{ "id": "capsules-and-the-environment", "url": "https://coffearium.org/entries/capsules-and-the-environment/", "license": "CC-BY-4.0", "title": "Capsules and the environment", "summary": "What life-cycle studies show about the environmental cost of a capsule coffee compared with other brewing methods, what happens to used capsules, and what the EU packaging rules require of capsules and pads.", "domain": "sustainability", "kind": "Concept", "stage": "brew", "topics": [ "sustainability" ], "topicSections": { "sustainability": { "id": "what-life-cycle-studies-found", "label": "What life-cycle studies found" } }, "lang": "en", "status": "verified", "reviewer": "Coffearium verification pass", "lastVerified": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z", "literatureSearched": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z", "updated": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z", "added": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z", "brief": [ "In a 2018 life-cycle study, the amount of coffee used and the energy to brew it contributed most to the impacts of every brewing method compared.3", "A 2024 review found packaging made up a median 9–18% of coffee footprints, the higher figure for single-serve pods and capsules.1", "Studies disagree on the ranking: some found capsules lowest, others highest, depending on dose, wasted coffee, standby power and what was counted.3,4,5,8", "Under EU Regulation 2025/40, coffee pads and soft single-serve units must be compostable by 12 February 2028; capsules must be recyclable.14,15", "EU Member States may require compostable capsules of materials other than metal, where such waste can be collected with bio-waste.14" ], "quickFacts": [ { "label": "Main driver per cup", "value": "Amount of coffee used and energy for brewing (several studies)" }, { "label": "Packaging share", "value": "Median 9–18% of coffee footprints; higher figure for pods and capsules (2024 review)" }, { "label": "EU, pads and soft units", "value": "Compostable in industrial composting by 12 Feb 2028 (Article 9(1), Regulation (EU) 2025/40)" }, { "label": "EU, capsules", "value": "Recyclable like all packaging; Member States may require compostable non-metal capsules (Article 9(2))" }, { "label": "Composting standard", "value": "EN 13432 used as guidance until a new harmonised standard" }, { "label": "Collection rates", "value": "No official or peer-reviewed rate for capsules found" }, { "label": "Not legal advice", "value": "This entry describes what the texts say, as of October 2026" } ], "aka": [ "Environmental impact of coffee capsules", "Coffee capsule waste", "Capsule recycling" ], "linkTerms": [ "capsule waste", "compostable capsule", "aluminium capsule", "capsule recycling", "coffee capsule recycling" ], "related": [ "coffee-capsules", "how-capsules-are-made", "single-serve-beyond-capsules", "carbon-footprint-of-coffee", "packaging", "sustainability-claims", "brew-methods", "moka-pot", "espresso-machine" ], "contested": [ "Capsule versus drip filter: a 2018 study found pod-style brewing lowest in six impact categories and drip filter highest in all.3 A 2011 German study found capsule and fully automatic machines highest, because of standby power and capsule packaging.4 A 2009 study found drip filter highest per cup and soluble coffee lowest.5 The studies assume different doses, wasted coffee and machine use.3,4,5", "Capsules versus coffee from a bag: in a 2025 study of use and disposal only, a polypropylene capsule cup came to 41 g CO₂e and coffee from a multilayer bag to 8.2 g.8 In a 2021 study that also left out the coffee, a capsule cup (10.0 g) was close to a moka pot cup (8.1 g).6 The two use different capsules, end-of-life assumptions and methods.6,8", "Compostable versus other capsules: a 2023 university report co-funded by makers of compostable materials ranked compostable capsules most sustainable.12 In a 2020 study, compostable pods had the lowest impacts in 7 of 10 categories but 6.1% more embodied energy than plastic pods.10 In a 2020 full-scale trial, used compostable capsules in mesh bags were still largely recovered after two composting cycles.11" ], "corrections": [ { "date": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z", "change": "“Plastic and aluminium capsules” highest in energy, water and waste corrected to plastic capsules with an aluminium top seal, within the single-serve category.", "reason": "The abstract of de Figueiredo Tavares & Mourad (2020) names that capsule type and limits the comparison to single-serve options." }, { "date": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z", "change": "The 2009 study's result corrected from drip filter highest for water to drip filter highest per cup, water use included.", "reason": "Humbert et al. (2009) found drip filter coffee highest in environmental impacts per cup, not only in water use." }, { "date": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z", "change": "Electricity mix (Italian) and funding (CUEIM project grant) added for the 2025 study, replacing \"not stated\"; US Department of Energy funding added for the 2020 compostable-pod study.", "reason": "Both papers state these in their full texts." }, { "date": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z", "change": "Condition of Article 9(2) completed with the availability of suitable collection and treatment.", "reason": "The article text quoted in the Commission guidance makes this a condition." } ], "sources": [ { "id": "s1", "title": "Unravelling life cycle impacts of coffee: Why do results differ so much among studies?", "authors": "Chéron-Bessou, C.; Acosta-Alba, I.; Boissy, J.; Payen, S.; Rigal, C.; Setiawan, A. A. R.; Sevenster, M.; Tran, T.; Azapagic, A.", "year": 2024, "publisher": "Sustainable Production and Consumption 47, 251–266", "url": "https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/85847/1/85847.pdf", "doi": "10.1016/j.spc.2024.04.005", "tier": "A", "quote": "The packaging contribution differed greatly in the case of single-pod or capsule use (18 %) compared to all the other systems (9 %).", "quotes": [ { "text": "However, this contribution was associated with a great uncertainty as not all studies potentially using single-pods necessarily specified it.", "for": "Packaging share uncertain" }, { "text": "assumptions on coffee dilution and coffee waste varied across the type of the drink and serving", "for": "Dilution and waste assumptions differ" }, { "text": "we recommend that LCA studies be standardised with respect to the definition of the functional unit", "for": "No common functional unit" } ], "scope": { "claim": "finding", "context": "Systematic review of 34 coffee life-cycle assessments (234 systems); packaging shares as medians across studies, single-pod share uncertain.