Annex 1: Fruit

Figure 1: Orange used in the UK soft drinks supply chain

Figure 2: Apples used in the UK soft drinks supply chain

Figure 3: Pineapples used in the UK soft drinks supply chain

Figure 4: Other citrus (excluding oranges and grapefruit) used in the UK soft drinks supply chain

Figure 5: Blackcurrants used in the UK soft drinks supply chain

Annex 2: Bulk and Intense Sweeteners

Figure 1: Bulk sweeteners and high fructose corn syrup use in the UK soft drinks supply chain

Table 1: List of most commonly used intense sweeteners in soft drinks

See accompanying Excel file

Annex 5: Packaging
On-trade packaging

Some key secondary packaging suppliers & manufacturers

Com pany nam e

Supplier/
m anufacturer
Cardboard/corrugated board

Key products

Size

Sm urfit Kappa

Manufacturer

Corrugated board

DS Sm ith

Manufacturer

Meadw estvaco

Location

Resource efficient products

Notes

2011 European sales in million tonnes Europe and Latin America

kraftliner 1.4, recycled containerboard
2.9, other paper and board 1.1,
corrugated 4.2, solid board packaging 0.3

Portfolio includes: recycled flutings and high performance

recycled flutings; unbleached brow n kraftliners; semi
chemical fluting (80% hardw ood, 20% softw ood)

Majority of paper is sourced from their ow n mills

Corrugated board

4 billion, UK 960 million revenue - no.1

in UK for corrugated packaging,
collection of w aste paper and recycled
paper manufacture

HQ Maidenhead, pan
European

Design optimisation of boxes fo fulfil their purpose and

facilitate recycling

Manufacturer

Paperboard

$US 5.3 billion

Jaffa box

Manufacturer

Cardboard boxes
(also pallet w rap)

Close to 300 million boxes per year

Ecorrugated

Manufacturer

Cardboard boxes

Founded October 2011

Eurofilm s

Manufacturer

Collation shrink film 15,000 tonnes of packaging film annually

Telford, Shropshire

Borealis

Manufacturer

Collation shrink film 2011 - 7,069 million Euros

bpi.film s

Manufacturer

Polythene UK

Manufacturer

Collation shrink film Can't find details - w eb site states UK's

leading manufacturer of shrink films and
converter films
Collation shrink film UK's largest independent supplier of
polythene packaging

Global - no manufacturing
base in UK
Bromborough and
Sevenoaks

"e shrink plus" maximises dow n gauge potential (i.e. makes

the film as thin as possible).
Dow n gauging potential

Roberts Mart

Manufacturer

Collation shrink film

Leeds

Launched w w w .nov8shrinkfilms.com in 2009 to promote

Nov8 shrink film's green characteristics how ever the w eb
site no longer seems to be active.
Polyair is oxy-degradable in 2-3 years due to the inclusion of
an oxy-degradable additive at the extrusion stage. Polyair
can be used instead of standard polymer across the entire
product range.
No mention of any environmental issues found on w eb site.

Britton Taco

Manufacturer

Three plants in the UK

No mention of any environmental issues found on w eb site.

Dow

Manufacturer

Collation shrink film 70 million annual sales, total extrusion

capacity in excess of 65,000 tonnes
Resin for collation $60 billion global sales.
shrink film

They collect w aste paper and use the majority in their ow n

operations. The UK market for corrugate board packaging and board
is estimated at 4.1 billion square metres, DS Smith manufactured
1.125 bsm. Approximately 80% of the corrugated packaging used in
the UK is recycled. Fibres used in corrugated packaging can be
collected, recycled, reused and be back on the shelf in store w ithin
14 days of disposal.
Global, based in US,
Their paperboard (Carrier Kote) is made from 3 to 12 percent A lot on sustainability on w eb site both on paper and printing - best in
manufacturing plant in
pre-consumer and 7 to 14 percent post-consumer w aste. SFI class in Dow Jones Sustainability Index for six years.
Bristol, distribution bases in and PEFC. Mechanical locks and semi-automatic loading
Cheshire and Norfolk
eliminates hot melt and glue. Thinner caliper but because of
its superior strength still performs like higher caliper.
Birmingham
75% of all paper used is recycled, 92% of this is accredited
by FSC, aim to increase to 96% by 2012. All virgin paper
should be accredited by FSC, PEFC, SFI or similar.
Ellesmere Port, near
Very strong focus on efficiency (in the company name) Liverpool
recycled paper sourced (no details) for the Sheet Feeder
factory w hich is only 200m from the Converter factory

