From Pilot to Transformation: Scaling Reuse in Cosmetics Packaging
Reusable packaging is often discussed as if the main task were to design a stronger bottle. The harder task is building the system around it: return, retail handling, transport, sorting, cleaning, quality assurance, refilling, data and consumer participation all have to work together.
A Munich pilot is testing that system with cosmetics packaging already on the market. In the FACHPACK Virtual Talk ‘Von Testlauf zur Transformation: Mehrweg in der Kosmetikbranche’, Steffanie Rainer of reo, Isabel Hafner of Kneipp, Johann Büch of Eternity Systems and Felix Gass of PSL discussed what the pilot is designed to learn and what it will take to move from return trial to a scalable reuse model.
The full 57-minute discussion is available in German on the FACHPACK YouTube channel.
Begin with the packs already on shelf
The pilot starts with existing packaging rather than an idealised reusable pack. Participating cosmetics products are sold through their usual channels and labelled for the trial. Consumers can return the empty packs through existing reverse-vending machines at selected Kaufland and VollCorner stores in the Munich region and receive a 29-cent voucher for each participating pack.
That choice creates a useful baseline. The project receives rounded and angular bottles, different materials, closures, labels and product residues. It can observe what happens in a return machine, in retail back-of-house handling, through logistics and during sorting and cleaning. A pack that performs well once is not yet evidence of a system. The patterns across hundreds or thousands of returns are what matter.
The first phase is deliberately a learning phase. Returned packs are collected, sorted and analysed; the loop is not yet being closed through commercial refilling. The purpose is to establish which formats can progress, where the process breaks and what would need to change before reuse becomes a responsible option.
The real product is the loop
A reuse system fails if any one of its links is missing. The pilot therefore has to test more than physical durability:
whether reverse-vending machines recognise and accept different cosmetics formats;
whether retail teams can handle returned packs within existing operations;
whether transport and sorting can preserve quality and keep costs under control;
whether labels, closures and residues can be removed reliably;
whether the cleaned pack meets hygiene, migration and brand-quality requirements;
whether data can identify and route each pack correctly; and
whether consumers return enough packs, consistently enough, to keep the loop moving.
This is why collaboration across the full value chain is not a project-management detail. It is part of the technical solution. Brands, retailers, the system platform, packaging specialists, cleaning operators and equipment providers each see constraints that the others cannot.
Design for cleaning without overdesigning
Cleaning turns familiar packaging details into system-critical design choices. Labels need to release under the intended washing conditions. Permanent codes printed directly on a bottle may remain after cleaning and may therefore need to move onto a removable label. Bottle openings, shoulders and internal geometries affect drainage and access. Materials have different migration behaviours, and both the original material and the effect of repeated product contact and cleaning have to be understood.
Wall thickness creates another trade-off. Years of optimisation for single-use packaging have reduced weight and material. Reuse may require more strength, but maximum durability is not automatically the best environmental answer. If a pack can deliver a better outcome after a relatively small number of rotations, designing it for an unrealistic number of cycles can add material without adding real system value.
The target is a practical durability window: enough robustness for the return rate and number of rotations the system can actually achieve, without turning a reusable pack into an overengineered one.
Standardise interfaces, not every bottle
Cosmetics brands use pack shape, proportion and decoration to create recognition on shelf. A reuse model that demands one identical bottle for every brand may simplify operations but weaken the commercial role of packaging.
The alternative is to standardise the interfaces the system needs. That can include diameter ranges, minimum wall performance, opening dimensions, material pools, washable-label criteria, transport boxes, inspection rules, cleaning programmes and digital identifiers. Different packs can retain a degree of brand expression while fitting within shared operational boundaries.
A data-matrix code or comparable identifier can help connect the physical pack to the right sorting, cleaning and return logic. Digital information does not remove the need for physical compatibility, but it can reduce the amount of visual and geometric uniformity required to automate the system.
Scale requires volume and rhythm
High volume matters, but regular flow matters just as much. A cleaning facility cannot operate efficiently if it waits a year for one large batch and then sits idle. It needs predictable throughput by product or process group. Shared systems can create that rhythm by pooling compatible packs from several brands and routing them through common infrastructure.
That changes the scaling question. It is no longer only ‘How many units does this brand sell?’ It becomes ‘How much compatible volume can the network collect in this region, how often does it arrive, and which process steps can be shared?’ The economics sit at system level before they sit at individual-SKU level.
Convenience determines the return rate
The Munich pilot uses infrastructure that consumers already understand: the beverage return machine. Participating packs can be returned at the pilot locations even when they were bought through another sales channel. That separation between point of purchase and point of return is important. Consumers need to be able to return a pack where they already go, not make a dedicated sustainability trip.
The 29-cent incentive tests another practical lever. Awareness is still necessary because cosmetics packaging is not yet associated with deposit return in the way beverage packaging is. But once the behaviour is understood, a visible financial incentive and a familiar return point can make participation easier to learn.
Future convenience may extend beyond stores. Delivery services already visiting households could potentially carry empties back into the network. The guiding principle remains the same: put return into an existing journey.
Use regulation as infrastructure, not proof
European packaging regulation is accelerating the creation of collection and return infrastructure across markets. That can lower one of the historic barriers to reuse: the belief that deposit-return systems are a German exception and cannot support a European model.
Infrastructure alone does not prove that reuse is the right answer for every cosmetics pack. Transport distance, cleaning efficiency, return rate, pack loss, material choice and the number of achieved rotations still determine the environmental and commercial result. The pilot is therefore combining operational evidence with life-cycle scenarios rather than choosing reuse on principle.
Some formats may prove stronger in a reuse loop. Others may remain better suited to high-quality recycling. The aim is not one universal answer, but a defensible route for each packaging group.
Start imperfectly and learn deliberately
One of the clearest messages from the discussion is the value of beginning before the system is perfect. The pilot keeps the initial scope deliberately small, brings the partners together in regular workshops and treats failures as design evidence. A format rejected by the return machine, a label that does not release or an inconsistent cleaning result identifies the next development task.
This is more useful than designing an elegant closed loop on paper without knowing whether consumers, retailers and operations can support it. The pilot narrows uncertainty in stages and gives brands a stronger basis for investment decisions.
A practical sequence for moving beyond the pilot
Establish the baseline. Test the existing portfolio and infrastructure before assuming which packs need redesign.
Measure the complete journey. Track return, handling, transport, sorting, cleaning, inspection and pack loss.
Validate quality. Test hygiene, migration, appearance and performance after repeated cycles.
Translate evidence into design criteria. Define material, geometry, label, closure and coding requirements based on observed failure modes.
Standardise shared interfaces. Create operational compatibility without removing every element of brand identity.
Model realistic scenarios. Use actual distances, return rates, cleaning inputs and achieved rotations in environmental and cost assessments.
Decide pack by pack within a system view. Choose reuse where the loop supports it and recycling where it does not.
Key takeaways
A reusable bottle is only one component of a reusable packaging system.
Testing existing packs creates a credible baseline and exposes real constraints across return, retail, logistics and cleaning.
Design for reuse must balance washability, migration, geometry and durability without overengineering the pack.
Standardising interfaces can unlock automation and scale while preserving room for brand identity.
Cleaning economics depend on regular compatible volume, not volume alone.
Convenient return and a clear incentive are essential to achieving the participation the system needs.
The strongest pilot is not the one that avoids problems. It is the one that turns problems into evidence for the next decision.
Moving from test run to transformation means treating reuse as a shared operating model. The pack matters, but the system around it decides whether it comes back.
PSL’s reuse and refill development work brings these questions into format design, pilot planning, testing and production implementation.