High Recycling Rates for Construction Waste: EPS/XPS cut-offs from construction sites are easily collected and recycled, particularly in regions with take-back systems. For instance, Germany reports a recycling rate of over 65% for EPS construction waste. By expanding such systems, recycling rates for construction materials can continue to rise.

The work determines and analyzes the values of nine environmental indicators calculated for ETICS with EPS and MW as a thermal insulation material. Environmental impact rates were calculated for 1 m2 ETICS for five thicknesses of thermal insulation material (EPS or MW). For all nine environmental indicators, mineral wool (MW) systems are characterized by a more negative environmental impact than the equivalent systems with expanded polystyrene (EPS).

For the base case, the single use EPS box has the smallest impact on climate change

Non-Toxic and Non-Hazardous: Both EPS and XPS are non-toxic and non-hazardous materials, posing no health risks when handled according to supplier guidelines (Lassen, et. al., 2019, p. 13; DGNB, 2024, p. 89). The styrene monomer used in production should be carefully managed at the factory level but does not pose risks in the final product.

For washing machine, delivery with the EPS package has the lowest climate change impacts (5.73 kg CO2 eq), followed by delivery with the EPP package (7.29 kg CO2 eq), and delivery with the paperboard package (8.94 kg CO2 eq).

Cost and Resource Efficiency: Due to their composition of primarily air, EPS/XPS are exceptionally resource-efficient, using minimal raw materials while delivering high-performance benefits across various applications. This translates to lower environmental impacts during production and use.

Considering the climate change impact category, alternative boxes do not show any environmental benefit compared to single-use EPS boxes when the distribution distance exceeds 1250 km.

The lighter mass of EPS packaging results in lower transportation emissions, making it the most environmentally efficient option for transportation impacts compared to other alternatives. (conclusion summary)

Cost and Resource Efficiency: Due to their composition of primarily air, EPS/XPS are exceptionally resource-efficient, using minimal raw materials while delivering high-performance benefits across various applications. This translates to lower environmental impacts during production and use.

EPS has the lowest environmental emission factor and per capita leakage of all seven major polymers assessed. In terms of mass released to the environment, EPS accounts for least per person per year — significantly below the average of all polymers. This makes EPS the least likely to leak into the environment among the examined polymers. (summary of conclusion)

Cost and Resource Efficiency: Due to their composition of primarily air, EPS/XPS are exceptionally resource-efficient, using minimal raw materials while delivering high-performance benefits across various applications. This translates to lower environmental impacts during production and use.

the most important factor when assessing the environmental impact of packaging materials is how well they protect the product. The study shows that even small differences in damage rates can completely change which material performs better overall. A ±50% change in damage rate led to an average ±34% shift in climate impact, meaning that assumptions about protection can outweigh differences between packaging types. Without reliable, real-world data on damage rates, any comparison of materials risks being misleading. (Summarised conclusion)

The single use EPS boxes are preferred to the alternative solutions from a societal perspective for transport distances above 200 km.

Marine Impact: While EPS/XPS may be mistakenly consumed by marine animals, research shows that these materials do not cause entanglement and often pass harmlessly through the digestive systems of many species (Lassen, et. al., 2019, p. 65). Although ingestion by wildlife is a concern, proper waste management and recycling significantly mitigate this risk.

When examining the overall climate change impacts of the delivered packaged TV product, it can be seen that the delivery of TV with the EPS package shows the best performance (2.38 kg CO2 eq), followed by the delivery with the EPP package (2.51 kg CO2 eq), delivery with the paperboard package (3.03 kg CO2 eq), and then delivery with the molded pulp package (3.45 kg CO2 eq).

Performance Benefits Over Alternatives: EPS transport packaging, especially for large items like white goods, often outperforms alternatives such as cardboard in terms of cushioning and protection during transport, making it a superior option for reducing product damage and wastage.

The findings indicate that EPS coated with nanocoating material has the lowest environmental impact and cost, with LCA single score of 1.06 MPt and cost reductions of about 14.5% and 27.48% compared to EPS with geomembrane and soil backfilling, respectively. Traditional soil backfilling has the highest environmental impact with a single score of 2.52 MPt. In comparison, EPS with geomembrane has a single score of 2.477 MPt offering a 15.17% cost reduction compared to soil backfilling.

Climate Benefits in Construction: EPS/XPS insulation materials play a vital role in reducing the climate impact of buildings by improving energy efficiency. By effectively insulating structures, these materials help reduce heating and cooling requirements, thereby lowering energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

Fish Loss Impact: "If one box were to involve more fish loss than the others, this box could be disqualified both environmentally and economically. ​ Indeed, the large environmental and economic impact of fish production before it is transported makes the fish loss one of the most important factors.

In practice, at-scale recycling in specific countries/regions is limited. An expert survey of members of the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment network43 indicated that, while many polymers may be recyclable in theory, only a handful of packaging formats have been demonstrated to be recycled in practice and at scale …. Those products are … and EPS for transport packaging (e.g. fish boxes or protection of large items).