Packaging'splaceinsociety 2004

Packaging’s Place in Society
Evaluating Resource Efficiency

Implications of Packaging
in the FMCG Supply Chain
Technical Annex
Supported financially by
Special thanks for packaging data provision to

Biffaward Programme on Sustainable Resource Use
Objectives
This report forms part of the Biffaward Programme on Sustainable Resource Use. The
aim of this programme is to provide accessible, well-researched information about the
flows of different resources through the UK economy based either singly, or on a
combination of regions, material streams or industry sectors.
Sponsorship
This project was primarily funded by Biffaward under the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme, with
additional contributions from Amcor Flexibles Europe, The Packaging Federation and
Valpak. The researchers would like to thank these companies for their financial support
and also for the time and effort they put in to ensure that the project was a success.
In addition, the researchers would like to make a special mention of thanks to Exel’s
Packaging Datastore for assistance with data collection.
Evaluating Resource Efficiency Implications
of Packaging in the FMCG Supply Chain
Technical Annex
Michael Sturges and Jonna Meyhoff Brink, Pira International

Matt L. Bench, University of Brighton
Evaluating resource efficiency implications of packaging in the fmcg supply chain
Table of Contents
Abbreviations and acronyms................................................................................................... i
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Background........................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Aims and objectives.............................................................................................. 3
1.3 Project scope ........................................................................................................ 3
2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Identification of external drivers............................................................................ 6
2.1.1 Principle for identifying external drivers......................................................... 6
2.2 Measuring resource efficiency.............................................................................. 7
2.2.1 Principles for measuring resource efficiency................................................. 7
2.2.2 Data collection ............................................................................................. 10
2.2.3 Data confidentiality ...................................................................................... 12
3 Drivers affecting resource efficiency of packaging .................................................... 13

3.1 Sociological drivers............................................................................................. 13
3.2 Technological drivers.......................................................................................... 15
3.3 Environmental drivers ......................................................................................... 16
3.4 Economic drivers ................................................................................................ 18
3.5 Political drivers.................................................................................................... 19
3.6 Supply chain drivers ........................................................................................... 20
3.7 Summary ............................................................................................................ 20
4 Soft Drinks ...................................................................................................................... 23

4.1 Data .................................................................................................................... 23
4.1.1 Unit of measure ........................................................................................... 23
4.1.2 Market share data........................................................................................ 23
4.1.3 Market share data by packaging format ...................................................... 24
4.1.4 Packaging specifications ............................................................................. 25
4.2 Results and Interpretation................................................................................... 29
5 Ready meals ................................................................................................................... 35

5.1 Data .................................................................................................................... 35
i
5.1.1 Unit of measure ........................................................................................... 35

6 Potatoes and potato products ...................................................................................... 48

6.1 Data .................................................................................................................... 48
6.1.1 Unit of measure ........................................................................................... 48
7 Cat food........................................................................................................................... 57
7.1 Data .................................................................................................................... 57
7.1.1 Unit of measure ........................................................................................... 57
8 Laundry Detergents ....................................................................................................... 70

8.1 Data .................................................................................................................... 70
8.1.1 Unit of measure ........................................................................................... 70
9 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... 81
References ............................................................................................................................. 96
Appendix A – A brief assessment of LCI sources ............................................................ 100
Appendix B – Resource efficiency results ........................................................................ 104
ii
Abbreviations and acronyms
Alu aluminium
CPET crystalline polyethylene terephthalate
HDPE high density polyethylene
LDPE low density polyethylene
PE polyethylene
PET polyethylene terephthalate
PP polypropylene
PVC polyvinyl chloride
i
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Packaging serves a number of functions. The most obvious ones are to contain and
protect the goods within it, not only from the shop to our home but throughout the supply
chain. Less obvious may be its ability to add to the convenience of our lifestyles and help
to provide diversity of choice. Packaging’s many functions can be best illustrated in
Figure 1.1 below.
Economic
Security Transport
and
storage
Preservation
Environmental
Protect Perform
Packaging Compliance
Containment
Convenience
Inform
Guarantee Distribution
Service Sales
Figure 1.1 Packaging’s functions (Beeton 2004)
Serving an essential part in our everyday life, packaging is also highly visible and as a
consequence packaging - and packaging waste in particular - has attracted much
environmental attention. This has been reflected in the development of packaging-
specific legislation and voluntary agreements both in the EU and within individual
Member States.
Environmental responsibility is only one of the important drivers influencing products and
their packaging. Other drivers include consumer changes such as ongoing demographic
and life-style changes; material and technological developments; and supply chain
demands. Only by adequately responding to all of these factors can competitive
advantages be gained. Particularly so for fast moving consumer goods (fmcg) where
packaging is a key parameter for obtaining a commercial advantage over competing
products.
2
When developing packaging, and for that matter considering policies for packaging and
packed products, it is therefore important to take into account the inherent relationships
between the product and its packaging development and how these relate to external
drivers. This project seeks to demonstrate these relationships, providing a document that
should serve as essential background reading for any stakeholder involved in packaging
policy development.
1.2 Aims and objectives
This study seeks to investigate and illustrate the implicit nature of the relationship
between different drivers for product / packaging developments and resource efficiency1.
The purpose is to establish a correlation between drivers affecting product and packaging
developments and resource efficiency. Resource efficiency is chosen as a measure of
the environmental impact of the packaging.
The study will focus on a series of five case studies to emphasise how, over time,
different drivers have influenced the inter-relationship between the product and its
packaging. The five case studies are:
• Soft drinks
• Ready meals
• Potatoes and potato products
• Cat food
• Laundry detergents
The criteria for selecting the different case studies included:

• Representing product categories, which have a significant presence in the fmcg
market place and are likely to be used by a large proportion of consumers.
• Comprising a broad range of product categories with different packaging needs and
subject to different market-place drivers
• Demonstrating changes in product and packaging over time in response to changing
market-place drivers
• For some case studies, covering products which have been placed in the
environmental spotlight, to investigate whether this spotlight is justified, for example
soft drinks and washing detergents.
• Data availability.
1.3 Project scope
Resource efficiency, as used in this project, is based on two simple criteria, material use
and energy consumption, and does not consider other kinds of environmental impacts
related to industrial products such as emissions of harmful substances. Consequently,
1
Resource efficiency, as used in this project, is based on two criteria, material use and energy
consumption.
3
the results are not a ranking of the packaging products according to their environmental
impact, but simply an assessment of the products according to the selected criteria.
For the purposes of this study, material use and energy consumption occurring in the raw
material and manufacturing stage is used for calculating resource efficiency, as illustrated
with the dotted lines in Figure 1.2. Thus the material use through the packing/filling
process, distribution and waste management is excluded. Additionally, the material use
and energy consumption related to infrastructure, manufacture of production equipment
etc. is excluded.
The distribution phase has been included for the case study of cat food in the form of a
lorry capacity assessment. To identify an “average distribution route” along the supply
chain and assign this to the functional unit would have been a considerable task.
Therefore, an assessment of the lorry capacity needed for the different packaging format
mix over time has been used.
4
Energy, materials,
machines, etc
R aw M aterials
Extraction and
Emissions initial processing
S econdary
Energy, materials,
product
machines, etc C onversion and
packaging
R ecycling
Emissions
m anufacture Process waste
Energy, materials,
machines, etc
P acking / filling Energy, materials,

Emissions O pen loop
Emissions machines, etc
recycling
Fuels
D istribution
Emissions
Energy
U se /
Emissions consum ption
R ecycling
Post use
Energy, materials,
machines, etc
D isposal
Collection,
Emissions
treatm ent and final Energy, materials,
Emissions
machines, etc
disposal
Boundaries of the case studies
Included for cat food only
Figure 1.2 Illustration of the project scope compared to the life cycle of
packaging
5
2 Methodology
2.1 Identification of external drivers
For identifying and categorising the external drivers the STEEPS analysis technique, a
modification of the STEEP analysis, is used. The STEEPS analysis groups the external
drivers into six categories:
• Sociological drivers
• Technological drivers
• Environmental drivers
• Economic drivers
• Political drivers
• Supply chain drivers
In general, a STEEP analysis is performed in order to examine the impact of the different
drivers on an industry and how they interrelate with each other. The findings are
generally used to take advantage of opportunities and make contingency plans for any
threats.
The STEEPS analysis used for this project is of a more retrospective nature and seeks to
identify drivers that have occurred over time and link these to resource efficiency
measures taken within the industries that encompass the case studies.
2.1.1 Principle for identifying external drivers

In order to establish current and historical external drivers affecting the fmcg supply chain
a number of sources were investigated.
The procedure used for identifying external drivers was as follows:

• A brainstorming session of Pira packaging experts provided an initial indication of
external drivers for the five case studies and for packaging in general.
• Literature was searched for information on drivers affecting the fmcg supply chain.
• The identified drivers were discussed with the Project Panel and additional drivers
were added.
• A stakeholder workshop was held where the drivers identified were discussed.
• The drivers were further discussed during interviews with packaging producers and
users.
• Based on the above, external drivers were identified for packaging in general and for
each case study.
6
2.2 Measuring resource efficiency
Resource efficiency of packaging can be measured in three ways2 dependant on the level
of detail wanted and the accuracy required. The three levels of detail can be summarised
as:
Method One: Packaging weight only

An assessment of the resource efficiency of packaging over time can be carried out
based exclusively on the weight of the packaging used. This can, of course, only be
considered an indication of the actual resource efficiency as it would exclude any
environmental impacts during the manufacture of the packaging. For example, energy
consumption will be excluded even though it is of great importance when considering
resource efficiency. The low level of data assessment will therefore bring a high degree
of distortion to the actual results, which could prove to be unacceptable.
Method Two: Material use and energy consumption

A better measure for assessing resource efficiency is achieved by calculating the material
use and the energy consumption throughout the life cycle of the packaging. The material
use will be an expression of the consumption of natural resources, and the energy
consumption will be an expression of the consumption of additional resources in the form
of fuels. Other environmental impacts will however not be included.
Method Three: All environmental impacts

To consider all environmental impacts a detailed knowledge of the whole life cycle of the
packaging is required. This would enable the calculation of material use and energy
consumption, as well as other environmental impacts such as emissions to water, soil,
and air. Data collection for this level of assessment is considerable, however the result
is, in many cases, a more accurate assessment of the packaging.
This project has applied Method Two, the assessment of material use and energy
consumption. The indicator parameters achieved are considered representative of a
significant part of the total environmental impact for packaging. A balance is thereby
achieved between the accuracy of the results and the quantity of data required.
2.2.1 Principles for measuring resource efficiency

As illustrated in Figure 1.2 on page 4, there are a large number of environmental impacts
occurring in the life cycle of any product. Although it is theoretically possible to analyse
the life cycles and all the environmental impacts of the packaging investigated in this
project, this would not be practically possible within the scope of this study. This means
that any method to estimate the environmental impacts must inevitably simplify reality
and focus on key indicator parameters. This is considered acceptable, as the purpose of
this project is to give an indication of changes in resource efficiency over time rather than
absolute values.
2
Based on a methodology developed for the Danish EPA (Hansen 2003).
7
The principle behind the method applied in this project is as follows:

1. All packs are composed of a relatively small number of materials, and the
environmental impacts of the packaging are to a large extent determined by these
materials.
2. As a general rule the material composition of each packaging format will be similar
(there will of course always be exemptions to this rule). For example, a 500 ml PET
bottle sold in the UK will in most cases consist of a PET bottle with a polypropylene
closure.
3. It is consequently possible and appropriate to divide the packaging into packaging
format and size. For each packaging format and size an “average pack” composition
and weight is determined.
4. By combining information about composition, weight and waste during production of
the “average pack” with statistics on the amount of product sold in this packaging
format, it is possible to calculate the total amount of materials used. By combining
the results for all packaging formats the material use for the whole case study product
group can be calculated.
5. By combining information on the total material use for each “average pack” with the
energy required to produce these materials, the total energy consumption can be
calculated. By combining the results for all packaging formats the energy
consumption for the whole case study product group can be calculated.
6. A measure for resource efficiency is achieved by assessing material use and energy
consumption for the case study product group over a period of time.
The unit of measure for resource efficiency for each case study has been given careful
consideration. It is important that the quantity of material used and energy consumed are
measured against a reference that is readily comprehensible in order to ensure that the
results are understandable and illustrative. The units of measure chosen for the different
case studies are:
• Soft drinks: resource efficiency per litre of soft drink
• Ready meals: resource efficiency per ready meal
• Potatoes and potato products: resource efficiency per meal portion
• Cat food: resource efficiency per daily intake
• Laundry detergents: resource efficiency per wash
The rationale for choosing these units of measure has been described further in the
chapters of the individual case studies.
Assessment principle
For each case study, material use and energy consumption is calculated for all packaging
formats and sizes. The results are then combined to give an overall result for each case
study. The calculation principles are shown in the text box below.
8
Box 2.1 Calculation principles
Material use
The material use of each case study product group is determined by the following
expression:
R = Σ (Wi, j + Pi, j) x Mi, j
Where
R = Total material material use for the product group
Wi, j = Weight of packaging format i of size j
Pi, j = Weight of waste produced during the raw material and manufacturing
phases of packaging format i of size j
Mi, j = Quantity of packaging format i of size j sold in the UK
- all measured in relation to the unit of measure (e.g. kg per wash).
Energy consumption
The energy consumption of each case study product group is determined by the
following expression:
E = Σ (Ei,e + Ei,m) x Mi, j
Where
E = Total energy consumption of the product group
Ei,e = Energy consumption for extraction of packaging raw material i
Ei,m = Energy consumption for manufacture of packaging format i and size j
Mi, j = Quantity of packaging format i of size j sold in the UK
- all measured in relation to the unit of measure (e.g. MJ per wash).
9
2.2.2 Data collection

A stepwise approach was adopted for collecting data and estimating resource efficiency
for the five case studies chosen. The stepwise approach is illustrated by Figure 2.1.
STEP 6
Compare
STEP 5 results with
Combine external
category drivers
STEP 4
Calculate results to
current and provide an
STEP 3
historical overall picture
Establish for the product
current and resource
STEP 2
historical efficiency by
Establish category
current and packaging
STEP 1
historical specifications
Establish by category
current and packaging
historical formats and
product their share by
consumption category
patterns by
category
Figure 2.1 Stepwise approach for assessing resource efficiency
The following describes the data collection procedure.
Step 1: Establishing product consumption patterns

In order to establish current and historical consumption patterns a number of sources
were investigated. The data format for consumption patterns required for this project are
unusual in that it should preferably contain both information about product consumption
by sub-category over a long time period and packaging formats and sizes used for
containing the product. By sub-category is meant a further specification of the product
category. For example, the product category soft drinks can be divided into the sub-
categories carbonates, concentrates, fruit/veg juices and juice drinks, packaged water
and functional drinks.
The procedure used for identifying appropriate data was as follows:

• Market research sources were identified and investigated to determine if they
contained data in the format required for this study.
• A stakeholder workshop was held where the data sources were discussed and, in a
few cases, other sources identified.
• The data sources were further discussed during interviews with packaging producers
and users.
• Based on the requirements of the data (historical perspective, data detail and price),
a set of market research data was chosen for each case study.
10
Step 2: Establishing packaging formats

Where no data sources were identified that contained data in the required format, the
following procedure for obtaining information was followed:
• Industry associations were contacted to see if they had any information or could refer
to relevant literature, contacts, etc.
• Published literature was researched.
• Interviews were made with relevant manufacturers and users.
• Based on the information obtained, the packaging formats in question were
estimated. Where data gaps remained packaging formats were determined based on
visual shelf audits conducted by Pira International.
Step 3: Establishing packaging specifications

As mentioned in section 2.2.1, the case studies build on the composition of an “average
pack” for each packaging format and size. This “average pack” is calculated based on
information from UK manufacturers and users, industry associations, literature etc.
combined with the project team’s own assessments and measurements.
The typical process for establishing packaging composition and weights was as follows:
• The workshop was an opportunity for discussing the case studies, and obtaining
information, data and contacts.
• Relevant manufacturer(s) and user(s) were contacted for an interview. A number of
interviews were conducted.
• Exel’s Packaging Datastore was contacted for further information about packaging
specifications. The Datastore is a database of primary, secondary and tertiary
packaging specifications for UK fmcg, which Exel use to calculate packaging waste
compliance obligations on behalf of their clients.
• Published literature was researched.
• Subsequently, the packaging composition and the weights of the different packaging
formats and sizes were calculated. Where no information was obtained or where
data gaps remained packaging weights and sizes were estimated based on sample
weighing at Pira International.
Step 4: Calculation of resource efficiency

The quantities of materials used and the energy required to produce the “average pack”
is based on life cycle inventory (LCI) data from readily available life cycle inventory
databases. The databases used for the different packaging materials are shown in Table
2.1 below.
11
Table 2.1 LCI databases used for estimating resource efficiency

Packaging material LCI database
Plastics The eco-profile reports of the Association of Plastics
Manufacturers in Europe (APME)
Aluminium The Environmental Profile Report for the European
Aluminium Industry published by the European Aluminium
Association (EAA).
Steel The BUWAL 250 dataset by the Swiss Agency for the
Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL)
Glass The BUWAL 250 dataset by the Swiss Agency for the
Paperboard products The BUWAL 250 dataset by the Swiss Agency for the
A brief assessment of the system boundaries for the datasets can be found in Appendix
A.
Step 5: Combining category results to provide an overall result for the product
The category results are then combined to give an overall resource efficiency result for
the packaging for that particular case study.
Step 6: Compare results with external drivers

The results are then compared with the external drivers identified to investigate if any
qualitative correlation can be identified.
2.2.3 Data confidentiality

