papers; (iii) Appraisal, which involves selecting papers based on specific criteria; (iv) Synthesis, which involves cataloguing the papers; (v) Analysis, which involves analysing the papers; and (vi) Report, which involves presenting a clear and concise overview of the entire systematic literature review (SLR) process for all interested parties. Steps (i) to (iv) are discussed in this document, while step (v) is explained in Section 3 and step (vi) is discussed in Section 4 and Section 5.

In order to establish the purpose of this study during the protocol phase, the CIMO methodology is used, which stands for context, intervention, mechanism, and outcome. This approach involves using interventions in a given context to generate mechanisms that ultimately lead to desired outcomes. By following this methodology, we were able to gain a comprehensive understanding of the study and guide our research accordingly with

Table 1. Study Protocol Definition Using the CIMO Methodology.

Context	To support the European Union’s transition towards a circular economy, the packaging sector must advance in terms of technology, innovation and alignment with regulatory frameworks. From a policy perspective, the European Commission has introduced several legislative tools, including the new Regulation that aimed at defining eco-design requirements for sustainable products.
Input	To contribute to the objectives set forth in the Regulation, a SLR was conducted. The focus is on packaging and the five priority areas identified within the legislative framework.
Mechanism	In order to interpret the aims of the Regulation, this paper maps academic and market knowledge across the targeted intervention areas, considering technological trends, policy developments and economic drivers. This enables a structured analysis of the state of the art in relation to regulatory ambitions.
Outcome	By evaluating the quality and focus of the state of the art, this study identifies both gaps and opportunities within the literature that relate to the goals of the Regulation. This evidence base can inform future scientific research and help align academic output with European circular economy targets.

.

To gather relevant academic contributions, the search process utilized two prominent scientific databases: Scopus and ScienceDirect. We developed ten distinct search queries using carefully chosen keywords that align with the thematic priorities of the European Regulation. The review process adhered to the principles of the PRISMA framework, which, includes several key phases: identification, screening, eligibility determination, data extraction, quality assessment, data analysis and reporting. In the identification stage, the search strings were constructed around the core intervention areas outlined by the EU Regulation (

Table 2. Search phase summary.

N	Area PPWR	Searching String	Rationale	Scopus	ScienceDirect
1	Circular Economy Principles in Packaging	(“circular economy” OR CE) AND (packaging)	Includes different terms related to eco-design and emphasizes design strategies that align with sustainability.	2829	353
2	Eco-design and Material Efficiency	(“eco-design” OR ecodesign) AND (packaging)	Includes different terms related to eco-design and emphasizes design strategies that are in line with sustainability.	211	67
3	Recyclability	(“recyclability” OR “recycling performance” OR “recyclable materials” OR recycle) AND (packaging)	Includes performance metrics and research on design for recyclability.	1022	587
4	Compostable and Biodegradable Packaging	(“compostable packaging” OR “biodegradable packaging” OR compostability) AND (packaging)	Includes all relevant terminology related to compostable materials.	462	211
5	Supply Chain Optimization	(“supply chain” OR “value chain” OR “value supply chain”) AND (sustainability OR sustainable) AND (packaging)	Includes research on logistics, supply chain efficiency, and sustainable management in the packaging sector.	2533	375
6	Waste Prevention & Minimization	(“waste prevention” OR “waste reduction” OR “waste minimization”) AND (packaging)	Includes key synonyms for reduction strategies that align with the focus of PPWR on upstream interventions.	402	152
7	Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)	(“extended producer responsibility” OR EPR) AND (packaging)	Targets policy-related and governance-focused research. Explicit and acronym-inclusive.	268	112
8	Reusable Packaging Systems	(“reusable packaging” OR “multi-use packaging” OR “returnable container *” OR “reusable container *” OR reuse) AND (packaging)	Includes literature focused on logistics and reuse systems.	906	282
9	Recycled Content in Packaging	(“recycled content” OR “post-consumer recycl *” OR “secondary raw material *” OR SRM OR “second material *”) AND (packaging)	Wildcard for “recyclables/recycled/recycling”; emphasizes the integration of materials into production processes.	206	60
10	Packaging Policy and Regulation	(“packaging regulation” OR “packaging directive” OR “PPWR” OR “EU packaging law”) AND (packaging)	Includes formal names of regulatory instruments and broader legal terminology.	114	36

The asterisk (*) indicates a wildcard/truncation operator used in the database search strings to retrieve all word variants sharing the same root (e.g., recycl → recycle, recycled, recycling; reuse → reuse, reused, reusable, reusing).

).

The search process identified a total of 11.226 potentially relevant documents for the literature review, 8.962 from Scopus and 2.264 from ScienceDirect. Once the documents were collected, they were accompanied by relevant information and corresponding abstracts. To streamline the screening process, all records were uploaded into the Rayyan platform, following the methodology suggested by [29]. To ensure consistency and transparency during the selection phase, a set of eligibility criteria was established (

Table 3. Eligibility criteria defined in the Appraisal phase.

Eligibility Criteria	Decision
The chosen keywords exist at least in the title or abstract section of the document	Inclusion
The document is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal	Inclusion
The document is written in the English language	Inclusion
The paper is duplicated within the search documents	Exclusion
The document is published before 2015	Exclusion

). Only peer-reviewed journal articles and review papers were included. Other document types such as conference papers, book chapters, and editorials were excluded to ensure quality. The review considered only English-language articles for consistency and accessibility. Additionally, the inclusion criteria restricted the selection to articles published within the last decade, specifically from 2015 to 2024. This time frame was chosen to capture developments in academic research after the European Commission adopted the First Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) in 2015. Consequently, only articles published from 2015 were included for further analysis.

The selection of articles for inclusion in the SLR was conducted using the Rayyan platform, based on predefined eligibility criteria. This process followed a structured workflow by the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1), ensuring a transparent and replicable methodology. The screening process was divided into several stages:

The inclusion criteria for the SLR were established in

Table 4. Inclusion criteria for SLR during the appraisal phase.

Intervention Areas	Packaging Regulation	SLR Inclusion Criteria
Waste Prevention	Ecodesign; Material Efficiency and minimization; Harmonized labelling; Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR); Quantitative Waste Reduction Targets.	The paper analyses the state of the art in waste prevention, highlighting strategies such as extended producer responsibility (EPR), eco-design in packaging, harmonization of labelling, improved material efficiency, and waste minimization, along with specific quantitative waste reduction targets.
Recyclability	Mandatory design standards for recyclable packaging; Recycling performance grades and minimum thresholds; Reduction in material complexity to enhance recyclability.	Papers should focus on evaluating technologies, standards, or methods aimed at enhancing packaging recyclability. This includes measures such as the use of mono-materials, development of recyclability performance metrics, and advancements in material recovery processes.
Compostable Packaging	Criteria for defining compostable materials. Mandatory compostability standards for specific applications. Harmonized labelling for compostable packaging.	Papers that discuss the role of compostable packaging in reducing contamination in recycling streams, examining technological, environmental, or policy perspectives.
Reusable Packaging	Standardization of reusable packaging systems – EU reuse targets for 2030 and 2040 – Implementation of effective reuse systems for logistics and incentives	The literature must explore reuse systems, their environmental impact, operational frameworks, or the feasibility of scaling reusable packaging systems across various sectors.
Recycled Content	Mandatory targets for integrating recycled content into packaging materials; Verification and reporting mechanisms for recycled content compliance.	This includes studies that examine the use of recycled materials in packaging, focusing on the technical, economic, and policy-related challenges and solutions associated with this integration.

. This process involved translating the areas of intervention outlined in the European Regulation on packaging into technical and scientific language. This translation allowed for a thorough analysis of the remaining 268 articles, enabling us to determine which articles should be included or excluded.

At the end of the screening process, 111 articles were identified, which represents 1.67% of the total initial articles, excluding duplicates. These selected articles were analysed concerning the improvements highlighted in the European Commission’s impact assessment. The analysis specifically focused on the reduction in environmental impact, optimization of supply chain efficiency, enhancement of the packaging development process and compliance with existing regulations.

