CoffeariumBeta
  1. Plant
  2. Farm
  3. Process
  4. Trade
  5. Roast
  6. Brew
  7. Cup
Sustainability · Single-serve

Capsules and the environment

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.

Across the chain: Sustainability

Source-checkedby Coffearium verification pass· Last source-checked 27 Oct 2026· Prepared with AI assistance· 22 sources (20 tier A)· 3 contested· Updated 27 Oct 2026· Literature last searched 27 Oct 2026
Reading depth
Contents
  • 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

What decides the footprint of a capsule coffee#

A 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

Every 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.

Three things weigh on a capsule cup:

  • 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
  • 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
  • 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

Capsules 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

What life-cycle studies found#

The 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

  • 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
  • Capsules highest. In the 2011 German study, French press and drip filter machines did best, capsule and fully automatic machines worst.4
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
01020304050g CO₂e per cup2021 · 40 mL, coffee leftout · moka pot8.16 2021 · 40 mL, coffee leftout · capsule10.06 2021 · 40 mL, coffee leftout · pod18.56 2020 · 50 mL, cultivationto waste · paper-sachetpod14.37 2025 · use and disposal ·coffee from multilayer bag8.28 2025 · use and disposal ·PP capsule418
Data table
g CO₂e per cupSource
2021 · 40 mL, coffee left out · moka pot8.16
2021 · 40 mL, coffee left out · capsule10.06
2021 · 40 mL, coffee left out · pod18.56
2020 · 50 mL, cultivation to waste · paper-sachet pod14.37
2025 · use and disposal · coffee from multilayer bag8.28
2025 · use and disposal · PP capsule418
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.

A 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.

What happens to used capsules#

Capsules 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

  • 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
  • Laminates. A 2021 Italian study assumed that its plastic–aluminium laminated capsule was not separated into its materials but went to landfill.6
  • 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

No 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

EU rules for capsules and pads#

This 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.

The 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

  • 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
  • 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

Design-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

202420262028203020322034203620382040YearRegulation(EU) 2025/40 adopted19 Dec 202413 Entry into force11 Feb 202514,16 PPWR applies; allpackaging recyclable12 Aug 202614,16 EU rules on green claimsapply27 Sep 202619,20 Switzerland: new packagingordinance appliesStart of 202718 Coffee pads and softsingle-serve unitscompostable12 Feb 202814,15 Design-for-recyclingcriteria(earliest)1 Jan 203014 Recycled at scale(earliest)1 Jan 203514 Grade B or better required1 Jan 203813
Data table
PointYearSource
Regulation (EU) 2025/40 adopted19 Dec 20242024.9713
Entry into force11 Feb 20252025.1114, 16
PPWR applies; all packaging recyclable12 Aug 20262026.6114, 16
EU rules on green claims apply27 Sep 20262026.7419, 20
Switzerland: new packaging ordinance appliesStart of 2027202718
Coffee pads and soft single-serve units compostable12 Feb 20282028.1214, 15
Design-for-recycling criteria (earliest)1 Jan 2030203014
Recycled at scale (earliest)1 Jan 2035203514
Grade B or better required1 Jan 2038203813
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.

Switzerland 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

Claims on capsules#

Words 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.

The studies compared#

The 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.

Study Functional unit Boundary Setting and electricity Backing and review What dominated
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
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
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
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
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
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

The 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

In 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.

Only 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

Article 9 of the PPWR in detail#

Article 9(1) reads, as quoted by an Italian ministry’s impact assessment:15

“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.”

Article 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

Article 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

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.

Compostable capsules in practice#

A 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

The 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

A 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

Reference values#

Parameter Value Functional unit and boundary Source
Packaging share of coffee footprints Median 9–18% (higher for pods and capsules) Across 34 LCAs Chéron-Bessou et al.1
Coffee per cup, as assumed 6.5 g capsule; 13.5 g drip filter incl. 33% losses 1 dl cup Humbert et al.5
Capsule cup 10.0 g CO₂e (packaging 5.5) 40 mL; coffee left out; Italy Cibelli et al.6
Moka pot cup 8.1 g CO₂e 40 mL; coffee left out; Italy Cibelli et al.6
Pod cup 18.5 g CO₂e 40 mL; coffee left out; Italy Cibelli et al.6
Paper-sachet pod 14.3 g CO₂e 50 mL; cultivation to waste de Figueiredo Tavares & Mourad7
Bag coffee versus PP capsule 8.2 versus 41 g CO₂e per cup Use and post-consumer phases Moresi & Cimini8
Cultivation and preparation shares 55% and 30% One cup, German footprint pilot Brommer et al.4
Compostable capsule mass recovered after two cycles 91% and 59% (indicative) Full-scale Dutch plant, mesh bags van der Zee & Molenveld11
Recycled versus new aluminium packaging 95% less energy Swiss federal statement FOEN17

