ENVIRONMENTAL

TECHNOLOGY

BEST PRACTICE

PROGRAMME

GG157GUIDE

REDUCING THE COST OFPACKAGING IN THE FOODAND DRINK INDUSTRY

GOOD PRACTICE: Proven technology and techniques for profitable environmental improvement

© Crown copyright. First printed February 1999.

This material may be freely reproduced in its original form except for sale or advertising purposes.

Printed on paper containing 75% post-consumer waste.

REDUCING THE COST OFPACKAGING IN THE FOODAND DRINK INDUSTRY

This Good Practice Guide was produced by the

Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme

Prepared with assistance from:

Aspinwall & Company

The food and drink industry is the largest industrial consumer of packaging materials. Packagingrepresents a significant proportion of production costs - costs that can be reduced by minimising in-process packaging waste and by making changes to the type of and way packaging is used.

Improving packaging management will benefit your company by:

■ increasing overall profitability;

■ enhancing environmental performance;

■ helping to comply with legislation.

Reducing the amount of packaging use is a significant driver for the food and drink industry, asdoing so will also lower the obligations placed on companies by the Producer ResponsibilityObligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations from January 1998.

These packaging waste regulations currently apply to companies that handle more than 50 tonnesof packaging per year and have a turnover of more than £5 million, but this threshold will bereduced to £1 million after the year 2000. For companies that are currently outside the limits of theregulations, guidance on reducing packaging use will help them to remain under the current 50-tonne threshold. But for any user of packaging there are significant cost savings to be made fromminimising its use.

This Guide demonstrates, through a series of case histories from a variety of sub-sectors and regions,measures taken by food and drink companies, large and small, to achieve reductions. These successstories are brought together to stimulate action in others to start minimising their own packaging use.

S U M M A R Y

Section Page

1 Introduction 11.1 How reducing packaging use can save your company money 11.2 How this Guide can help 21.3 Packaging legislation 2

2 Reducing the cost of packaging 42.1 The full cost of packaging to a manufacturer 42.2 Reduction of packaging materials 52.3 Re-use of packaging 52.4 Recycling waste packaging 52.5 Other benefits 5

3 Industry Examples 61 Packaging reduction brings healthy results 72 Optimisation of cardboard trays reduces packaging use 83 Trayless coffee packaging reduces packaging use 94 Elimination of inner collation wraps saves packaging costs 115 Redesign of garlic bread packaging saves tonnes 136 Re-usable trays improve handling and save money 157 Re-use of sandwich trays brings cost savings 178 Bulk purchase of label glue saves money 199 Plastics recycling through separation of waste 21

4 Action Plan 23

5 Further information 24

C O N T E N T S

1.1 HOW REDUCING PACKAGING USE CAN SAVE YOURCOMPANY MONEY

Total use of packaging in the UK is about nine million tonnes/year, nearly half of which is paper. Ofthis, about 30% of all packaging materials are recovered and most of this is recycled.1 Theremainder, about 6.7 million tonnes, is sent to landfill.

The food and drink industry is responsible for using over 50% of the total packaging output of theUK2 - using between 4 to 5 million tonnes of packaging every year. This costs around £4 billion for the raw materials alone.

Many companies, large and small, have identified opportunities to reduce the amount of packagingused and have made significant savings, often through simple, low-cost measures.

Reducing packaging use will also help to reduce the amount of paper, board, glass and plasticcurrently being sent to landfill as process waste or post-consumer waste.

Improving packaging management will benefit your company by:

■ increasing overall profitability;

■ enhancing environmental performance;

■ helping to comply with legislation.

Changes in legislation, such as the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste)Regulations (see Section 1.3) and the landfill tax, mean many companies will have to rethink theirpackaging by law and will have to demonstrate that they are recovering set amounts of materialseach year. But there are also cost savings to be made that could add substantially to the bottom line.As this Guide makes clear, companies that are managing their packaging use carefully are savingmoney and increasing profits, as well as saving valuable resources and reducing disposal of waste.

Thus there are two reasons to start rethinking your company’s packaging needs:

■ on average, packaging represents 13% of production costs;

■ minimising packaging is a cost-effective way of complying with legislation.

1

I N T R O D U C T I O N1

section

1

1 1996 figures.

2 Non-food goods account for 15%, consumer durables 9%, and other industrial and commercial users make up theremaining 24%.

If in-process packaging waste was reduced by an average of 1% across the food and beverageindustry, it would save the sector about £50 million/year in raw materials purchased, notincluding the avoided costs of disposal and landfill taxation, and a further £50 - £80 millionsaved on other factors, eg fuel and energy, manpower and resources.