Among the selected articles, the Journal of Cleaner Production emerged as the most frequently cited international journal with the highest number of papers in this SLR, with 18 articles. This was followed by Sustainability, which accounted for 13 articles (

Table 5. Most cited International Journals in the SLR.

Journal	N
Journal of Cleaner Production	18
Sustainability	13
Waste Management	8
Science of the Total Environment	5

). In terms of publication trend, the distribution of articles shows a strong concentration in recent years: approximately two-thirds of the selected publications were published in 2023 and 2024, highlighting the increasing importance and relevance of the topics addressed (Figure 2).

The geographic distribution of publications shows a pronounced concentration in Western Europe, along with notable contributions from emerging economies, while some regions of the world are significantly underrepresented (Figure 2a). The United Kingdom stands out as the leading contributor, representing 13.5% of total publications, followed by Italy at 10.6% and Germany at 6.7%. The European Union demonstrates clear dominance in research, with EU member states contributing 49% of the total output. This figure rises to 62.5% when including the United Kingdom’s contributions. Within the EU, research is spread across 16 member states, indicating a reasonably broad geographic engagement rather than a concentration in a single research hub. Other notable European contributors beyond the top three include Spain, Austria, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Sweden. This diverse participation from European countries aligns with the multi-level governance structure of EU environmental policy, where member states conduct research that responds to both EU-level directives, including the PPWR, and their national circular economy strategies.

Emerging economies also make significant contributions to global literature, with Brazil, China, and India collectively accounting for 15.4%. This trend reflects two key dynamics: first, these countries have large domestic packaging markets that face serious waste management challenges, creating a demand for circular economy research; second, they have adopted circular economy policies that, while distinct from the EU’s regulatory framework, run parallel to it. For example, Brazil has introduced extended producer responsibility mechanisms and waste hierarchy principles that resemble those underlying the PPWR.

Figure 2b illustrates the temporal evolution of research output across the five PPWR intervention areas from 2015 to 2024. Waste Prevention has maintained a consistent level of research focus throughout the review period, starting in 2015 and reaching its first peak in 2019. This peak coincides with the adoption of the Single-Use Plastics Directive. This trend reflects the long-standing policy priority of waste prevention in EU environmental law, established since the 1990s and codified in the Waste Framework Directive’s waste hierarchy principle. The most significant change observed is the accelerating growth of Reusability research, which started from near-zero activity prior to 2020 and became the second-most studied area by 2023. This surge aligns precisely with the 2019 Single-Use Plastics Directive, which mandated reusable alternatives to banned items, and the 2020 Circular Economy Action Plan, which designated reusable packaging as a key priority. This trajectory suggests that policy announcements generate immediate research demand, particularly for areas requiring new infrastructure, business models, and changes in consumer behavior. In stark contrast, research on Recycled Content has remained consistently low throughout the entire review period, showing no noticeable response to the significant policy milestones of 2019 and 2020. The year 2023 marks a convergence point where all intervention areas, except for Recycled Content, achieve either local or global maxima, resulting in the highest annual output recorded during the review period. This concentration is likely linked to the November 2022 release of the formal PPWR proposal, which spurred research efforts to address its specific provisions. The subsequent decline in output in 2024 should be interpreted with caution, as the review was conducted in early to mid-2024, capturing an incomplete year; full data for 2024 would likely show sustained high output.

3. Results

This systematic literature review scrutinizes 111 articles published between 2015 and 2024. This section will first provide an overview of the literature based on the articles’ meta-data, including an analysis of the topics, contexts, sectors and methods of analysis. Secondly, the research aims to establish a correlation between the structure of the Proposal for a Regulation and the specific areas of intervention identified by the European Commission, which include waste prevention, recyclability, recycled content, compostable packaging, and reusable packaging.

3.1. Overview of the Literature

In order to address the research questions in a comprehensive manner, an analysis of the methodologies predominantly used by the authors in the selected documents was conducted. The results of the analysis are presented in Figure 3.

The analysis of the data in Figure 3 reveals a diverse range of methodologies employed in the study of packaging sustainability. Notably, Comparative Analysis is the most commonly used approach. As highlighted by [30,31], this method facilitates the comparison of different scenarios, allowing for the identification of both the strengths and weaknesses of various interventions. For instance, it helps explain the limited growth in the biopolymer sector, which is largely attributed to a lack of consumer awareness. Policy Evaluation is the second most important area, underscoring the significance of regulatory policies in promoting sustainable packaging. For instance, [32] analysis demonstrates how targeted regulatory incentives can guide manufacturers toward designs that prioritize reusability and recyclability. Following this, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a crucial tool for quantifying environmental impacts throughout the packaging lifecycle [24,33]. Ref. [34] highlight that the LCA perspective provides a comprehensive overview—from production to disposal—and aids in developing eco-design strategies [35]. Material analysis also plays a vital role, emphasizing the necessity of understanding material properties to enhance recycling, composting, or reuse processes [36,37]. Additionally, conducting a literature review is important for contextualizing the current state of the field, as demonstrated by [10,38], who point to the predominance of studies focused on the food sector and the need to expand research into other areas [39]. In the field of economics, while Econometric Tools and Economic Analysis may have a more limited scope, they are crucial for assessing the costs and benefits of packaging innovations. For instance, [40,41] illustrate that some companies often prioritize optimizing existing systems, which can delay the adoption of more sustainable technologies. Meanwhile, [42,43] demonstrate how Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies can impact the long-term choices of producers and consumers. The Survey and the Social Life Cycle Analysis focus on analysing consumer behaviour within large samples [44,45] and assessing socio-economic impacts at various stages of the product life cycle [46]. From this perspective, adopting cassava starch-based packaging could offer benefits to small local businesses [47,48]. The Supply Chain Impact Analysis emphasizes how packaging decisions can affect the entire supply chain [49,50]. It highlights that managing packaging sustainably requires a reorganization of logistics and production processes. Lastly, interviews are the least utilized tool; however, they offer valuable qualitative insights into the motivations and perceptions of consumers and stakeholders [7,8,51,52]. Overall, the analysis indicates that Comparative Analysis, Policy Evaluation, and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) are the most commonly employed methodologies. However, it is crucial to incorporate integrative methods—such as economic analysis, supply chain impact assessments, and social perspectives—to fully understand the complexity of a sustainable packaging system. This complexity arises from the close and dynamic interplay between environmental, economic, and social factors.

3.2. Intervention Areas

The Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation outlines requirements for the entire life cycle of packaging, from its composition to its disposal, to enable its placement on the market. This initiative is built on key pillars, including strategies to prevent and minimize packaging waste, promote the reduction in material use, and encourage reuse and recycling. Additionally, it supports innovation through eco-design and the development of compostable packaging [5]. In the current study, various areas for improvement have been identified through the examination of different articles [10]. These encompass the minimisation of environmental impact, improve supply chain efficiency, enhancement of the packaging development process and implementation of regulatory compliance (Figure 4). The analysis of these aspects, along with the counting of publications related to these areas of interest, plays a critical role in determining the research direction and industry development in the field. The analysis of the scientific literature (Figure 4) reveals a clear trend in research focus across five key intervention areas: Waste Prevention, Recyclability, Recycled Content, Compostable Packaging, and Reusable Packaging. The highest concentration of studies is found in Waste Prevention, followed by Reusable Packaging, Compostable Packaging and Recyclability. Recycled Content has received comparatively less attention.