Data used in this study has been obtained from a number of sources. For commercial
reasons, some of these sources have asked that their data remain confidential.
Therefore the following chapters will not specify exactly the data used, instead the data
will be described quantitatively and/or qualitatively. However, it must be emphasised that
every effort has been made to ensure that the report remains transparent and
comprehensive, and that the methodology is described in detail, if not the data.
12
3 Drivers affecting resource efficiency of packaging
This chapter discusses external drivers affecting packaging in general and in particular
the supply chains of the case studies. For identifying and categorising the external
drivers the STEEPS analysis technique is used.
3.1 Sociological drivers
The main sociological factor lies with the changes in the way we live. The ageing
population, declining household sizes, the increase in disposable income and the
pressures on our daily lives has had a significant impact on our spending habits and what
we look for in a product and its packaging.
People are living longer. In 2002, there were 19.8 million people aged 50 and over in the
UK, a 24% increase compared to 1961. During the same period, the proportion of people
aged 85 and over more than doubled. There is therefore a growing need for product
manufacturers to focus more on openability, easily readable labels, etc. in order to market
their products at this consumer group. In addition, the fact that we are living longer also
has an impact on household sizes.
The average household size in the UK fell by 20% between 1971 and 2002, a decline
from 2.91 to 2.31 persons per household (ONS 2004). This decline has resulted from a
large increase in the proportion of people living alone, which has almost doubled during
this period. By 2002, one-person households constituted almost a third of UK
households.
40
35
30 1 person
2 people
Percentage
25
3 people
20
4 people
15
5 people
10 6 or more
5
0
1971 1975 1981 1985 1991 1995 2001
Figure 3.1 Household composition in the UK (ONS 2004)
Smaller households buy their products in smaller sizes. Smaller product sizes means a
higher product:pack ratio, so smaller households are a driver for increased packaging
13
consumption. For example, a one-adult household uses on average 120 kg of packaging

per year, compared to 90 kg per person for a two-adult household and 70 kg per person
for a family household consisting of two adults and two children (INCPEN 2001).
Changes have also occurred to our disposable income. Since the Second World War,
the middle class has emerged as the dominant socio-economic sector in the UK, and the
average disposable income has risen steadily. For example, between 1971 and 2002 the
average disposable household income in the UK increased in real terms from £269 to
£453 per week (ONS 2003).
500
450
400
(£) 350
300
Ave. disposable
250 income
200
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Figure 3.2 Ave. weekly household income in the UK, at 2002 prices
(ONS 2003)
At the same time our time has become more pressured – and precious. This is partly due
to there being more working women, more single parent households, and more smaller
households in general, and partly due to full time employees in the UK working on
average 41.5 hours per week (Boisard et al 2003). This is higher than for any other
country in the EU.
The influence this has had on our spending habits in terms of money and time is that it
has contributed to us moving from a “needs” based society to a “wants” based society.
We have moved away from planned money spending to increased impulse buying, and
rather than spending our time on chores we prefer to spend it on activities that improve
our quality of life. For example, the time spent on sport and exercise has risen from 10
minutes per week in the 1960s to one hour per week by the early 2000s (Future
Foundation 2002). At the same time, time spent on cooking has decreased.
14
160
140
Home cooking time (minutes)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1930 1950 1970 1990 2010
Figure 3.3 Home cooking time trends (INCPEN 2004)
This means that we are able and willing to buy more value-added, convenience products
such as prepared foods. The packaging required for prepared food is different to that
required for raw ingredients that we would have used more commonly for preparing food
at home in the past.
Higher disposable income also means that we are more able and willing to eat out.
Eating out means consumer packaging for food is avoided, but additional food service
packaging is required.
The way we eat is also changing. For example, a true lunch hour is by many people
considered a luxury and often the lunch break is finished in less than 30 minutes. In fact,
11% of people between 15 and 75 years of age eat their lunch on-the-move (Tetra Pak
2001).
3.2 Technological drivers
Technological advancements in material and process technologies have had a great

impact on the fmcg supply chain. Material advances include lightweighting / down-
gauging and the development of composites. Process advances include form-fill-seal
techniques and aseptic filling. The cost savings and added speed that these have
brought to the sector have been considerable. Not to mention the new businesses that
have emerged as a result.
Additionally, consumers have also embraced technological advancements in the home.

For instance, over the last generation we have created more time for other activities by
taking advantage of time saving technologies, such as the fridge, freezer, microwave
15
oven and the washing machine. The impact this has had on the products we buy, when
and how we buy them, and how we prepare and store them has been immense.
100
90
80
Microwave oven
70
Refridgerator*
Percentage
60
Deep freezer*
50 Washing machine
40 Dish washer
30 Colour TV
20 Home computer
10
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
*Fridge freezers are attributed to both 'refridgerator'and 'deep freezer'from 1979 on.
Figure 3.4 Consumer durables in Great Britain (ONS 2004)
A more recent technological advancement that has had considerable impact on the fmcg
supply chain, is the possibility now to shop via the Internet. The infrastructure demands
that this puts on the supply chains – and therefore the packaging that is used - are in
many cases challenging.
In particular, technological advancements have allowed us to:

• Buy more prepared food products which can be stored in the freezer or fridge, then
can be cooked in the microwave for speed and convenience
• Prepare meals quickly and easily, meaning that different members of the family may
eat different meals at different times, depending on tastes and time pressures.
3.3 Environmental drivers
The general public perception of packaging is that it is a major contributor to waste

production and that many products are over-packed. This negative perception has been
linked with packaging for a number of years, partly due to packaging being a very visible
part of our everyday lives. Each year, the UK produces over 100 million tonnes of waste
from households, commerce and industry (DEFRA 2004). Less than 10% of this waste is
packaging. According to latest official statistics, 47.6% of this packaging waste was
recycled in 2003, and a further 5.9% was recovered (through energy recovery or
composting) (Environment Agency 2004).
16
This negative perception of packaging has resulted in considerable legislative attention

towards packaging for a number of years. Relevant environmental legislation affecting
packaging directly includes:
• UK Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations
• UK Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations
• Food contact regulations
In order to meet the recovery and recycling targets as set out in the Producer
Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations, the UK has introduced the
shared producer responsibility regime and financial mechanism in the form of Packaging
Recovery Notes (PRNs). This has resulted in a more formal infrastructure for packaging
recovery and recycling industry in the UK, including the establishment of compliance
schemes for packaging waste (i.e. Valpak, Biffpak, Wastepak, etc.).
The Essential Requirements Regulations have resulted in increased efforts towards

minimisation by weight and volume of packaging design, towards minimisation of noxious
and hazardous substances in packaging materials, and towards ensuring that packaging
is recoverable at end-of-life.
Additional environmental legislation that affects the packaging supply chain includes:
• UK Climate Change Levy
• Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
• VOC emissions regulations
• Aggregates levy
Current policy trends are moves towards sustainable development, especially sustainable
production, consumption and waste management. Recent examples include:
• The Communication on Integrated Product Policy;
• The Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources;
• The Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling;
• The 6th Environmental Action Programmes focus on, amongst others,
sustainable use of and management of resources, and waste recycling;
• The UK government’s continued encouragement to industry to produce
corporate sustainability reports.
Additionally, there seems to be a greater acceptance politically of using producer

responsibility and environmental taxation to influence consumption. Examples of this
includes the deposits on beverage packaging in a number of EU member states, taxes on
carrier bags in Ireland and Denmark, and weight-based charging on domestic waste as
seen in several EU member states.
Pressure from stakeholders for environmental (and social) accountability is also

increasing most notably with corporate sustainability reporting “becoming mainstream for
big corporations” (KPMG 2002). This has lead to the packaging supply chain being more
17
accountable for sustainability issues as diverse as economic equality, employee training,

health and safety, climate change, the demands of the ageing population structure – and
also material use and waste generation.
3.4 Economic drivers
A significant economic driver influencing packaging usage has been the increase in
consumer spending power highlighted in the section on social drivers (section 3.1). This
has allowed consumers freedom to purchase more value-added products, including
products incorporating value-added packaging. For example, it is now possible to
purchase ready mixed spirits and mixers in cans or other individual sized containers as
an alternative to purchasing a bottle of spirits and a bottle of mixer. This is a more
expensive way of purchasing the product, and uses additional packaging per serving, but
provides added convenience, for which consumers are willing to pay extra.
In contrast, pressures to reduce costs in the supply chain, and therefore maximise
profitability, have encouraged packaging minimisation activities and packaging
optimisation along the distribution chain. For example, the cost of packaging materials
means that any technical advancements or packaging designs which reduce packaging
requirements without compromising consumer acceptance or sales will be adopted.
Typically, packaging costs represent in the region of 2-22% of the product manufacturers
gross output (see Table 3.1 below).
Table 3.1 Packaging costs for selected products

(Bickerstaffe 2004)
Product Cost of packaging as a percent of
product manufacturers gross output
Perfume 22%
Biscuits 11%
Paint 8%
Milk 8%
Bacon 6%
Toys 6%
Beer 5%
Explosives 4%
Sugar 2%
Distribution costs continue to rise, as fuel prices and road taxation increase. This has led
product suppliers to seek opportunities to maximise vehicle loading and take advantage
of backhauling opportunities.
18
At the same time, there has been increased pressure to reduce the amount of material
being disposed of, through increases in waste management costs. This affects all
materials being disposed of, including packaging materials. For example, the introduction
of the landfill tax in the UK in 1999 added an additional cost of £13 per tonne by 2002 for
disposing of waste to landfill. This is a further driver for prevention of waste at source,
including packaging optimisation. It is also a driver for improving the recyclability of
materials, including packaging.
The introduction of packaging waste recovery and recycling legislation has been a further
cost incentive to reduce packaging waste in the UK. The UK Producer Responsibility
(Packaging) Regulations impose requirements on all companies operating within the
packaging and packaged product supply chain to contribute to the recovery and recycling
of packaging waste placed on the UK market. Whether this is done through individual
company compliance or through membership of a packaging waste compliance scheme,
the cost of compliance increases according to how much packaging material a company
handles. Therefore, reducing packaging can directly reduce packaging waste compliance
costs.
The overall effect of these economic drivers is pressure to reduce packaging costs
through packaging optimisation activities.
3.5 Political drivers
There is great synergy between political drivers and other drivers. For example, the
increasing awareness of environmental and health issues amongst the general public,
environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs) and consumer groups has been
reflected in the policies and legislation developed. In response, packaging was classified
as a priority waste stream and has been used to test the concept of producer
responsibility in all Member States.
Other political events have shaped the social drivers. Since the end of World War II
governments have striven to win votes by securing better life-styles across all social
strata. The result has been higher disposable income, a consumer society and a “you’ve
never had it so good” syndrome. To an extent, the increase in working women and more
single person households is a consequence of political agendas to generate a more
affluent society.
Even changes in the retailing environment have synergies with political drivers. For
example, growth in supermarket retailing, crucial to the fmcg markets studied here, was
initially encouraged by government. In a necessary drive from the austerity of food
rationing after the end of World War II, the UK government actively encouraged the
introduction of supermarkets, copying the models seen in the USA at the time. With the
repeal of the Price Maintenance Act in the 1960s, combined with growth of motorways
and improvement in farming yields, the political stage was set for a wider, more plentiful
19
and cheaper supply of food. Combined with the growth in disposable income from £261
per week in 1971 to £409 per week in 2002 (in real terms), the macro-economic climate
was perfect for the growth in all consumer products, especially the fmcg products
highlighted in this report.
3.6 Supply chain drivers
In response to consumer requirements, the demands of brand owners and retailers have
had a significant impact on logistics rationalisation and flexibility in the supply chain. The
effect this has had on packaging includes shorter product life cycles, shorter print runs,
smaller packaging quantities, unitisation of packaging, tracking and barcoding of pallets,
packaging postponement and just-in-time, as well as increased and more efficient
warehouse management.
Decisions by retailers and brand owners in response to these changes can influence
packaging requirements. For example, the improvement and introduction of chilled
supply chains has changed the products, and therefore the packaging, available to
consumers. More recently, changes in warehousing such as the introduction of
Sainsbury's fulfilment factories, extremely large, automated distribution centres, have
influenced the way products are palletised and the pallet tracking and picking
requirements.
Damage is a real but often under-prioritised cost to the fmcg supply chain. Research
shows that 80% of the damage incurs in the last part of distribution from the RDC to the
consumer, with the main cause of damage being manual handling, primarily associated
with order picking at regional distribution centres (RDCs), roll cage use and manual shelf
filling. It is estimated that fmcg damage in the European supply chain costs as much as
€3.5 billion each year (Pira International 2003). Manufacturers are driving much of the
damage reduction work, leading to the development of integrated point of sale and
primary packaging solutions, which reduce manual handling. This trend is already
having, and will continue to have, a significant impact on the primary and secondary
packaging used for fmcg.
3.7 Summary
The many external drivers influencing packaging and the benefits delivered by packaging
can be summarised in an extension of Figure 1.1 as shown in Figure 3.5 below.
Before a new pack is placed on the market, an exercise has taken place balancing the
drivers influencing the packaging, the functions required of the packaging, and the added
benefits delivered by the packaging. Sometimes the exercise is unsuccessful and the
product/pack combination does not achieve the market penetration as expected.
Sometimes the exercise is successful, and allows the brand owner to maintain or
increase market share, or even to create new demand for its product.
20
As shown in this chapter, packaging is in many ways a reflection of society. It must

comply with legislation, for example, labelling and environmental requirements; it must be
cost-efficient; and it must remain competitive and thereby move without restrictions
through the distribution chain and ultimately attract the consumer by meeting the
consumer’s demands of convenience, handling, attractiveness, etc. However, if
packaging is a reflection of society, and society is changing, then packaging must change
too. This is illustrated in the case studies of this project by demonstrating the effects that
these changes have had on the way we consume products and the influence this has on
the packaging that we use – and therefore on the resource efficiency of packaging.
21
Drivers influencing fmcg packaging

Consumer
Environmental tastes - fashion
awareness and culture Technology
Health
advancements
awareness
Time pressures Competition
Greater
Raw material
disposable
costs
income
Smaller Supply chain
households performance
Aging
Globalisation
population
Economic
Security Transport
and
storage
Preservation
Environmental
Protect Perform
Packaging
functions Packaging Compliance
Containment
Convenience
Inform
Guarantee Distribution
Service Sales
Consumer
Packaging
choice
minimisation
(reduced packaging
Product per functionality
Convenience protection
(waste
Tailored portion
minimisation)
sizes
Benefits delivered by fmcg packaging
Figure 3.5 Drivers influencing and benefits delivered by fmcg packaging

(adapted from Beeton 2004)
22
4 Soft Drinks
4.1 Data
4.1.1 Unit of measure

The measure chosen for soft drinks is resource efficiency per litre of soft drink sold.
The quantity of soft drink that consumers drink varies significantly depending on the
preference and taste of the individual. Therefore, as no recognisable “average
consumption measure” can be established, a measure of one litre has been chosen.
4.1.2 Market share data

Market share data for soft drinks has been obtained from the Euromonitor market data
(Euromonitor 2003a). The data, which includes off-trade sales only, is based on data
obtained through trade associations, trade press, company research, store checks, trade
interviews and Euromonitor estimates.
The Euromonitor report divides soft drinks into five sub-categories:

• Carbonates – including both standard and low calorie cola carbonates,
lemonade/lime carbonates, orange carbonates and other carbonates.
• Concentrates – only liquid concentrates (powder concentrates are not included).
• Fruit/veg juices & juice drinks (in the following called “fruit/veg juices”) – including
100% juices (both from concentrate and reconstituted), nectars (25 – 99% juice),
juice drinks (up to 24% juice) and fruit-flavoured drinks (no juice content).
• Packaged water - both still, sparkling and flavoured packaged water. The data does
not include dispensers.
• Functional drinks – including sports drinks, energy drinks and elixirs.
The Euromonitor market share data is provided per sub-category and product size (ml
beverage). Where data gaps occur data has been extrapolated and validated. A
summary of the Euromonitor data is shown in Figure 4.1 below.
23
9000
Sales of soft drinks (million litres)
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000 Functional Drinks
3000 Packaged Water
2000 Fruit/Veg Juice
Concentrates
1000
Carbonates
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Figure 4.1 Sales of soft drinks by sub-category
As can be seen, a steady increase in sales of soft drinks has occurred over the years.
Growth has been achieved across the board. The greatest percentage growth in sales
has been for functional drinks, which have seen an increase of 190% between 1997 and
2002. Big increases have also been seen for packaged water and fruit/veg juices, which
saw increases of 53% and 27%, respectively. Concentrates and carbonates saw smaller
growth in sales at 7% and 9%, respectively. In real terms, the biggest increase was seen
for packaged water of 476 million litres from 1997 to 2002.
4.1.3 Market share data by packaging format

The percentage split between the different packaging formats for the different sizes of
soft drinks is based on information from the Euromonitor market data (Euromonitor
2003a). Where data gaps occur assumptions have been made by the project team. The
data is summarised in Table 4.1 below.
Table 4.1 Packaging format by soft drink sub-category and quantity

Soft drink Product 1997 2002
quantity
150 ml All cans All cans
Carbonates 330 ml 95.1% cans, 4.9% glass bottles 96.1% cans, 3.9% glass bottles
≥ 500 ml All plastic bottles All plastic bottles
500 ml All glass bottles All glass bottles
Concentrates 600 ml All plastic bottles All plastic bottles
24
Soft drink Product 1997 2002

quantity
200 ml 19.2% plastic bottles, 25.0% plastic bottles,
Fruit/Veg 71.4% cartons, 9.4% pouches 70.0% cartons, 5.0% pouches
Juices & 250 ml 2.1% cans, 6.2% plastic bottles, 1.3% cans, 25.0% plastic bottles,
Juice Drinks 83.2% cartons, 8.4% pouches 68.8% cartons, 5.0% pouches
288 ml All cartons All cartons
330 ml All glass bottles 24.9% cans, 75.1% plastic bottles
500 ml All plastic bottles All plastic bottles
1000 ml 12.2% glass bottles, 7.4% glass bottles,
9.8% plastic bottles, 13.2% plastic bottles,
78.0% cartons 79.4% cartons
1750 ml All cartons All cartons
Packaged 330 ml 27.8% cans, 10.1% cans,
Water 72.2% plastic bottles 89.9% plastic bottles
1.3% plastic bottles 22.4% plastic bottles
10.8% plastic bottles 48.0% plastic bottles
250 ml All cans All cans
Functional 325 ml All glass bottles All glass bottles
Drinks
(% refers to proportion of product by weight sold in each packaging format).
The table shows that for the soft drinks sub-category ‘carbonates’, beverage cans have
gained market share over glass, and for ‘fruit/veg juice and juice drinks’ and ‘packaged
water’ plastic packaging has gained market share at the expense of cartons, glass, cans
and pouches.
4.1.4 Packaging specifications