1.2 HOW THIS GUIDE CAN HELP

This Guide includes a selection of examples from the food and drink industry that demonstrate howcompanies of all sizes are already making cost savings in packaging, often by using simple low-costand no-cost measures.

It illustrates, through these examples, how significant cost savings can be made in packaging bydifferent food and drink manufacturers employing a variety of initiatives, while required standardsof hygiene and branding are still being achieved.

An Action Plan at the end of this Guide provides you with an initial approach to reducing yourpackaging costs.

Further guidance that will help your company achieve good results is available in Good PracticeGuide (GG140) Cutting Costs and Waste by Reducing Packaging Use, also produced by theEnvironmental Technology Best Practice Programme.

GG140 includes practical steps to take that will help you to manage your packaging more effectively,and provides clear, concise information and practical advice on a range of issues, including:

■ packaging design;

■ avoiding the need for packaging;

■ minimising packaging use;

■ re-using existing packaging;

■ recycling packaging materials and reducing disposal costs.

A further Guide, (GG141) Choosing and Managing Re-usable Transit Packaging, will help companiesto achieve considerable cost savings by redesigning packaging specifically for several journeysbetween particular suppliers and consumers. The Guide covers the logistics of managing a re-usablepackaging scheme effectively.

Both of these additional packaging Guides are available free of charge through the Environment andEnergy Helpline on 0800 585794.

1.3 PACKAGING LEGISLATION

The packaging waste regulations require that all companies with a turnover above a specifiedminimum and that handle more than a certain quantity of packaging must undertake or arrange forsome recovery and recycling of packaging waste. The more packaging a company handles, thegreater is its obligation to recycle or recover, and the higher is the likely cost of compliance.

2

section

1

The Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 1998 legally require certain conditions to bemet in relation to the manufacture and composition of packaging and to its suitability for re-use andrecovery. They also require that ‘packaging should be so manufactured that the packaging volumeand weight be limited to the minimum adequate amount to maintain the necessary level of safety,hygiene and acceptance for the packed product and the consumer’.

Companies that are not currently covered by the packaging waste regulations could find they areincluded in the year 2000, and should be considering measures now to keep their packaging uselevels below the 50-tonne threshold through waste minimisation.

Year Threshold limits

1997, 1998, 1999 ■ Total turnover is greater than £5 million

■ Business handles more than 50 tonnes of packaging per year

2000 ■ Total turnover is greater than £1 million

■ Business handles more than 50 tonnes of packaging per year

Table 1 Summary of packaging obligation threshold limits

Do you have questions about the packaging waste regulations? Anyone from a UK company thathas queries about how the packaging waste regulations, or any other environmental regulations,might affect their business has free access to the Environment and Energy Helpline on 0800 585794.

3

section

1

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997

The packaging waste regulations:

■ Apply to companies that handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging per year and have aturnover of more than £5 million (£1 million after the year 2000).

■ Require the companies that meet these conditions to take responsibility for the recoveryand recycling of their ‘obligation’ for packaging waste. Calculation of the obligationquantity is complex and is a function of:

- the amount of obligated packaging handled;

- the activity obligation (raw material manufacturer 6%, converter 11%, packer/filler36%, seller/final retailer 47%);

- UK recovery/recycling targets.1

There are a number of exemptions from the regulations, eg returnable packaging that has beenre-used.

Companies can register individually with the appropriate regulator2, or pass on their obligationsto a third party operating a compliance scheme. In all cases, companies are required to collectdata by weight.

1 Recovery: 1998/99 = 38%; 2000 = 43%; 2001 and beyond = 52%.

Recycling (by material): 1998/99 = 7%; 2000 = 11%; 2001 and beyond = 16%.

2 Contact the Environment and Energy Helpline on 0800 585794 for further details.

Any company in the food and beverage industry, large or small, can make considerable savings byreviewing its packaging and considering ways to reduce, re-use and recycle materials. In recent years,many food and beverage manufacturers have made a variety of changes without compromising theintegrity of the product or contravening health and safety measures. Practical guidance to achievingthis can be found in Good Practice Guide (GG140) Cutting Costs and Waste by Reducing PackagingUse.

2.1 THE FULL COST OF PACKAGING TO A MANUFACTURER

When assessing the benefits of minimising packaging, the full cost of the packaging system adoptedfor the safe containment of food and beverage products should be considered. This includes thepurchase of a wide range of raw materials, eg:

■ corrugated cartons;

■ plastic bags;

■ filler materials - expanded polystyrene (EPS), foam and paper;

■ shrink-wrap;

■ stretch-wrap;

■ layer pads;

■ pallets and slip sheets;

■ drums and other containers.