3.2.1. Waste Prevention

Waste prevention is one of the most thoroughly researched areas of intervention, as shown in Figure 4, which emphasizes its crucial role in reducing environmental impact. The literature primarily concentrates on strategies designed to minimize packaging waste, improve material efficiency, and implement Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) mechanisms [53]. These approaches aim to promote a more circular model for packaging [54]. The primary strategy for waste prevention focuses on reducing packaging during the design phase [55]. This ensures that materials are used efficiently without compromising product protection or quality [56]. Studies show that excessive packaging can account for up to 65% of a product’s total cost, making packaging optimization essential for lowering both economic and environmental impacts [16]. Research indicates that minimizing packaging can be achieved through methods such as lightweighting, material substitution, and modular design, which help reduce material consumption while maintaining functionality [57]. E-commerce is recognized as a significant contributor to the increase in packaging waste, as its growth leads to higher material consumption and waste generation [58]. However, research demonstrates that retail can reduce CO₂ emissions by up to 84% compared to e-commerce, primarily due to its lower reliance on single-use shipping materials [59]. E-commerce is often more logistically efficient for long-distance deliveries, especially in rural areas, where consolidated shipments can help minimize transport emissions [60]. Consumer perception and market trends play a crucial role in waste prevention. Excessive packaging can harm a brand’s image and negatively influence consumer attitudes, as more buyers now link sustainable packaging with corporate responsibility [61]. Research indicates that brands that focus on minimal, yet effective packaging designs build greater consumer trust and reduce the use of unnecessary materials [62]. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) mechanisms are essential for promoting waste prevention by shifting the responsibility to producers [63]. This shift incentivizes manufacturers to design packaging that is easier to reuse, recycle, or minimize in volume [64]. By internalizing the environmental costs associated with waste disposal, EPR frameworks encourage manufacturers to invest in eco-design innovations, which help to reduce packaging waste at its source [65]. However, even though EPR systems are widely implemented in Europe, packaging collection rates remain relatively low, especially in developing countries where waste management infrastructure is lacking [66]. A significant challenge in current EPR discussions is their primary focus on managing waste at the end of its lifecycle, rather than incorporating waste prevention at the design stage [32]. Strengthening the connection between EPR policies and packaging design is vital for optimizing the circularity of materials [67]. Future regulatory frameworks should prioritize design-for-reduction principles, ensuring that producers actively work to minimize material use before waste is generated [68]. Despite substantial research focused on waste prevention, there are still significant gaps, especially in optimizing supply chain efficiency and enhancing packaging development processes. The existing literature reveals a scarcity of studies that integrate logistics, supply chain optimization, and packaging waste reduction, even though these areas are interconnected and collectively impact sustainability goals.

3.2.2. Reusability

Reusability is one of the most thoroughly studied areas of intervention. This attention is due to its multiple benefits, as reusable packaging helps reduce environmental impact, improve supply chain efficiency, enhance packaging development, and ensure compliance with regulations. Research consistently shows that reusing packaging significantly reduces material consumption by extending the life cycle of packaging units [69]. In contrast to single-use options, reusable packaging systems lower the demand for virgin materials, which in turn reduces the extraction and processing of raw materials [70]. This decrease contributes to less overall resource depletion and lower emissions [55]. Studies indicate that adopting reusable packaging, such as multi-purpose drums, can result in a 65% reduction in energy consumption, a 75% decrease in solid waste generation, and substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions compared to single-use packaging [4]. The production of packaging consumes a significant amount of energy and is heavily dependent on fossil fuel-derived energy sources. By reducing the frequency of production cycles, reusable packaging can lower overall energy consumption and effectively decrease carbon footprints across various industrial sectors [71]. However, the environmental benefits of reusable packaging systems largely depend on logistical factors, such as transport distances and fill rates, which affect the overall sustainability of reuse-based models [43]. The successful implementation of reusable packaging systems relies on well-structured return logistics [6]. This ensures efficient collection, cleaning, and redistribution of the packaging [51]. Studies indicate that supply chains characterized by long geographical distances or low fill rates may sometimes prefer disposable systems due to the transportation impact associated with returning empty packaging units. Conversely, closed-loop supply chains and high-density distribution models have been found to enhance both the economic viability and environmental performance of reusable systems [72]. From an economic perspective, reusable packaging requires an initial investment, as companies must develop reverse logistics infrastructure and cleaning processes [73]. However, once implemented at scale, reusable packaging can reduce long-term costs by decreasing dependency on raw materials, improving efficiency in storage and transportation, and lowering disposal expenses [74]. Additionally, standardized reusable packaging systems, especially in B2B transactions, have demonstrated a significant reduction in supply chain inefficiencies while fostering greater collaboration among industry stakeholders [75]. The practical implementation of reusable packaging systems requires sophisticated supply chain infrastructure that integrates reverse logistics, cleaning operations, and redistribution networks. Several industry initiatives illustrate how these systems operate at scale. Loop, a global circular shopping platform developed by TerraCycle in partnership with major consumer goods companies including Nestlé, PepsiCo, and Procter & Gamble, operates on a deposit-based model where consumers pay a refundable deposit to borrow durable packaging. The platform has expanded to multiple markets including France, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. Life Cycle Assessments indicate that Loop packaging typically reaches environmental parity with single-use alternatives after approximately three use cycles, with benefits increasing significantly thereafter [51,76]. A key operational challenge identified in Loop’s implementation is the behaviour change required from consumers, leading to strategic integration of return points within existing retail environments.

Similarly, Coca-Cola has implemented standardized returnable bottle systems in Latin America, where identical bottle formats are used across multiple brands including Coca-Cola, Fanta, and Sprite. This standardization simplifies reverse logistics by reducing sorting and cleaning complexity while enabling economies of scale. In Europe, Coca-Cola HBC invested €12 million in a high-speed line for returnable glass bottles in Austria, capable of filling 50,000 bottles per hour, as part of its strategy to reduce Scope 3 emissions, which are predominantly driven by packaging. These examples demonstrate that successful reusable packaging systems depend not only on consumer acceptance but also on substantial investments in reverse logistics infrastructure, standardized packaging formats, and coordination across the value chain. Legislation plays a crucial role in promoting the market expansion of reusable packaging. The European Commission’s impact assessment highlights the importance of policy interventions in encouraging a shift toward reusable solutions [42]. Key measures that have effectively supported this transition include banning single-use packaging for specific applications, implementing taxes on disposable packaging, and establishing mandatory deposit-return schemes. These initiatives have been instrumental in encouraging the adoption of reusable alternatives [77,78]. However, the success of such policies largely hinges on consumer participation and industry adaptation, which necessitates better alignment between regulation, innovation, and economic feasibility [79]. The effectiveness of reusable packaging varies greatly based on the type of product, consumer behaviour, and logistical challenges. Research has shown that sectors such as fruits, eggs, and bottled water have high potential for implementing reuse strategies, which require ambitious frameworks to be successful [80]. Additionally, multi-use packaging systems have been shown to decrease the need for recycling and incineration, supporting a more circular approach to material management [72]. Integrating eco-design principles into the development of reusable packaging is crucial. Standardized, modular, and durable designs can enhance usability, lower the risk of contamination, and improve consumer acceptance [81]. Additionally, incorporating digital tracking systems, like RFID technology, can optimize reverse logistics, leading to greater efficiency in the collection and redistribution of these packages [82]. As shown in Figure 4, reusable packaging is a well-researched topic with broad industry applicability and alignment with circular economy principles. Continued efforts are needed to refine regulatory frameworks, develop reuse infrastructure, and enhance technological innovations for effective implementation in global supply chains.

3.2.3. Compostable Packaging

The literature emphasizes compostable packaging as an important area of research. While compostable packaging is consistent with the principles of a circular economy, the findings reveal several challenges in its practical implementation. These challenges primarily concern environmental impact, regulatory compliance, and consumer perception [83]. Compostable Packaging refers to a type of packaging that can be sustainably disposed of through composting [12]. This means that the packaging can be transformed into compost, a type of fertilizer, through a process in which organic materials are broken down by microorganisms under controlled conditions [84]. Unlike conventional plastics, which can linger in the environment for decades, compostable materials are intended to decompose through microbial activity in controlled settings [36]. The use of compostable packaging is closely related to bioplastics [44]. According to the European Bioplastics Market Data Report 2024, the global bioplastics production capacity reached 2.47 million tons in 2024 and is projected to increase to approximately 5.73 million tons by 2029. This growth reflects a rising interest in alternative materials; however, both consumer awareness and industrial adaptation are still limited, which hinders widespread adoption [85]. While compostable packaging offers a promising solution for reducing environmental impact, there are several scientific concerns that need to be addressed. A significant issue is the risk of shifting environmental burdens [9]. Although compostable materials can help reduce plastic waste, their overall sustainability depends on factors such as land-use, resource consumption, and their ability to biodegrade under real-world conditions [85]. One of the primary environmental concerns related to compostable packaging is land-use change. The production of bioplastics often requires converting agricultural land, which can lead to increased carbon emissions, disrupt ecosystems, and compete with food production [83]. Therefore, the life cycle assessment (LCA) of compostable materials must consider land-use emissions, as these can significantly affect the actual sustainability performance of bioplastics compared to conventional plastics [12]. Another challenge is the specific composting conditions required for biodegradation. Many compostable packaging materials need to be processed in industrial composting facilities, as they do not break down effectively in home composting systems or natural ecosystems [48]. Without access to appropriate waste management infrastructure, these materials risk being mismanaged, contaminating recycling streams, or ending up in landfills, where their decomposition can release methane emissions, further exacerbating environmental issues [36,86]. Regulatory frameworks are essential for the effective implementation of compostable packaging. The European Commission’s impact assessment highlights several key points: the establishment of clear biodegradability standards, the differentiation between home compostable and industrially compostable materials, and the development of mandatory labelling requirements [5]. These measures are crucial to ensure that consumers can easily distinguish compostable packaging from conventional plastics. Despite these policy efforts, achieving compliance remains a challenge. This underscores the need for integrated waste management policies that align composting regulations with consumer education and industrial processing capabilities [36].

