Reusable Packaging Factors Report

Final report: Reusable Packaging - Factors to Consider
Single Trip or Reusable Packaging - Considering the Right Choice for the Environment
This report describes the factors which need to be considered when reviewing the environmental performance of single-trip and reusable packaging systems. It is the result of a review of the findings of Life Cycle Assessments and similar studies comparing the environmental burden of single-trip and reusable packaging systems.
Project code: RHI007-001 Research date: March-March 2010
ISBN: 1-84405-437-3 Date: 1 May 2010
WRAPs vision is a world without waste, where resources are used sustainably. We work with businesses and individuals to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, develop sustainable products and use resources in an efficient way. Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk
Written by: Greg Wood and Michael Sturges of Edge, member of the Innventia Group of companies
Document reference: WRAP, 2009, RHI007. Prepared by Innventia Edge. Front cover photography: Reusable transit packaging example WRAP and Innventia Edge believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAPs endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAPs Terms & Conditions on its web site: www.wrap.org.uk
Executive Summary
Introduction
Packaging - whether single-trip or reusable - plays a crucial function protecting goods, preventing damage during transport and storage from the elements, vibration, drop and compression. It also provides the opportunity to communicate information to a customer regarding the products contents whether promotional, factual or mandated by law, as well as providing product security e.g. making items more tamper-resistant. Packaging is only one element of a products overall environmental impact and often only represents 10% of the overall impact of the product / packaging system. It is a highly visible use of resources accounting for about a fifth of the household waste stream and between a tenth to a twentieth of commercial and industrial waste1. It is, therefore, an issue of concern to both consumers and policy makers. These concerns are reflected in WRAPs 2008-2011 business plan, which identifies packaging as one of four priority areas. Perceptions of can be reinforced by the single-trip nature of the majority of packaging, especially consumer packaging. There are significant examples of reusable packaging systems in existence, which may offer potential environmental and/or economic benefits over single-trip solutions; however, reusable packaging systems are not always appropriate solutions. If conditions are not appropriate, the environmental and/or economic costs of reusable packaging will outweigh the benefits. As a result of this, the extent to which reuse of packaging offers genuine environmental benefits remains a central element of the resource efficient packaging debate.
Project Objective
The aim of this report is to help packaging decision makers to consider single-trip and reusable packaging options on an informed basis. This is achieved by identifying the key factors from an environmental life cycle perspective that influence the environmental performance of reusable packaging systems.
Methodology
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a technique that quantifies the environmental impacts of a product or system, typically from the cradle to the grave i.e. from the winning and conversion of raw materials, through manufacturing of products, distribution, use, and finally management of wastes 2. Many LCA studies have been performed that evaluate and compare reusable packaging systems and equivalent single-trip packaging solutions. A structured and reasoned review of these existing studies was made in order to identify key trends. Understanding the commonalities and differences between studies and results helps WRAP and other interested parties to better understand the conditions under which reusable packaging may be environmentally preferable to single-trip packaging solutions.
Factors which affect relative environmental performance of single-trip and reusable packaging systems
Examination of the LCA studies allowed those factors which consistently had a significant influence on the results - for most impact categories - to be identified. These factors have been categorised as primary factors. Those
25.3 million tonnes of household waste were collected in England in 2007/08, with packaging accounting for around 5 million
tonnes. Commercial and industrial waste is estimated around 68 million tonnes. Packaging waste arsing in the commercial and industrial waste streams is estimated at around 5 million tonnes. Sources: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) online statistics and Environment Agency, Commercial and Industrial Waste Survey, 2002/03.
2
Some of the LCA studies included in the reviews were Cradle to Cradle, rather than Cradle to Grave, depending on the scope of that individual study.
factors which also have an influence, but typically affect results to a lesser degree or only influence results for isolated impact categories have been classified as secondary. Drawn from the review of LCAs, primary factors which influence the relative environmental performance of single-trip and reusable packaging systems are:
Raw materials and energy used in manufacture Single-trip packaging systems total environmental impact is more dependent on raw material and energy use in pack manufacture than reusable packaging due to the whole of the burden being associated with a single trip, whereas the burden is shared equally between the total number of lifetime trips for reusable packaging.
Trip rates for reusables The number of trips made by reusable packaging in its lifetime is critical because it determines the allocation of the most significant environmental burden, package manufacturing, to each trip made by the reusable packaging. The more trips a reusable packaging makes the lower its proportion of that burden becomes. However, as the number of trips increases the proportional decrease in environmental burden becomes lower.
Transportation distances The return trip for reusables becomes significant when longer transport distances are considered. Therefore, longer journey distances tend to favour single-trip packaging, shorter journey distances tend to favour reusable packaging.
Pool size for reusables The number of packaging units required to support a reusable packaging system is significantly higher than the number of packaging units required for the immediate and current product supply at any one point in time. This is to allow for the time taken for the return logistics, cleaning, seasonal peaks in volumes, damages and losses in the system.
Vehicle utilisation Reusable packaging is usually heavier and usually occupies a greater volume than single-trip solutions, in order to withstand the rigours of multiple trips. The effect is to reduce cube utilisation and therefore additional transport journeys may be required to transport a given amount of product
Recycled content and post-consumer recycling The relative environmental performance of single-trip packaging compared to reusable packaging may be significantly influenced by the recycled content of the single-trip packaging format.
Secondary factors, influencing the relative environmental performance of single-trip and reusable packaging, identified through the LCA reviews include:
LCA methodology decisions, especially allocation and treatment of carbon sequestration End-of-life waste management scenarios considered Location of recycling facilities Transportation modes Energy mix in the systems modelled Impacts associated with the washing and repair of reusable packaging Impacts associated with the secondary, tertiary and ancillary packaging required to service each packaging system.
Scope of LCAs Reviewed

Commercial factors are not covered in the scope of the work but they are fundamental to the decision making process. In order for a reusable system to be successful, there must be clear cost benefits to the participants, quality improvements and benefits to the service; all these commercial and consumer aspects must be balanced against the environmental considerations. A key factor, from both an environmental and commercial perspective, that could not be considered (as it was not within the scope of the LCAs reviewed) was product damage. Damage occurring during normal distribution and storage of packaged products can have a significant influence on the environmental burden of the packaged product system.
Packaging has a vital role in protecting products as well as wider consumer benefits. A fundamental role of any packaging is to deliver the product to the customer or consumer in fit for purpose, undamaged condition. If a product is damaged in distribution it results in the waste of that product, or it being sold at reduced cost or having to be repaired. Because all the product manufacturing, packaging and logistics processes of that damaged item have already occurred, and have been wasted as a consequence of the damage, their impact on the environmental burden of the complete system can be significant. This is particularly important where the ratio of the environmental burden associated with product manufacture versus packaging and delivery is high or where damage rates are significant. The burden of product damage may outweigh the combined burden of all the factors relating to the packaging surrounding it. Therefore, the impact on product damage rates between different single-trip and reusable packaging systems is a highly significant commercial and environmental factor and for this reason must be considered when choosing between alternatives. The LCAs reviewed represent those which - as far as was possible - were conducted in compliance with ISO 14040 but even those that do not meet this standard also inform the objective of this report; to identify factors critical to packaging system choice. The LCAs were inconsistent in format, system boundaries, and reporting detail and relatively few detailed findings of any critical review. However the authors of this report have examined the results of the individual LCAs reviewed and have only included those factors that have consistently emerged as important considerations in selection of most appropriate systems. The majority of LCA studies conducted, and indeed of those reviewed in this report, are sponsored or commissioned by parties who have a vested commercial interest in the findings of those studies. The body performing the study will follow the goal and scope defined by the commissioning organisation. The LCA standards frameworks - including ISO 14040 - allow methodological choices to be made within a framework and cannot govern data robustness. LCAs conducted on behalf of interested parties are therefore able to express the results, and in particular the conclusions of a study, to favour their own interests. Conclusions on the environmental advantages of different packaging systems are dependant on the priorities set for each impact category. Discrimination between concepts and materials on the basis of LCA findings should be avoided when the results of in-depth sensitivity analyses are not available.
Is reusable packaging the right choice for the environment - Conclusions

Despite a number of limitations of Life Cycle Assessments, including the lack of consideration of product damage, the reviews undertaken as part of this project highlight that data and information from LCAs can be useful when considering reusable packaging systems. Identified through the review of LCA studies, this report highlights the key factors that influence the environmental performance of single-trip and reusable packaging systems. The identification of these primary, secondary and other factors should help packaging decision makers to consider alternative packaging options on an informed basis and crucially will help establish priorities for minimising the environmental impacts of those systems, whichever format is used. The LCAs also demonstrate that the relative merits of single use and reusable packaging are dependent on the specific circumstances of the individual product, packaging format, supply chain and logistics in a given situation. It is not possible to state outright that one packaging format is generically environmentally preferable to the other, as it may vary according to these factors. Even where a LCA study has been undertaken thoroughly for a specific product and packaging format (with an indepth sensitivity analysis), the findings may not show conclusively that a particular packaging system has environmental advantages over another, although there will also be studies where a clear environmental preference is observable. Ultimately, of course, a reusable packaging system will need to prove that it can deliver commercial benefits through cost savings and quality improvements - as well as environmental benefits in order to be successful.
Contents
1.0 Introduction and Objectives....................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................7 1.2 Project Objective .................................................................................................................9 1.3 How the Report is Structured ...............................................................................................9 2.0 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) .................................................................................................... 10 2.1 LCA Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 LCA Limitations ................................................................................................................. 11 3.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 13 4.0 Factors which affect relative environmental performance of Single-Trip and Reusable Packaging Systems ............................................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Primary Factors ................................................................................................................. 15 4.1.1 Raw materials and energy used in manufacture ....................................................... 15 4.1.2 Trip rates of reusables ........................................................................................... 15 4.1.3 Transportation distances........................................................................................ 18 4.1.4 Pool size for reusables ........................................................................................... 20 4.1.5 Vehicle utilisation .................................................................................................. 21 4.1.6 Recycled content and recycling rates ...................................................................... 22 4.2 4.2 Secondary Factors ....................................................................................................... 23 4.2.1 Allocation ............................................................................................................. 23 4.2.2 Location of recycling ............................................................................................. 24 4.2.3 End of life waste management ............................................................................... 24 4.2.4 Transportation mode ............................................................................................. 24 4.2.5 Energy mix in the system ...................................................................................... 25 4.2.6 Repair of reusable secondary packaging .................................................................. 25 4.2.7 Cleaning of reusable packaging .............................................................................. 25 4.2.8 Secondary, tertiary and ancillary packaging ............................................................. 26 4.3 Other Factors .................................................................................................................... 26 4.3.1 Pack sizes ............................................................................................................ 26 4.3.2 Commissioning and Sponsoring Organisation ........................................................... 26 4.3.3 Carbon sequestration ............................................................................................ 27 5.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 28 List of Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 31 Appendix 1 Review of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) ...................................................................... 32 Appendix 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 61 Appendix 3 List of LCAs identified ..................................................................................................... 65
Glossary
CBB Corrugated board box Closed-Loop distribution the process of storing and transporting packaging and goods to the final customer on a closely controlled supply and return basis. Packaging used for distributing products is closely matched by
packaging returning
DRC Display ready corrugated containers DSD Duales System Deutschland FPC Folding plastic crate GHG Greenhouse gas HDPE High density polyethylene IBC Intermediate bulk container LCA Life cycle assessment LCI Life cycle inventory PCF Potential carbon footprint PET Polyester (polyethylene terephthalate) PP Polypropylene Ribbon distribution - the process of storing and transporting packaging and goods to final customer on a widely dispersed and linear basis. Packaging supplied moves down through the supply chain often not returning directly to source or returned from source through a relatively tortuous and often non economic route RPC Reusable or returnable plastic crates or containers RTP Returnable transit packaging Single-trip packaging packaging used to protect a product on a single journey through the supply chain from supplier to the end user of the product, where the packaging has no further use and is disposed of (e.g. via recycling or waste disposal). Return rate The average rate of return of reusable packaging after each trip, usually expressed as a percentage Reusable packaging packaging used to protect a product on multiple journeys through all or part of the supply chain from supplier to the end user of the product. Trippage rate The average number of trips a reusable packaging makes in its lifetime
Acknowledgements
The authors of this report would like to acknowledge the co-operation and input of the following individuals and organisations who responded to the literature review consultation exercise. The input from these stakeholders has helped to ensure that a comprehensive list of studies comparing single-trip and reusable packaging was identified and provided the basis for this project: Angelina de Beaufort Apeal Ardagh Glass BSDA British Glass Centre for Design, RMIT University CEPI Chalmers University of Technology CPI DTI (Danish Technology Institute) German Association of Drinks Carton Manufacturers FEFCO FEVE Home Retail Group INCPEN ITENE Kees Sonneveld Loadhog Loughborough University Michigan State University Pakkaustutkimus PTR ry Tesco TetraPak Valpak Virginia Tech.
1.0 1.1
Introduction and Objectives Introduction
Packaging plays a vital role in protecting products as well as wider consumer benefits, and accounts for just one element of a products overall environmental impact. It is a highly visible use of resources accounting for about a fifth of the household waste stream and between a tenth to a twentieth of commercial and industrial waste3 and, therefore, is an issue of concern to both consumers and policy makers. These concerns are reflected in WRAPs 2008-2011 business plan, which identifies packaging as one of the organisations four priority areas. Perceptions of packaging can be reinforced by the single-trip nature of the majority of packaging, especially consumer packaging. Nonetheless, there are significant examples of reusable packaging systems in existence, which may offer potential environmental and/or economic benefits over single-trip solutions. Reducing the environmental impact of packaging continues to be a major focus of innovation within the packaging industry and providers of packaging identify the following criteria as having importance in the appropriate selection of single trip or reusable packaging system:
Reduced resource consumption although the initial specification of reusable packaging may be higher than that of single-trip alternatives, considered over a number of uses, the total materials used will be less, therefore avoiding a proportion of the environmental costs (resource use, energy consumption and emissions such as carbon dioxide) and economic costs associated with the production and conversion of packaging materials
Reduced packaging waste similarly, reuse reduces total packaging waste, thereby avoiding environmental and economic costs of recycling and/or disposal Reduction of product wastage due to improved product protection during distribution, storage and or use and ability to afford protection to customer returns Improved customer loyalty providing more convenience and requiring customers (business to business or consumers) Behavioural and attitude change encouraging less reliance on and expectation for throwaway or disposable consumption. Product volumes if insufficient volumes are required, or too many size variants are required, or volumes are not at consistent or predictable levels, the initial capital investment for reusables may not be justified. Low volumes may also restrict opportunities for sector-wide collaboration
Supply chain collaboration reusable packaging systems may require investment at multiple stages of the supply chain, requiring substantial collaboration Distance to market remote customers can make return technically and economically non viable Degree of dispersal of consumers/end users this will influence the efficiency of collection Physical nature of the supply chain potential for packaging damage and destruction during distribution Nature of the product toxic and hazardous products; foodstuffs which may require additional cleaning operations to facilitate reuse Use conditions the potential for damage or destruction of the packaging during opening and use Pilferage of the reusable packaging many reusable packs make useful household or business storage, and theft of units for this purpose can be significant; for example, this is an issue for crates. In addition, some reusable packaging is constructed from valuable materials and may be stolen for secondary material value (for example, steel kegs)
25.3 million tonnes of household waste were collected in England in 2007/08, with packaging accounting for around 5 million
tonnes. Commercial and industrial waste is estimated around 68 million tonnes. Packaging waste arsing in the commercial and industrial waste streams is estimated at around 5 million tonnes. Sources: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) online statistics and Environment Agency, Commercial and Industrial Waste Survey, 2002/03.
Cube utilisation as it relates to transport and storage costs, reusable systems often occupy more volume than equivalent single-trip systems Potential for increase in product damage due to the introduction of new or different damage mechanisms Closed-loop versus ribbon and wide-dispersal distribution systems closed-loop distribution systems maintain control and visibility of reusable packaging as an asset and usually comprise a small number of locations and distribution steps. Ribbon and wide-dispersal distribution have a large number of distribution steps to a large number of highly dispersed locations and therefore both increase the number of reusables necessary for the system to operate, but also reduce return and cycle rates
Requirement for new or multiple handling systems Size of the returnable packaging pool required to service the system.
As a result of these wide ranging and variable factors, the extent to which reuse of products, especially packaging, offers genuine environmental benefits remains a central element of the waste and resource management debate. In the furtherance of the drive for resource efficient packaging, this study seeks to provide interested parties with independent and best available information. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a technique that quantifies the environmental impacts of a product or system, typically from the cradle to the grave i.e. from the winning and conversion of raw materials, through manufacturing of products, distribution, use, and finally management of wastes. Many LCA studies have been performed that evaluate and compare reusable packaging systems and equivalent single-trip packaging solutions. In addition, other environmental appraisals have also investigated the impacts of reusable versus single-trip packaging, for example spoilage studies and cost-benefit analysis studies. Although few of the LCAs and appraisals considered in this review included data on product damage, this has the potential to have a signification bearing on the environmental impact of a product or packaging system. The role of packaging in preventing damage and spoilage must be considered alongside findings in this report. Product damage is linked to the wider commercial considerations when deciding between reusable and single-trip packaging formats. In order for a reusable system to be successful, there must be clear cost benefits to the participants, quality improvements and benefits to the service; all these commercial and consumer aspects must be balanced against the environmental considerations4. As per previous WRAP projects (for example, investigating the findings of LCA studies comparing recycling versus disposal of waste materials5), a structured and reasoned review can identify key trends from the studies. Understanding the commonalities and differences between studies and results will also help WRAP and other interested parties to better understand the conditions under which reusable packaging may be environmentally preferable to single-trip packaging solutions. This will therefore support objectives to improve resource efficiency, reduce carbon emissions and prevent waste.
The Advisory Committee on Packaging on Reuse Taskforce has produced a report which provides information on the commercial and consumer barriers of reusable systems. It has a focus on primary reuse systems in the beverage sector but includes secondary and transit packaging examples as well.
5
The Environmental Benefits of Recycling 2010 Update available to download at http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Environmental_benefits_of_recycling_2010_update.d1dbe41b.8816.pdf
1.2
Project Objective
The aim of this report is to help packaging decision makers to consider single-trip and reusable packaging options on an informed basis. This is achieved by identifying the key factors from an environmental life cycle perspective that influence the environmental performance of reusable packaging systems.
1.3
How the Report is Structured
Reporting for this project is contained in two sections. This main body of the report details the factors which should be considered when choosing single-trip or reusable packaging, while Appendix 1 provides the reviews conducted which informs the content of this report. Sections 2 and 4 of this report present boxes within the text that highlight examples drawn from the individual reviews. Further details of individual LCA studies quoted in these boxes can be found in Appendix 1 - Review of LCA Studies.
2.0
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
LCA is a technique to quantify the environmental impacts of a product or system on the basis of inventories of environmental factors. This can be a product, a process or an activity. It begins at the extraction of raw materials (including mining, forestry and agriculture) through manufacturing of products, distribution, use and ends with their final disposal (landfill or incineration) or subsequent reuse or recycling, as defined in the scope of the study. At the conclusion of an LCA study, a profile of environmental inputs and outputs will have been constructed for a product, a process or an activity. The profile will provide quantitative data for the inputs; that is energy, fuels and raw materials, and the outputs; that is airborne emissions, waterborne discharges, and solid wastes. The various environmental burdens described within the study can then be compared between products, processes or activities. The methodological approach is summarised below. Figure 1: LCA methodology
Goal and scope definition
Inventory analysis
Interpretation
Impact assessment
Source: ISO 14040