Other costs that should be included as part of your overall packaging costs are:

■ transport and fuel costs for the delivery of materials from the supplier to the manufacturingsite;

■ storage on site and the costs incurred for warehousing space;

■ the costs of final conversion (processing) of raw materials into containers, eg foldingcardboard into boxes or blowing plastic preforms into bottles;

■ the costs of running the packing and filling process;

■ further transport and fuel costs to deliver goods to the customer;

■ the disposal costs of trimmings, faulty packaging and abandoned product;

■ packaging obligation charges for those companies over the threshold limits (see Table 1).

Many of the above costs cover the purchase of equipment and machinery, energy and resource useand manpower resources.

All of these areas can be a target for cost savings.

Materials requiring containment can be solids, powders, liquids or gases, but all containers for thesecan benefit from the same waste minimisation approach, in the following order:

■ first, avoid the need for packaging;

■ second, minimise packaging use;

■ third, re-use existing packaging;

■ fourth, recycle packaging materials to reduce disposal costs.

4

section

2

R E D U C I N G T H E C O S T O FPA C K A G I N G

2

2.2 REDUCTION OF PACKAGING MATERIALS

First, measures to avoid or reduce the packaging used should be considered, eg eliminating anunnecessary layer. This can save on material, transport, storage and processing costs.

Minimising packaging use can also save on a company’s packaging obligation under the packagingwaste regulations.

2.3 RE-USE OF PACKAGING

Next, consider measures taken to re-use packaging, eg returnable transit packaging. This can saveon:

■ material costs;

■ transport costs;

■ storage costs.

Again, for many companies, this could result in a reduction in packaging obligation charges as,under the regulations, packaging used again is only counted the first time it is used, after which nocharges are incurred.

2.4 RECYCLING WASTE PACKAGING

Once the amount of packaging used has been reduced as far as possible, consider the recovery andrecycling of waste packaging arising on site. Try to recycle the materials on site, eg companies thatreceive articles packed in expanded polystyrene (EPS) from suppliers often use this in packing theirown products, if applicable. Finally, for any remaining packaging wastes, seek organisations thatwill recycle them, in order to avoid waste disposal charges.

2.5 OTHER BENEFITS

Besides the savings that can be gained directly through reducing, re-using and recycling packaging,other benefits can be realised, eg:

■ process management savings and increased efficiency;

■ improved logistics, eg reduction of fuel consumption;

■ reduced environmental impacts;

■ enhanced customer relationships;

■ promotion of a positive company image with stakeholders.

5

section

2

The issues in this Section are all discussed fully in the Environmental Technology BestPractice Programme Good Practice Guide (GG140) Cutting Costs and Waste by ReducingPackaging Use, available free of charge through the Environment and Energy Helplineon 0800 585794.

There are many sub-sectors in the food and drink industry, each using packaging in different ways.However, the examples contained in this Guide demonstrate the same principle - that large savingson packaging materials can be achieved through tried and tested waste minimisation techniquesthat apply to any company, whatever its function.

Each of the Industry Examples that follow describe the way each company approached its packagingissues and explains why and how the changes were made.

Industry Company TitleExample

1 Country Harvest Natural Foods Packaging reduction brings healthy results

2 Pedigree Masterfoods Optimisation of cardboard trays reduces packaging use

3 Douwe Egberts Trayless coffee packaging reduces packaging use

4 Nestlé Rowntree Elimination of inner collation wraps saves packaging costs

5 J Sainsbury plc Redesign of garlic bread packaging saves tonnes

6 Hartwall Bryggerier Re-usable trays improve handling and save money

7 The Boots Company Re-use of sandwich trays brings cost savings

8 Guinness Bulk purchase of label glue saves money

9 Devon Desserts Plastics recycling through separation of waste

Table 2 Industry Examples

6

section

3

I N D U S T R Y E X A M P L E S3

RE

DU

CE

Packaging reductionbrings healthy resultsA health food company has reducedthe thickness of plastic packaging on 1 kg packets of its range. CountryHarvest Natural Foods reduced thegauge of plastic film from 75 µm to 60 µm, reducing the cost of packagingper item. A larger transit box of highergrade cardboard was also introducedto improve transit efficiency,increasing the number of packetscarried from six to ten per box.

Savings and other benefits achieved

■ Overall savings achieved of £7 000/year - a saving of 1.12 pence/1 kg packet.

■ Increased line efficiency due to easier loading onto pallets.

■ Overall reduction in weight of packaging - leading to a reduced obligation under thepackaging waste regulations.

■ Benefits for the producer responsibility obligations of those companies supplied by CountryHarvest.

Background

The packaging previously consisted of six, 1 kg plastic packets of health foods, per cardboard transitbox. This plastic packaging cost 6.89 pence per 1 kg packet.