3.2.4. Recyclability

The analysis of scientific literature emphasizes recyclability as a well-researched area of intervention. The focus of this research is largely on recyclability’s role in reducing environmental impact and ensuring compliance with regulations, in line with the objectives set by the European Commission. However, there remains a significant gap in understanding how to optimize supply chain efficiency, despite its potential to improve the overall effectiveness of recycling systems [87]. Recyclability is essential for reducing waste generation and promoting material reuse within a circular economy [55]. Research highlights that incorporating recyclability considerations during the design phase is crucial for facilitating effective recovery, sorting, and reprocessing [88]. Single-layer and monomaterial packaging materials are the easiest to recycle, unlike multilayer and composite materials, which often face technical difficulties in separation and reprocessing [42]. The management of recyclable packaging at the end of its life significantly impacts its environmental footprint [30]. Research highlights the importance of developing guidelines for material selection that prioritize highly recyclable polymers and fibre-based materials to minimize contamination in recycling streams [10]. From an economic perspective, the global recyclable packaging market was valued at USD 30.53 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach USD 41.27 billion by 2031, with a compound annual growth rate of 4.4%. In Europe specifically, this market reached USD 6.86 billion in 2024. Additionally, the introduction of advanced recycling technologies, such as chemical recycling and enzymatic depolymerization, could enhance the recyclability of materials that are traditionally considered non-recyclable [11]. Despite the importance of recyclability in research, few studies address its connection to supply chain efficiency. The effectiveness of recycling systems relies not only on the design of materials but also on various logistical and operational factors that affect collection, sorting, and reprocessing [89]. To maximize material recovery rates, efficient reverse logistics networks are crucial, yet research in this area is still limited. Optimizing supply chain coordination can greatly enhance recyclability outcomes by reducing contamination rates, improving material sorting accuracy, and lowering processing costs [50]. In the realm of packaging development, ref. [90] recommend further exploration of emerging technologies, such as additive manufacturing and 3D printing, to conceive innovative packaging solutions. These technologies could improve traceability and quality control within recycling systems [40]. Moreover, consumer behaviour significantly impacts recyclability outcomes [91]. Research shows that companies should invest in awareness campaigns and incentive programs to encourage consumers to properly separate and dispose of recyclable materials [92]. Recyclability is a crucial area of intervention in circular economy research. However, future advancements will necessitate a more comprehensive approach that includes supply chain optimization, material innovation, and consumer participation to maximize the environmental and economic advantages of recyclable packaging.

3.2.5. Recycled Content

The analysis of scientific literature reveals that the use of recycled content is an important area of focus within circular economy frameworks, yet it is less researched compared to other packaging strategies like waste prevention, recyclability, and reusability. Most of the attention in this area is centred around regulatory compliance, as policy frameworks set mandatory targets for incorporating recycled materials into packaging production [93]. However, despite these regulatory incentives and a growing environmental consciousness, the industrial adoption of recycled content remains limited due to technical, economic, and consumer-related challenges [3]. Regulations play a crucial role in promoting the use of recycled materials, especially through policies that require a minimum percentage of recycled content in packaging. According to [94], certification schemes and supply chain tracking mechanisms are essential for ensuring transparency, compliance, and the integrity of recycled materials. Traceability systems are particularly crucial for hazardous material streams, where regulatory compliance and material safety must be verified throughout the recycling process [95]. The adoption of traceability systems, such as blockchain-based certification, can enhance the verification of recycled content and help prevent false claims about sustainability [96]. However, despite regulatory frameworks promoting the use of recycled materials, challenges continue to hinder the achievement of consistent and high-quality recycled content in packaging [15]. Research shows that many industries are still reluctant to increase their dependence on recycled polymers due to uncertainties regarding supply, quality inconsistencies, and variations in cost [37,43,49]. While scrap polyethylene in the EU averaged €330/ton compared to €1444/ton for virgin material in 2023 [97], global petrochemical subsidies make recycled plastics 10–47% more expensive than virgin alternatives across most polymer categories [98]. In some markets, recycled plastics currently cost 35% more than virgin due to petrochemical oversupply from China and the USA. Quality inconsistencies further limit adoption, as most recycled materials still fall short of virgin plastics in key attributes due to the absence of uniform standards and varying waste conditions. Despite these challenges, addressing these barriers could unlock substantial market opportunities, with potential profits reaching USD 60 billion by 2030. A major barrier to using recycled content is the mechanical performance limitations of recycled polymers. Compared to virgin plastics, recycled materials often have lower strength, durability, and processability, limiting their use in high-performance packaging [96]. The degradation of polymer chains during recycling reduces their physical properties, often requiring blending with virgin materials to meet industrial standards [24]. Contamination is another significant concern in recycled material streams. Non-recyclable residues and varied material compositions can create quality inconsistencies, making it difficult for manufacturers to ensure uniformity in recycled packaging products [94]. In addition, consumer perception plays a crucial role in the market viability of packaging containing recycled materials [3]. Research suggests that negative associations with colour, texture, and odour variations in recycled packaging can influence purchasing decisions [99]. Companies must therefore prioritize design and branding strategies to enhance the aesthetic and functional appeal of recycled packaging, ensuring that it meets consumer expectations for quality and sustainability [96]. Research on recycled content is still somewhat limited compared to other areas of focus. However, the importance of incorporating recycled materials into packaging production is growing, driven by regulatory requirements and the push for sustainability. Advancing the technical, economic, and consumer-related aspects of recycled content is crucial for increasing its adoption and ensuring that packaging systems align with the goals of a circular economy. The integration of recycled content into packaging production requires coordinated supply chain investments to ensure consistent feedstock quality and availability.

3.3. Methodological Integration Across PPWR Intervention Areas

Table 6. Methodological Approaches in Sustainable Packaging Research and Their Application to Key Intervention Areas.