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s2", "title": "Functional unit (glossary entry, after EN ISO 14040:2006)", "authors": "European Commission, Knowledge for Policy", "publisher": "European Commission", "url": "https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/glossary-item/functional-unit_en", "tier": "A", "quote": "Quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit.", "quotes": [], "scope": { "claim": "definition", "context": "Glossary definition of the life-cycle assessment term, after EN ISO 14040.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s3", "title": "Environmental Implications of Consumer Convenience: Coffee as a Case Study", "authors": "Hicks, A. L.", "year": 2018, "publisher": "Journal of Industrial Ecology 22(1), 79–91", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12487", "doi": "10.1111/jiec.12487", "tier": "A", "tierNote": "Abstract read on Crossref; funder listed there as the University of Wisconsin–Madison. A corrigendum (doi:10.1111/jiec.12775, online 2018, in print 2019) corrected two input values and states that the relative results did not change.", "quote": "The two most significant contributors to environmental impact in all of the categories considered was the amount of dry coffee utilized and the energy needed to brew the coffee", "quotes": [ { "text": "the drip filter system method was found to have the greatest environmental impact in all impact categories", "for": "Drip filter highest in all categories" }, { "text": "whereas the pod style had the least in six of the impact categories", "for": "Pod style lowest in six categories" }, { "text": "There is the potential for the environmental impact of coffee brewing to shift if coffee wastage occurs", "for": "Wasted coffee can change the ranking" } ], "abstractOnly": true, "scope": { "claim": "finding", "context": "Comparative midpoint LCA of drip filter, French press and pod-style brewing; functional unit and electricity mix not stated in the abstract.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s4", "title": "Environmental impacts of different methods of coffee preparation", "authors": "Brommer, E.; Stratmann, B.; Quack, D.", "year": 2011, "publisher": "International Journal of Consumer Studies 35(2), 212–220", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00971.x", "doi": "10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00971.x", "tier": "A", "quote": "The reason for this was the high power consumption, especially in the machines' sleep and standby mode.", "quotes": [ { "text": "was analysed on behalf of Tchibo GmbH (Überseering, Hamburg, Germany).", "for": "Footprint part commissioned by a coffee company" }, { "text": "making up a share of 30% of the overall emissions.", "for": "Preparation 30% of the footprint" }, { "text": "Another hot spot is the cultivation of coffee beans with 55%.", "for": "Cultivation 55%" }, { "text": "Additionally, capsule machines contribute to the environmental impacts because of the aluminium", "for": "Capsule packaging adds to impacts" } ], "abstractOnly": true, "scope": { "claim": "finding", "context": "Product carbon footprint of one cup (Germany, PCF Pilot Project) plus comparison of preparation methods and usage scenarios in Germany.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s5", "title": "Life cycle assessment of spray dried soluble coffee and comparison with alternatives (drip filter and capsule espresso)", "authors": "Humbert, S.; Loerincik, Y.; Rossi, V.; Margni, M.; Jolliet, O.", "year": 2009, "publisher": "Journal of Cleaner Production 17(15), 1351–1358", "url": "https://documents.epfl.ch/groups/m/me/mediacomfiles/www/Humbert%20et%20al%202009%20-%20LCA%20Coffee.pdf", "doi": "10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.04.011", "tier": "A", "quote": "More than half of the environmental impacts of spray dried soluble coffee occur at the use phase.", "quotes": [ { "text": "This study was performed in collaboration with the coffee producer.", "for": "Made with a coffee producer, which supplied primary data" }, { "text": "energy intensive and comparable, in magnitude, to the use phase of this alternative", "for": "Capsule packaging energy comparable to the use phase" }, { "text": "but was not critically reviewed by an external review panel", "for": "No external critical review" }, { "text": "the latter having the highest environmental impacts on a per cup basis", "for": "Drip filter highest per cup" }, { "text": "The consumed electricity and natural gas at processing, use and end-of-life are assumed to be of the European mix.", "for": "European electricity mix" }, { "text": "The time the water or coffee is kept warm and the number of coffees prepared per machine and per day are the two key factors", "for": "Warm-up time and cups per day key" } ], "scope": { "claim": "finding", "context": "Full life cycle of a 1 dl cup at home in Europe (European electricity mix); primary data from the coffee producer.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s6", "title": "Carbon footprint of different coffee brewing methods", "authors": "Cibelli, M.; Cimini, A.; Moresi, M.", "year": 2021, "publisher": "Chemical Engineering Transactions 87, 373–378", "url": "https://aidic.it/cet/21/87/063.pdf", "doi": "10.3303/CET2187063", "tier": "A", "quote": "The production of one 40-mL coffee cup with the induction Moka pot gave rise to as low as 8 g CO2e, these emissions being about 18% or 56% lower than those resulting from the use of a coffee capsule (10 g CO2e) or pod (18.5 g CO2e) coffee machine.", "quotes": [ { "text": "IMP 0.9 0.9 2.9 3.4 8.1 PCM 2.4 9.5 5.3 1.3 18.5 CCM 1.4 5.5 2.8 0.3 10.0", "for": "Per-phase values per cup (results table)" }, { "text": "It was withdrawn from the Italian medium or low voltage grid", "for": "Italian grid electricity" }, { "text": "were not disaggregated into their basic components to be recycled, but simply disposed of to landfill", "for": "Capsule assumed landfilled" } ], "scope": { "claim": "finding", "context": "Streamlined footprint (PAS 2050) of a 40 mL cup in Italy; coffee cultivation, roasting and grinding excluded; Italian grid electricity.