The design of six packs per box caused logistical problems during end-of-line handling, and to assistin calculating orders, it was felt it would be easier to handle ten packs per box than six. There wasalso potential for reducing the gauge of plastic film.

The reduction in plastic film gauge and increased transit efficiency has reduced the cost ofpackaging per product unit to 5.77 pence per 1 kg packet. Country Harvest anticipates making adirect cost saving in the first year following the introduction of these minimisation measures of£7 000 at current rates of production, and further savings are anticipated as production increases.

The investment cost was zero because the change merely entailed purchasing thinner specificationpackaging materials. Payback was therefore immediate.

About Country Harvest Natural Foods

Country Harvest Natural Foods is a small company with 60 full-time employees and a turnover of£10 million. The Company packs and delivers health foods including beans, breakfast cereals, driedfruits, nuts, seeds, pasta and pulses. Country Harvest’s packaging operation also specialises indeveloping ‘own label’ product ranges for other organisations such as supermarket chains.

7

section

3

I N D U S T R Y E X A M P L E 1

Larger transit box creates savings

RE

DU

CE

Optimisation of cardboard trays reducespackaging useSimply lowering the sides of cardboard transit trays has saved a pet foodcompany £100 000/year. Laboratory testing for Pedigree Masterfoods provedthat increasing the strength of the sales carton would allow the use of a ‘low-walled’ transit tray.

Savings achieved

■ Reduction in corrugated carton board of 49%.

■ Reduction in ink use of 49%.

■ Net reduction in white kraft board used for the trays of approximately 12% (afterstrengthening).

Background

The packaging system for Brekkiescat food was reviewed andredesigned with the intention ofachieving cost savings. Previously,cat food cartons were packed into a ‘high-walled’ cardboard tray.Laboratory compression testing andtravel testing showed that anincrease in the strength of thecarton would allow the use of a‘low-walled’ tray. This producedconsiderable reductions in materialuse and significant cost savings.

About PedigreeMasterfoods

Pedigree Masterfoods is a leading UK pet food manufacturer. It uses a wide range of packagingmedia and systems including bags, sacks, cartons and cans. As a major user of packaging materials,the Company considers the cost of packaging materials and their environmental impacts at everystage of the production process, ensuring that pallet utilisation is maximised, marketingrequirements are fulfilled and product integrity is maintained. The review of Brekkies cartonpackaging was originally a purely cost-driven exercise.

8

section

3

I N D U S T R Y E X A M P L E 2

Low-walled tray (front) reduces packaging costs

RE

DU

CE

Trayless coffee packaging reduces packaging useA coffee company has improved the use of shrink-wrap to hold packets in placeduring transit and for display on the shelf. Douwe Egberts has eliminatedcardboard transit trays and made transportation more efficient.

Summary of main savings achieved

■ Elimination of card, glue and printing on cardboard transit trays.

■ Elimination of plastic foil wrap from carton trays.

■ Reduction in weight of end packaging unit.

Background

Originally, coffee packets were packed on carton trays, and wrapped in plastic foil. On arrival at thepoint of sale, the plastic was removed and disposed of separately.

Now, cardboard transit trays for the coffee packets have been eliminated. Packets are held in placeduring transit and while on the shelf by the shrink-wrap. Perforations around the base of the shrink-wrap allow the top and sides to be removed for presentation on the shelves.

Overall reductions in operating costs of up to 15% for the supermarkets and supplier are anticipatedbecause of reduced shelving and loading labour costs. Increased flexibility in packet size and moreefficient shrink-wrappers have improved internal logistics at the production facility.

9

section

3

I N D U S T R Y E X A M P L E 3

Redesigned shrink-wrap (right) eliminates cardboard trays (left)

RE

DU

CE

Benefits

■ No card, glue or printing is required as the cardboard boxes have been eliminated.

■ A reduction in the weight of each packaging unit has been achieved.

■ Only plastic shrink-wrap is used, which is recyclable.

■ Transportation is more efficient.

■ The new shrink-wrap machine is more efficient and is flexible in regard to packet size.

About Douwe Egberts

Douwe Egberts is a company within Sara Lee/Douwe Egberts which is part of the Sara LeeCorporation. In 1992, Sara Lee/Douwe Egberts began a global corporate environmental programme.Corporate standards were set as part of an environmental management system, with eachoperational unit making efforts to achieve compliance with these standards through a target-setting,audit and review programme.

Packaging reduction is one of the targeted areas within the product management section of theenvironmental management programme. Another reason for targeting packaging was theintroduction of the packaging waste regulations, which opened up the potential for cost savingsthrough the minimisation of the obligation.

