11108 20130321phaseisynthesisreport final

Phase I synthesis report Evidence to support the development of a sustainability roadmap for soft drinks

Disclaimer

Best Foot Forward has prepared this report for the sole use of the client and for the intended purposes as stated in the agreement between Best Foot Forward and the client under which this report was completed. Best Foot Forward has exercised due and customary care in preparing this report but has not, save as specifically stated, independently verified information provided by others. No other warranty, express or implied, is made in relation to the contents of this report. The use of this report, or reliance on its content, by unauthorised third parties without written permission from Best Foot Forward shall be at their own risk and Best Foot Forward accept no duty of care to such third party. Any recommendations, opinions or findings stated in this report are based on facts and circumstances as they existed at the time the report was prepared. Any changes in such facts and circumstances may adversely affect the recommendations, opinions or findings contained in this report.

3

Phase I synthesis report: Evidence to support the development of a sustainability roadmap for soft drinks

Prepared for: The Project Management Group

Prepared by:

Best Foot Forward

The Future Centre

9 Newtec Place

Magdalen Road

Oxford,

OX4 1RE

E-mail: [email protected]

Web: www.bestfootforward.com

Tel: 01865 250818 Fax: 01865 794586

Company Registration 3409491

2nd July 2012

Quality Assurance

Report approved by:

Chris Stanley

Signature Chris Stanley 2 July 2012

http://www.bestfootforward.com/

4

Executive summary

The UK soft drinks industry has a market value of £14.5 billion and annual consumption exceeding 14.6 billion litres per year. Whilst the industry has been proactive in its work to minimise its environmental footprint, there is still an opportunity to further this work through improved focus and collaborative action. Defra is seeking to establish a sustainability roadmap with the sector which requires that the environmental, social and economic impacts need to be more clearly understood. This roadmap will be intended to target resource efficiency, waste reduction, reduced water and energy use, and to build on the work already undertaken by the sector. Best Foot Forward has been commissioned to collate the evidence to form the basis for such a roadmap and to engage industry stakeholders on identifying the areas for focus. The work has two phases: Phase 1 has been concerned with understanding the industry context and the key issues and opportunities, and Phase 2 will refine the understanding and prepare the foundation for the roadmap. The Phase 1 report is an initial draft document, drawing on early conclusions and preliminary opportunities identified in an overview of the UK sector, literature review and stakeholder engagement. It provides steering for Phase 2 priorities. For the purposes of this research, five key sub-categories of soft drinks have been defined as follows

1:

1. Carbonates (CSDs) 2. Dilutables 3. Fruit juice & smoothies 4. Still & juice drinks 5. Bottled water

A key focus of the work has been on the identification of environmental hotspots along the UK soft drinks category supply chains. Based on research to date, the total UK soft drinks supply chain material volumes and GHG emissions have been estimated at:

Product volume: 15 million tonnes

Materials used: 40 million tonnes

GHG emissions: 7.8 million tonnes CO2e

Water used in the production of drinks is the major contributor to the total material volumes consumed. Fruit (2.6m tonnes CO2e) and PET bottles (2m tonnes CO2e) contribute the most to the overall greenhouse gas (GHG) impact. At over 16m tonnes, the CSDs category contributes the most to the total material volumes consumed, followed by dilutables (almost 12m tonnes). The same two categories dominate the contribution to total GHG emissions – dilutables (3.25m tCO2) and CSDs (just under 2m tCO2).

Following the environmental hotspots analysis, five common environmental impact themes have emerged. These have been listed in order of potential significance and/or priority. A more detailed explanation of each theme and proposed focus for additional research in Phase 2 accompanies this report:

1. Fruit & sugar - fruit and sugar production and processing contribute significantly to GHG emissions and to the use of water for agriculture

2. Water not in product – water use is significant in the processing of ingredients (especially fruit and sugar-based drinks).