ISO international standards (ISO14040:2006 and 14044:2006) define LCA methodology, but by necessity these standards are non-prescriptive. They set out a framework to be followed that ensures that LCA practitioners identify all the parameters and decisions that need to be made in order to complete a justifiable and transparent study. The methodology consists of four stages: goal and scope definition; inventory analysis; impact assessment and interpretation. The whole process is iterative, and it is possible and sometimes necessary to adjust the goal and scope as a result of findings during the inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation stages.
The goal and scope of the study defines the objectives, the system boundaries to be considered, the functional unit, data choices, and the environmental impact categories. The inventory analysis of the study collates and calculates the inputs and outputs of the system. The impact assessment of the study takes these inputs and outputs and presents their impact against the chosen environmental impact categories. Interpretation of the study findings is the process used to interpret and compare results from options.
The degree to which supply chain specific data is required and the stringency of data quality needed will depend upon the defined goal and scope. For projects where external communication of results is to be made, especially to compare alternatives or competitors, compliance with the International Standards requires that an independent critical review of the work done and data used is included. This adds time and expense to the process but ensures credibility.
10
Defining the goal and scope of the study sets the parameters for the subsequent modelling activities. Some important considerations addressed during this stage are:
Study objectives what is the principal aim of the project? This will influence the subsequent data quality requirements, the remit of the critical review panel, the expertise required for critical review, etc. Intended audience who will need to read and understand the results and conclusions? This will influence the way results are presented, the type of reporting required, etc. System boundaries what unit process are to be included within the analysis? The functional unit what is the functional unit? The function that a system delivers so that comparisons between different scenarios and alternatives can be made. Data quality indicators is the data available for modelling sufficient for delivering against the goal and scope? The choice of data and data quality which data can be sourced from publically available, average datasets and which data should be supply chain specific? Environmental impacts and categories - which environmental impacts and impact categories are to be used in the final analysis?
2.1
LCA Benefits
By collecting data that as close as possible describes the environmental burdens associated with the entire life cycle of a product, and modelling the environmental impact of the inputs and outputs, it is possible to make an objective environmental comparison between alternatives. It enables comparison of alternatives based on a number of environmental impact categories, chosen during goal and scope definition, such as CO 2, SO2, total greenhouse gas, or other airborne emissions, as well as - for example - total energy, solid wastes, aquatic and terrestrial eutrophication etc. It therefore enables judgements and selections to be made against specific impact categories or on a bundle of impact categories.
2.2
LCA Limitations
Like any model using data captured from a large number of sources and seeking to calculate an end result, the quality and accuracy of the end result is only as good as the quality of data inputs and the scientific rigour of the LCA practitioner. As with any complex modelling exercise, data inaccuracies can compound one another producing positive or negative errors. International standardisation via ISO 14040 and 14044 seek to provide a methodology and provide a framework for uniformity of approach and transparency but some limitations persist:
Setting system boundaries and choice of impact categories Selection of data sources (actual specific data, average country data, European data etc.) Data quality or data gaps Use of average data
It is possible (by selecting particular system boundaries, impact categories, data and data sources) to influence the results and conclusions of a study by a significant degree. This is indeed why the ISO standards series puts emphasis on transparency and critical review. Sensitivity analysis of results to any average data or data of questionable quality can often reveal whether any significant differences arise in a study. It follows that it is very important when interpreting LCA studies to ensure that sufficient explanation of the system and data sources is provided. Pay particular attention to any potential interests of the commissioning organisations to ensure that the system or systems have been treated fairly and appropriately.
11
Product Damage This study found that none of the LCA studies reviewed considered product damage within their system boundaries but both WRAP and the authors of the report recognise the critical importance of damage rates. It is not possible to ascertain why the boundaries of the LCAs were drawn to exclude product damage. This may be simply due to how boundaries were initially drawn for each study (i.e. with a narrow packaging focus), or may reflect the difficulties that LCA practitioners have in finding reliable data to support an analysis including product damage (both product Life Cycle Inventory data and product damage data would be required). Figure 2: What the LCAs say about their own conclusions *
The Apeal/TNO drinks study states that the borderline between ecologically favourable and unfavourable packaging is tenuous. Discrimination between concepts and materials on the basis of LCA results should be avoided when the results of in-depth sensitivity analyses are not available. Results are strongly influenced by allocation aspects (for instance, inclusion of recycling and the valuation of the input of secondary materials) and by the quality of the applied data. This drinks study also states that peer review of LCAs is one of the ways to increase the quality of an LCA. However, within these reviews there is normally no in-depth data verification as this requires a far greater effort than is commonly made. The Finnish/PTR drinks study states that across the board, the order of the overall environmental impacts of different packaging systems cannot be unambiguously answered. Instead, the conclusions on the environmental advantages of different packaging systems depend on the selected aspect; i.e. the priorities set for each impact category. However, for the setting of these priorities there are no commonly accepted methods. Therefore the choice of the aspect and its reasoning will vary depending on the context where the results of this study will be used. The iGPS/ERM pallet study states that, as a rule of thumb in LCA, differences in impacts of 25% or less are not considered to be significant due to uncertainties in inputs.
* Further details of individual LCA studies quoted can be found in Appendix 1 Review of LCA Studies report which provides information on each LCA study reviewed during the project.
12
3.0
Methodology
The research supporting this project was conducted in a series of stages:
Stage 1: Identify LCA studies and other environmental appraisals that appraise reusable and single-trip packaging in a product distribution system Stage 2: Generate a short-list of studies for detailed review Stage 3: Detailed review of short-listed studies Stage 4: Identify factors which influence the environmental impact of reusable and single-trip packaging Stage 5: Description of the factors for packaging users to consider in order to make an informed decision for single-trip and reusable packaging systems and what factors contribute most to their environmental impact.
Each of these stages is described in more detail in Appendix 2.
13
4.0
Factors which affect relative environmental performance of Single-Trip and Reusable Packaging Systems
The factors discussed in this section were identified through a review of existing environmental life cycle assessment studies and similar environmental performance appraisals. The review process identified a number of factors which influence the results and conclusions reported. This learning combined with existing LCA experience has led the review team to compile the factors which are important in considering the most appropriate choice of packaging system; single-trip or reusable and how to minimise the impact of the selected system. These factors are described in the following section. The following three questions are most often asked when considering this choice: 1 Single-trip or reusable packaging? Which system should our business choose? The simple answer is that system which minimises the impact on the environment. Typically the system with the lowest environmental burden is also the system with the lowest total cost. Lowest environmental burden results from the most efficient use of resources (raw materials, and energy) and the most effective management or reuse of wastes arising. 2 How do I measure and compare the impact of a packaging system or systems on the environment? The internationally accepted method is to conduct a life cycle assessment (LCA) of each system which quantifies the environmental burdens of a system throughout the life cycle from raw materials sourcing and manufacture through conversion into packaging, filling, warehousing, retailing, customer or consumer use, waste management, and all transport steps in between. The results are displayed for various user selected impact categories, such as, resource depletion, carbon footprint, eco toxicity, energy consumption, landfill volumes etc. 3 So, what type of things will influence the results? LCA results are highly dependent on a number of factors which relate to the product and packaging supply system. Single-trip packaging impacts are primarily associated with raw material use (including recycled content) and energy used in manufacture of the packaging and often to a lesser extent on journey distances. Reusable packaging impacts are primarily associated with journey distances and often to a lesser extent raw material use and energy used during manufacturing. These are general assumptions and in reality impacts for each type of packaging vary according to a number of factors described below. In the following section, factors most likely to have significant affects are described as primary factors, those that are likely to have second order affects are described as secondary factors6. For completeness a section on other factors is also included. Ideally, prioritising or ranking the factors would be beneficial for decision makers. However, unfortunately it is not possible to provide a relative scale of their importance (within each of the primary and secondary categories) because the significance of each factor varies depending on the specific product, packaging, supply chain and logistics criteria. Indeed factors that apply in the UK may be different from those in other countries. The LCAs reviewed did not consider burdens associated with product manufacturer or damage, and for this reason product damage has not been included in the list of primary factors. However, product damage has a signification influence on the environmental burdens of a packaged product system and should be considered alongside the primary, secondary and other factors presented below.
Examination of the individual Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies allowed those factors which consistently had a significant
influence on the results - for most impact categories - to be identified. It is these factors that have been categorised as primary factors. Those factors which also have an influence, but typically affect results to a lesser degree or only influence results for isolated impact categories have been classified as secondary.
14
4.1
Primary Factors
4.1.1 Raw materials and energy used in manufacture

Raw materials - sources, their extraction and manufacturing processes - vary dependent on material type. These variables affect the amount of energy, resources, and transportation required to bring them to the point of conversion into a particular pack. In turn, the energy and resources required by the packaging converter to manufacture a particular pack vary dependent on material type and manufacturing process. Thus, three 500ml containers manufactured from glass, plastic, or metal will exert differing burdens on the environment dependent on the material used. In addition the type of plastic or metal used, the colour of the pack, and the conversion method will also have an effect. Single-trip packaging systems total environmental impact is more dependent on raw material and energy use in pack manufacture than is the case for reusable packaging. This is due to the whole burden being associated with a single trip, whereas this burden is shared equally between the total number of lifetime trips for a unit of reusable packaging. Whilst reusable packaging systems are typically (although not always) heavier using more materials than singletrip packaging, this greater burden is divided between a number of trips. Therefore, the environmental impact associated with raw materials and energy used in manufacture is usually lower than is the case for single-trip packaging. Figure 3: What the LCAs say about raw materials and energy used in manufacture The Apeal/TNO study states that:
All systems are sensitive to changes in the mass of primary packaging For the single-trip packaging systems considered, the primary packaging largely determines the environmental impact for nearly all of the impact categories considered. Transport and secondary packaging are of lesser importance.
Both primary packaging and transport determine the environmental impact of the reusable bottles. Secondary packaging is of lesser importance.
The Spanish D of E/Itene tray study very specifically defines the material types for the single-trip as corrugated board packaging including recycled content. The RPCC/Franklin tray study states in almost every product application studied, the benefits of the closed-loop reusable plastic tray pooling operation more than offset the benefits of lighter container weight and a high recycling rate for single-trip corrugated trays. As a result, total energy requirements for the reusable tray are lower than corresponding single-trip trays in all average use scenarios. Reusable trays also have lower total energy requirements than corresponding single-trip trays in eight out of ten alternative scenarios evaluating the affects of lower reuse rates and higher loss rates for RPCs compared to lightweighted single-trip trays. The RPCC/Franklin tray study states that reusable plastic trays are modelled at the average weight and that single-trip corrugated trays are modelled at the reported container weight for one piece trays. Paperboard industry statistics were used to model the composition and recycled content of linerboard and medium and the iterative cycles associated with recovery and recycling of boxes at end of life.
4.1.2 Trip rates of reusables

It follows that the number of trips made by reusable packaging in its lifetime is critical because it determines the allocation of the most significant environmental burden, package manufacturing, to each trip made by the reusable packaging. The more trips a unit of reusable packaging makes the lower its proportion of that burden becomes. However, as the number of trips increases the proportional decrease in environmental burden becomes lower.
15
Figure 4 Graph to show how the environmental burden of manufacturing reusable packaging changes as the number of reuses increases [x axis = trip rate; y axis = % of environmental burden]
Thus, if a pack makes two trips the manufacturing burden is 50%, if it makes ten trips 10% of the manufacturing burden is allocated to each trip. Environmental impact of reusable packaging decreases in an inverse square relationship to the number of trips. Therefore once reusable packaging reaches ten trips the incremental benefit of a further ten trips is reduced to 5% of the manufacturing burdens. Once twenty trips are made the incremental benefit of a further ten trips is 1.67% and so on. Figure 5 The two graphs below zoom in on the curve in Figure 4 to illustrate how the percentage of environmental burden changes between ten and twenty trips, and twenty and thirty trips
A returnable that makes fifty trips only receives 3% less of the environmental burdens associated with the life cycle up to and including pack manufacture, than one that makes a mere twenty trips. Increasing reuse rates, however, is likely to continue to increase the cost savings, through reducing the replenishment rate for end of life reusable packaging. The number of trips reusable packaging will make in its lifetime is itself dependent on a number of interconnected factors including:
Return rates The design specification of the reusable pack will significantly influence its durability The frequency of product shipments Time taken to return to point of filling from point of unpacking The life of the product in the market Losses due to theft or damage Inspection, cleaning and repair activities.
16
Figure 6: What the LCAs say about trip rates of reusable packaging Lower levels of trip rates for reusable packaging favour single trip packaging, higher trip rates for each unit of reusable packaging favour reusable packaging due to the division of manufacturing burdens discussed above. The following examples from the review provide some indications:
Swiss water / ESU drinks study favours reusables at 50 trips PETcore /IFEU drinks study favours reusables at 20 to 25 trips Finnish / PTR drinks study favours reusables at 18 to 32 trips iGPS / ERM pallet study favours reusables at 100 trips Rehrig / Franklin shrinkwrap v crate study favours reusables at 30 & 60 trips Linpac / Sustain tray study favours reusables at 92 trips FEFCO / Vogtlander tray study favours single trip at 20 & 30 trips Spanish D of E / Itene tray study favours single trip at 20 trips
Using in-depth sensitivity analysis, the Apeal/TNO drinks study review identifed that the trip rate (number of cycles per bottle) for refillable systems both reusable PET and reusable glass - are sensitive to this parameter. Decreasing the number of cycles leads to an increase in environmental impact. Increasing the number of cycles has the opposite effect, although the effect of an increase in cycles is less strong than a decrease. The Finnish/PTR drinks study determines trip rate through a detailed analysis of reusable losses in all parts of the supply chain; trip rate is calculated using that data. The Swiss water/ESU drinks study states that 1.5-litre PET bottles, 1-litre glass returnable bottles and jugs accommodating 18.9 litres are each capable of being reused 50 times. The Linpac/Sustain tray study is based on average plastic crate life cycle of 92 return trips over five years. An Ademe review of previous studies states that return rates for reusable packaging are poorly reported in general and rarely based on actual data. The Spanish D of E/Itene tray study states that from the enquiries made to packaging manufacturers and consumers regarding the number of rotations that folding plastic crates could actually withstand, no clear agreement emerged. The manufacturers claimed that the crates would tolerate mechanical stress over a life of 100 uses. However, users of the crates stated that in day-to-day practice this number was not easily reached, due to damage caused by inappropriate use, fractured hinges (the weakest part in the structure of the crate), and the deficient appearance of a repeatedly used plastic crate (despite being technically fit for purpose). Consequently, a standard value of 20 rotations was adopted for the folding plastic crate. This parameter was studied by means of a sensitivity analysis, beginning with a low usage value (5 rotations) through to a very high value (100 rotations), and including two further values for the number of cycles of use of the folding crate (the standard of 20 and the intermediate of 50 rotations). The RPCC/ Franklin tray study states that one factor dominates the findings. Multiple trips (turns) in a reusable tray closed operating system lead to materials efficiencies that create relatively low environmental burdens that are only partly offset by backhaul and cleaning steps. In the single trip tray system a container is manufactured for each trip to retail. Recovery and recycling rates for reusable trays are high, but the production step (including recycling) introduces a higher level of burdens. The more lifetime uses that can be achieved for a reusable tray, the lower the environmental burdens for tray production that are allocated to each use of the tray. Thus, the success of reusable tray systems depends on keeping reusable trays in circulation for repeated reuse and recycling. Maximum reductions in tray production burdens and disposal burdens are achieved by multiple uses of a tray without remanufacturing. The RPCC/ Franklin tray study states that Reusable plastic trays are modelled at the lifetime use rate and loss rate reported by four tray pool suppliers. The Rehrig/Franklin crate study uses the following two scenarios for reusable plastic crates:
10 turns/year, 6-year life, 5% annual losses 10 turns/year, 3-year life, 10% annual losses.
17
4.1.3 Transportation distances