Future developments

Through the Sara Lee/Douwe Egberts corporate environmental management system, Douwe Egbertsis using tools such as life cycle analysis, machine tests and adaptations to pilot a range of packagingminimisation projects. These projects include aluminium-foil-free film, recycled cardboard and paper,and replacing large quantities of cardboard with small quantities of plastic.

10

section

3

Perforations in the trayless coffee pack transform it for presentation on the shelf

Tabs for easy removalof perforated section

Perforations inshrink-wrap

Entire pack is shrink-wrapped

for transportation

Perforated area is removedto allow consumers easy

access to packets

RE

DU

CE

Elimination of inner collation wraps savespackaging costsA chocolate manufacturer has eliminated a layer of wrapping for bumper packsof one of its best selling biscuits. Nestlé Rowntree has been able to eliminatethe inner collation wraps of its bumper packs of Kit Kat chocolate biscuitsbecause of the development of a new wrapping machine.

Savings achieved

■ Reduction of up to 100 tonnes/year of polypropylene.

■ Two-year payback on new wrapping machine.

Background

Owing to the limitations of the packaging machinery previously used by Nestlé, the two layers inbumper packs of Kit Kat chocolate biscuits had to be wrapped individually before they could becollated into the single bumper pack.

Questions and feedback from customers and the Packaging Council prompted Nestlé to spend sixmonths engineering a machine capable of wrapping without the need for the inner collation wrap.This was in accordance with Nestlé’s ongoing policy of packaging minimisation.

11

section

3

I N D U S T R Y E X A M P L E 4

New bumper pack (below) eliminates extra packaging layer

RE

DU

CE

The new machine

The engineering problem faced by Nestlé was the difficulty of packing one layer of Kit Kats aboveanother without extra wrapping to hold them in place. The new machine overcomes this problemof stability while being able to work at very high speeds. This has allowed the inner collation wrapsin the bumper packs to be eliminated and only a single outer wrapping used.

The machine was installed at the York site. A phased introduction was used owing to the significantcapital expenditure required, although the investment was paid for within two years by the costsavings made.

About Nestlé Rowntree

Nestlé Rowntree is the confectionery division of Nestlé UK Ltd, which is part of Nestlé SA, the world’sbiggest food manufacturer, based in Switzerland.

Nestlé Rowntree employs 14 000 people, about 3 500 of them at York where the Nestlé RowntreeDivision is headquartered.

Nestlé has a clear interest in protecting the environment and contributing to sustainabledevelopment. All of its activities, from procuring raw materials, through manufacturing thepackaging, to marketing and distribution, are continually analysed to see what effect they may haveon the environment. Every effort is made to reduce the impact, year on year. The reduction ofplastic for packaging the Kit Kat 16-pack is just one example where this approach has been used.

12

section

3

RE

DU

CE

Redesign of garlic bread packaging savestonnesA supermarket company has redesigned the packaging of one of its own-brandfood products. Sainsbury’s garlic bread is now sold in a single layer ofpolypropylene and polyester plastic film, saving 160 tonnes/year of packaging.

Savings and other benefits achieved

■ Net savings of 160 tonnes/year of packaging.

■ Improved transport optimisation due to space saved on lorry loads.

■ Reduced obligation under the packaging waste regulations for supplier.

■ Reduction in packaging waste to the consumer.

Background

The previous bread packaging was a 500 µm white-lined cardboard carton weighing 34 g, madewith 75% recycled material and a 20 µm plastic film (3.0 g).

The product is now packaged in a single layer of polypropylene and polyester plastic film weighing 5.9 g.

13

section

3

I N D U S T R Y E X A M P L E 5

Polypropylene single sleeve replaces cardboard box and plastic inner sleeve

RE

DU

CE

Sainsbury’s estimates that net savings in packaging material of 160 tonnes/year have been achievedas a result of the redesign of the product packaging. Annual use of 175 tonnes of cardboard, 14tonnes of melinex plastic and over a tonne of solvent glue have been replaced by just 30 tonnes ofpolypropylene and polyester. This measure represents an optimisation in transport and lorry fill, andevidence of environmental improvement. These benefits are also passed to Sainsbury’s suppliers,which achieve a reduced obligation under the packaging waste regulations.

Sainsbury’s worked closely with its packaging suppliers and bread suppliers to manufacture theproduct more effectively without adversely affecting marketability or performance. The ultimatedriver for these improvements is Sainsbury’s environmental goal of reducing packaging in line withcorporate environmental policy.

Development and introduction of the new packaging

Packaging trials were conducted with the packaging and bread suppliers to ensure that theproduct could be flow wrapped on existing machinery, while achieving an effective seal to maintainproduct integrity. In addition, transit tests were conducted by the bread supplier to ensure that therewas no increase in product damage during distribution.