3. Energy (incl. refrigeration) – energy use is significant in the processing of ingredients and manufacture of packaging, fuel use in distribution and in refrigeration and freezing.

4. Product waste – post-consumer waste is seen as more of a concern compared to waste arising elsewhere in the supply chain.

5. Packaging - primary packaging, particularly PET bottles and aluminium cans, contributes significantly to resource consumption and to post-consumer waste.

In addition to the identification of the environmental impact themes, a programme of stakeholder engagement identified a range of opportunities and barriers for reducing these impacts. Stakeholders particularly highlighted the following barriers to the industry achieving improved resource efficiency:

Improved engagement across the supply chain – recommendations on how this could be achieved can be sought from the stakeholders themselves and the Project Management Group,

Improved sharing of best practice – building on and sharing good work in the sector through channels and consortia already implemented, and

Improved education of those working in the supply chain – to improve skills, including resource efficiency management.

1 As defined by the British Soft Drinks Association. Tea, coffee and milk are not included.

5

A key objective of the Phase 1 research has been to establish where improvement of data and evidence is needed to support the final recommendations for a sustainability roadmap. The following areas have been identified for further work in Phase 2:

Fruit & sugar2:

Gather further information on the production of the most commonly used fruits used in the production of drinks consumed in the UK, namely oranges, grapefruit, lemons and limes, apples, pineapple, grape, cranberry and blackcurrant.

Gather better data on sugar cane and high fructose corn syrup production and volumes produced for UK soft drinks use, including associated impacts, such as agricultural and processing impacts.

Dependent on data availability and access, identify the volumes of sweeteners used in soft drinks and clarify the environmental impact associated with the production and processing of sweeteners, including those extracted from natural ingredients. This will help to prioritise the

Review the different types of sugar and fruit production methods that are reported to have a lower environmental impact in order to identify potential best practice as solutions to reducing the environmental impact of fruit and sugar production.

Energy (including refrigeration):

Establish greater clarity on why and where refrigeration is needed along the supply chain, and how much energy is used in refrigeration.

Clarify the GHG impact of refrigeration from both energy use and refrigerant emissions to the atmosphere used in the soft drinks supply chain (drawing on currently published research, such as Defra’s examination of the GWP of refrigeration in the food chain).

Packaging:

Derive more robust figures for packaging consumed by and disposed of through the on-trade, by drawing on research being undertaken for the WRAP Hospitality and Food Service sector voluntary agreement.

Provide better estimates on secondary packaging and their impacts for the different categories.

Collation of information and review of best practice technologies developed to reduce the environmental impacts of packaging for soft drinks. This would draw very much on research produced by WRAP and present it specifically for the soft drinks sector.

Product waste:

Build on WRAP’s supply chain work and aim to fill in the gaps identified in the drinks resource maps.

Dependent on the availability, a more robust product waste figure for the soft drinks sector will be proposed in order to establish whether product waste in manufacture, distribution and retail is significant or not.

Water not in product:

Build on the work BIER have undertaken to benchmark the water not in product to litre of product ratio for fruit juice & smoothies, still & juice drinks and dilutables.

Expand research on water to include a water footprint (green, blue and grey) and sustainability assessment (including water scarcity) of the key ingredients used for each soft drinks category. It is proposed that the Water Footprint Network’s Waterstat database be used to establish water footprints for mainly fruit and sugars used (these are available).

In addition to the above, further investigation will be carried out into the feasibility of implementation of actions to reduce impacts, who should be involved across the industry, what other enabling actions may be needed, and possible timescales.

Given the remaining time and budget, an agreed list of additional work is required – drawn from that above. Details for each recommendation are provided in the report to aid this selection, as well a proposed timeline for each option. Once the Phase 2 work activities have been agreed, the focus will be to undertake this research up to October 2012, when it is proposed that a final workshop is held with supply chain stakeholders. The aim of this workshop will be to share the recommendations drawn from these refined findings for a sustainability roadmap for the sector. This stakeholder input is critical in ensuring the roadmap proposed is focussed for maximum reduction in impact, fit-for-purpose, challenging and yet realistic. Based on feedback from the workshop the evidence and recommendations will be presented to the Project Management Group in December 2012 upon which to agree and implement a sustainability roadmap for the sector.