Usually when a comparison is made between single-trip and reusable packaging the mode of transport of packed product will be the same; if road trucks are used for distributing product they will be used regardless of pack type selected. Transport distance, however, is a highly significant factor in defining the environmental impact and when making comparisons between single-trip and reusable packaging systems. This is due to the return trip for reusable packaging increasing the number of truck kilometres required for the system to operate.
For primary reusable packaging - such as bottles - the journey distance is doubled, the reusable packaging will take up just as much space empty on its return journey as it did on its outward journey full of product.
For reusable distribution packaging - such as crates - although the journey distance will be doubled, they are usually designed to nest (one crate sitting inside another when empty) or to fold down, considerably reducing the volume for the return journey.
Reusable distribution packaging of this type (when nested or folded flat) will often take up between 10% and 25% of the volume of product filled and stacked packs. This is also true for reusable tertiary packaging such as pallets where their returning volume is around 10% of the palletised load on the outward journey. Naturally, benefits are only realised if the vehicles returning with empty reusable packaging are also transporting other products or materials to occupy the remaining 75% to 90% of volume remaining. The same can be said for single-trip packaging (a vehicle delivering product in single-trip packaging also needs to make a return trip), however, in this case 100% of the vehicles volume is available to backhaul other products. The environmental burden of this return journey, or percentage of the return journey, should be allocated to the single-trip or reusable packaging system in order to reflect the true environmental burden of the total system. The greater the journey distance the more significant the impact of the environmental burdens of transportation become to the total impact of the system. This is true for both single-trip and reusable packaging systems. However, the environmental burdens associated with transportation of reusables become significant to the total system at much shorter journey distances. This is due not only to the return of empty packs but also to the reduced manufacturing burdens described in section 4.1.1 above. The relative importance of journey distance is therefore far more significant to reusables. Figure 7 The two graphs below show how the environmental burden varies with the number of trips [x axis = number of trips; y axis = size of impact]
18
Figure 8 The graphs below illustrate how the environmental burden varies with cumulative trips; and how the environmental burden varies as journey distance increases
Figure 9: What the LCAs say about transportation distances Longer journey distances tend to favour single trip packaging, shorter journey distances tend to favour reusable packaging. The return trip for reusables becomes significant and lower cube utilisation becomes more important. It is impossible to define the exact journey distance that will favour one system over the other due to other system variables. The following examples from the review provide some indications:
Swiss Water / ESU drinks study favours reusables at distances of 50km PETcore drinks study favours reusables at 200km FEFCO / Vogtlander tray study favours single trip at 500km Spanish D of E / Itene tray study favours single trip at 2,500km EC / Ecolas Pira review defines 100km as favouring reusables and 1000km favouring single trip and the region in the middle being rather grey due to other system parameters.
The Apeal/TNO study states the results for the reusable glass bottle are sensitive to the transport distance between filler and retailer or point of sale, but all other systems are insensitive. The Swiss water/ESU drinks study estimated transportation distances, but did consider minimum and maximum scenarios. The PETcore/IFEU drinks study uses different transport distances for reusables and single trip packaging: German UBA distribution data, 190km for reusable glass bottles and 250km for single trip bottles; and 120km for refillable glass bottles and 320km for single trip PET bottles were also modelled. An Ademe review of previous studies states the most sensitive factor for reusable packaging is the distribution distance.
19
4.1.4 Pool size for reusables

The number of packaging units required to support a reusable packaging system is significantly higher than the number of packaging units required for the immediate and current product supply at any one point in time. This is to allow for the time taken for the return logistics, cleaning, seasonal peaks in volumes, damages and losses in the system. Thus, when comparing single-trip packaging with reusable packaging, the full burdens for including the packaging pool should be accounted for. In practice LCA studies rarely account for the pool required. The number of reusables required in the distribution system at any one time and the potential significance to the impacts is dependent on a number of factors:
Diversity and dispersal of the supply chain The average time taken for the reusable to go through the whole distribution cycle Average and degree of kurtosis (degree of statistical spread) in the distribution of journey distances in the supply chain The level of stock held in each part of the supply chain Efficiency of collection systems Asset visibility Sales volumes and seasonality Losses and damages.
The total number of reusables in a system is often indicated by the reusable packs trip rate per year or the number of packaging asset turns per year. For example, in the scenario below, 2,000 product deliveries (to customer) are required each week and deliveries operate during 50 weeks in each year, equivalent to 100,000 deliveries annually. Therefore, 100,000 single-trip packaging units would be required annually. For a Reusable Packaging System:
The time taken for a reusable pack to go through the whole distribution cycle (closed-loop) is 10 weeks; therefore, each reusable pack will make 5 trips per year Ignoring losses, seasonal variation etc, 20,000 reusable packaging units would be required for the system to operate If losses and damages are 2.5% per cycle, i.e. 50 units per 2,000 deliveries, and each cycle takes 10 weeks. 22,000 reusable packaging units would be required annually.
Table 1: Scenario illustrating pool size requirements for single-trip and reusable packaging over 100 week period Single-trip packaging Number required Number required per week cumulative 2,000 2,000 2,000 4,000 2,000 6,000 2,000 8,000 2,000 10,000 2,000 12,000 2,000 14,000 2,000 16,000 2,000 18,000 2,000 20,000 2,000 22,000 2,000 24,000 2,000 40,000 2,000 60,000 2,000 100,000 2,000 200,000 Reusable packaging Number required Number required per week cumulative 2,000 2,000 2,000 4,000 2,000 6,000 2,000 8,000 2,000 10,000 2,000 12,000 2,000 14,000 2,000 16,000 2,000 18,000 2,000 20,000 50 20,050 50 20,100 50 20,500 50 21,000 50 22,000 50 24,400
Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 20 30 50 100
20
Figure 10: What the LCAs say about pool size for reusables The RPCC/Franklin tray study states that an important assumption in the modelling of reusable plastic tray systems in this analysis is the assumption that the pooling system is a shared-use pool operating at steady state. That is, it is assumed that a pool of reusable trays is already in existence and available for any and all applications (produce or other) that use each size of reusable trays. Thus, each produce system is charged with replacing the number of reusable trays used up by shipping that commodity, based on the number of shipments in reusable trays required to move the produce, divided by the useful lives per reusable tray, plus replacement of losses of reusable trays during use, e.g., due to theft. The study continues to state that although an excess supply of reusable trays (float or pool) must be in place throughout the system in order to ensure that a sufficient number of returnable trays are circulating to and from growers and retailers within the time frame to meet their needs, these reusable trays are available for any and all uses of each size RPC rather than designated specifically for a certain type of produce. For a shared-use pool of reusable trays, any use of the reusable tray for any application is withdrawing reusable tray uses from the pool rather than individual containers. To calculate the number of reusable trays used up for shipping 1,000 tons of produce, the number of reusable tray trips required to ship 1,000 tons is divided by the number of lifetime trips per reusable tray and adjusted for the loss rate to determine the number of reusable trays that must be produced to replace the reusable tray uses withdrawn from the pool.
Because reusable packaging is by design often heavier than single-trip packaging the effect of this pool can be significant. If in the scenario presented previously the reusable packaging format is twice the weight of the single-trip packaging, the total mass of raw material used to manufacture the packaging will be approximately the same after 21 weeks (42,000 single-trip units will have been used, or 20,550 reusable packaging units). However, if the weight of the reusable pack is four times greater the mass will be approximately the same on week 43. How significant the pool is to total environmental burden is dependent on the lifetime of the reusable and the product systems using the reusables. The majority of LCA studies do not include the pool of reusables on the basis that once the system is functioning, an equilibrium is reached whereby the new packaging introduced to the system are dependent on product orders minus packaging returned. Shared pools of reusable packaging (where a number of packer fillers are utilising the same reusable packaging system) have the benefit of smoothing out peaks and troughs in demand, thereby reducing the potential pool of reusables required to fulfil individual needs.
4.1.5 Vehicle utilisation

Typically, although not in all instances, reusable packaging is heavier and occupies greater volume by design in order to withstand the rigours of multiple trips. In most circumstances this affects the efficiency of product distribution either:
As a consequence of the higher mass reaching the constraints or limits of palletisation or transportation, or more commonly The volume affecting the amount of product that can be stored or transported in a given cubic capacity or vehicle size.
The effect of this reduction in the cube utilisation of pallets or transport systems is that a greater number of transport journeys are required to transport a given amount of product. Fuel and energy requirements therefore rise and environmental burdens increase. Another factor can be significant here. Reusable transit packaging formats, such as crates, are often used for a wide variation of products and are part of large pools. To restrict the number of crate variants, they are manufactured in a small number of sizes based on the universal 600x400mm footprint, thus maximising utilisation
21
of footprint area. However, the number of height variants is also restricted to one or a small number of variants in order to manage the system efficiently. This can result in the shipment of considerable volumes of air as headspace within the crates. LCA studies should take account of this reduced efficiency for product distribution in reusable packaging systems and particularly in transit packaging situations Figure 11: What the LCAs say about vehicle utilisation The FEFCO / Vogtlander study compares shipping volumes of three tray sizes in single-trip corrugated and reusable plastic and finds the product volume available for the single-trip packaging is significantly higher in all instances. For example, it calculates that the maximum product volume that can be shipped in a standard European road trailer is 69,420 litres for standard footprint 600x400x240mm single trip corrugated trays versus 57,096 litres for a reusable plastic tray of the same dimensions. A difference of 21.6%, or in other words for every 4 vehicle deliveries in single trip packaging 5 vehicle deliveries would be required in reusable packaging to deliver the same volume of produce. Although not identified within the LCAs short-listed for detailed review, there can be supply chain situations where single-trip packaging is decanted into a reusable format. Double handling and repacking will increase the environmental burden and indeed the costs of the system. For these reasons, this practice is not normally commercially attractive unless there is some other supply chain advantage to do so or to suit specific retailer logistic operations. The CERES Logistics cost-study7 examines this issue in more detail.
4.1.6 Recycled content and recycling rates

In principle, it should be relatively easy to measure and gather necessary data on recycled content. In practice, data used within the LCAs on percentage of recycled material are often based on averages, fluctuates with production batch and will include varying proportions of post supply chain waste and in-house regrind or off-cuts. How significant these variations are to results will vary from system to system, process to process and material to material. Both single-trip and reusable packaging can have a recycled content. The inclusion of recycled content will influence the scale of the environmental burdens of raw materials used. Figure 12: What the LCAs say about recycled content To date LCA studies generally make no allowance for this greater efficiency in recycling reusable transit packaging. Most studies take country specific material recycling averages as representative of the specific packaging studied recycling rate. This potentially ignores variations which may occur within material types dependent on product characteristics, point of consumption, and consumer behaviour. The majority of LCAs are based on averages for generic materials which may or may not represent reality. Some studies assume that the percentage of packaging recycled for same use is equal to the average material recycling rate; others assume that a known, estimated or guessed percentage of packaging is recycled for same use and the remainder for alternative use. In the latter instance the burdens associated with the percentage allocated to alternative use are sometimes included in the original system boundaries or allocated to the new use. The Apeal/TNO study states the aluminium drinks can results are very sensitive to a lowering of the percentage of secondary aluminium considered in the can body. The steel can and drinks carton are highly insensitive to changes in this parameter. The Finnish/PTR drinks study determines recycling rates from actual data for all packaging systems. The PETcore/IFEU study uses data from DSD kerbside collection for one way PET bottles, however as data from retail collection via deposit schemes were not available, information from Sweden was used in the LCA study.
7
Study to consider the comparative costs of corrugated cases and reusable plastic containers (2007) CERES Logistics, commissioned by the Confederation of Paper Industries.
22
4.2
4.2 Secondary Factors
4.2.1 Allocation
Allocation is the method of attributing the environmental impact or benefit of a life cycle stage to the studied system and is particularly relevant to recycling. For example, if a PET bottle is recycled into textile fibres how should we distribute the environmental benefit, between the bottle and the fibre, of the recycling linked to the saving of the raw material two systems. Possible allocation methods are:
No benefit is attributed to the packaging that supplies the recycled material. The downstream system that uses the recycled material is attributed all the benefit Extend the system boundaries so that the packaging that supplies the recycled material and the downstream recycled material both receive the benefit; several options are possible:
ISO 14044 recommends that 100% of the benefit is allocated to the packaging that supplies the recycled material An even split of benefits is allocated to each system Allocation on the basis of market value of materials
Figure 13: What the LCAs say about allocation The PETcore/IFEU study includes within the system boundaries of one way PET bottles recycled products not fed back into the same system or packaging item. Thus one way PET bottles receive the environmental benefit of recycling into fibres for cloth, sheets and strapping. However, the study expands the system of glass bottles to encompass the same secondary products despite these being fictitious.
23
4.2.2
Location of recycling
Transportation distances from the point of waste packaging collection to its eventual point of recycling and its return to point of filling is highly variable and can affect results significantly. Recovery of post consumer single-trip packaging is less straightforward and efficient than recovery of post commercial packaging. Post-consumer recovery requires collection of material from highly dispersed sources (i.e. households) which requires further sorting and cleaning prior to recycling. Recovery of post-commercial packaging occurs from a smaller number of locations in larger quantities, yielding greater transport efficiencies and is commonly segregated by material, and less contaminated. Figure 14: What the LCAs say about location of recycling An extreme example would be used PET bottles recovered in Europe, baled and transported to China for recycling and then returned as raw material to Europe for manufacture into new bottles. The PETcore/IFEU LCA model also takes account of 80% of one way PET bottles being exported to Far East for recycling.
4.2.3 End of life waste management

The way in which end of life waste management of materials is taken into account in LCA studies varies considerably particularly when comparing single-trip versus reusable packaging and also primary packaging versus secondary. In the studies reviewed, single-trip primary packaging waste management is dealt with more transparently and robustly than reusable secondary packaging, which is often not detailed at all. It is commonly assumed that reusable secondary packaging is recycled once damaged beyond repair. Whilst collection systems for reusables are often more controlled and focused into a small number of locations, the automatic assumption that these are then recycled may, or may not, hold true. Another area of uncertainty relates to the type of incineration, i.e. with or without energy recovery. Most studies that describe incineration as an end of life waste management scenario do not specify whether or not this incineration is conducted with or without energy recovery. It is, therefore, unclear as to whether the system has been credited in any way for energy returned to the system in incineration. Figure 15: What the LCAs say about end of life waste management The Apeal/TNO study states that for waste disposal options (percentage waste to incineration versus percentage to landfill) the drinks carton and aluminium can display some sensitivity in relation to changes in waste management scenarios. The Finnish/PTR drinks study uses waste management scenarios specific to Finland, i.e. landfill. The RPCC/Franklin tray study states that reusable plastic trays produce less solid waste than corresponding single trip corrugated trays in all produce applications and scenarios studied. This is due to several key factors:
The burdens for production of reusable trays are allocated over a (large) number of useful lives, Reusable trays that remain in the closed-loop pooling system are recycled when they are removed from service, Losses of Reusable trays from the closed-loop system are small, Single trip trays make only one trip before they are recycled (requiring repulping and remanufacture) or disposed.
4.2.4 Transportation mode

This is important because the energy consumed per tonne for differing transport modes varies considerably. The US department of energy describe truck transportation as using between 15 and 30 times as much energy per ton per kilometre tas rail distribution.
24
Table 2: Mode of Transport Energy use MJ t-1 km-1 Cargo Ship 0.37 Air Cargo 15.9 Rail 0.23 Heavy truck 3.5 Medium truck 6.8
Source: US Department of Energy 2007
Having said this, when making comparisons between single-trip and reusable packaging systems it is usually assumed that the transportation mode will be the same for both systems. Figure 16: What the LCAs say about transportation mode A number of the studies reviewed do not appear to adequately describe the mode of transport used or mix of transportation included in the system. It is possible to make educated guesses based on clues within the study to the mode used; for land transportation this is generally truck in Europe and the US (rail freight is more common in some European countries and in the US than in the UK). However, some of the studies refer to sizes of distribution packaging which are specifically designed for particular modes of transportation, but do not appear to include that transportation mode in the LCA. A good example of this is the Euro Pallet; with dimensions of 1200x800mm this pallet was originally designed to optimally fit rail car dimensions, whereas the other standard pallet in Europe the 1200x1000mm was selected to more optimally fit road truck deck dimensions. Both of these pallets are frequently used across all transportation modes. The Swiss water/ESU drinks study defined vehicle type for all parts of the journey.
4.2.5 Energy mix in the system

Methods of energy generation vary regionally and consist of mixes of fossil fuel (oil and gas), hydro-electric, nuclear, wind, and solar generation. Each method of generation has its own raw material depletion, water usage and emissions footprint for each unit of energy produced. Energy generation in a packaging system has a major impact on the results of an LCA study and therefore the energy mix chosen is important. Figure 17: What the LCAs say about energy mix in the system Most LCAs choose to use national or regional averages and use the same energy mix when comparing systems. The Finnish/PTR drinks study uses average European power data for all processes outside Finland and local Finnish data for processes conducted in Finland.
4.2.6 Repair of reusable secondary packaging

The service life and reuse rates of reusable packaging are dependent on return in serviceable condition. If the reusable packaging is damaged and unfit for return into the distribution system it is either scrapped and enters the end of life waste management system or it is repaired and then returned to the reusable packaging pool. Such repair systems are normally only part of selected reusable transport packaging systems, such as pallets and crates. Where repair does take place it may vary considerably from minor refurbishment to major work.
4.2.7 Cleaning of reusable packaging

Most systems for reusable packaging involve cleaning between uses. Reusable primary packaging is usually cleaned as part of the filling operation. Reusable distribution packaging such as crates, trays and pallets are either washed prior to each use or periodically or can be washed as part of filling operations, by the pool owner or by contracted third party washing sites.
25
The energy and resources used in cleaning primary packaging as evidenced in the LCAs reviewed are normally a relatively small part of the environmental burdens of the system. There was insufficient detail in the distribution packaging LCAs to conclude that cleaning operations are a secondary or primary factor. Figure 18: What the LCAs say about cleaning of reusable packaging A number of the studies include washing and sanitisation of reusable packaging within system boundaries, for example the Finnish drinks study and the Spanish crate/tray study. For others it is not clear from the reports if the cleaning process is included.
4.2.8 Secondary, tertiary and ancillary packaging