Distribution trials were also completed by Sainsbury’s, which found that the new packagingassisted distribution by enabling more items to be loaded onto distribution lorries.

Marketing tests were carried out by Sainsbury’s to ensure that the new packaging would conveythe same information and image of the product in the new design package.

About J Sainsbury plc

J Sainsbury plc operates three separate store chains and a bank in the UK, and a store chain in theUSA. In 1996, J Sainsbury plc published the first environment report by any UK food retailer. Thiswas followed by a 1997 interim environmental report which stated progress against targets setacross all areas of the business.

The redesign of the garlic bread packaging is just one of a number of environmental initiativesundertaken by Sainsbury’s. Many of Sainsbury’s major achievements, as well as new priorities andenvironmental initiatives, are detailed in the Company’s comprehensive 1998 environment report.

14

section

3

RE

DU

CE

AN

D R

E-U

SE

Re-usable trays improve handling and savemoneyA drinks company has developed a re-usable ‘tray and dolly’ system fortransporting drinks that eliminates the need for secondary packaging. Thesystem, designed and implemented by Hartwall Brewery, Finland, makeshandling PET bottles easier, improving handling for both the supplier andretailer.

Summary of main savings achieved

For the bottler:

■ A cost saving of £1.13 in packaging for every 100 bottles distributed.

■ Reduced overall operating costs of 15% through reduced loading and shelving labour costs.

■ Use of lighter trays increases bottles per lorry load by 40%.

Background

A system of moulded plastic trays on wheeledtrolleys has been developed by the Finnishbrewery Hartwall Bryggerier. The trays are fivetimes lighter than previously used crates, andenable 40% more bottles per lorry load to betransported.

In response to customers’ needs, HartwallBryggerier developed the ‘tray and dolly’system, which is a shallow plastic tray on awheeled dolly. It is ideal for bulk distributionand merchandising of drinks in PET bottles.

The tray is designed to be used in either atotally automated or a manual environment.The product can be packed automatically atthe time of production onto the new tray anddolly combinations and rolled directly onto theshop floor, eliminating the need for cratesaltogether. The bottles are held securely inmoulded depressions in the tray.

A total of 220 1.5 litre bottles can bedistributed on a stack of trays 600 mm x 800 mm, and 100 on a stack of trays 400 mmx 600 mm. There are now trays to fit both 0.33 litre and 0.5 litre sized bottles.

15

section

3

I N D U S T R Y E X A M P L E 6

Novel re-usable tray system brings many benefits

RE

DU

CE

AN

D R

E-U

SE

Reductions in operating costs of up to 15% are anticipated due to reduced loading and shelving labour costs. The application of typical data for the use of this system at Hartwall Breweryresults in the estimate of savings shown in the table below. The new trays enable a cost saving of£2 on every half-pallet distribution.

Traditional tray: 192 x 1.5 litre bottles (£) New tray and dolly: 220 x 1.5 bottles (£)

5 carton trays @ £0.25 each 1.25 6 new trays @ £3.87 each 23.22

Shrink foil 1.34 Replacement cost (based on 1/100th cost 0.23 of new trays)

Cost of manual depacking 0.09 Return cost and washing 0.43

Cost of waste handling 0.06

Total packaging cost every half-pallet 2.74 Total packaging cost every half-pallet 0.66

Packaging cost/100 bottles 1.43 Packaging cost/100 bottles 0.30

Saving on every 100 bottles distributed using the new trays = £1.13.

The new tray compared with traditional trays per half-pallet

Benefits

For the bottler:

■ Direct cost savings of £1.10 on every 100 bottles distributed.

■ Nearly 15% more bottles distributed each load.

■ Nearly 15% more ‘in stock’ without occupying more space.

■ Lower obligation under packaging waste regulations.

■ Reduced production labour due to automation between production and point of sale.

For the supermarkets:

■ The new trays are made from recyclable polypropylene.

■ Bottles are ready-packed for supermarket display.

■ Higher quantity of product on the same floor space.

■ Reduced manual handling cost in stacking on shelves.

About Hartwall Bryggerier

Hartwall Bryggerier is the largest brewery in Finland, owned by the Hartwall Oy Group, which ownsa number of breweries across Russia and northern Europe. K Hartwall is the packaging arm of thegroup and produces a wide range of material handling products and markets them globally for thebeverage, dairy, retail and wholesale sectors.

16

section

3

RE

DU

CE

AN

D R

E-U

SE

Re-use of sandwich trays brings cost savingsA high street sandwich retailer is re-using transit trays for delivery anddisplay of sandwiches, meaning the trays are no longer used only once,but re-used about three times. The Boots Company has developed asystem for re-using its plastic trays without any alteration or redesign.