2 For the purposes of the research to date, all sugar is accounted as sugar beet, which has a GHG emission (tCO2e) 2.5 times larger than sugar can. Adequate data sources at the time of analysis were not available for sugar cane, however whilst writing up the Phase I Synthesis Report a life cycle assessment comparing sugar beet versus sugar cane became available. Dependent on the quality of the data, this will be included in Phase II to derive a more accurate picture of sugar usage in CSDs. Corn syrup is not included as it is ‘hardly available’ in the EU, according to BSDA (BSDA, 2012c). In the USA, high fructose corn syrup has almost completely replaced sugar in soft drinks but it is not widely used in the UK, due to European Union restrictions in the Common Agricultural Policy.

6

Contents Executive summary 4

Abbreviations 7

1. Introduction 8

1.1. Objectives of the Phase I synthesis report 8

1.2. Methodology for gathering insights 9

2. UK soft drinks sector overview 9

2.1 Key statistics 10

2.2. Soft drinks products 10

2.3. Soft drinks supply chain 11

2.4. Key trends 11

3. Environmental impacts & key themes 13

3.2. Introduction 13

3.2. Soft drinks category hotspots 14

3.3.1 Carbonated soft drinks 14

3.3.2 Dilutables 17

3.3.3 Fruit juice and smoothies 18

3.3.4 Still and juice drinks 21

3.3.5 Bottled water 24

3.4. Five key themes 26

3.4.1. Fruit and sugar 26

3.4.2. Energy (including refrigeration and freezing) 27

3.4.3. Packaging 28

3.4.4. Product waste 29

3.4.5. Water not in product Error! Bookmark not defined.

4. Data gaps 30

5. Recommendations for Phase II Research 31

5.1 Fruit & sugar 31

5.2 Energy (including refrigeration) 32

5.3 Packaging 32

5.4 Product waste 33

5.5 Water not in product 33

6. Revised project plan 33

Appendix 1: UK soft drinks sector overview process and approach 35

Appendix 2: Literature review process and approach 36

Appendix 3: List of proactive stakeholders 38

Appendix 4: Detailed data tables for total soft drinks and drinks categories 39

Appendix 5: Some key voluntary and regulatory sustainability initiatives 45

Bibliography 48

7

Abbreviations

BCME Beverage Can Makers of Europe

BIER Beverage Industry Environment Roundtable

BSDA British Soft Drinks Association

CCE Coca-Cola Enterprises

CSD Carbonated Soft Drink

CO2e GHG reported as carbon equivalent

Defra Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs

FDF Food & Drink Federation

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GSK GlaxoSmithKline

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

m million

PET Polyethylene terephthalate (plastic-type)

PP Polypropylene

PRN Packaging Recovery Note

rPET PET containing a percentage of recycled PET

tCO2e tonnes carbon equivalent

WRAP Waste & Resources Action Programme

8

1. Introduction

The UK soft drinks3 industry has a market value of £14.5 billion and annual consumption exceeding 14.6 billion litres per

year (BSDA, 2012a). In 2009, the UK was the 12th

largest consumer of soft drinks globally (Key Note, 2011). Whilst the industry has been proactive in its work to minimise its environmental footprint (BSDA, 2012b), there is still an opportunity to further this work through improved focus and collaborative action. Defra is seeking to establish a sustainability roadmap with the sector which requires the environmental, social and economic impacts need to be more clearly understood. This roadmap will be intended to target resource efficiency, waste reduction, reduced water and energy use, and to build on the work already undertaken by the sector. Best Foot Forward has been commissioned to collate the evidence to form the basis for such a roadmap.

