Jute bags as a sustainable alternative to single-use plastic bags in Bangladesh: Rethinking the sole reliance on life cycle assessment

In the unique deltaic geography of Bangladesh, mismanaged plastic waste presents significant challenges to human health and aquatic ecosystems. This is due to insufficient waste management, littering, and improper plastic disposal on land. The substitution of plastic with biodegradable alternatives in Bangladesh is closely linked to jute products, driven by their cultural significance and the longstanding tradition of jute cultivation in the Ganges delta. This study utilizes a comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) based on International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to evaluate jute and plastic bags throughout their life cycles, from raw material extraction to disposal. The selected functional unit for life cycle assessments is the number of bags necessary to carry the annual groceries per person in Bangladesh, calculated from the average per capita food requirement of 269.20 kg, resulting in 27 bags per capita. The potential carbon footprint for a single-use plastic bag is measured at 56.7 g carbon di-oxide equivalent (CO2-eq.) while the single-use jute bag results in 313.41 g CO2-eq., marking a fivefold increase compared to the plastic bag. The less favorable environmental impacts for single-use jute bags can be attributed to their nearly tenfold higher weight than a thin plastic bag, necessitating a correspondingly higher quantity of raw materials for production. In the category of terrestrial ecotoxicity, the plastic bag exhibits substantial disadvantages. The plastic bag outperforms the jute bag in 17 out of 18 impact categories in singleuse scenarios. However, with multiple uses (ten times), the jute bag demonstrates superior performance in most impact categories compared to the single-use low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bag. A measure for assessing the risk of environmental littering is derived by considering the quantity of bags required to fulfill the functional unit, along with factors such as weight, surface area, price, and biodegradability. The outcomes provided by the littering risk indicator (Ilr) contradict those obtained through LCA. The value of Ilr is significantly different between the two types of bags, with the jute bag showing a lower value of 0.65, indicating minimal environmental litter risk. In contrast, the LDPE bag has an alarmingly high value of 29,566, highlighting a substantial littering risk. The paper advocates for a more holistic assessment to inform sustainable choices better and mitigate environmental impacts effectively. Recognizing the limitations of LCA, particularly in assessing littering and material persistence, the study emphasizes the need to address these constraints in future research.