Shrink film

Witney

Global, various offices and Potential to dow ngauge films, potential to reduce overall
plants in the uK
packaging, potential reduction in other packaging materials
reducing post-consumer w aste

Recycling on-the-go survey

Location
Weather
Date
ID
Why theyre here
Age bracket
Gender
Alone/accompanied

On the go (state
which of the 6 on the
go sites)
In the office

working tourist social event shopping other

Under 16 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 above 55

Recycle

General waste

Note type of container. State

whether on site or take home

State whether on site or take home

At home

Do they usually
drink a soft drink on
the go?
If so, what?
How often?
Where do they buy
from?
What do they
normally do with
their container?
Why?
Do they think there
are many
opportunities to
recycle on the go?
Do they think there
should be more
recycling on the go
opportunities?
Any specific ideas
for recycling on the
go
facilities/schemes?
Would they be more
likely to buy a soft
drink container that
is easily recyclable?

Yes

No Sometimes

e.g. plastic bottle of water, plastic bottle of carbonated soft drink (CSD), fruit
juice carton, CSD metal can
e.g. one per day
e.g. single item bought from convenience store, bulk bought from
supermarket, from a vending machine
e.g. recycle on the go, put in general waste bin, take home to recycle, take
home for general waste, put in office recycling, put in office general waste
e.g. easiest option, environmental concern
At events, hospitals, leisure attractions/venues, on street, shopping centres,
transport hubs.

At events, hospitals, leisure attractions/venues, on street, shopping centres,

transport hubs.

Incentive schemes, 10p for bringing back at bottle

If cost/quality was the same

If cost was higher/quality was lower

Design for recyclability tools/initiatives

(Also see accompanying Excel file)
Tool/initiative
WRAP PET
Categorisation
tool

Date
Nov 2010,
updated Feb
2011

Users
UK retailers and brands (that
sell/produce any PET bottles targeted at organisations
producing soft drinks, juices and
mineral w ater) can gain access
to the tool by registering w ith
WRAP. Non-registered users can
use the 'quick check' function.

RECOUP
Recyclability by
design tool

Version 1 April
2006, Version
2 2009,
currently
undergoing
update

Focused on those specifying any

plastic packaging design but also
relevant to designers, packaging
technologists, buyers, marketing
and retailers. Explicitly states not
competing w ith existing
documents/guidelines by industry
associations. Europe and
international.

European PET
Bottle Platform
(EPBP) 'Design
for recyclability
guidelines'

2011

European packaging designers,

converters and users

Purpose
To allow a company to see
their sales data and industry
benchmarks and model future
scenarios in the context of
level of recyclability

Platform
Online data collection and report
w riting tool based on a
categorisation matrix for PET

Methodology
A company inputs either A (ideal), B (not ideal but not detrimental) or C
(detrimental) for each of 9 characteristics of a bottle based on the
categorisation matrix. If one B is given, product's overall score cannot be
better than B (same for C). Company also inputs annual sales data by money
and w eight. A report is generated classing annual sales data into recyclability
category. All data inputted is used to produce industry benchmark. Company
can also input future planned scores to produce scenario reports.