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s7", "title": "Coffee beverage preparation by different methods from an environmental perspective", "authors": "de Figueiredo Tavares, M. P.; Mourad, A. L.", "year": 2020, "publisher": "The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 25, 1356–1367", "url": "https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-019-01719-2", "doi": "10.1007/s11367-019-01719-2", "tier": "A", "quote": "resulted in the lowest emission of 14.3 g of CO2 eq/50 mL of beverage in the monodose category", "quotes": [ { "text": "Data were collected from 40 establishments among coffee shops, bakeries, and homes, with 153 individual data.", "for": "Data basis" }, { "text": "the single-serve plastic capsules with aluminum top seal, which had the highest consumption of energy, water, and waste generation in the single-serve category", "for": "Plastic capsules with aluminium seal highest within single-serve" } ], "abstractOnly": true, "scope": { "claim": "finding", "context": "LCA from cultivation to waste of preparation methods (abstract read on the Springer page), data from 40 coffee shops, bakeries and homes; Brazilian authors, country not named in the abstract.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s8", "title": "Streamlined life cycle assessment of packaging waste in coffee preparation and consumption", "authors": "Moresi, M.; Cimini, A.", "year": 2025, "publisher": "Italian Journal of Food Science 37(4), 436–477", "url": "https://itjfs.com/index.php/ijfs/article/view/3256/1788", "doi": "10.15586/ijfs.v37i4.3256", "tier": "A", "quote": "Utilizing a functional unit of 720 kg of roasted and ground coffee (RGC), the environmental impact was assessed using the EU product environmental footprint (PEF) methodology.", "quotes": [ { "text": "carbon footprint (e.g., greenhouse gas [GHG] for multilayer bags: 8.2 g CO2e/cup vs. PP capsules: 41 g CO2e/cup),", "for": "Carbon footprint per cup, bag versus PP capsule" }, { "text": "This study utilized the Italian electricity mix", "for": "Italian electricity mix" }, { "text": "This research was supported by the Consorzio Universitario di Economia Industriale e Manageriale (CUEIM), Verona, Italy", "for": "Funding" } ], "scope": { "claim": "finding", "context": "Streamlined LCA of the use and post-consumer phases of eight coffee formats in Italy, EU PEF method, Italian electricity mix; results per cup.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s9", "title": "Coffee capsule impacts and recovery techniques: A literature review", "authors": "Marinello, S.; Balugani, E.; Gamberini, R.", "year": 2021, "publisher": "Packaging Technology and Science 34(11), 665–682", "url": "https://iris.unimore.it/retrieve/c895ed17-be2d-4937-93bc-146e348daeb9/Packag%20Technol%20Sci%20-%202021%20-%20Marinello%20-%20Coffee%20capsule%20impacts%20and%20recovery%20techniques%20%20A%20literature%20review.pdf", "doi": "10.1002/pts.2606", "tier": "A", "quote": "The need to manually separate the components that make up the capsule still represents one of the main challenges.", "quotes": [ { "text": "these studies were funded by stakeholders directly affected by the coffee market", "for": "Some capsule LCAs were industry-funded" }, { "text": "dividing the plastic part from the aluminium part and the coffee residues is not a simple operation", "for": "Separation of materials and grounds" }, { "text": "these results have not always been met with scientific approval.", "for": "Reception of industry-funded studies" } ], "scope": { "claim": "description", "context": "Literature review of capsule LCAs and recovery techniques (aluminium, plastic, compostable capsules).", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s10", "title": "Life Cycle Assessment of Compostable Coffee Pods: A US University Based Case Study", "authors": "Kooduvalli, K.; Vaidya, U. K.; Ozcan, S.", "year": 2020, "publisher": "Scientific Reports 10, 9158", "url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7280196", "doi": "10.1038/s41598-020-65058-1", "tier": "A", "quote": "The functional unit is pod packaging that serves an 8 oz. (236.6 ml) serving of coffee", "quotes": [ { "text": "The least impacts come from the compostable pods being composted in 7 out of 10 categories", "for": "Lowest in 7 of 10 categories" }, { "text": "Even with the hypothetical best-case scenario that all compostable pods end up composted, it still equates to a 6.1% overall increase in embodied energy.", "for": "6.1% more embodied energy" }, { "text": "was funded in part by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, US Department of Energy", "for": "Funding" } ], "scope": { "claim": "finding", "context": "LCA of pod packaging only (PLA-based compostable versus polypropylene) at a US university; coffee and machine use left out.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s11", "title": "The fate of (compostable) plastic products in a full scale industrial organic waste treatment facility", "authors": "van der Zee, M.; Molenveld, K.", "year": 2020, "publisher": "Wageningen Food & Biobased Research, Wageningen (ISBN 978-94-6395-310-8)", "url": "https://edepot.wur.nl/514397", "doi": "10.18174/514397", "tier": "A", "tierNote": "Report of a university research institute, commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy; not a journal paper", "quote": "Approx. 90% of the plastic mass in the coffee capsules in G1 was recovered", "quotes": [ { "text": "even tiny fragments are conspicuous and recognisable in the generally dark brown compost", "for": "Capsule fragments visible in compost" }, { "text": "are not likely to yield more coffee capsules in residual streams", "for": "Capsules not expected in residual streams" }, { "text": "composting for 11 days with active aeration from below and spraying moisture from above", "for": "Length of one composting cycle in the trial" }, { "text": "none of the selected compostable plastic products are likely to contribute significantly to the residue to be discarded", "for": "Conclusion on residues" } ], "scope": { "claim": "finding", "context": "Full-scale trial in one Dutch garden, fruit and vegetable waste composting plant; used capsules and pads in mesh bags over two cycles of about 11 days; mass percentages indicative.