Reusable Packaging Factors Report

7/29/2019 Reusable Packaging Factors Report

1/68

Final report: Reusable Packaging - Factors to Consider

Single Trip or Reusable Packaging

- Considering the Right Choice for

the Environment

This report describes the factors which need to be considered whenreviewing the environmental performance of single-trip and reusablepackaging systems. It is the result of a review of the findings of LifeCycle Assessments and similar studies comparing the environmentalburden of single-trip and reusable packaging systems.

Project code: RHI007-001 ISBN: 1-84405-437-3

Research date: March-March 2010 Date: 1 May 2010


2/68

WRAPs vision is a world without waste,where resources are used sustainably.

We work with businesses and individuals

to help them reap the benefits of reducingwaste, develop sustainable products anduse resources in an efficient way.

Find out more atwww.wrap.org.uk

Written by: Greg Wood and Michael Sturges of Edge, member of the Innventia Group of companies

Front cover photography: Reusable transit packaging example

WRAP and Innventia Edge believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and

regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken

in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.).

The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to

ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being

inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain

whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by

WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to thematerial being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must

not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAPs endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAPs Terms & Conditions on its

web site: www.wrap.org.uk
http://www.wrap.org.uk/http://www.wrap.org.uk/http://www.wrap.org.uk/http://www.wrap.org.uk/


3/68

Single Trip or Reusable Packaging - Considering the Right Choice for the Environment 1

Executive Summary

Introduction

Packaging - whether single-trip or reusable - plays a crucial function protecting goods, preventing damage during

transport and storage from the elements, vibration, drop and compression. It also provides the opportunity to

communicate information to a customer regarding the products contents whether promotional, factual or

mandated by law, as well as providing product security e.g. making items more tamper-resistant.

Packaging is only one element of a products overall environmental impact and often only represents 10% of the

overall impact of the product / packaging system. It is a highly visible use of resources accounting for about a

fifth of the household waste stream and between a tenth to a twentieth of commercial and industrial waste1. It

is, therefore, an issue of concern to both consumers and policy makers. These concerns are reflected in WRAPs

2008-2011 business plan, which identifies packaging as one of four priority areas.

Perceptions of can be reinforced by the single-trip nature of the majority of packaging, especially consumer

packaging. There are significant examples of reusable packaging systems in existence, which may offer potential

environmental and/or economic benefits over single-trip solutions; however, reusable packaging systems are notalways appropriate solutions. If conditions are not appropriate, the environmental and/or economic costs of

reusable packaging will outweigh the benefits. As a result of this, the extent to which reuse of packaging offers

genuine environmental benefits remains a central element of the resource efficient packaging debate.

Project Objective

The aim of this report is to help packaging decision makers to consider single-trip and reusable packaging options

on an informed basis. This is achieved by identifying the key factors from an environmental life cycle

perspective that influence the environmental performance of reusable packaging systems.

Methodology

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a technique that quantifies the environmental impacts of a product or system,

typically from the cradle to the grave i.e. from the winning and conversion of raw materials, through

manufacturing of products, distribution, use, and finally management of wastes2. Many LCA studies have been

performed that evaluate and compare reusable packaging systems and equivalent single-trip packaging solutions.

A structured and reasoned review of these existing studies was made in order to identify key trends.

Understanding the commonalities and differences between studies and results helps WRAP and other interested

parties to better understand the conditions under which reusable packaging may be environmentally preferable to

single-trip packaging solutions.

Factors which affect relative environmental performance of single-trip and reusable

packaging systems

Examination of the LCA studies allowed those factors which consistently had a significant influence on the results

- for most impact categories - to be identified. These factors have been categorised asprimary factors. Those

125.3 million tonnes of household waste were collected in England in 2007/08, with packaging accounting for around 5 million

tonnes. Commercial and industrial waste is estimated around 68 million tonnes. Packaging waste arsing in the commercial and

industrial waste streams is estimated at around 5 million tonnes.

Sources: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) online statistics and Environment Agency, Commercial

and Industrial Waste Survey, 2002/03.

2Some of the LCA studies included in the reviews were Cradle to Cradle, rather than Cradle to Grave, depending on the scope

of that individual study.


4/68


factors which also have an influence, but typicallyaffect results to a lesser degree or only influence results for

isolated impact categories have been classified assecondary.

Drawn from the review of LCAs, primary factors which influence the relative environmental performance of

single-trip and reusable packaging systems are:

Raw materials and energy used in manufacture Single-trip packaging systemstotal environmental

impact is more dependent on raw material and energy use in pack manufacture than reusable packaging due

to the whole of the burden being associated with a single trip, whereas the burden is shared equally between

the total number of lifetime trips for reusable packaging.

Trip rates for reusables The number of trips made by reusable packaging in its lifetime is critical because

it determines the allocation of the most significant environmental burden, package manufacturing, to each trip

made by the reusable packaging. The more trips a reusable packaging makes the lower its proportion of that

burden becomes. However, as the number of trips increases the proportional decrease in environmental

burden becomes lower.

Transportation distances The return trip for reusables becomes significant when longer transport

distances are considered. Therefore, longer journey distances tend to favour single-trip packaging, shorter

journey distances tend to favour reusable packaging.Pool size for reusables The number of packaging units required to support a reusable packaging system

is significantly higher than the number of packaging units required for the immediate and current product

supply at any one point in time. This is to allow for the time taken for the return logistics, cleaning, seasonal

peaks in volumes, damages and losses in the system.

Vehicle utilisation Reusable packaging is usually heavier and usually occupies a greater volume than

single-trip solutions, in order to withstand the rigours of multiple trips. The effect is to reduce cube utilisation

and therefore additional transport journeys may be required to transport a given amount of product

Recycled content and post-consumer recycling The relative environmental performance of single-trip

packaging compared to reusable packaging may be significantly influenced by the recycled content of the

single-trip packaging format.

Secondary factors, influencing the relative environmental performance of single-trip and reusable packaging,

identified through the LCA reviews include:

LCA methodology decisions, especially allocation and treatment of carbon sequestration

End-of-life waste management scenarios considered

Location of recycling facilities

Transportation modes

Energy mix in the systems modelled

Impacts associated with the washing and repair of reusable packaging

Impacts associated with the secondary, tertiary and ancillary packaging required to service each packagingsystem.

Scope of LCAs Reviewed

Commercial factors are not covered in the scope of the work but they are fundamental to the decision making

process. In order for a reusable system to be successful, there must be clear cost benefits to the participants,

quality improvements and benefits to the service; all these commercial and consumer aspects must be balanced

against the environmental considerations.

A key factor, from both an environmental and commercial perspective, that could not be considered (as it was

not within the scope of the LCAs reviewed) was product damage. Damage occurring during normal distributionand storage of packaged products can have a significant influence on the environmental burden of the packaged

product system.


5/68


Packaging has a vital role in protecting products as well as wider consumer benefits. A fundamental role of any

packaging is to deliver the product to the customer or consumer in fit for purpose, undamaged condition. If a

product is damaged in distribution it results in the waste of that product, or it being sold at reduced cost or

having to be repaired. Because all the product manufacturing, packaging and logistics processes of that

damaged item have already occurred, and have been wasted as a consequence of the damage, their impact on

the environmental burden of the complete system can be significant. This is particularly important where the

ratio of the environmental burden associated with product manufacture versus packaging and delivery is high or

where damage rates are significant. The burden of product damage may outweigh the combined burden of allthe factors relating to the packaging surrounding it.