Characteristics considered
Colourants
Barrier coatings & layers
Closures
Closure lines and seals
Labels
Sleeves
Adhesives
Base cups
Other components
Bottle size
A definitive general guidance 46 page PDF reference guide
A company bases its design decisions on 8 pages of general guidelines for
Material
document that has w ide
w hich includes categorisation
all plastic packaging and 2 pages specific to PET including a categorisation
Colour
international agreement to
matrices for various plastics
matrix w ith 13 characteristics scored as either 'yes', 'conditional' or 'no'. (Also Barrier/coatings
ensure designs do not cause including PET
2 pages on HDPE, 1 page on PVC, 1 page on PP, 2 pages on mixed plastics, 2 Additives
reycling issues
pages on bioplastics)
Caps
Liner
Seals
Direct printing
Labels
Sleeves (incl. tamper resistance)
Glue
Ink
A w eb site w hich encourages Web site w ith various tabs
The Design Guidelines tab on the w eb site provides some general principles Container
'packaging designers,
including 'guidelines' (w ith 2
and then tw o matrices, one for clear/light blue and one for coloured (only
Size
converters and users to
categorisation matrices clear/light blue can be recycled into food grade plastic). The matrices score
Colours
integrate certain criteria during clear/light blue PET and coloured 14 characteristics 'YES - full compatibility', 'CONDITIONAL - limited
Barrier
the development phase of a
PET) and 'results' (of recyclability compatibility' or 'NO - low compatibility'. The Test Results tab promotes
Additives
new product in order to
of various products)
specific products that have passed EPBP tests and one post on the impact of Closure systems
facilitate PET recycling'
bioplastics on recyclability.
Liners seals and valves
Labels
Sleeves
Tamper evidence w rap
Adhesives
Inks
Direct printing
Other components

Notes
Little guidance/explanation given in the 'quick check'
function.

Characteristics given for GENERAL PLASTICS:

Container/components, residues, composite
materials/barrier layers, colour of plastic, closures/closure
liners/cap sleeves/seals, labels/safety, seals/adhesives,
pigments/inks, other components, material identification.
Information, in particular in appendices, regarding
legislation, building business cases etc.

May 2011, UNESDA (BSDA is a member) Code of Conduct

focuses on adhering to these guidelines and aims for all
members to reach compliance by end of 2012 - Does
compliance mean full compatibility in all characteristics?

Recyclability tools/initiatives on-line survey

Introduction
DEFRA have commissioned Best Foot Forward to undertake some research to help guide the creation of a
road map for the soft drinks industry and part of this research focuses on recyclability of plastic bottles in the
soft drinks industry. This survey aims to provide an opportunity for key players to state their views regarding
recyclability and to shape the road map through providing examples of the challenges and opportunities they
are experiencing.
Along with some more general questions on recyclability, the survey covers the three main recyclability
support products for the UK soft drinks industry: WRAPs PET Categorisation tool, the EPBP web site and
Recoups Recyclability by Design guidelines. For those that are not familiar with these tools, the main
similarities and differences are given below.
Main similarities between the three guides:
1. Similar product characteristics considered although categorisation and terminology varies
2. Each characteristic is scored out of three options either A (ideal), B (not ideal but not detrimental) or C
(detrimental); Yes, Conditional or No; Full compatibility, limited compatibility, low compatibility.
3. Created/updated since 2011 or currently undergoing update.
Main differences between the three guides:
1. WRAP is an interactive online tool which requires data to be inputted and produces a report with scores,
EPBP is a web site with various tabs, Recoup is a 46 page reference document.
2. WRAP compiles inputted data and allows companies to compare against industry benchmark, Recoup and
EPBP do not compile data.
3. EPBP tests materials and publishes the results on its web site, WRAP and Recoup do not.
4. WRAP and EPBP are focussed solely on PET, Recoup covers various plastic types.
5. UNESDA (European non-alcoholic beverages association) of whom BSDA are a member, have 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.
6. WRAP is UK EPBP is European Recoup is European and North American.
7. WRAP does not focus on explanation of why certain characteristics are good/bad, Recoup and EPBP do.
Survey questions:
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