Open questions#

  • 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
  • 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
  • No official or peer-reviewed collection or recycling rate for coffee capsules was found for this entry.17
  • A harmonised EU standard for compostable packaging, including home composting, had not yet been adopted as of the Commission’s 2026 guidance.14
  • Whether compostable capsules disintegrate fully in plants with short cycles has been tested in few full-scale trials; the one consulted was indicative.11

Key studies#

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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
Share or cite this entry

Change log

  • – “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.
  • – 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.
  • – 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.
  • – 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

  1. AChéron-Bessou, C.; Acosta-Alba, I.; Boissy, J.; Payen, S.; Rigal, C.; Setiawan, A. A. R.; Sevenster, M.; Tran, T.; Azapagic, A. (2024). Unravelling life cycle impacts of coffee: Why do results differ so much among studies?. Sustainable Production and Consumption 47, 251–266. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2024.04.005 · other copiesQuoted passage: the authors’ own result; Systematic review of 34 coffee life-cycle assessments (234 systems); packaging shares as medians across studies, single-pod share uncertain..
  2. AEuropean Commission, Knowledge for Policy Functional unit (glossary entry, after EN ISO 14040:2006). European Commission.Quoted passage: a definition; Glossary definition of the life-cycle assessment term, after EN ISO 14040..
  3. AHicks, A. L. (2018). Environmental Implications of Consumer Convenience: Coffee as a Case Study. Journal of Industrial Ecology 22(1), 79–91. doi:10.1111/jiec.12487 · other copiesQuoted passage: the authors’ own result; Comparative midpoint LCA of drip filter, French press and pod-style brewing; functional unit and electricity mix not stated in the abstract..
  4. ABrommer, E.; Stratmann, B.; Quack, D. (2011). Environmental impacts of different methods of coffee preparation. International Journal of Consumer Studies 35(2), 212–220. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00971.x · other copiesQuoted passage: the authors’ own result; Product carbon footprint of one cup (Germany, PCF Pilot Project) plus comparison of preparation methods and usage scenarios in Germany..
  5. AHumbert, S.; Loerincik, Y.; Rossi, V.; Margni, M.; Jolliet, O. (2009). Life cycle assessment of spray dried soluble coffee and comparison with alternatives (drip filter and capsule espresso). Journal of Cleaner Production 17(15), 1351–1358. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.04.011 · other copiesQuoted passage: the authors’ own result; Full life cycle of a 1 dl cup at home in Europe (European electricity mix); primary data from the coffee producer..
  6. ACibelli, M.; Cimini, A.; Moresi, M. (2021). Carbon footprint of different coffee brewing methods. Chemical Engineering Transactions 87, 373–378. doi:10.3303/CET2187063 · other copiesQuoted passage: the authors’ own result; Streamlined footprint (PAS 2050) of a 40 mL cup in Italy; coffee cultivation, roasting and grinding excluded; Italian grid electricity..
  7. Ade Figueiredo Tavares, M. P.; Mourad, A. L. (2020). Coffee beverage preparation by different methods from an environmental perspective. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 25, 1356–1367. doi:10.1007/s11367-019-01719-2 · other copiesQuoted passage: the authors’ own result; 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..
  8. AMoresi, M.; Cimini, A. (2025). Streamlined life cycle assessment of packaging waste in coffee preparation and consumption. Italian Journal of Food Science 37(4), 436–477. doi:10.15586/ijfs.v37i4.3256 · other copiesQuoted passage: the authors’ own result; Streamlined LCA of the use and post-consumer phases of eight coffee formats in Italy, EU PEF method, Italian electricity mix; results per cup..
  9. AMarinello, S.; Balugani, E.; Gamberini, R. (2021). Coffee capsule impacts and recovery techniques: A literature review. Packaging Technology and Science 34(11), 665–682. doi:10.1002/pts.2606 · other copiesQuoted passage: a description; Literature review of capsule LCAs and recovery techniques (aluminium, plastic, compostable capsules)..