Packaging specifications for the different packaging formats used for soft drinks have
been obtained from a number of sources, including Coca-Cola Enterprises Ltd. and
Exel’s Packaging Datastore (P. Smith 2004, P. James 2004). Where data gaps still
25
existed data were determined through visual shelf audits and in-house weighing at Pira
International.
Table 4.2 below summarises the packaging materials used by primary, collation,
secondary and transit packaging for each packaging format.
Table 4.2 Summary of packaging materials by packaging format for soft drinks
Packaging Primary packaging Collation packaging Secondary Transit
format packaging packaging
Beverage can Aluminium can or Shrink film (LDPE) or Corrugated tray and Stretch film
steel can cardboard box Shrink film (LDPE) (LDPE)
Glass bottle Clear glass bottle or None Corrugated tray and Stretch film
green glass bottle with Shrink film (LDPE) (LDPE)
closure (tinplate or
aluminium)
Plastic bottle PET bottle or Shrink film (LDPE) Corrugated tray and Stretch film
PVC bottle with Shrink film (LDPE) (LDPE)
closure (PP)
Carton Laminate of paper board, Shrink film (LDPE) Corrugated tray and Stretch film
aluminium and LDPE, or cardboard box Shrink film (LDPE) (LDPE)
possibly with straw (PP)
Flexible pouch Laminate of LDPE, Cardboard box Corrugated tray and Stretch film
aluminium and PE, Shrink film (LDPE) (LDPE)
possibly with straw (PP)
Excluded from the calculations on resource efficiency are the labels on the primary
packaging. Although the use of shrink sleeve labels has increased over recent years,
and could therefore have an impact on resource efficiency, this is considered a minor
development with regards to material use that would have little impact on the overall
results achieved. Pallets used as transit packaging have also been excluded from the
calculations due to the large reuse levels and pallet pooling systems in this sector.
Additionally, all caps have been assumed the same, a standard cap. No consideration
has been made to sport caps, for example. This is considered acceptable as this should
not have a significant influence on the overall result as sport caps are mainly used for
packaged water, which currently only accounts for 17% of the market share.
The table shows that although the soft drinks sector is characterised by a wide variety of
primary packaging formats, the materials used for collation, secondary and transit
packaging are generally the same. The proliferation of primary packaging formats in the
soft drinks sector is mainly due to two aspects: The packaging is very much an extension
of the brand ensuring it is easily recognisable and allowing the manufacturer to convey
marketing information to the consumer (as well as essential information such as
nutritional information, etc.). At the same time, the variety of primary packaging formats
meets different consumer needs such as consuming-on-the-move, providing easy
storage, portion sizes, etc.
26
The packaging specifications for the primary, collation, secondary and transit packaging
are described in more detail below.
Cans
Cans are made of either aluminium or steel. Over the years, the market share of
aluminium cans has increased significantly, and it is estimated that in 2002 aluminium
cans accounted for 75% of the market of 330 ml beverage cans for soft drinks (KeyNote
2003). For the smaller can sizes, 150 ml and 250 ml, it is estimated that aluminium cans
hold the total share of the market.
For the purpose of this study, the weight of cans is based on data from Rexam’s
Environmental and Social Report 2003 (Rexam 2003) and in-house weighing by Pira
International. Considerable lightweighting has been achieved over the years and is
assumed to be an average of 1.4% per annum for aluminium cans and 2.2% per annum
for steel cans, based on information from the Rexam report.
Collation packaging is assumed for 330 ml cans for carbonates only. The collation
packaging is assumed to be 6-, 8-, 12-, 15-, 18-, and 24-packs with 6-packs and 12-
packs accounting for 20% and 10% of the market share for soft drinks, respectively (P.
Smith 2004). An additional 10% is split between the remaining collation packaging sizes,
and the remaining 60% is assumed to be sold as singles. Collation packaging is
assumed to be a mix of cardboard boxes and shrink film (LDPE).
The secondary packaging is for all can sizes assumed to be a corrugated board tray with
a shrink film (LDPE) around it. The weight of the secondary packaging is based on in-
house weighing by Pira International.
The transit packaging is for all cans assumed to be a pallet with stretch film (LDPE)
around it. The quantity of product per pallet has been estimated by Pira International
based on typical pallet dimensions and heights. Lightweighting and general good
practice is assumed to have resulted in a 6.4% reduction in stretch film consumption per
annum based on discussions with Pira packaging experts.
Glass bottles
Glass bottles used for soft drinks are generally made either from clear or green glass.
For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that clear glass is used overall, except for
packaged water where an equal split has been assumed between clear and green glass.
The weights of the different bottle sizes are estimated based on sources such as the
Rexam website, Exel’s Packaging Datastore, Coca-Cola Enterprises Ltd. and in-house
weighing by Pira International. Lightweighting is assumed to be 2.0% per annum.
No collation packaging has been assumed for glass bottles.
27
For secondary and transit packaging, similar specifications as for cans have been
assumed. Plastic layer pads have been excluded on the grounds of the high reuse levels
employed.
Plastic bottles
Plastic bottles used for the containment of soft drinks are generally made of PET.
However, for larger bottles where an integral handle is required PVC is often used. It has
therefore been assumed that all plastic bottle sizes are made of PET, except for the bottle
sizes 2000ml and 3000ml where an equal split has been assumed between PET and
PVC. The 2000 ml and 3000 ml bottle sizes are used for the soft drinks sub-categories of
‘concentrates’ and ‘packaged water’.
The weight of the ‘average bottle’ for the different plastic bottle sizes is based on
information from Exel’s Packaging Datastore, Coca-Cola Enterprises Ltd., and in-house
weighing by Pira International. Lightweighting over the years is assumed to be an
average of 2.6% per annum (BSDA, Valorplast).
Collation packaging is assumed for 500 ml bottles for ‘carbonates’; 200 ml, 250 ml and
330 ml bottles for ‘fruit/veg juices’; and for 250 ml, 330 ml, 500 ml, 1000 ml, 1500 ml and
2000 ml bottles for ‘packaged water’. The weight of the collation packaging is based on
information generated through in-house weighing by Pira International.
For secondary and transit packaging, similar specifications as for cans have been
assumed.
Cartons
The composition of the cartons is based on a 1000 ml carton as provided in (Barkman et
al 2001):
Liquid paper board: 74.2%
Polyethylene (PE): 20.6%
Aluminium: 5.2%
Lightweighting has been assumed for the liquid paper board, however not for PE and
aluminium. The lightweighting is estimated to be 0.67% per annum during the period
1997 to 2000, and 0.4% per annum during the period 2000 to 2002 (ACE).
It is assumed that the carton sizes of 200 ml, 250 ml and 288 ml are sold with a straw.
The 1000 ml and 1750 ml cartons are assumed to include closures.
Collation packaging has been assumed for all carton sizes, except the 1750 ml carton.
For the 200 ml, 250 ml and 288 ml cartons 3- and 6-pack collation packs have been
assumed to hold market shares of 50% and 30%, respectively. For the 1000 ml carton a
4-pack collation pack has been assumed with a market share of 25%. The remaining are
assumed sold as singles.
28
For secondary and transit packaging, similar specifications as for beverage cans has
been assumed.
Pouches
The estimated composition of the pouches is based on discussions with Pira packaging
experts:
Polyethylene (PE): 17%
Aluminium: 10%
Polyethylene, low density (LDPE): 73%
No lightweighting has been assumed. It is assumed that both the 200 ml and 250 ml
pouch is sold with a straw.
Both pouch sizes are sold in 6- and 10-pack collation packs each estimated at 45% of the
market share. The remaining 10% of sales are assumed sold as singles.
For secondary and transit packaging, similar specifications as for beverage cans and
glass bottles has been estimated.
4.2 Results and Interpretation
The resource efficiency results for soft drinks are shown in Figure 4.2 and 4.3 below.
Figure 4.2 shows the material use results and Figure 4.3 shows the energy consumption
results. The results can also be found in tabular format in Appendix B.
Material use per litre of soft drink, as shown in Figure 4.2, has fallen over the years from
87.7 g in 1997 to 69.6 g in 2002, a reduction of 21%. This reduction is a reflection of the
combination of industry’s minimisation efforts and utilisation of new technologies, which
have introduced new packaging products on the market.
29
100.0
g material use per litre soft drink
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Figure 4.2 Material use for soft drinks
Energy consumption per litre of soft drink has also fallen, from 4.6 MJ per litre of soft
drink in 1997 to 4.0 MJ in 2002. This is a reduction of 13%. Similar to material use, the
reductions in energy consumption are due to the combination of packaging minimisation
efforts and product development. The results do not include energy improvements in
packaging manufacturing and processing.
Energy consumption (MJ) per litre soft drink
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Figure 4.3 Energy consumption for soft drinks
The drivers influencing the resource efficiency of soft drinks are discussed in further detail
in the following:
30
Although consumption has increased, the amount of packaging has decreased

Although an increase in soft drinks consumption of more than 1,300 million litres,
equivalent to 20%, has been seen in the years 1997 to 2002, the amount of soft drinks
packaging waste has fallen. From the calculations performed for this study, it is
estimated that more than 31,500 tonnes less soft drinks packaging waste was created in
2002 compared to 1997 due to resource optimisation.
For the whole five year period of 1997 to 2002, almost 400,000 tonnes of material
resources were “saved” as a result of packaging developments and packaging
minimisation activities in the soft drinks sector.
Younger generations prefer soft drinks

The steady increase in soft drinks consumption as shown in Figure 4.1 in section 4.1.2
above, can be attributed mainly to our continued fondness for soft drinks. The younger
generations prefer soft drinks to traditional drinks such as tea and coffee. In 2001, the
UK consumer drank on average a total of 205 litres of soft drinks, with consumption being
highest amongst the 10 to 15 year olds drinking 480 litres of soft drinks per year, followed
by the five to nine year olds (Britvic 2002). However, this does not mean that it is only
amongst the young that consumption is growing. For example, the 65+ years group now
drinks 84 litres of soft drink every year.
Hot summers helping to increase consumption

The consumption of soft drinks is of course also attributable to the weather and the hot
summers that we have experienced in the UK since the late 1990s. If Figure 4.1 could be
extended further back it would probably show peaks of consumption during the heat
waves of 1995 and 1990 as other industry reports for soft drinks show.
Not to forget: Marketing efforts

It should not be forgotten that the soft drinks market is very innovative. New products,
brand reformulations, limited editions, packaging makeovers plus massive marketing
support have all helped to increase sales. Marketing in the soft drinks sector is wide
ranging and varied, including TV, radio, cinema, online, on-pack, in-store advertising and
promotional activities.
Anticipating consumer demands

Soft drinks consumption is very much influenced by our changing lifestyles and the
increased consumption can to a large extent be attributed to the industry’s ability to meet
(and create) consumer wants and demands. Today, soft drinks packaging is available in
a variety of sizes and formats to suit every need. Whether we want our drink at home or
on-the-move, there are soft drinks products and packages available to suit our every
need. Small sized, lightweight containers of ready-to-drink products can be purchased
with sports caps or reclosable caps, or as single serve containers for convenient drinking
while on-the-move. For the home, the larger sized containers, containers considered
31
more presentable for when having a dinner party, and dilutable products fulfil consumer
demands.
Figure 4.4 A range of soft drinks products and

their packaging
Spur of the moment purchasing

Soft drinks consumption is increasingly becoming a spur of the moment purchase. For
example, in 2002, 43% of all soft drinks purchases in the UK were spur of the moment
decisions, and of these 84% of soft drinks were bought from the chiller cabinet (Gregory
2003). This type of purchasing demands smaller pack sizes, reclosable packs and packs
with high visual impact on the shelf.
Packaging minimisation
As confirmed by the resource efficiency results, considerable efforts have been made in
the beverage packaging sector to prevent packaging waste production through packaging
minimisation. The efforts of packaging minimisation is driven by a combination of drivers
including raw material prices, environmental awareness, legislation in the form of the
Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulations, and general business cost-savings.
The packaging minimisation activities have offset any trend towards smaller pack sizes
by delivering more resource efficient packaging overall.
32
Improved manufacturing techniques

save 1 g aluminium per can
Improved blowing techniques

reduce PET usage by 6.8% New design saves
14% of plastic weight
Figure 4.5 Examples of soft drinks packaging minimisation

(Conseil National de l’Emballage 1998)
400 years of soft drinks

Some of the products we consumer are the results of centuries of product and packaging
developments. Soft drinks are a perfect example, with early origins almost 400 years
ago. Today, soft drinks remains an expanding fmcg category, and brand owners must be
innovative to maintain market share in this competitive sector.
The diagram below shows how soft drinks and their packaging have developed over time
in response to changing market drivers.
33
Political
changes Environmental awareness
Economic Birth of consumer

Increasing disposable income
changes spending power
Market drivers
Smaller households
Post-war emergence of
dominant middle classes
Social
changes Time pressures
Health awareness
Technological
Packaging minimisation and materials science
progress
Hot summer
Other of 1975
Regular hot summers in
late 1990's and early
factors provides a 2000's contribute to
sales boost increasing soft drinks sales
for soft drinks
First patent for Impact Pull tab Sports
First soft Original Self-chilling cans
mass extruded easy open closures
drinks First
aluminium Tetrapak end for
marketed drinkable production of Period of intensive
imitation beverage designed cans
glass of First two- product & pack innovation
carbonated mineral waters Paper and can piece tinplate
First Doy to capture share in a
water wax carton beverage can
pack rapidly expanding market
Selected for liquids
product
and packaging
developments 160 0 180 0 190 0 195 0
DWI two-piece
200 0
170 0 aluminium PET bottles
PVC bottles beverage can
Overcaps
developed
Carbonated Crown cork bottle no longer
beverages begin seal patented, required
to achieve great Flip top carton
First patent for for PET
popularity launched
glass blowing bottles
machine
Source: Pira International
34
5 Ready meals
5.1 Data

The measure chosen for ready meals is resource efficiency per single ready meal
sold. The ready meals market is a highly diverse and innovative sector. A store survey
for this project revealed that there is currently somewhere in the region of 500 different
chilled or frozen ready meal products available in stores in the UK. The leading two
supermarket chains offer in the region of 200 own brand ready meal products. Variations
include ethnic origins, recipes, styles, and sizes. As it would be impractical to determine
market shares and packaging specifications for each of these product variations, it has
therefore been assumed that 400g is a typical quantity for a ready meal product (based
on visual shelf audits of the leading ready meal brands and products).

Market data for consumption of chilled and frozen ready meals has been generated from
primary research by Pira International. The estimates are based on figures obtained from
trade associations, trade press, company research, and trade interviews. Figures have
been generated for the years 2000, 2002 and 2005 (predicted consumption). Unlike
other case studies, market data has been generated for other European countries as well
as the UK. This is to allow comparisons between countries to be made, in order to
investigate how consumption patterns might vary nationally. The consumption data by
country is presented in Figures 5.1 and 5.2.
The UK consumes the greatest number of chilled ready meals in Europe, accounting for
approximately 44% of total European consumption. France is the second biggest
consumer, accounting for around 26% of total European consumption, with Germany
accounting for a further 6%. Italy and Spain each account for less than 5%, whilst all
other EU 15 countries combined account for the remaining 16%. All countries show
growth in the chilled ready meals sub-category, with particularly strong growth in UK and
France.
35
800
700 2000
2002
Million units consumed
600
2005
500
400
300
200
100
0
UK Germany France Italy Spain Other EU
Figure 5.1 Chilled ready meal consumption in Europe
900
800
2000
700
2002
600 2005
500
400
300
200
100
0
Figure 5.2 Frozen ready meal consumption in Europe
Germany consumes the greatest number of frozen ready meals in Europe, accounting for
approximately 40% of total European consumption. The UK is the second biggest
consumer, accounting for around 18% of total European consumption, with France and
Spain accounting for a further 13% and 7% respectively. Italy accounts for less than 5%,
whilst all other EU 15 countries combined account for the remaining 19%. Overall, the
market is fairly static, with slight growth in Germany and a slight decline predicted for the
UK.
36

For each country covered in the analysis, the market share by packaging format has
been estimated. This has been generated from primary research by Pira International.
The estimates are based on figures obtained from trade associations, trade press,
company research, and trade interviews. The following container types have been
considered:
• Crystalline polyethylene terephtalate (CPET) tray

(with a PE film lid and carton board sleeve)
• Polypropylene (PP) trays (with a PE film lid and carton board sleeve)
• Other plastic containers (with a PE film lid and carton board sleeve)
• Aluminium foil containers (with a board lid and carton board sleeve)
• Dual ovenable board containers with a board lid.
The UK market shares for chilled and frozen ready meals by container are presented in
Figures 5.3 to 5.4.
900
Aluminium foil
800 Dual ovenable board
Other plastic containers
700
PP trays
600 CPET trays
500
400
300
200
100
0
2000 2002 2005
Figure 5.3 UK chilled ready meal consumption by container type
37
400
350
300
Aluminium foil
200 Other plastic containers

PP trays
150
CPET trays
100
50
0
2000 2002 2005
Figure 5.4 UK frozen ready meal consumption by container type
In the UK, the major growth in chilled ready meals is in plastic packaging materials
(CPET trays, PP trays and other plastics), while aluminium trays and dual ovenable board
trays are showing a decline. Frozen ready meal sales show a slight decline, but within
the frozen ready meals market plastic packaging materials (CPET trays, PP trays and
other plastics) are gaining market share at the expense of aluminium trays and dual
ovenable board.
Similar trends are witnessed in other EU countries (see Figures 5.5 to 5.9) although in
some cases the specific packaging mixes are significantly different. For example, in
France there is much greater usage of aluminium trays, especially in the chilled ready
meals segment. In Italy, Spain and the remaining EU 15 member states, PP and other
plastics packaging hold a much greater share of the market in comparison to CPET than
in the UK or Germany.
38
Germany chilled ready meals market share by container Germany frozen ready meal consumption by container
Aluminium foil 900
120
Dual ovenable board
800
100 PP trays 700
CPET trays
Milliong units consumed