Company name and contact details

What is your current sustainability/environmental/waste/packaging focus?
What percentage of rPET do you use? [Please positively mark any of the items below]
0-25% in some/all bottles
25-50% in some/all bottles
Above 50% in some/all bottles
Other comments:
If you use rPET, have you found supply to meet your demand?
What processes/practices/tools do you have in place at the moment to achieve recyclability in your
products? [Please positively mark any of the items below]
WRAP PET categorisation tool
Recoup's Recyclability by Design tool
The European PET bottle platform's (EPBP's) web site
Internal/external support (please provide details below)
Considered by R&D systematically in the design of all existing and new bottles
Considered by R&D systematically in the design of all existing and new bottles
No specific focus on recyclability
Internal/external support:

6.

What support would you like to help you to increase your recyclability? [Please positively mark any of
the items below]
Clearer guidance for recyclability design
More interactive support regarding recyclability design

Workshops with other businesses

Help desk
Other/comment:
7.

Which recyclability support products have you heard of/have you used? [Please positively mark any of
the items below]
Heard of

Used

WRAP's PET categorisation tool

Recoup's Recyclability guidance document
EPBP's web site
Internal design tool
Other/comment:
8.

If you have used a support product, how have you used it?
To influence our design decisions
To assess our finished designs
To identify the recyclability of products
Other/comment:

9.

If you have used a support product, what is your opinion of it?

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neither agree
nor disagree

Useful
Clear
Able to
influence
design
Other/comment:
10. If you haven't used a support product, why not?
Haven't heard of the tool
Difficulty in implementing into design process
Lack of interest in recyclability
Other/comment:

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Annex 6: Methodology, assumptions and data issues and gaps

2.1 Fruit Juice Consumption in UK Soft Drinks Analysis
2.1.1 Bottom-up Analysis
A bottom-up analysis of fruit juice included in soft drinks was carried out to estimate the quantities of each
fruit juice consumed in the UK.
Data sources
The quantities of soft drinks sold were taken from the BSDA 2012 report (2011 year data)(BSDA, 2012a). The
share of each drink type market was taken from the BSDA 2012a report where available and from the market
share of the main brands (Mintel, 2009)(Mintel, 2010a)(Mintel, 2010b). The juice content of drinks is sourced
from the websites of the drinks brands.
Methodology
Where BSDA fruit percentage breakdowns were available (dilutables, fruit juice and smoothies, still and juice
drinks), the sales proportions for each fruit were calculated. In the absence of actual breakdowns, any
blends or other fruit proportions were allocated by the breakdown of specified fruits and additional internal
Best Foot Forward data. These sales proportions were multiplied by the proportions of fruit in major brand
label drinks. A similar process was followed where BSDA breakdowns were not available using market share
of major brands and the fruit content of those products.
Assumptions
Three top brands of CSDs (Fanta, Tango and Lilt) represent the split between different fruits. Assumption
made as no data on CSD fruit juice sales split and so requited to facilitate calculation of CDS sales fruit
split.
Half of CSD lemonade contain lemon concentrate, others contains flavourings only. Conservative
assumption in absence of data.
In the absence of accurate data, the fruit breakdown of blends in dilutables includes 48% blackcurrant and
9% orange (as calculated using internal Best Foot Forward data). The remaining 43% splits with the same
proportions as the non-blended fruits in dilutables.
In the absence of accurate data, the fruit breakdown of blends in fruit juice and smoothies is the same
proportions as the non-blended fruits in fruit juice and smoothies.
For simplification and due to the dominance of oranges, all fruits are assumed to have the same FC to
NFC split as orange.
In the absence of accurate data, still and juice drinks fruit content is calculated assuming a weighted
average of split between fruit types for dilutables and fruit juice and smoothies.
Due to the prevalence of Ribena, the assumption is made that for still and juice drinks: Blackcurrant juice is
only in 'still flavoured water'.
In the absence of accurate data, a conservative average juice content of high juice drinks is assumed to be
50%.
Data gaps and issues
Still and juice drinks calculations have a lot of assumptions.
Blends in multiple drink categories add significant uncertainty.
2.1.2 The Rotterdam/Antwerp Effect
The Rotterdam-Antwerp Effect arises because the ONS and its fellow-bodies overseas, in compiling their
geographical registers of exports, record as the destination of the export the country of the first port of
discharge of a consignment, even when the consignment is only in transit on its way to a different enddestination country. Rotterdam in the Netherlands and Antwerp in Belgium, two of the biggest ports in the
world, handle substantial quantities of international exports. Some of those exports are consumed in the
Netherlands and Belgium; others are shipped onwards to the UK and other EU countries by road & rail; still
others transferred to cargo vessels going to other continents. Even when recorded as exports to the
Netherlands and Belgium, goods may not even touch Dutch or Belgian soil, simply being transhipped in the
ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp to container vessels bound for say Singapore. (Global Britain, 2011)
Data sources
Global production data was sourced from USDA global production statistics (USDA, Foreign Agriculture
Service, 2010)(USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2011). UK imports were sourced from HMRC
(HMRC, 2012).