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s12", "title": "Compostable capsules most sustainable option for single serve coffee units (news item, 13 November 2023)", "authors": "Wageningen University & Research", "year": 2023, "publisher": "Wageningen University & Research", "url": "https://www.wur.nl/en/news/compostable-capsules-most-sustainable-option-single-serve-coffee-units", "tier": "B", "tierNote": "University news item on its own report, which was not consulted; the project was co-funded by makers of compostable materials and a Dutch ministry, and no peer review is stated", "quote": "coffee grounds contribute the most to greenhouse gas emissions", "quotes": [], "scope": { "claim": "finding", "context": "Report comparing compostable, conventional plastic and aluminium capsules for greenhouse gases and material circularity; Dutch collection context.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s13", "title": "Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC", "authors": "European Parliament; Council of the European Union", "year": 2025, "publisher": "Official Journal of the European Union, L series, 22.1.2025 (EUR-Lex)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ%3AL_202500040", "tier": "A", "tierNote": "Official text; only the recitals could be loaded when the entry was written and again at verification (the EUR-Lex HTML and PDF were cut off before the articles), so the articles are cited through the Commission's guidance (source 14) and an Italian ministry's impact assessment (source 15), which quote them", "quote": "From 1 January 2038, packaging should be at least grade B in order to be placed on the market.", "quotes": [ { "text": "coffee or tea system single-serve units, which, in practice, are disposed of together with the product residue", "for": "Single-serve units count as packaging (recital 13)" } ], "scope": { "claim": "description", "context": "EU regulation; recitals on single-serve units (13, 54) and recyclability grades (28).", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s14", "title": "Commission Notice – Guidance document for Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging waste (C(2026) 3702 final)", "authors": "European Commission", "year": 2026, "publisher": "European Commission (EUR-Lex)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=PI_COM%3AC%282026%293702", "tier": "A", "tierNote": "A for what the Commission states; the notice is not binding, and the binding interpretation rests with the Court of Justice of the EU. Published in the Official Journal as C/2026/3084 (10 June 2026)", "quote": "Therefore, pursuant to Article 9, such packaging must be designed for composting by 12 February 2028.", "quotes": [ { "text": "Member States may require that the following packaging shall be made available on their territory", "for": "Article 9(2) option for Member States" }, { "text": "packaging referred to in Article 3(1), point (1)(g), composed of material other than metal", "for": "Non-metal capsules under Article 9(2)(a)" }, { "text": "appropriate waste collection schemes and waste treatment infrastructure are available", "for": "Condition of Article 9(2)" }, { "text": "The existing standard EN 13432 on industrial composting (21) can be used as guidance until the new standard is adopted.", "for": "EN 13432 as interim guidance" }, { "text": "the home-composting should only be considered in the context of specific local conditions", "for": "Home composting limited" }, { "text": "By 12 February 2026, the Commission will request the European standardisation bodies to create a new, EU-wide standard on home compostability, pursuant to Article 9(6).", "for": "Request for a home-composting standard" } ], "scope": { "claim": "guidance", "context": "Commission interpretation of the PPWR, quoting Articles 3, 6 and 9.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s15", "title": "Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) concerning a proposal for a technical regulation setting out requirements for the biodegradability and compostability of certain single-use plastic packaging", "authors": "Ministry for the Environment and Energy Security (Italy), Legislative Office", "publisher": "Italian Government; copy published with the notification by the Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade (teknikengel.ticaret.gov.tr)", "url": "https://teknikengel.ticaret.gov.tr/sites/other/teknikengel/uploads/abbildirimler/389/a8fec43e311d2129a39dd8c734f25e61.pdf", "tier": "A", "tierNote": "Cited only for its verbatim quotation of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2025/40; undated in the copy consulted", "quote": "1. By way of derogation from Article 6(1), by 12 February 2028, where packaging referred to in Article 3, point (1) (f),", "quotes": [], "scope": { "claim": "cited", "context": "Italian government impact assessment that quotes Article 9 of the EU regulation.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s16", "title": "Packaging waste (policy page)", "authors": "European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment", "year": 2026, "publisher": "European Commission", "url": "https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/packaging-waste_en", "tier": "A", "quote": "Status: In force since 11 February 2025", "quotes": [ { "text": "which was generally repealed on 12 August 2026", "for": "Old directive repealed when the PPWR applies" } ], "scope": { "claim": "description", "context": "Commission policy page on the PPWR and its dates.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s17", "title": "Kaffeekapseln (Coffee capsules)", "authors": "Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU), Federal Office for the Environment", "year": 2025, "publisher": "Swiss Federal Administration (admin.ch)", "url": "https://www.bafu.admin.ch/de/kaffeekapseln", "tier": "A", "quote": "Die im Trend liegenden Kaffeekapseln werden von den Verkaufsstellen und vielen Gemeindesammelstellen zurückgenommen.", "quotes": [], "scope": { "claim": "description", "context": "Swiss federal waste guidance page; no collection or recycling rates given.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s18", "title": "Bundesrat stärkt Recycling bei Verpackungen und Abfällen (press release, 24 June 2026)", "authors": "Swiss Federal Council; Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU)", "year": 2026, "publisher": "Swiss Federal Administration (admin.ch)", "url": "https://www.bafu.admin.ch/de/newnsb/eE-NjVjEsGK1BJKzk1ITa", "tier": "A", "quote": "Die Verordnung über Getränkeverpackungen aus dem Jahr 2000 wird durch eine neue Verordnung für alle Verpackungen ersetzt.", "quotes": [ { "text": "Die VVEA-Änderungen treten per 1. August 2026 in Kraft, die Verpackungsverordnung gilt per Anfang 2027.", "for": "Ordinance applies from the start of 2027" }, { "text": "Der Bundesrat hat die angepassten Verordnungen am 24. Juni 2026 verabschiedet.", "for": "Adopted 24 June 2026" } ], "scope": { "claim": "description", "context": "Swiss Federal Council announcement of the new packaging ordinance.