Therefore, the impact on product damage rates between different single-trip and reusable packaging systems is a

highly significant commercial and environmental factor and for this reason must be considered when choosing

between alternatives.

The LCAs reviewed represent those which - as far as was possible - were conducted in compliance with ISO

14040 but even those that do not meet this standard also inform the objective of this report; to identify factors

critical to packaging system choice. The LCAs were inconsistent in format, system boundaries, and reporting

detail and relatively few detailed findings of any critical review. However the authors of this report have

examined the results of the individual LCAs reviewed and have only included those factors that have consistently

emerged as important considerations in selection of most appropriate systems.

The majority of LCA studies conducted, and indeed of those reviewed in this report, are sponsored or

commissioned by parties who have a vested commercial interest in the findings of those studies. The body

performing the study will follow the goal and scope defined by the commissioning organisation. The LCA

standards frameworks - including ISO 14040 - allow methodological choices to be made within a framework and

cannot govern data robustness. LCAs conducted on behalf of interested parties are therefore able to express the

results, and in particular the conclusions of a study, to favour their own interests.

Conclusions on the environmental advantages of different packaging systems are dependant on the priorities set

for each impact category. Discrimination between concepts and materials on the basis of LCA findings should be

avoided when the results of in-depth sensitivity analyses are not available.

Is reusable packaging the right choice for the environment - Conclusions

Despite a number of limitations of Life Cycle Assessments, including the lack of consideration of product damage,

the reviews undertaken as part of this project highlight that data and information from LCAs can be useful when

considering reusable packaging systems.

Identified through the review of LCA studies, this report highlights the key factors that influence the

environmental performance of single-trip and reusable packaging systems. The identification of these primary,

secondary and other factors should help packaging decision makers to consider alternative packaging options on

an informed basis and crucially will help establish priorities for minimising the environmental impacts of those

systems, whichever format is used.

The LCAs also demonstrate that the relative merits of single use and reusable packaging are dependent on the

specific circumstances of the individual product, packaging format, supply chain and logistics in a given situation.

It is not possible to state outright that one packaging format is generically environmentally preferable to the

other, as it may vary according to these factors.

Even where a LCA study has been undertaken thoroughly for a specific product and packaging format (with an in-

depth sensitivity analysis), the findings may not show conclusively that a particular packaging system has

environmental advantages over another, although there will also be studies where a clear environmental

preference is observable.

Ultimately, of course, a reusable packaging system will need to prove that it can deliver commercial benefits -

through cost savings and quality improvements - as well as environmental benefits in order to be successful.


6/68


Contents

1.0 Introduction and Objectives....................................................................................................... 71.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 71.2 Project Objective ................................................................................................................. 91.3 How the Report is Structured ............................................................................................... 9

2.0

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) .................................................................................................... 10

2.1 LCA Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 112.2 LCA Limitations ................................................................................................................. 11

3.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 134.0 Factors which affect relative environmental performance of Single-Trip and ReusablePackaging Systems ............................................................................................................................... 14

4.1 Primary Factors ................................................................................................................. 154.1.1 Raw materials and energy used in manufacture ....................................................... 154.1.2 Trip rates of reusables ........................................................................................... 154.1.3 Transportation distances........................................................................................ 184.1.4 Pool size for reusables ........................................................................................... 204.1.5 Vehicle utilisation .................................................................................................. 214.1.6 Recycled content and recycling rates ...................................................................... 22

4.2 4.2 Secondary Factors ....................................................................................................... 234.2.1 Allocation ............................................................................................................. 234.2.2 Location of recycling ............................................................................................. 244.2.3 End of life waste management ............................................................................... 244.2.4 Transportation mode ............................................................................................. 244.2.5 Energy mix in the system ...................................................................................... 254.2.6 Repair of reusable secondary packaging .................................................................. 254.2.7 Cleaning of reusable packaging .............................................................................. 254.2.8 Secondary, tertiary and ancillary packaging ............................................................. 26

4.3 Other Factors .................................................................................................................... 264.3.1 Pack sizes ............................................................................................................ 264.3.2 Commissioning and Sponsoring Organisation ........................................................... 264.3.3 Carbon sequestration ............................................................................................ 275.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 28

List of Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 31Appendix 1 Review of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) ...................................................................... 32Appendix 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 61Appendix 3 List of LCAs identified ..................................................................................................... 65


7/68


Glossary

CBB Corrugated board box

Closed-Loop distribution the process of storing and transporting packaging and goods to the final customer on a

closely controlled supply and return basis. Packaging used for distributing products is closely matched bypackaging returning

DRC Display ready corrugated containers

DSD Duales System Deutschland

FPC Folding plastic crate

GHG Greenhouse gas

HDPE High density polyethylene

IBC Intermediate bulk container

LCA Life cycle assessment

LCI Life cycle inventory

PCF Potential carbon footprint

PET Polyester (polyethylene terephthalate)

PP Polypropylene

Ribbon distribution - the process of storing and transporting packaging and goods to final customer on a widely

dispersed and linear basis. Packaging supplied moves down through the supply chain often not returning directly

to source or returned from source through a relatively tortuous and often non economic route

RPC Reusable or returnable plastic crates or containers

RTP Returnable transit packaging

Single-trip packaging packaging used to protect a product on a single journey through the supply chain from

supplier to the end user of the product, where the packaging has no further use and is disposed of (e.g. via

recycling or waste disposal).

Return rate The average rate of return of reusable packaging after each trip, usually expressed as a percentage

Reusable packaging packaging used to protect a product on multiple journeys through all or part of the supply

chain from supplier to the end user of the product.

Trippage rate The average number of trips a reusable packaging makes in its l ifetime


8/68


Acknowledgements

The authors of this report would like to acknowledge the co-operation and input of the following individuals and

organisations who responded to the literature review consultation exercise. The input from these stakeholders

has helped to ensure that a comprehensive list of studies comparing single-trip and reusable packaging was

identified and provided the basis for this project:

Angelina de Beaufort

Apeal

Ardagh Glass

BSDA

British Glass

Centre for Design, RMIT University

CEPI

Chalmers University of Technology

CPI

DTI (Danish Technology Institute)

German Association of Drinks Carton Manufacturers

FEFCO

FEVE

Home Retail Group

INCPEN

ITENE

Kees Sonneveld

Loadhog

Loughborough University

Michigan State University

Pakkaustutkimus PTR ry

Tesco

TetraPak

Valpak

Virginia Tech.


9/68


10/68


Cube utilisation as it relates to transport and storage costs, reusable systems often occupy more volume

than equivalent single-trip systems

Potential for increase in product damage due to the introduction of new or different damage mechanisms

Closed-loop versus ribbon and wide-dispersal distribution systems closed-loop distribution systems maintain

control and visibility of reusable packaging as an asset and usually comprise a small number of locations and

distribution steps. Ribbon and wide-dispersal distribution have a large number of distribution steps to a large

number of highly dispersed locations and therefore both increase the number of reusables necessary for thesystem to operate, but also reduce return and cycle rates

Requirement for new or multiple handling systems

Size of the returnable packaging pool required to service the system.