Methodology
This method was used for the calculation of fruit juice country of origin for the following methodology sections
and in section 2 of the report.
Where available, global production was used to reallocate imports from non-producing countries such as the
Netherlands. Where additional information to improve the allocation (e.g. Mexican orange juice all being
supplied to North America) was available it was applied. Where global production data was not available,
imports from non-producing countries was reallocated to producers by the same rates they are being
imported into the UK at, relative to all producer imports.
Assumptions
In the absence of accurate data, worldwide production split is assumed to be representative of UK import
origin split. This assumption is necessary to rationalise the Rotterdam/Antwerp Effect.
Where worldwide production data is not available or not applicable, non-producers are assumed to import
from producers in the same proportions as UK imports. This assumption is also necessary to rationalise
the Rotterdam/Antwerp Effect.
Data gaps and issues
Without data on the original source of commodities, it is impossible to accurately trace back to the
commodity producing country.
Assuming you can reallocate non-producer imports by the same rate as producer imports is a very
uncertain assumption.
2.1.3 Orange Juice in the UK Soft Drinks Supply Chain
Data sources
Orange juice import and export data was sourced from HMRC (HMRC, 2012). The yields of orange juice
were sourced from a Tesco carbon footprint study (ERM, 2011). The concentrate to single strength
conversion ratio was calculated using the data in Table 1.
Table 1: Fruit Juice Concentration Levels (Defra, 2011)

Apple
Banana
Blackcurrant
Grape
Grapefruit
Lemon
Mandarin
Mango
Orange
Pear
Pineapple
Raspberry
Strawberry

Minimum Single Strength

(degree Brix)
11.2
21
11.6
15.9
10
8
11.2
15
11.2
11.9
12.8
7
7

Standard Concentration Levels

(degree Brix)
65
65

48

66
60

Methodology
The single strength equivalent (SSeq.) volumes of FC juice were first calculated from the HMRC import data
rationalised under the methodology described in section 2.1.2 and converted using the ratios from Table 1.
The quantities of orange fruit required to produce these volumes of juice in the various counties of origin were
then back-calculated using the typical pressing yield (1.96kg/L NFC juice). The breakdown of consumption by
drink type was calculated as described in section 2.1.1.
Assumptions
For simplicity, the density of orange juice is assumed to be 1 L/kg.
In the absence of data, the pressing yield is assumed to be the same in all countries.
Data gaps and issues
Unknown split of bottled in Spain, Belgium and UK.
Proportion of orange juice going to non-soft drinks purposes unknown exact quantities.