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s19", "title": "Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and through better information", "year": 2024, "publisher": "Official Journal of the European Union, L series (EUR-Lex)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202400825", "tier": "A", "quote": "Making a generic environmental claim for which the trader is not able to demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim.", "quotes": [ { "text": "They shall apply those measures from 27 September 2026.", "for": "Date of application" } ], "scope": { "claim": "description", "context": "EU directive on environmental claims, applied through national law.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s20", "title": "Questions & Answers on Directive (EU) 2024/825 (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition)", "authors": "European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers", "year": 2026, "publisher": "European Commission, Brussels (September 2026)", "url": "https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/3c257883-bb2a-4dd9-a6dc-501d587bb34f_en?filename=faq-empowerting-consumers-gtd.pdf", "tier": "A", "tierNote": "A for what the Commission states; the document presents preliminary views of Commission services, not a legally binding interpretation", "quote": "The ECGT Directive shall apply from 27 September 2026.", "quotes": [], "scope": { "claim": "guidance", "context": "Commission questions and answers on the directive.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s21", "title": "16 CFR 260.7 – Compostable claims (Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims)", "authors": "Federal Trade Commission", "publisher": "Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR), US Government", "url": "https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-260/section-260.7", "tier": "A", "quote": "It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is compostable.", "quotes": [], "scope": { "claim": "guidance", "context": "US federal guides on environmental marketing claims, compostable claims.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, { "id": "s22", "title": "Voici comment votre tasse de café contribue aux changements climatiques (republished from The Conversation)", "authors": "Rodrigues Viana, L.; Marty, C.; Boucher, J.-F.; Dessureault, P.-L. (Université du Québec à Chicoutimi)", "year": 2023, "publisher": "MétéoMédia, 17 January 2023", "url": "https://www.meteomedia.com/fr/nouvelles/climat/causes/climat-comment-tasse-cafe-contribue-changements-climatiques", "tier": "C", "tierNote": "General-audience article by university researchers compiling published studies; not a peer-reviewed study and not used for any number", "quote": "Les machines à capsules présentent l'avantage d'éviter une préparation excessive de café et d'eau.", "quotes": [], "scope": { "claim": "description", "context": "Compilation of published coffee footprints for a general audience, Quebec and Alberta electricity examples.", "checked": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" }, "accessed": "2026-10-27T00:00:00.000Z" } ], "markdown": "## What decides the footprint of a capsule coffee\n\nA capsule is a sealed single dose of ground coffee made for one machine. The entry on coffee capsules describes the systems. Its environmental cost is usually judged by a life-cycle assessment (LCA). An LCA adds up the impacts of a product from raw material to waste.1\n\nEvery LCA refers its results to a functional unit, the “quantified performance of a product system for use as a reference unit”.2 For coffee this may be a cup of a set volume or a mass of coffee.1 The carbon footprint entry explains the method and gives the footprint of coffee as a whole.\n\nThree things weigh on a capsule cup:\n\n- **The coffee itself.** In a 2018 study, the amount of dry coffee used and the energy to brew it were the two largest contributors in every category.3 According to a 2023 university report, coffee grounds were the largest source of greenhouse gases in single-serve use.12\n- **The packaging.** A 2024 review of coffee LCAs found packaging made up a median 9–18% of the footprint. The higher figure applied to single-serve pods and capsules, with great uncertainty.1\n- **The machine.** A 2011 German study linked the high impacts of capsule and fully automatic machines to power use, especially in sleep and standby mode.4\n\nCapsules use a fixed, small dose. A 2009 study assumed 6.5 g of coffee per capsule cup and 13.5 g per drip filter cup, including 33% losses.5 Coffee brewed but not drunk can therefore shift the comparison in favour of capsules.3,5 Researchers at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi made the same point in a 2023 article for a general audience.22,3\n\n## What life-cycle studies found\n\nThe studies do not agree on whether capsules come out better or worse than other methods. Their results depend on the dose, the share of coffee wasted, the machine and what each study counts.1,3,4\n\n- **Pod style lowest.** A 2018 study compared drip filter, French press and pod-style brewing. Drip filter had the greatest impact in all categories; pod style had the least in six.3\n- **Capsules highest.** In the 2011 German study, French press and drip filter machines did best, capsule and fully automatic machines worst.4\n- **Capsule in between.** A 2009 study found soluble coffee lower than capsule espresso, and drip filter highest per cup, water use included.5 The energy used for capsule packaging was comparable in size to that of the use phase.5\n- **Paper pods lowest.** A 2020 study by Brazilian researchers found a paper-sachet pod lowest among single-serve options, at 14.3 g CO₂e per 50 mL.7 Among single-serve options, plastic capsules with an aluminium top seal used the most energy and water and made the most waste.7\n- **Bag coffee lower than capsules.** A 2025 study counted only use and disposal. Coffee from a multilayer bag came to 8.2 g CO₂e per cup, a polypropylene (PP) capsule to 41 g.8\n\n