Drinks packaging typically includes a number of ancillary and secondary packaging items e.g. labels, closures, adhesives, trays or crates, shrink-wrap, pallets, pallet shrink or stretch wrap. Distribution packaging such as trays and crates are often distributed palletised with stretch wrap, or stretch netting, or corner posts and strap banding. Generally, and where these items are used for a single trip, they represent only a small percentage of the overall packaging materials used in any system and as such contribute far less to the environmental impacts. Where these items are reused, for example plastic crates used in the distribution of reusable glass bottles, they can become more significant. Figure 19: What the LCAs say about secondary, tertiary and ancillary packaging Again some of the studies detail secondary, tertiary and ancillary packaging in great detail, e.g. Finnish drinks study. Most of the studies include them within their system boundaries but do not specify them in any detail if at all.
4.3
Other Factors
4.3.1 Pack sizes

Single-trip and reusable packaging available in the current market are often of different sizes; this is particularly evident in the drinks studies reviewed. Any comparison of packs of different sizes even when compared using the study functional unit will favour larger pack sizes. This is because smaller packs have a larger surface area for a given volume of product than larger packs and are therefore heavier and use more materials. Figure 20: What the LCAs say about pack sizes In the IFEU Petcore study a comparison was made between a single-trip 1.5l PET bottle and a 0.7l returnable glass bottle, as these were the most prevalent in the market. The size variation affects the volume of water to pack weight ratio. A returnable glass bottle of 1.5l capacity has a higher water to pack weight ratio and would therefore exert less affect on the environment per litre. This is important because where different pack sizes are compared it will always be favourable for the larger pack. The important question to consider in this example is whether there are design constraints in the supply chain that limit the returnable glass bottle to 0.7l capacity or whether the bottle is present in the market for historic or traditional reasons and a 1.5l returnable bottle would be entirely acceptable in that supply chain. If it is acceptable, would the study be more robust if like for like pack sizes had been compared?
4.3.2 Commissioning and Sponsoring Organisation

The majority of LCA studies conducted, and indeed of those reviewed in this report, are sponsored or commissioned by parties who have a vested commercial interest in the findings of those studies. The body
26
performing the study will follow the goal and scope defined by the commissioning organisation. The LCA standards frameworks including ISO 14040 allow methodological choices to be made within a framework and cannot govern data robustness. LCAs conducted on behalf of interested parties are therefore able to express the results and in particular the conclusions of a study to favour their own interests.
4.3.3 Carbon sequestration

This is the temporary locking up of carbon caused by the absorption of carbon into plant materials as they grow. Sometimes a LCA study positively allocates the system with credit for this absorption for paper and board products. Figure 21: What the LCAs say about carbon sequestration The Spanish D of E/Itene tray study states that differences in results between reusable plastic and single-trip corrugated board trays is particularly significant in the climate change category, where the impact of corrugated board is not only lower than that of the plastic crate, but it in fact reduces this impact. This is due to the CO2 sink effect caused by the plantations of fast-growth species of trees from which the raw material for paper manufacture is obtained. Scientific studies have shown that CO2 fixing no longer takes place once a forest has become mature, and thus fast-growth species actually provide an opportunity for environmental improvement (ASPAPEL, 2005). Furthermore, secondary raw materials deriving from used paper and board packaging are also used in the manufacture of these boxes, thus reducing the impacts associated with raw material exploitation and transformation. PAS 2050 states that where atmospheric CO2 is taken up by a product, and that product is not a living organism, the impact of this carbon storage over the 100-year assessment period shall be included in the assessment of the life cycle green house gas (GHG) emissions of the product. Where carbon of biogenic origin forms part of a product, the impact of this carbon storage over the 100-year assessment period shall be included in the assessment of the life cycle GHG emissions of the product. The assessment of the impact of GHG emissions arising from the life cycle of products shall be the CO2e impact of the GHG emissions over the 100-year period following the formation of the product (i.e. the 100-year assessment period). Emissions arising from all life cycle phases of the product, except the use phase and the final disposal phase, shall be treated as a single release of emissions at the beginning of the 100-year assessment period. Where all GHG emissions arising from the use phase or from final disposal occur within one year following the formation of the product, those emissions shall be treated as a single release of emissions at the beginning of the 100-year assessment period. Where emissions arising from the use phase or from final disposal occur over more than one year, a factor shall be applied to represent the weighted average time the emissions are present in the atmosphere during the 100-year assessment period.
27
5.0
Conclusions
This report has identified the key factors, from an environmental life cycle perspective, that influence the environmental and relative performance of reusable packaging systems and single-trip packaging. Factors identified throughout the review of LCAs have been categorised into primary (those having most significance), secondary (those having a relatively smaller impact) and other (other important factors to consider). Product damage should also be considered as a significant factor influencing the environmental burdens of packaged systems. However, damage was out of scope of the LCAs that were reviewed and for this reason, although significant, it has not been presented as a factor in the table below, but instead included in discussion that follows. The primary factors along with the main conclusions are summarised below:
Raw materials and energy used in manufacture

Single-trip packaging systems total environmental impact are more dependent on raw material and energy use in pack manufacture than reusable packaging. This is due to the whole of the burden being associated with a single trip, whereas for reusable packaging, despite the burden being considerably greater it is shared equally between the total number of lifetime trips.
Trip rates for reusables

The number of trips made by reusable packaging in its lifetime is critical because it determines the allocation of the most significant environmental burden, package manufacturing, to each trip made by the reusable packaging. The more trips a reusable packaging unit makes, the lower its proportion of that burden becomes. However, as the number of trips increases, the proportional decrease in environmental burden becomes lower. Lower trip rates for reusables favour single-trip packaging, higher trip rates favour reusable packaging due to the division of manufacturing burdens discussed above.
Transportation distances
Longer journey distances tend to favour single-trip packaging, shorter journey distances tend to favour reusable packaging. The return trip for reusables becomes significant and lower cube utilisation becomes more important. The return trip for reusable packaging increases the number of truck kilometres required for the system to operate.
For primary reusable packaging - such as bottles - the journey distance is doubled; the reusable packaging will take up just as much space empty on its return journey as it did on its outward journey full of product. For reusable distribution packaging - such as crates - although the journey distance will be doubled, it is usually designed to nest (one crate sitting inside another when empty) or to fold down, considerably reducing the volume for the return journey.
Pool size for reusables

The number of packaging units required to support a reusable packaging system is significantly higher than the number of packaging units required for the immediate and current product supply at any one point in time. This is to allow for the time taken for the return logistics, cleaning, seasonal peaks in volumes, damages and losses in the system. Thus, when comparing single-trip packaging with reusable packaging, the full burdens of this packaging pool should be considered.
Vehicle utilisation
Reusable packaging is usually (although not always) heavier and often occupies greater volume by design in order to withstand the rigours of multiple trips. In most circumstances this affects the efficiency of product distribution either as a consequence of the higher mass reaching the constraints or limits of palletisation or transportation, or more commonly the volume affecting the amount of product that can be stored or transported in a given cubic capacity or vehicle size. The effect of this reduction in the cube utilisation of pallets or transport systems is that a greater number of transport journeys are required to transport a given amount of product. Fuel and energy requirements therefore rise and environmental burdens increase.
28
Recycled content and post use material recycling rates

In general, the higher the recycled content of a pack the lower the environmental burden of manufacture of that particular pack becomes. This is due to the avoidance of a number of processes in the upstream conversion of the materials used to manufacture the pack. This reduced environmental burden usually outweighs the environmental burdens associated with recovery. Material recycling rates impact availability of recycled raw material. Secondary and other factors are concluded below:
Allocation
There are different methods of attributing the environmental impact or benefit of a life cycle stage to the studied system; the chosen method will impact on the overall environmental burden, although not as significantly as the primary factors.
Carbon sequestration
Deciding whether to credit a packaging system for the absorption - or locking up - of carbon for paper and board products will also influence the systems overall environmental burden.
Location of recycling
The distance between the location of waste packaging collection and point of recycling, and its subsequent filling, can affect the environmental burden of the system.
End of life waste management

End of life waste management of packaging needs to be taken into account. It is common for waste management of single-trip primary packaging to be more transparent than waste management for reusable packaging or secondary packaging.
Transportation mode
Although the energy consumed by different modes of transportation varies considerably, when comparing between single-trip and reusable packaging systems, the transportation mode is usually assumed to be the same for both.
Energy mix in the system

Methods of energy generation vary and each method has varying impacts. Energy generation is important as it can have a major impact on the overall impact of a packaging system.
Repair of reusable secondary packaging

Repairs to reusable packaging, to enable them to be returned to the reusable packaging pool, can vary from minor refurbishment to major work; the associated environmental impact will therefore vary accordingly.
Cleaning of reusable packaging

The energy and resources used in cleaning reusable primary packaging are normally a relatively small part of the environmental burdens of the whole system. It is less clear what the contribution to burdens is for secondary packaging.
Secondary, tertiary and ancillary packaging

Consider ancillary and secondary packaging items, e.g. labels, shrink-wrap etc. Generally, where used for a single-trip, these items represent only a small percentage of the overall packaging materials and contribute relatively less to the overall environmental impacts.
Other Factors
In addition to the factors identified in the LCA studies and described above as primary or secondary factors, the authors and WRAP recognise that other factors also have potentially significant impact on both the environmental performance of different packaging systems and also on the assessment and interpretation of relative environmental impacts. These include:
29
Product damage
The LCAs reviewed in this study focused on packaging related environmental burdens and did not consider burdens associated with product manufacture or damage. This report has therefore reviewed differences that are attributable to the packaging system only. However, product damage occurring during normal distribution and storage of packaged products has a significant influence on the environmental burdens of a packaged product system. It is also recognised that the type and level of damage sustained in a given product distribution will vary for different for single-trip and reusable packaging formats. A fundamental role of any packaging is to deliver the product to the customer or consumer in fit for purpose, undamaged condition. If a product is damaged in distribution it results in the waste of that product, or it being sold at reduced cost or having to be repaired. Because all the product manufacturing, packaging and logistics processes of that damaged item have already occurred, and have been wasted as a consequence of the damage, their impact on the environmental burden of the complete system can be significant. This is particularly important where the ratio of the environmental burden associated with product manufacture versus packaging and delivery is high or where damage rates are significant. The burden of product damage may outweigh the combined burden of all the factors relating to the packaging surrounding it. Therefore, the impact on product damage rates between different single-trip and reusable packaging systems is a highly significant commercial and environmental factor.
Pack sizes
When comparing packs of different sizes, larger pack sizes are likely to come out favourably; this is because smaller packs have a larger surface area for a given volume of product than larger packs and are therefore heavier and use more materials.
Commissioning and sponsoring organisation

When LCAs are conducted on behalf of interested parties there is the potential to express the results and in particular the conclusions of a study to favour the sponsors interests. In such cases, it is prudent to exercise caution when interpreting the results. In summary, despite a number of limitations of Life Cycle Assessments, including the lack of consideration of product damage impacts, the reviews highlight that data and information from LCAs can be useful when considering reusable packaging systems. Identified through the review of LCA studies, this report sets out the key factors that influence the environmental performance of single-trip and reusable packaging systems. The identification of these primary, secondary and other factors should help packaging decision makers to consider alternative packaging options on an informed basis and - crucially - will help establish priorities for minimising the environmental impacts of those systems, whichever format is used. The LCAs also demonstrate that the relative merits of single use and reusable packaging are dependent on the specific circumstances of the individual product, packaging format, supply chain and logistics in a given situation. It is not possible to state outright that one packaging format is generically environmentally preferable to the other, as it may vary according to these factors. The reviews show that conclusions on the environmental advantages of different packaging systems are dependant on the priorities set for each impact category and that discrimination between concepts and materials on the basis of LCA findings should be avoided when the results of sensitivity analyses are not available. Even where a LCA study has been undertaken thoroughly for a specific product and packaging format (with an in-depth sensitivity analysis), the findings may not show conclusively that a particular packaging system has environmental advantages over another, although there will also be studies where a clear environmental preference is observable. Ultimately, of course, a reusable packaging system will need to prove that it can deliver commercial benefits through cost savings and quality improvements - as well as environmental benefits in order to be successful.
30
List of Appendices
Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Review of Life Cycle Assessments Methodology List of Life Cycle Assessment studies identified
31
Appendix 1 Review of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) Contents

1.0 Introduction and Objectives..................................................................................................... 33 1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 33 The Review Results and Findings Drinks Packaging ............................................................ 34 2.1 Existing Reviews ............................................................................................................... 35 2.1.1 TNO / APEAL Reviews ........................................................................................... 35 2.1.2 GrassRoots Recycling Network Review of Environmental Benefits of Refillable Drinks Containers ........................................................................................................................ 39 2.1.3 Study on the Implementation of Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging Waste and Options to Strengthen Prevention and Re-use of packaging .................................................................. 41 2.2 Study Review Summaries Drinks ...................................................................................... 42 2.2.1 LCA of potential environmental impacts of Finnish drinks packaging systems .............. 43 2.2.2 LCA of one way PET bottles & recycled products ...................................................... 44 2.2.3 Comparison of the environmental impact of drinking water vs bottled water............... 45 The Review Results and Findings Distribution Packaging ................................................... 47 3.1 Study Review Summaries Pallets ...................................................................................... 48 3.1.1 The environmentally oriented LCA of multiple use wood and synthetic pallets ............. 49 3.1.2 LCA of the EUR pallet ............................................................................................ 49 3.1.3 Streamlined LCA of iGPS pallet, typical pooled wooden pallet and the single use wood pallet 50 3.2 Study Reviews Shrink-wrap Collation vs. Plastic Crate ........................................................ 52 3.2.1 Building the business case for reusable transport packaging ..................................... 53 3.3 Study Reviews Common Footprint Corrugated Trays vs. Plastic trays ................................. 54 3.3.1 Corrugated board boxes & plastic container systems ................................................ 55 3.3.2 A comparative study of the environmental & economic characteristics of corrugated board boxes & reusable plastic crates ................................................................................. 55 3.3.3 RTP proves its green credentials............................................................................. 57 3.3.4 LCI of reusable plastic crates and display ready corrugated containers ....................... 57 Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 59
2.0
3.0
4.0
32
1.0 1.1
Introduction and Objectives Introduction
This Appendix provides details of a review of life cycle assessment studies (LCAs) that consider single-trip and reusable packaging systems. As per previous WRAP projects (such as investigating the findings of LCA studies comparing recycling versus disposal of waste materials), a structured and reasoned review can identify key trends from the studies regarding the key factors from an environmental life cycle perspective that influence the environmental performance of reusable packaging systems. Collating this information should help packaging decision makers to consider single-trip and reusable packaging options on an informed basis. Budgetary restraints limited the total number of studies that we were able to review during this project. Also, the objective of the work was to identify which factors have greatest influence on the results, rather than to provide a detailed commentary on specific results or make recommendations for one system over another. Even in instances where studies were undertaken for different reasons, by different organisations and using different approaches (e.g. ISO14040 peer reviewed or not), the review identified consistency in the factors that have greatest influence over the results. We found that a more superficial reading of some of the other studies, not reviewed in detail, confirmed this. It was therefore agreed that further detailed reviews would reinforce the conclusions already reached and would be unlikely to add extra value to the study. The review of LCAs illustrated that there are significant examples of reusable packaging systems in existence, some of which offer potential environmental and/or economic benefits over single-trip solutions. However, reusable packaging systems are not always appropriate solutions. The review of LCAs also highlights that if conditions are not appropriate, the environmental and/or economic costs of reusable packaging will outweigh the benefits.
33
2.0
The Review Results and Findings Drinks Packaging
The figure below shows a timeline highlighting some of the key studies from the past ten years investigating the environmental performance of single-trip and reusable drinks packaging (although this is by no means comprehensive). Other studies have been completed during this period, by private companies, academics and government departments, some publicly available others confidential to the commissioning body. Figure A2: Timeline of selected drinks packaging studies and their main conclusions 1998
Danish EPA
Life cycle assessment of packaging systems for beer and soft drinks extensive series of LCA studies on drinks packaging Refillable and disposable beer containers: An analysis of the environmental impacts
1999
Montreal
Reuse of primary packaging identifies the market situation for reusables across Europe
EC German Federal Environment Agency
2000
Landmark UBA II study
2001
Data certification for LCA comparisons: Inventory of current status, strengths and weaknesses LCA sensitivity and eco efficiency of drinks packaging systems re-evaluates previous studies
Austrian Ministry of Environment DG Environment
Landmark GUA study
Evaluation of costs and benefits
Apeal Apeal
Analysed and evaluated a number of key European studies and concluded that final results of the LCAs studied are greatly influenced by data quality and therefore do not enable objective comparisons to be made
Reviews 11 LCA studies from 1985 to 2000 and concludes that refillable containers: put less pollution into the air; generate less solid waste; emit less water pollution; use less energy. It also concludes that refillables emit more water pollution and use more energy than aluminium cans and that PET appears to be a better material for refillables than glass.
2002
Grass Roots Recycling Network
Finnish Technology Development Centre
Life cycle of Finnish drinks packaging updates 1995 study and concludes that returnable glass and returnable PET bottles are preferable to the single-trip aluminium can
2004
Petcore
LCA of one way PET bottles and recycled products finds that there is no clear advantage to either system, but then gives a number of scenarios where returnable glass is advantageous
2005
Review of previous LCA study results are highly dependent on the parameters and assumptions that are made about product supply systems, such as electricity generation method, transport distances, return rates, recycling rates and the existence of control mechanisms such as deposits. It states that many LCAs have been unable to reach conclusions due to these factors. It goes on to say that if the parameters and assumptions are separated out studies tend to agree
Comparison of environmental impact of drinking water versus bottled water concludes that returnable glass bottles preferred over single-trip PET
Swiss Gas and Water Association
EU
2006
Defra
LCA comparison between packaging for fruit juice, iced tea and milk Refillable Glass drinks containers in the UK includes an overview of the results of selected past studies Investigation of how deposits could work for non-returnable beverage packaging in the UK
IFEU
2008
WRAP ADEME
Report on the economic and environmental impact of a deposit system for drinks packaging and the recycling of plastic packaging reviews selected previous studies
2009
WRAP
This study
34
In addition, a further twenty LCA studies comparing single-trip and reusable drinks packaging have been identified that were undertaken in the ten year period prior to 1998. As this was prior to the publication of the ISO 14040 standards for life cycle assessment, these studies will not have followed a standardised approach, and have not, therefore, been considered for review as part of this project. This project makes a structured review of some of the most important LCA studies and other environmental appraisals of drinks packaging from recent years, in order to provide an understanding of the key parameters which influence the results and conclusions drawn. Through this approach, it is the aim of the project to draw conclusions on the conditions when reusable drinks packaging may be favourable, and to provide advice to packaging specifiers as to the parameters that need to be considered when making a choice between single-trip and reusable drinks packaging. To compliment this work, a number of previous publications that review existing LCA studies have also been examined to highlight and reinforce conclusions within this report and these are presented below.
2.1
Existing Reviews
The starting point for this project was to consider the results of previous reviews that compare single-trip and reusable drinks packaging. A number of other projects have also made comparisons, some very comprehensive and others only at a limited level of detail. These existing reviews provide a valuable starting point and include:
TNO, 2001, Data certification for LCA comparisons: Inventory of current status and strengths and weaknesses analysis, for Apeal, Brussels TNO, 2002, LCA sensitivity and eco-efficiency analysis of beverage packaging systems, for Apeal, Brussels Institute for Local Self Reliance, 2002, Environmental benefits of refillable beverage containers, for GrassRoots Recycling Network (GRRN), in 2002 Washington DC. USA, Ecolas and Pira International, 2005, Study on the Implementation of Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging Waste and Options to Strengthen Prevention and Re-use of packaging, for EU DG Environment, Brussels
2.1.1 TNO / APEAL Reviews