The key activities to establish the evidence include:

A categorisation of the soft drinks sector;

An overview of the UK soft drinks sector;

A literature review;

Stakeholder engagement; and

A synthesis of the findings highlighting key issues and opportunities, data gaps and recommendations for a roadmap.

These activities are being undertaken over two phases of work, as outlined in the diagram below.

Figure 1: Project activities and outputs

1.1. Objectives of the Phase I synthesis report

This synthesis report is an initial draft document, drawing on early conclusions and preliminary opportunities identified in the UK sector overview, literature review and stakeholder engagement. It provides steering for Phase 2 priorities. This report contains:

A UK soft drinks sector analysis, including a detailed overview of the soft drinks supply chain;

Mapping of the research findings to the UK market;

Identification of key issues (environmental impacts);

3 Soft drinks definition, as defined by the BSDA: Carbonated drinks, dilutables, fruit juice & smoothies, still & juice drinks and bottled water.

A sustainability roadmap is a sector’s route towards environmental success and resource efficiency. It is a result of collaboration between Government, business & other stakeholders to review evidence and engage stakeholders to develop and implement a voluntary action plan which is flexible to changes within the sector, and which builds on what the industry has already achieved.

9

Preliminary identification of potential opportunities for impact reduction;

Confirmation of the scope of work and recommendations for Phase 2; and

An analysis of evidence gaps and costed proposals for new work required to fill said gaps.

1.2. Methodology for gathering insights

As illustrated in Figure 1, above, a number of activities have been undertaken to establish an overview of the UK soft drinks sector, and to determine the key environmental impacts and potential themes of focus for Phase 2 and the roadmap. Two main sources of information have been used to gather this insight: 1) Research, and 2) Stakeholder engagement.

1.2.1 Research The aim of the research was to collate and review available current data about the environmental sustainability of the sector. This work covers the entire supply chain, including international sourcing of product and ingredients, and a variety of sustainability metrics (including carbon, water, energy and waste). The process and approach adopted for the UK Sector Overview and environmental hotspots analysis is outlined in Appendix 1.

A literature review was produced to summarise the extensive range of data sources which were accessed and a quality assessment of this literature was also undertaken. An overview of the literature review is provided in Appendix 2.

1.2.2 Stakeholder engagement

Best Foot Forward have collated a list of over 150 stakeholders representing organisations across the soft drinks supply chain and interested parties. This list continues to grow as more organisations are contacted or made aware of the project. The key focus for the stakeholder engagement has been:

To gather insights on the key issues facing the sector and current areas of activity; and

To act as a sounding board on findings and to identify opportunities for improvement.

To enable active participation by stakeholders in this work we used various methods including:

Targeted telephone interviews,

On-line questionnaire, and

A workshop and webinar held in June (over 40 attendees).

A list of participating stakeholders is provided in Appendix 3.

2. UK soft drinks sector overview

For the purposes of this research, five key sub-categories of soft drinks have been identified, as defined by the British Soft Drinks Association (BSDA)(BSDA, 2012a), and reported accordingly in this report as follows:

1. Carbonates (CSDs)4

2. Dilutables5

3. Fruit juice & smoothies6

4. Still & juice drinks7

5. Bottled water8

Tea, coffee and milk-based drinks have not been included. For sustainability roadmap purposes, these drinks are covered within the Dairy Roadmap (Dairy Supply Chain Forum, 2011).