\n
\n
Greenhouse gas emissions per cup in three studies (g CO₂e, carbon dioxide equivalent). 2021: 40 mL cup in Italy, coffee itself left out.6 2020: 50 mL, from cultivation to waste.7 2025: use and disposal phases only.8 Compare within one study; boundaries differ between them.
\n
\n\nA literature review of 2021 notes that some capsule LCAs “were funded by stakeholders directly affected by the coffee market”.9 The Deep dive gives each study’s functional unit, boundary and electricity mix, and who commissioned it where the source says so.\n\n## What happens to used capsules\n\nCapsules are made of aluminium, plastics such as PP, laminates, compostable polymers or paper.8,9 After brewing, each one holds wet coffee grounds. A 2021 review names the separation of capsule parts and grounds as one of the main challenges for recovery.9\n\n- **Aluminium.** The Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN, German BAFU) states that shops and many municipal collection points take back coffee capsules.17 According to the FOEN, packaging made from recycled aluminium needs 95% less energy than packaging from new metal.17\n- **Laminates.** A 2021 Italian study assumed that its plastic–aluminium laminated capsule was not separated into its materials but went to landfill.6\n- **Compostable.** In a 2020 trial at a Dutch composting plant, used compostable capsules were still mostly present after two cycles of about 11 days.11 The authors still did not expect them to add significantly to the residue the plant discards.11\n\nNo official or peer-reviewed figure for how many capsules are collected or recycled, in Switzerland or elsewhere, was found when the entry was checked. The FOEN page gives none.17\n\n## EU rules for capsules and pads\n\nThis section describes what the legal texts and the Commission’s guidance say, as of October 2026. It is not legal advice. The packaging entry covers the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) as a whole.\n\nThe PPWR, Regulation (EU) 2025/40, counts single-serve coffee units as packaging, because they are thrown away with the used coffee.13,14 The regulation dates from 19 December 2024.13 It entered into force on 11 February 2025 and applies from 12 August 2026.14,16 It treats two kinds of unit differently.14\n\n- **Pads and soft units.** Permeable coffee bags and soft single-serve units must be compatible with industrial composting by 12 February 2028.14,15 The Commission reads this as covering any material, paper included.14\n- **Capsules.** Non-permeable units for a machine fall under the general rule that all packaging must be recyclable.14 Member States may instead require compostable capsules made of material other than metal.14 This applies where they allow waste that composts like bio-waste to be collected with it and suitable collection and treatment are available.14\n\nDesign-for-recycling criteria apply from 1 January 2030 and “recycled at scale” from 1 January 2035, both at the earliest.14 From 1 January 2038, packaging must reach at least grade B.13\n\n
\n
\n
Dates of the EU packaging and green-claims rules for coffee capsules and pads, with the Swiss packaging ordinance for comparison, as of October 2026.13,14,15,16,18,19,20 “Earliest” marks dates that move later if the implementing or delegated acts come late.
\n
\n\nSwitzerland has its own rules. A new ordinance for all packaging, adopted on 24 June 2026, applies from the start of 2027.18 The Federal Council’s announcement does not mention coffee capsules.18\n\n## Claims on capsules\n\nWords such as “recyclable” or “compostable” on a capsule pack are environmental claims. EU rules applying through national law from 27 September 2026 ban generic claims such as “eco-friendly”.19,20 The exception is recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim.19 In the United States, a federal guide calls it deceptive to misrepresent a product or package as compostable.21 The sustainability claims entry covers these rules in detail.\n\n\n\n## The studies compared\n\nThe table gives each study’s functional unit, boundary, setting and backers as far as the text consulted states them. The numbers cannot be compared across rows.\n\n| Study | Functional unit | Boundary | Setting and electricity | Backing and review | What dominated |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Humbert et al., 20095 | 1 dl cup at home | Full life cycle; soluble, capsule espresso, drip filter | European electricity mix; coffee made in Spain, soluble coffee in the UK5 | Made in collaboration with the coffee producer, which supplied primary data; not critically reviewed by an external panel5 | For capsules, packaging energy comparable to the use phase; machine warm-up time and cups per day key5 |\n| Brommer et al., 20114 | One cup | Product carbon footprint of the whole chain, plus a comparison of preparation methods | Germany; electricity mix not stated in the abstract4 | Footprint part of a German pilot project, analysed on behalf of Tchibo GmbH4 | Cultivation 55%, preparation 30% of the footprint; among methods, machine power in standby and capsule packaging4 |\n| Hicks, 20183 | Comparative functional unit (not given in the abstract) | Midpoint LCA of drip filter, French press, pod style | Not stated in the abstract | Funder in the Crossref record: University of Wisconsin–Madison; corrigendum 2018, relative results unchanged3 | Amount of dry coffee and brewing energy3 |\n| de Figueiredo Tavares & Mourad, 20207 | 50 mL of beverage | Cultivation, roasting and grinding, preparation, waste | 40 coffee shops, bakeries and homes; Brazilian authors; electricity mix not stated in the abstract7 | Roasting and grinding data from an industrial process; funding not stated in the abstract7 | Coffee concentration and packaging mass per volume of beverage7 |\n| Cibelli et al., 20216 | 40 mL cup | Transport, packaging, electricity, end of life; coffee left out | Italian grid, 512.9 g CO₂e per kWh; PAS 20506 | Not stated in the text consulted | Packaging: 5.5 of 10.0 g CO₂e for the capsule6 |\n| Moresi & Cimini, 20258 | 720 kg roasted and ground coffee, reported per cup | Use and post-consumer phases; EU Product Environmental Footprint | Italy; Italian electricity mix8 | Supported by a university consortium (CUEIM, Verona) in a research project on single-portion coffee pads; authors declare no conflicts of interest8 | Bag 8.2, PP capsule 41 g CO₂e per cup8 |\n\nThe 2011 study’s capsule result rests on standby power as well as packaging.4 The 2009 study names the time a machine is kept warm and the number of cups made per day as key parameters.5 Machine behaviour can therefore matter as much as the capsule material.4,5\n\nIn the 2021 study, the capsule was a PE-Al-PET laminate (polyethylene, aluminium, polyethylene terephthalate) holding 5.75 g of coffee.6 The authors assumed it went to landfill, not into recycling.6 For the capsule cup, packaging came to 5.5 g, electricity to 2.8 g and end of life to 0.3 g CO₂e.6 The paper does not state its funding in the text consulted.