80 600
500
60
400
40 300 Aluminium foil

Dual ovenable board
20 PP trays
100
CPET trays
0 0
2000 2002 2005 2000 2002 2005
Figure 5.5 German ready meal consumption by container type
France chilled ready meals market share by container France frozen ready meal market share by container
Aluminium foil
500 Dual ovenable board 300
PP trays
400 CPET trays 250
350
200
300
250 150
200 Aluminium foil
150
100 PP trays
50
CPET trays
50
0 0
2000 2002 2005 2000 2002 2005
Figure 5.6 France ready meal consumption by container type
Italy chilled ready meals market share by containers Italy frozen ready meals market share by container
Aluminium foil
80
Other plastic containers 70
70 PP trays
CPET trays 60
60
50 50 Aluminium foil
Dual ovenable board
40 40 Other plastic containers
PP trays
30 30 CPET trays
20 20
10 10
0 0
2000 2002 2005 2000 2002 2005
Figure 5.7 Italy chilled ready meal consumption by container type
39
Spain chilled ready meals market share by container Spain frozen ready meals market share by container
160
70
Aluminium foil
Dual ovenable board 140
60
PP trays 120

50
CPET trays Aluminium foil

100
Dual ovenable board
80
PP trays
30 CPET trays
60
20
40
10 20
0 0
2000 2002 2005 2000 2002 2005
Figure 5.8 Spain ready meal consumption by container type
Remaining EU15 chilled ready meals market share by container Remaining EU15 frozen ready meals market share by container
Aluminium foil 450

350
Dual ovenable board
Other plastic containers 400
300
PP trays
350
CPET trays
250
300
Aluminium foil
200 250 Dual ovenable board
200 PP trays
150
CPET trays
150
100
100
50
50
0 0
2000 2002 2005 2000 2002 2005
Figure 5.9 Remaining EU15 ready meal consumption by container type

The following packaging specifications have been considered for the primary packaging
options identified:
Table 5.1 Specifications for ready meal packaging

Packaging format Packaging material Weight
CPET tray CPET tray with PE film lid 18.7 g
Carton board sleeve 10.7 g
PP tray PP tray with PE film lid 18.7 g
Other plastic trays Plastic tray with PE film lid 18.7 g
Alu tray Alu tray 14.2 g
Carton board lid 6.8 g
Dual ovenable tray Carton board tray & lid 22.7 g
The packaging for a number of products was weighed and an “average pack” was
determined. Due to a lack of available data, no consideration has been given to the
effects of lightweighting in this sector.
40
For this case study, the focus has been on primary packaging only. No consideration has
been given to quantifying secondary or tertiary packaging, as even indicative data on the
packaging used for these products could not have been collected within the budget and
time restrictions available to the project,
Table 5.2 presents a comparison of the packaging used for chilled and frozen ready
meals in different EU countries.
Table 5.2 Primary packaging used for ready meals (tonnes)

Chilled 2000 2002 2005 Frozen 2000 2002 2005
UK CPET trays 11,752 13,250 16,482 CPET trays 6,464 6,464 6,493
PP trays 2,732 3,261 4,407 PP trays 3,085 3,085 3,085
Other plastic containers 441 588 1,175 Other plastic containers 294 294 323
Dual ovenable board 113 104 95 Dual ovenable board 181 181 150
Aluminium foil 771 709 648 Aluminium foil 1,233 1,233 1,018
Germany CPET trays 1,498 1,557 1,763 CPET trays 14,102 14,220 14,396
PP trays 646 705 735 PP trays 5,582 5,670 5,758
Other plastic containers 0 0 0 Other plastic containers 294 294 323
Aluminium foil 308 339 401 Aluminium foil 4,101 4,132 4,163
France CPET trays 2,057 2,439 3,673 CPET trays 4,407 4,436 4,466
PP trays 2,732 3,261 3,966 PP trays 1,733 1,777 1,851
Aluminium foil 4,780 4,841 4,965 Aluminium foil 1,573 1,573 1,573
Italy CPET trays 235 294 420 CPET trays 676 676 676
PP trays 588 735 1,058 PP trays 1,028 1,028 1,028
Aluminium foil 83 93 102 Aluminium foil 154 154 154
Spain CPET trays 441 529 823 CPET trays 1,616 1,616 1,616
PP trays 441 588 881 PP trays 1,763 1,763 1,763
Aluminium foil 154 154 154 Aluminium foil 401 401 401
Other EU CPET trays 1,998 2,174 2,674 CPET trays 4,760 4,818 4,936
PP trays 3,085 3,437 4,260 PP trays 5,612 5,670 5,788
Aluminium foil 925 956 1,048 Aluminium foil 1,018 1,048 1,079
41
Figures 5.10 and 5.11 present the results for the UK graphically.
25,000
Aluminium foil
Dual ovenable board
20,000
Primary packaging (tonnes)
PP trays
CPET trays
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2000 2002 2005
Figure 5.10 Total primary packaging used for UK chilled ready meals
As chilled ready meal consumption in the UK is increasing, the total quantity of packaging
material being used is increasing, and therefore the quantity of ready meal packaging
waste is increasing. In reflection of market trends, the mass of aluminium trays and dual
ovenable board trays is declining, whilst the overall mass of CPET trays, PP trays and
other plastic containers is increasing.
The market for frozen ready meals is static, with a slight decline predicted for the near
future, which reflects UK consumers preferences for chilled products which are perceived
as healthier and better quality products. This is reflected in the total mass of packaging
used for frozen ready meals in the UK. There is a slight downward trend. Aluminium foil
trays and dual ovenable board fair worst, with CPET trays and other plastic containers
slightly increasing in tonnage terms as they gain market share from aluminium and board
trays.
42
12,000
10,000
Prim ary packaging (tonnes)
8,000 Aluminium foil

Dual ovenable board
6,000 Other plastic containers
PP trays
4,000 CPET trays
2,000
0
2000 2002 2005
Figure 5.11 Total primary packaging used for UK frozen ready meals
Overall, the markets for total ready meals are expanding across Europe. Whether we like
it or not, behavioural change is inevitable, and the stresses and pressures of everyday
working and living are changing the way we cook. Most people today want to spend as
little time as possible in the kitchen, choosing instead to either work or pursue their
interests. The growth in ready meal consumption in the UK reflects this and other social
changes, such as more working women, declining culinary skills among younger people,
more single person households and increased microwave ownership. These lifestyle and
demographic changes will continue to provide the UK ready meals market with a growing
consumer base, especially as manufacturers continue to improve recipes and quality,
address health concerns (for example, low salt and fat content products) and innovate.
Where the consumer still wishes to have some control over the cooking process but at
the same time demands convenience, products such as dinner kits fills this demand.
The drivers influencing the resource efficiency of ready meals are discussed in further
detail in the following:
Consumption of ready meals differs between countries

The results presented for this case study are particularly interesting when they are
considered in terms of consumption per capita in different EU countries (Figure 5.12).
43
18
16 Frozen
Meals per capita per annum
14 Chilled
12
10
0
Figure 5.12 Ready meal consumption per capita (2002)
Consumers in the UK are the biggest eaters of ready meal products, consuming around
16 meals per person per annum. UK consumers prefer chilled ready meals, which are
perceived as offering better quality. The UK chilled ready meals sector is the most highly
developed in Europe, not just in terms of product sales but also in terms of the range of
products available (Mintel 2002). Ready meals are used in 77% of all UK households.
Of those that use ready meals, 28% use them more than once a week, 26% use them
only once per week, and 44% use them 3 times per month or less frequently. Ready
meals are eaten most by 15-19 year olds, and eaten least by the over-64s. In the UK,
ready meals are used slightly more often by people with higher disposable income, but
price does not seem to be a major barrier to purchase.
Germany and France follow, consuming approximately 10 and 11 meals per person per
annum, respectively. In Spain and Italy, approximately 4 and 2 meals are consumed per
person per annum, respectively. The average across the remaining EU 15 countries is
about 8 meals per person per annum. Like UK consumers, French consumers prefer
chilled ready meal products over frozen, but in contrast the Germans, Italians and
Spanish purchase more frozen ready meals than chilled.
It is not just in the EU15 that ready meals are being consumed in growing quantities. In
the global packaged food market, ready meals are one of the most dynamic sectors,
registering value growth of 4% during 2002. While the US, UK and Japan dominate,
accounting for 66% of global sales by value, the key emerging markets of Eastern Europe
are increasingly attracted to convenience products. For example, consumption in the
Czech Republic is comparable to that in Germany. The total market for the region grew
by 11% during 2002. Globally, ready meals are forecast to record growth of nearly 18%
between 2002 and 2007 (Euromonitor 2003b).
44
The differences in ready meal consumption patterns in different countries reflect different
national drivers and perspectives:
• Differences in disposable income
In the UK in particular, growth in income and a healthy economy leading to high
consumer confidence has helped stimulate demand for value added convenience
products such as ready meals. The large price premium for ready meals, combined
with lower disposable incomes, has been one of several factors negatively affecting
the ready meals market in Italy.
• Differences in home microwave and freezer ownership
Higher levels of microwave and freezer ownership in Northern Europe facilitate the
consumption of ready meals. The UK in particular has the highest levels of
microwave ownership in Europe, while microwave and stand-alone freezer ownership
in Spain remain relatively low with ownership of each appliance at 63% and 49%
respectively (ReadyMealInfo 2004, World Advertising Research Centre 2003).
Comparative microwave, fridge and freezer ownership is shown in Figure 5.13.
• Attitudes towards eating
Trends towards longer and varying working hours have led to the gradual demise of
the traditional family meal and have contributed to the concurrent demand for
individual meal solutions. Less formal eating is a particular feature in the UK, where
longer working hours than anywhere else in Europe contribute to time pressures.
Greater importance is still attached to the traditional family meal in Southern
European countries such as Spain and Italy. A market study into consumer attitudes
towards ready meals in Ireland, another country where the family meal remains
important, found that in general when the family ate together they did not use ready
meals as the main meal (Henchion 2004).
120
Percentage of hom es ow ning appliance
Microw ave
100 Fridge
Freezer
80
60
40
20
0
UK Germ any France Italy Spain
Figure 5.13 Comparative microwave, fridge and freezer ownership in

UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain (note: no figures
45
available for refrigerator ownership in France and freezer

ownership in Italy)
The Spanish and Italians still tend to see quality and freshness as important factors in
food choice. The Italians have been particularly ambivalent towards ready meals.
However, the demand for convenience combined with improved processing and product
innovation are helping to stimulate growth in the ready meals sector in both these
countries (ReadyMealsInfo 2004).
National interests in ethnic foods also have an influence over the number and quantity of
ready meals consumed. 57% of ready meal users in the UK claim to enjoy eating foreign
foods, and similar levels are reported in France. At present, other European consumers
are more conservative. German consumers need to be encouraged to try new food
products, with only 40% enjoying foreign foods. In Italy and Spain, the figures are much
lower, at 23% and 19% respectively (3i 2003).
Ready meal packaging waste is highly visible but does not constitute a significant
part of the waste stream
As a result of different consumption patterns, there will be different amounts of ready
meal packaging waste in different countries. However, ready meal packaging alone,
although very visible, is only a small fraction of the entire packaging waste stream – in the
case of the UK, the 29,000 tonnes of ready meal primary packaging waste represents
less than 0.5% of total packaging waste generated.
Prepared foods such as ready meals do not necessarily mean more waste
According to research commissioned by INCPEN, there is less product waste across the
supply chain for a ready meal than for a meal prepared by the consumer at home. For
the ready meal, the preparation waste is reused for other products, and distribution waste
is less than 1%. Only the pack and meal are transported. In contrast, for a meal prepared
from ingredients in the home, there may be less packaging but 10-20% of the ingredients
are wasted during distribution. The pack, product and preparation waste must all be
transported, and the preparation waste is then discarded in the home (INCPEN 2004).
Robustness of the results presented

The results presented for consumption of ready meal products in different European
countries, and the subsequent primary packaging used are dependent on the underlying
assumptions, in particular the packaging specifications assumed. The absolute figures
should therefore only be considered as representative of the magnitude of packaging
used, rather than as definitive numbers. In particular, the exclusion of secondary and
tertiary packaging in this case study should be highlighted.
However, although no systematic sensitivity analysis has been performed, while absolute
numbers might change the overall trends and conclusions are highly unlikely to be
affected.
46
100 years of frozen food and ready meals

The diagram below shows how frozen food and ready meal products and packaging have
developed over time in response to changing market drivers.
Political
World War II
Economic
Birth of consumer
changes spending power Increasing disposable income
Market drivers
Smaller households
Time pressures
Social
changes
Health awareness
First foreign
package
Post-war emergence of holidays
Foreign travel broadens tastes
Advances in freezing
technology provide Advances in chilled
1917: Clarence distribution chain
Birdseye easy access to seafood
from around the world
Technological discovers a
quantity of fish Freezer ownership
progress left on ice during
an earlier trip -
they are still in
perfect condition Microwave ownership
1980's: 2000's:
1969: First frozen
ready meal Calorie-counted US consumers can
1939 - 1945 and reduced fat 1990's: have daily deliveries of
launched in the UK convenience Chilled ready that day's diet specific
1970's: foods gain marketmeals gain meal (eg low carb, high
Wide range of share -such as market protein diets)
Subsequent ethnic recipes Findus Lean leadership
launched Cuisine range over frozen
product
and packaging
UK Retailer own Marks &
developments 1905 1955
1960's:
2005
development Peas are the brands emerge Spencer set
of frozen first boom Total frozen the pace with
food stops, product . food sales product
Commuters in London can
1939: but vast Frozen chips reach £1bn, innovation in
quantities launched. supported by chilled ready buy freshly prepared complete
First retail meals from a kisok at the
produced in Bernard value added meals
1929: First style railway station, ready to pop
US for war Matthews products
commercial frozen Market in the oven on their return
product effort revolutionises
food changes home
under the packs the turkey
market emphasis from
Bird's Eye
bulk/economy
label
to convenience
and variety
47
6 Potatoes and potato products

6.1 Data

The unit of measure chosen for potatoes and potato products is resource efficiency per
200 g of product consumed. This is considered close to the quantity of potatoes or
potato product that the average consumer eats during a main meal. This, of course, may
vary considerably from person to person and by product type, however a 200 g unit of
measure is considered a good indication of an average main meal.
The methodology for this case study holds some discrepancies, as the same unit of
measure has been used for both fresh and processed potatoes. The peeling of fresh
potatoes in the home and the subsequent discarding of the peel has not been taken into
consideration in this study. Additionally, the peeling of potatoes in industry before being
used as part of a potato product and the subsequent use of the peel by-product has also
not been taken into consideration. Although estimates could have been made for the
percentage that peel accounts for in the home and in industry these would contain some
uncertainty, and it was therefore decided to exclude peeling from the calculations.
It must be emphasised that this study is not intended to give an exact description of
resource efficiency in the sectors chosen for the case studies, but that it is intended to
give an indication of resource efficiency trends over time.

Market share data for potatoes and potato products has been purchased from TNSofres
market data (TNSofres 2003). The market data has been collected via the TNS
SuperPanel, a consumer panel covering 15,000 demographically representative
households3.
The data for potatoes and potato products is divided into three sub-categories:
• Fresh potatoes – including both loose and pre-packed fresh potatoes.
• Canned potatoes.
• Frozen potato products – including both chips and other potato products (such as
potato wedges, potato waffles, etc.).
Excluded are potato crisps, potatoes used as part of the product, (for example ready
meals) and meal centres (such as prepared Shepherds’ pie, etc.).
3
The TNS SuperPanel is a consumer panel covering 15,000 demographically representative
households. All family members scan all purchases bought into the home, using a handheld
scanner. Non-bar coded products are entered using a patented code book.
48
The market share data is presented by sub-category and packaging size. A summary of
the data is shown in Figure 6.1 below.
Fresh potatoes - loose

Fresh potatoes - pre-packed
Sales of potatoes and potato products (tonnes)
3,000,000 Canned potatoes

Frozen potato products - chips
2,500,000 Frozen potato products - other
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Figure 6.1 Sales of potatoes and potato products by sub-category
Figure 6.1 shows that sales of potatoes have decreased by 17%, from 2.47 million tonnes
in 1993 to 2.06 million tonnes in 2002.
Over the time period 1993 to 2002, sales of fresh potatoes fell by 25%. Despite this
decrease in consumption, fresh potatoes still accounts for by far the largest proportion
(78%) of total sales of potatoes and potato products. The fall in sales of loose fresh
potatoes amounts to 60%, whereas it is 7% for pre-packed fresh potatoes.
Sales of processed potatoes have increased over the period 1993 to 2002. Canned
potatoes have seen an increase of 10%, whereas frozen potato chips and other frozen
potato products have seen the greatest increases of 20% and 146%, respectively.

The percentage split between the different packaging formats for the different sizes of
packs is based on information from the TNSofres SuperPanel data (TNSofres 2003) and
estimates by the project team. The data is summarised in Table 6.1 below.
49
Table 6.1 Packaging format by potato and potato product sub-

category and quantity
Potato or Product 1993 2002
potato product quantity
Fresh potatoes - N/A N/A
– loose
Fresh potatoes 2 lb 29% punnets, 71% trays 33% punnets, 67% trays
– pre-packed 3 lb 1% trays, 99% PE bags 40% trays, 60% PE bags
4 lb All PE bags All PE bags
- 11 lb
>20 lb All paper sacks All paper sacks
Canned 0.3 kg All steel cans All steel cans
potatoes - 0.82 kg
Frozen potato 0.4 kg 90% PE bags 90% PE bags
products - chips - 2.25 kg 10% cardboard box 10% cardboard box
Frozen potato 0.425 kg 90% PE bags 90% PE bags
products - other - 2 kg 10% cardboard box 10% cardboard box
(% refers to proportion of product by weight sold in each packaging format)
Table 6.1 shows that there has been little change with regards to packaging for potatoes
and potato products in the period 1993 and 2002, except for the very small pack sizes.
For the pack size of 2 lb there has been a slight shift away from trays towards punnets,
and for the pack size of 3 lb trays have won market share from the PE bags.