2.1.2 Apple Juice in the UK Soft Drinks Supply Chain

Data sources
The apple juice import/export data was sourced from HMRC (HMRC, 2012). The UK apple juice production
figure is sourced from Prodcoms 2011 dataset (EuroStat, 2011). The concentrate to single strength
conversion ratio was calculated using the data in Table 1.
Methodology
The single strength equivalent (SSeq.) volumes of FC juice were first calculated from the HMRC import data
rationalised under the methodology described in section 2.1.2 and converted using the ratios from Table 1.
The quantities of apples required to produce these volumes of juice in the various counties of origin were then
back-calculated using the typical pressing yield from (WRAP, 2012a) (65%). The breakdown of consumption
by drink type was calculated as described in section 2.1.1.
Assumptions
In the absence of data, apple production yields are assumed to be as the Defra figure in all countries.
Due to the data aggregation of HMRC data, imported juice concentrate is assumed to be at the standard
concentration levels described in Table 1 above.
For simplicity, the density of apple juice is assumed to be 1 L/kg.
Data gaps and issues
Yield from the Defra report is thought to be low. University of Minnesota (University of Minnesota, n.d.)
study returns 1.18kg apples/L juice which may be more accurate but thought to be a less reliable source.
According to The World Apple & Pear Association (WAPA, 2012) the total fruit production in the UK is only
about 250,000 tonnes but the PRODCOM (EuroStat, 2011) data and Defra (Defra, 2011) yield leads to
365,000 tonnes going to juice. In fact a very small percentage goes to juice. The PRODCOM data and
yield figure may be causing this discrepancy.
According to Cobell (Cobell, 2012), they alone sold several times the quantity of NFC from Germany than
what is calculated from the HMRC data. This requires further investigation.
The quantity of apple juice coming into, and produced in, the UK which goes into non-soft drinks purposes
(mainly cider) is thought to be very high but no data was available to aid analysis.
The uses of apple and pear blends, their production and processing locations and their fruit split are
unknown.
2.1.3 Pineapple Juice in the UK Soft Drinks Supply Chain
Data sources
Pineapple juice import and export data was sourced from HMRC (HMRC, 2012). The yields of pineapple juice
were sourced from a government of Mauritius report (Government of Mauritius, 2012). The concentrate to
single strength conversion ratio was calculated using the data in Table 1.
Methodology
The single strength equivalent (SSeq.) volumes of FC juice were first calculated from the HMRC import data
rationalised under the methodology described in section 2.1.2 and converted using the ratios from Table 1.
The quantities of pineapple fruit required to produce these volumes of juice in the various counties of origin
were then back calculated using the typical pressing yield from a government of Mauritius report (2.11kg/L
NFC juice). The breakdown of consumption by drink type was calculated as described in section 2.1.1.
Assumptions
For simplicity, the density of pineapple juice is assumed to be 1 L/kg.
In the absence of data, the pressing yield is assumed to be the same in all countries.
Data gaps and issues
Impossible to split FC and NFC juice from HMRC data.
Import country of origin very uncertain.
Italy/Spain imports country of origin unknown.
2.1.4 Citrus Juice in the UK Soft Drinks Supply Chain
Data sources
Citrus juice import and export data was sourced from HMRC (HMRC, 2012). The yields of citrus juice was
sourced from an Italian LCA (Beccali et al., 2010). The concentrate to single strength conversion ratio was
calculated using the data in Table 1.
Methodology
The single strength equivalent (SSeq.) volumes of FC juice were first calculated from the HMRC import data
rationalised under the methodology described in section 2.1.2 and converted using the ratios from Table 1.