As a result of these wide ranging and variable factors, the extent to which reuse of products, especially

packaging, offers genuine environmental benefits remains a central element of the waste and resource

management debate. In the furtherance of the drive for resource efficient packaging, this study seeks to provide

interested parties with independent and best available information.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a technique that quantifies the environmental impacts of a product or system,

typically from the cradle to the grave i.e. from the winning and conversion of raw materials, through

manufacturing of products, distribution, use, and finally management of wastes. Many LCA studies have beenperformed that evaluate and compare reusable packaging systems and equivalent single-trip packaging solutions.

In addition, other environmental appraisals have also investigated the impacts of reusable versus single-trip

packaging, for example spoilage studies and cost-benefit analysis studies.

Although few of the LCAs and appraisals considered in this review included data on product damage, this has the

potential to have a signification bearing on the environmental impact of a product or packaging system. The role

of packaging in preventing damage and spoilage must be considered alongside findings in this report.

Product damage is linked to the wider commercial considerations when deciding between reusable and single-trip

packaging formats. In order for a reusable system to be successful, there must be clear cost benefits to the

participants, quality improvements and benefits to the service; all these commercial and consumer aspects must

be balanced against the environmental considerations

4

.

As per previous WRAP projects (for example, investigating the findings of LCA studies comparing recycling versus

disposal of waste materials5), a structured and reasoned review can identify key trends from the studies.

Understanding the commonalities and differences between studies and results will also help WRAP and other

interested parties to better understand the conditions under which reusable packaging may be environmentally

preferable to single-trip packaging solutions. This will therefore support objectives to improve resource efficiency,

reduce carbon emissions and prevent waste.

4The Advisory Committee on Packaging on Reuse Taskforce has produced a report which provides information on the

commercial and consumer barriers of reusable systems. It has a focus on primary reuse systems in the beverage sector but

includes secondary and transit packaging examples as well.

5The Environmental Benefits of Recycling2010 Updateavailable to download at -

http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Environmental_benefits_of_recycling_2010_update.d1dbe41b.8816.pdf


11/68


1.2 Project Objective

The aim of this report is to help packaging decision makers to consider single-trip and reusable packaging options

on an informed basis. This is achieved by identifying the key factors from an environmental life cycle

perspective that influence the environmental performance of reusable packaging systems.

1.3 How the Report is Structured

Reporting for this project is contained in two sections. This main body of the report details the factors which

should be considered when choosing single-trip or reusable packaging, while Appendix 1 provides the reviews

conducted which informs the content of this report.

Sections 2 and 4 of this report present boxes within the text that highlight examples drawn from the individual

reviews. Further details of individual LCA studies quoted in these boxes can be found in Appendix 1 -Review of

LCA Studies.


12/68


2.0 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)LCA is a technique to quantify the environmental impacts of a product or system on the basis of inventories of

environmental factors. This can be a product, a process or an activity. It begins at the extraction of raw

materials (including mining, forestry and agriculture) through manufacturing of products, distribution, use and

ends with their final disposal (landfill or incineration) or subsequent reuse or recycling, as defined in the scope of

the study. At the conclusion of an LCA study, a profile of environmental inputs and outputs will have been

constructed for a product, a process or an activity. The profile will provide quantitative data for the inputs; that

is energy, fuels and raw materials, and the outputs; that is airborne emissions, waterborne discharges, and solidwastes. The various environmental burdens described within the study can then be compared between products,

processes or activities. The methodological approach is summarised below.

Figure 1: LCA methodology

Goal and

scope

definition

Inventory

analysis

Impact

assessment

Interpretation

Source: ISO 14040

ISO international standards (ISO14040:2006 and 14044:2006) define LCA methodology, but by necessity thesestandards are non-prescriptive. They set out a framework to be followed that ensures that LCA practitioners

identify all the parameters and decisions that need to be made in order to complete a justifiable and transparent

study.

The methodology consists of four stages: goal and scope definition; inventory analysis; impact assessment and

interpretation. The whole process is iterative, and it is possible and sometimes necessary to adjust the goal and

scope as a result of findings during the inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation stages.

Thegoal and scope of the study defines the objectives, the system boundaries to be considered, the

functional unit, data choices, and the environmental impact categories.

The inventory analysis of the study collates and calculates the inputs and outputs of the system.

The impact assessment of the study takes these inputs and outputs and presents their impact against the

chosen environmental impact categories.

Interpretation of the study findings is the process used to interpret and compare results from options.

The degree to which supply chain specific data is required and the stringency of data quality needed will depend

upon the defined goal and scope. For projects where external communication of results is to be made, especially

to compare alternatives or competitors, compliance with the International Standards requires that an independent

critical review of the work done and data used is included. This adds time and expense to the process but

ensures credibility.


13/68


Defining the goal and scope of the study sets the parameters for the subsequent modelling activities.

Some important considerations addressed during this stage are:

Study objectives what is the principal aim of the project? This will influence the subsequent data quality

requirements, the remit of the critical review panel, the expertise required for critical review, etc.

Intended audience who will need to read and understand the results and conclusions? This will influence the

way results are presented, the type of reporting required, etc.

System boundaries what unit process are to be included within the analysis?

The functional unit what is the functional unit? The function that a system delivers so that comparisons

between different scenarios and alternatives can be made.

Data quality indicators is the data available for modelling sufficient for delivering against the goal and

scope?

The choice of data and data quality which data can be sourced from publically available, average datasets

and which data should be supply chain specific?

Environmental impacts and categories - which environmental impacts and impact categories are to be used in

the final analysis?

2.1 LCA Benefits

By collecting data that as close as possible describes the environmental burdens associated with the entire life

cycle of a product, and modelling the environmental impact of the inputs and outputs, it is possible to make an

objective environmental comparison between alternatives. It enables comparison of alternatives based on a

number of environmental impact categories, chosen during goal and scope definition, such as CO2, SO2, total

greenhouse gas, or other airborne emissions, as well as - for example - total energy, solid wastes, aquatic and

terrestrial eutrophication etc. It therefore enables judgements and selections to be made against specific impact

categories or on a bundle of impact categories.

2.2 LCA Limitations

Like any model using data captured from a large number of sources and seeking to calculate an end result, thequality and accuracy of the end result is only as good as the quality of data inputs and the scientific rigour of the

LCA practitioner. As with any complex modelling exercise, data inaccuracies can compound one another

producing positive or negative errors. International standardisation via ISO 14040 and 14044 seek to provide a

methodology and provide a framework for uniformity of approach and transparency but some limitations persist:

Setting system boundaries and choice of impact categories

Selection of data sources (actual specific data, average country data, European data etc.)

Data quality or data gaps

Use of average data

It is possible (by selecting particular system boundaries, impact categories, data and data sources) to influence

the results and conclusions of a study by a significant degree. This is indeed why the ISO standards series puts

emphasis on transparency and critical review. Sensitivity analysis of results to any average data or data of

questionable quality can often reveal whether any significant differences arise in a study.

It follows that it is very important when interpreting LCA studies to ensure that sufficient explanation of the

system and data sources is provided. Pay particular attention to any potential interests of the

commissioning organisations to ensure that the system or systems have been treated fairly and

appropriately.


14/68


Product Damage

This study found that none of the LCA studies reviewed considered product damage within their system

boundaries but both WRAP and the authors of the report recognise the critical importance of damage rates. It is

not possible to ascertain why the boundaries of the LCAs were drawn to exclude product damage. This may be

simply due to how boundaries were initially drawn for each study (i.e. with a narrow packaging focus), or may

reflect the difficulties that LCA practitioners have in finding reliable data to support an analysis including product

damage (both product Life Cycle Inventory data and product damage data would be required).