\n\nOnly the abstract of the 2020 Brazilian study was consulted, so only its paper-pod value is given here.7 The review that names industry funding refers to earlier capsule studies; it notes that “these results have not always been met with scientific approval”.9\n\n## Article 9 of the PPWR in detail\n\nArticle 9(1) reads, as quoted by an Italian ministry’s impact assessment:15\n\n> “1. By way of derogation from Article 6(1), by 12 February 2028, where packaging referred to in Article 3, point (1) (f), and sticky labels affixed to fruit and vegetables are placed on the market, that packaging and sticky labels shall be compatible with the standard for composting in industrially controlled conditions in bio-waste treatment facilities and shall be compatible, where required by the Member States, with the home-composting standards referred to in paragraph 6 of this Article.”\n\nArticle 3(1), point (1)(f) covers “a permeable tea, coffee or other beverage bag, or soft after-use system single-serve unit” that contains the beverage and is “intended to be used and disposed of together with the product”.14 Point (1)(g) covers “a non-permeable tea, coffee or other beverage system single-serve unit” “intended for use in a machine”.14 Article 9(1) therefore applies to pads and soft units, not to capsules.14,15\n\nArticle 9(2) is the capsule provision. By derogation from Article 6(1), Member States that allow waste with properties similar to bio-waste in its collection, where “appropriate waste collection schemes and waste treatment infrastructure are available”, “may require that the following packaging shall be made available on their territory for the first time only if the packaging is compostable”.14 Point (a) names packaging under point (1)(g) “composed of material other than metal”.14 Recital 54 refers to the same units.13,14\n\n**Standards.** The Commission states that the existing standard EN 13432 on industrial composting “can be used as guidance until the new standard is adopted”.14 The guidance states that the Commission would ask the European standardisation bodies for a new EU-wide standard on home compostability by 12 February 2026.14 According to the Commission, home composting “should only be considered in the context of specific local conditions” and under the supervision of the authorities.14 The criteria of EN 13432 themselves were not consulted for this entry, so none are given.\n\n## Compostable capsules in practice\n\nA 2020 Dutch trial placed used compostable capsules (polylactic acid, PLA, with biodegradable polyesters) and used pads (paper and PLA fibres) in mesh bags in a full-scale composting plant.11 Each cycle ran for 11 days with aeration and moisture.11 After two cycles, 91% of the capsule mass was recovered from one bag and 59% from the other; for pads, 58% and 86%.11 The authors call these percentages indicative, because samples were not fully cleaned and some bags were damaged.11\n\nThe authors expect more fragmentation in processes that apply shear.11 They did not expect pre-treatment such as sieving to put more capsules into the plant’s residual streams.11 They note that even tiny capsule fragments remain conspicuous in the dark brown compost.11 The trial covers one plant and one capsule product.11\n\nA 2020 US study compared PLA-based compostable pods with PP pods, counting packaging only.10 Composting the compostable pods gave the lowest impacts in 7 of 10 categories, but their embodied energy was 6.1% higher than that of the PP pods, even in the best case.10 The work was funded in part by the US Department of Energy.10 According to Wageningen University & Research, its 2023 report ranked compostable capsules first and aluminium second, the latter only with separate collection.12 The project was co-funded by makers of compostable materials.12\n\n## Reference values\n\n| Parameter | Value | Functional unit and boundary | Source |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Packaging share of coffee footprints | Median 9–18% (higher for pods and capsules) | Across 34 LCAs | Chéron-Bessou et al.1 |\n| Coffee per cup, as assumed | 6.5 g capsule; 13.5 g drip filter incl. 33% losses | 1 dl cup | Humbert et al.5 |\n| Capsule cup | 10.0 g CO₂e (packaging 5.5) | 40 mL; coffee left out; Italy | Cibelli et al.6 |\n| Moka pot cup | 8.1 g CO₂e | 40 mL; coffee left out; Italy | Cibelli et al.6 |\n| Pod cup | 18.5 g CO₂e | 40 mL; coffee left out; Italy | Cibelli et al.6 |\n| Paper-sachet pod | 14.3 g CO₂e | 50 mL; cultivation to waste | de Figueiredo Tavares & Mourad7 |\n| Bag coffee versus PP capsule | 8.2 versus 41 g CO₂e per cup | Use and post-consumer phases | Moresi & Cimini8 |\n| Cultivation and preparation shares | 55% and 30% | One cup, German footprint pilot | Brommer et al.4 |\n| Compostable capsule mass recovered after two cycles | 91% and 59% (indicative) | Full-scale Dutch plant, mesh bags | van der Zee & Molenveld11 |\n| Recycled versus new aluminium packaging | 95% less energy | Swiss federal statement | FOEN17 |\n\n## Open questions\n\n- No common functional unit for coffee drinks exists; assumptions on dilution and wasted coffee differ between studies, and a 2024 review recommends standardising the functional unit.1\n- How much coffee households brew and pour away is the deciding assumption in capsule–filter comparisons; the studies consulted assume it rather than measure it.3,5\n- No official or peer-reviewed collection or recycling rate for coffee capsules was found for this entry.17\n- A harmonised EU standard for compostable packaging, including home composting, had not yet been adopted as of the Commission’s 2026 guidance.14\n- Whether compostable capsules disintegrate fully in plants with short cycles has been tested in few full-scale trials; the one consulted was indicative.11\n\n## Key studies\n\n
\n