The quantities of citrus fruits required to produce these volumes of juice in the various counties of origin were
then back calculated using the typical pressing yield from an Italian LCA (3kg/L juice). The breakdown of
consumption by drink type was calculated as described in section 2.1.1.
Assumptions
In the absence of data on fruit split and international variation, pressing yield is assumed to be the same for
all citrus fruits and producing countries.
For the same reasons, FC to NFC conversion factor is assumed to be the same for all fruits.
For simplicity, the density of citrus juice is assumed to be 1 L/kg.
Data gaps and issues
Not known what citrus blends are used for (in soft drinks or not).
Not known how blends break down by FC/NFC.
Not known how blends break down by fruit.
Proportion of citrus juice going to non-soft drinks purposes thought to be very high but unknown exact
quantities.
No data on citrus juice consumption in fruit juice and smoothies.
2.1.5 Blackcurrant Juice in the UK Soft Drinks Supply Chain
Data sources
Blackcurrant juice import data was sourced from Pixley Berries (Thompson, 2012). The yields of blackcurrant
juice was sourced from GlaxoSmithKline (GlaxoSmithKline, 2012). The concentrate to single strength
conversion ratio was calculated using the data in Table 1.
Methodology
The single strength equivalent (SSeq.) and 65 brix. equivalent volumes of FC and NFC juice were first
calculated from the import data and rationalised under the methodology described in section 2.1.2 and
converted using the ratios from Table 1. The quantities of blackcurrants required to produce these volumes of
juice in the various counties of origin were then back calculated using the typical pressing yield from
GlaxoSmithKline (6kg/L concentrated juice). The breakdown of consumption by drink type was calculated as
described in section 2.1.1.
Assumptions
In the absence of data on fruit split and international variation, pressing yield is assumed to be the same in
all countries.
12 Brix. is single strength equivalent.
The UK imports 0 blackcurrant juice from New Zealand.
For simplicity, the density of blackcurrant juice is assumed to be 1 L/kg.
Data gaps and issues
Only one import source from confidential company presentation.
Only anecdotal data on export quantities.
No data on blackcurrant CSD consumption.
2.2 Sweeteners in the UK Soft Drinks Supply Chain
Data sources
Sweetener import and export data was sourced from HMRC (HMRC, 2012). The domestic production figures
of sugar beet were sourced from a Defra report into the Environmental Impacts of Food Production and
Consumption (Foster et al., 2006). The yields of sugar from cane and beet were sourced from UNICA and
CEDUS respectively (UNICA, 2009)(CEDUS, 2012). The sales data for soft drinks by type were sourced from
the BSDA 2012 report (BSDA, 2012). The details of sweetener contents of soft drinks were sourced from
major manufacturers websites. The cane and beet split in UK consumption was sourced from (Foster et al.,
2006).
Methodology
The relative weights of cane, beet and corn syrup refined sweetener for total UK consumption by origin were
extracted from HMRC data. The total quantities of raw commodities required to produce these sweetener
weights were back calculated using the yields.
The total amount of bulk sweetener consumed in UK soft drinks was calculated with a bottom-up analysis. A
weighted average by sales of sugar content in soft drinks, as sourced from major brands, was calculated for
each drink type. This sugar content was multiplied up by sales figures to generate total bulk sweetener
consumption by soft drink type.
The total weights of bulk sweetener by sugar type and the weights of cane, beet and corn syrup and their
origins were back calculated from the soft drinks consumption figures by the ratios calculated for all UK
consumed bulk sweetener.

Assumptions
In the absence of soft drinks specific data, the split of bulk sweetener types and origins used in soft drink is
assumed to be the same as for all UK bulk sweetener consumption.
In the absence of reliable data from all countries, yields for cane and beet production are assumed to be
the same in all countries.
Data gaps and issues
The bottom-up analysis on which the bulk sweetener quantities are all based is very sensitive to the
assumptions made of average bulk sweetener contents.
60/40 split of sugar beet to cane is from a reliable source but it is 6 years old and the analysis sensitive to
this ratio.
5% corn syrup figure is thought to be relatively uncertain.
4.1 On-trade Primary Packaging
Data sources
The packaging analysis was carried out using a combination of data sources. Valpak supplied the packaging
material split as seen in Table . The quantities of soft drinks sold were taken from the BSDA 2012 report
(2011 year data) and can be seen in Table (BSDA, 2012a). The recycling rates of the various packaging
materials can be seen in Table , they were mainly sourced from the Defra report - Packaging Waste And
Producer Responsibility (Defra, 2012). The glass recycling figure is hospitality specific and comes from the
WRAP and Oakdene Hollins report Hospitality Sector Glass Collection (WRAP, 2011a).
Table 2: Valpak data showing packaging materials per litre for different drink categories
Primary Packaging g per litre