Packaging specifications for the different packaging formats used for potatoes and potato
products have been obtained from Exel’s Packaging Datastore (P. James 2004). Where
data gaps remained, additional data was obtained through visual shelf audits and in-
house weighing by Pira International.
Excluded from the resource efficiency calculations are any labels on the packaging.
Additionally, the increasing use of plastic returnable transit packaging (RTPs) for fresh
loose potatoes has not been considered, as data on the usage of this type of format was
not readily available. RTPs may have a significant influence on the use of packaging for
fresh loose potatoes and this may be an important omission. However, fresh loose
potatoes are a rapidly declining part of the potatoes and potato products market. Finally,
pallets have also been excluded from the calculations due to the high reuse levels and
pallet pooling systems in the sector.
Table 6.2 below summarises the packaging materials used by primary, secondary and
transit packaging for each packaging format.
50
Table 6.2 Summary of packaging materials by packaging format for potatoes

and potato products
Product Primary Secondary packaging Transit
sub-category packaging packaging
Fresh potatoes - loose In-store PE bag Corrugated board box Stretch film (LDPE)
Fresh potatoes Punnet; or Corrugated board box; or Stretch film (LDPE)
– pre-packed PET tray; or none
PE bag; or
Paper sack
Canned potatoes Steel can Corrugated tray and Stretch film (LDPE)
Shrink film (LDPE)
Frozen potato products PE bag; or Corrugated board box Stretch film (LDPE)
- chips Cardboard box
Frozen potato products PE bag; or Corrugated board box; or Stretch film (LDPE)
- other Cardboard box Corrugated tray and
Shrink film (LDPE)
The table shows that, apart from fresh potatoes, the sector is characterised by few
variations in the packaging formats used both for primary, secondary and transit
packaging. The variety of primary packaging formats for pre-packed fresh potatoes is
mainly to distinguish between the use of the potatoes; punnets and trays are mainly used
for baking potatoes and new potatoes, and bags and sacks are mainly used for other
potatoes.
In the following the packaging specifications for the primary, secondary and transit
packaging is described in more detail.
Fresh potatoes – loose

Although loose fresh potatoes do not come in primary packaging, the consumer still
packs the potatoes themselves using in-store plastic bags. This has been taken into
account when calculating resource efficiency for loose fresh potatoes.
Secondary packaging for loose fresh potatoes has been assumed to be corrugated
cardboard boxes. The weight of the corrugated cardboard has been estimated by the
project team. Due to strength improvements, it has been assumed that there was a move
away from 450 gsm to 400 gsm corrugated cardboard around 1997.
For distribution it is assumed that the secondary packaging is stacked on pallets with
stretch film around it for stability. As pallets have been excluded from our calculations,
only stretch film is included. The weight of the stretch film and lightweighting has been
estimated by the project team in consultation with other Pira experts.
Fresh potatoes – pre-packed

Primary packaging for pre-packed fresh potatoes includes plastic bags, paper sacks,
punnets and trays. The weights of the primary packaging have been derived from data
supplied by Exel’s Packaging Datastore. Lightweighting has been estimated by the
51
project team. It has been estimated that for plastic bags lightweighting of 2% per year
has been achieved, for paper sacks 1% per year, and for punnets and trays 2.6% per
year.
Secondary packaging for pre-packed fresh potatoes in plastic bags, punnets and trays
has been assumed to be corrugated cardboard boxes. For fresh potatoes in paper
sacks, no secondary packaging is assumed. The weight of the corrugated cardboard is
based on data provided by Exel’s Packaging Datastore (P. James 2004). Due to strength
improvements, it has been assumed that there was a move away from 450 gsm to 400
gsm corrugated cardboard around 1997. No lightweighting of the secondary packaging
has been assumed for punnets and trays due to lack of data.
Similar estimates with regards to transit packaging as for loose fresh potatoes has been
assumed for pre-packed fresh potatoes.
Canned potatoes
Canned potatoes come in steel cans. The weights of different sizes of cans have been
supplied by Exel’s Packaging Datastore (P. James 2004). Lightweighting has been
estimated by the project team at 2.2% per year.
Secondary packaging for canned potatoes has been assumed to be corrugated

cardboard trays and shrink film. The weight of the secondary packaging is based on data
provided by Exel’s Packaging Datastore (P. James 2004). Due to strength
improvements, it has been assumed that there was a move away from 450 gsm to 400
gsm corrugated cardboard around 1997.
assumed for canned potatoes.
Frozen potato products – chips

Frozen potato products are sold in plastic bags or cardboard boxes, the cardboard box
generally being used for microwaveable products. For the purposes of this study, it has
been assumed that 90% of chips sold are packed in plastic bags and 10% in cardboard
boxes. The weight of different sizes of bags and boxes have been supplied by Exel’s
Packaging Datastore (P. James 2004). Lightweighting has been estimated by the project
team at 2% per year for the plastic bags and 1.25% for the cardboard boxes.
Secondary packaging for frozen potato products has been assumed to be corrugated
cardboard boxes. The weight of the secondary packaging is based on data provided by
Exel’s Packaging Datastore (P. James 2004). Due to strength improvements, it has been
assumed that there was a move away from 450 gsm to 400 gsm corrugated cardboard
around 1997.
52
assumed for frozen potato products.
Frozen potato products - other

The same packaging assumptions as for chips have been assumed for other frozen
potato products.
The resource efficiency results for potatoes and potato products are shown in Figure 6.2
and 6.3 below. Figure 6.2 shows the material use results and Figure 6.3 shows the
energy consumption results. The results are presented in tabular form in appendix B.
Material use per serving of potatoes and potato products has increased by 6.5% from 3.9
g in 1993 to 4.2 g in 2002 despite a decrease in sales of 17%. This rise is mainly a
reflection of increased consumer preference for processed potato products. As
discussed in section 6.1.1, sales of processed potatoes have increased by 37% over the
period 1993 to 2002 with the main rise being in the frozen potato products category.
The potatoes and potato products sector is a mature sector and packaging innovations
are few, although the introduction of microwavable chips in the late 1990s resulted in an
increase in packaging development for this sector. However, in general, the packaging is
to a large extent disassociated from the product and the main consumer demands with
regards to potatoes and potato products are in relation to storage and handling.
4.400
4.200
Material use (g) per serving
4.000
3.800
3.600
3.400
3.200
3.000
2.800
2.600
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Figure 6.2 Material use for potatoes and potato products
Similar to material use, energy consumption per 200 g serving has also risen, from 0.18
MJ in 1993 to 0.19 MJ in 2002 – a rise of 6.3%. As for material use, the rise in energy
53
consumption is due to changing consumer preferences. The energy consumption results

do not include improvements in packaging manufacturing and processing.
0.195
Energy consumption (MJ) per serving
0.185
0.175
0.165
0.155
0.145
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Figure 6.3 Energy consumption for potatoes and potato products
The drivers influencing the resource efficiency of potatoes and potato products are
discussed in further detail in the following:
Potatoes losing out to rice and pasta

Potato has been a staple of the British diet for hundreds of years, however with the
introduction of ethnic dishes we have embraced alternatives, such as rice and pasta. A
consumer survey conducted by the British Potato Council (BPC) found that 40% of
consumers found potatoes “a bit old fashioned and boring” (BPC 2002a). The obvious
convenience of pasta and rice also has a significant impact with 61% of consumers
wanting potatoes that “are quick and easy to cook” and 46% thinking “there should be
more potatoes that can be cooked straight from the packet” (BPC 2002a).
Children prefer frozen potato products

The British Potato Council survey also found that 50% of consumers agreed that “kids
prefer frozen potatoes (chips, waffles, etc.) because they are more fun” and 49% agreed
that “kids prefer frozen potatoes because they see them advertised on TV” (BPC 2002b).
Frozen potato products are also a convenient product, and therefore popular for creating
a quick and simple kids’ or family meal.
Packaging facilitates product diversity

To overcome consumer perception of potatoes as boring, brand owners and retailers
have put significant efforts into creating convenience and drawing attention to the
diversity of potatoes. Today, potatoes are available both as traditional loose or pre-
packed but also as prepared part meals both in the chiller and freezer cabinets. The
British Potato Council research showed that consumers are looking for meal solutions
54
when shopping (BPC 2002c). Depending on what the consumer is shopping for the
requirements are different, convenience and ‘fun’ is key when shopping for a kids’ treat,
whereas ‘something special and extraordinary’ is key for a special adult meal, and ‘quick
and simple’ is often key when shopping for a family meal.
The quantity of packaging used is dependent on our choices as consumers

The quantity of primary packaging per serving has increased in recent years as shown in
Figure 6.4 below. This is due to a number of reasons:
• Overall, we are buying more pre-packed fresh potatoes or prepared product such as
frozen chips. These use more primary packaging per portion compared to loose
fresh potatoes.
• In 1995, there was a dip in consumption of both fresh potatoes and frozen potato
products. Particularly the dip in sales of frozen potato products resulted in a
reduction in primary packaging weight per serving as shown in Figure 6.4. However,
since 1995 the consumption of frozen chips and other frozen potato products has
increased steadily, contributing to the general increase in primary packaging used per
serving.
• Between 1996 and 1999, the market share of large volume paper sacks for pre-
packed fresh potatoes grew, peaking in 1999. This contributed to the dip in primary
packaging use per portion consumed in 1999. After 1999, the market share of large
volume sacks fell markedly, contributing to the general increase in packaging use per
serving.
17,000 1.55
Total weight of primary packaging
Weight of primary packaging (g)
1.5
16,500
per 200g serving
1.45
16,000
(tonnes)
1.4
15,500
1.35
15,000
1.3
14,500 1.25
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Tonnes of primary packaging used Primary packaging per serving
Figure 6.4 Primary packaging used for potatoes and potato products
55
Despite the increase in primary packaging per serving, total primary packaging
consumption fell by 17% as we consumed less potatoes and potato products in 2002
than we did in 1993.
56
7 Cat food
7.1 Data

The measure chosen for cat food is resource efficiency per daily intake. The
recommended average daily intake for an adult cat for dried cat food is 70 g, whereas for
moist or semi-moist cat food it is 400 g.

Market share data for cat food have been derived from the TNSofres SuperPanel data
(TNSofres 2003).
The data is divided into the following sub-categories:

• Moist and semi-moist cat food, which is further divided according to primary
packaging option:
• Cans
• Pouches
• Chubb packs
• Trays
• Dried cat food –packed in cardboard boxes, paper bags and plastic bags.
The market share data by sub-category is presented in Figure 7.1 below.
The figure shows that sales of cat food measured in weight have decreased by 17% in
the period 1993 to 2002. This was all due to a fall in sales of moist and semi-moist cat
food of over 128,000 tonnes, a reduction of 24%. In the same period, sales of dried cat
food actually increased by almost 33,000 tonnes, and thereby doubled.
Falls in sales for moist and semi-moist cat food were seen for canned cat food and cat
food in trays. In 1993, canned cat food accounted for 89% of the market. However, by
2002 this had fallen to 62%. Cat food sold in trays accounts for a very small part of the
market and has therefore no influence on the overall results. Increases in sales were
seen for cat food in pouches and Chubb packs and for dried cat food. Cat food in
pouches increased by 687% in the period 1993 to 2002, and in 2002 accounted for 20%
of the cat food market. Cat food in Chubb packs increased only slightly, by 2%,
accounting for 4% of the cat food market in 2002.
The second main increase by weight was seen for dried cat food, which saw an increase
of 102%, which meant that dried cat food accounted for 14% of the cat food market by
weight in 2002.
57
600
Sales of cat food (thousand tonnes)
500
400
300 Dried cat food

Trays
200 Chubb packs
Pouches
100
Cans
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Figure 7.1 Market share data for cat food

The TNSofres data holds information about the cat food sales by sub-category (and pack
size) and, for moist and semi-moist cat food, also information about the packaging format
used.
Table 7.1 Estimated primary packaging formats by cat food sub-

category and quantity
Cat food Product 1993 2002
quantity
Moist and semi- 85 g 97% pouches, 49% pouches,
moist cat food 3% cans 51% cans
100 g 86% cans, 83% pouches,
13% pouches, 16% cans,
1% Chubb packs, 1% Chubb packs,
<1% trays <1% trays
390 g All in cans All in cans
400 g All in cans All in cans
800 g All in Chubb packs All in Chubb packs
58
Cat food Product 1993 2002

quantity
Dried cat food 330 g All in cardboard box All in cardboard box
375 g All in cardboard box All in cardboard box
500 g 33% cartonboard box, 33% cartonboard box,
33% paper bag; 33% paper bag;
33% plastic bag 33% plastic bag
950 g All in cardboard box 33% cartonboard box,
33% paper bag;
33% plastic bag
33% paper bag;
33% plastic bag
33% paper bag;
33% plastic bag
(% refers to proportion of product by weight sold in each packaging format)
The table shows that changes in market share in the time period of 1993 to 2002 has only
been seen for the small pack sizes of moist and semi-moist packaging. For the 85 g pack
size, cans have increased their market share at the expense of pouches, whereas the
opposite is the case for the 100 g pack size.

Packaging specifications for the different packaging formats used for cat food have been
obtained from Exel’s Packaging Datastore (P. James 2004). Where data gaps still
existed data were determined through visual shelf audits and in-house weighing at Pira
International.
59
Table 7.2 Summary of packaging materials by packaging format for cat food
Packaging Primary Collation packaging Secondary Transit
format packaging packaging packaging
Can Steel can Cardboard tray with Corrugated tray with Stretch film
shrink film (LDPE); or shrink film (LDPE) (LDPE)
cartonboard box; or
shrink film (LDPE)
Pouch Laminate of LDPE, Cartonboard box Corrugated tray with Stretch film
aluminium and PE shrink film (LDPE) (LDPE)
Chubb pack LDPE film N/A N/A Stretch film
(LDPE)
Tray Alu tray Cartonboard box Corrugated tray with Stretch film
shrink film (LDPE) (LDPE)
Cardboard box Cardboard box N/A Cardboard box Stretch film
(LDPE)
Paper bag Paper bag N/A Cardboard box Stretch film
(LDPE)
Plastic bag Plastic bag N/A Cardboard box Stretch film
(LDPE)
Excluded from the resource efficiency calculations are any labels on the primary
packaging. Pallets used as transit packaging have also been excluded from the
calculations due to the high reuse levels and pallet pooling systems in this sector.
are described in more detail below.
Cans
The weights of the different sized cans are based on data from Exel’s Packaging
Datastore and Rexam’s Environmental and Social Report (P. James 2004 and Rexam
2003). Additional data was obtained through in-house weighing at Pira International.
Leightweighting of 2.2% per year is assumed for the cans.
Collation packaging has been estimated based on store surveys and discussions with
industry representatives. Collation packaging for cans is described in Table 7.3 below.
Collation packaging consisted either of a cartonboard box, shrink film, or cardboard tray
with shrink film around. Weights of the collation packaging is based on data from Exel’s
Packaging Datastore.
60
Table 7.3 Collation packaging for canned cat food

Product size Collation packaging Collation packaging materials
20% four-pack 50% cardboard tray and shrink film (LDPE)
400 g can 50% cartonboard box
20% six-pack 50% cardboard tray and shrink film (LDPE)
50% cartonboard box
20% 12-pack 50% cardboard tray and shrink film (LDPE)
50% cartonboard box
50% cartonboard box
30% four-pack 50% cardboard tray and shrink film (LDPE)
30% six-pack 50% cardboard tray and shrink film (LDPE)
50% cartonboard box
50% cartonboard box
10% four-pack 100% shrink film (LDPE)
100 g can 20% siz-pack 100% shrink film (LDPE)
10% eight-pack 100% shrink film (LDPE)
40% eight-pack 50% cardboard tray and shrink film (LDPE)
50% cartonboard box
Secondary packaging for cans is assumed to be a corrugated board tray with a shrink film
around. The weight of the secondary packaging is based on in-house weighing at Pira
International. Due to strength improvements, it has been assumed that there was a move
away from 450 gsm to 400 gsm corrugated board around 1997.
Transit packaging for cans is assumed to be a pallet with stretch film around. The
quantity of product per pallet has been estimated by Pira International based on typical
pallet dimensions and heights. Lightweighting and general good practice is assumed to
have resulted in a 6.4% reduction in stretch film consumption per year based on
discussions with Pira packaging experts.
61
Pouches
The weight of the different sized pouches is based on data from Exel’s Packaging
Datastore (P. James 2004) and in-house weighing at Pira International. No lightweighting
has been assumed.
Collation packaging has been estimated based on store surveys and discussions with
industry representatives. Collation packaging for pouches is described in Table 7.4
below.
Table 7.4 Collation packaging for cat food in pouches

Product size Collation packaging Collation packaging materials
30% eight-pack 100% cartonboard box
100 g pouch 30% 12-pack 100% cartonboard box
30% 24-pack 100% cartonboard box
30% eight-pack 100% cartonboard box
89 g pouch 30% 12-pack 100% cartonboard box
20% 24-pack 100% cartonboard box
Collation packaging consisted entirely of cartonboard boxes. Weights of the different

sized collation packaging are based on in-house weighing at Pira International.
Secondary and transit packaging is assumed similar to that of cans.
Chubb packs
The weights of the different sized Chubb packs are based on in-house weighing at Pira
International. No lightweighting has been assumed.
It is assumed that all Chubb packs are sold individually.
Trays
The weights of the different sized aluminium trays are based on in-house weighing at Pira
International. Lightweighting of 1.4% per year is assumed for the trays.
It is assumed that all trays are sold individually.
Cardboard boxes
The weights of the different sized cardboard boxes for dried cat food are based on data
from Exel’s Packaging Datastore (P. James 2004). Lightweighting of 0.5% per year is
assumed for the boxes.
62
It is assumed that all cardboard boxes are sold individually.
Secondary packaging for cardboard boxes is assumed to be a corrugated cardboard box.