Hicks, 2018 – Consumer convenience and coffee. A comparative midpoint LCA of drip filter, French press and pod-style brewing. Drip filter had the greatest impact in every category and pod style the least in six. The amount of coffee used and brewing energy drove the results; wasted coffee could change the ranking.

\n

Journal of Industrial Ecology 22(1), 79–91 · doi:10.1111/jiec.12487

\n
\n\n
\n

Brommer et al., 2011 – Coffee preparation in Germany. A product carbon footprint of one cup, analysed for a German coffee company, plus a comparison of preparation methods. French press and filter drip did best; capsule and fully automatic machines did worst, mainly through standby power and capsule packaging.

\n

International Journal of Consumer Studies 35(2), 212–220 · doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00971.x

\n
\n\n
\n

Moresi & Cimini, 2025 – Packaging waste per cup. A streamlined LCA of the use and disposal of eight coffee formats with the EU Product Environmental Footprint method. Coffee from multilayer bags scored far lower per cup than pads, coffee balls and capsules. Per cup, a PP capsule came to 41 g CO₂e against 8.2 g for bag coffee.

\n

Italian Journal of Food Science 37(4), 436–477 · doi:10.15586/ijfs.v37i4.3256

\n
\n\n
\n

Marinello et al., 2021 – Capsule impacts and recovery. A literature review of capsule LCAs and ways to recover capsule materials. Separating the capsule parts from each other and from the grounds remains a main obstacle. The authors note that some studies were funded by stakeholders in the coffee market.

\n

Packaging Technology and Science 34(11), 665–682 · doi:10.1002/pts.2606

\n
" }