Category

Aluminium

Glass

Paper

Plastic

Steel

Total

CSD
Fruit Juice & Juice
Drinks
Functional Drinks
Smoothies

21

41

75

44

124

Water

26

41

68

Table 3: BSDA 2011 sales data (From (BSDA, 2012a)

On-trade + Off-trade

million

% ontrade

% offtrade

14,585

Million
litres
14,685

Total
CSDs

8,490

6,660

16

84

Dilutables

945

3,300

92

Fruit juice and

smoothies
Still and juice
drinks
Bottled water

1,835

1,160

92

1,795

1,470

91

1,520

2,100

12

88

Table 4: Average recycling rates by packaging material

Material

Source

Aluminium

Recycling
Rate
41%

Glass

21%

(WRAP, 2011)

Paper

82%

(Defra, 2012)

Plastic

24%

(Defra, 2012)

Steel

59%

(Defra, 2012)

(Defra, 2012)

Methodology
The data sets in Table and Table were combined to create total quantities of materials being used in OTPP
and their split by drink and material type. These quantities were then multiplied by the recycling rates to
estimate the quantities going for recycling and going to landfill/incineration.
Assumptions
In the absence of any data detailing the destinations of non-recycled packaging, its assumed that all
packaging not going to recycling goes to landfill nothing is re-used and then recycled.
Due to their being no available specific OTPP data, general business recycling rates are applied as a proxy
for OTPP recycling rates.
Data gaps and issues
No OTPP specific recycling rates.
Glass recycling figure based on 2007 data. This could have changed significantly in 4 years.
Valpak were unable to provide separate OTPP material breakdowns for all drinks types.
Valpak data is from three clients only. The packaging splits and quantities may not be representative of
the whole on-trade sector.
4.2 Secondary packaging
Data sources
The data in Table 5 and Table 6 in the report came from Valpaks Soft Drinks Sustainability Road Map Final
Report, April 2012. The coverage of total UK grocery market by weight by category is shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Valpak Data Solutions (VDS) weights coverage of total UK grocery market by category
Category

% Primary Packaging
Coverage in VDS
47%

% Secondary
Packaging Coverage
in VDS
6%

% Transit
Packaging
Coverage in VDS
19%

Carbonated Soft
Drinks
Dilutables
Fruit Juice and
Juice Drinks
Functional Drinks
Smoothies
Water

32%
41%

3%
10%

18%
14%

41%
39%
50%

16%
33%
17%

21%
29%
25%

Methodology
The available packaging data (as shown in Table 5 above) was scaled up using packaging weights and sales
information for 2011 to represent the total off-trade sector.
4.3 Recycling on the go
Methodology: Two BFF employees, a consultant and a researcher, spent approximately 3 hours between
Marylebone train station, Oxford Street (and surrounding streets including a mall type shopping centre) and
targeted people who were observed carrying a soft drinks container. No other screening of participants was
done. The above questions were asked, answers recorded and used to provide anecdotal evidence on
consumer behaviour and opinions. Descriptions of the participants can be seen in table 6, 7 and 8.
Table 1: Gender
Gender
Male
Female
Total

Number of
Participants
21
19
40

Table 2: Age
Age
16-25
26-35
36-45

Number of
Participants
7
10
14

46-55
>55
Total

5
4
40

Table 3: Purpose
Purpose
Social
Working
Shopping
Tourist
Total

Number of
Participants
14
15
2
9
40

Due to the very small sample size, the confidence in these results for quantitative assessment is very
low.
Data and methodology for determining the 2.1 billion litre figure for soft drinks bought on the go in
2011: Zenith International provided 2011 proportions firstly for on-trade vs. off-trade and then for the off-trade
sector a further proportion breakdown into on the go (impulse) and not on the go (grocery multiples). These
proportions were applied to the BSDA total soft drinks sales figure for 2011 to produce the 2.1 billion litre
figure.