Figure 2: What the LCAs say about their own conclusions *

* Further details of individual LCA studies quoted can be found in Appendix 1Review of LCA Studies report

which provides information on each LCA study reviewed during the project.

The Apeal/TNO drinks study statesthat the borderline between ecologically favourable and unfavourable

packaging is tenuous. Discrimination between concepts and materials on the basis of LCA results should be

avoided when the results of in-depth sensitivity analyses are not available. Results are strongly influenced by

allocation aspects (for instance, inclusion of recycling and the valuation of the input of secondary materials) and

by the quality of the applied data.

This drinks study also states that peer review of LCAs is one of the ways to increase the quality of an LCA.

However, within these reviews there is normally no in-depth data verification as this requires a far greater effort

than is commonly made.

The Finnish/PTR drinks study states that across the board, the order of the overall environmental impacts of

different packaging systems cannot be unambiguously answered. Instead, the conclusions on the environmental

advantages of different packaging systems depend on the selected aspect; i.e. the priorities set for each impact

category. However, for the setting of these priorities there are no commonly accepted methods. Therefore the

choice of the aspect and its reasoning will vary depending on the context where the results of this study will be

used.

The iGPS/ERM pallet study states that, as arule of thumb in LCA, differences in impacts of 25% or less are

not considered to be significant due to uncertainties in inputs.


15/68


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

Stage 1: Identify LCA studies and other environmental appraisals that appraise reusable and single-trip

packaging in a product distribution system

Stage 2: Generate a short-list of studies for detailed review

Stage 3: Detailed review of short-listed studiesStage 4: Identify factors which influence the environmental impact of reusable and single-trip packaging

Stage 5: Description of the factors for packaging users to consider in order to make an informed decision for

single-trip and reusable packaging systems and what factors contribute most to their environmental impact.

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


16/68


4.0 Factors which affect relative environmental performance of Single-Trip andReusable Packaging Systems

The factors discussed in this section were identified through a review of existing environmental life cycle

assessment studies and similar environmental performance appraisals. The review process identified a number of

factors which influence the results and conclusions reported. This learning combined with existing LCA

experience has led the review team to compile the factors which are important in considering the most

appropriate choice of packaging system; single-trip or reusable and how to minimise the impact of the selected

system. These factors are described in the following section.

The following three questions are most often asked when considering this choice:

1 Single-trip or reusable packaging? Which system should our business choose?

The simple answer is that system which minimises the impact on the environment. Typically the system with the

lowest environmental burden is also the system with the lowest total cost. Lowest environmental burden results

from the most efficient use of resources (raw materials, and energy) and the most effective management or

reuse of wastes arising.

2 How do I measure and compare the impact of a packaging system or systems on the environment?

The internationally accepted method is to conduct a life cycle assessment (LCA) of each system which quantifies

the environmental burdens of a system throughout the life cycle from raw materials sourcing and manufacturethrough conversion into packaging, filling, warehousing, retailing, customer or consumer use, waste

management, and all transport steps in between. The results are displayed for various user selected impact

categories, such as, resource depletion, carbon footprint, eco toxicity, energy consumption, landfill volumes etc.

3 So, what type of things will influence the results?

LCA results are highly dependent on a number of factors which relate to the product and packaging supply

system. Single-trip packaging impacts are primarily associated with raw material use (including recycled content)

and energy used in manufacture of the packaging and often to a lesser extent on journey distances. Reusable

packaging impacts are primarily associated with journey distances and often to a lesser extent raw material use

and energy used during manufacturing. These are general assumptions and in reality impacts for each type of

packaging vary according to a number of factors described below.

In the following section, factors most likely to have significant affects are described as primary factors, those

that are likely to have second order affects are described as secondary factors6. For completeness a section

on other factors is also included. Ideally, prioritising or ranking the factors would be beneficial for decision

makers. However, unfortunately it is not possible to provide a relative scale of their importance (within each of

the primary and secondary categories) because the significance of each factor varies depending on the specific

product, packaging, supply chain and logistics criteria. Indeed factors that apply in the UK may be different from

those in other countries.

The LCAs reviewed did not consider burdens associated with product manufacturer or damage, and for this

reason product damage has not been included in the list of primary factors. However, product damage has a

signification influence on the environmental burdens of a packaged product system and shouldbe

considered alongside the primary, secondary and other factors presented below.

6Examination of the individual Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies allowed those factors which consistently had a significant

influence on the results - for most impact categories - to be identified. It is these factors that have been categorised as primaryfactors. Those factors which also have an influence, but typicallyaffect results to a lesser degree or only influence results for

isolated impact categories have been classified as secondary.


17/68


4.1 Primary Factors

4.1.1 Raw materials and energy used in manufactureRaw materials - sources, their extraction and manufacturing processes - vary dependent on material type. These

variables affect the amount of energy, resources, and transportation required to bring them to the point of

conversion into a particular pack. In turn, the energy and resources required by the packaging converter to

manufacture a particular pack vary dependent on material type and manufacturing process. Thus, three 500ml

containers manufactured from glass, plastic, or metal will exert differing burdens on the environment dependenton the material used. In addition the type of plastic or metal used, the colour of the pack, and the conversion

method will also have an effect.

Single-trip packaging systemstotal environmental impactis more dependent on raw material and energy use in

pack manufacture than is the case for reusable packaging. This is due to the whole burden being associated with

a single trip, whereas this burden is shared equally between the total number of lifetime trips for a unit of

reusable packaging.

Whilst reusable packaging systems are typically (although not always) heavier using more materials than single-

trip packaging, this greater burden is divided between a number of trips. Therefore, the environmental impact

associated with raw materials and energy used in manufacture is usually lower than is the case for single-trip

packaging.

Figure 3: What the LCAs say about raw materials and energy used in manufacture

4.1.2 Trip rates of reusablesIt follows that the number of trips made by reusable packaging in its l ifetime is critical because it determines the

allocation of the most significant environmental burden, package manufacturing, to each trip made by the

reusable packaging. The more trips a unit of reusable packaging makes the lower its proportion of that burden

becomes. However, as the number of trips increases the proportional decrease in environmental burden

becomes lower.

The Apeal/TNO study states that:

All systems are sensitive to changes in the mass of primary packaging

For the single-trip packaging systems considered, the primary packaging largely determines the environmental

impact for nearly all of the impact categories considered. Transport and secondary packaging are of lesser

importance.

Both primary packaging and transport determine the environmental impact of the reusable bottles. Secondary

packaging is of lesser importance.

The Spanish D of E/Itene tray study very specifically defines the material types for the single-trip as

corrugated board packaging including recycled content.

The RPCC/Franklin tray study states in almost every product application studied, the benefits of the

closed-loop reusable plastic tray pooling operation more than offset the benefits of lighter container weight and a

high recycling rate for single-trip corrugated trays. As a result, total energy requirements for the reusable tray arelower than corresponding single-trip trays in all average use scenarios. Reusable trays also have lower totalenergy requirements than corresponding single-trip trays in eight out of ten alternative scenarios evaluating the

affects of lower reuse rates and higher loss rates for RPCs compared to lightweighted single-trip trays.