Article	Intervention Areas	Key Pillars	LCA	Interview	Survey	Material Analysis	Comparative Analysis	Econometric Tools	Policy Evaluation	Literature Review	SLCA	Economic Analysis	Supply Chain Analysis
[48]	Compostable Packaging	Enhance Packaging Development Process	x			x
[93]	Compostable Packaging	Minimise Environmental Impact	x		x
[82]	Compostable Packaging	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency					x						x
[83]	Compostable Packaging	Minimise Environmental Impact	x			x	x
[3]	Compostable Packaging	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency				x	x			x
[23]	Compostable Packaging	Enhance Packaging Development Process	x							x	x
[86]	Compostable Packaging	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency				x	x			x
[85]	Compostable Packaging	Minimise Environmental Impact	x			x
[36]	Compostable Packaging	Enhance Packaging Development Process					x		x		x
[12]	Compostable Packaging	Enhance Packaging Development Process	x			x				x
[9]	Compostable Packaging	Enhance Packaging Development Process							x	x
[84]	Compostable Packaging	Enhance Packaging Development Process	x			x	x
[55]	Recyclability	Minimise Environmental Impact	x							x	x
[91]	Recyclability	Minimise Environmental Impact				x	x		x
[81]	Recyclability	Minimise Environmental Impact	x							x
[61]	Recyclability	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency
[46]	Recyclability	Minimise Environmental Impact	x							x
[87]	Recyclability	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency	x			x	x						x
[40]	Recyclability	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency						x					x
[89]	Recyclability	Enhance Packaging Development Process				x	x		x	x
[79]	Recyclability	Enhance Packaging Development Process		x				x
[42]	Recyclability	Minimise Environmental Impact	x								x	x
[92]	Recyclability	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency				x			x
[71]	Recyclability	Minimise Environmental Impact	x
[15]	Recyclability	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency				x	x
[10]	Recyclability	Minimise Environmental Impact							x	x
[82]	Recycled Content	Implicate Regulatory Compliance		x					x
[11]	Recycled Content	Implicate Regulatory Compliance	x			x			x	x
[100]	Recycled Content	Implicate Regulatory Compliance				x			x	x
[94]	Recycled Content	Implicate Regulatory Compliance	x			x	x	x	x
[33]	Recycled Content	Enhance Packaging Development Process								x
[96]	Recycled Content	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency	x			x	x
[37]	Recycled Content	Enhance Packaging Development Process	x			x
[15]	Recycled Content	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency				x	x
[13]	Recycled Content	Implicate Regulatory Compliance							x			x
[24]	Recycled Content	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency	x										x
[78]	Reusability	Implicate Regulatory Compliance							x	x		x	x
[50].	Reusability	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency	x							x
[56]	Reusability	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency	x		x	x
[30]	Reusability	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency	x										x
[77]	Reusability	Implicate Regulatory Compliance		x								x
[4]	Reusability	Implicate Regulatory Compliance					x		x	x
[68]	Reusability	Implicate Regulatory Compliance	x			x	x		x
[80]	Reusability	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency					x					x	x
[57]	Reusability	Minimise Environmental Impact					x			x
[90]	Reusability	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency	x									x	x
[70]	Reusability	Enhance Packaging Development Process	x			x	x
[59]	Reusability	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency							x			x	x
[58]	Reusability	Minimise Environmental Impact	x					x
[74]	Reusability	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency	x		x
[44]	Reusability	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency	x			x	x
[7]	Reusability	Enhance Packaging Development Process			x			x			x
[69]	Reusability	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency							x	x	x		x
[72]	Reusability	Minimise Environmental Impact	x			x	x
[88]	Reusability	Improve Supply Chain Efficiency								x
[38]	Waste Prevention	Minimise Environmental Impact	x							x
[35]	Waste Prevention	Implicate Regulatory Compliance							x	x
[6]	Waste Prevention	Enhance Packaging Development Process			x	x						x	x
[52]	Waste Prevention	Minimises Environmental Impact			x					x	x
[32]	Waste Prevention	Implicate Regulatory Compliance	x				x		x
[34]	Waste Prevention	Enhance Packaging Development Process					x			x
[61]	Waste Prevention	Enhance Packaging Development Process			x			x			x
[39]	Waste Prevention	Minimise Environmental Impact				x					x	x	x
[66]	Waste Prevention	Implicate Regulatory Compliance					x		x	x
[73]	Waste Prevention	Enhance Packaging Development Process			x			x
[68]	Waste Prevention	Implicate Regulatory Compliance					x		x			x
[62]	Waste Prevention	Enhance Packaging Development Process			x			x
[67]	Waste Prevention	Implicate Regulatory Compliance							x	x
[16]	Waste Prevention	Enhance Packaging Development Process					x				x
[8]	Waste Prevention	Enhance Packaging Development Process		x						x			x
[101]	Waste Prevention	Minimise Environmental Impact	x			x
[102]	Waste Prevention	Enhance Packaging Development Process			x			x
[31]	Waste Prevention	Minimise Environmental Impact					x		x
[2]	Waste Prevention	Minimise Environmental Impact									x
[22]	Waste Prevention	Implicate Regulatory Compliance	x				x		x
[63]	Waste Prevention	Implicate Regulatory Compliance					x		x	x
[54]	Waste Prevention	Minimise Environmental Impact			x			x
[103]	Waste Prevention	Implicate Regulatory Compliance					x		x
[51]	Waste Prevention	Minimise Environmental Impact			x			x
[28]	Waste Prevention	Enhance Packaging Development Process								x	x	x
[62]	Waste Prevention	Minimise Environmental Impact			x			x
[104]	Waste Prevention	Implicate Regulatory Compliance							x
[29]	Waste Prevention	Enhance Packaging Development Process						x		x	x
[27]	Waste Prevention	Minimise Environmental Impact								x	x
[47]	Waste Prevention	Implicate Regulatory Compliance	x							x
[65]	Waste Prevention	Implicate Regulatory Compliance					x		x
[14]	Waste Prevention	Implicate Regulatory Compliance							x			x
[75]	Waste Prevention	Minimise Environmental Impact					x			x
[45]	Waste Prevention	Implicate Regulatory Compliance		x					x
[53]	Waste Prevention	Implicate Regulatory Compliance	x						x	x
[49]	Waste Prevention	Minimise Environmental Impact							x				x
[64]	Waste Prevention	Implicate Regulatory Compliance							x	x		x

shows a comprehensive analysis of the methodologies employed in the studies reviewed in the systematic literature review. It relates these methods to the five areas of intervention identified by the European Commission in the packaging sector: Waste Prevention, Recyclability, Recycled Content, Compostable Packaging, and Reusable Packaging. The table reveals that the analysed articles do not rely on a single methodology; instead, they often utilize multiple approaches to provide a more complete and multidimensional perspective on packaging sustainability. This choice of methodology is crucial for addressing the complex challenges of the circular economy by integrating environmental, economic, regulatory, and social analyses.

The most commonly used methodologies by the authors include Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), Comparative Analysis, Policy Evaluation, and Material Analysis (Figure 3). Among these, LCA is particularly prominent across all intervention areas, highlighting its essential role in evaluating the environmental impacts and shaping sustainability strategies [2,34]. Since packaging sustainability includes environmental, economic, and regulatory aspects, the use of LCA reflects a strong commitment to data-driven decision-making. Comparative Analysis is frequently employed in Reusability, Recyclability, and Compostable Packaging, underscoring its value in benchmarking the environmental and economic performance of various packaging solutions [94]. Policy Evaluation is prominently used in Waste Prevention and Reusability, focusing on the regulatory aspects of sustainable packaging, including Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) mechanisms [65]. Material Analysis is critical in the contexts of Recyclability and Compostable Packaging, as it provides essential technical validation of material properties, biodegradability, and recyclability potential [89]. Despite their potential to offer valuable insights into logistics, financial feasibility, and consumer acceptance, methodologies such as Supply Chain Impact Analysis, Social Life Cycle Analysis, and Economic Tools are currently underutilized. Future research should prioritize these methodologies to address significant gaps in the assessment of sustainable packaging.