The weight of the secondary packaging is based on data from Exel’s Packaging
Datastore. Due to strength improvements, it has been assumed that there was a move
away from 450 gsm to 400 gsm corrugated board around 1997.
Transit packaging is assumed similar to that of cans.
Paper bags
The weights of the different sized paper bags are based on data from Exel’s Packaging
Datastore (P. James 2004). Leightweighting of 0.5% per year is assumed for the bags.
It is assumed that all bags are sold individually.
Secondary packaging for bags is assumed to be a corrugated cardboard box. The weight
of the secondary packaging is based on data from Exel’s Packaging Datastore. Due to
strength improvements, it has been assumed that there was a move away from 450 gsm
to 400 gsm corrugated board around 1997.
Transit packaging is assumed similar to that of cans.
Plastic bags
Similar considerations as to those for paper bags have been made for plastic bags.
The resource efficiency results for cat food are shown in Figure 7.2 and 7.3 below.
Figure 7.2 shows the material use results and Figure 7.3 shows the energy consumption
results. The results are presented in tabular format in appendix B.
63
70.0
Material use (g) per daily intake
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Figure 7.2 Material use for cat food
Figure 7.2 shows that material use per daily intake has fallen by 38% from 58.0 g in 1993
to 36.0 g in 2002. The decrease is a reflection of consumers’ increased preference for
dried cat food. Typically a medium sized bag of dried cat food will feed a cat for
approximately seven days. In contrast, a 400 g can of moist/semi-moist cat food will only
feed a cat for one day. This means that the product to pack ratio is more favourable for
the dried cat food which consumers are buying in greater quantities today. Combined
with material substitution and lightweighting efforts in industry, this has led to significant
reductions in the quantity of packaging per daily intake.
The cat food sector has successfully responded to our changing attitude towards our pets
by introducing a number of new packaging formats such as trays and pouches. These
reflect the increased inclusion of our pets as part of the family.
Similar to material use, energy consumption per daily intake has also fallen, from 2.7 MJ
in 1993 to 1.7 MJ in 2002 – a decrease of 37%. Due to lack of data, the energy
consumption results do not include improvements in packaging manufacturing and
processing.
64
3.0
Energy consumption (MJ) per daily intake
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Figure 7.3 Energy consumption for cat food
The drivers influencing the resource efficiency of cat food are discussed in further detail
in the following:
Pet food – a relatively new phenomenon

Pet food as a packaging consumer good is a relatively new phenomenon. Before canned
pet food was available, our pets were fed meals made at home from scraps and other
cheap ingredients. Initially, prepared pet food products reflected our need for
convenience, however more recently pet foods are also influenced by our demands for
quality and health for our pets.
Despite the rise in the number of cats we purchase less cat food by weight
The UK has changed from a nation of dog lovers to a nation of overwhelmingly cat lovers.
The number of cats in the UK is now greater than the number of dogs, rising from 5
million cats in 1980 to 7.5 million in 2002.
65
8.5
7.5
7
Million animals
6.5
5.5
Dogs
5
Cats
4.5
4
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
00
02
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Figure 7.4 Cat and dog ownership in the UK (PFMA)
However, despite the rise in the number of cats we purchase less cat food by weight.
This is due to a recent trend towards feeding our cats dried rather than moist and semi-
moist cat food. We only need to feed a cat 70 g per day of dried food, compared to 400 g
per day of moist food. The trend towards dried food is very much aided by vets who
recommend dried cat food as this is a healthier option for our cats – and at the same time
it is cheaper.
Because we purchase less cat food, we use less packaging

Changes in product consumption from moist and semi-moist cat food to dried cat food
have been a major factor behind the improvements in packaging resource efficiency.
The improvement in resource efficiency is not only due to changing consumer behaviour.
Packaging developments, packaging minimisation and lightweighting activities should not
be overlooked. For example, during the period 1993 to 2002, the weight of a 400 g cat
food can was reduced by 8.5% from 55 g to 50.25 g (MPMA).
Fewer vehicles are needed to distribute the cat food we purchase

The trend from moist and semi-moist product to dried cat product means that there has
been a downward trend in the number of vehicles are required to deliver the cat food for
today’s cat population. This is illustrated in Figure 7.5.
66
A n n u al lorry movemen ts requ ired to deliver

U K 's cat food
Number of lorry movements
66000
required per annum
65000
64000
63000
62000
61000
60000
59000
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
Figure 7.5 Number of lorry movements required to deliver the UK’s

annual cat food consumption (trend line)
These figures on lorry movements are of course a generalisation, based on a number of

assumptions:
• Only a limited number of pack sizes have been considered, based on the dominant
pack size per product format;
• A 1.8m pallet height has been considered;
• A UK Chep pallet of dimensions 120*100cm is considered;
• It is assumed that 22 pallets fit on a typical truck.
On the basis of these assumptions, the following loadings per pallet as described in Table
7.4 were calculated.
Table 7.4 Pallet loadings

Pack assumptions 1.5m pallet 1.8m pallet
400g cans 77 trays per pallet = 98 trays per pallet =
(24 in shrink-wrapped tray) 1848 cans per pallet 2352 cans per pallet
1kg dried food in bag 120 boxes per pallet = 160 boxes per pallet =
(4 bags in an outer box) 480 trays per pallet 640 bags per pallet
2kg dried food in bag 56 boxes per pallet = 70 boxes per pallet =
(4 bags in an outer box) 224 bags per pallet 280 trays per pallet
375g dired food in a carton 105 trays per pallet = 126 trays per pallet =
(8 cartons in a shrink-wrapped tray) 840 cartons per pallet 1008 cartons per pallet
12 pouches in cartonboard outer 540 cartons per pallet = 660 cartons per pallet =
6480 pouches per pallet 7920 pouches per pallet
Considering a weighted average (based on meals consumed per product format) the
number of lorries required to transport the daily food for 1 million cats is calculated. In
67
1993, the cat food that we gave to one million cats each day would fill over 23 lorries. By
2002, the food we gave to one million cats would fill over 22 lorries. In isolation, this does
not sound very significant, but overall this means that 2690 fewer lorry movements are
required annually to distribute today’s cat food than would have been required if these
changes in consumption patterns had not occurred (see Table 7.5 for the calculation).
Table 7.5 Calculation of number of lorry movements required to transport

today’s annual cat food requirements in the UK
Year No. of lorries requried to transport No. of lorry movements required to
the daily food requirements of one transport today’s annual cat food
million cats requirements*
1993 23.4 64,037
1994 23.7 64,922
1995 22.5 61,722
1996 22.9 62,619
1997 22.6 61,925
1998 22.4 61,454
1999 22.1 60,486
2000 22.1 60,620
2001 22.0 60,195
2002 22.4 61,346
* This is calculated by multiplying the number of lorries required to feed one million cats per day by the number
of days in the year (365) and the number of cats in the UK today (7.5million).
Of course, this simplified analysis does not take account of the fact that different pet food
products will be produced in different locations, and therefore the distances required to
deliver the nations cat food may be higher or lower than previously. However, overall
fewer lorries on the road is likely to mean less fuel consumption and less transport related
air emissions, fewer accidents and less congestion.
Transit packaging changes have provided further benefits during distribution

The evaluation of lorry movements required for delivering today’s cat food presented
above only considers savings due to changes in consumption patterns. In addition to
these, transit packaging changes have also provided further benefits. Sales and transit
packaging requirements must be carefully balanced to optimise the materials used and
the pallet load configuration (Conseil National de l’Emballage). Figure 7.6 shows how a
pet food manufacturer has reduced the transit packaging requirements for dried pet food.
This particular redesign:
• Saved more than 2,000 tonnes of packaging per annum (a saving of
60%);
• Allowed the number of sales units per palletised load to be increased by
48%; and
• Reduced transport requirements by 32%.
68
Figure 7.6 Reconfiguration of transit packaging for dried cat food
100 years of cat food packaging
The diagram below shows how cat food products and packaging have developed over
time in response to changing market drivers.
Introduction of the EU
Directive on packaging
Political and packaging waste
Environmental awareness
changes
Raw material cost and competition pressures
Economic
Packaging waste fees
influences
Increasing disposable income
Increasing health awareness
Social
Time pressures
changes
Cat ownership increasing
Technological
progress Ziptite resealable Two piece cans gain Improved, second
bag used for dried large share of UK generation easy-open
canmaking production ends for cans launched
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

1993 2002
69
8 Laundry Detergents
8.1 Data

The measure chosen for laundry detergents is resource efficiency per wash. This
decision was based mainly on the experience gained by the European detergents
industry through the implementation of the Code of Good Environmental Practice for
Household Laundry Detergents (A.I.S.E. 2003). The code, a voluntary agreement
between the industry and the European Commission, set specific reduction targets for
energy consumption, laundry detergent use, packaging use and poorly biodegradable
ingredients covering a five-year period ending at the end of 2001.
With regards to the packaging use target, the target of 10% reduction of consumption of
packaging per capita was missed by 3.3%. The reasons identified by the industry
included:
• Greater than expected decline in the use of compact detergents;
• Demographic shift leading to an increase in the number of single-person households
and more homes with fewer people resulting in more washing; and
• An increase in sales of liquid detergent products, which require more transport
packaging than powders.
Had the unit of measure instead been per wash, the result would have been a reduction
of 14.9%. As this study seeks to estimate resource efficiency taking into account drivers
such as changing demographics and consumer habits, it was decided to use the measure
resource efficiency per wash.
In order to measure resource efficiency per wash, it is necessary to identify an “average

dosage” of laundry detergent. Dependent on product formats the amount of detergent
that the average consumer doses differs. The habits dosage of laundry detergents by
product format used for this project is listed in Figure 8.1 below.
70
Table 8.1 Laundry detergent consumption per wash

(derived from (Unilever 2001))
Laundry detergent format Detergent consumption per wash
[habits dosage g/wash]
Tablets 83
Concentrated powder 86
Standard powder 102
Capsules 50
Concentrated liquid 114
Standard liquid 116
It is assumed that the habits dosage for light duty powders is the same as for standard
powder and that the habits dosage for light duty liquid is the same as for standard liquid.
Although product formulation innovations have resulted in decreases in the

recommended dose for a number of laundry detergents products, for the purposes of this
study it has been assumed that there has been no change in consumers’ habits dosage
over the years covered by this study.

Market share data for laundry detergents have been obtained from the TNSofres
SuperPanel data (TNSofres 2003).
The data is divided into the following sub-categories:

• Tablets – dose prepared tablet-formed powder for automatic washing machines.
• Concentrated powders for automatic washing machines.
• Standard powders for automatic washing machines.
• Light duty powders for delicate washing and hand washing. Include both light duty
powder, light duty flakes, non-soap detergent powder and soap powders.
• Capsules – dose prepared liquid detergent for automatic washing machines.
• Concentrated liquid for automatic washing machines.
• Standard liquid for automatic washing machines.
• Light duty liquid for delicate washing and hand washing. Include both light duty
liquids and non-soap liquids.
The market share data by sub-category as derived from the TNSofres data is shown in
Figure 8.1 below.
71
600
Sales of laundry detergents
500 Light duty liquid

Auto. std. liquid
(thousand tonnes)
400 Auto. conc. liquid

Light duty pow der
300
Auto. std. pow ders
200 Auto. conc. pow ders
Auto. tablets
100 Auto. capsules
0
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
Figure 8.1 Market share data for laundry detergents
The figure shows that sales of laundry detergents measured in weight have decreased by
24.7% in the period 1993 to 2002. Greatest decline has been seen for automatic
concentrated powders which have seen a decline of over 2000%. Significant decline has
also been seen for light duty powder, automatic concentrated liquid and automatic
standard liquid of 327%, 584% and 98%, respectively. Growth amongst the product
formats available on the market in 1993 has only been achieved for automatic standard
powder, which saw a 7% increase over the period. The decline in sales for the different
product formats is very much down to the introduction of the two new product formats,
automatic tablets and capsules, of which tablets have seen significant market penetration
accounting for 27% of the market in 2002.

Although the TNSofres data holds information about laundry detergent sales by sub-
category and pack size, it does not hold information about the packaging formats used.
Packaging formats for the different product formats have therefore been estimated based
on discussions with industry representatives and visual shelf audits by Pira International.
72
Table 8.2 Estimated primary packaging formats by laundry

detergent product format
Product format Primary packaging format
Tablets All in cardboard box
Tablets wrapped two and two in PP
Concentrated powders All in cardboard box
Standard powders All in cardboard box
Light duty powders All in cardboard box
Capsules All in cardboard box and plastic bag
Concentrated liquid All in HDPE bottles
Standard liquid All in HDPE bottles
Light duty liquid All in HDPE bottles
Capsules are sold both in cardboard boxes with an inner plastic bag and plastic boxes,
however only the cardboard box format has been used in this study. This is considered
acceptable as capsules so far only accounts for 3.3% of the market share, and since the
plastic box format only accounts for some 20% of the capsules market.
The table shows that there is little variation in the packaging formats used both by
product format and sub-category. All powders are packed in cardboard boxes and liquids
are generally filled into HDPE bottles.

Packaging specifications for the different packaging formats and sizes used for laundry
detergents have been obtained from Exel’s Packaging Datastore (P. James 2004).
Where data gaps remained, weights were determined through in-house weighing by Pira
International.
Table 8.3 Summary of packaging materials by product format for

laundry detergents
Product Primary packaging Secondary Transit packaging
format packaging
Tablet Cardboard box and Corrugated tray and Stretch film (LDPE)
PP wrapper Shrink film (LDPE)
Powder Cardboard box Corrugated tray and Stretch film (LDPE)
Shrink film (LDPE)
Capsule Cardboard box and Corrugated box Stretch film (LDPE)
Inner LDPE bag
Liquid HDPE bottle Corrugated tray and Stretch film (LDPE)
Shrink film (LDPE)
73
Excluded from the calculations on resource efficiency are any dosing balls except for
those incorporated into the lid. Additionally, some manufacturers include a net for the
tablets before putting them into the machine. This net has also been excluded.
is described in more detail below.
Tablets
Primary packaging for tablets consists of a cardboard box with the tablets generally
wrapped two in a plastic wrapper. The weight of the different sized cardboard boxes is
based on data provided by Exel’s Packaging Datastore (P. James 2004). Lightweighting
of 1.25% per year is assumed for the cardboard. The weight of the wrapper is based on
the weighing of a sample at Pira International.
Secondary packaging for tablets is assumed to be a corrugated board tray with a shrink
film around it. The weight of the secondary packaging is based on in-house weighing by
Pira International. Due to strength improvements, it has been assumed that there was a
move away from 450 gsm to 400 gsm corrugated cardboard around 1997.
The transit packaging is for tablets assumed to be a pallet with stretch film around it. The
quantity of product per pallet has been estimated by Pira International based on typical
pallet dimensions and heights. Lightweighting and general good practice is assumed to
have resulted in a 6.4% reduction in stretch film consumption per year based on
discussions with Pira packaging experts.
Powders
Primary packaging for powder laundry detergents is a cardboard box. The weight of the
different sized cardboard boxes is based on data provided by Exel’s Packaging Datastore
(P. James 2004). Lightweighting of 1.25% per year is assumed for the cardboard.
Secondary and transit packaging for powders is assumed similar to that of tablets.
Capsules
Primary packaging for capsules is either a plastic container or a cardboard box with a
plastic bag within it keeping the capsules in dry condition. When first introduced more
capsules were available in plastic containers, however cardboard is now generally used,
except for by one manufacturer. For the purposes of this study, only the cardboard
packaging option is considered. Additionally, the capsule itself, which dissolves in the
wash process, has not been considered.
The weights of the different sized cardboard boxes and plastic bags are based on data
provided by Exel’s Packaging Datastore (P. James 2004). Lightweighting has been
assumed for the cardboard of 1.25% per year.
74
Secondary and transit packaging for capsules is assumed similar to that of tablets.
Liquids
Liquid laundry detergents are now only available in plastic bottles. They used to be
available in refill pouches as well, however these never managed to penetrate the market
to the expected degree and have in the last couple of years been phased out. For the
purposes of this study, only plastic bottles are considered.
The weights of the different sized plastic bottles are based on the weighing of samples at
Pira International. Lightweighting of 2.5% per year has been assumed for the plastic
bottles.
Secondary and transit packaging for liquids is assumed similar to that of tablets.
The resource efficiency results for laundry detergents are shown in Figure 8.2 and 8.3
below. Figure 8.2 shows the material use results and Figure 4.3 shows the energy
consumption results. The results are presented in tabular format in appendix B.
11.6
11.4
Material use (g) per wash
11.2
11.0
10.8
10.6
10.4
10.2
10.0
9.8
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Figure 8.2 Material use for laundry detergents 1993-2002
Material use per wash, as shown in Figure 8.2, has fallen by 7.6% from 11.4 g in 1993 to
10.6 g in 2002. This reduction is a reflection of the combination of packaging
minimisation efforts, product development and changing consumer preferences.
The laundry detergent sector has, over the time period studied, not been characterised by
great innovation with regards to packaging developments. The packaging formats have
75
not changed. However, packaging minimisation efforts have been considerable - to some
extent driven by the A.I.S.E. Code of Good Environment Practice.
The laundry detergent industry very much considers product and packaging as being
integrated, and packaging minimisation is therefore very much part of product
development. For example, the introduction of concentrated laundry detergents resulted
in great packaging reductions per wash.
Consumer preferences have great impact on the packaging use of laundry detergents,
with a significant quantity of consumers still preferring standard powders and liquids. If
these consumers were to change their preferences and change to a concentrated product
significant packaging reductions would be achieved.
The peaks on the graph of Figure 8.2 are partly due to changing consumer preferences
and the increased sales of standard powders and liquids in 1998/1999 and the
introduction of tablets which has resulted in a fall in sales of most of the other detergent
formats. Initially, when they were first launched, tablets were only available in small pack
sizes. This meant there was a high product:pack ratio leading to the peak observed in
the graph in the year 1999. Now tablets are available in larger pack sizes with lower
product:pack ratios.
Similar to material use, energy consumption per wash has also fallen, from 0.52 MJ in
1993 to 0.43 MJ in 2002 – a reduction of 21%. The reductions in energy consumption
are also due to the combination of packaging minimisation efforts, product development
and changing consumer preferences. The energy consumption data does not include
improvements in packaging manufacturing and processing.
0.60
Energy consumption (MJ) per wash
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Figure 8.3 Energy consumption for laundry detergents 1993-2002
76
The drivers influencing the resource efficiency of laundry detergents are discussed in
further detail in the following:
Increased number of washes although detergent consumption decreasing