The RPCC/Franklin tray study states that reusable plastic trays are modelled at the average weight and that

single-trip corrugated trays are modelled at the reported container weight for one piece trays.Paperboardindustry statistics were used to model the composition and recycled content of linerboard and medium and theiterative cycles associated with recovery and recycling of boxes at end of life.


18/68


Figure 4 Graph to show how the environmental burden of manufacturing reusable packaging changes as the

number of reuses increases [x axis = trip rate; y axis = % of environmental burden]

Thus, if a pack makes two trips the manufacturing burden is 50%, if it makes ten trips 10% of the manufacturing

burden is allocated to each trip. Environmental impact of reusable packaging decreases in an inverse squarerelationship to the number of trips. Therefore once reusable packaging reaches ten trips the incremental benefit

of a further ten trips is reduced to 5% of the manufacturing burdens. Once twenty trips are made the

incremental benefit of a further ten tr ips is 1.67% and so on.

Figure 5 The two graphs below zoom in on the curve in Figure 4 to illustrate how the percentage of

environmental burden changes between ten and twenty trips, and twenty and thirty trips

A returnable that makes fifty trips only receives 3% less of the environmental burdens associated with the life

cycle up to and including pack manufacture, than one that makes a mere twenty trips. Increasing reuse rates,

however, is likely to continue to increase the cost savings, through reducing the replenishment rate for end of life

reusable packaging.

The number of trips reusable packaging will make in its lifetime is itself dependent on a number of interconnected

factors including:

Return rates

The design specification of the reusable pack will significantly influence its durability

The frequency of product shipments

Time taken to return to point of filling from point of unpacking

The life of the product in the market

Losses due to theft or damage

Inspection, cleaning and repair activities.


19/68


20/68


4.1.3 Transportation distancesUsually when a comparison is made between single-trip and reusable packaging the mode of transport of packed

product will be the same; if road trucks are used for distributing product they will be used regardless of pack type

selected.

Transport distance, however, is a highly significant factor in defining the environmental impact and when making

comparisons between single-trip and reusable packaging systems. This is due to the return trip for reusable

packaging increasing the number of truck kilometres required for the system to operate.

For primary reusable packaging - such as bottles - the journey distance is doubled, the reusable

packaging will take up just as much space empty on its return journey as it did on its outward journey full of

product.

For reusable distribution packaging - such as crates - although the journey distance will be doubled, they

are usually designed to nest (one crate sitting inside another when empty) or to fold down, considerably

reducing the volume for the return journey.

Reusable distribution packaging of this type (when nested or folded flat) will often take up between 10% and

25% of the volume of product filled and stacked packs. This is also true for reusable tertiary packaging such as

pallets where their returning volume is around 10% of the palletised load on the outward journey. Naturally,benefits are only realised if the vehicles returning with empty reusable packaging are also transporting other

products or materials to occupy the remaining 75% to 90% of volume remaining. The same can be said for

single-trip packaging (a vehicle delivering product in single-trip packaging also needs to make a return trip),

however, in this case 100% of the vehicles volume is available to backhaul other products.

The environmental burden of this return journey, or percentage of the return journey, should be allocated to the

single-trip or reusable packaging system in order to reflect the true environmental burden of the total system.

The greater the journey distance the more significant the impact of the environmental burdens of transportation

become to the total impact of the system. This is true for both single-trip and reusable packaging systems.

However, the environmental burdens associated with transportation of reusables become significant to the total

system at much shorter journey distances. This is due not only to the return of empty packs but also to thereduced manufacturing burdens described in section 4.1.1 above. The relative importance of journey distance is

therefore far more significant to reusables.

Figure 7 The two graphs below show how the environmental burden varies with the number of trips

[x axis = number of trips; y axis = size of impact]


21/68


Figure 8 The graphs below illustrate how the environmental burden varies with cumulative trips; and how the

environmental burden varies as journey distance increases

Figure 9: What the LCAs say about transportation distances

Longer journey distances tend to favour single trip packaging, shorter journey distances tend to favour reusablepackaging. The return trip for reusables becomes significant and lower cube utilisation becomes more important.

It is impossible to define the exact journey distance that will favour one system over the other due to other

system variables.

The following examples from the review provide some indications:

Swiss Water / ESU drinks study favours reusables at distances of 50km

PETcore drinks study favours reusables at 200km

FEFCO / Vogtlander tray study favours single trip at 500km

Spanish D of E / Itene tray study favours single trip at 2,500km

EC / Ecolas Pira review defines 100km as favouring reusables and 1000km favouring single trip and the

region in the middle being rather grey due to other system parameters.

The Apeal/TNO study states the results for the reusable glass bottle are sensitive to the transport distancebetween filler and retailer or point of sale, but all other systems are insensitive.

The Swiss water/ESU drinks study estimated transportation distances, but did consider minimum andmaximum scenarios.

The PETcore/IFEU drinks study uses different transport distances for reusables and single trip packaging:

German UBA distribution data, 190km for reusable glass bottles and 250km for single trip bottles; and 120km for

refillable glass bottles and 320km for single trip PET bottles were also modelled.

An Ademe review of previous studies states the most sensitive factor for reusable packaging is the distribution

distance.


22/68


4.1.4 Pool size for reusablesThe number of packaging units required to support a reusable packaging system is significantly higher than the

number of packaging units required for the immediate and current product supply at any one point in time. This

is to allow for the time taken for the return logistics, cleaning, seasonal peaks in volumes, damages and losses in

the system. Thus, when comparing single-trip packaging with reusable packaging, the full burdens for including

the packaging pool should be accounted for. In practice LCA studies rarely account for the pool required.

The number of reusables required in the distribution system at any one time and the potential significance to theimpacts is dependent on a number of factors:

Diversity and dispersal of the supply chain

The average time taken for the reusable to go through the whole distribution cycle

Average and degree of kurtosis (degree of statistical spread) in the distribution of journey distances in the

supply chain

The level of stock held in each part of the supply chain

Efficiency of collection systems

Asset visibility

Sales volumes and seasonality

Losses and damages.

The total number of reusables in a system is often indicated by thereusable packs trip rate per yearor the

number ofpackaging asset turns per year. For example, in the scenario below, 2,000 product deliveries (to

customer) are required each week and deliveries operate during 50 weeks in each year, equivalent to 100,000

deliveries annually. Therefore, 100,000 single-trip packaging units would be required annually.

For a Reusable Packaging System:

The time taken for a reusable pack to go through the whole distribution cycle (closed-loop) is 10 weeks;

therefore, each reusable pack will make 5 trips per year

Ignoring losses, seasonal variation etc, 20,000 reusable packaging units would be required for the system to

operate

If losses and damages are 2.5% per cycle, i.e. 50 units per 2,000 deliveries, and each cycle takes 10 weeks.

22,000 reusable packaging units would be required annually.

Table 1: Scenario illustrating pool size requirements for single-trip and reusable packaging over 100 week period

Week

Single-trip packaging Reusable packaging

Number required

per week

Number required

cumulative

Number required

per week

Number required

cumulative

1 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

2 2,000 4,000 2,000 4,000

3 2,000 6,000 2,000 6,000

4 2,000 8,000 2,000 8,000

5 2,000 10,000 2,000 10,000

6 2,000 12,000 2,000 12,000

7 2,000 14,000 2,000 14,000

8 2,000 16,000 2,000 16,000

9 2,000 18,000 2,000 18,000

10 2,000 20,000 2,000 20,000

11 2,000 22,000 50 20,050

12 2,000 24,000 50 20,100

20 2,000 40,000 50 20,500

30 2,000 60,000 50 21,000

50 2,000 100,000 50 22,000

100 2,000 200,000 50 24,400


23/68


Figure 10: What the LCAs say about pool size for reusables

Because reusable packaging is by design often heavier than single-trip packaging the effect of this pool can be

significant. If in the scenario presented previously the reusable packaging format is twice the weight of the

single-trip packaging, the total mass of raw material used to manufacture the packaging will be approximately the

same after 21 weeks (42,000 single-trip units will have been used, or 20,550 reusable packaging units).

