.jpg)
Alisa Klechikova-Nguyen explores the lesser known financial, operational and social costs of the EU’s ambitious environmental policies.
As the pressure grows to tackle climate change, the European Union has introduced legislation and policies designed to push Member States towards greener and more sustainable societies. While these measures can deliver significant environmental benefits, their wider financial, operational and social consequences are not always immediately obvious.
The EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), which came into force on 12th August 2026, is one of the latest examples. The regulation introduces requirements covering packaging design, recyclability, waste prevention and the use of potentially harmful substances. Among its measures are restriction of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or ‘forever chemicals’, in food-contact packaging. Other requirements will be phased in over the coming years. By 2030, e-commerce, grouped and transport packaging will face a maximum empty-space ratio of 50%, meaning businesses will have to reduce the amount of unused space in their packaging. For large companies, adapting such packaging systems may be an inconvenient task assigned to a branch of a team, but, for smaller businesses, changing suppliers, redesigning packaging and meeting new compliance requirements could represent a more significant financial and administrative burden.
The question, therefore, is not whether Europe should become more sustainable. It is how the costs of that transition are distributed. The unintended consequences of going green Ireland has already experienced this tension through its Deposit
Return Scheme (DRS). Introduced in February 2024, Re-turn places a refundable deposit on eligible plastic bottles and aluminium and steel cans. The scheme was introduced partly in response to EU targets requiring Ireland to increase the separate collection of plastic beverage bottles and aluminium cans. The environmental results have been significant. Re-turn says the scheme has pushed Ireland’s national recycling rate for these containers to over 90% and that bottle and can litter has fallen by around 55%, yet, the scheme has also produced an unintended cost.
As reported by RTÉ, Dublin City Council (DCC) stated that bin-raiding by people scouring for deposit-eligible bottles and cans cost the council €500,000 in 2025. Council staff estimate that three hours of every 24-hour cleaning cycle are being diverted towards dealing with “bin interference”. To combat such, DCC introduced a scheme whereby a metal tray with holders for Re-turn eligible bottles and cans could be left for others to collect and claim the deposit to be installed on bins around the city. This scheme cost the exchequer €155,000. In June 2026, the Irish Independent reported that senior members of the Council decided to scrap the scheme completely, labelling it as “completely useless”, with the Re-turn surrounds themselves being described as “an eyesore”, and “not fit for purpose".
The environmental benefits of Re-turn are difficult to dispute. But when a local authority is spending hundreds of thousands of euro cleaning up a consequence of the scheme, an important question emerges: who should pay for the unintended costs of going green?
The effects of EU environmental policies can also reach individuals in ways that are easy to overlook. One example is the EU’s push to reduce single-use packaging and increase the use of reusable alternatives. While these measures are designed to reduce waste, the costs of implementing them can ultimately be felt by consumers. UCD provides a useful example. The university has made sustainability a central part of its operations. Its Sustainability Plan commits UCD to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2040, while the university ranked 47th globally and first in Ireland in the 2026 QS World University Rankings for Sustainability.
Many of its sustainability initiatives are relatively low-cost for students. UCD cafes, for example, encourage students and staff to bring their own cups, while reusable options are promoted across campus. But one measure has introduced a direct financial incentive - or disincentive - for students.
In November 2025, Gather & Gather, which operates UCD’s main restaurant in the Gerard Manley Hopkins Building, introduced a 50-cent charge for disposable takeaway packaging. UCD Sustainability reported that demand for takeaway packaging subsequently fell by 54%, with students instead choosing to eat from reusable crockery. The university said that many students had previously been taking disposable packaging even when they were sitting down to eat. From an environmental perspective, the policy appears successful - less disposable packaging means less waste. But, there is another side to the calculation. The student who genuinely needs takeaway packaging now faces an additional charge. 50 cents may appear insignificant, but for students already managing food, accommodation and transport costs, repeated small charges can accumulate quickly.
This is a relatively minor example compared with the costs faced by businesses adapting to new EU regulations. Nevertheless, it illustrates how environmental policy can shift costs onto individuals in ways that are easy to overlook. The question is not whether sustainability measures work. In many cases, they clearly do. The more difficult question is whether the environmental gains are being achieved in the fairest way possible.