Although laundry detergent consumption measured in tonnes has decreased (see Figure
8.1), demographic shifts, such as the general population growth, the growth in smaller
households, and changing consumer habits, means that there are now more people
washing more often. Changing consumer habits include:
• Increased attention to convenience. Laundry detergent formats that are easy to use
and combine several functions, such as detergents combining both wash and
conditioning, or ensures the correct dosage, such as tablets and capsules, are very
attractive. These product formats suit our busy lifestyle and are attractive especially
to male consumers who are now making more household purchasing decisions
(Information Resources 2001).
• To ensure our clothes look nice and last longer, we use colour and fabric specific
products (for example, detergents for black clothes, detergents for delicates);
• We prefer machine washable clothes. This has lead to a decline in dry-cleaning in
the UK; and
• Many of us wear our clothes only once between washes.
In the UK, the general population growth of 1.8% and the increase in the number of
households of 3.8% combined with the changing consumer habits has resulted in us
doing 3 billion more washes in 2001 than four years earlier in 1997, an increase of 6.2%
(see Figure 8.4).
7.0
6.2
6.0
5.0
3.8
4.0
%
3.0
1.8
2.0
1.0
0.0
Population Households Total washes
Figure 8.4 Percentage increases in UK population, number of

households, and number of washes 1997-20014 (adapted
from A.I.S.E. 2003)
4
The figure for ‘number of households’ is for the period 1996-2001.
77
Product innovation leading the way

The laundry detergent industry has seen considerable product innovation over the years.
A significant innovation was the introduction in 1989 of compact detergents reducing the
chemicals required for each wash. Innovation in this area continues to evolve with the
result that super compacts are now available. Because of compacts having higher bulk
densities, they also have the added advantage of using less packaging. Recent
innovations have been the introduction of colour and fabric specific formulas, tablets, and
capsules.
But consumers do not always embrace new products

This constant product development has been causing some confusion amongst
consumers. The introduction of concentrated and super concentrated detergents did not
convince all consumers that such a small amount of detergent could actually clean their
clothes. A tendency to add ’a-little-bit-extra-to-be-sure-of-a-good-result’ developed
amongst some consumers leading to the product not seeming cost-effective and a
degree of switching back to ‘big box’ detergents was therefore seen in the 1990s. As a
response to this tendency, the industry introduced tablets in 1998 and capsules in 2001.
These control and reduce the amount of detergent consumed per wash, while delivering
equal cleaning and care performance.
With packaging being plain, but simple

Laundry detergent powders are generally sold in carton boxes, and liquids are generally
sold in plastic bottles. In the mid-1990s, refill bags were introduced and by 1996 all major
compact products were available in refill bags as well (A.I.S.E. 2003). These use
considerably less packaging (65-90% less depending on product format) than the
equivalent sized carton or bottle (UKCPI). However, consumers did not like the refill bags
because they were difficult to handle and sales never really reached the levels expected.
Consequently, the refill bags were withdrawn from the market, first refill bags for powders
and, in recent years, refill bags for liquids.
However, efforts have ensured that the carton box and the plastic bottle has seen
environmental improvements. For example, today carton boxes for laundry detergents
contain approximately 80% recycled board, and many plastic bottles for detergents
contain 25% recycled plastic (UKCPI).
Our purchasing decisions very much influence the packaging required

The amount of packaging required per unit wash is influenced by a number of factors,
including:
• The type of laundry detergent format. For example, concentrated formats use less
packaging per unit wash than standard formats. Although, this may not always be
true as more convenient formats such as tablets may require additional packaging in
order to ensure that it reaches the consumer in a satisfactory condition.
• The size of the pack. Bigger packs utilise packaging more efficiently than smaller
packs.
78
These are very much factors which we as consumers influence through our purchasing
decisions. However, as consumers we prefer the smaller packs because of reasons of
price, handling, available storage space, etc.
Packaging is not the main environmental impact from washing our clothes
When analysing the environmental impact of laundry detergents, from design and
manufacture through to use and disposal, the biggest impacts occur in the use and
disposal of the product. This means that the actual washing of our clothes at home in the
washing machine and the disposal and treatment of the waste water has a much greater
environmental impact than the manufacture of the washing machine, the laundry
detergent production or the packaging. Figure 8.5 below illustrates where in the life cycle
of laundry detergents the main environmental impacts are.
Laundry washing habits such as the quantity of laundry detergent used, the type of
detergent chosen, the wash load, the wash temperature, etc. influence the overall
environmental impact of washing a lot more than the packaging. Therefore, as
consumers we should put much more effort into dosing the right amount, only wash full
loads, and choosing the correct wash temperature as recommended on the pack and by
the industry’s Washright initiative – part of the Code of Good Environmental Practice
(A.I.S.E. 2004).
Global Warming
Potential
Acidification
Potential
Photochemical
Smog Potential
Nutrification
Potential
Solid Waste
Energy
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Ingredients Packaging Production Transport Use Disposal
Figure 8.5 The environmental impact of laundry washing (Unilever 2001)
Technology and product developments have helped the environment

Better machine technology means that water consumption for clothes washing has
increased considerably. In the UK today, the vast majority of washes are done in front-
79
loading machines on automatic programmes. These are three times as efficient in water
usage, and require less energy for a more efficient wash than their top-loading
predecessors (A.I.S.E.1999).
Additionally, the use of enzymes and bleach activators in detergent formulations, for both
concentrated and standard products, have allowed us to wash at much lower
temperatures, thereby saving energy. New detergent products such as tablets and
capsules provide convenience by eliminating the dosing process, while ensuring correct
dosage (that is if we ensure only to wash full loads). Preventing the consumer from
adding that “little bit extra just to be sure” prevents unnecessary use of resources. For
example, capsules use a dose of 50 g of product per wash, tablets use 83 g. This
compares to a typical habits dosage of 102 g for standard powder and 114 g for
concentrated liquid detergents (Unilever 2001).
100 years of laundry detergents

The diagram below shows how laundry detergents and their packaging have developed
over time in response to changing market drivers from the days of washboards, bar-
soaps and hours of washing, wringing and rinsing, to today’s choice of powders, liquids,
tablets and capsules for fully automatic machines.
Political World War I World War II

Economic
Birth of consumer
changes Increasing disposable income
spending power
Market drivers
Smaller households
Time pressures
Social
changes
Health awareness
Post-war emergence of Hygiene consciousness

Technological
progress Washing machine ownership
AISE launch
Code of
Other Environmental
factors Practice
Incorrect dosing of wash loads
1916: Synthetic detergent 1946: First 1961: First 1975: Detergents 1989: 1998:
developed in Germany surfactant biodegradable with inbuilt fabric Concentrated Detergent
1914 - 1918 1939 - 1945 detergent detergent conditioner detergents tablets
1982: Liquid 2001: Liquid
1969: First detergent capsules
detergents
biological 1992: Refill
including
detergent
Subsequent dosing ball pouches
product
and packaging
developments 1905 Shortage 1930's:
Household
Interrupted
fat
1955 2005
of fats for
making detergent supplies,
soap production army need
takes off in for
US cleaning in
cold,
mineral 80
Source: Pira International 2004 rich sea
water
9 Conclusions
Packaging performs many functions

Packaging does not exist without the products it delivers to us. It should not be viewed in
isolation, but as part of the product supply chain. Throughout the supply chain,
packaging must serve a range of functions. As well as preserving and protecting the
products, packaging must also provide a diversity of information to the consumer. It must
also allow for easy handling, opening, dispensing and sometimes reclosing. A packaging
technologist must be able to develop cost-effective packaging that is in balance with the
requirements of each stage of the supply chain. Figure 9.1 illustrates the different
considerations required for each stage of the packaging supply chain.
Recyclability
Recycled content
Process requirements
Raw Material properties
materials
Packaging
conversion
Closed loop
Filling line performance
recycling Product Stackability
manufacturin Shelf-life requirements
Open loop and filling
Essential requirements legislation
recycling
Identifying material components

Separability of components
Recycling Removability of contaminants Supply chain hazards - shock,
Recovery emptying vibration, compression
Distribution
Safe handling
Product preservation
Degradability (composting)
Energy content (incineration)
Use Handling
Retail Display
Sales impact - shelf presence, brand
Openability, reclosability awareness
Dispensing, dosing Tamper evidence, anti-counterfeiting
Product preservation Product preservation
Information Source: Pira International 2004
Figure 9.1 Supply chain stages for fmcg packaging and considerations for packaging
designers
Modern lifestyles require more packaging

The more goods we consume, the more packaging we consume. But as well as
consuming more products, we are demanding more from the products (and packaging)
that we consume. Modern lifestyles demand that packaging provides even more
functionality. Packaging must:
• Protect products throughout ever-longer supply chains;
81
• Preserve products to provide longer shelf life – there is increasing emphasis on the
preservation role of packaging materials as we seek to eliminate and replace
preservatives in our foodstuffs;
• Deliver products in quantities and formats tailored to suit how and when they will be
consumed – we are demanding smaller product quantities and more on-the-go
products;
• Dispense products conveniently and safely – we demand convenient easy-open
features, reclosability and child-resistant closures;
• Add convenience to the products we use – for example, cook-in-pack convenience;
and
• Improve sales – packaging is one of the key components that can provide a
commercial advantage in the competitive arena of fast moving consumer goods.
As a result, there is more packaging in the home today than ever before. It is not
possible to quantify how much growth in packaging consumption has occurred, as data
has not historically been collected. Data has only been collected in the UK since 1997, in
order to monitor packaging waste recovery and recycling rates.
Packaging is just part of the supply chain

The product which packaging contains almost always has a far greater environmental
impact than the packaging itself. It is essential that the packaging minimises product
wastage in the supply chain and in the home. In this way, packaging has a positive role
to play in the protection of the environment.
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
kg
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0 Product
Soft Packaging
drinks Potatoes
and potato Cat food Fabric
products detergents
Figure 9.2 Packaging material use versus product weight
82
For the case studies in this project, the relative resource impact of product to packaging
is indicated in Figure 9.2. This demonstrates that the mass of product protected is in the
region of ten or more times greater than the mass of packaging around the product. If we
take mass as an indication of resource efficiency, then the product has far greater
environmental impact than the packaging.
This is consistent with the findings of other studies, which have compared the
environmental impact of products and their packaging. For example, Figure 9.3a and
Figure 9.3b present the results of a life cycle assessment study for milk packaged in
composite beverage cartons (Barkman et al 2001). The results show that for all
environmental impact categories considered, the production and processing of the milk
has by far the greatest environmental impact across the entire life cycle of the product
and its packaging.
83
Figure 9.3a Relative environmental contribution of process steps in life cycle of

5
milk (Barkman et al 2001)
5
The environmental impacts considered are: GWP=Global warming potential; AP = Acidification
potential; Energy = Total renewable and non-renewable energy; Resources = Abiotic resource
depletion; EP = Eutrophication potential; POCP = Photochemical ozone creation potential; Waste =
non-hazardous waste
84
Figure 9.3b Relative environmental contribution of process steps in life cycle of

milk6 (Barkman et al 2001)
6
The environmental impacts considered are: GWP=Global warming potential; AP = Acidification
potential; Energy = Total renewable and non-renewable energy; Resources = Abiotic resource
85
Similarly, an analysis by Packforsk has provided a comparison of the relative energy

content of selected food products (bread, ketchup, milk and yoghurt) and their packaging
(Erlov et al 2000). The results, presented below in Figures 9.4, 9.5, 9.6 and 9.7, further
demonstrate that the environmental impact of the product is greater than the
environmental impact of the packaging.
Product
waste
18%
Packaging
3%
Consumed
product
79%
Figure 9.4 Total energy used for the system, 700g bread
Product waste
9%
Packaging
23%
Consumed
product
68%
Figure 9.5 Total energy used for the system, ketchup
depletion; EP = Eutrophication potential; POCP = Photochemical ozone creation potential; Waste =

non-hazardous waste
86
Product
waste
7%
Packaging
18%
Consumed
product
75%
Figure 9.6 Total energy used for the system, milk
Product
waste
11%
Packaging
18%
Consumed
product
71%
Figure 9.7 Total energy used for the system, yoghurt
Packaging has a positive role to play in environmental protection and sustainable

development
Considering the overall life cycle of a product, packaging almost always has a small
environmental impact compared to the product it contains. This means that by protecting
and preserving products, packaging can make a positive contribution to environmental
protection and sustainable development by preventing more significant product wastage.
Figure 9.8 shows how under-packaging leads to product damage, which has a high
environmental impact as resources are wasted. In contrast, over-packaging has a smaller
environmental impact – only the additional packaging material is wasted, which is much
less significant than the product it protects.
87
Environment
impact
Minimum
environmental
impact -X% +X%
Product wastage Packaging wastage
Underestimated Overestimated
packaging design packaging design
Amount of
packaging material
Minimum adequate by weight/volume
amount of material
Figure 9.8 Prevention by source reduction – the paradox (adapted from Erlov et
al 2000)
Erlov et al further interrogate their case studies of bread, ketchup, milk and yoghurt to
provide quantitative analysis to support the principles communicated by Figure 9.8. In
Figure 9.9, the environmental impact of product waste for bread is compared against the
environmental impact of different quantities of packaging used. In this analysis,
environmental impact is represented by energy, and the energy needed for all stages of
production, distribution, and storage (from growing of corn through to final consumption)
has been included. Product waste includes packaging and product waste during
distribution, storage, and at the consumer level. This analysis suggests that there is an
optimum product:pack ratio of approximately 9-9.5 grams of packaging per kg of product.
Reducing the quantity of packaging per product below this results in a considerable
increase in environmental impact. Overpacking (increasing the packaging above this
optimum) results in a lesser increase in environmental impact.
88
Figure 9.9 Optimum packaging for bread (Erlov et al 2000)
Similarly, Figure 9.10 shows an optimal product:pack ration for ketchup and further
evidence of this relationship between products and packaging is provided in Figure 9.11
(milk) and Figure 9.12 (yoghurt).
Figure 9.10 Relationship between product wastage and packaging – ketchup

(Erlov et al 2000)
89
Figure 9.11 Relationship between product wastage and packaging – milk (Erlov
et al 2000)
Figure 9.12 Relationship between product wastage and packaging – yoghurt

(Erlov et al 2000)
90
It is sometimes possible to identify and achieve this optimum balance for packaging, but
often it is not possible to do this precisely:
• To produce a quantitative analysis to the level presented in Figure 9.5 to Figure 9.8
requires a massive amount of input data. This data would be expensive and time
consuming to gather.
• Different supply chains will create different hazards, and therefore different results,
for the same products.
• The results will vary depending on the volume of product required.
• Nearly every piece of packaging performs a diverse range of functions. Besides
providing product protection, packaging must also provide information, security
features, convenience and other functionality. The emphasis place on different
elements of functionality will differ depending on a brand owners target consumer
base, and therefore the packaging type and quantity will vary.
• Packaging design provides a route for product differentiation. Brand owners use
packaging to facilitate, and create, consumption and choice. Packaging designers
must be allowed freedom to design packaging, which meets the needs of the supply
chain, the consumer, and the business.
Packaging is ultimately a reflection of the society in which we live

The packaging that brand owners and retailers use for fmcgs reflects the range of
external drivers identified in this report, such as demographics, changing lifestyles and
aspirations, economic growth and globalisation, competition, product and technology
developments, and supply chain demands.
Some of these drivers lead to increases in packaging use, others lead to reductions in
packaging use. Figure 9.13 illustrates how some drivers require more packaging use,
whilst others are drivers for packaging minimisation and source reduction. Consumer
choice is one of a number of contradictory drivers, which can work in both directions. On
the one hand, consumers demand more products, more convenience and more
functionality, whilst on the other hand consumers criticise packaging and want to see less
packaging in their homes.
91
Source: Pira International 2004
Figure 9.13 Drivers for more packaging and drivers for packaging reductions
Increased consumption of products is a major factor influencing the total

packaging consumed in the UK
Packaging usage cannot be considered in isolation from product consumption. We
consume more products today than ever before, so there is evidently going to be more
packaging in our homes and offices. Packaging efficiency can only be addressed within
the context of wider production and consumption patterns.
Overall packaging is just a small fraction of UK waste

Although total packaging consumption is increasing, packaging is still only a very small
fraction of the UK waste stream. Each year, the UK produces over 100 million tonnes of
waste from households, commerce and industry (DEFRA 2004). Less than 10% of this
waste is packaging (see Figure 9.14). According to latest official statistics, 47.6% of this
packaging waste was recycled in 2003, and a further 5.9% was recovered (through
energy recovery or composting) (Environment Agency 2004).
92
U K L an d filled W aste b y C ateg o ry
50
Percen tag e of UK lan dfilled w aste
40
30
20
10
0
Packaging Household Commercial Construction O ther w aste
w aste w aste (non- and industrial and demolition
packaging) w aste (non- w aste
packaging)
Figure 9.14 Proportion of packaging waste in UK landfill (compiled from various

DEFRA sources)
And although the total volume and units of packed goods consumed in the UK has
increased, packaging today is more efficient overall
The total volume and units of packaged goods consumed in the UK – and the rest of the
world – continues to grow as we continue to consume more goods. However, the case
studies in this report illustrate that product and packaging developments and changes in
consumer demand have counteracted this growth to deliver more resource efficient
packaging (by weight) per product function. Examples from other studies also illustrate
these trends, as shown in Figures 9.15-9.16 (Conseil National de l’Emballage 1998).
93
Use of different technique to wrap palletised loads: the PE shrink

wrap is replaced by PE stretch wrap. A 50% weight saving is achieved
Figure 9.15 Examples of packaging reductions in soft drinks – transit packaging
Oval shaped tray is replaced by a rectangular Despite switching the product size from 1kg to
design. The new tray is thinner (saving 8% of smaller 250g individual portion sizes, a sales
the aluminium), and also reduces PP film packaging reduction of 46% is obtained for each
requirements and carton board kilo of product sold. For the total packaging
requirements, and the number of grouping system, the overall saving is 30%. At the same
containers required. An overall weight time, functionality is improved by offering single
reduction of 18.6% is achieved for the total portion sizes, improved openability and a
packaging system. microwaveable tray.
Figure 9.16 Examples of packaging reductions in ready meals – primary

packaging
94
Ultimately, packaging facilitates choice and convenience

As consumers, we expect products to be easier to use and deliver more functionality. As
an integral part of the product system, packaging is an excellent medium for delivering
choice and convenience, and is therefore an important tool for fmcg manufacturers and
brand owners operating in a highly competitive environment.
95
References
3i (2003) Feeding Growth – The role of private equity in the food and drink industry, 3i
Economist Intelligence Unit, London.
Association Internationale de la Savonnerie, de la Détergence et des Produits d'Entretien