To complement our qualitative mapping of literature across the five intervention areas of the PPWR, we conducted statistical analyses to determine whether the observed distribution of research efforts reflects systematic patterns rather than random variation. The distribution of articles across the intervention areas, as detailed in Table 6, reveals significant variability: Waste Prevention with 41.8% of classifications, Reusability 20.4%, Recyclability 15.3%, Compostable Packaging 12.2% and Recycled Content 10.2%. A Chi-square goodness-of-fit analysis confirms that this distribution deviates significantly from uniformity (x² = 32.10, df = 4, p < 0.001), indicating that research attention is not evenly distributed across the five areas of the PPWR. The analysis suggests that research priorities have shifted toward intervention areas with longer policy histories. Waste prevention, for example, has been a regulatory focus in EU environmental law since the 1990, along with areas addressing prominent environmental issues such as plastic waste reduction and landfill diversion. Temporal analysis shows a marked acceleration in publication rates in recent years. From 2015 to 2019, 32.7% of articles were published, compared to 67.3% in the period from 2020 to 2024. The mean annual publication rate increased from 6.4 articles per year before 2020 to 13.2 articles per year after 2020, representing a 106% increase. A two-sample t-test, assuming Poisson-distributed publication counts, confirms that this acceleration is statistically significant (t = 3.43, df = 8, p < 0.01). This surge in research activity coincides with two major EU policy milestones: the 2019 Single-Use Plastics Directive, which introduced specific bans and mandatory design requirements for certain packaging categories, and the 2020 Circular Economy Action Plan, which announced the PPWR and prioritized circular packaging as a key area for green recovery funding. A closer examination of post-2020 publications reveals varying growth rates across the intervention areas. Reusability and Compostable Packaging experienced particularly strong increases, with approximately 70% and 75% of their respective article counts published after 2020. This indicates that these two areas, which were relatively under-researched prior to 2020, have become focal points for recent studies, possibly driven by the Single-Use Plastics Directive’s emphasis on reusable alternatives and the growing interest in bio-based packaging solutions. In contrast, while Waste Prevention remains the most-studied area overall, its publication trend shows a more balanced distribution over time, suggesting a sustained interest in research throughout the entire review period rather than a sudden spike in recent publications. Furthermore, methodological diversity, defined as the number of distinct research methods used within each intervention area (Table 6), shows a strong positive correlation with publication volume (x = 0.95, p < 0.05). This statistically significant correlation indicates that more extensively researched intervention areas tend to attract broader methodological engagement. The quantitative analyses presented provide empirical support for the policy-literature alignment assessment discussed in the following section. The significant over-representation of Waste Prevention and the under-representation of Recycled Content substantiate our qualitative findings regarding uneven research coverage across the PPWR pillars. Similarly, the confirmed doubling of publication rates post-2020 supports the interpretation that the research community has become increasingly responsive to evolving EU packaging policy. The positive association between publication volume and methodological diversity suggests that targeted research funding could accelerate knowledge accumulation in under-studied areas, not only by increasing the quantity of research but also by fostering the methodological pluralism necessary to address the complexities of policy implementation challenges.

4. Discussion

The distribution of research publications across the five intervention areas defined by the PPWR—Waste Prevention, Reusability, Recyclability, Compostable Packaging, and Recycled Content—shows varying levels of scientific maturity and alignment with regulatory goals. The PPWR introduces a comprehensive framework designed to reduce packaging waste through three strategic approaches: reduction, redesign, and the valorisation of secondary raw materials. In this context, Figure 5 illustrates how current academic literature addresses the specific regulatory requirements for each intervention area, employing a “circularity thermometer” approach to depict the relative maturity and extent of research coverage. In this context, “alignment” is defined as the degree to which the articles categorized within each intervention area explicitly address the concrete obligations and targets established by the PPWR. These include waste-reduction targets, performance-based recyclability criteria, minimum recycled-content thresholds, and regulations regarding compostable formats.

Waste prevention is a key area, particularly regarding the challenges of packaging waste. Literature reviews are frequently employed to synthesize various findings and assess the current state of the art [9,10,21,35,75]. Comparative analysis is also commonly used to evaluate prevention strategies across different packaging formats and regulatory contexts [51,100,101]. Many of these studies emphasize the environmental benefits of material reduction, lightweighting, and design optimization, usually supported by LCA [102]. EPR is consistently identified as a vital policy mechanism for waste prevention, with numerous studies assessing its effectiveness and scalability through policy evaluation [53,67]. While minimizing environmental impact remains the primary focus of research, other aspects such as packaging development and regulatory compliance have received comparatively less attention [6,52,75,103,104]. The alignment between literature and the regulatory priorities outlined in the PPWR is particularly strong in this area. The requirements defined by the PPWR, such as packaging minimization, the establishment of EPR systems, limitations on empty space in packaging, reduction targets specific to product categories and the introduction of economic incentives and market-based instruments, are well-supported by existing research. For instance, the principles of Design for minimization are widely discussed for their ability to reduce material use and life cycle impacts [55]. EPR frameworks are frequently identified as key drivers of innovation in eco-design [63]. Additionally, studies examine the role of economic instruments like modulated fees and material taxes in promoting sustainable packaging decisions [53,68]. This convergence indicates that waste prevention is the most advanced and policy-aligned area among the five intervention domains of the PPWR (Figure 5). From the perspective of the four improvement dimensions, Waste Prevention demonstrates strong coverage in environmental impact and regulatory compliance, with numerous LCA studies and EPR analyses. Packaging development is also relatively well-addressed through eco-design research. However, supply chain efficiency remains under-explored, with few studies examining how waste prevention strategies integrate with logistics optimization, material flow management, or cost structures across the value chain.