As part of a private consultancy commission for APEAL in 2001, TNO analysed and evaluated a number of key European studies comparing several single-trip and reusable drinks packaging systems (TNE-MEP 2001). TNO reported that the final results of these LCAs were greatly influenced by data quality and therefore did not enable objective comparisons to be made. Seven studies were evaluated in greater detail and the comparison of these seven showed remarkable differences with regard to several parameters (TNO, 2002a) Subsequently, APEAL contracted TNO to perform an in-depth analysis to establish the sensitivity and ecoefficiency of several packaging systems to variations in selected parameters. This analysis reworked the previous UBA II study, a project commissioned by the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA) (Plinke et al 2000). Data and LCA methods applied in this analysis were externally reviewed. The aim of the TNO work was to establish, for the drinks packaging systems considered in UBA II:
The parameters for which a system is the most sensitive and the parameters for which it is insensitive, and The effect of the variation in the values of these parameters on the significance of observed differences between the systems.
The packaging systems considered in the TNO work are summarised below. The comparison focused on 330ml containers, but as not all the systems modelled in the UBAII study considered this volume some re-calculations and assumptions were required.
35
Table A1: Drinks packaging systems considered in the TNO-APEAL sensitivity analysis Type of system One-way Packaging System Steel can Aluminium can Glass bottle PET bottle Drinks carton Glass bottle PET bottle Contents 330ml 330ml 330ml 330ml 330ml 330ml 330ml
Refillable
An in-depth sensitivity analysis was then applied to the following parameters, using a method close to random simulation (Monte Carlo approach), and some specific sensitivities were identified:
Weight of the primary packaging all systems are sensitive to changes in the mass of primary packaging Transport distance between filler and retailer or point of sale the results for the reusable glass bottle are sensitive to this parameter, but all other systems are insensitive Percentage of secondary materials used (recycled content) the aluminium drinks can results are very sensitive to a lowering of the percentage of secondary aluminium considered in the can body. The steel can and drinks carton are highly insensitive to changes in this parameter
Trip rate (number of cycles per bottle) for refillable system both reusable PET and glass systems are sensitive to this parameter. Decreasing the number of cycles leads to an increase in environmental impact. Increasing the number of cycles has the opposite effect, although the effect of an increase in cycles is less strong than a decrease
Trip rate (number of cycles per pallet) for secondary packaging (no details of the sensitivity of results to this parameter are discussed in the public report) Waste disposal option (percentage waste to incineration versus percentage to landfill) the drinks carton and aluminium can display some sensitivity in relation to changes in waste management scenarios Composition of drinks carton (no details of the sensitivity of results to this parameter are discussed in the public report).
Two major limiting assumptions had to be applied in the sensitivity analysis:
As the spread of input data for mass, trip rate etc. was not available its variation was assumed to be +/-50% of the reference value
If the mean values of two systems fell outside of each others range, the differences between the systems were regarded as insignificant, as demonstrated in the diagram below.
36
Figure A3: Conditions for significant differences in TNO/APEAL study
Key System A System A Range of results

Impact
System B
System B
Average result
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
For Scenario 1, in the example above, the two systems are deemed to have a significant difference. Although the range of results for each system overlaps, the averages for each system fall outside of each others range of results. However, for Scenario 2 there is no significant difference, as the average result for System B falls within the range of results for System A, and therefore no significant difference is identified. The authors drew some important conclusions that are relevant in the context of this WRAP study:
As the differences that arise between systems in LCA results are not always large enough to be significant, it may be better to identify the occurrence of groups of drinks packaging with similar environmental performance. The groups include the systems for which the individual means fall within the range of one or more of the other systems ranges
For the one-way (single-trip) packaging systems considered, the primary packaging largely determines the environmental impact for nearly all of the impact parameters considered. Transport and secondary packaging are of lesser importance
Both primary packaging and transport determine the environmental impact of the refillable bottles. Secondary packaging is of lesser importance.
Results of the LCA comparisons are combined with financial costs of the packaging systems to produce an ecoefficiency evaluation. The eco-efficiency results are presented next.
37
Figure A4: TNO range of eco-efficiency results
Note: Systems are judged on their position in the grid. The highest environmental impact and economic cost of all the systems compared is set to 1. All other results are presented relative to this.
TNO identifies two eco-efficiency groups. The first group, consisting of the steel and aluminium cans, reusable glass and reusable PET bottles, and the drinks carton, has a relatively higher eco-efficiency. The second group, formed of the single-trip glass and single-trip PET bottles, has a relatively lower eco-efficiency. However, it is also clear that within these two groups overlap is present. Trip rate is an important parameter influencing the environmental impact of the refillable bottles considered. The study shows that lowering the trip rate from 21 to 11 cycles reduces their eco-efficiency. Nonetheless, the reusable bottles still remain in the grouping with the better eco-efficiency score. Considering these results, TNO draws three main conclusions:
The borderline between ecologically favourable and unfavourable returnable packaging is tenuous Discrimination between formats and materials on the basis of LCA results should be avoided when the results of in-depth sensitivity analyses are not available Results are strongly influenced by allocation aspects (e.g. inclusion of recycling and the valuation of the input of secondary materials) and by the quality of the applied data.
Due to the implications of this final conclusion, APEAL commissioned a follow-up study from TNO to look at the quality of data used for drinks packaging LCA studies (TNO 200b). In particular, the UBA II study and earlier studies by Chalmers for the Danish EPA were considered. The authors concluded that both of these studies were lacking in terms of overall data quality when a systematic and in-depth review of data quality was applied. The authors recognised the important role that critical review can play in improving data quality in future studies, but also highlighted some very important limitations that are still true today:
The peer review of LCAs is one of the ways to increase the quality of an LCA. However, within these reviews there is normally no in-depth data verification as this requires a far greater effort than is commonly made.
38
2.1.2 GrassRoots Recycling Network Review of Environmental Benefits of Refillable Drinks Containers
In 2002, the GrassRoots Recycling Network (GRRN) commissioned a review of existing LCA studies comparing refillable and one way (single-trip) drinks containers in order to evaluate their environmental benefits. The study of eleven LCA studies was undertaken by the Institute for Local Self Reliance, Washington DC. USA. Table A2: The eleven LCA studies reviewed: Author Lundholm and Sundstrom Franklin Associates Sponsor TetraPak Inc. National Association for Plastic Container Recovery (NAPCOR) Swedish Brewers Association TetraPak Inc. Liquor Control Board of Ontario Ontario Multi Material Recycling Inc. (OMMRI) German Federal Environment Agency (UBA I) US EPA Danish EPA Initials1 LS FA GS DT PR FCG UBA I US DEPA UBA II GUA Year 1985 1989 1990 1991 1991 1992 1995 1997 1998 2000 2000
Sundstrom Deloitte & Touche Canada Inc. Proctor and Redfern Ltd First Consulting Group Schmitz, Oels, and Tiedemann US EPA Chalmers Industriteknik and Institute for Product Development Prognos, IFEU, GVM, Pack Force, German Federal Environment Agency (UBA II) and UBA Gesellschaft fur Umfassende Austrian Ministry of the Environment Analysen GmbH 1 These initials are used to describe the studies in the later tables in this section
This review recognised the different methodological approaches, system boundary inconsistencies, and variations in a number of factors (e.g. transportation distances, recycling rates, trippage of reusable, and recycled content) which can affect results and conclusions of the individual LCAs. The results of the eleven studies are presented in tables showing the number of studies favouring different packaging systems against environmental impact categories. The review seeks to suggest how consistently one type of drinks container compares to another with regard to a set of criteria across all of the individual studies. The criteria considered are air pollution, water pollution, solid waste and energy. The review makes particular note of the fact that the comparisons of refillable glass to refillable PET bottles involve glass bottles that are 25-35% smaller in volume than the PET bottles. The results are shown in the four tables below. The number and initials of LCAs with results pertaining to and included in each table is indicated in the table titles [refer to the table above for list of LCA studies].
39
Table A3: Refillable glass bottles vs. One way glass bottles LS,FA,DT,PR,FCG,UBA I,US,DEPA (8 studies) Environmental Impact Number favouring one way containers Number favouring refillables Number reporting the impact CO 1 3 4 Air CO2 0 2 2 Pollution CH4 SOx 0 0 2 3 2 3 Water Pollution NOx 0 4 4 0 4 4 Solid Waste 0 5 5 Energy 2 5 7
Table A4: Refillable glass bottles vs. One way aluminium cans FA,GS,PR,FCG,UBA I,DEPA,GUA (7 studies) Environmental Impact Number favouring cans Number favouring refillables Number reporting the impact CO 0 4 4 Air CO2 0 3 3 Pollution CH4 SOx 0 0 3 4 3 4 Water Pollution NOx 1 3 4 2 1 3 Solid Waste 1 3 4 Energy 3 2 5
Table A5: Refillable PET bottles vs. One way PET bottles GS,DEPA 500ml,DEPA 1.5l, GUA mineral water, GUA soft drinks (5 studies) Environmental Impact Number favouring one way containers Number favouring refillables Number reporting the impact CO 1 4 5 Air CO2 0 4 4 Pollution CH4 SOx 0 0 4 5 4 5 Water Pollution NOx 0 5 5 0 2 2 Solid Waste 0 4 4 Energy 0 5 5
Table A6: Refillable glass bottles vs. Refillable PET bottles DEPA,UBA II,GUA (3 studies) Environmental Impact Number favouring glass Number favouring PET Number reporting the impact The 4 5 6 7 8 CO 1 2 3 Air CO2 0 2 2 Pollution CH4 SOx 0 2 2 1 2 3 Water Pollution NOx 0 3 3 0 2 2 Solid Waste 0 2 2 Energy 0 1 1
review concludes that: Refillable containers put less pollution into the air Refillables generate less solid waste Refillable glass and PET emit less water pollution and use less energy than one way containers of the same material Refillables emit more water pollution and use more energy than aluminium cans PET appears to be a better material for refillables than glass.
An additional conclusion could be that refillable glass containers put less pollution into the air than aluminium cans. The review also draws attention to the fact that the Danish EPA study, the only study to estimate water consumption, found that refillable glass and PET bottles use less water than their one way equivalents; the amount of water used to wash refillable glass bottles is much less than the amount used to manufacture new one way glass bottles for a given volume of drinks. Refillable glass bottles of 330ml use less water than 330ml aluminium cans. Cost Benefit Analyses The review also considered two environmental cost benefit analyses one from the Austrian Ministry of the Environment in 2000 (GUA), and an RDC-Environment/Pira International study for the European Commission (2003).
40
This study compared 330ml returnable and one way glass bottles with the following assumptions:
The return rate for refillables is 100% All bottle losses occur during washing and filling The round trip distance form warehouse to store is 100km Consumers recycled mixed bottles and other containers only at drop off centres Industry bears all of the cost of recycling The portion of one way bottles not recycled is split equally between landfill and incineration.
The study concluded that refillable glass bottles cost less environmentally than one way glass bottles do whenever the distance from the bottling plant to the warehouse is:
less than 3,500km with 20 trips for the refillable bottle and a 91% recycling rate for the one way bottle less than 4,200km with 20 trips and a 42% recycling rate less than 2,300km with 5 trips and a 91% recycling rate and less than 3,000km with 5 trips and a 42% recycling rate.
2.1.3 Study on the Implementation of Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging Waste and Options to Strengthen Prevention and Re-use of packaging
This 2005 report, authored by Ecolas and Pira International for the European Commission, provides commentary on the findings of LCA studies comparing reusable and single-trip primary packaging in general (not specific to drinks). The report states that LCA results are highly dependent on the parameters and assumptions that are made about product supply systems, such as electricity generation method, transport distances, return rates, recycling rates and the existence of control mechanisms such as deposits. It states that many LCAs have been unable to reach conclusions due to these factors. However, it goes on to say that if the parameters and assumptions are separated out studies tend to be in agreement to a greater extent:
Product supply systems with low transport distances and high return rates tend to favour reusable packaging systems Product supply systems with longer transport distances and low return rates tend to favour single-trip packaging systems Studies which consider long transport systems and high return rates or short distances and low return rates are often inconclusive.
It reports that a Europen commissioned review of LCAs gave estimations of the transport distances over which reusable packaging or one way packaging may be environmentally superior or the situation is mixed. On the basis of the LCA studies reviewed, the Ecolas/Pira report concludes:
The mixed range cannot be defined precisely but based on current data is approximately 100km to 1000km Around 100km (or below) the majority of LCAs show reusable packaging to be advantageous
Around 1000km (or above) virtually all the LCA studies show single-trip packaging to be advantageous.
41
2.2
Study Review Summaries Drinks
Four drinks studies were examined in detail. These studies were selected using the methodology described in Appendix 2 accompanying the main report. The following section summarises the main study details and provides commentary on the study approach and findings.
Study Title (abbrev.) Comparison of the environmental impact of drinking water vs bottled water LCA of one way PET bottles & recycled products Publication year 2005 Commiss. By Swiss Gas & Water Assoc. (SVGW) Performed by ESU Services Single-trip PET bottle 1.5l carbonated & still Single-trip Aluminium can Reusable glass bottle 1l carbonated & still Reusable PET bottle Reusable jug1 18.9l Trips for reusable 50 Journey distance 50km & 1000km (short 5 or 10km customer in some cases) 190km for returnable vs 250km for single-trip 120km for returnable vs 320km for single-trip LCA of potential environmental impacts of Finnish drinks packaging systems 2000 (pub. 2002) Finnish Tech. Dev. Centre et al. PTR 0.33l & 0.5l 0.3l, 0.33l & 0.5l 0.5l (0.3l glass) 24.55 (0.33l glass) 32.16 (0.5l glass) 30.26 (0.5l PET) 18.23 Not stated GW, A, NE, POF, BOD, PMW Impact Cats. CPEC, COE, GGE, EI99, EIP1997 Favours Jug preferred. Reusable glass preferred over single-trip PET States no clear advantage to either system, but then gives a number of scenarios where reusable glass is advantageous Reusable glass over singletrip aluminium can Reusable PET over singletrip aluminium can
2004
PETcore
IFEU
0.5l, 1.5l & 2.0l carbonated & still (1.5l only)2
0.33l, 0.5l & 0.7l carbonated3
(0.33l) 25 (0.5l ) 21 (0.7l) not stated
FRC, UN, GW, A, TE, AE, SS, CPE, TI
Impact categories CPEC Cumulative primary energy consumption, COE - Crude oil equivalent, GGE Greenhouse gas emissions, EI99 Eco Indicator 99 H/A, EIP1997 EIPs 1997, FRC Fossil resource consumption, UN Use of nature, GW Global warming, A Acidification, TE Terrestrial eutrophication, AE Aquatic eutrophication, SS Summer smog, CPE Cumulative primary energy, TI Transport intensity, CAWV Critical air and Water consumption, E Eutrophication, SW Solid waste, WC Water consumption, EC Energy consumption, CAM Consumption of auxiliary materials, NE Nutrient enrichment, POF Photochemical ozone formation, BOD BOD, PMW Packaging material wastes Notes 1 Reusable jug is refillable container used in water dispensing machines 2 Bottle weights: 0.5l carbonated 20.5g; 1.5l carbonated 36.5g; 2.0l carbonated 49g; 1.5l still 33.0g 3 Bottle weights: 0.33l 434g; 0.5l 360g; 0.7l 590g 4 Single-trip and returnable bottle are the same weight?
42
2.2.1 LCA of potential environmental impacts of Finnish drinks packaging systems
This study published in 2002 (based on 2000 data and analysis) was commissioned by the Finnish Technology Development Centre (TEKES), PTR (a packaging trade body), the Finnish Environmental Register of Packaging, The Federation of the Brewing and Soft Drinks Industries, the Finnish Food Marketing Association, O I Finnish Holdings (Glass packaging manufacturer), and Suomen Uusiomuovi (Plastic packaging trade body).
The study was undertaken by PTR The English summary report reviewed runs to some 111 pages and is detailed and transparent. The report is the most detailed and thorough of all the LCA reports reviewed in all categories.
Packaging Formats The study examined single-trip aluminium cans and reusable glass and PET bottles for soft drinks, beer and cider, and compares the same size of containers. Study Assumptions The recycled content of each of the container types is based on industry averages and Finnish collection rates. Return rates are justified with loss rates detailed down the supply chain. End of life waste management for reusable containers is assumed to be landfill. Primary packaging components (in addition to the bottles or cans) are fully described as is the secondary packaging for all packaging systems. Trippage rates for reusable containers were described as ranging from 24.55 for 300ml clear glass bottles up to 30.26 for 500ml brown glass and 32.16 for 330ml brown glass. The reusable 500ml PET bottle was described as having a trip rate of 18.23. The main reason for the lower PET bottle reuse rate appears to be due to losses at the brewery 4.0% compared to 1.3% for glass. The study focuses on Finland, but does include some raw material supplies from other parts of Europe. The study does not describe the transportation scenarios simply stating that data profiles from previous LCA studies were used. This is the least transparent part of the study. The system boundaries considered are full life cycle for all primary and secondary materials from raw material production through to consumption with all return and waste management systems included. The description of these is thorough and detailed. Results and Peer Review Peer review was undertaken by representatives of the industrial stakeholders of the systems studied, administrative authorities and consumer representatives. The peer review findings have been fed back during the study and included in the findings of suggested amendments fully reported in the study. Results are presented in a large number of inventory result graphs describing current systems for each container and each emission category. Graphs are also shown detailing the relative impact potential, against impact category, of each of the competing packaging systems. All of these graphs are repeated for systems which only consider the primary packaging. Study Conclusions:
330ml aluminium can versus 330ml refillable glass bottle In the acidification, global warming and photochemical formation of tropospheric ozone impact categories the refillable glass bottle had lower impact. In the oxygen depletion category the aluminium can had lower impact. In the eutrophication category there was no significant difference. The sub system contributing most favourably to the refillable glass was primary material production. The sub system most in favour of aluminium cans is waste management. 500ml aluminium can versus 500ml refillable glass bottle In the acidification, global warming and photochemical formation of tropospheric ozone impact categories the refillable glass bottle had lower impact. In the oxygen depletion and eutrophication categories the aluminium can had lower impact.
43
The sub system contributing most favourably to the refillable glass was primary material production. The sub systems most in favour of aluminium cans are waste management and drinks logistics. 500ml aluminium can versus 500ml refillable PET bottle In the acidification, global warming, eutrophication and photochemical formation of tropospheric ozone impact categories the refillable PET bottle had lower impact. In the oxygen depletion category the aluminium can had lower impact. The sub systems contributing most favourably to the refillable PET were primary material production and material recycling and transport of materials. The sub system most in favour of aluminium cans is waste management.
Both reusable glass and PET bottles were favoured over the single-trip aluminium can. No direct comparison of the reusable glass versus reusable PET bottle is given in the study report or conclusions. This could be due to a mix of advantages and disadvantages of the competing materials regarding relative impact potentials.
2.2.2 LCA of one way PET bottles & recycled products
This 2004 study was commissioned by PETCORE and undertaken by the Institute of Energy and Environmental Research, Heidelberg (IFEU) The report reviewed runs to 28 pages The study focuses on Germany.
Packaging Formats The study examines single-trip PET bottles and reusable glass bottles for carbonated and still mineral water. It includes 0.5l, 1.5l and 2.0l PET bottles and 0.33l, 0.5l, and 0.7l glass bottles, but only presents results for 1.5l single-trip PET and 0.7l reusable glass, stating that these in principal also apply to the other bottle volumes examined. This study did not compare single-trip PET and glass, with returnable PET and glass this could be considered a limitation of the study. The report provides statistics on the usage of the different sizes and these are the most commonly used for home consumption. The choice to review single-trip PET bottles of significantly larger capacity than the reusable glass bottle will favour the PET bottle. This is due to volume of product (considered in the functional unit) packaging material ratio; larger capacity containers require less material per ml to package them. Study Assumptions The recycled content of the PET bottles appears to be based on DSD (Duales System Deutschland) recovery rates and recovery rates from deposit based systems. The recycled content of the glass bottles is not described. Similarly end of life waste management is described for PET but not for glass. The PET that is not recycled going to incineration and landfill. Whether energy recovery is credited to the PET system is not described, neither is the proportion of material going to landfill. Primary packaging components (e.g. labels, glue, closures) in addition to each of the bottles are fully described as is the secondary packaging for all packaging systems. Trippage rates for reusable containers were described as ranging from 21 trips for 0.5l glass bottles up to 25 for 0.33l and 50 for 0.7l. Justification for trippage is not stated. Journey distances (presumably lorry) are based both on the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA) distribution model of 190km for reusable containers and 250km for single-trip bottles and findings from more recent studies which found 120km for reusable containers and 320km for single-trip bottles to be more realistic. The system boundaries considered are full life cycle but includes expanded boundaries for credits relating to secondary product manufacture (i.e. material recovery and recycling into fibre, sheet and strapping production) for both the PET and glass systems. This could reflect real life scenarios for PET and glass, but it would not recognise all recycled routes, some of which would perform less well (e.g. glass into aggregates). The study does take account of the fact that about 80% of the PET bottles recovered are exported to the Far East for recycling. Whilst it is advantageous for the PET system to include the credit from secondary products, it must also include the impacts of transportation. For recycled glass, 41% is recycled into containers in the UK and 22% abroad. No information is provided on the assumptions for end of life waste management for glass.
44
Results and Peer Review Peer review was undertaken by Prof Dr Walter Kloppfer of the International Journal of LCA, but the review findings are not detailed. Results are presented for 1.5l single-trip PET and 0.7l reusable glass bottles, with both DSD collection and deposit scheme collection, in ten impact category graphs sub divided by contributory process within the system boundary. Study Conclusions:
Both the ...one-way PET and the refillable glass bottle systems are strongly influenced by the assumptions related to collection and recovery of used packaging materials as well as the distribution logistics. The implications of these aspects and some relevant additional findings of the study can be structured and summarized in the following statements which particularly apply to the packaging systems for home consumption:
Under the conditions of a source separated kerbside collection of PET bottles there is no clear environmental advantage for either packaging systems Under the conditions of a deposit based collection system and a shipping of baled bottles to the Far East for recycling there is a clear environmental advantage for the refillable glass bottle system. This is mainly due to the transport efforts involved and partly to the less strict emission standards in the Far East
The environmental advantage of the refillable glass bottle systems over the deposit based one way PET bottle systems would disappear if recycling of one way PET was to happen in Europe. A distribution situation with relative shorter distances for refillable glass bottle systems and relative larger distances for one way PET bottle systems (as assumed to be the case in the current distribution practice in Germany) shows environmental advantages of refillable glass bottle systems independent from collection and recycling routes chosen in the one way PET bottle systems.
Regarding the packaging systems related to the away from home consumption clear environmental advantages of the 0.5l refillable glass bottle and slight advantages of the 0.33l refillable glass bottle over the 0.5l one way PET bottle can be found.
2.2.3 Comparison of the environmental impact of drinking water vs bottled water
This 2005 study was commissioned by the Swiss Gas and Water Association (SVGW) and undertaken by the consultancy company ESU Services The report reviewed is 11 pages in length.
Packaging Formats The study examines bottled water versus tap water; our review was focused on the bottled water variants and comparisons. Single-trip 1.5l PET and reusable 1.0l glass bottles and a reusable 18.9l jug for both carbonated and still water were studied, as was refrigeration and ambient storage by the consumer. This will favour the larger size containers, but reflects the real life situation. Study Assumptions The recycled content of each of the container types was not stated. Return rates and end of life waste management were not stated. Trippage rates for all the reusable containers was stated as 50; somewhat higher than most other studies. The study focuses on Switzerland, but does consider one scenario in other parts of Europe. The study describes transportation scenarios for local delivery within Switzerland (50km lorry, 50km lorry plus 5km car or van, and 50km lorry plus 10km car or van) and a longer 1000km journey. The system boundaries considered water catchment through treatment, filling, packaging, distribution, consumer transportation and storage. It does not appear to include waste management, other than the return of the reusable bottles. Results and Peer Review
45
No peer review appears to have been undertaken. Results are presented in tabular format describing current systems for each container and each emission category in quantitative form. Study Conclusions:
The environmental impact of bottled mineral water is essentially determined by refrigeration, packaging and transportation. Other parts of the system are relatively insignificant. There are no major differences with regard to packaging. Returnable bottles and jugs result in somewhat better results for short distances. However, the higher weight of glass bottles when transported over extended distances results, on the whole, in higher environmental impact as compared to PET bottles.
Interpreting the results, the jug has the lowest impact in all impact categories, the reusable glass has the next least impact, the single-trip PET has the greatest impact.
46
3.0
The Review Results and Findings Distribution Packaging
Timelines highlighting some of the key studies from the past ten years investigating the environmental performance of single-trip and reusable distribution packaging are shown below (although this is by no means comprehensive). Other studies have been completed during this period, by private companies, academics and government departments, some publicly available others confidential to the commissioning body. Figure A5: Timeline of key pallet LCA studies and their main conclusions
Returnable wood versus returnable plastic Euro pallet favours wood pallet
French Wood Pallet Producers
Unknown 1994
Netherlands Packaging and Pallet Industry Association
Returnable wood versus returnable plastic 1200x1000mm pallet favours wood pallet
2008
Single-trip versus returnable wood versus returnable plastic 1200x1000m pallets finds that the returnable plastic pallet had lower impacts in all categories
Intelligent Global Pooling Systems
2009
WRAP
This study
Figure A6: Timeline of key Common Footprint tray, crate and shrink-wrap collation LCA studies and their main conclusions 2004
FEFCO Reusable Pallet and Container Coalition
Single-trip corrugated trays versus returnable rigid and folding plastic crates of 600x400mm and 400x300mm for fruit and vegetables favours the single-trip corrugated trays
Single-trip corrugated trays versus returnable plastic crates of 600x400mm for fruit and vegetables favours the reusable plastic crate
2005
Spanish Department of the Environment
Single-trip corrugated trays versus returnable folding plastic crates of 600x400mm for fruit and vegetables favours the single-trip corrugated trays
2008
Single-trip shrink-wrap collations with corrugated base pad and tray versus returnable plastic crate favours the returnable plastic crate Single-trip corrugated trays versus returnable rigid plastic crates of 600x400mm favours the reusable plastic crate
Rehrig Pacific Company Linpac Allibert
2009
WRAP
This study
Several other LCA studies comparing single-trip and reusable distribution packaging have been identified that were undertaken in the ten year period prior to 1998. However, as the data used in these studies will be dated and the work pre-dates the publication of the ISO 14040 standards for life cycle assessment these studies have not been considered for this project. This project makes a structured review of some of the most important LCA studies of distribution packaging from recent years, in order to provide stakeholders with an understanding of the key parameters which influence the results achieved and conclusions drawn. Through this approach, it is the aim of the project to draw conclusions on the conditions when reusable distribution packaging may be favourable, and to provide advice to packaging specifiers as to the parameters that need to be considered when making a choice between single-trip and reusable distribution packaging. These findings and conclusions are detailed in the main report. Eight distribution studies were examined in detail. These studies were selected using the methodology described in Appendix 2 of the main report. For each LCA review, the main study details are summarised and a commentary on the study approach and findings is set out. The LCA studies are sub-divided into pallets, trays and crates, and shrink-wrap collations and crates.
47
3.1
Study Review Summaries Pallets
Three studies were reviewed in detail.

Study Title (abbrev.) The environmental ly oriented LCA of multiple use wood and synthetic pallets Streamlined LCA of iGPS pallet, typical pooled wooden pallet and the single use wood pallet LCA of the EUR pallet Publication year 1994 Commissio ned by The Netherlands Packaging & Pallet Industry Association Performed by Product type Generic Singletrip Wood pallet type n/a Returnable wood pallet type 1200x1000mm (weight not stated) Returnable plastic pallet type 1200x1000mm HDPE 50% virgin/ 50% recycled (weight not stated) Trips for returnables 42 trips wood 36 trips plastic Journe y distanc e Not stated Impact Categorie s UFNRRM, UFRM, L, GE, IOL, RIMAWS, A, TD Favours Comments
TNO
Returnabl e wood pallet
2008
Intelligent Global Pooling Systems (iGPS)
ERM
Generic
1200x1000 mm 23kg
1200x1000mm 32kg
1200x100mm 21.6kg HDPE 100% virgin & 15% recycled & 99% recycled
15 trips wood 100 trips plastic
Not stated
GW, OD, SS, UFNRRM, E, A, AE, TE
Returnabl e plastic pallet
Returnable plastic pallet had lower impacts in all categories
Not known
The French Wood Pallet Producers
Centre Technique du Bois et de LAmeublement (CTBA) and Ecobilan
Generic
n/a
1200x800mm
1200x800mm
Not stated
Not stated
EC, CO2, SOx, NOx, Dust, CO, SW
Returnabl e wood pallet
States wood pallet demonstrate clear advantages despite higher weight and shorter life
Impact categories UFNRRM Use of non renewable raw materials, UFRRM Use of renewable raw materials, L Landfill, GE Greenhouse effect, IOL Impact on ozone layer, RIMAWS Risk of intoxication for man, animal, water and soil, A Acidification, TD Top dressing, GW Global warming, OD Ozone depletion, E Eutrophication, AE Aquatic ecotoxicity, TE Terrestrial ecotoxicity, EC Energy consumption, CO2 Carbon dioxide emissions, SOx Emissions, NOx Emissions, Dust Emissions, CO Carbon monoxide emissions, SW Solid Waste
48
3.1.1 The environmentally oriented LCA of multiple use wood and synthetic pallets
This study was published in 1994 by the Netherlands Packaging and Pallet Industry Association and undertaken by TNO Centre for Wood Technology The English synopsis reviewed is 4 pages in length The study appears to relate to the Netherlands.
This study pre-dates ISO 14040, but is included because of its pre-eminence in the wider debates regarding reusable packaging. Packaging Formats The study examines reusable timber and plastic pallets of 1200x1000mm. Study Assumptions The timber pallet is manufactured using new timber, the plastic pallet from 50% recycled HDPE and 50% virgin HDPE. Return rates are justified with numbers lost, rejected and repaired described. Trippage rates for the timber pallet are described as 42, and for plastic 36. The study does not describe the transportation mode or distances. End of life waste management for the plastic pallet is described as recycled; the waste management of the timber pallet is not stated. The system boundaries considered are full life cycle excluding waste management. It considers different impact categories than more recent (ISO 14040) studies. Results and Peer Review No peer review was stated. Results are presented in tabular format quantifying environmental impacts per pallet. Study Conclusions:
The wood pallets offer considerably more positive image as concerns environmental aspects than the synthetic [sic] pallet. For raw material and energy consumption, the wood pallet scores better than does the synthetic [sic] pallet. For emissions into air and water, the wood pallet also scores better and the amount of waste is significantly lower than the synthetic pallet. The raw material for the wood pallets originates from production woods where less is chopped down than planted. To safeguard this renewable raw material for the future and extend it new production woods must be planted, which intrinsically has a favourable effect on the environment. Possibly the reuse of wood may be further stimulated. Sustained efforts are being made in this field. The assumption of the Netherlands Packaging and Pallet Industry Association is confirmed by this report. From an environmental standpoint the wood pallet can also be considered as a source of pride. This research provides sound arguments to endorse the production of wood pallets and even extend it in the future.
The conclusion may imply that the sequestration of carbon by new growing trees is considered in the study. The commissioning body makes clear its objectives and interests in this study.
3.1.2 LCA of the EUR pallet
This study was commissioned by the French Wood Pallet Producers and undertaken by CTBA and Ecobilan. The year of publication is unknown The report summary reviewed is 3 pages and lacks detail, but it is stated that the analysis was conducted in accordance with ISO 14040 The study relates to Europe.
49
Packaging Formats The study examines reusable timber and plastic Euro pallets of 1200x800mm. The material specification of the pallets is not described. The timber pallet is described as heavier and having a shorter life than the plastic pallet. Study Assumptions Details of return rates, trippage rates as well as transportation mode and distances are not provided. End of life waste management is incineration for the timber pallet, energy recovery has been credited. The waste management of the plastic pallet is not described. Results and Peer Review No peer review was stated. Results are presented in tabular format quantifying environmental impacts for 1000 cycles. Study Conclusions:
The wood harvesting and transformation have little impacts on the environment during the production phase; however the influence of drying, when necessary, is by itself notable. The impact of transport is very important. Despite this impact the total balance remains positive. Note that after five repairs the choice of eliminating the pallet and producing a new one only increases by 10% the global environmental impacts. In terms of balance the impacts of the valorisation are positive. Wooden pallets demonstrate clear advantages over synthetic pallet despite their upper weight and its shorter life.
Without access to the full report it is difficult to judge the validity of this report.
3.1.3 Streamlined LCA of iGPS pallet, typical pooled wooden pallet and the single use wood pallet
This study was published in 2008 and was commissioned by Intelligent Global Pooling Systems (iGPS) and undertaken by ERM The report is 19 pages long The geographical coverage is Europe
Packaging Formats The study examines a single-trip timber pallet and reusable timber and plastic pallets of 1200x1000mm. The reusable plastic pallet is iGPSs own HDPE pallet and is studied as virgin, 15% and 99% recycled content. The timber pallet is manufactured using new timber. Study Assumptions The study starts with a critique of a TNO study publicly cited by Virginia Tech academics which compared plastic and wooden pooled pallet systems and concluded that wooden pallets were environmentally preferable to plastic pallets. ERM states and concludes in its critique that the age of the study (1994) pre the 1997 ISO standardization discounts its findings. No further evaluation is provided. The weight for a typical single-trip wooden pallet is high and probably doesnt always include hardwoods in its construction. The construction of the plastic pallet, particularly with reference to the steel content is not detailed. Return rates are stated as 96% for the reusable wooden pallet and 99% for the reusable plastic pallet. Trippage rates for the reusable timber pallet are described as 15, and for plastic 100. This trip rate for the plastic pallet is higher than other studies. With the absence of pallet test or real life data it is not possible to give a view on the likelihood of a 20 year service life and therefore likely lifetime trippage. Also iGPS appear to be a relatively new company and may not have sufficient data to draw estimated lifetime conclusions. As the results of the study are most sensitive to trippage, this could be important. No mention of pilferage is made in the study.
50
The study appears to relate to typical transportation distances associated with distribution by truck in the US and Canada, but actual distances are not described. Fill levels of returning vehicles are not described. Transportation distances appear to be based on assumptions regarding the location of manufacturing, inspection and repair facilities for wooden pallets in US and Canada identified from publicly available information. As the % contribution of inspection and repair trips is not described it is impossible to determine whether or not this is a significant factor in determining the results. It is also not possible to determine whether transportation distances for wooden and plastic pallets are realistic, equivalent or comparable. End of life waste management for the timber pallets is described as mulch (percentage not stated) and municipal solid waste of which 80% goes to landfill and 20% to incineration with energy recovery; the waste management of the plastic pallet is described as 80% landfill and 20% to incineration. Repair operation for the reusable timber pallet is included in the system boundary, but flows or journey distances etc. are not described. The system boundaries considered are full life cycle and fully described. Results and Peer Review No peer review was stated. Results are presented in tabular format and graphically quantifying environmental impacts per pallet. Sensitivity analysis to pallet weight appears to have only considered increase in wooden pallet weight due to moisture content. This does not appear to take account of the potential range of pallet weights that may be available. Study conclusions:
The results of this study showed that the iGPS plastic pallet had lower environmental impacts in all impact categories compared to the typical pooled wooden pallet, and a substantially smaller environmental footprint than the single-use pallet. Incorporating a relatively small proportion (15% by weight) of recycled HDPE into the iGPS pallet further improved the environmental performance, while the 100% recycled HDPE pallet had a markedly smaller environmental footprint. Since current typical pooled wooden pallet data were not readily available except through secondary sources, sensitivity analyses were performed to determine how varying certain data inputs would change the LCA results. Analyses of these what-if scenarios indicated that the most significant input variable was the trips per pallet lifetime (a function of pallet durability and useful life), followed by the distance each pallet travels, and then pallet weight. A review of the environmental impacts for each life-cycle stage showed that the majority of environmental impacts from the iGPS pallet accrue from the production of virgin high density polyethylene (HDPE), the key raw material in the plastic pallet. This is a life cycle stage over which iGPS has no control. However, incorporating recycled HDPE content into the iGPS pallet mitigated environmental impacts associated with HDPE production. The transportation phase of the life cycle was where the iGPS pallet demonstrated significant environmental benefits compared to the pooled wooden pallet. This was due primarily to the iGPS pallets ability to make many more trips per pallet lifetime as well as its lighter weight. Elimination of the repair step common to the typical pooled wooden pallet system resulted in fewer truck miles travelled per pallet trip, hence lower fuel use and transportation-related emissions and impacts. Due to the iGPS pallets comparatively short time in the marketplace (since 2006) compared to the pooled pallet system and single-use pallet, iGPS intends to continue to collect data to validate the assumptions made in this report, particularly with respect to trips per pallet lifetime and transport distances.
51
3.2
Study Reviews Shrink-wrap Collation vs. Plastic Crate
One Study was reviewed in detail. Study Title (abbrev.) Building the business case for reusable transport packaging Year Commissi oned by Rehrig Pacific Company Perform ed by Franklin Associates Product type Water Plastic crate (material) Not stated1 Shrink-wrap collation (material) Corrugated pad (25% & 50% recycled) and shrink film (50% & 95% recycled) Corrugated tray (25% & 50% recycled) and shrink film (50% & 95% recycled) Trips for returnable 30 & 60 modelled Journey distance Not stated Impact Categories EU, SWC, GG Favours Comments
2008
Reusable plastic crate
Favours reusable plastic crate for all scenarios studied
Impact categories EU Energy use, SWC Solid waste contribution, GG Greenhouse gases Notes: 1 Rehrig manufacture both HDPE and PP.
52
3.2.1 Building the business case for reusable transport packaging
This study was published in 2008 and was commissioned by Rehrig Pacific Company and undertaken by Franklin Associates The 26 slide Powerpoint presentation containing the LCA reviewed is detailed and well presented.
Packaging Formats The study examines single-trip shrink film collations (one with a corrugated layer pad and another with a corrugated tray) versus a reusable plastic crate. All three systems studied containing 12 x 20oz bottles of mineral water. Study Assumptions For the shrink-wrap collations, 25% and 50% recycled content of the corrugated is modelled; the recycled content of the film is not described. The reusable plastic crate is Rehrigs own HDPE or PP crate; any recycled content is not described. Return rates for the plastic crate are not stated, but trippage is modelled at 30 and 60 cycles. End of life waste management for the shrink-wrap collation materials is stated as 95% recycling for the corrugated board and both 50% and 95% recycling of the film are modelled. The waste management of the plastic crate is not described. The study appears to relate to typical transportation distances associated with distribution in the US, but mode and actual distances are not described. Fill levels of delivery and returning vehicles are not described. The system boundaries considered appear to be full life cycle. Results and Peer Review No peer review was stated. Results are not presented; conclusions are presented in tabular format. Study Conclusions:
Scenario: 25% recycled content of corrugated board, 50% film recycling, crate life of 60 trips Reusable plastic crates:
Require 60% less total energy than the film with corrugated pad and 75% less total energy than the film with corrugated tray Produce 91% less total solid waste than the film with corrugated pad and 95% less total solid waste than the film with corrugated tray Generate 64% less total global warming potential (GWP) than the film with corrugated pad and 81% less GWP than the film with corrugated tray Generate 145 pounds CO2 equivalent while the film with corrugated pad generate 407 pounds and the film with corrugated tray generate 762 pounds.
Scenario: 50% recycled content of corrugated board, 95% film recycling, crate life of 30 trips Reusable plastic crates:
Require 9% less total energy than the film with corrugated pad and 46% less total energy than the film with corrugated tray Produce 81% less total solid waste than the film with corrugated pad and 89% less total solid waste than the film with corrugated tray Generate 32% less total global warming potential (GWP) than the film with corrugated pad and 65% less GWP than the film with corrugated tray
Generate 244 pounds CO2 equivalent while the film with corrugated pad generate 360 pounds and the film with corrugated tray generate 705 pounds.
53
3.3
Study Reviews Common Footprint Corrugated Trays vs. Plastic trays
Four studies were reviewed in detail. These studies were selected using the methodology described as Appendix 2 accompanying the main report. The following section summarises the main study details and provides commentary on the study approach and findings. Study Title (abbrev.) Corrugated board boxes & plastic container systems RTP proves its green credentials A comparative study of the environmental & economic characteristics of corrugated board boxes & reusable plastic crates LCI of reusable plastic crates and display ready corrugated containers Year 2004 Commiss. by FEFCO Performed by Vogtlander/T NO Sustain Product type Fruit & Veg. Generic Plastic (material & format) Returnable HDPE Rigid and folding Returnable PP Rigid and folding Returnable HDPE & PP both folding Corrugated (material & format) Single-trip Recycled1,2 Single-trip Not stated Single-trip 50% recycled papers Trips for returnable 20 folding 30 rigid 92 Journey distance 02,500km Not stated C.2600k m (Almeria, Spain to Hamburg , Germany ) Not stated Impact Categories A, E, HM, C, SS, WS, GW CF Favours Single-trip Corrugated Returnable plastic Single-trip corrugated Comments Results are presented as costs and eco costs shown by journey distance States that returnable plastic tray has a carbon footprint 68% less than single-trip corrugated tray Does take into account carbon sequestration of tree growth
2008 /9 2005
Linpac Allibert Ministerio De Medio Ambiente
Itene/Valenc ia University
Fruit & Veg.
20
C, ROE, RIE, CC,R, DOL ,ET ,A, E, LU, DMR
2004
Reusable Pallet & Container Coalition
Franklin Associates
Fruit and Veg.
Returnable PP
Single-trip Not stated
Not stated3
TE, TSW, TGG
Returnable plastic
States returnable plastic: requires 39% less energy; produces 95% less total solid waste; generates 29% less greenhouse gases
Impact categories A - Acidification, E Eutrophication, HM Heavy metals, C Carciogenics, SS Summer smog, WS Winter smog, GW Global warming, CF Carbon footprint, ROE Respiratory organic elements, RIE Respiratory inorganic elements, CC Climate Change, R Radiation, DOL Destruction of the ozone layer, ET Ecotoxicity, LU Land use, DMR Depletion of mineral resources, TE Total energy, TSW Total solid waste, TGG Total greenhouse gases Notes: 1 Lorries delivering single-trip corrugated trays were stated to return 70% full of other (unspecified goods). This claim is not substantiated in the report. 2 Material type unspecified in Vogtlander report, but claimed to be recycled in TNO report. Unlikely to be 100% recycled in cool chain distribution of fruit and vegetables. 3 Based on commissioning parties member data.
54
3.3.1 Corrugated board boxes & plastic container systems
This study was published in 2004 and was commissioned by FEFCO and undertaken by Dr Ir Joost G Vogtlander The report reviewed runs to 25 pages The study focuses on Netherlands and Germany.
Packaging Formats The study examines single-trip common footprint 600x400mm and 400x300mm corrugated fibreboard trays of varying heights and reusable common footprint 600x400mm and 400x300mm rigid and folding plastic trays for fruit and vegetables. 600x400mm trays of nominal height 240mm are compared as are 600x400mm trays of nominal height 110mm and 400x300mm trays of nominal height 140mm. The internal volume of the corrugated trays is between 6 and 22% greater than the plastic equivalents despite having approximately 15% less height. This is due to the wall thickness of the reusable trays. Therefore, the reusable packaging systems will have lower cube utilisation. Study Assumptions Neither the recycled content of the corrugated fibreboard trays, nor the plastic trays, is stated. Similarly end of life waste management is not described. Trippage rates for the reusable plastic trays is stated as 30 for rigid and 20 for folding. Trippage rates were provided by The Greenery Holland. The study focuses on transportation of produce from the Netherlands to Frankfurt, Germany. Journey distances by lorry are 500km and extrapolated out to 2500km and lorry fill levels are calculated according to tray volume and vehicle capacity in some detail. Return trip is stated as 70% full of other types of commercial goods for the corrugated tray vehicles and 100% full of return crates for the plastic tray vehicles. This seems unlikely and inconsistent, and favours plastic trays. The system boundaries considered are full life cycle and well described. Results and Peer Review Peer review is not stated. Results are presented as a series of graphs comparing costs and eco-costs of each size of tray for all three tray variants against transport distance. Study Conclusions:
The corrugated board systems are better in all cases from the environmental point of view. Transport by means of the plastic containers is only cheaper in 600x400 containers for short distances (shorter than 500 km). For very long transport distances (longer than 2000 km), the re-packing of vegetables and fruit, from the corrugated box into the containers of the retailers sees the best current system solution (better than transporting the plastic containers over long distances). An attempt should be made to introduce re-usable transfer plates which are to be used at the retailers distribution centre, to make the corrugated board box compatible with the retailers internal transport system; such a solution seems to be attractive for distances longer than 1000 km.
3.3.2 A comparative study of the environmental & economic characteristics of corrugated board boxes & reusable plastic crates
This study was published in 2005 and was commissioned by the Spanish Department of the Environment and undertaken by Itene and Valencia University Polytechnic The report reviewed is 34 pages
55
The study focuses on Spain and Germany.
Packaging Formats The study examines a single-trip common footprint 600x400mm corrugated fibreboard tray 90mm high and reusable common footprint 600x400mm folding plastic (HDPE and PP) trays 115mm high used for fruit and vegetables. Study Assumptions Detailed material specification of the corrugated board used is detailed including recycled content which by calculation equates to 50%. The recycled content of the plastic trays is not stated. End of life waste management is not described. Trippage rate for the reusable plastic trays is stated as 20, which concurs with the Vogtlander / FEFCO study. The study focuses on transportation of produce from Almeria, Spain to Hamburg, Germany. Journey distances are approximately 2,500km. Lorry fill levels and return trip details are not specified. The system boundaries considered are full life cycle and well described. Results and Peer Review Peer review was conducted by Dr Joan Rieradevall I Pons of the Barcelona University. The overall evaluation of the critical review was good. Results are presented as a series of graphs comparing impact categories of the three systems. Study conclusions:
The main conclusion drawn is that CBBs (corrugated board box) have lower environmental impact and costs than FPCs (folding plastic crate), specifically in the export of tomatoes to the German market in 7 kilogram boxes or crates. Other conclusions derived from the study are as follows:
The CBB has a lower environmental impact than the FPC in most of the environmental impact categories studied. When the estimation is modified to vary the number of complete cycles of plastic crate use, this circumstance is either accentuated or diminishes.[sic]
CBBs reduce impacts on climate change. This is due to the carbon dioxide sink effect brought about by young trees that provide the raw material for the manufacture of the paper components of corrugated board, and to the use of secondary raw material from the recycling of used paper and corrugated board packaging.
In the case of both packagings, the greatest contribution to environmental impact during the life cycle occurs at the production stage, due to the environmental impact of the raw materials (corrugated board and high density polyethylene respectively), and the use stage, due to the refrigerated transport of the packagings during their assignment to contain and protect the tomatoes.
In FPCs, this contribution is even higher due to their greater weight and bulk. Consequently, more resources are required to transport the same quantity of tomatoes in FPCs than in CBBs. Furthermore, once they have served their purpose at the destination they must be returned, unlike the CBBs which are recycled close to the destination point. The precise appraisal of the number of cycles the FPC accomplishes during its useful life is critical, as it determines the environmental impact contribution of its life cycle in the packaging production stage. Nonetheless, when 20 FPC rotations, and the improbably high number of 50 or 100 rotations are considered, analysis reveals that the CBB (according to the Eco-indicator 99-I), has a lower environmental impact in most of the impact categories analysed.
When polypropylene, as opposed to high density polyethylene, was examined as the FPC raw material, the result is not as environmentally favourable as the case of the CBB.
56
3.3.3 RTP proves its green credentials
This study relates to 2008/9 and was commissioned by Linpac Allibert and undertaken by Sustain The 3 page summary report was reviewed The study focuses on Germany, Spain, UK and France.
Packaging Formats The study examines a single-trip common footprint 600x400mm corrugated fibreboard tray 180mm high and reusable common footprint 600x400mm rigid and folding plastic (PP) Linpac trays 199mm and 196mm high respectively. No specific product is considered. Study Assumptions No detail of corrugated board specification or recycled content is given and no detail regarding the recycled content of the plastic trays is stated. End of life waste management is not described. Trippage rate for the reusable plastic trays is stated as 92 over 5 years. No justification is provided for this figure. No journey or transportation details are provided. The system boundaries considered appear to be full life cycle. Results and Peer Review No peer review is stated. Results are presented in a graph comparing the carbon footprint of the three systems by life cycle stage. Study Conclusions:
Based on an average plastic crate lifecycle of 92 return trips over five years, Maxinests PCF is 26 CO2e kg per unit and XLXS has an even smaller PCF at 23 CO2e kg. Using exactly the same criteria, cardboards PCF however is 71 CO2e kg per unit, making the PCF of LINPAC Allibert RTP 68% less than cardboard.
(Note: Maxinest and XLXS are Linpac Allibert trade names for a nestable and foldable crate respectively)
3.3.4 LCI of reusable plastic crates and display ready corrugated containers
This study was published in 2004 and was commissioned by the Reusable Pallet & Container Coalition (RPCC) and undertaken by Franklin Associates The report reviewed was 15 pages.
The study examines a single-trip common footprint 600x400mm corrugated fibreboard tray and reusable common footprint 600x400mm plastic (PP) tray for fruit and vegetables. Neither the recycled content of the corrugated fibreboard tray nor the plastic tray is stated. End of life waste management of the corrugated tray is stated as 95% recycling, 4% landfill and 1% incineration with energy recovery. End of life management of the plastic tray is stated as 100% reground for recycling. Trippage rates for the reusable plastic tray are not stated, but are said to be based on RPCC member data. The study does not state geography, or journey details and distances, but presumably relates to the US. The system boundaries considered are full life cycle. Peer review is not stated. Results are presented as a table and bar graphs detailing greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and solid waste generation comparisons based on three sensitivity scenarios (reduced backhauling, reduced re-use rate and increased loss). Study Conclusions:
For the average condition produce shipping scenarios analysed within the defined scope of this study, findings indicate that, on average across all ten produce applications, RPCs:
57
Require 39% less total energy Produce 95% less total solid waste Generate 29% less total greenhouse gas emissions
than do DRCs for corresponding produce applications. One factor dominates the findings. Multiple trips in an RPC closed operating system lead to materials efficiencies that create relatively low environmental burdens that are only partly offset by backhaul and cleaning steps. In the DRC system a container is manufactured for each trip to retail. Recovery and recycling rates for DRCs are high, but the production step (including recycling) introduces a higher level of burdens. In the case of RPCs and DRCs, multiple reuses of RPCs result in lower environmental burdens than single-trip DRC containers. The more lifetime uses that can be achieved for an RPC, the lower the environmental burdens for container production that are allocated to each use of the container. Thus, the success of a reusable container system depends on keeping RPCs in circulation for repeated reuse and recycling. Maximum reductions in container production burdens and disposal burdens are achieved by multiple uses of a container without remanufacturing (i.e. RPC reuse compared to DRC recycling). Total System Energy Results: In almost every product application studied, the benefits of the closed-loop RPC pooling operation more than offset the benefits of lighter container weight and a high recycling rate for corrugated containers. As a result, total energy requirements for RPCs are lower than corresponding DRCs in all average use scenarios. RPCs also have lower total energy requirements than corresponding DRCs in eight out of ten alternative scenarios evaluating the effects of lower reuse rates and higher loss rates for RPCs compared to light-weighted DRCs. Total System GHG Results: GHG results generally track closely with fossil fuel consumption, since that is the source of the majority of GHG emissions. GHG comparisons for the RPC and DRC average scenarios are lower for RPCs for 18 of 20 average scenarios covering 10 produce applications. Total System Solid Waste Results: RPCs produce less solid waste than corresponding DRCs in all produce applications and scenarios. This is due to several key factors:
The burdens for production of RPCs are allocated over a (large) number of useful lives, RPCs that remain in the closed-loop pooling system are recycled when they are removed from service, Losses of RPCs from the closed-loop system are small, DRCs make only one trip before they are recycled (requiring re-pulping and remanufacture) or disposed.
EPA has long used the waste management hierarchy of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. This LCI considers all three techniques: reduction in weight of DRCs, reuse of RPCs, and recycling of both RPCs and DRCs. The results indicate that, for the produce applications studied, reuse with closed-loop recycling at end of life is the most efficient means of reducing not only solid waste but also energy use and GHG emissions. Reduction in container weight was observed to reduce not only the environmental burdens for container production and end-of-life management, but also the burdens for container transportation (less weight to haul = less fuel consumption). In this study, light-weighting was evaluated only for DRCs; however, the observations about the benefits of lightweighting hold true for any type of container.
58
4.0
Summary and Conclusions
A summary of the LCA reviews is presented below, together with information on how findings of the reviews were used to identify the key factors influencing the environmental burdens of alternative single-trip and reusable packaging systems. LCA Reviews The LCAs have provided valuable information and data describing the environmental burdens associated with various packaging systems for a range of different applications and products. The studies present comparisons between single-use and reusable packaging alternatives and allow the reader to make selections against impact categories. However, the quality and accuracy of the results are dependent on the quality of data inputs and the scientific rigour of the LCA practitioner. The reviews highlight that sufficient explanations of systems and data sources are not always provided, in which case care must be taken when interpreting the results. Particular attention should be paid to potential interests of the commissioning organisations, to ensure that the system or systems have been treated fairly and appropriately. In summary, the LCA studies themselves found:
that the borderline between ecologically favourable and unfavourable packaging is tenuous. Discrimination between concepts and materials on the basis of LCA results should be avoided when the results of in-depth sensitivity analyses are not available. Results are strongly influenced by allocation aspects (for instance, inclusion of recycling and the valuation of the input of secondary materials) and by the quality of the applied data.
the peer review of LCAs is one of the ways to increase the quality of an LCA. However, within these reviews there is normally no in-depth data verification as this requires a far greater effort than is commonly made. the question of the order of the overall environmental impacts of different packaging systems cannot be unambiguously answered. Instead, the conclusions on the environmental advantages of different packaging systems depend on the selected aspect; i.e. the priorities set for each impact category. However, for the setting of these priorities there are no commonly accepted methods though. Therefore the choice of the aspect and its reasoning will vary depending on the context where the results of this study will be used.
Information on the benefits and limitations of using LCA has outlined in Section 2 of this Appendix. However, one notably omission from the scope of the LCAs reviewed is product damage. The studies focus on packaging related environmental burdens and so have not considered burdens associated with product manufacture or damage, although these will have a significant influence on the overall environmental burdens of packaged product systems. Product damage is linked to the wider commercial considerations that must be taken into account when deciding between reusable and single-trip packaging formats. Due to resource use, embedded carbon, water use etc. in the manufacture and distribution of the product, any damage resulting in product wasteage will have a significant impact on the environmental burden of the packaged product system. Any comparison of packaging systems therefore needs to include an assessment of the impact of any change on potential and actual damage rates. In order for a reusable system to be successful, there must be clear cost benefits to the participants, quality improvements and benefits to the service; all these commercial and consumer aspects must be balanced against the environmental considerations8. Factors Influencing Environmental Performance This Appendix forms part of the main Wrap report Is Reusable Packaging the Right Choice for the Environment?. The reviews of LCA studies detailed here have subsequently been used to help draw out the factors that have a significant influence on the relative environmental performance of alternative single-trip and reusable packaging systems. These factors are presented in the main report.
The Advisory Committee on Packaging on Reuse Taskforce has produced a report which provides information on the commercial and consumer barriers of reusable systems. It has a focus on primary reuse systems in the beverage sector but includes secondary and transit packaging examples as well.
59
The factors described should enable packaging users and packaging specifiers to consider reusable packaging in a structured way, to help make informed decisions when choosing between reusable and single-trip packaging systems.
60
Appendix 2 Methodology
This Appendix sets out the methodology for the research that supports this project. The work was conducted in a series of stages:
Stage 1: Identify LCA studies and other environmental appraisals that appraise reusable and single-trip packaging in a product distribution system Stage 2: Generate a short-list of studies for detailed review Stage 3: Detailed review of short-listed studies Stage 4: Identify factors which influence the environmental impact of reusable versus single-trip packaging Stage 5: Description of the factors for packaging users to consider in order to make an informed decision as to choice of single-trip or reusable system.
Each of these stages is described in more detail below. Stage 1: Identify LCA studies and other environmental appraisals An extensive literature and Internet search aimed at identifying as wide a list of studies comparing the environmental performance of single-trip and reusable packaging as possible. At this stage in the process, all reusable packaging applications were considered, with the exclusion of reusable carrier bags and reusable cutlery and crockery as used in food retail outlets (for example, paper/plastic plates versus china plates, etc). The table below provides a list of the reusable packaging applications considered in the initial literature search. Table A6: List of reusable packaging applications considered in the initial literature review Reusable packaging format Reusable glass bottles ontrade and off-trade Reusable plastic bottles Reusable trigger sprays and other closures/dispensers and delivery mechanisms Reusable rigid plastic containers combined with stand-up pouch refills In-store refill systems Plastic trays (rigid or folding) Kegs and barrels Dollies, roll cages and similar wheel-in collation units Packing crates (wood or plastic) Drums, Jerricans, Pails Sacks Totes (dedicated transport systems which transfer the Packaging level Primary packaging Primary packaging Primary packaging Primary packaging Primary and display packaging Transit and display packaging Transit packaging Transit and display packaging Transit packaging Transit packaging Transit packaging Transit packaging End users Consumers Catering Consumers Catering Consumers Consumers Retailers Consumers Retailers Industrial / manufacturing Catering Retailers Wide range of retail, commercial and industrial supply chains Wide range of commercial and industrial supply chains Wide range of commercial and industrial supply chains Wide range of commercial and industrial Typical applications Soft drinks and alcoholic drinks Door-to-door milk deliveries Soft drinks and alcoholic drinks Household cleaning products For example, detergents, household cleaning products, cosmetics, etc Ingredients (whole foods such as nuts, cereals, coffee) Fruit and vegetables Bread Automotive parts supply Alcoholic drinks Milk Soft drinks (e.g. Coca Cola model) Highly varied Chemicals Ingredients Chemicals Ingredients Electronics (e.g. Xerox copiers)
61
packaging function to the transport system Intermediate bulk containers (IBCS) rigid and flexible Bulk delivery
supply chains Transit packaging Transit packaging Industrial / manufacturers Wide range of industrial supply chains, including construction Wide range of retail, commercial and industrial supply chains, including construction
Pallets and unit loads (wooden, plastic and corrugated)
Transit packaging
Components Magazines Chemicals Ingredients Chemicals Ingredients Building materials (e.g. cement silos) Highly varied
The results of the literature and internet search were then validated through consultation with key industry stakeholders, in particular:
Key packaging and packaging material trade associations Packaging and packaging material research and technology organisations LCA practitioners and other consultancy companies known to be active in this field.
Stage 2: Generate a short-list of studies for detailed review A short-list of sixteen studies was identified for more detailed evaluation. The studies identified in the initial review fall into three groups of studies:
Studies addressing drinks packaging account for approximately 50% of all studies identified Studies addressing transit packaging typically used in the retail supply (for example, RTPs versus corrugated packaging; single-trip and returnable pallets) account for approximately 30% of all studies identified Studies addressing other reusable packaging applications (for example, dishwashing detergent refills, bulk chemicals containers, refillable cosmetics, etc) account for the remaining 20%.
In order to identify trends and commonalities between study results, it was agreed with WRAP that the detailed review should focus on studies falling into the first two groups only, with a target of approximately eight studies to be reviewed covering drinks containers and eight covering retail supply chain packaging. Inevitably, it was difficult to define a rigid set of criteria for selecting which studies to short-list and which to reject. However, the following ground rules were used as a general guide during the selection process:
A cut-off date of 2002 was applied no studies older than this date were to be reviewed directly by the consultants First preference will always be given to LCA studies which comply with the standards described in the ISO14040 series The studies selected must cover the full life cycle of the packaging options being considered The studies selected must include a comparison of the reusable system against at least one alternative singletrip packaging format.
Ideally, LCAs that met standards described in the ISO14040 series were selected, covering the full life-cycle of the packaging being considered and included a comparison between reusable and single-use formats. We also used a cut-off date of 2004, with studies that were more than 5 years old rejected, so that the most up to date LCAs were considered. However, after these short-list criteria were applied, limited studies were left for review within each category, which is why some of those studies included for detailed review have limitations, or may not fully meet the short-list criteria. For example, in the drinks packaging group, it was evident that a number of important landmark studies were performed prior to the cut-off date, for example, the Danish EPA studies, the GUA study and the European Commissions life cycle cost benefit study. However, a number of projects conducted during and after 2002 effectively review these major projects, and therefore the results of these review studies have been included. As
62
well as capturing these landmark studies, this approach has the benefit of extending the number of studies whose results have been included in the analysis. The shortlisted studies for detailed review are listed below: Drinks packaging studies:
Apeal / TNO LCA sensitivity and eco efficiency analysis of drinks packaging systems (2002) PETCORE / IFEU LCA of one way PET bottles and recycled products (2004) Swiss Gas and Water Association / ESU Comparison of environmental impact of drinking water vs bottled mineral water (2005) Kaunas Region Development Agency / Kaunas University Assessment of opportunities for drinks packaging waste reduction by means of deposit refund systems (2006) [On review found to date from 2005 and to only
include part of the life cyle]
IFEU LCA comparison between packaging for fruit juice, ice tea and milk (2006) [On review found to relate
to single-trip packaging only]

Consortium of stakeholders (industry, government, research associations) / PTR Life cycle of Finnish drinks packaging (2006) [On review found to date from 2000 and entitled Life cycle assessment of potential
environmental impacts of Finnish drinks packaging systems 0.30l-0.50l glass bottles, aluminium cans and PET bottles for beer, cider and carbonated soft drinks]
WRAP / Oakdene Hollins Refillable glass drinks containers in the UK (2008) ADEME / RDC Report on the economic and environmental impact of a deposit system for drinks packaging and the recycling of plastic packaging (2008) Grass Roots Recycling Network review of drinks studies (2002)
Retail supply chain packaging studies:
Reusable Pallet and Container Coalition / Franklin Associates Life cycle inventory of reusable plastic containers and display ready corrugated containers used for packaging fresh fruits and vegetables (2004) FEFCO / Vogtlander Corrugated board boxes and plastic container systems: An analysis of costs and eco costs (2004) Spanish Department of the Environment / Itene & Valencia University Environmental and economic comparison of corrugated cardboard boxes and plastic crates used in the exportation of fruit and vegetable products (2005)
Reusable Pallet and Container Coalition / Franklin Associates & Paul Singh - Life cycle inventory and analysis of reusable plastic containers and display ready corrugated containers used for packaging fresh fruits and vegetables (2006) [On review found to be the same study as 2004 study above]
TU Delft Case study: Transport packaging (2007) [On review LCI data found to date from 1999, LCA
commissioned by FEFCO in 2004 and eco costs 2007]

Linpac Allibert / Sustain RTP carbon footprint (2008/09) Netherlands Packaging and Pallet Association / TNO Unknown (2008) [On review found to date from around
1996 and entitled The environmentally oriented life cycle analysis of multiple use wood pallets and multiple use synthetic pallets]
French Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Health / Ecobilan and CTBA wood research institute Unknown (2008) [On review found to date from around 1996 and entitled Life cycle analysis of the EUR pallet] Intelligent Global Pooling Systems (iGPS) Company LLC / ERM Streamlined life cycle assessment of the iGPS pallet, the typical pooled wooden pallet, and the single use wooden pallet (2008) Rehrig Pacific Company / Franklin Associates Rehrig Pacific Company study (2008)[On review title is RTP
proves its green credentials and Building the business case for reusable transport packaging].
63
Stage 3: Detailed review of short-listed studies Sourced LCA study documents varied in quality from full reports through to detailed synopses, to brief papers. Every attempt was made to secure the most detailed papers available. Each individual study was reviewed against a review template. Summaries of each study were then compiled and are detailed in Appendix 1 Review of LCAs. The studies which reviewed or built on existing LCA studies, rather than being an LCA study in their own right, were reviewed on their own merits and are also reported separately. Budgetary restraints limited the total number of studies that we were able to review during this project. Also, the objective of the work was to identify which factors have greatest influence on the results, rather than to provide a detailed commentary on specific results or make recommendations for one system over another. Even in instances where studies were undertaken for different reasons, by different organisations and using different approaches (e.g. ISO14040 peer reviewed or not), the review generally identified consistency in the factors that have greatest influence over the results. We found that a more superficial reading of some of the other studies, not reviewed in detail, confirmed this. It was therefore agreed that further detailed reviews would reinforce the conclusions already reached and would be unlikely to add extra value to the study. Stage 4: Comparison of the potential benefits of reuse and single-trip packaging Tables detailing the main pertinent details and conclusions of each of the detailed reviews conducted were compiled for the drinks packaging and the distribution categories separately in order that distribution details could be compared against results and conclusions drawn and commonalities in findings could be identified. The studies which in themselves reviewed previous studies were assessed for their results and findings in order that a view on the critical factors affecting the choice of packaging system could be compared to the findings of the detailed reviews. Stage 5: Description of the factors which packer fillers need to consider in order to make an informed environmental decision as to choice of single-trip or reusable system From the review of LCAs, a comprehensive list and description of the factors which affect the environmental burden of competing single-trip and reusable systems was collated and presented in the main report. These factors should help inform and provide guidance to decision makers when making choices between single-trip and reusable systems.
64
Appendix 3 List of LCAs identified

Appendix 3 is an excel spreadsheet and provides details of all Life Cycle Assessment studies and other environmental appraisals that assess reusable and single-trip packaging in a product distribution system. Please contact Nikki Bailey, Retail Team, at WRAP to ask for a copy of this spreadsheet: Nikki.Bailey@wrap.org.uk
65
www.wrap.org.uk/retail

Reusable Packaging Factors Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Reusable Packaging Factors Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Final report: Reusable Packaging - Factors to Consider

Project code: RHI007-001 Research date: March-March 2010

ISBN: 1-84405-437-3 Date: 1 May 2010

Scope of LCAs Reviewed

Is reusable packaging the right choice for the environment - Conclusions

Introduction and Objectives Introduction

The Environmental Benefits of Recycling 2010 Update available to download at http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Environmental_benefits_of_recycling_2010_update.d1dbe41b.8816.pdf

How the Report is Structured

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Goal and scope definition

Source: ISO 14040

The research supporting this project was conducted in a series of stages:

Each of these stages is described in more detail in Appendix 2.

4.1.1 Raw materials and energy used in manufacture

4.1.2 Trip rates of reusables

4.1.3 Transportation distances

4.1.4 Pool size for reusables

4.1.5 Vehicle utilisation

4.1.6 Recycled content and recycling rates

4.2 Secondary Factors

4.2.3 End of life waste management

4.2.4 Transportation mode

Source: US Department of Energy 2007

4.2.5 Energy mix in the system

4.2.6 Repair of reusable secondary packaging

4.2.7 Cleaning of reusable packaging

4.2.8 Secondary, tertiary and ancillary packaging

4.3.1 Pack sizes

4.3.2 Commissioning and Sponsoring Organisation

4.3.3 Carbon sequestration

Raw materials and energy used in manufacture

Trip rates for reusables

Pool size for reusables

Recycled content and post use material recycling rates

End of life waste management

Energy mix in the system

Repair of reusable secondary packaging

Cleaning of reusable packaging

Secondary, tertiary and ancillary packaging

Commissioning and sponsoring organisation

Appendix 1 Review of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) Contents

Introduction and Objectives Introduction

The Review Results and Findings Drinks Packaging

EC German Federal Environment Agency

Landmark UBA II study

Austrian Ministry of Environment DG Environment

Landmark GUA study

Evaluation of costs and benefits

Finnish Technology Development Centre

Swiss Gas and Water Association

2.1.1 TNO / APEAL Reviews

Two major limiting assumptions had to be applied in the sensitivity analysis:

Figure A3: Conditions for significant differences in TNO/APEAL study

Key System A System A Range of results

Figure A4: TNO range of eco-efficiency results

Study Review Summaries Drinks

0.5l, 1.5l & 2.0l carbonated & still (1.5l only)2

0.33l, 0.5l & 0.7l carbonated3

(0.33l) 25 (0.5l ) 21 (0.7l) not stated

FRC, UN, GW, A, TE, AE, SS, CPE, TI

2.2.1 LCA of potential environmental impacts of Finnish drinks packaging systems

2.2.2 LCA of one way PET bottles & recycled products

2.2.3 Comparison of the environmental impact of drinking water vs bottled water