(A.I.S.E.) Wash Right website, www.washright.com

(A.I.S.E.) (1999) 1998 Annual Review. Focus on Household Laundry Detergents –
Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century, available on www.aise-net.org

(A.I.S.E.) (2003) Implementation of the A.I.S.E. Code of Good Environmental Practice for
Household Laundry Detergents in Europe. A.I.S.E. 1996/2001 Final Report, available on
www.aise-net.org
The Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment (ACE) Resource Efficiency and
the Beverage Carton, ACE, Belgium.
Barkman, A. et al (2001) Investigating the life-cycle environmental profile of liquid

packaging systems. Tetra Brik Aseptic and apple juice. Tetra Brik and milk, Oestfold
Research Foundation, Sweden.
Beeton, D.A. (February 2004) Technology Roadmapping in the Packaging Sector, PhD
First Year Report, Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, UK.
Boisard, P. D. Cartron, M. Gollac and A. Valeyre (2003) Time and Work: Duration of
Work, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions,
available on http://www.eurofound.eu.int/publications/files/EF0211EN.pdf
British Potato Council (BPC) (2002a) What consumers want from fresh potatoes – and
how we can give it to them, BPC ‘Understanding Consumers’ research programme, fact
sheet 2, British Potato Council.
British Potato Council (BPC) (2002b) What consumers want from processed potatoes –
and how we can give it to them, BPC ‘Understanding Consumers’ research programme,
fact sheet 3, British Potato Council.
British Potato Council (BPC) (2002c) How consumers buy potatoes – and what we can
do to encourage them to buy more, BPC ‘Understanding Consumers’ research
programme, fact sheet 4, British Potato Council.
British Soft Drinks Association (BSDA) website, www.britishsoftdrinks.com
96
Britvic Soft Drinks (2002) The Britvic Soft Drinks Category Report 2002, Britvic Soft
Drinks, Chelmsford.
Conseil National de l’Emballage (French National Packaging Council) (1998) Catalogue

de la Prevention Des Dechets D’Emballages, available on http://www.conseil-
emballage.org
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2004) e-Digest of
Environmental Statistics, DEFRA, available on
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/index.htm.
Environment Agency of England and Wales (2004) Packaging Data Notes. Producer
Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997, available on
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/topics/packaging/data.htm
Erlov, L., C. Lofgren, and A. Soras (2000) Source: Packaging – a tool for the prevention
of environmental impact, Packforsk, available on http://packforsk.adnome.se/PDF-
files/rapp_o_resultat/REPORT_194.PDF
Euromonitor (2003a) The Market for Soft Drinks in the United Kingdom, Market Direction.
Euromonitor (2003b) Ready meals benefit from lifestyle and demographic changes,
available on www.euromonitor.com
Future Foundation (January 2002) Complicated Lives II – The Price of Complexity.
Gregory, H. (2003) Chilling out has to be cool. Trends in the UK soft drinks market, The
Grocer, Vol. 226, No. 7602, 3rd May 2003.
Hansen, E. (2003) Ranking of industrial products, Environmental Project No. 839 2003,
Danish Environmental Protection Agency.
Henchion, Dr. M. (2004) Meals for Cash Rich, Time Poor Consumers, The National Food
Centre, article available from www.teagasc.ie/publications/readymeals2000/paper01.htm
INCPEN (2001) Towards Greener Households – Products, Packaging and Energy,

INCPEN, London.
INCPEN (2004), personal correspondence
Information Resources (2001) Household Review – An Information Resources White

Paper, Information Resources, Bracknell.
International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products, A.I.S.E.

(2003) Implementation of the A.I.S.E. Code of Good Environmental Practice for
97
Household Laundry Detergents in Europe, A.I.S.E. 1996/2001 Final Report, A.I.S.E.,

Brussels.
Key Note (2003) Key Note Market Report 2003 - Packaging (Metals & Aerosols), Key
Note, Middlesex, UK.
KPMG (2002) KPMG International Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting 2002,

KPMG Global Sustainability Services, The Netherlands. The report is available on
http://www.wimm.nl/publicaties/KPMG2002.pdf
Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association (MPMA) website, www.mpma.org.uk
Mintel (August 2002) Ready Meals in the UK, Mintel Group.
Office of National Statistics (ONS) (2003) Expenditure and Food Survey 2002/03.
Income and source of income 1970 to 2001-02, available on http://www.statistics.gov.uk.
Office of National Statistics (ONS) (2004) Living in Britain. Results from the 2002
General Household Survey, available on http://www.statistics.gov.uk/lib2002/default.asp
Personal correspondence with Jane Bickerstaffe, Director, Industry Council for Packaging
and the Environment (INCPEN), Reading.
Personal correspondence with Paul James, General Manager, Packaging Datastore, Exel
plc, Coventry.
Personal correspondence with Paul Smith, European Environmental Manager, Coca-Cola

Enterprises Ltd., Uxbridge.
Pet Food Manufacturers Association (PFMA) website, www.pfma.com
Pira International (author: Sam Sheppard-Fidler) (2003) Realising Profit Improvement

through reducing Damage in the Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Supply Chain, A
strategic Futures Report, Pira International, Leatherhead.
ReadyMealsInfo (2004) The European Ready Meal Market, article available on

www.readymealsinfo.com/articles/eurmm.htm
Rexam website, www.rexam.com
Rexam (2003) The Future of Consumer Packaging - Environmental and Social Report
2003, Rexam, available on http://www.rexam.com/about/ES_03_final1.pdf
Tetra Pak (2001) Tetra Pak Company Magazine, No. 88, 2003.
98
TNSofres (2003) TNS SuperPanel market data. The TNS SuperPanel is a consumer
panel covering 15,000 demographically representative households. All family members
scan all purchases bought into the home, using a handheld scanner. Non-bar coded
products are entered using a patented code book. TNS collect and collate the data,
which is then used for their commercial consultancy activities.
UK Cleaning Products Industry Association (UKCPI) website, www.ukcpi.org
Unilever (2001) Unit Dose – A Sustainable Step for Fabrics Liquids, Unilever HPC –
Europe, available on www.unilever.com/Images/3_4586.pdf
Valorplast website, www.valorplast.com
World Advertising Research Centre (WARC) (2003) European Marketing Pocket Book
2004, World Advertising Research Centre, UK.
99
Appendix A – A brief assessment of LCI sources
As stated in chapter 2, life cycle inventory (LCI) data from readily available life cycle
inventory databases are used for determining the quantities of materials used and the
energy required to produce formats and sizes as used in the case studies.
The databases used for the different packaging materials are shown in the table below.
Table A.1 LCI databases used for estimating resource efficiency

Packaging material LCI database
Plastics The eco-profile reports of the Association of Plastics
Manufacturers in Europe (APME)
Aluminium The Environmental Profile Report for the European
Aluminium Industry published by the European Aluminium
Association (EAA).
Steel The BUWAL 250 dataset by the Swiss Agency for the
Glass The BUWAL 250 dataset by the Swiss Agency for the
Paperboard products The BUWAL 250 dataset by the Swiss Agency for the
References to the relevant reports are given at the end of this appendix.
The datasets are described briefly below. For further information please refer to the
datasets themselves (see end of appendix for details).
The APME eco-profiles

The eco-profiles are compiled by Ian Boustead for the Association of Plastics
Manufacturers in Europe (APME) are based on industry averages of the major plastics
manufactured and used in Europe.
The inventories include data from the extraction of raw materials from the earth via
cracking and refining through to the point where the finished polymer is ready for delivery
to the converter. This includes energy systems, ancillary materials and the transport.
Depending on which polymer is considered the data represents conditions in the early
1990s or late 1990s. For example, for the PET eco-profiles data on the production
processes represent the 12-month period during 1999-2000, information on the
production of fuels and energy have been derived from 1995 reports of the International
Energy Agency, and data for supporting operations and transport have been obtained
from other manufacturers and operations (no date specified).
As specified above the data provided in the eco-profiles is based on industry averages of
the major plastics manufactured and used in Europe. Keeping PET as the example, data
on the production processes specific to PET have been obtained from then plants
operating in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the UK and the United States. The
information covered the production of some 1.9 million tonnes of purified terephthalic acid
(PTA), 570,000 tonnes of amorphous PET and 933,000 tonnes of bottle grade PET.
The EAA Environmental Profile Report

The EAA Environmental Profile Report contains life cycle inventory (LCI) data for
aluminium production, recycling and scrap remelting processes.
The inventories include data from the extraction of aluminium ore up to the aluminium
semi-finished product delivered to user
The LCI data represents the year of 1998. The data is presented as average values
representative of European aluminium. For primary aluminium production, a coverage of
98% of the total European primary aluminium output was achieved; for semi-finished
aluminium products a coverage ranging from 20-70% was achieved; for recycling of
process scrap, a coverage of 37% was achived; and for recycling of aluminium end-of-life
products, a coverage of 53% was achieved. LCI data for processes in which the
European aluminium industry is not involved have been collected from elsewhere.
Transport, energy and air emission data have been taken from the BUWAL 250 datasets.
The BUWAL 250 dataset

The BUWAL 250 dataset is a comprehensive packaging dataset collected and compiled
by the Swiss Federal Institute for Technology (ETH) Zurich and the Swiss Federal
Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research (EMPA) St. Gallen for the Swiss Agency
for the Environment, Forests and Landscape and the Swiss Packaging Institute (SVI).
The inventories include data from the production of raw materials via all manufacturing
processes up to the packaging end product. All energy systems, the manufacture of
auxiliary materials and the corresponding modes of transport have also been included.
With the exception of data for energy and mode of transport, which represent the position
in 1990, all data were collected between 1993 and 1995.
The datasets refer primarily to conditions in Switzerland. As many packaging materials

are not manufactured in Switzerland, their production in other European and non-
European countries have been taken into account. The geographical representation of
the data as specified in the BUWAL reports is shown in see Table A.2 and A.3 below.
Table A.2 Geographical representation of BUWAL 250 datasets

BUWAL 250 data for Geographical representation
Steel sheet Germany (average)
Glass Representative for Swiss conditions
Paper, cardboard, Very variable, from data from a single plant to up to
corrugated board average values for all plants of a country and
averaged European values
Table A.3 Geographical representation of BUWAL 250 datasets, cont.

BUWAL 250 data for Geographical representation
Processing Only Swiss processors considered. Data are of an
approximate nature.
Energy systems Highly representative, Western European area.
Auxiliary materials Very different data situations. In part, data from individual
plants, in part literature data.
Transport modes Transport inventories are representative virtually
independent of the location. Data on transport distances
from packaging material manufacture to processor or
distribution represent only guide values for illustrative
purposes.
Recycling Usually with reference only to Switzerland, data situation
still sparse.
It is clear that the data is not directly transferable to UK conditions, for example for the
inventory for glass bottles the recyclate fraction is in the BUWAL 250 datasets 99.9% for
green glass and 60% for white glass.
Conclusions
Although not perfect, the life cycle inventory (LCI) data used for this project is considered
to be amongst the most representative LCI data available and fully adequate for the
purposes of this study. It must be emphasised that this study is not intended to give an
exact description of resource efficiency in the sectors chosen for the case studies, but
that it is intended to give an indication of resource efficiency trends over time.
References
Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME) Eco-profiles of various plastics,

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe, Belgium. The eco-profiles are available
on www.apme.org
European Aluminium Association (EAA) (2000) Environmental Profile Report for the
European Aluminium Industry, European Aluminium Association, Belgium.
Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL) (1998) Life Cycle
Inventories for Packagings, Volume I and II, Environmental Series No. 250/I and II,
SAEFL, Switzerland.
Appendix B – Resource efficiency results
Below are the resource efficiency results for soft drinks, potatoes and potato products, cat
food, and laundry detergents in tabular format.
Table B.1 Resource efficiency results for soft drinks

Reference year Material use Energy consumption
[g per litre of soft drink] [MJ per litre of soft drink]
1997 87.7 4.6
1998 84.2 4.5
1999 80.7 4.3
2000 76.9 4.2
2001 72.9 4.1
2002 69.6 4.0
Table B.2 Resource efficiency results for potatoes and potato products
[g per 200 g serving] [MJ per 200 g serving]
1993 3.9 0.18
1994 4.1 0.19
1995 4.1 0.18
1996 4.1 0.18
1997 3.9 0.18
1998 3.9 0.18
1999 3.8 0.18
2000 3.9 0.18
2001 4.2 0.19
2002 4.2 0.19
Table B.3 Resource efficiency results for cat food

[g per daily intake] [MJ per daily intake]
1993 58.0 2.7
1994 54.7 2.6
1995 50.3 2.4
1996 48.3 2.3
1997 43.6 2.1
1998 41.9 2.0
1999 40.6 1.9
2000 39.7 1.9
2001 36.9 1.7
2002 36.0 1.7
Table B.4 Resource efficiency results for laundry detergents

[g per wash] [MJ per wash]
1993 11.4 0.52
1994 11.2 0.49
1995 11.1 0.47
1996 11.1 0.46
1997 10.9 0.46
1998 11.0 0.45
1999 11.4 0.46
2000 11.0 0.45
2001 10.5 0.43
2002 10.6 0.43
Acknowledgements
The research team would like to thank the following organisations for their support in
producing this report:
• British Frozen Food Federation • McCain’s

• British Soft Drinks Association • Michael Coe & Associates
• British Potato Council • Pro Carton
• Coca-Cola Enterprises Ltd. • Exel’s Packaging Datastore
• Liquid Food Carton Manufacturers Assoc. • UK Cleaning Products Industry Assoc.
Project Panel
Throughout the project, the team was assisted by a Project Panel made up of various
stakeholders. This group raised issues and gave feedback, enabling real issues to be
highlighted and practical solutions to be proposed.
The Project Panel comprised:

Jane Bickerstaffe INCPEN
Ian Dent The Packaging Federation
Peter Jones Biffa Waste Services Ltd.
Adrian Hawkes Valpak
INCPEN, the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment, is a research
organisation set up in 1974 to study the environmental and social impacts of packaging.
It promotes best practice in packaging manufacturing, distribution and use and supports
research into resource efficiency and recovery methods.
The Packaging Federation is the representative body of the UK packaging

manufacturing industry. The Federation actively promotes the industry, its economic
importance, the products it produce, the benefits to the community deriving from
packaging, and the industry’s responsible concern for the environment and the
community as a whole.
Biffa Waste Services Ltd is the waste management company that in 1997 set up the
landfill tax credit scheme, Biffaward, to provide accessible, well-researched information
about the flows of different resources through the UK economy.
Valpak is the UK’s leading Producer Responsibility scheme, helping over 5,000
companies comply with the Packaging Waste Regulations.

Packaging'splaceinsociety 2004

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

Packaging'splaceinsociety 2004

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Packaging’s Place in Society

Evaluating Resource Efficiency

Special thanks for packaging data provision to

Michael Sturges and Jonna Meyhoff Brink, Pira International

Abbreviations and acronyms................................................................................................... i

3 Drivers affecting resource efficiency of packaging .................................................... 13

4 Soft Drinks ...................................................................................................................... 23

5 Ready meals ................................................................................................................... 35

5.1.1 Unit of measure ........................................................................................... 35

6 Potatoes and potato products ...................................................................................... 48

8 Laundry Detergents ....................................................................................................... 70

Appendix A – A brief assessment of LCI sources ............................................................ 100

Appendix B – Resource efficiency results ........................................................................ 104

Abbreviations and acronyms

Figure 1.1 Packaging’s functions (Beeton 2004)

1.2 Aims and objectives

The criteria for selecting the different case studies included:

1.3 Project scope

P acking / filling Energy, materials,

Boundaries of the case studies

Included for cat food only

2.1 Identification of external drivers

2.1.1 Principle for identifying external drivers

The procedure used for identifying external drivers was as follows:

2.2 Measuring resource efficiency

Method One: Packaging weight only

Method Two: Material use and energy consumption

Method Three: All environmental impacts

2.2.1 Principles for measuring resource efficiency

The principle behind the method applied in this project is as follows:

Box 2.1 Calculation principles

2.2.2 Data collection

The following describes the data collection procedure.

Step 1: Establishing product consumption patterns

The procedure used for identifying appropriate data was as follows:

Step 2: Establishing packaging formats

Step 3: Establishing packaging specifications

Step 4: Calculation of resource efficiency

Table 2.1 LCI databases used for estimating resource efficiency

Step 6: Compare results with external drivers

2.2.3 Data confidentiality

3 Drivers affecting resource efficiency of packaging

3.1 Sociological drivers

Figure 3.1 Household composition in the UK (ONS 2004)

consumption. For example, a one-adult household uses on average 120 kg of packaging

Figure 3.3 Home cooking time trends (INCPEN 2004)

3.2 Technological drivers

Technological advancements in material and process technologies have had a great

Additionally, consumers have also embraced technological advancements in the home.

Figure 3.4 Consumer durables in Great Britain (ONS 2004)

In particular, technological advancements have allowed us to:

3.3 Environmental drivers

The general public perception of packaging is that it is a major contributor to waste

This negative perception of packaging has resulted in considerable legislative attention

The Essential Requirements Regulations have resulted in increased efforts towards

Additionally, there seems to be a greater acceptance politically of using producer

Pressure from stakeholders for environmental (and social) accountability is also

accountable for sustainability issues as diverse as economic equality, employee training,

3.4 Economic drivers

Table 3.1 Packaging costs for selected products

3.5 Political drivers

3.6 Supply chain drivers