Savings and other benefits achieved

■ Savings of 163 tonnes/year of plastic.

■ Estimated cost savings of around £500 000/year.

■ Reduces the packaging obligation costs for Boots and its suppliers.

■ Payback is immediate.

17

section

3

I N D U S T R Y E X A M P L E 7

Re-usable sandwich trays

RE

DU

CE

AN

D R

E-U

SE

Background

In 1993, Boots undertook a packaging audit with the aim of identifying areas where packagingcould be minimised. The trays used for the transportation and display of sandwiches were targetedfor reduction, re-use or recycling. Plastic trays used for the transit and display of sandwiches werereplaced every day.

The reduction of 163 tonnes/year of plastic through re-use was achieved in a number of stages.

A marketing decision was made to remove the front label from the trays. This meant that the trayscould be re-used for any filled sandwiches. Boots then worked with its suppliers to agree a systemof logistics.

Boots staff stack empty trays ready for collection by the logistics company. The logistics companycollects the empty trays daily, sorts and removes broken trays, and returns re-usable trays to thesandwich supplier. Each tray is now used at least three times. Broken trays are returned to thesupplier for recycling.

The success of this new system is entirely due to the partnership developed between Boots, thelogistics company and the sandwich supplier.

As a result of this system, 5.1 million trays/year are re-used. At an estimated average cost of 10 pence/tray, the cost saving is £510 000/year.

About The Boots Company

The Boots Company is the parent company of Boots The Chemists, which is the largest chain of retailchemists in the UK and one of the largest retailers of sandwiches. Boots has implemented a numberof environmental initiatives and achievements, including the recycling of over 11 000 tonnes ofwaste packaging and the use of 11 700 tonnes of recycled materials during 1996/97. Moreover,since 1996/97, over 2 000 tonnes/year of waste from the Company’s main site has been treated byincineration with energy recovery rather than landfill.

18

section

3

RE

-US

E

Bulk purchase of label glue saves moneyThe packaging arm of a major brewer swapped glue pails for intermediate bulkcontainers (IBCs) and saved 1.5 tonnes/year of plastic polyethylene. GuinnessPackaging used glue for sticking labels to bottles, from plastic polyethylenepails, but glue is now supplied in re-usable 1 000 kg IBCs.

Savings achieved

■ 1.5 tonnes/year of plastic polyethylene saved.

■ The purchase cost of glue was reduced by £166/tonne through bulk buying, giving animmediate cost saving of £13 000/year.

■ 5 tonnes/year of glue saved from eliminating the 1.5 kg of glue remaining in each plastic pailafter use - saving £7 500/year.

Background

Glue for adhering product labels to bottles was previously supplied in 25 kg plastic polyethylenepails. These pails were used once and sent for disposal.

19

section

3

I N D U S T R Y E X A M P L E 8

Re-usable bulk glue container saves money

RE

-US

ESeventy plastic pails of glue were used and sent for disposal every week. In 1994, it was decided tobegin discussions with the glue supplier over a more efficient method of glue delivery. This wasbecause of concern over the levels of packaging used through delivery of glue in pails, and also theneed for a faster packaging process to meet increased production demand.

The bulk containers of glue are made of reinforced PVC and contain up to 1 000 kg of glue. Theyare returned to the supplier for refilling once a week. Installation of the container system, includinghoses and heaters, incurred an initial capital cost of £20 000.

Additional benefits

Energy and disposal savings have also been made due to the reduced number of deliveries requiredfrom the supplier and the removal of plastic from the waste stream.

About Guinness Packaging

Guinness Packaging is located on the Whitehouse Industrial Estate in Runcorn. It employs 220 people producing small beverage packs for home consumption. The product range covers allwidgetted can products and standard canned and bottled products. The plant handles over 100product lines with an output of 12.5 million cases/year.

20

section

3

Guinness product range

RE

-US

E

Plastics recycling through separation ofwasteA dessert manufacturer has developed a machine that separates end-of-linepackaging from food waste. Devon Desserts in Newton Abbot, Devon, now sellsfood waste as animal feed, providing additional profit and reducing wastedisposal costs.

Savings and other benefits achieved

■ Reduced waste disposal costs.

■ Additional revenue from sale ofproduction effluent as pig food.

■ Improved on-site housekeeping.

Background

Devon Desserts, which is part of BG Foods Ltd,makes individually packed desserts such ascheesecakes and trifles. Rejected finishedproduct, still in its packaging, was previouslydisposed of to landfill via a compactor. It wasdecided to develop a new machine to combatthe high costs and untidiness involved in theco-disposal of packaging and product.