However, if the weight of the reusable pack is four times greater the mass will be approximately the same on

week 43.

How significant the pool is to total environmental burden is dependent on the lifetime of the reusable and the

product systems using the reusables.

The majority of LCA studies do not include the poolof reusables on the basis that once the system isfunctioning, an equilibrium is reached whereby the new packaging introduced to the system are dependent on

product orders minus packaging returned.

Shared pools of reusable packaging (where a number of packer fillers are utilising the same reusable packaging

system) have the benefit of smoothing out peaks and troughs in demand, thereby reducing the potential pool of

reusables required to fulfil individual needs.

4.1.5 Vehicle utilisationTypically, although not in all instances, reusable packaging is heavier and occupies greater volume by design in

order to withstand the rigours of multiple trips. In most circumstances this affects the efficiency of product

distribution either:

As a consequence of the higher mass reaching the constraints or limits of palletisation or transportation, or

more commonly

The volume affecting the amount of product that can be stored or transported in a given cubic capacity or

vehicle size.

The effect of this reduction in the cube utilisation of pallets or transport systems is that a greater number of

transport journeys are required to transport a given amount of product. Fuel and energy requirements therefore

rise and environmental burdens increase.

Another factor can be significant here. Reusable transit packaging formats, such as crates, are often used for a

wide variation of products and are part of large pools. To restrict the number of crate variants, they aremanufactured in a small number of sizes based on the universal 600x400mm footprint, thus maximising utilisation

The RPCC/Franklin tray study states that an important assumption in the modelling of reusable plastic traysystems in this analysis is the assumption that the pooling system is a shared-use pool operating at steady state.

That is, it is assumed that a pool of reusable trays is already in existence and available for any and all applications(produce or other) that use each size of reusable trays. Thus, each produce system is charged with replacing thenumber of reusable traysused up by shipping that commodity, based on the number of shipments in reusable

trays required to move the produce, divided by the useful lives per reusable tray, plus replacement of losses of

reusable trays during use, e.g., due to theft.

The study continues to state that although an excess supply of reusable trays (floator pool) must be in placethroughout the system in order to ensure that a sufficient number of returnable trays are circulating to and fromgrowers and retailers within the time frame to meet their needs, these reusable trays are available for any and all

uses of each size RPC rather than designated specifically for a certain type of produce.

For a shared-use pool of reusable trays, any use of the reusable tray for any application is withdrawing reusable

tray usesfrom the pool rather than individual containers. To calculate the number of reusable traysused up for

shipping 1,000 tons of produce, the number of reusable tray trips required to ship 1,000 tons is divided by thenumber of lifetime trips per reusable tray and adjusted for the loss rate to determine the number of reusable trays

that must be produced to replace the reusable tray uses withdrawn from the pool.


24/68


of footprint area. However, the number of height variants is also restricted to one or a small number of variants

in order to manage the system efficiently. This can result in the shipment of considerable volumes of air as

headspace within the crates.

LCA studies should take account of this reduced efficiency for product distribution in reusable packaging systems

and particularly in transit packaging situations

Figure 11: What the LCAs say about vehicle utilisation

Although not identified within the LCAs short-listed for detailed review, there can be supply chain situationswhere single-trip packaging is decanted into a reusable format. Double handling and repacking will increase the

environmental burden and indeed the costs of the system. For these reasons, this practice is not normally

commercially attractive unless there is some other supply chain advantage to do so or to suit specific retailer

logistic operations. The CERES Logistics cost-study7 examines this issue in more detail.

4.1.6 Recycled content and recycling ratesIn principle, it should be relatively easy to measure and gather necessary data on recycled content. In practice,

data used within the LCAs on percentage of recycled materialare often based on averages, fluctuates with

production batch and will include varying proportions of post supply chain waste and in-house regrind or off-cuts.

How significant these variations are to results will vary from system to system, process to process and material to

material. Both single-trip and reusable packaging can have a recycled content. The inclusion of recycled contentwill influence the scale of the environmental burdens of raw materials used.

Figure 12: What the LCAs say about recycled content

7Study to consider the comparative costs of corrugated cases and reusable plastic containers (2007) CERES Logistics,

commissioned by the Confederation of Paper Industries.

The FEFCO / Vogtlander study compares shipping volumes of three tray sizes in single-trip corrugated and

reusable plastic and finds the product volume available for the single-trip packaging is significantly higher in all

instances.

For example, it calculates that the maximum product volume that can be shipped in a standard European road

trailer is 69,420 litres for standard footprint 600x400x240mm single trip corrugated trays versus 57,096 litres for a

reusable plastic tray of the same dimensions. A difference of 21.6%, or in other words for every 4 vehicle

deliveries in single trip packaging 5 vehicle deliveries would be required in reusable packaging to deliver the same

volume of produce.

To date LCA studies generally make no allowance for this greater efficiency in recycling reusable transit

packaging. Most studies take country specific material recycling averages as representative of the specific

packaging studied recycling rate. This potentially ignores variations which may occur within material types

dependent on product characteristics, point of consumption, and consumer behaviour. The majority of LCAs are

based on averages for generic materials which may or may not represent reality.

Some studies assume that the percentage of packaging recycled for same use is equal to the average material

recycling rate; others assume that a known, estimated or guessed percentage of packaging is recycled for same

use and the remainder for alternative use. In the latter instance the burdens associated with the percentage

allocated to alternative use are sometimes included in the original system boundaries or allocated to the new use.

The Apeal/TNO study states the aluminium drinks can results are very sensitive to a lowering of the

percentage of secondary aluminium considered in the can body. The steel can and drinks carton are highly

insensitive to changes in this parameter.

The Finnish/PTR drinksstudy determines recycling rates from actual data for all packaging systems.

The PETcore/IFEU study uses data from DSD kerbside collection for one way PET bottles, however as data

from retail collection via deposit schemes were not available, information from Sweden was used in the LCA

stud .


25/68


4.2 4.2 Secondary Factors

4.2.1 AllocationAllocation is the method of attributing the environmental impact or benefit of a life cycle stage to the studied

system and is particularly relevant to recycling.

For example, if a PET bottle is recycled into textile fibres how should we distribute the environmental benefit,between the bottle and the fibre, of the recycling linked to the saving of the raw material two systems.

Possible allocation methods are:

No benefit is attributed to the packaging that supplies the recycled material. The downstream system that

uses the recycled material is attributed all the benefit

Extend the system boundaries so that the packaging that supplies the recycled material and the downstream

recycled material both receive the benefit; several options are possible:

ISO 14044 recommends that 100% of the benefit is allocated to the packaging that supplies the recycled

material

An even split of benefits is allocated to each system

Allocation on the basis of market value of materials

Figure 13: What the LCAs say about allocation

The PETcore/IFEU study includes within the system boundaries of one way PET bottles recycled products not

fed back into the same system or packaging item. Thus one way PET bottles receive the environmental benefit of

recycling into fibres for cloth, sheets and strapping. However, the study expands the system of glass bottles to

encompass the same secondary products despite these being fictitious.


