The studies conducted to this date and the official figures of Eurostat show that the targets set for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste in the Directive 94/62/EC have been, in general, successfully achieved by the Member States. In fact, in countries that already had national policies for the management packaging waste (encompassing prevention, reuse, recycling and energy recovery) the impact of this European regulation was so much as expected. In 2006, the targets set by the Directive 94/62/EC were considered to be optimal in a report from the Commission (drawing in two commissioned studies). If one reduces environmental benefits to the amount of waste diverted from landfills, then it is valid to state that the Directive has been a remarkable success. However, the literature is still scarce in terms of widening the scope of what constitutes environmental benefits/costs and in providing a comprehensive assessment on the environmental externalities connected with recycling. The study by Pira and Ecolas (2005) estimated that packaging recovery has 4-9% additional costs when compared with a ‘no-recovery’ scenario and only 3% more when compared with a ‘no-Directive’ scenario. In truth, this does not seem to constitute a high macro-economic impact; however, several problems were identified in terms of the functioning of the internal market (especially regarding beverage containers). The implicit goals of promoting ‘green’ packaging and ‘eco-design’ were not achieved to a great extent. Using 1995 has a reference year, waste recycling in the European Union has increased by 18%. Besides, energy recovery has also increased (from 96 kg per capita in 2005 to 120 kg per capita in 2008). With no additional Community legislation, it is expected that, considering the 2008-2020 period, waste generation increases around 7%, recycling reaches 49% (in 2008 it was around 40%) and landfilling decreases 10% (stabilising at around 28%). Several producer responsibility systems have been implemented by the Member States (MS) and the Green Dot compliance scheme is the most common in Europe. The industry pays a fee based on the amount and the type of material of the packaging placed in the market. These fees are intended to support selective collection, sorting and recycling of packaging waste, although there is a lack of discussion on whether the industry should cover these costs adopting a purely financial or an economic perspective. Waste management strategies within the European Union should be developed according the so-called ‘waste hierarchy’. First, the MS should concentrate on prevention and only then consider reuse, recycling, energy recovery and landfilling as last resort. Although prevention at the source is the only way to decrease the amount of waste, in practice this is very difficult to accomplish, since it also affects the life-cycle of packaged products. To accomplish such goals as reduced material consumption in production, durable design of products, use of ‘low-waste’ products, green procurement and extending the product life time, a change of paradigm (from waste management to resource management) is required. Despite the many theoretical benefits of reuse, it is a documented fact that the market share of non-reusable packaging is growing. Recycling requires the active participation of households (trade and industry waste recycling does not present so many challenges) so that an efficient sorting of waste can be achieved. Besides, factors like limited land resources or population density influence the cost-efficiency of recycling of packaging waste. Hence, the optimal recycling rates can vary from one country to another. It is however undeniable that higher recycling rates lead to lower refuse collection and treatment costs while reducing energy and natural resources consumption. Incineration (with energy recovery) of packaging waste is also a good alternative to landfilling since it presents lower opportunity and environmental costs. However, incineration must be strictly controlled to avoid harmful air emissions. Some very recent studies have been emphasizing that the inclusion of different waste management solutions should be regarded as an integrated strategy and not as exclusive alternatives. Both the incineration of waste and the recycling of material are necessary to reduce the amounts sent to landfills and their coexistence makes sense from an economic perspective. The incineration of waste does not imply necessarily a decrease in the current recycling rates. Although, in theory, recycling is the most environmentally sound option, it does not allow for the recovery of energy (it actually uses energy in the process). However, waste-to-energy should be seen as an important part of waste management strategies. The life-cycle of packaging waste involves several steps ranging from its ‘cradle’ to ‘grave’ encompassing several environmental and economic impacts. Distinct methodologies to quantify and valuate these impacts were identified in the literature review, for example, Life-Cycle Assessment, Financial and Environmental Life-Cycle Costing and Cost-Benefit Analysis. The integrated waste management, considering the selective collection, incineration with energy recovery, recycling and composting of organic waste, revealed an increase in negligible financial costs compared to the environmental benefits achieved. For instance, Walker et al. (2004) reported that the Nova Scotia solid waste-resource system produced net savings of between €21.5 million and €115.7 million, comparing with the pre-system almost entirely dependent on landfilling. Perhaps more decisively, Massaruto et al. (2011) claim that the optimal source separation level should be around 50%, being this value regarded as a recycling critical threshold above which the positive externalities no longer outweigh the financial costs. Even though one can find in the literature evidence that the return system for containers can be more efficient in terms of costs for society (even considering high recycling rates; White, 2001), the underlying idea is that the costs and benefits of both reuse and recycling systems have the same order of magnitude. In the last major assessment of the economic and social impacts of the Directive 94/62/EC in the European Union (Pira and Ecolas, 2005) it is indicated that the compliance with the recycling and recovery targets implied an increase of € 200 million per year in total costs compared with the previous scenario and that this Directive will hardly cause a significant macro-economic impact.