  10. AKooduvalli, K.; Vaidya, U. K.; Ozcan, S. (2020). Life Cycle Assessment of Compostable Coffee Pods: A US University Based Case Study. Scientific Reports 10, 9158. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-65058-1 · other copiesQuoted passage: the authors’ own result; LCA of pod packaging only (PLA-based compostable versus polypropylene) at a US university; coffee and machine use left out..
  11. Avan der Zee, M.; Molenveld, K. (2020). The fate of (compostable) plastic products in a full scale industrial organic waste treatment facility. Wageningen Food & Biobased Research, Wageningen (ISBN 978-94-6395-310-8). doi:10.18174/514397 · other copiesQuoted passage: the authors’ own result; 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..
  12. BWageningen University & Research (2023). Compostable capsules most sustainable option for single serve coffee units (news item, 13 November 2023). Wageningen University & Research.Quoted passage: the authors’ own result; Report comparing compostable, conventional plastic and aluminium capsules for greenhouse gases and material circularity; Dutch collection context..
  13. AEuropean Parliament; Council of the European Union (2025). 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. Official Journal of the European Union, L series, 22.1.2025 (EUR-Lex).Quoted passage: a description; EU regulation; recitals on single-serve units (13, 54) and recyclability grades (28)..
  14. AEuropean Commission (2026). Commission Notice – Guidance document for Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging waste (C(2026) 3702 final). European Commission (EUR-Lex).Quoted passage: a recommendation; Commission interpretation of the PPWR, quoting Articles 3, 6 and 9..
  15. AMinistry for the Environment and Energy Security (Italy), Legislative Office 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. Italian Government; copy published with the notification by the Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Trade (teknikengel.ticaret.gov.tr).Quoted passage: a result cited from earlier work; Italian government impact assessment that quotes Article 9 of the EU regulation..
  16. AEuropean Commission, Directorate-General for Environment (2026). Packaging waste (policy page). European Commission.Quoted passage: a description; Commission policy page on the PPWR and its dates..
  17. ABundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU), Federal Office for the Environment (2025). Kaffeekapseln (Coffee capsules). Swiss Federal Administration (admin.ch).Quoted passage: a description; Swiss federal waste guidance page; no collection or recycling rates given..
  18. ASwiss Federal Council; Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU) (2026). Bundesrat stärkt Recycling bei Verpackungen und Abfällen (press release, 24 June 2026). Swiss Federal Administration (admin.ch).Quoted passage: a description; Swiss Federal Council announcement of the new packaging ordinance..
  19. A(2024). 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. Official Journal of the European Union, L series (EUR-Lex).Quoted passage: a description; EU directive on environmental claims, applied through national law..
  20. AEuropean Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (2026). Questions & Answers on Directive (EU) 2024/825 (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition). European Commission, Brussels (September 2026).Quoted passage: a recommendation; Commission questions and answers on the directive..
  21. AFederal Trade Commission 16 CFR 260.7 – Compostable claims (Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims). Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR), US Government.Quoted passage: a recommendation; US federal guides on environmental marketing claims, compostable claims..
  22. CRodrigues Viana, L.; Marty, C.; Boucher, J.-F.; Dessureault, P.-L. (Université du Québec à Chicoutimi) (2023). Voici comment votre tasse de café contribue aux changements climatiques (republished from The Conversation). MétéoMédia, 17 January 2023.Quoted passage: a description; Compilation of published coffee footprints for a general audience, Quebec and Alberta electricity examples..

Tier A · authoritative · B · trade and expert · C · general. Supporting quotes for every source are in the data version of this entry. If a publisher’s site refuses access, try the doi link or “other copies”.

The literature for this entry was last searched on 27 Oct 2026. A statement that no source consulted for this entry shows something refers to the sources above; newer or missing work may exist.

Suggest a change

On Capsules and the environment. Tell us what you would change and why. A source that supports it helps most.