26/68


4.2.2 Location of recyclingTransportation distances from the point of waste packaging collection to its eventual point of recycling and its

return to point of filling is highly variable and can affect results significantly.

Recovery ofpost consumersingle-trip packaging is less straightforward and efficient than recovery ofpost

commercialpackaging. Post-consumer recovery requires collection of material from highly dispersed sources (i.e.

households) which requires further sorting and cleaning prior to recycling. Recovery of post-commercial

packaging occurs from a smaller number of locations in larger quantities, yielding greater transport efficienciesand is commonly segregated by material, and less contaminated.

Figure 14: What the LCAs say about location of recycling

4.2.3 End of life waste managementThe way in which end of life waste management of materials is taken into account in LCA studies variesconsiderably particularly when comparing single-trip versus reusable packaging and also primary packaging

versus secondary. In the studies reviewed, single-trip primary packaging waste management is dealt with more

transparently and robustly than reusable secondary packaging, which is often not detailed at all. It is commonly

assumed that reusable secondary packaging is recycled once damaged beyond repair. Whilst collection systems

for reusables are often more controlled and focused into a small number of locations, the automatic assumption

that these are then recycled may, or may not, hold true.

Another area of uncertainty relates to the type of incineration, i.e. with or without energy recovery. Most studies

that describe incineration as an end of life waste management scenario do not specify whether or not this

incineration is conducted with or without energy recovery. It is, therefore, unclear as to whether the system has

been credited in any way for energy returned to the system in incineration.

Figure 15: What the LCAs say about end of life waste management

4.2.4 Transportation modeThis is important because the energy consumed per tonne for differing transport modes varies considerably. The

US department of energy describe truck transportation as using between 15 and 30 times as much energy per

ton per kilometre tas rail distribution.

An extreme example would be used PET bottles recovered in Europe, baled and transported to China for recycling

and then returned as raw material to Europe for manufacture into new bottles. The PETcore/IFEU LCA model

also takes account of 80% of one way PET bottles being exported to Far East for recycling.

The Apeal/TNO study states that for waste disposal options (percentage waste to incineration versus

percentage to landfill) the drinks carton and aluminium can display some sensitivity in relation to changes in

waste management scenarios.

The Finnish/PTR drinks study uses waste management scenarios specific to Finland, i.e. landfill.

The RPCC/Franklin tray study states that reusable plastic trays produce less solid waste than correspondingsingle trip corrugated trays in all produce applications and scenarios studied. This is due to several key factors:

The burdens for production of reusable trays are allocated over a (large) number of useful lives,Reusable trays that remain in the closed-loop pooling system are recycled when they are removed from

service,

Losses of Reusable trays from the closed-loop system are small,

Single trip trays make only one trip before they are recycled (requiring repulping and remanufacture) or

disposed.


27/68


Table 2:

Mode of Transport Cargo Ship Air Cargo Rail Heavy truck Medium truck

Energy use MJ t-1 km-1 0.37 15.9 0.23 3.5 6.8

Source: US Department of Energy 2007

Having said this, when making comparisons between single-trip and reusable packaging systems it is usually

assumed that the transportation mode will be the same for both systems.

Figure 16: What the LCAs say about transportation mode

4.2.5 Energy mix in the systemMethods of energy generation vary regionally and consist of mixes of fossil fuel (oil and gas), hydro-electric,

nuclear, wind, and solar generation. Each method of generation has its own raw material depletion, water usage

and emissions footprint for each unit of energy produced. Energy generation in a packaging system has a major

impact on the results of an LCA study and therefore the energy mix chosen is important.

Figure 17: What the LCAs say about energy mix in the system

4.2.6 Repair of reusable secondary packagingThe service life and reuse rates of reusable packaging are dependent on return in serviceable condition. If the

reusable packaging is damaged and unfit for return into the distribution system it is either scrapped and enters

the end of life waste management system or it is repaired and then returned to the reusable packaging pool.

Such repair systems are normally only part of selected reusable transport packaging systems, such as pallets and

crates. Where repair does take place it may vary considerably from minor refurbishment to major work.

4.2.7 Cleaning of reusable packagingMost systems for reusable packaging involve cleaning between uses. Reusable primary packaging is usually

cleaned as part of the filling operation. Reusable distribution packaging such as crates, trays and pallets are

either washed prior to each use or periodically or can be washed as part of filling operations, by the pool owner

or by contracted third party washing sites.

A number of the studies reviewed do not appear to adequately describe the mode of transport used or mix of

transportation included in the system. It is possible to make educated guesses based on clues within the study to

the mode used; for land transportation this is generally truck in Europe and the US (rail freight is more common in

some European countries and in the US than in the UK).

However, some of the studies refer to sizes of distribution packaging which are specifically designed for particular

modes of transportation, but do not appear to include that transportation mode in the LCA. A good example of

this is the Euro Pallet; with dimensions of 1200x800mm this pallet was originally designed to optimally fit rail car

dimensions, whereas the other standard pallet in Europe the 1200x1000mm was selected to more optimally fitroad truck deck dimensions. Both of these pallets are frequently used across all transportation modes.

The Swiss water/ESU drinks study defined vehicle type for all parts of the journey.

Most LCAs choose to use national or regional averages and use the same energy mix when comparing systems.

The Finnish/PTR drinks study uses average European power data for all processes outside Finland and local

Finnish data for processes conducted in Finland.


28/68


The energy and resources used in cleaning primary packaging as evidenced in the LCAs reviewed are normally a

relatively small part of the environmental burdens of the system. There was insufficient detail in the distribution

packaging LCAs to conclude that cleaning operations are a secondary or primary factor.

Figure 18: What the LCAs say about cleaning of reusable packaging

4.2.8 Secondary, tertiary and ancillary packagingDrinks packaging typically includes a number of ancillary and secondary packaging items e.g. labels, closures,

adhesives, trays or crates, shrink-wrap, pallets, pallet shrink or stretch wrap. Distribution packaging such as trays

and crates are often distributed palletised with stretch wrap, or stretch netting, or corner posts and strap

banding.

Generally, and where these items are used for a single trip, they represent only a small percentage of the overall

packaging materials used in any system and as such contribute far less to the environmental impacts. Where

these items are reused, for example plastic crates used in the distribution of reusable glass bottles, they canbecome more significant.

Figure 19: What the LCAs say about secondary, tertiary and ancillary packaging

4.3 Other Factors

4.3.1 Pack sizesSingle-trip and reusable packaging available in the current market are often of different sizes; this is particularly

evident in the drinks studies reviewed.

Any comparison of packs of different sizes even when compared using the study functional unit will favour larger

pack sizes. This is because smaller packs have a larger surface area for a given volume of product than larger

packs and are therefore heavier and use more materials.

Figure 20: What the LCAs say about pack sizes

4.3.2 Commissioning and Sponsoring OrganisationThe majority of LCA studies conducted, and indeed of those reviewed in this report, are sponsored orcommissioned by parties who have a vested commercial interest in the findings of those studies. The body

A number of the studies include washing and sanitisation of reusable packaging within system boundaries, for

example the Finnish drinks study and the Spanish crate/tray study. For others it is not clear from the reports ifthe cleaning process is included.

Again some of the studies detail secondary, tertiary and ancillary packaging in great detail, e.g. Finnish drinks

study. Most of the studies include them within their system boundaries but do not specify them in any detail if at

all.

In the IFEU Petcore study a comparison was made between a single-trip 1.5l PET bottle and a 0.7l returnableglass bottle, as these were the most prevalent in the market. The size variation affects the volume of water to

pack weight ratio. A returnable glass bottle of 1.5l capacity has a higher water to pack weight ratio and wouldtherefore exert less affect on the environment per litre. This is important because where different pack sizes arecompared it will always be favourable for the larger pack.

The important question to consider in this example is whether there are design constraints in the supply chain

that limit the returnable glass bottle to 0.7l capacity or whether the bottle is present in the market for historic or

traditional reasons and a 1.5l returnable bottle would be entirely acceptable in that supply chain. If it is

acceptable, would the study be more robust if like for like pack sizes had been compared?


29/68


performing the study will follow the goal and scope defined by the commissioning organisation. The LCA

standards frameworks including ISO 14040 allow methodological choices to be made within a framework and

cannot govern data robustness. LCAs conducted on behalf of interested parties are therefore able to express the

results and in particular the conclusions of a study to favour their own interests.

4.3.3 Carbon sequestrationThis is the temporary locking up of carbon caused by the absorption of carbon into plant materials as they grow.

Sometimes a LCA study positively allocates the system with credit for this absorption for paper and boardproducts.

Figure 21: What the LCAs say about carbon sequestration

The Spanish D of E/Itene tray study states that differences in results between reusable plastic and single-tripcorrugated board trays is particularly significant in the climate change category, where the impact of corrugatedboard is not only lower than that of the plastic crate, but it in fact reduces this impact. This is due to the CO2 sinkeffect caused by the plantations of fast-growth species of trees from which the raw material for papermanufacture is obtained. Scientific studies have shown that CO2 fixing no longer takes place once a forest hasbecome mature, and thus fast-growth species actually provide an opportunity for environmental improvement(ASPAPEL, 2005). Furthermore, secondary raw materials deriving from used paper and board packaging are alsoused in the manufacture of these boxes, thus reducing the impacts associated with raw material exploitation and

transformation.

PAS 2050 states that where atmospheric CO2 is taken up by a product, and that product is not a livingorganism, the impact of this carbon storage over the 100-year assessment period shall be included in theassessment of the life cycle green house gas (GHG) emissions of the product.

Where carbon of biogenic origin forms part of a product, the impact of this carbon storage over the 100-yearassessment period shall be included in the assessment of the life cycle GHG emissions of the product.

The assessment of the impact of GHG emissions arising from the life cycle of products shall be the CO2e impact ofthe GHG emissions over the 100-year period following the formation of the product (i.e. the 100-year assessmentperiod). Emissions arising from all life cycle phases of the product, except the use phase and the final disposalphase, shall be treated as a single release of emissions at the beginning of the 100-year assessment period.

Where all GHG emissions arising from the use phase or from final disposal occur within one year following theformation of the product, those emissions shall be treated as a single release of emissions at the beginning of the100-year assessment period. Where emissions arising from the use phase or from final disposal occur over morethan one year, a factor shall be applied to represent the weighted average time the emissions are present in theatmosphere during the 100-yearassessmentperiod.


30/68


5.0 ConclusionsThis report has identified the key factors, from an environmental life cycle perspective, that influence the

environmental and relative performance of reusable packaging systems and single-trip packaging. Factors

identified throughout the review of LCAs have been categorised into primary (those having most significance),

secondary (those having a relatively smaller impact) and other (other important factors to consider).

Product damage should also be considered as a significant factor influencing the environmental burdens of

packaged systems. However, damage was out of scope of the LCAs that were reviewed and for this reason,although significant, it has not been presented as a factor in the table below, but instead included in discussion

that follows.

The primary factors along with the main conclusions are summarised below:

Raw materials and energy used in manufactureSingle-trip packaging systemstotal environmental impact are more dependent on raw material and energy use in

pack manufacture than reusable packaging. This is due to the whole of the burden being associated with a single

trip, whereas for reusable packaging, despite the burden being considerably greater it is shared equally between

the total number of lifetime trips.

Trip rates for reusablesThe number of trips made by reusable packaging in its lifetime is critical because it determines the allocation of

the most significant environmental burden, package manufacturing, to each trip made by the reusable packaging.

The more trips a reusable packaging unit makes, the lower its proportion of that burden becomes. However, as

the number of trips increases, the proportional decrease in environmental burden becomes lower.

Lower trip rates for reusables favour single-trip packaging, higher trip rates favour reusable packaging due to the

division of manufacturing burdens discussed above.

Transportation distancesLonger journey distances tend to favour single-trip packaging, shorter journey distances tend to favour reusable

packaging. The return trip for reusables becomes significant and lower cube utilisation becomes more important.

The return trip for reusable packaging increases the number of truck kilometres required for the system to

operate.For primary reusable packaging - such as bottles - the journey distance is doubled; the reusable packaging

will take up just as much space empty on its return journey as it did on its outward journey full of product.

For reusable distribution packaging - such as crates - although the journey distance will be doubled, it is

usually designed to nest (one crate sitting inside another when empty) or to fold down, considerably reducing

the volume for the return journey.

Pool size for reusablesThe number of packaging units required to support a reusable packaging system is significantly higher than the

number of packaging units required for the immediate and current product supply at any one point in time. This

is to allow for the time taken for the return logistics, cleaning, seasonal peaks in volumes, damages and losses in

the system. Thus, when comparing single-trip packaging with reusable packaging, the full burdens of thispackaging pool should be considered.

Vehicle utilisationReusable packaging is usually (although not always) heavier and often occupies greater volume by design in

order to withstand the rigours of multiple trips. In most circumstances this affects the efficiency of product

distribution either as a consequence of the higher mass reaching the constraints or limits of palletisation or

transportation, or more commonly the volume affecting the amount of product that can be stored or transported

in a given cubic capacity or vehicle size.

The effect of this reduction in the cube utilisation of pallets or transport systems is that a greater number of

transport journeys are required to transport a given amount of product. Fuel and energy requirements therefore

rise and environmental burdens increase.


31/68


Recycled content and post use material recycling ratesIn general, the higher the recycled content of a pack the lower the environmental burden of manufacture of that

particular pack becomes. This is due to the avoidance of a number of processes in the upstream conversion of

the materials used to manufacture the pack. This reduced environmental burden usually outweighs the

environmental burdens associated with recovery. Material recycling rates impact availability of recycled raw

material.

Secondary and other factors are concluded below:

AllocationThere are different methods of attributing the environmental impact or benefit of a life cycle stage to the studied

system; the chosen method will impact on the overall environmental burden, although not as significantly as the

primary factors.

Carbon sequestrationDeciding whether to credit a packaging system for the absorption - or locking up- of carbon for paper and board

products will also influence the systems overall environmental burden.

Location of recyclingThe distance between the location of waste packaging collection and point of recycling, and its subsequent filling,

can affect the environmental burden of the system.

End of life waste managementEnd of life waste management of packaging needs to be taken into account. It is common for waste

management of single-trip primary packaging to be more transparent than waste management for reusable

packaging or secondary packaging.

Transportation modeA

Documents

Reusable Packaging Factors Report