The Company designed and built a prototypemachine ‘in-house’, the majority of parts beingfrom redundant equipment. The machineseparates waste end-of-line product from itspackaging. This enables the plastic cartonpackaging (with foil still attached) to be sentfor compaction and recycling. The separatedsolid product waste is then mixed with liquidfood waste from the production process. Thisresults in a ‘swill’ which is sold as pig feed,thereby reducing both waste disposal and effluent charges.

There was little cost to the Company in developing the new machine. Running costs are lowbecause the machine requires only a small amount of electricity and only two hours/day of staff timefor loading and maintenance.

21

section

3

I N D U S T R Y E X A M P L E 9

Prototype waste separation machine

RE

-US

E

22

The prototype machine

Waste product and packaging is loaded into a hopper. The cartons move along the column by ascrew which slices open the foil lids. The solid product is washed out by liquid food effluent pumpedfrom the pig feed tank. The liquid, now with a higher solids content, is returned to the pig feed tankfor subsequent sale. The empty cartons and foil lids go to a compactor and are sent for recycling.

About Devon Desserts

Devon Desserts is based on the Brunel Industrial Estate in Newton Abbot, Devon. The currentpremises were opened in August 1990 and the Company presently employs 300 people. DevonDesserts is wholly owned by BG Foods Ltd, the parent Group based in Sevenoaks, Kent. Productsinclude cheesecakes, trifles and hot puddings. These are supplied to all major supermarket and foodretail chains.

section

3

Schematic diagram of the waste separation machine

Cartons

Pig feedtankLiquid

productionwaste

Empty washedcartons and

foil lids

Solids and liquid food effluentpumped back to pig feed tank

Compactor

23

section

4

A C T I O N P L A N4

Call the Environment and Energy Helpline on 0800 585794 to obtain copies ofrelevant Guides.

Get senior management commitment to reduce packaging waste and save oncosts.

Set up a team and carry out a review of product packaging.

Analyse results and decide on the areas to change. Decide on the first project - onethat will have the largest saving potential for the least effort.

Liaise and work with suppliers and customers to exchange ideas and agreechanges, eg returnable transit packaging.

Investigate new materials and technology, and innovative and environmentallysound packaging design.

Develop and implement changes.

Monitor savings and other benefits.

Report on successes.

Repeat with other products.

If necessary, obtain help.The Environment and Energy Helpline (0800 585794) can:

provide further advice about the techniques described in this Guide;

tell you about relevant environmental and other regulations that could affect youroperations;

send you copies of relevant Environmental Technology Best Practice Programmepublications;

arrange for a specialist to contact your company if you employ fewer than 250people, at the discretion of the Helpline Manager.

ADVICE

Advice on current legislation and packaging use is available through the Environment and EnergyHelpline on 0800 585794.

Advice on all aspects of packaging is also available from:

The Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment (INCPEN)Tenterden House, 3 Tenterden Street,London W1R 9AHTel: 0171 409 0949Fax: 0171 409 0161e-mail: info@incpen.org

PUBLICATIONS

The publications listed below are all available free of charge through the Environment and EnergyHelpline on 0800 585794.

Good Practice Guide (GG140) Cutting Costs and Waste by Reducing Packaging UseGood Practice Guide (GG141) Choosing and Managing Re-usable Transit Packaging

The Guides below are designed to give practical advice to reduce waste at source and save money.

Saving Money Through Waste Minimisation

For larger companies:

Getting Started (GS25)

Raw Material Use (GG25)

Reducing Water Use (GG26)

Teams and Champions (GG27)

For smaller companies & workshops:

Cutting Costs by Reducing Waste: A Self-help Guide for Growing Businesses (GG38C)

For all companies:

Cost-effective Water Saving Devices and Practices (GG67)

Finding Hidden Profit - 200 Tips for Reducing Waste (ET30)

24

section

5

F U R T H E R I N F O R M AT I O N5

The Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme is a joint Department of Trade and Industry

and Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions programme. It is managed by

AEA Technology plc through ETSU and the National Environmental Technology Centre.

The Programme offers free advice and information for UK businesses and promotes

environmental practices that:

■ increase profits for UK industry and commerce;

■ reduce waste and pollution at source.

To find out more about the Programme please call the Environment and Energy Helpline on

freephone 0800 585794. As well as giving information about the Programme, the Helpline has

access to a wide range of environmental information. It offers free advice to UK businesses on

technical matters, environmental legislation, conferences and promotional seminars. For smaller

companies, a free counselling service may be offered at the discretion of the Helpline Manager.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY HELPLINE

0800 585794e-mail address: etbppenvhelp@aeat.co.uk

world wide web: http://www.etsu.com/etbpp/