The area of reusability has evolved into a complex area of research, emphasizing its increasing importance within the circular economy and the PPWR. Central to this field is the interaction between design, consumer behaviour, and policy, which influences the variety of methodologies employed. Policy evaluation is particularly significant, as it assesses the effectiveness of reuse-related regulatory instruments, such as mandatory reuse targets and deposit-return systems, and their potential for harmonized implementation across Member States [77,105]. Survey-based methodologies are also commonly used to analyse consumer acceptance, return behaviours, and the effectiveness of reuse schemes in different market contexts [79,106]. From a regulatory standpoint, current academic research aligns with several key requirements of the PPWR concerning reusability. In particular, studies offer valuable insights into mandatory reuse targets, the standardization of reusable packaging formats, reusability performance requirements, and the design and implementation of deposit-return systems and tracking technologies. Refs. [4,69] highlight the environmental and economic advantages of standardized, durable packaging formats that extend product lifecycles. Similarly, the integration of RFID and IoT-based systems for tracking reuse cycles is widely discussed as a means to enhance return logistics and supply chain transparency [82]. However, a critical area that remains underexplored is consumer information and incentives. Although some studies address behavioural factors, such as perceived convenience, hygiene concerns, and willingness to engage in reuse schemes, there is a lack of detailed analysis on how targeted communication strategies or economic incentives can encourage consumer participation [72,80]. This gap is particularly significant, as the success of reusable packaging systems, especially in B2C applications, largely depends on consumer participation and behavioural change [81]. Reusability has emerged as a well-established area of research that meets most regulatory requirements outlined in the PPWR. Regarding the improvement dimensions, Reusability shows balanced coverage across environmental impact, regulatory compliance, and packaging development, particularly through studies on standardized formats and design for durability. Supply chain efficiency receives comparatively more attention here than in other areas, with research on return logistics and tracking systems. Nevertheless, gaps persist in understanding the full economic viability and scalability of reverse logistics networks across different market contexts. Compostable packaging is receiving increased attention in academic research for its potential to reduce environmental impact and promote sustainable packaging design. Common methodologies in this field include LCA, Material Analysis, and Comparative Analysis, which evaluate the biodegradation performance, environmental effects, and suitability of compostable materials [12,36]. The literature aligns with several requirements of the PPWR, focusing on the compostability of materials under industrial conditions and compliance with European safety standards [83]. These aspects are addressed through biodegradability testing and risk analysis. However, there is a gap regarding clear compostability labelling, which is crucial for reducing consumer confusion [48]. While some studies mention consumer misconceptions about biodegradable versus compostable materials, there is limited research on effective labelling strategies or their impacts. Additionally, recyclability requirements for compostable materials and their integration into EPR schemes are rarely discussed, which is essential for cohesive waste management and policy [5]. Further, the economic feasibility and supply chain implications of compostable packaging are often underexplored. Challenges like limited industrial composting infrastructure and contamination risks are acknowledged but not analysed in-depth [86]. Across the four improvement dimensions, Compostable Packaging research concentrates heavily on environmental impact through biodegradability assessments and packaging development through material innovation. However, regulatory compliance is only partially addressed, with limited research on labelling requirements and EPR integration. Most critically, supply chain efficiency is severely under-studied: the logistics of separate collection, the availability of industrial composting infrastructure, and the economic feasibility of compostable packaging systems are rarely analysed, despite being essential for real-world implementation. Recyclability is a well-studied area in the literature, especially from an environmental point of view. The most common methods used are LCA, comparative analysis, and policy evaluation. These approaches help assess how materials can be recycled, their impact on the environment and how policies support recycling. Many studies focus on designing packaging to be easily recyclable, reducing the complexity of materials and ensuring that packaging is compatible with current recycling infrastructure [10,55]. These elements are well aligned with the requirements of the PPWR. The literature also includes research on EPR, which encourages companies to design packaging that is easier to recycle and to take responsibility for its end-of-life [63]. This again supports the goals of the PPWR, especially in pushing producers to improve packaging design and recycling outcomes. Some important areas related to recyclability are not adequately addressed in current research. For instance, while the regulation includes a ban on non-recyclable packaging and new requirements for a minimum recyclability performance grade, these topics are not extensively explored in the literature. Few studies examine how effectively packaging is recycled in real-life systems or how the sorting and collection processes influence recyclability [42,87]. Additionally, although the design of packaging has been well-studied, there is a lack of focus on recycling logistics, including collection systems, sorting efficiency, and the market for secondary raw materials. These factors are crucial for effective recycling but remain underexplored [50,91]. Recyclability aligns with several key requirements of the PPWR, such as designing for recycling, simplifying materials, and ensuring compatibility with recycling infrastructures. However, it pays less attention to the regulations concerning the ban on non-recyclable packaging and minimum performance standards, which are expected to become increasingly important in the future. Further research is needed in these areas to fully support the implementation of the PPWR. Analysing the four improvement dimensions, Recyclability demonstrates strong coverage in environmental impact and packaging development, with well-established research on Design for Recycling and material simplification. Regulatory compliance is partially addressed through EPR studies. However, supply chain efficiency represents a significant gap: while the technical recyclability of materials is well-documented, few studies examine the actual performance of collection systems, sorting efficiency, or the market dynamics of secondary raw materials. This disconnect between theoretical recyclability and operational reality limits the practical applicability of research findings. Although recycled content is important in the context of the circular economy, it remains one of the least explored areas in academic research. Most studies focus on material analysis, comparative analysis and policy evaluations to compare recycled materials with virgin materials, assess economic impacts, and examine compliance with regulations [94,96]. These studies primarily address the mandatory minimum recycled content targets for plastic packaging and the development of mechanical and chemical recycling technologies, which align with several key requirements of the PPWR. However, several important regulatory aspects are still insufficiently covered in the literature. For example, the differentiated targets by packaging category, the traceability and certification of recycled content, and the EPR mechanisms for compliance reporting are rarely discussed in detail. These elements are essential for ensuring transparency and preventing greenwashing [3,15]. Moreover, technical challenges such as contamination, polymer degradation, and inconsistent quality in recycled materials are acknowledged but not sufficiently analysed. These issues directly affect the reliability and scalability of using recycled content in packaging, particularly when high-performance or food contact standards are required [99,107]. Additionally, consumer perception can act as a barrier, as concerns about the safety and functionality of recycled packaging may reduce acceptance [3]. While the literature addresses some areas aligned with the PPWR, many critical regulatory dimensions remain under-researched. Compared to other intervention areas, recycled content is the least aligned with the PPWR’s requirements. The analysis of improvement dimensions reveals that Recycled Content is not only the least researched area overall but also shows the most uneven distribution across dimensions. Research focuses primarily on environmental impact through comparative LCAs and on packaging development through technical studies of mechanical and chemical recycling. However, regulatory compliance is weakly addressed, with critical requirements such as differentiated targets, traceability, and certification rarely examined. Most significantly, supply chain efficiency is virtually absent from the literature. This gap is particularly problematic because the successful integration of recycled content depends fundamentally on supply chain factors: consistent availability of quality feedstock, price competitiveness with virgin materials, and reliable procurement channels. The absence of such research may be attributed to: (1) limited access to proprietary industry data on material flows and pricing; (2) the complexity of multi-stakeholder coordination across fragmented recycling value chains; and (3) the historical dominance of environmental science and materials engineering perspectives in packaging research, with insufficient engagement from supply chain management and economics scholars.

Policy and Industry Implications

As previously discussed, the effectiveness of the PPWR will largely depend on the design and implementation of EPR schemes, DRS and fiscal incentives in practice. While the PPWR is often primarily viewed as a tightening of environmental obligations, our review suggests it should be understood more broadly as a policy mix that strategically reshapes the incentive structure for firms operating along the packaging value chain. EPR schemes, eco-modulated fees, recycled content requirements, DRS, and green public procurement collectively define the economic environment in which corporate packaging strategies and innovation trajectories develop. Recent evidence on EPR design and performance shows that when fee structures are closely linked to recyclability and circular design criteria, producers respond with measurable shifts in materials, formats, and business models [108,109]. One key area of interaction between policy and industry is the eco-modulation of EPR fees. France, Germany, and Italy provide instructive but distinct models that are directly relevant to the implementation of the PPWR. In France, the CITEO bonus-malus scheme adjusts contributions based on environmental criteria, rewarding easily recyclable packaging and penalizing designs that impede recycling. The 2024 tariff guidelines explicitly link bonuses to the use of recycled materials and consumer-oriented sorting cues. In Italy, the CONAI system applies differentiated contribution classes based on material type and recyclability, with recent OECD analysis recommending further strengthening of advanced fee modulation to encourage firms away from hard-to-recycle formats and towards higher-quality secondary materials [110]. In Germany, under the VerpackG framework, EPR is coupled with stringent recycling targets and has already achieved over 50% recycling for plastic packaging and around 70% for total packaging. This indicates how a mature EPR system can drive both high recovery rates and ongoing process optimization in the packaging supply chain. These three cases illustrate that eco-modulation is not just a compliance tool but also a price signal that influences corporate research and development, material substitution, and long-term investment decisions in sorting and recycling infrastructure. Recent comparative evaluations of EPR confirm that more detailed and transparent eco-modulation criteria are associated with higher recycling rates at lower system costs, as well as stronger incentives for eco-design [108,111]. A second crucial link between sectoral policy and industry is represented by DRS for beverage containers, which the PPWR consolidates as a key tool for achieving high collection and recycling rates. Recent meta-analyses and evidence reviews for the EU demonstrate that DRS consistently deliver return rates above 85% for beverage packaging, while also reducing litter and improving the quality of collected materials [112,113]. From an industry perspective, DRS not only enhances downstream recovery but also stimulate redesign efforts, such as moving towards mono-material bottles, standardized formats, and “DRS-ready” labelling. Our review identifies a growing body of empirical research examining how producers adapt their packaging portfolios and supply chain configurations in jurisdictions with DRS; however, this literature remains fragmented and often fails to connect these strategies explicitly to the emerging architecture of the PPWR. On the demand side, the PPWR explicitly utilizes Green Public Procurement to create stable markets for reusable, recyclable, and recycled-content packaging solutions. GPP criteria in sectors like food services, catering, and urban procurement increasingly require the minimization of single-use plastics, verified recycled content, and demonstrable recyclability or reusability, thereby establishing lead markets for innovative packaging and related logistics services. Recent circular economy policy analyses highlight that GPP, when combined with performance-based specifications and long-term contracts, can accelerate the diffusion of circular packaging solutions by reducing market uncertainties and providing a testbed for novel business models [114,115]. Additionally, fiscal incentives and innovation funding instruments are increasingly employed by Member States to complement EPR and GPP, thus lowering the costs of compliance-oriented innovation. For example, Italy has introduced a 36% tax credit for purchases of recycled plastic products and biodegradable, compostable, or recycled packaging. This measure directly rewards companies that switch to more circular solutions in anticipation of PPWR recycled-content obligations. It is part of broader tax credits for R&D, innovation, and design, which can finance eco-design activities, digital product passports, and new circular logistics models. At both regional and national levels, innovation vouchers and CE-oriented micro-grants are also being deployed to assist SMEs in piloting eco-innovative packaging solutions, often in tandem with GPP or cluster initiatives. This approach explicitly links public funding, experimentation, and future compliance with PPWR provisions. Together, these developments indicate that the relationship between the PPWR and industry is not one-sided. Instead, the Regulation codifies and amplifies an evolving nexus between policy and industry in which EPR eco-modulation, DRS, GPP, recycled content mandates, and fiscal incentives collectively guide firms toward waste prevention, reusability, and high-quality recycling. Recent ex-ante impact assessments of plastics and packaging regulation underscore that the effectiveness of this policy mix depends on its internal coherence and the ability of firms, particularly SMEs, to access financing and skills for eco-innovation [114]. In this context, our systematic literature review reveals that academic research has largely focused on waste prevention, reusability, and recyclability. However, industry responses to newer PPWR elements, such as binding recycled-content targets, stricter performance-based recyclability criteria, and the limited use of compostable packaging, are comparatively underexplored. This gap highlights the need for future studies to explicitly model the interaction between sectoral policy instruments and corporate innovation strategies, particularly in France, Germany, and Italy, where mature EPR systems and emerging financial incentives offer a rich empirical laboratory for assessing the real-world implementation of the PPWR. The Circularity Thermometers highlight the connection between policy and industry by indicating where regulatory ambitions are supported by strong empirical evidence and where there is limited industry-oriented research, especially concerning compostable packaging and recycled content.

