If you like our site, mark us as a preferred source on Google — so you’ll see our articles more often in search!
★Mark us as a preferred sourceA recent independent study commissioned by the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DIHK) alongside several industry associations reveals that municipal packaging taxes impose heavy burdens on businesses, municipalities, and consumers while delivering negligible ecological benefits. The detailed quantitative data shows a significant rise in bureaucracy without the expected reduction in waste.
The study, jointly conducted by the packaging market research company GVM (Gesellschaft für Verpackungsmarktforschung) and the ifeu (Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg gGmbH), offers the first comprehensive evaluation of the economic and ecological impact of municipal packaging taxes. Based on extensive market data, GVM database analysis, expert interviews, and on-site research in municipalities with existing packaging taxes, the findings raise serious questions about the measure’s effectiveness.
Minimal Impact on Waste Volume
According to the study’s calculations, municipal packaging taxes affect only a tiny fraction of total waste. Currently, such taxes capture just 0.7 percent of Germany’s overall packaging consumption. Even under a hypothetical nationwide implementation, the total volume of packaging waste in Germany would decrease by a mere 0.04 percent. The climate impact is equally insignificant: German greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by only 0.0013 percent. From the perspective of the commissioners, the overall ecological benefit of the tax remains strictly limited.
High Economic Burden on Businesses and Municipalities
The negligible environmental benefits are accompanied by massive administrative efforts. For municipalities, introducing, collecting, and monitoring the tax creates significant administrative overhead. The study calculates that these municipal administration costs consume roughly 10 to 15 percent of the total tax revenue generated.
Simultaneously, businesses—particularly in the gastronomy and retail sectors—face new documentation requirements, mandatory adjustments to checkout systems, and staff training costs. The study projects that the total financial burden on the affected packaging would skyrocket from currently around 0.1 billion euros to 4.1 billion euros. For specific packaging types, the financial burden would increase by 20 to 30 times. Kristina Harrer-Kouliev, Head of the Legal Department at the Federal Association of System Gastronomy (BdS), noted that instead of effectively reducing waste, the tax simply replaces effective environmental policy with additional bureaucracy and financial strain.
Consumer Costs and Double Taxation
The investigation explicitly concludes that the long-term cost of the tax is predominantly borne by consumers. Additional expenses are usually passed on fully or substantially through higher retail prices, which disproportionately affects lower-income households. Antje Gerstein, Managing Director for Sustainability at the German Retail Association (HDE), emphasized that companies are already highly committed to reducing packaging independently. She argued that the tax fails to support this engagement and only serves to make products more expensive for end consumers.
Furthermore, the study highlights a severe issue of double taxation: 89 percent of the packaging volume targeted by the tax is already subject to other regulatory instruments and fees, such as system participation charges and payments into the single-use plastic fund.
Evasive Reactions and the Reusable Packaging Reality
While the packaging tax triggers behavioral changes, its ecological steering effect remains fundamentally flawed. Consumers tend to employ evasive tactics, such as switching to pre-packaged convenience products, avoiding gastronomy offers, using non-taxable packaging, or simply shifting their purchases to neighboring municipalities without a packaging tax. As a result, the total packaging volume often does not decrease; it merely relocates or, in some cases, even increases.
The study also debunks the assumption that reusable (Mehrweg) items are automatically superior. Despite expanded reusable options, single-use packaging remains preferred by consumers in many situations. Data from cities that have already implemented the tax show no increase in reusable adoption rates. Crucially, reusable packaging only offers an ecological advantage if utilized frequently and returned reliably. In contrast, the study demonstrates that European-produced paper packaging, thanks to a high share of renewable energy, boasts a significantly better climate footprint than the average packaging subjected to the tax.
Commissioners Demand Effective Measures
In light of the findings, the commissioning organizations are strongly opposing municipal packaging taxes. Dr. Sebastian Bolay, Head of Energy, Environment, and Industry at the DIHK, stated: “The municipal packaging tax is neither target-oriented nor low on bureaucracy.” According to Bolay, instead of introducing new burdens, policymakers should focus on strengthening and developing existing circular economy systems. Expanding functional recycling networks and fostering innovative solutions to reduce material usage would be significantly more effective.
Source:
