201304305Evidenceforasoftdrinksroadmap-Phase2Final

General Enquiries on the form should be made to:
Defra, Procurements and Commercial Function (Evidence Procurement Team)

E-mail: research.competitions@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Evidence Project Final Report
Note
In line with the Freedom of Information
Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results
of its completed research projects in the
public domain wherever possible.
The Evidence Project Final Report is
designed to capture the information on
the results and outputs of Defra-funded
research in a format that is easily
publishable through the Defra website
An Evidence Project Final Report must
be completed for all projects.
This form is in Word format and the

boxes may be expanded, as appropriate.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
The information collected on this form will
be stored electronically and may be sent
to any part of Defra, or to individual
researchers or organisations outside
Defra for the purposes of reviewing the
project. Defra may also disclose the
information to any outside organisation
acting as an agent authorised by Defra to
process final research reports on its
behalf. Defra intends to publish this form
on its website, unless there are strong
reasons not to, which fully comply with
exemptions under the Environmental
Information Regulations or the Freedom
of Information Act 2000.
Defra may be required to release
information, including personal data and
commercial information, on request under
the Environmental Information
Regulations or the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. However, Defra will
not permit any unwarranted breach of
confidentiality or act in contravention of
its obligations under the Data Protection
Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents
may use the name, address or other
details on your form to contact you in
connection with occasional customer
research aimed at improving the
processes through which Defra works
with its contractors.
Project identification
1.
Defra Project code
2.
Project title
FO0432
Evidence to Support the

Development of a
Sustainability Roadmap for
Soft Drinks: Phase 2 report
3.
Contractor
organisation(s)
Best Foot Forward Ltd

9 Newtec Place
Magdalen Road, Oxford
OX4 1RE
152,550
54. Total Defra project costs

(agreed fixed price)
5. Project:
EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 1 of 35
th
start date ................
9 February 2012
end date .................
11 January 2013
th
6. It is Defras intention to publish this form.

Please confirm your agreement to do so. ...................................................................................... YES X NO
(a) When preparing Evidence Project Final Reports contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that
they be made public. They should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account
of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.
Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property
or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be
disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published)
so that the Evidence Project Final Report can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to
complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the
information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will
Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.
In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the
Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain
n/a
Executive Summary
7.
The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the
intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together
with any other significant events and options for new work.
The UK soft drinks industry has a market value of 14.5 billion and annual consumption exceeding 14.68
billion litres per year. Whilst the industry has been proactive in its work to minimise its environmental
footprint, there is still an opportunity to further this work through improved focus and collaborative action.
Defra is seeking to establish a sustainability roadmap with the sector which requires that the
environmental, social and economic impacts need to be more clearly understood. This roadmap will be
intended to target resource efficiency, waste reduction, reduced water and energy use, and to build on the
work already undertaken by the sector.
Best Foot Forward was commissioned to collate the evidence to form the basis for such a roadmap and to
engage industry stakeholders on identifying the areas for focus. The work had two phases: Phase 1 was
concerned with understanding the industry context and the key issues and opportunities, and Phase 2
refined the understanding of key themes that emerged from the Phase 1 research and prepared the
foundation for the roadmap.
This Phase 2 report builds on the research and findings of Phase 1 (see accompanying report), which
drew conclusions and identified preliminary opportunities for reducing the environmental impact of the
sector.
The themes and areas identified for further investigation in Phase 2 were:
Fruit and sweeteners,
Energy (incl. refrigeration),
Packaging,
Product waste, and
Water.
The main objective of Phase 2 was to:
Evaluate the significance of these key themes and focus areas, and whether they should be included
in the roadmap, and
Refine the data on the key themes and focus areas to ensure robust conclusions and results
Based on research undertaken in Phase 2, the total UK soft drinks supply chain greenhouse gases (
GHG) emissions have been revised downwards and estimated at 4.5 million tonnes CO2e (down from
7.2 million tonnes CO2e). This reduction is predominantly due to a refinement in the assessment of bulk
sweetener use in soft drinks and dilutables and their concentration levels. Fruit and packaging still
contribute the most to the overall GHG impact, at 32% and 42% respectively. Following the
reassessment of the drinks categories and their contribution to the total carbon footprint, carbonated soft
drinks (CSDs) now dominate and contribute just under half of the total GHG impact.
Key findings from the Phase 2 research are as follows:
Fruit - Orange, Apple and Pineapple are the 3 most commonly used fruits in UK soft drinks. An
estimated 3 million tonnes of oranges are used, significantly more than any other fruit. Approximately
72% of the oranges originate from Brazil. This would suggest that any reduction opportunities
targeted at fruit producers should focus on oranges and ensure that producers in Brazil are engaged
to realise reductions in UK soft drinks GHG emissions.
Bulk sweeteners Approximately 40% of sugar consumed in soft drinks is derived from sugar cane
with most of the rest from UK sourced sugar beet. The sugar cane supply chain is complex, involving
traders and processors therefore it may be difficult to engage with this sector to reduce the
environmental impact associated with sugar cane production, however there is additional scope to
engage with and build on the resource efficient opportunities already being implemented by the UK
sugar beet industry. However, it has to be noted that cane sugar already has an estimated 63% lower
carbon footprint than beet sugar. Both sugar sectors continue to improve the efficiency of sugar
production.
Refrigeration and freezing Due to a lack of data, it was not possible to quantify the GHG impacts
associated with the UK soft drinks supply chain. This was predominantly due to commercial
confidentiality and not enough robust data to derive a total GHG estimate. Research did provide
useful insights into initiatives that are being implemented to reduce refrigeration impacts across the
supply chain and future work could look at how to scale up these practices to achieve greater
reductions. It would also be beneficial to the soft drinks sector to understand the environmental
impacts associated with refrigeration in order to better monitor, manage and report on reductions
achievable through improved practices.

Packaging
o Off-trade secondary soft drinks packaging is estimated at 154,000 tonnes, of which most is
cartonboard and plastic (shrink film), with the former contributing the most in terms of volume.
Therefore, practices to optimise and reduce cartonboard packaging should be a focus for reducing
secondary packaging.
o On-trade primary soft drinks packaging is estimated at 121,000 tonnes, which includes over 200
million glass bottles and over 2,000 million plastic bottles. The on-trade has an important role in
managing its soft drinks packaging in a resource efficient manner, for example, a significant
opportunity exists to improve the collection of plastic and glass bottles for recycling.
o For recycling on-the-go there are a number of initiatives but no robust evidence of the quantities
of packaging collected. A survey to gather anecdotal evidence on what people do with their soft
drinks on-the-go provided some interesting findings, which suggest that improvements to
encourage recycling on-the-go could focus on collecting more bottles, providing more recycling
opportunities at railway stations and improving communication on bins to encourage recycling.
o Three main tools/initiatives exist to support the design for recyclability of PET bottles: WRAPs
PET Categorisation tool, European PET Bottle Platform and Recoups Recyclability by Design
guidelines. However, a survey undertaken suggests that there is some confusion over the three
tools/initiatives, with approximately a quarter of the 40 users of PET bottles not using any of the
tools. In order to improve the usage and effectiveness of the tools/initiatives, and thereby
increased recycling of PET bottles the tools/initiatives should improve the guidance provided,
ensure consistency amongst the tools/initiatives and improve scientific robustness.
Research into product waste in the supply chain built on WRAPs soft drinks resource map by
improving the accuracy of information on fruit and sugar product waste arisings from processing and
manufacture of soft drinks. This generates an estimated 9.6 million tonnes (52% sugar and 32%
oranges). This is significant and warrants further investigation into why this waste (or by-products)
arises. This will help to identify opportunities to minimise the waste arising and to further develop
appropriate alternative and resource efficient mechanisms for disposing the waste, such as increased
tm
use of sugar-cane waste in the production of biopolymers/PET (like CocaColas PlantBottle ) or the
use of pith/peel as animal feed.
Water not in product can account for as much as 70% of overall water use in soft drinks
manufacturing, equating to an estimated 14.8 million litres. At almost 3 litres of water, fruit juice and
smoothies use the most amount of water per litre of product produced, with CSDs, still and juice drinks
and dilutables using between 1 to 1.36 litres of water to produce 1 litre of product. It is recommended
that a future focus should be on reducing the amount of water required to produce a litre of product, by
building on the work being implemented by the Beverage Industry Environment Roundtable.
This report provides details on the objectives for undertaking additional work for each area covered above
and a detailed discussion on findings, with supply chain maps and methodology and assumptions covered
in the accompanying annexes.
The findings from both Phase 1 and 2 have been used to develop recommendations for the
development of a sustainability roadmap for the UK soft drinks industry, which will address the soft
drinks industrys environmental impacts, identify opportunities for resource efficiency and provide a route
towards achieving shared goals. A roadmap will be an invaluable enabler for collaborative progress
towards greater sustainability in the sector. A structured process is required to ensure the development of
an effective roadmap one that has achievable goals and is adopted by the sector. The process set out
in this document has been designed to ensure focus on those key areas of sustainability that will deliver
the greatest tangible results. In addition, the clear and strong governance and programme management
structure will ensure that there is maximum participation from the sector and that the roadmap is adopted
and followed.
Project Report to Defra
Some useful definitions
Carbonates include ready to drinks and draught dispense (for the hospitality sector), home dispense
(for example, Soda Stream), mixers including tonic and bitter drinks, orange and shandy; energy
drinks; sparkling flavoured water, health drinks and herbal drinks. They cover regular including
sparkling juice, low calorie and zero calorie. Flavours include cola, lemon, lemon-lime, other fruit
flavours (BSDA, 2012).
Bottled water is defined as still, sparkling and lightly carbonated water. It is further characterised as
being natural mineral water, spring water or bottled drinking water (BSDA, 2012).
Bulk sweeteners for the purposes of this report include sugar cane, beet and high fructose (corn)
syrup.
Dilutables include squashes, cordials and powders and other concentrates for dilution to taste by
consumers, normally adding 4 parts water to 1 part product. High juice contains a minimum of 40%
fruit content (as sold). Regular dilutables include squashes and cordials with a minimum of 25% fruit.
Low sugar variants include no added sugar and sugar free (BSDA, 2012).
Fruit juice is defined as having 100% fruit content equivalent, sometimes referred to as pure juice or
100% juice. Chilled juice comprises of four main types: smoothies (based predominantly on whole
crushed fruit, chilled and with a short shelf-life); freshly squeezed (not pasteurised, chilled with a
short-shelf life); not-from-concentrate (squeezed then pasteurised, chilled with a shelf life of a few
weeks; and other chilled from concentrate (from concentrate or part squeezed and part from
concentrate). Ambient or long life juice is mainly from concentrate and heat treated, with a shelf life of
up to 18 months (BSDA, 2012).
Intense sweeteners are non-sugar substances that can be added to food and drink products instead
of sugar (bulk sweeteners). They are many times sweeter than conventional sugar.
Off-trade includes unlicensed premises, such as supermarkets and convenience stores where
purchases are commonly made for home or on-the-go consumption.
On-trade includes pubs, clubs, entertainment venues, restaurants, work canteens, hospitals, prisons
and schools.
Still and juice drinks include high juice drinks (25-99% fruit content), juice drinks (5-25% fruit
content) and other still drinks (0-5%) including iced tea, sports drinks, still flavoured water and nonfruit drinks (BSDA, 2012).
1. Introduction
The UK soft drinks industry has a market value of 14.5 billion and annual consumption exceeding 14.685
billion litres per year. Whilst the industry has been proactive in its work to minimise its environmental
footprint, there is still an opportunity to further this work through improved focus and collaborative action.
Defra is seeking to establish a sustainability roadmap with the sector which requires that the environmental,
social and economic impacts need to be more clearly understood. This roadmap will be intended to target
resource efficiency, waste reduction, reduced water and energy use, and to build on the work already
undertaken by the sector.
Best Foot Forward has been commissioned to collate the evidence to form the basis for such a roadmap
and to engage industry stakeholders on identifying the areas for focus. The work has two phases: Phase 1
was concerned with understanding the industry context and the key issues and opportunities, and Phase 2
refined the understanding of key themes that emerged from the Phase 1 research and prepared the
foundation for the roadmap.
Phase 1 report
This Phase 2 report builds on the research and findings of Phase 1 (see accompanying report), which
drew conclusions and identified preliminary opportunities for reducing the environmental impact of the
sector which required further investigation within Phase 2.
Following the environmental hotspots analysis, five common environmental impact themes emerged.
These are listed in order of potential significance and/or priority:
1. Fruit & sugar - fruit and sugar production and processing contribute significantly to GHG
emissions and to the use of water for agriculture
2. Water not in product water use is significant in the processing of ingredients (especially fruit
and sugar-based drinks).
3. Energy (incl. refrigeration) energy use is significant in the processing of ingredients and
manufacture of packaging, fuel use in distribution and in refrigeration and freezing.
4. Product waste post-consumer waste is seen as more of a concern compared to waste arising
elsewhere in the supply chain.
5. Packaging - primary packaging, particularly PET bottles and aluminium cans, contributes
significantly to resource consumption and to post-consumer waste.
In addition to the identification of the environmental impact themes, a programme of stakeholder
engagement identified a range of opportunities and barriers for reducing these impacts. Stakeholders
particularly highlighted the following barriers to the industry achieving improved resource efficiency:
Improved engagement across the supply chain recommendations on how this could be achieved
can be sought from the stakeholders themselves and the Project Management Group,
Improved sharing of best practice building on and sharing good work in the sector through
channels and consortia already implemented, and
Improved education of those working in the supply chain to improve skills, including resource
efficiency management.
The main objective of Phase 2 was to deep dive into the key themes and focus areas identified in Phase 1
to:
Confirm how significant these key themes and focus areas are, and whether they should be included in
the roadmap, and
Clarify and improve the data on the key themes and focus areas identified in Phase 1 to ensure that the
conclusions and results are as robust as possible
The themes and areas identified for further investigation in Phase 2 were:
Fruit and sweeteners:
o Filling in fruit and sweeteners production data gaps
o Re-assessment of the carbon footprint of sweeteners associated with UK soft drinks consumption,
and
o Assessment of the environmental impact of intense sweeteners.
Energy (incl. refrigeration):
o Mapping refrigeration and freezing across the soft drinks supply chain, and
o Assessment of the carbon footprint of refrigeration and freezing.

Packaging:
o Identification of the volumes of soft drinks packaging associated with the on-trade,
o Re-evaluation of the volumes of secondary packaging associated with soft drinks,
o Assessment of the disposal routes associated with the consumption of soft drinks on the go,
o Assessment of the usage of design for recyclability tools for PET bottles, and
o Splitting of metal packaging into aluminium versus steel.
Product waste:
o Evaluation of the product waste data captured in WRAPs drinks resource map for soft drinks.
Water:
o Development of benchmarks for water not in product for each soft drink category, and
o Improvement of robustness of information on water not in product arisings during manufacture.
The extent to which the objectives set out above have been met and discussions of the results are outlined
in the sections below. Details of methods used, including statistical analysis are reported in the
methodology and assumptions Annex 6.
For the purposes of both Phases of work, the following soft drinks categories were defined and assessed:
1. Carbonates (CSDs)
2. Dilutables
3. Fruit juice & smoothies
4. Still & juice drinks
5. Bottled water
Variance between Phase 1 and Phase 2
As a result of more in-depth research the results presented in Phase 1 have been updated see Figures 1
and 2. Table 1 provides an overview of the most significant differences between the results for various
components.
Table 1: Variance between Phase 1 and Phase 2 findings due to refinement and improvement of data
Total soft drinks consumed

Total GHG emissions
Sweeteners
Water not in product
Metal primary packaging
Phase 1: draft estimate

14.585 billion (2010)
7.2 million tonnes CO2e
310,000 tonnes CO2e
27.3 million litres
40,900 tonnes
Phase 2: final estimate

i
14.685 billion (2011)
4.5 million tonnes CO2e
173,000 tonnes CO2e
14.8 million litres
Aluminium: 32,900 tonnes (80%)
Steel: 8,800 tonnes (20%)
An explanation for key variances:

i
Soft drinks volumes: During Phase 1 the total volume of soft drinks consumed figure used was that
provided in the British Soft Drink Associations 2011 report (BSDA, 2011). During the course of Phase 2,
their 2012 report was published. Results derived in Phase 2 used the 2012 report (BSDA, 2012).
ii
GHG emissions: The most significant adjustment has been the total GHG emissions associated with
the UK soft drinks supply chain. This is predominantly down to a refinement of the results derived for
volumes of dilutables manufactured and consumed. This was raised as an area of concern in Phase 1.
As a result of the reassessment of the dilutables figure the total volume of dilutables was reduced from
3.5 million to 0.7 million litres. This was due to a change in the way the concentration of dilutables was
assumed with Phase 1 reporting ready to drink volumes and not the concentrate.
iii
Sweeteners: One of the aims of Phase 2 was to reassess and recalculate the environmental impact of
sweeteners used in the production of soft drinks. In Phase 1 only beet sugar was assessed, and in
Phase 2 a more robust figure for sweeteners was derived, which included beet and cane sugar and high
fructose syrup.
iv
Water: In the Phase 1 research it was assumed that input water was additional to water in product,
because some sources were ambiguous about this. In Phase 2 it was assumed that input water includes
water in product. In addition, the Phase 2 work on juice has provided estimates of the amounts of juice
concentrate in the various categories of product, and from this it was possible to derived more detailed
estimates of water in product (17% reduction due to juice research) and process water (47% reduction
due to dilutables volume reduction and the removal of water in product).
Figure 1: Estimated GHG (tCO2e) emissions associated with the UK soft drinks supply chain
Note: Aluminium includes steel.
Figure 2: Estimated GHG (tCO2e) emissions associated with the UK soft drinks supply chain, by category
Figure 2a: Estimated GHG (tCO2e) emissions associated with the UK carbonated soft drinks supply chain,
by category
Figure 2b:
category
Estimated GHG (tCO2e) emissions associated with the UK bottled water supply chain, by
Note for figure 2b: Bottled water represents 10% of estimated GHG (tCO2e) in the UK soft drinks
supply chain. This pie chart shows the breakdown of the emissions associated with the bottled
water supply chain, only.
Figure 2c: Estimated GHG (tCO2e) emissions associated with the UK still and juice drinks supply chain, by
category
Figure 2d: Estimated GHG (tCO2e) emissions associated with the UK fruit juice (incl. smoothies) supply
chain, by category
Figure 2e: Estimated GHG (tCO2e) emissions associated with the UK dilutables supply chain, by category
Phase 2 Findings
2. Fruit and Sweeteners
2.1. Fruit
Fruit used in soft drinks contributes 32% to the total UK soft drinks GHG emissions (see Figure 1). This is
the most significant contributor to total GHG emissions, and therefore research was carried out in Phase 2
to gather further information and data on the production of the most commonly used fruits in UK juices:
Orange, Apple, Pineapple, Other citrus (incl. grapefruit, lime & lemons) and Blackcurrant.
This work included:
- Identifying the country of origin, production and processing methods, volumes and refrigeration
along the supply chain routes to the UK from grower to retail,
- Clarifying the average amount of fruit required to produce 1 litre of soft drink, and
- Reviewing different types of fruit production and processing methods with a lower environmental
impact than current methods to gather evidence for potential reduction opportunities that could be
adopted for a soft drinks roadmap.
It is believed that this is the first time that a detailed and quantified picture of the supply chains for fruit used
in UK soft drinks has been developed. The work required extensive research and contact with major fruit
producers, processors, and distributors to ensure robust models were developed. The results of this work
are presented below, with a more detailed discussion on refrigeration is discussed in Section 2.3, and good
practice production methods presented in Annex 3. Details on the analysis methodology, assumptions, data
gaps and issues for each fruit type can be found in Annex 6.
2.1.1. Oranges
Orange is the most commonly consumed fruit juice flavour, at 62% of total fruits consumed (AIJN, 2012).
Due to its significance as an ingredient in soft drinks, particularly in fruit juice (incl. smoothies) and
dilutables, it was investigated further with a particular focus on establishing the sources of the oranges used
in UK consumed soft drinks.
A detailed supply chain map for oranges used in UK soft drinks has been developed and can be seen in
Annex 1. Effectively all orange juice for UK consumption is imported as there is no significant orange juice
production in the UK for climatic reasons. Analysis of HMRC data for orange juice import and export shows
an estimated 3 million tonnes of oranges are used to produce 1.7 billion litres (single strength eq.) of
orange juice for use in the UK (HMRC, 2012).
The largest proportion of imported orange juice comes from Brazil (approx. 72%)(CitrusBR, 2009). Most of
this juice is processed in Brazil, transported in specialist container ships and then blended and bottled in the
UK. A proportion is bottled in the EU and shipped to the UK ready to drink. There is also a significant
proportion grown and processed in Spain (approx. 17%). Of this, some will be bottled in Spain and shipped
to the UK ready to drink. Most juice passes through international traders in countries such as Belgium,
France and the Netherlands on their way to the UK (see Annex 6 for more details)(HMRC, 2012). The juice
can remain in refrigerated storage for up to 10 months large refrigerators called tank-farms, spread across
factories in the country of production, on ships and port terminals in Brazil or Europe, until it is sold and
delivered truck by truck to the packers (CitrusBR, 2010). The total juice imported is approximately 8% notfrom concentrate (NFC) and 92% from concentrate (FC) by volume at single strength equivalent
concentration levels. Approximately 50 million litres (single strength eq.) of FC and NFC orange juice is reexported from the UK to countries such as Ireland, The Netherlands and France (HMRC, 2012).
Orange juice is transported in specialised refrigerated container ships which operate out of dedicated
juice terminals. Carriers can transport up to 37,000t of juice. (CitrusBR, 2009)
According to industry experts, an estimated 5-10% of the orange juice imported into the UK is used for nonsoft drink purposes such as food processing. Analysis of BSDA sales data shows that approximately 900
million litres (single strength eq.) of orange juice is consumed in UK soft drinks (BSDA, 2012). The majority
of the consumption is in fruit juice and smoothies (728 million litres (single strength eq.)); Still and juice
drinks (104 million litres (single strength eq.)); Carbonated soft drinks (CSDs)(38 million litres (single
strength eq.)), and Dilutables (28 million litres (single strength eq.)).
The largest portion of orange juice consumed in the UK comes from Brazil. It is worth noting that CitrusBR,
an association of the four largest Brazilian producers and exporters of citrus juices (Cutrale, CitrosucoFischer Group, Citrovita-Votorantim Group and Louis Dreyfus Commodities) is particularly active on carbon
footprinting and other sustainability initiatives.
According to a life cycle analysis carried out for a large UK retailer, 1.96 kg of oranges are required on
average to produce 1 litre of NFC orange juice and 10.2 kg of oranges are required to produce 1 litre
of concentrated orange juice (ERM, 2011). These yields result in an estimated 1.4 million tonnes of
waste and by-products generated as a result of orange juice production for the UK.
2.1.2 Apples
At 15%, apple constitutes the second most commonly consumed fruit juice flavour for fruit juice (BSDA,
2012). It was investigated further with a particular focus on establishing the sources of the apples used in
UK consumed soft drinks.
A detailed supply chain map for apples used in UK soft drinks has been developed and can be seen in
Annex 1. Apple juice consumed in the UK arises through two routes. Either it is bulk imported to the UK
and then bottled here or pressed in the UK from UK grown apples and bottled here. The results of the
research estimate the split of UK to imported juice to be 28% to 72%. An estimated 1.3 million tonnes of
apples are used to produce juice for UK consumption (HMRC, 2012 and EuroStat, 2011), which is the
equivalent of approximately 0.8 billion single strength equivalent litres of apple juice. In addition, the UK also
imports apple and pear juice blends (approximately 100 million litres). The three largest suppliers of apple
juice to the UK are Austria, Germany and Spain. Of the imported juice, approximately 92% is from FC,
whereas the UK production is mainly used as NFC.
After pressing, processing, transportation, bottling and use for non-soft drink purposes, the total consumed
apple juice in soft drinks is an estimated 230 million litres of single strength equivalent juice. A large
proportion of the remainder will be used for cider production. 45% of the apple juice consumption is for
dilutables, with 29% and 26% for fruit juice and smoothies and still and juice drinks respectively (BSDA,
2012). The UK exports approximately 15 million litres of single strength equivalent apple juice (both FC
and NFC) to a variety of countries mostly within the EU.
Apple juice is a true traded commodity. The price fluctuates significantly and the sourcing location is
very price dependent. Currently its cheapest to import juice from Poland. The price of their juice has
fallen in 5 years from 2.40/t to 1.50/t (BSDA, 2012).
According to the WRAPs report Resource Efficiency In The UK Soft Drinks Sector, the typical yield
when pressing harvested apples is around 65% (WRAP, 2012a). This means on average, it requires
1.54kg of apples to produce 1litre of apple juice, with estimated total UK waste arisings of 450,000
tonnes.
.
2.1.3 Pineapples
At 5%, pineapples constitute the third most commonly consumed fruit juice flavour (excluding blends) for
fruit juice (BSDA, 2012). A detailed supply chain map for pineapples used in UK soft drinks can be seen in
Annex 1. Effectively all pineapple juice for UK consumption is imported as there is no significant pineapple
production in the UK. An estimated 1.3 million tonnes of pineapples are used to produce 62 million litres
(single strength eq.) of pineapple juice for use in the UK (HMRC, 2012).
The largest source of pineapple juice imported into the UK is from Spain and Italy (estimated at 41%). This
juice is sourced mostly from Thailand and Costa Rica where it is processed from fruit to juice. It is then
transported to Spain and Italy where they blend and bottle it before transporting it ready to drink into the UK.
The UK also imports juice directly from Thailand (29%), Costa Rica (12%) and other sources (17%). This
juice is blended and bottled in the UK (HMRC, 2012).
Around 50% of the worlds pineapple juice concentrate is produced in Asia; 70% of this is from Thailand.
Small quantities of concentrate are exported to Europe from Kenya and South Africa (BSDA, 2012).
In addition to straight pineapple juice, the UK also imports approximately 25 million litres (single strength
eq.) of citrus and pineapple blend. The split of fruits and origins of these blends is unknown. The UK reexports approximately 1 million litres (single strength eq.) of pineapple juice and 0.8 million litres (single
strength eq.) of citrus and pineapple blends to countries such as Ireland, USA and Germany (HMRC, 2012).
According to industry experts, approximately 5-10% of the pineapple juice imported into the UK is used in
non-soft drinks purposes (Cobell, 2012) and an estimated 72 million litres (single strength eq.) of pineapple
juice is consumed in UK soft drinks (BSDA, 2012). The majority of this consumption is in fruit juice and
smoothies (67 million litres (single strength eq.)) with the rest used in still and juice drinks (3 million litres
(single strength eq.)) and CSDs (1 million litres (single strength eq.)) respectively. No data was available for
pineapple consumption in dilutables.
According to a study carried out by the Government of Mauritius, 2.11 kg of pineapples are required to
produce 1 litre of juice (Government of Mauritius, 2012). This yield results in an estimated 70,000 tonnes
of waste and by-products generated by the production of pineapple juice for the UK.
2.1.4 Other citrus
During engagement with stakeholders in Phase 1, it was requested that other citrus, in particular limes and
lemons, were also considered in the Phase 2 research. It was not possible to extrapolate data to derive
estimates solely for limes and lemons, however other citrus data was available and this is predominantly
includes limes and lemons, and excludes citrus in spirits, mixtures, orange juice and grapefruit juice (HMRC,
2012). Estimates suggest that combined limes and lemons constitute the fourth most common fruit juice
flavour consumed in the UK.
A detailed supply chain map for other citrus used in UK soft drinks can be seen in Annex 1. Due to the
UKs climate there is no significant citrus production in the UK so it is all imported. It is estimated that
136,000 tonnes of citrus fruits are used to produce 54 million litres of citrus juice for use in the UK. In
addition, 25 million litres (single strength eq.) of citrus and pineapple juice blend is also imported into the
UK. Spain and Italy contribute the majority of citrus juice for the UK (41% and 32% respectively). The juices
pass through international traders in countries such as Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands on their way
to the UK. The juice is imported to UK as 25% NFC and 75% FC. If being used in soft drinks, the juices are
usually blended and bottled in the UK (HMRC, 2012). Approximately 8 million litres (single strength eq.) of
citrus juice and 1 million litres of citrus and pineapple blend is re-exported from the UK to countries such as
Ireland, Belgium and France (HMRC, 2012).

Citrus fruit juice is transported in refrigerated container ships. It is protected from outside moisture, but
with access to fresh air to prevent spoiling (AIJN, 2012).
According to industry experts, a large proportion of imported citrus juice is used for other non-soft drink
purposes such as food processing (estimated 80%)(Cobell, 2012). An estimated total of 30 million litres of
citrus fruit juice is used in UK soft drinks (BSDA, 2012), of this 30 million litres - the largest proportion - is for
still and juice drinks (14 million litres) followed by CSDs (9 million litres).
According to a life-cycle assessment (LCA) of Italian citrus products, approximately 3kg of fruit are
required to produce 1 litre of from concentrate citrus juice and 13kg of fruit are required to produce 1 litre
of concentrated juice (Beccali et al., 2010). These yields result in an estimated 82,000 tonnes of waste
and by-products being produced as a result of the citrus juice production for use in the UK.
2.1.5 Blackcurrants
In terms of volume, blackcurrant is not a significant fruit flavour consumed in the UK, however it is very
iconic, with major UK brands having well-known blackcurrant-flavoured brands in their portfolio. For this
reason, and in response to an industry request, blackcurrants have been investigated further.
A detailed supply chain map for blackcurrants used in UK soft drinks can be seen in Annex 1. Blackcurrant
juice in UK soft drinks comes through two routes. A large proportion (estimated at 47%) is domestically
produced, processed and bottled in the UK, with the remaining 53% imported either FC (mainly) or NFC in
bulk and bottling it in the UK. It is estimated that 23,000 tonnes of blackcurrants are used to produce
approximately 3.8 million litres (65 brix equivalent) of blackcurrant concentrate for UK juice supply. A small
proportion of this (estimated a 6 5-10%) is used for non-soft drinks purposes such as food processing
(Thompson, 2012).
The vast majority of blackcurrant juice in the UK is used for dilutables (estimated at 16 million litres), with a
small amount used in still and juice drinks (data was unavailable for CSDs and fruit juice and smoothies, but
it is estimated these quantities are negligible)(BSDA, 2012). According to industry experts, the quantity of
blackcurrant juice being exported from the UK is minimal (GlaxoSmithKline, 2012). Of the imports, Poland
supplies the most blackcurrant juice to the UK (approximately 1.1 million litres (65 brix. equivalent)), and
accounts for approximately 80% of global blackcurrant production. Other countries that supply blackcurrant
juice to the UK are the Ukraine, China and New Zealand (Thompson, 2012).
According to data from GSK, in the UK it takes approximately 6 kg of blackcurrants to produce 1 litre of
concentrated blackcurrant juice (GlaxoSmithKline, 2012a). This processing leads to an estimated 2,200
tonnes of waste and by-products from blackcurrant juice production for UK soft drinks.
Unlike other juices, the market for NFC blackcurrant juice in the UK is minimal, with very few companies
selling NFC blackcurrant juice. As is often widely reported, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) use approximately 95%
of all UK grown blackcurrants for Ribena, and are supplied by 41 blackcurrant growers across the UK and
Ireland (Promotional marketing, 2008).
2.1.6 Conclusion
Fruit used in soft drinks contributes 32% to the UK soft drinks GHG emissions (see Figure 1), the highest
contributing factor to total emissions. The main reason for this is due to the agricultural phase of the
production of fruit. As fruit is a main ingredient for fruit juice and smoothies, still and juice drinks and
dilutables the production of fruit is therefore the most significant GHG hotspot associated with these
categories, the same applies for water use in agriculture. The work carried out in Phase 2 has deepened the
understanding of the sourcing and supply chains for the fruit used in UK soft drinks and enabled a basis for
quantifying the impacts of agricultural production, processing and distribution. By focusing on improved and
efficient production of fruit, the environmental impact of fruit and soft drinks could be reduced, for example
by using low carbon fertiliser, which could have the potential to reduce the footprint of fruitbased soft drinks
by as much as 20% (Time Magazine, 2010). For examples of some of these reduction opportunities, see
Annex 3.
Product waste arising during the processing of oranges, apples, pineapples, other citrus and blackcurrants
for fruit juice equate to an estimated 2 million tonnes, with oranges and apples producing the largest
volumes of product waste. Further information on product waste is discussed in Section 5.
2.2
Bulk and intense sweeteners
2.2.1 Bulk sweeteners

Bulk sweeteners as an ingredient contributes an estimated 4% to the total UK soft drinks GHG emissions
(see Figure 1), with a total of 173,000 tonnes CO2e. One of the main aims of the Phase 2 research was to
reassess the original value estimated in Phase 1 310,000 tonnes CO2e. It was felt this figure needed to
be refined as only beet sugar had been assessed and not sugar cane. As a result of this reassessment,
there has been a reduction on the Phase 1 estimate of 137,000 tonnes CO2e. This is mainly down to
changes in information sourced and refinement of the analysis, for example:
Change in quantity of dilutables (27% less than that reported in Phase 1), and
Change in the sweetener emissions factor (25% less than that reported in Phase 1). In Phase 1 only
beet sugar was assessed and in Phase 2 the impact is calculated as a mix of beet sugar (60%, at 0.106
kgCO2e/kg) and cane sugar (40%, at 0.284 kgCO2e/kg).
In addition to this reassessment, Phase 2 also included mapping the supply chains of the different types of
bulk sweeteners used for soft drinks in the UK, and undertaking a review of different types of bulk
sweetener production and processing methods with a lower environmental impact than current methods in
order to identify reduction opportunities.
The results of this work are presented below, with an assessment and examples of good practice production
methods and reduction opportunities covered in Annex 3. Details on the analysis methodology,
assumptions, data gaps and issues can be found in Annex 6.
The bulk sweetener supply chain
A detailed supply chain map for bulk sweeteners used in UK soft drinks has been developed and can be
seen in Annex 2. The map describes the flow of the three different bulk sweetener types beet, cane and
corn - into UK soft drink consumption. Approximately 3 million tonnes of sugar cane and 2 million tonnes of
sugar beet are used to produce approximately 150,000 tonnes and 300,000 tonnes of refined sugar
respectively, and additional 50,000 tonnes of undefined refined sugar is also imported into the UK (HMRC,
2012). An estimated 26,000 tonnes of corn syrup (mainly from France and Belgium) is used in UK soft
drinks (based on UK Industrial Sugar Users Group, 2012).
The imports and exports of bulk sweeteners are strictly regulated by the EU. This regulation heavily
skews UK sugar imports towards former colonies (Tate & Lyle, 2012).
Refined sugar from sugar cane is mainly processed into raw centrifugal sugar in the country of cultivation.
The raw centrifugal sugar is transported to the UK where it is processed into refined sugar. The UK imports
raw centrifugal sugar from a large number of countries, the biggest contributors being Brazil (27%), Fiji
(17%) and Guyana (12%)(HMRC, 2012).
The majority of sugar from sugar beet in the UK comes from beet cultivated in the UK (88%) (HMRC, 2012)
(Foster et al., 2006), with imported beet sugar processed and refined in its country of cultivation and
transported as refined sugar. Almost all the imported refined sugar from beet originates from France (12%
of total beet used)(HMRC, 2012).
The typical yield of sugar cane to sugar is 5%, which results in an estimated 2.9 million tonnes of waste
and by-products being produced due to sugar from sugar cane processing for UK soft drinks (UNICA,
2009). The typical yield of sugar from sugar beet is 15%. This yield results in an estimated 200,000
tonnes of waste and by-products being produced due to sugar from sugar beet processing for UK soft
drinks (CEDUS, 2012). Many of the waste materials from sugar processing are reused. For example:
beet residue is generally used for animal feed or other further processed products; sugar cane stalks
(bagasse) are often used as a fuel to run the factory and even nearby towns thereby reducing the
carbon footprint of sugar processing (in some cases, cane sugar production can be carbon neutral) (The
Sugar Association, not dated.). It is worth noting that sugar cane is increasingly being used as a
feedstock by the biofuel industry, which directly impacts the economic sustainability of sugar.
Any comparison between sugar cane and sugar beet should not be based on yield alone. Cane and
beet are completely different plants with very different cultivation and processing methods (for instance,
sugar cane plants can sometimes last 10 years, but grow much more slowly as a result). Other
parameters such as varying inputs and waste, as well as socio-political contexts should also be
considered. In addition, what is best practice for one may not necessarily be best practice for the other
(Tate & Lyle, 2012).
An assessment of BSDA sales and the ingredients of leading soft drinks brands suggests an estimated total
of 520,000 tonnes of added bulk sweeteners were consumed in 2011 through the consumption of UK soft
drinks. CSDs contribute the vast majority of these bulk sweeteners (85%), still and juice drinks (12%) and
dilutables (4%)(BSDA, 2012).
2.2.2 Intense sweeteners
With the growth in use of natural and non-calorific intense sweeteners, such as stevia, it was felt that
Phase 2 should attempt to better understand the different types of intense sweeteners used by the UK soft
drinks sector, and to estimate the total environmental impact associated with intense sweeteners. During
the course of the research it became apparent that it would not be feasible to deliver this objective. This
was predominantly due to the confidential nature of data held mostly by producers and users of intense
sweeteners. As data was lacking it was not possible to undertake an assessment of the environmental
impact associated intense sweeteners used in soft drinks in the UK. However, it was possible to produce
an overview of the main types of intense sweeteners used by the UK industry (see Annex 2).
2.2.3 Conclusion
Bulk sweeteners used in soft drinks contribute 4% to the UK soft drinks GHG emissions (see Figure 1). The
main reason for this is due to the agricultural phase of the production of sugar. Bulk sweeteners are one of
the main ingredients for CSDs and therefore an important GHG hotspot in this category. The same applies
for water use in agriculture. By focusing on improved and efficient production of bulk sweeteners, the
environmental impact of bulk sweeteners and soft drinks could be reduced, for example improving yield by
adopting best practice such as that adopted by the UK sugar beet industry through British Sugar an
industry leader in the UK - which invested best practice research into crop agronomy and genetic
technologies, which has resulted in a 60% increase in yield over the last 30 years, and freed 90,000ha for
alternative uses (British Sugar and NFU Sugar, 2011). For additional examples of reduction opportunities,
see Annex 3.
Product waste arising during the processing of bulk sweeteners for soft drinks equates to an estimated 4.6
million tonnes, with sugar cane processing producing the largest volumes of product waste at 2.9 million
tonnes. Opportunities to improve the efficiencies of sugar processing or finding alternative uses for this
waste would not only reduce the amount of waste produced but find environmentally beneficial solutions for
the waste, for example the use of this waste for the production of biopolymer PET. Further information on
product waste is discussed in Section 5.
In terms of future work in this area, there is definitely the opportunity to further investigate primary data held
by intense sweetener or soft drinks manufacturers. By accessing this data through in-depth interviews it
would be possible to derive a total estimated GHG (tCO 2e) emission for intense sweeteners. Within the
timeframe of this project, it was not possible to investigate in this depth and initial discussions with some
intense sweetener manufacturers. This would suggest that enough data is available to warrant further
investigation. In addition, a recent report was published on the carbon footprint of stevia in order to attain
Carbon Trust certification for Truvia (Sunwin Stevia International, 2013). This was not available at the
time of this research, and could warrant an additional piece of work.
3. Refrigeration and freezing in the soft drinks supply chain

The aim of this research in Phase 2 was to better understand and clarify where along the supply chain
refrigeration and freezing starts and ends for each soft drink category, and why it takes place at any given
stage. It was decided that a matrix describing in more detail where refrigeration occurs in the soft drinks
supply chain would be beneficial to the industry. The matrix was developed to clarify what is refrigerated,
whether it is chilled or frozen, temperature (or temperature range), refrigeration equipment used, and
refrigerants used at each supply chain stage (see Annex 4). An additional aim for Phase 2 was to clarify the
GHG impacts of refrigeration from both energy use and refrigerant emissions. However, after some initial
research, it was clear that clarifying the GHG impacts was not possible within the scope of this work due to
the lack of available data.
3.1 Where does freezing and refrigeration tend to occur?
There are four main areas where refrigeration in the soft drinks supply chain occurs: agriculture,
manufacture, distribution and bottling, retail (on- and off-trade) and in-the-home, by the consumer.
3.1.1 Agriculture post harvest
Refrigeration post-harvest is required for the majority of fruit (especially citrus) to stem common pests and
o
diseases. Fruits are chilled by a variety of different methods to between 1 and 10 C (IGNOU, not dated).
These methods include: bulk tanks, forced air coolers, hydro-coolers, package icing, vacuum coolers and
cold rooms (Thompson, not dated). Facilities typically use R407c and R134a refrigerants, which have
replaced R12 and R22 refrigerants respectively (Zycon, 2012)
3.1.2 Manufacture
Ingredients for fruit juices and smoothies need to be chilled during the manufacturing process but data on
the degree of chilling and the equipment used is scarce. However, it has been suggested that 35% of food
and drinks manufacturers use the R22 refrigerant in very large systems like blast freezers. This is
supplemented by less obvious refrigeration requirements in the supply chain, for example a large multio
national soft drinks company refrigerates 20% of their raw materials down to 8 C, usually for slow-moving
ingredients. Otherwise their through-put is fast enough to process at ambient temperatures (SKM Enviros,
2011).
3.1.3 Distribution and bottling
Distribution is where the refrigeration process for NFC and FC fruit juices differs greatly, as fruit juices are
rarely bottled where the fruits are processed. For orange juice, FC juice is distributed to bottling facilities as
o
frozen concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) in temperatures of -18 to 5 C (GEA Refrigeration Technologies,
not dated; Ship Technology, not dated; Townsend, not dated). The FCOJ is stored in tanks on-board
specialised tankers, with newer tankers using ammonia as a refrigerant, whereas older retrofitted models
use R404a or similar (Carbon Trust and IOR, 2010; GEA Refrigeration Technologies, not dated; SKM
o
Enviros, 2011). NFC orange juice is distributed as close as possible to 0 C using similar technology and
refrigerants (GEA Refrigeration Technologies, not dated; Ship Technology, not dated).
There is a lack of data for refrigeration at the bottling stage for fruit juices and smoothies, but it is assumed
to be chilled. Refrigeration is needed at the bottling stage for CSDs in PET bottles, using bottle blowing
o
chillers. CSDs for a large multi-national soft drinks company are chilled to 14 C, mainly using the R143a
refrigerant (Coca-Cola Enterprises, 2012b) Refrigeration of packaged product to retailers is assumed to be
not needed for all drinks categories except fruit juice, where research suggests that both NFC and FC juice
o
is distributed between 2 and 10 C (Tetrapak, 2009).
3.1.4 Retail (on- and off-trade) and in-the-home
The only drinks category that explicitly requires refrigeration in the off-trade is NFC fruit juices and
smoothies. Smaller PET bottles (500ml) and aluminium/steel cans for other drinks categories are often
refrigerated for on-the-go consumption and are assumed to be refrigerated in the same manner as NFC
juice. Products are refrigerated in refrigerated display cabinets for a broad definition of a refrigerated
o
display cabinet, see Carbon Trust (2012) to between 5 and 10 C. R404a is the dominant refrigerant, with
<5% of display cabinets still using R22 (SKM Enviros, 2011). Supermarkets are now starting to trial CO2
refrigeration (J Sainsbury plc, 2012).
The on-trade is similar to the off-trade in that only NFC fruit juices and smoothies explicitly need
refrigeration. However, consumer preference has led to increased refrigeration, as well as the added
impact of small-scale ice production. Packaged beverages are refrigerated in commercial service cabinets
appliances which have one or two solid doors and are used for the storage of food and beverages in
commercial kitchens to between -1 and 5 C (Carbon Trust, 2012; Navigant Consulting, Inc., 2009).
Nearly all commercial cabinets use the R134a refrigerant, whereas the majority of ice machines use R404a,
with a few models using R134a and R22 (Navigant Consulting, Inc., 2009).
Domestic refrigeration is used for all soft drinks types, except dilutables, and many products require
refrigeration after opening. PET bottles, aluminium/steel cans and cartons are refrigerated in domestic
o
freezers to a temperature of between 1.8 and 10.6 C (WRAP, 2010). R134a is the primary refrigerant since
the phase out of R12 however, refrigerator producers are now moving towards R600a and HFO1234yf
refrigerants with 75% of new units produced in China using R600a (USEPA, not dated).
3.2 Environmental impact
The main impacts of refrigeration occur in distribution and the consumer life cycle stages, whilst fruit juices
and smoothies, especially considering their consumption levels, have a disproportionately large impact over
the whole of their life cycle, and remain for the industry to target (BSDA, 2012). This is illustrated by a major
fruit juice brand who refrigerate their aseptically-filled cartons, when not explicitly necessary, for quality
purposes In theory its overkill to fill aseptically and then refrigerate (Butschli, 2003). This represents an
opportunity for deeper research into the extent of this practice within the industry.
3.3 Conclusion
Refrigeration consumes an estimated 30% of soft drinks electricity consumption (IGD, 2012), and for this
reason it is deemed an important area of focus to reduce the environmental impact associated with this
consumption. Numerous initiatives have been put in place to reduce this impact (see Annex 4), in particular
energy reduction, such as:
Refrigerants Naturally Partnership: founded by McDonalds, UNEP and Greenpeace to find alternative,
HFC-free refrigeration equipment,
IOR System Efficiency Index,
REAL Zero project: from the Institute of Refrigeration and the Carbon Trust, focussing on containment
and leak prevention,
Consumer Goods Forum initiatives and Refrigeration Summits, and
ATMO which holds interactive workshops for industry and government figures to speed the uptake of
natural refrigerants.
There are other major energy and GHG reduction opportunities, such as the use of fridge doors and
metallised blinds on retail fridges, adoption of leak prevention best practice and retrotting retail store
refrigeration systems that can save approximately 50 tonnes of CO2e per annum for the typical store
(Carbon Trust, 2010). Leak management practices are more likely to be lacking in smaller retailers,
although a large soft drinks manufacturer has developed smarter, more energy-efficient branded cabinets.
As noted, it was not possible to generate a full carbon footprint of refrigeration for UK soft drinks. There are
a number of initiatives with varying levels of data which cannot yet be collated to derive a robust footprint. It
is therefore proposed that future work should be undertaken to gather more detailed electricity consumption
in the soft drinks sector in order to estimate the total carbon footprint associated with refrigeration and
freezing. This proposed work would not only consolidate the various activities being undertaken, but aim to
identify and clarify the business case and environmental savings potential for improved refrigeration
methods in the UK soft drinks sector. This would be a first for the industry and, as it is very topical, would
fulfil a need and improve the understanding and potential opportunities for change in the industry.
4. Packaging
At 42%, packaging constitutes the most significant proportion of the total GHG (tCO2e) of UK soft drinks due
to the raw materials, energy, water and waste involved in production/recycling and the impacts of disposal
such as littering, landfill space and pollutants produced when incinerated to energy from waste (see Figure
1). Of total GHG emissions of UK soft drinks, primary PET packaging contributes 24%, aluminium 7%, liquid
cartons 2%, secondary packaging 5%, glass 2% and steel 1%. Packaging also has a high profile due to it
being a very visual component of the product and is often singled out by consumers and the media when
considering the impact of soft drinks.
The Phase 1 report presented results predominantly on primary packaging (see accompanying report), and
identified 5 areas where additional research could be undertaken in Phase 2, these being:
On-trade soft drinks packaging
Secondary packaging
Recycling on the Go
Recyclability of PET packaging
The split between aluminium and steel in cans in the on-trade.

For the first 4 areas the research aimed to determine the current knowledge and understanding and expand
on this where feasible and/or to identify opportunities for and barriers against environmental improvement.
The findings from the research undertaken into the 5 areas listed above are discussed in detail below.
Details on the analysis methodology, assumptions, data gaps and issues for each fruit type can be found in
Annex 6.
4.1 Hospitality sector soft drinks packaging
The on-trade sector as defined by WRAP (2011) covers 2 main categories profit and cost which can be
further divided into 9 different types, which are listed in Table 2 below. This section focusses on primary
packaging arising from these different categories.
Table 2: Hospitality categories
Sector
Profit
Cost
% of total by
no. of outlets
18
18
12
11
59
13
12
8
7
1
41
Type
Pubs
Hotels
Quick Service Restaurants (QSRs)
Restaurants
Total
Education
Healthcare
Leisure
Staff catering
Services
Total
Two main reasons for further investigation in this area were:

Its financial significance - in 2011, on-trade soft drink sales approximated 1.8 billion in 2011 (based on
BSDA (2012) and Zenith International (2012)), and
A limited understanding of waste volumes and disposal routes.
It is also worth noting that there are two key initiatives which influence actions to reduce packaging in the
sector:
The recent Hospitality and Food Services Agreement (which is voluntary and looks to reduce food waste
and associated packaging); and
The Packaging Regulations which require companies to report annually on their packaging use.
The results of further investigation into packaging arisings in the sector are provided in Table 3 below, which
shows the total quantity of soft drinks hospitality primary packaging is estimated at 121,000 tonnes, which
compares to an estimated 278,000 tonnes for the off-trade (see the Phase 1 report), or 30% of total soft
drinks primary packaging. Plastics and glass represent the vast majority of hospitality sector packaging;
they contribute 45% and 43% of the total arisings respectively (also see Annex 5 for an illustrative
representation of these findings).
Table 3: Hospitality sector primary packaging arisings, by material type and drinks category (tonnes)
Drinks category
Carbonated soft
drinks
Dilutables
Bottled water
Still & juice drinks
Fruit juice &
smoothies
Total
Plastic
23,000
Glass
9,000
Paper*
9,000
Aluminium
2,000
Steel
1,000
Total
43,000
12,000
10,000
10,000
4,000
20,000
6,000
6,000
7,000
1,000
100
500
300
300
30
200
100
200
0
100
80
33,000
17,000
16,000
11,000
55,000
52,000
11,000
3,000
1,000
121,000
*mainly liquid cartons

NOTE: Due to rounding, totals may not add up.
Source: Derived from BSDA, 2012, Valpak Consulting, 2012 and Zenith International, 2012.
Table 4 shows the estimated destinations for hospitality sector soft drinks primary packaging, with an
estimated 86,000 tonnes (71%) going to landfill or incineration. Due to their low relative recycling rates,
plastic and glass contribute almost all of the waste going to incineration or landfill (48% and 47%
respectively).
Table 4: Estimated destination of on-trade primary packaging (tonnes)
Material type
Plastic
Glass
Paper*
Aluminium
Steel
Total
Landfill or
incineration
41,000
41,000
2,000
2,000
400
86,000
Recycling
13,000
11,000
9,000
1,000
1,000
35,000
*mainly liquid cartons

NOTE: Due to rounding, totals may not add up.
This would suggest that there is a significant opportunity to improve the collection of plastic and glass for
recycling. This is recognised, and work undertaken by WRAP to try and improve this situation has identified
and proposed solutions (see WRAP 2010b, 2012b). However, barriers do exist, and a recent survey
completed for WRAP (WRAP & SKM Enviros, 2012) by mainly contract/in-house caterers and members of
the British Institute of Facilities Management suggests some reasons for the low recycling rates:
71% state that they do not measure in any way the amount of packaging waste produced, and
63% state they are not obliged to report under the Packaging Waste Regulations.
In addition there is often uncertainty over what recycling centres can take, contamination of containers and
contamination in bins due to staff error (Confidential, 2012).
Going forward, the research would suggest that under a roadmap a key focus area in for the hospitality
sector would be to improve the collection of packaging, in particular glass and plastic for recycling.
4.2 Secondary soft drinks packaging
There are three types of packaging associated with the soft drinks industry: primary packaging which is the
soft drink container; secondary packaging which is the material used to group together individual primary
packaging; and tertiary packaging which is used to group together secondary packaging. The vast majority
of secondary packaging, the focus of this section, is paper or plastic and more specifically either
cartonboard or shrink film (collation). Within the Phase 1 report, secondary was adequately reported and it
was felt Phase 2 should try to clarify the volumes of secondary packaging associated with the soft drinks
industry, and assess whether it is an area of significance and focus for reduction.
For the purposes of this research it was not possible due to minimal data available from any of the
companies we spoke with (due to secondary packaging not being a particular concern) to estimate the
total amount of secondary packaging associated with soft drinks. However, enough robust data was
available to determine the amount of secondary and tertiary packaging associated with hospitality sector
soft drinks sales for 2010 (see Table 5). Paper (corrugated board and cartonboard) makes up over 80% of
the secondary packaging in the off-trade and the rest is plastic (shrink film). The tertiary packaging total is
over 50% higher than the secondary total but this is due to nearly 90% of tertiary packaging being wood
(pallets). Most of the pallets are reused. Setting this in context Table 6 shows that primary packaging
makes up nearly two thirds of total soft drinks packaging in the off-trade.
Table 5: Off-trade soft drinks secondary and tertiary packaging, by material type (tonnes)
Secondary packaging
Tertiary packaging
Paper
(t)
48,600
6,700
%
82
7
Plastic
(t)
10,900
3,400
%
18
4
Source: Derived from BSDA, 2012, Valpak Consulting, 2012
Wood
(t)
0
84,700
Total
%
0
89
59,500
94,800
Table 6: Off-trade soft drinks packaging, by packaging category (tonnes)
Packaging (t)
% of total
Primary
278,000
64
Secondary
59,500
14
Tertiary
94,800
22
Total
432,200
100
Source: Derived from BSDA, 2012, Valpak Consulting, 2012
Opportunities do exist to reduce secondary packaging; for example, WRAP estimate that 2,400 of stretch
wrap (3.4 million) could be saved through improved staff training and the correct set up of the machines
(WRAP, 2012a). Most paper secondary packaging is recycled, this is due to lack of contamination and ease
of pickups (Confidential, 2012). The main obstacle to recycling shrink film was inconsistency regarding the
recycling centres that would accept it (WRAP, 2012a).
4.2.1 Suppliers and manufacturers
In order to identify opportunities and solutions for improving the resource efficiency of secondary packaging
associated with soft drinks, research was undertaken to identify the main suppliers and manufacturers, in
order to better understand who could be involved in reduction opportunities within a roadmap. These are
listed in Annex 5 with products, in particular those with a focus on resource efficiency.
From a resource efficiency and sustainability perspective, a number of suppliers and manufacturers focus
on the sustainable sourcing of paper, the efficiency of the operation including the thickness of the material
used, and some information on bleaches and dyes. Regarding plastic products, the focus is on maximising
down gauging potential how thin the plastic can be.
In conclusion, at around one-third of total off-trade packaging, secondary and tertiary packaging is not as
significant as primary packaging in terms of focus for reduction opportunities. However, opportunities do
exist to reduce this packaging through adopting more optimised machinery practices, optimised packaging
(such as lightweighting) and increasing recycled content. Should these opportunities be pursued within the
roadmap, it would be important to engage with the key suppliers and manufacturers to maximise these
opportunities. It should also be noted the influence exerted by retailers in terms of what they require for
convenience and/or ease of packing and cost.
4.3 Recycling soft drinks packaging on-the-go
Following on from the Phase 1 research, it was requested that further information be gathered on recycling
on-the-go (RotG) activities for soft drinks packaging. The reason being that there does not appear to be
agreement on the destination of soft drinks packaging consumed on-the-go, for example: Is it recycled onthe-go, or is it taken home or to work for recycling? The reason this is important is that soft drinks brands
and manufacturers want to know whether there is value in investing in infrastructure to gather this
packaging, and to be used as recycled content in their bottles or cans. For the purposes of Phase 2, eight
types of on-the-go sites were considered: Events, Hospitals, Leisure, Attractions/venues, On-street,
Educational establishments, Shopping centres and Transport hubs. The main packaging types of packaging
associated with soft drinks consumed on-the-go are plastic bottles and aluminium and steel cans. In terms
of waste collection, local authorities are responsible for the majority of on-the-street collections, with the
majority of other on-the-go sites requiring the site operator to arrange recycling collections (WRAP, 2012b).
In order to better understand RotG opportunities for soft drinks packaging, desk-based research (collation of
current initiatives and research) and a qualitative survey were undertaken. The survey covered the
purchase, consumption and disposal of soft drinks with 60 respondents on the street, at a railway station
and in a shopping centre in central London.
4.3.1 Recycling on-the-go volumes
Due to a lack of robust data, it was not possible to derive a total figure for volumes of soft drinks packaging
collected on-the-go, however a number of figures are available which provide some idea of scale of RotG
activities:
51 million cans were recycled in 2011 through the Every Can Counts scheme (WRAP, 2012c), and
200 tonnes of plastic bottles, 20 tonnes of cans and 100 tonnes of co-mingled waste were collected
over three years at Coca Colas 130 recycle zones (WRAP, 2012d).
Other examples of RotG initiatives are available on WRAPs website. With the aim of trying to increase in
RotG, WRAP has produced a guidance document for each of the four UK countries on how to implement
RotG facilities (WRAP, 2012b).
It is worth mentioning incentivised recycling, such as a small financial reward for returning bottles which is
still prevalent in some countries in Scandinavia and which has been trialled in the UK). There are also
currently a number of pilot projects on reverse vending taking place in Scotland through Zero Waste
Scotland. Such options should be considered in any future discussions on RotG.
4.3.2 Survey findings
The aim of the survey was to gather evidence on what people do with their soft drinks packaging whilst onthe-go (see Annex 6 for the methodology and Annex 5 for detailed survey findings). This sample size was
insufficient to draw quantitative conclusions, although it did provide some useful anecdotal evidence. This is
too weak on which to base decisions, but does serve a purpose in identifying possible areas for further
investigation, in particular:
o A plastic bottle of water was by far the main packaging and soft drink type consumed on-the-go,
o While some people will hold on to their waste until they can recycle (which may be at home),
the majority will place it in the nearest bin although would be happy to recycle if this was
available,
o The railway station had a significantly higher proportion of people drinking soft drinks than either
the street or the shopping centre suggesting that improvement efforts could be targeted at
specific sites,
o The most common suggestion for improvement was availability of more bins, and
o Signage on bins encouraging recycling is key, i.e. ensuring people see it and understand it.
4.3.3 Conclusion
There are a number of isolated efforts to provide RotG which in general have been successful although
capital and on-going investment is required and precise cost-benefit analysis is not common. Due to the
lack of monitoring and differences in schemes, it is very difficult to provide an overall figure for RotG
volumes for soft drinks packaging and obtaining an accurate and precise figure would require substantial
work. However, this may not be necessary; based on the data and assumptions available and the high
profile of the issue, there is a clear case for action. Furthermore identifying and using proxies and
conversion factors may provide sufficient accuracy and precision. In addition, two potentially useful future
pieces of work could include:
1. the disposal and recycling of drinks containers on-the-go was addressed using a small survey. This
probably needs more extensive follow up with wider and deeper surveys to include motivation and
behaviour;
2. a potentially very useful piece of future research would be to investigate incentivised recycling,
reverse vending (particularly with Zero Waste Scotland's current work), kerbside recycling, recycling
bins on streets, recycling bins in venues/railway stations, etc., and draw on UK and examples from
overseas.
More clearly marked bins targeted in areas where soft drink consumption is high, such as at railway stations
and on trains is likely to be worthwhile. Signage on bins explaining the destination of the waste could
engage and motivate the general public to recycle more.
4.4 Design for recyclability
Following the completion of the Phase 1 report, it was requested that an investigation be undertaken into
identifying the key characteristics of the three design for recyclability tools/initiatives available to the soft
drinks industry. The recyclability of a PET bottle describes how readily a bottle can be recycled after use
and is dependent on issues such as the type of labels and adhesives used and the dimensions of the bottle.
Recyclability is a key issue in the soft drinks industry as there is currently an insufficient supply of recycled
PET (rPET) to meet demand due to many manufacturers wanting to increase the rPET content of their
bottles (Gyekye, 2012) and the difficulties involved in recycling into food grade plastic (Confidential, 2012)
The Phase 2 research focussed on comparing the three main recyclability tools/initiatives and an on-line
survey was undertaken to determine the industrys opinions on recyclability in general and these tools in
particular.
4.4.1 Tools and initiatives
The three main publicly available tools/initiatives to support recyclability design are below:
WRAPs PET Categorisation tool (WRAP, 2011b),
European PET Bottle Platform (EPBP, 2012), and
Recoups Recyclability by Design guidelines (Recoup, 2009).
A detailed matrix of the three tools/initiatives is presented in Annex 5.
All three tools/initiatives assess PET bottles using similar product characteristics, such as labels, inks and
closures although categorisation and terminology varies. For all three, each characteristic is scored against
a rating for recyclability such as ideal, not ideal (but not detrimental)/conditional and detrimental. However,
there are some main differences, as outlined below:
Tool/initiative
Platform
WRAPs PET
Categorisation tool
Interactive
online tool
European PET Bottle

Platform
Web site with

various tabs
Recoups Recyclability
by Design guidelines
Reference
document
Main difference and/or unique feature

Materials
Plastic types
Explanation
testing
for rating
characteristics
Compiles
Does not
PET only
Not provided
inputted data
undertake
and allows
tests
companies to
compare
against an
industry
benchmark
Does not
Tests
PET only
Provided
compile data
materials and
publishes the
results
Does not
Does not
Various
Provided
compile data
undertake
tests
Use of data
Geographic
coverage
UK
Europe
Europe and
North
America
In addition to the differences identified above, it is noted that UNESDA (the European Non-alcoholic
Beverages Association) of whom the BSDA is a member, created a code of conduct in May 2011
committing to adhering to the EPBP guidance and targeting all members to reach compliance by end of
2012 (UNESDA, 2011).
4.4.2 Survey results
Ten questions were developed in discussion with the BSDA, DEFRA and from BFF research. These
questions were developed into an on-line survey, with an introductory description of the three tools and a
link was sent to approximately 40 key stakeholders in the soft drinks industry who use PET bottles. See
Annex 5 for a copy of survey questions. 12 key stakeholders completed the survey under condition of
anonymity. However, they did include some of the biggest soft drinks producers, supermarkets and ontrade businesses in the UK. This split suggests that while the number is too small to be used for quantitative
conclusions, the results are a good representation of the soft drinks supply chain. The key findings were:
Eight of the respondents use between 0% and 25% rPET,
Eight respondents did not find rPET supply to completely meet demand,
Four respondents wanted clearer guidance for recyclability for design, in particularly that which is
scientific and consistent,
Four respondents had used the WRAP tool, four Recoup and three EPBP, and
Three respondents had not used any tool.
4.4.3 Conclusion
While there were only 12 respondents to the survey, within these respondents there was a clear desire for
rPET. However, in terms of tools and initiatives to encourage design for recyclability, there was some
confusion as to which tool/initiative was most useful with some respondents citing the tools inability to
influence design and lack of clarity as barriers to improvements. Therefore, it is suggested that future work
in this area should consist of interactive on-going guidance for British manufacturers, taking into account
that many of them operate in Europe, and bringing manufacturers, retailers and waste management
organisations together to identify the most efficient means for increasing plastic recycling. Within the UK,
this can build on the work that both Recoup and WRAP have already begun to undertake with these
stakeholders.
4.5 Aluminium versus steel cans
Soft drinks cans are made of either aluminium or steel and it is worthwhile knowing the proportion of each
because the two materials have significantly different impacts throughout their life cycle, in particular at the
production stage. Therefore the most appropriate course of action regarding environmental improvements
will depend on whether the can is aluminium or steel. While no specific further action is recommended
based on the results below, these results will be useful to keep in mind when considering environmental
improvements in the context of soft drinks cans. Table 7 below shows the split between aluminium and
steel soft drinks cans. The proportion of aluminium to steel is 4 to 1 in both off-trade and closer to 3 to 1 in
the on-trade. The off-trade uses approximately 10 times more cans than the on-trade.
Table 7: Split between aluminium and steel soft drinks cans
Aluminium
Steel
Total
On-trade
(t)
2,900
1,000
3,900
%
74
26
Off-trade
(t)
30,000
7,800
37,800
Total
(t)
32,900
8,800
40,900
%
80
20
%
80
20
Note: The methodology used is described in the on-trade packaging section of the Annex 6.
4.6 Packaging conclusions

Additional research on packaging undertaken in Phase 2, suggests that there appears to be substantial
potential to improve the environmental performance of packaging throughout the soft drinks industry, in
particular:
Recycling collection bins need to be designed based on the packaging available in the area,
Improving communication, co-operation and consistency within and between manufacturers, suppliers,
retailers and waste management companies to improve recyclability and collections,
Disposal data availability and quality is low, and often non-existent specifically for soft drinks, with
minimal appetite for further monitoring. This suggests working with existing initiatives (such as WRAPs
Hospitality and Food Service Sector Agreement, the Courtauld Commitment and the Plastics Action
Plan) or identifying proxies may be the best option for increasing understanding and assessing the
impact of changes.
Going forward, a potential solution for improved communication could be the creation of a collated set of
simple documents (such as those created for Metal Matters and Every Can Counts) which show the key
environmental considerations throughout the life cycle of soft drinks packaging, how these interconnect and
who/what they affect, could be very useful when considering this issue holistically.
5. Product waste and by-products in the soft drinks supply chain
This piece of research investigated waste and by-products in the processing (e.g. converting fruit to juice)
and manufacturing (e.g. converting raw juice to soft drink) stage. The British Soft Drinks Association (BSDA)
has set a target for their members to achieve zero waste to landfill at the manufacturing stage by 2015.
The aim of this work was to identify what data already exists, build on WRAPs previous resource map for
drinks (WRAP, 2012a), identify where there are gaps, where it would be worthwhile to fill these gaps, and
what could be done with this information. For example WRAP have already identified that there is an
average 7% yield loss in the soft drinks industry with the three main causes being product giveaway
(under/over filling), and set up and run down losses (WRAP, 2012a). The same report also identified
850,000 of syrup (dissolved sugar plus flavours, acids and preservatives) which is wasted by flushing the
line at product changeover.
This Phase 2 research has been able to build on the data published by WRAP, through:
1. Work undertaken in Phase 2 on fruit, sugar and water in the processing and manufacturing stage,
and
2. Data provided by the Environment Agency (courtesy of the BSDA) on the waste arisings from
permitted soft drinks manufacturing sites in the UK (while a precise value is not available, the
permitted sites are considered a substantive proportion of the total). Table 8 shows the key findings
from the first data set.
Table 8: Waste arisings derived from the fruit and bulk sweeteners supply chain research, for 2011 (tonnes)
Raw ingredient
Oranges
Apples
Pineapples
Total used in
UK soft
drinks
(tonnes)
Processing waste/
a
by products
%
(t)
Manufacturing
waste in country
b
of bottling
%
(t)
3,045,000
1,287,000
130,000
45
35
52
1,385,000
451,000
68,000
7
7
7
116,200
58,500
4,300
Blackcurrants
Other citrus fruits
Bulk sweeteners
Total or Average %
a
b
23,000
136,000
5,045,000
9,666,000
10
60
91
49
2,200
82,000
4,584,000
6,572,200
7
7
7
7
1,500
3,800
32,300
216,600
Waste arising in the pressing and juice processing stage both in the UK and overseas.
It was assumed that 7% of liquid juice waste arises during the bottling process (Gerber, 2012), in most cases this waste is generated
in the UK.
NOTE: The methodology used to derive these figures is described in Annex 6. Waste describes products going out of system whether
or not they have further use.
The key findings from the Environment Agency waste arisings data from the permitted soft drinks
manufacturing sites suggests that in 2009 the 20 soft drinks manufacturing sites investigated produced
209,500 tonnes of waste, details of which can be seen in Figures 3 and 4.
Figure 3: Split of waste arisings from soft drinks manufacturing sites, per annum (Environment Agency).
Figure 4: Final destinations of waste arisings from soft drinks manufacturing sites, per annum (EA).
Building on WRAPs research into food and drink waste arisings in the home and findings from the Phase 1
and 2, Table 9 shows the estimated amounts of waste arising across the supply chain as a result
processing, manufacturing or not consuming soft drinks.
Table 9: Product waste across the three key stages of the soft drink supply chain
Product waste
% of total
Processing
6,572,200
88
Manufacturing
216,600
3
Consumer*
668,800
9
Total
7,457,600
100
*Excluding packaging. This is liquid waste.

Source: See Sections 2.1 and 2.2 and WRAP, 2009.
In addition to product waste arisings, water was also investigated and suggests an estimated 29.5 million
litres of water is used in the manufacture of soft drinks, and 14.8 million litres is wasted per annum (derived
from BIER, 2012 and WRAP, 2012a).
5.1 Conclusion
The processing of fruit and sweeteners for soft drinks produces more waste than both the manufacturing
stage (approximately 30 times more) and in the home (approximately 10 times more). Over 95% of
manufacturing product waste is used beneficially, with 80% going to land treatment resulting in benefit to
agriculture or ecological improvement, 13% for recycling/reclamation and approximately 2% to be used
principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy (Environment Agency, 2012).
Due to the relatively small volumes of manufacturing waste this does not appear to be a priority, whereas
processing waste is so regarded. It is suggested that future areas of work should focus on working with
processors in the country of origin to reduce this waste. This could be done by expanding the remit
and/geographical reach of the BSDAs target of zero manufacturing waste to landfill.
6. Water not in product
This section focusses on the water that is used in the manufacturing stage of soft drinks, such as water
used for cleaning often referred to as cleaning in place (CIP), and does not include water as an ingredient.
This water can account for as much as 70% of overall water use in soft drinks manufacturing (WRAP,
2012a). With WRAPs Federation House Commitment aiming to reduce overall water usage across the food
and drink sector by 20% by the year 2020 (WRAP, 2012e), water is quickly moving up the corporate risk
agenda (Sedghi, 2013). The aim of this activity was to identify data availability and quality for water use
throughout the soft drink supply chain and, if this proved sufficient, to determine the impacts, hotspots and
reduction opportunities. Table 10 below summarises the understanding gained from the research regarding
water use by lifecycle stage.
Table 10: Water Use in the U K soft drinks supply chain, by Lifecycle Stage
Life Cycle
Stage
Raw materials
Packaging
manufacturing
Manufacturing
Distribution
Retail
Consumer
End of Life
Comment
The agricultural stage can account for up to 99.8% of the total water footprint (Ercin et
al., 2011). However this is a hugely complex issue (due to for example differentiating
between green, blue and grey water, the country of origin and definitions for water use
i.e. if it is used but then stays in the same watershed some methodologies do not
consider this as use). Therefore this stage falls outside the scope of this work.
Dependent on the material type, such as paper which is an agricultural-based
product - this can be up to 20% of total water footprint (The Coca Cola Company and
The Nature Conservancy, 2010).
See Table 11 below. Mains water is predominantly used during the manufacture of
soft drinks, with wastewater being sent to standard municipal treatment.
Direct water consumption is expected to be low.
Direct water consumption is expected to be low.
Consumer stage water use is mainly concerned with dilutables. Based on BSDA
(2012) consumption figures it is estimated that 2.64 million litres of water are used to
convert concentrated dilutables to ready to drink.
End of life could be significant if decontamination is undertaken to allow recycling.
Likely to be difficult to determine this figure specifically for soft drinks.
Manufacturing has been identified as the area for focus due to data availability and quality. Table 11 shows
the estimated water, not in product, per litre of product for the five soft drink categories.
Table 11: Estimated water not in product at the manufacturing stage for UK soft drinks (2011)
Litres of
water not in
product/litre
of product
CSDs
Fruit juice
&
smoothies
Still &
juice
drinks
Bottled
water
Dilutables
Total water not

in product
(litres)
1.11
2.97
1.36
0.53
1.32
14,822,000
Source: Derived from work undertaken for fruit (see Section 2), Phase 1 juice volumes, WRAP (WRAP, 2012a) and Beverage Industry
Environment Roundtable (BIER, 2012) publications.
NOTE: There appear to be some significant inconsistencies in water usage figures and this is likely due to the area of research being
relatively new and highly complex. This table has been included to give an indication of differences between the soft drinks categories.
6.1 Conclusion
Water is a key resource in the soft drinks industry and there is scope for more investigation with the ultimate
aim of identifying reduction opportunities. This report produced a total figure for water not in product at the
manufacturing stage and a benchmark per soft drink type which may represent the first quantitative data of
its kind in the soft drinks industry.
As manufacturing water is the best understood and most controllable life cycle stage, it may be worth
focussing improvement efforts here, particularly as mains water and standard sewage treatment are used at
manufacturing sites. Reduction opportunities (see Annex 3) include:
Adopting ice pigging (a specific composition of ice slush (pig) is pumped into pipes and removes
sediment build ups) instead of traditional water intensive CIP processes, and
Reusing water for irrigation/truck washing etc.
7. Suggestions for the development of a Sustainability Roadmap for soft drinks
7.1 What does a Sustainability Roadmap look like?
Addressing the soft drinks sectors environmental impacts and resource efficiency has been acknowledged
by the sector as the right thing to do, while still providing products that are safe, financially viable and
enjoyable for the consumer. The Sustainability Roadmap is the sectors route towards achieving these
shared goals, and is collaboration between Government, businesses and other stakeholders, such as trade
associations or suppliers. The roadmap sets out the paths to be followed to achieve greater sustainability
within the industry, and provides the framework for the evidence and key themes required to guide and
enable change. It also details the collaborative measures that the industry needs to take to improve
performance, including what actions are needed, who should participate, and how progress towards goals
will be tracked and reported. It needs to be flexible to changes within the sector and most importantly, build
on what the industry has already achieved. The diagram below illustrates a transformation map that is
commonly adopted for setting up and determining the structure, goal(s), areas of focus and actions
associated with a roadmap.
7.2 What is the process for developing and adopting a roadmap?

A structured process is required to ensure the development of an effective roadmap one that has
achievable goals and is adopted by the sector. The structure, stages and timings for the development of
a roadmap are critical, and should include the following stages:
1
7.2.1 Define and agree vision and goals

Following the presentation of the evidence to support the development of a sustainability soft drinks
roadmap in January/February 2013, it is proposed that a consultation takes place with sector-wide
stakeholders to determine the main goal(s) of the roadmap. A number of goals may be identified; however,
it is recommended that one overarching vision is defined, with the key pathways working towards this
vision. This goal is often expressed as a vision statement describing what the status will be. An example
vision is: A soft drinks industry which utilises the minimum amount of resources and minimises the
environmental impact of its actions while maximising the commercial benefits and consumer satisfaction of
its products.
It is likely that there will be numerous viewpoints on the nature of the goal(s) and one consultation exercise
will not be sufficient. Following the initial consultation, feedback and ideas can be discussed to a wider
stakeholder group (such as thoughts deemed key and/or who were unable to attend the initial consultation
workshop).
Feedback from the various consultation actions should be collated and from this a goal(s) for the roadmap
recommended. If required, further clarification on the goal(s) may be sort in order to agree on a goal(s).
Final agreement of the goal(s) should be sort from stakeholders this could be done through a forum
such as the BSDAs Environment Group or wider electronic confirmation with stakeholders.
Outputs:
Agreed vision statement
Agreed goals to achieve the vision
7.2.2 Identify pathways (areas of focus)
Drawing on the evidence gathered by Best Foot Forwards research, this phase of development will aim to
determine the key pathways, or areas of focus, for the roadmap that will drive progress towards the vision
and goals. The direction of travel for each of these pathways will be to minimise environmental impact and
improve resource efficiency. Current evidence suggests that these pathways are likely to be:
Fruit production
Sugar production
Refrigeration
Packaging
Process waste
Water
Again this will be a consultative process with sector stakeholders to determine if a) these are the agreed
pathways, and/or b) identify additional ones.
Output:
Agreed pathways (areas of focus)
7.2.3 Define key steps & identify actions
The definition of these steps and the execution of these actions will determine the successful achievement
of the roadmaps goal(s). It is proposed that working groups are set up for each pathway theme. The aim
of those on the working groups will be to:
Draw up a proposed programme of actions that are designed to reduce the environmental impact of the
supply chain component e.g. for fruit production, minimising water use and agricultural inputs, and
Define the outputs for each key action, criteria for success and propose key actors for implementation.
Once each pathway working group has drawn up the proposed programme of actions it is recommended
that these are shared and consulted on with a wider sector stakeholder group for clarification and
agreement.
Outputs:
Set up of pathway working groups
Proposed programme of actions for each pathway
Action success criteria
Proposed list of key actors for each pathway and/or action
7.2.4 Feasibility assessment
As co-operation from the sector is pivotal to the success of the roadmap, it is therefore important prior to
implementing the roadmap to assess the viability and feasibility of the actions identified for each pathway.
This process will assess and identify the:
Interdependencies: How do the pathways and proposed actions exist with other existing and planned
initiatives e.g. Federation House 5-fold plan?
Barriers that might be in place to implementing change? For example, is the sector ready to implement
or are there cost, resource or technical barriers?
Risks associated with the implementation of actions? For example, implications for not implementing
an action, which could be reputational (for either the sector as a whole and/or company specific).
Mitigations required to alleviate potential barriers and risks to implementing the actions and to achieve
the roadmaps overall vision and goal.
The facilitation of this process needs to focus on solutions to achieving the roadmaps vision and goals, as
opposed to focusing just on the barriers and risks.
Outputs:
Identified and mapped interdependencies between pathways and other external initiatives
List of barriers and risks associated with each pathway and actions, with mitigations
7.3 Timeplan for implementing actions
Once final agreement has been reached on the pathways and actions, it is suggested that the working
groups are called on to map the agreed actions against the roadmap timeline. This mapping exercise will
include:
Key actors for implementation,
Milestones and timings, and
Interdependencies with other pathways, and other external initiatives.
This will result in a phased programme of pathway plans which will include key actions for achievement, and
will be finalised and agreed with a wide stakeholder audience. Timeplan example illustrated below.
Qtr 1
Year 1
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Define and agree vision and goals

Identify pathways (areas of focus)
Identify actions
Feasibility assessment
Timeplan for implementing actions
Agreed roadmap
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
Year 2
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Outputs:
Agreed roadmap, containing:
o Vision and goals
o Pathways and actions
o Programme timeline and milestones for delivery
o Indicators for success
o List of key actors
7.4 Who should be involved?
Implementing the roadmap could have a significant impact on the sector and will also require considerable time
and resources to be committed over a long period. It is therefore imperative that a strong governance and
programme management structure is established.
7.5 Programme Governance
Defining and implementing the roadmap is the responsibility of the sector, in collaboration with relevant
Government departments and delivery bodies. A programme steering group is required to oversee and
advice the development and implementation of the roadmap. To build on the understanding and
momentum from the current evidence-building work, it is recommended that the current Project
Management Group be the basis for this steering group. It is suggested that the group be expanded to
include additional stakeholders from the sector who are decision makers and implementers and could
include the following:
Focus area experts (e.g. refrigeration, water etc), and
Representation from different stages of the supply chain e.g. agriculture, ingredients suppliers,
manufacturers/brand owners, on- and off-trade and waste management (recyclers).
The diagram below illustrates the proposed governance structure for developing the roadmap.
7.5.1 Programme management

From experience the development and implementation of a roadmap can be a complex and resource
intensive process. For example, it could:
Take up to two years to develop,
Involve various actions taking place at any given time,
Require the management of a diverse and large group of stakeholders,
Involve the management of risks and barriers, and
Take into account market and technological changes during the course of the programme.
For this reason it will be essential to appoint an overall programme management team or function. This
team will manage the development of the roadmap and tasks will include:
Maintaining the evidence and knowledge base,
Development and tracking of appropriate progress indicators for each pathway,
Management stakeholder engagement,
Co-ordinate reporting and communication of programme progress, and

Provide a secretarial function for the steering group.
7.6 Conclusion
The Soft Drinks sector roadmap will be an invaluable enabler for collaborative progress towards greater
sustainability in the sector. A structured process is required to ensure the development of an effective
roadmap one that has achievable goals and is adopted by the sector. The process set out in this
document has been designed to ensure focus on those key areas of sustainability that will deliver the
greatest tangible results. In addition, the clear and strong governance and programme management
structure will ensure that there is maximum participation from the sector and that the roadmap is adopted
and followed.
8. Final conclusions
The following provides an overarching summary of the conclusions drawn from the research, with key
proposed actions:
Topic
Fruit
Bulk
sweeteners
Key findings
Fruit used in soft drinks contributes 32% to
the UK soft drinks GHG emissions.
Product waste and by-products arising
during the processing of oranges, apples,
pineapples, other citrus and blackcurrants
for fruit juice equate to estimated 2 million
tonnes, with oranges and apples producing
the largest volumes.
Bulk sweeteners used in soft drinks
contribute 4% to the UK soft drinks GHG
emissions. The main reason is due to the
agricultural phase of the production of
sugar.
They are an important GHG hotspot in the
CSD category. The same applies for water
use in agriculture.
Product waste arising during the
processing of bulk sweeteners for soft
drinks equates to estimated 4.6 million
tonnes, with sugar cane processing
producing the largest volumes.
Intense
sweeteners
Refrigeration
Packaging
Additional research on packaging undertaken

in Phase 2, suggests that there appears to
be substantial potential to improve the
Refrigeration consumes an estimated

30%
of
soft
drinks
electricity
consumption.
Numerous initiatives have been put in
place to reduce this impact (see Annex 4
It was not possible to generate a full
carbon footprint of refrigeration for UK
soft drinks.
Proposed suggestions for future work

By focusing on improved and efficient
production of fruit, the environmental
impact of fruit and soft drinks could be
reduced, for example by using low
carbon fertiliser
By focusing on improved and efficient

production of bulk sweeteners, the
environmental impact could be
reduced, for example improving yield
by adopting best practice such as
that adopted by the UK sugar beet
industry.
Finding alternative uses for this
waste/by-product would not only
reduce the amount of waste produced
but be environmentally beneficial such
as the use of this waste for the
production of biopolymer PET.
A suggestion for future work would be
to derive a total estimated GHG
(tCO2e)
emission
for
intense
sweeteners via primary research and
in-depth
interviews
with
manufacturers, as well as take into
account recently published carbon
footprint research into Stevia.
It is proposed that future work should
be undertaken to gather more
detailed electricity consumption in the
soft drinks sector in order to estimate
the total carbon footprint associated
with refrigeration and freezing, in
order to consolidate the various
activities being undertaken and to
identify and clarify the business case
and environmental savings potential
for improved refrigeration methods in
the UK soft drinks sector.
Need to work with existing initiatives
(such as WRAPs Hospitality and
Food Service Sector Agreement, the
Water
environmental performance of packaging

throughout the soft drinks industry, in
particular:
Recycling collection bins need to be
designed based on the packaging
available in the area,
Improving communication, co-operation
and consistency within and between
manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and
waste management companies to
improve recyclability and collections,
Disposal data availability and quality is
low, and often non-existent specifically
for soft drinks, with minimal appetite for
further monitoring.
Water is a key resource in the soft drinks
industry and there is scope for more
investigation with the ultimate aim of
identifying reduction opportunities.
Courtauld Commitment and the

Plastics Action Plan) or identifying
proxies may be the best option for
increasing understanding and
assessing the impact of changes.
Going forward, a potential solution for
improved communication could be the
creation of a collated set of simple
documents (such as those created for
Metal Matters and Every Can Counts)
which show the key environmental
considerations throughout the life
cycle of soft drinks packaging, how
these interconnect and who/what they
affect.
As manufacturing water is the best
understood and most controllable life
cycle stage, it may be worth
focussing improvement efforts here,
particularly as mains water and
standard sewage treatment are used
at manufacturing sites.
References to published material

AIJN, 2012. 2012 Liquid Fruit market report. European Fruit Juice Association.
Beccali, M., Cellura, M., Ludicello, M., Mistretta, M., 2010. Life cycle assessment of Italian citrus-based products.
Sensitivity analysis and improvement scenarios. Journal of Environmental Management. 91 (7): 1415-1428
BIER, 2012. Water Use Benchmarking in the Beverage Industry.
British Sugar, NFU Sugar, 2011. UK Beet Sugar Industry, Sustainability Report 2011.
BSDA, 2011. The 2011 UK Soft Drinks Report.
BSDA, 2012. The 2012 UK Soft Drinks Report. London.
Butschli, J., 2003. Tropicanas juiced about aseptic bottle filling line [WWW Document]. Packaging World. URL
http://www.packworld.com/applications/beverage/tropicanas-juiced-about-aseptic-bottle-filling-line (accessed
10.29.12).
Carbon Trust, 2010. Refrigeration Roadmap.
Carbon Trust, 2012. Commercial and retail refrigeration equipment - A guide to equipment eligible for Enhanced
Capital Allowances.
Carbon Trust, IOR, 2010. Refrigeration Road Map.
CitrusBR, 2009. Brazilian Orange Juice: En Route To Sustainability.
Cobell, 2012. Personal Communication.
Coca-Cola Enterprises, 2012. Wayne Boden, Personal Communication.
Confidential, 2012. Personal Communication.
EPBP, 2012. European PET Bottle Platform.
Environment Agency, 2012. Waste Arisings from Permitted Soft Drinks Manufacturing Sites in the UK.
Ercin, E.A., Aldaya, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2011. Corporate Water Footprint Accounting and Impact Assessment:
The Case of the Water Footprint of a Sugar-Containing Carbonated Beverage. Water Resour. Manage. 25, 721
741.
Foster, C., Green, K., Bleda, M., Dewick, P., Evans, B., Flynn, A., Mylan, J., 2006. Environmental Impacts of
Food Production and Consumption. Manchester Business School for Defra.
GEA Refrigeration Technologies, not dated Refrigeration technology for marine systems In touch efficient
solutions for the maritime industry.
Gerber, 2012. Personal Communication.
GlaxoSmithKline, 2012. Personal Communication.
Gyekye, L., 2012. Petainer introduces PET bottle with 25% recycled content. Packaging News.
HMRC, 2012. Statistics.
IGD, 2012. Personal Communication.
IGNOU, not dated Pre-cooling of Fruits and Vegetables.
J Sainsbury plc, 2012. Sainsburys accelerates green refrigeration programme [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.j-sainsbury.co.uk/media/latest-stories/2012/20120216-sainsburys-accelerates-green-refrigerationprogramme/ (accessed 10.4.12).
Navigant Consulting, Inc., 2009. Energy Savings Potential and R&D Opportunities for Commercial Refrigeration.
Promotional marketing, 2008. Brand profile: Ribena [WWW Document]. Promotional marketing. URL
http://www.promomarketing.info/shopper/brand-profile-ribena/2689 (accessed 10.25.12).
Recoup, 2009. Plastics Packaging: Recyclability by Design.
Sedghi, A., 2013. How much water is needed to produce food and how much do we waste? The Guardian
website.
Ship Technology, not dated Carlos Fischer - Refrigerated Vessel.
SKM Enviros, 2011. Examination of the Global Warming Potential of Refrigeration in the Food Chain.
Sunwin Stevia International, 2013. The Carbon Footprint of Stevia.
Tetrapak, 2009. Theme: Juice, Nectar, Still Drinks. Tetra Pak magazine.
The Coca Cola Company and The Nature Conservancy, 2010. TCCC_TNC_WaterFootprintAssessments.pdf.
Thompson, E., 2012. UK blackcurrant juice within a dynamic global perspective.
Thompson, J., not dated Pre-cooling and Storage Facilities.
Townsend, C., not dated The Story of Florida Orange Juice - From the Grove to Your Glass [WWW Document].
URL http://www.ultimatecitrus.com/Story/oj_story.html (accessed 10.30.12).
UK Industrial Sugar Users Group, 2012. POLICY POSITION ON REFORM OF THE EU SUGAR REGIME.
London.
UNESDA, 2011. UNESDA introduces Code of Conduct on PET bottles recyclability.
USEPA, not dated Transitioning to low-GWP: alternatives in domestic refrigeration.
Valpak Consulting, 2012. Final Report: Soft Drinks Sustainability Roadmap: Packaging.
WRAP, 2009. Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK.
WRAP, 2010. Reducing food waste through the chill chain.

WRAP, 2012a. Resource efficiency in the UK soft drinks sector.
WRAP, 2012b. WRAP RotG England Guidance.
WRAP, 2012c. ROTG_ENG_Case_Study_Every_Can_Counts.pdf.
WRAP, 2012d. Drinks Resource Maps Summary and Overview.
WRAP, 2012e. The Federation House Commitment: helping the food and drink industry improve water efficiency.
WRAP & SKM Enviros, 2012. Personal Communication.
Zenith International, 2012. Personal Communication.
Zycon, not dated Comparison of Air-Cooled and Water Cooled Industrial Chillers and How Do You Choose Which
is Right for an Application [WWW Document]. HubPages. URL http://zycon.hubpages.com/hub/Comparison-AirCooled-Water-Cooled-Industrial-Chillers-How-Do-You-Choose-for-Application (accessed 11.26.12).
Soft drinks volumes: During Phase 1 the total volume of soft drinks consumed figure used was that provided
in the British Soft Drink Associations 2011 report (BSDA, 2011). During the course of Phase 2, their 2012 report
was published. Results derived in Phase 2 used the 2012 report (BSDA, 2012).

201304305Evidenceforasoftdrinksroadmap-Phase2Final

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

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

201304305Evidenceforasoftdrinksroadmap-Phase2Final

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

General Enquiries on the form should be made to:

Defra, Procurements and Commercial Function (Evidence Procurement Team)

Evidence Project Final Report

This form is in Word format and the

Defra Project code

Evidence to Support the

Best Foot Forward Ltd

54. Total Defra project costs

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 1 of 35

start date ................

end date .................

6. It is Defras intention to publish this form.

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 2 of 35

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 3 of 35

achievable through improved practices.

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 4 of 35

Project Report to Defra

Some useful definitions

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 5 of 35

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 6 of 35

o Assessment of the carbon footprint of refrigeration and freezing.

Total soft drinks consumed

Phase 1: draft estimate

Phase 2: final estimate

An explanation for key variances:

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 7 of 35

Note: Aluminium includes steel.

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 8 of 35

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 9 of 35

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 10 of 35

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 11 of 35

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 12 of 35

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 13 of 35

Ireland, Belgium and France (HMRC, 2012).

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 14 of 35

Bulk and intense sweeteners

2.2.1 Bulk sweeteners

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 15 of 35

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 16 of 35

3. Refrigeration and freezing in the soft drinks supply chain

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 17 of 35

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 18 of 35

The split between aluminium and steel in cans in the on-trade.

Two main reasons for further investigation in this area were:

*mainly liquid cartons

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 19 of 35

*mainly liquid cartons

Source: Derived from BSDA, 2012, Valpak Consulting, 2012

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 20 of 35

Table 6: Off-trade soft drinks packaging, by packaging category (tonnes)

Source: Derived from BSDA, 2012, Valpak Consulting, 2012

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 21 of 35

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 22 of 35

European PET Bottle

Web site with

Main difference and/or unique feature

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 23 of 35

4.6 Packaging conclusions

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 24 of 35

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 25 of 35

*Excluding packaging. This is liquid waste.

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 26 of 35