5. Conclusions

The present research contributes by analysing the relationship between the European Commission’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Proposal and its intervention areas, exploring the potential of packaging and eco-design in reducing environmental impact. The research focused on how these areas align with the European Commission’s impact assessment, particularly concerning their role in reducing environmental impact, optimizing supply chain efficiency, enhancing the packaging development process, and ensuring compliance with existing regulations. Through an extensive literature review of studies published between 2015 and 2024, this research provided a comprehensive overview of trends, methodological approaches, and critical gaps in the field. The results, summarized in the “Circularity Thermometer,” indicate that waste prevention and reusability are the most developed areas and align well with PPWR requirements. These areas have emerged as the most developed areas in academic research. These fields align well with the PPWR, particularly regarding packaging minimization, standardization, and deposit-return schemes. Research in these areas provides a strong foundation for supporting upstream strategies at the top of the waste hierarchy. However, the limited focus on behavioural incentives for reusability highlights a critical implementation barrier that needs to be addressed through both academic inquiry and policy design. On the other hand, recyclability and compostable packaging are only partially covered in the literature. While many studies explore environmental performance and design for recycling, there is a notable lack of focus on key PPWR provisions such as the prohibition of non-recyclable formats, minimum recyclability performance grades, and comprehensive EPR integration. In the case of compostable packaging, most research prioritizes biodegradability but overlooks challenges like sorting infrastructure, compostability labelling, and regulatory compliance mechanisms. This gap in alignment could undermine the regulation’s effectiveness in finding viable solutions. Recycled content is the least researched area, despite its strategic importance within the PPWR. Although some studies look into mechanical and chemical recycling technologies, critical requirements such as differentiated targets, traceability, certification and EPR for reporting compliance are still underexplored. This lack of research poses a risk to progress toward establishing a robust market for secondary raw materials, which is essential for supporting a circular Single Market. The identified gap in research on recycled content highlights a broader structural imbalance observed across four key dimensions of improvement. While environmental impact is extensively covered in the literature, consistent with the field’s roots in environmental science and the widespread use of LCA methodologies, supply chain efficiency remains notably underrepresented, particularly in the context of recycled content. This disparity seems to arise from several interconnected factors. First, studying supply chain dynamics often requires access to proprietary data related to material flows, pricing mechanisms, and procurement strategies, which industry players typically do not disclose. Second, the recycled content value chain includes multiple fragmented stakeholders, such as waste collectors, material recovery facilities, recyclers, converters, and brand owners, whose coordination is methodologically difficult to analyse due to commercial confidentiality. Moreover, the academic community focusing on packaging sustainability has historically been concentrated in environmental science and materials engineering disciplines, with relatively little involvement from researchers in supply chain management and industrial economics. These fields utilize analytical frameworks that are essential for systematic examination of these issues. In the case of recycled content, this knowledge gap may create a self-reinforcing cycle: the lack of reliable evidence regarding feedstock availability, quality consistency, and price competitiveness limits industry actors’ ability to justify investments in integrating recycled materials, thereby sustaining a situation of limited supply and demand. Overcoming this analytical limitation will require interdisciplinary research approaches that combine environmental assessment with supply chain analysis and economic evaluation. A key transversal finding is the EPR across the intervention areas. While EPR is widely discussed in the context of waste prevention and recyclability, it is scarcely addressed in relation to compostable packaging and recycled content. This limits the understanding of how EPR can drive innovation, assign financial responsibility, and enforce compliance across the packaging life cycle. Stronger engagement with EPR in research could help design more effective systems that foster eco-design, traceability, and the integration of post-consumer materials into production. EPR is a crucial mechanism for effectively implementing all five intervention areas related to packaging waste. However, its treatment in academic research is often fragmented. To address these challenges and contribute to the overarching goals of the PPWR, which include preventing packaging waste, reducing environmental issues and promoting circularity, policy frameworks need to support the harmonization of EPR systems. Additionally, they should encourage the development of interoperable digital tools, such as the Digital Product Passport, and facilitate the efficient circulation of secondary raw materials. Building on these identified gaps, this review proposes concrete pathways through which academic research can actively promote innovation, strengthen Extended Producer Responsibility, and integrate circular economy principles into packaging practices. To promote innovation, research should prioritize collaborative studies between academia and industry on advanced recycling technologies (e.g., chemical recycling, enzymatic depolymerization) and bio-based materials that meet both performance and regulatory requirements. Life Cycle Assessments quantifying environmental and economic trade-offs would provide evidence-based guidance for design decisions and support technology transfer initiatives. To strengthen EPR mechanisms, academic research should provide comparative analyses of EPR implementation across EU member states, identifying best practices and barriers to effectiveness. Economic studies on optimal eco-modulation fee structures, deposit-return systems, and the impact of different EPR designs on recycling rates would offer actionable insights for policymakers. Research on stakeholder coordination and governance models can help design more efficient and harmonized EPR schemes across Europe. To integrate circular economy principles, interdisciplinary research bridging environmental science, economics, behavioural studies, and policy evaluation is essential. Studies on consumer behaviour can inform effective labelling and communication strategies that increase participation in reuse and recycling schemes.

Supply chain research examining reverse logistics, material traceability systems, and secondary raw material markets would support the development of closed-loop systems. By systematically addressing these research priorities, academic literature can transition from merely describing regulatory gaps to actively informing and accelerating the successful implementation of the PPWR. This study offers a comprehensive review; however, it has some limitations. The literature selection was limited to 111 articles published between 2015 and 2024, which may have excluded relevant research from outside this timeframe or studies published in non-English sources. Additionally, the review primarily relies on secondary data and does not include any empirical research or primary data collection. While the study aims to provide a broad perspective on packaging sustainability, it may overlook specific sector challenges, especially in highly specialized industries such as pharmaceuticals, food, and electronics, which warrant further investigation. Furthermore, the results are largely influenced by European policies and regulatory frameworks, potentially failing to capture global trends in packaging sustainability. To address the research gaps identified in this paper, future studies should adopt a more integrated and systemic approach to packaging sustainability. This approach should extend beyond environmental assessments to encompass operational, economic and behavioural dimensions. Specifically, supply chain management requires closer attention, particularly in areas such as reverse logistics, the development of efficient collection and sorting systems, and the integration of closed-loop models. These models facilitate the consistent use of secondary raw materials across the EU. Research should also examine the economic viability of sustainable packaging options, including the cost-effectiveness of reusable systems and the market integration of recycled content. Evaluating financial incentives, taxation schemes and other market-based instruments could provide valuable insights into how policy mechanisms can accelerate the shift toward circular packaging solutions. In this context, the role of EPR is crucial. Future studies should go beyond descriptive policy overviews and critically assess the effectiveness of EPR schemes in driving innovation, supporting eco-design, and fostering investment in recycling infrastructure and traceability systems. Technological innovation remains a key driver of progress. More in-depth research is necessary on emerging recycling technologies, such as chemical recycling, as well as on advanced bio-based and compostable materials that can meet both performance and regulatory requirements. Studies should explore how factors such as labelling, transparency and incentive schemes influence consumer preferences and return behaviour, particularly regarding reusable and compostable packaging formats. Future research should support policy and practice: a multidisciplinary approach that connects environmental science with policy evaluation, industrial engineering, and behavioural economics will be essential to achieve circular economy goals.