4 Carbonates include ready to drinks and draught dispense (for the hospitality sector), home dispense (for example, Soda Stream), mixers including tonic and bitter drinks, orange and shandy; energy drinks; sparkling flavoured water, health drinks and herbal drinks. They cover regular including sparkling juice, low calorie and zero calorie. Flavours include cola, lemon, lemon-lime, other fruit flavours (BSDA, 2012a). 5 Dilutables include squashes, cordials and powders and other concentrates for dilution to taste by consumers, normally adding 4 parts water to 1 part product. High juice contains a minimum of 40% fruit content (as sold). Regular dilutables include squashes and cordials with a minimum of 25% fruit. Low sugar variants include no added sugar and sugar free (BSDA, 2012a). 6 Fruit juice is defined as having 100% fruit content equivalent, sometimes referred to as pure juice or 100% juice. Chilled juice comprises of four main types: smoothies (based predominantly on whole crushed fruit, chilled and with a short shelf-life); freshly squeezed (not pasteurised, chilled with a short-shelf life); not-from-concentrate (squeezed then pasteurised, chilled with a shelf life of a few weeks; and other chilled from concentrate (from concentrate or part squeezed and part from concentrate). Ambient or long life juice is mainly from concentrate and heat treated, with a shelf life of up to 18 months (BSDA, 2012a). 7 Still and juice drinks include high juice drinks (25-99% fruit content), juice drinks (5-25% fruit content) and other still drinks (0-5%) including iced tea, sports drinks, still flavoured water and non-fruit drinks (BSDA, 2012a). 8 Bottled water is defined as still, sparkling and lightly carbonated water. It is further characterised as being natural miner water, spring water or bottled drinking water (BSDA, 2012a).

10

2.1 Key statistics

Table 1: Estimated material volumes and values associated with the annual UK consumption of soft drinks9

Sources: Britvic, 2011; BSDA, 2011; Valpak, 2012; WRAP, 2010; WRAP, 2011 and WRAP, 2012a.

2.2. Soft drinks products

In 2011, the UK consumed over 14.6bn litres of soft drinks, an average of 235 litres per person (BSDA, 2012a). Figure 2 below provides a breakdown of this consumption by soft drink type (BSDA, 2012a).

Figure 2: UK soft drinks consumption, as a percentage, by type

9 For retail sales data there were several possible sources of information. The sources selected were based on discussions with the BSDA and other stakeholders. BSDA (BSDA, 2011) retail sales data is based on manufacturer-supplied data whereas the alternative Britvic report (Britvic, 2011) was based on retail samples and household surveys from Nielsen and gave a total less than half of the BSDA figure. NOTE: At the time of writing up the Phase I Synthesis Report, the BSDA-derived data had not been updated to reflect the 2012-released data. This will be updated in Phase 2.

Life-cycle stage Total Unit

Processing & manufacturing Ingredients 5,408,000 tonnes

Water in product 12,600,000 m3

Packaging 682,000 tonnes

PET (bottles) 403,000 tonnes

Paper / card 106,000 tonnes

Glass 102,000 tonnes

Steel 19,000 tonnes

Aluminium 52,000 tonnes

Secondary packaging 175,000 tonnes

Paper / Card 133,000 tonnes

Plastic 42,000 tonnes

Water used in process 27,383,000 litres

Sales channels On-trade (sales) 30% %

On-trade (vol.) 7% %

Off-trade (sales) 70% %

Off-trade (vol) 93% %

Retail Total retail sales (£) 13,880,000,000 (£)

Total retail units 14,585,000,000 litres

Consumer use Water used 28,000,000 litres

Waste 562,000 tonnes

End of life Recycled 528,000 tonnes

Landfill 429,000 tonnes

Energy recovery 58,000 tonnes

11

2.3. Soft drinks supply chain

The industry is dominated by a small number of large companies who are often both manufacturers and brand owners, such as AG Barr, Bottlegreen, Britvic), Coca-Cola Enterprises (CCE), Cott Beverages, Danone Waters (UK & Ireland), GSK, innocent drinks, Nestle Waters, (Vimto), PepsiCo and Princes. Most manufacturers and brand owners operate in most soft drinks sectors. In addition, there are key players within each part of the supply chain, such as:

Ingredients suppliers, such as: o Sugar and sweeteners: American Sugar Refining

10, British Sugar and Cargill, and

o Fruit juice: Continental Juice and Citrosuco

Packaging manufacturers, such as: o Metal cans: Ball Packaging, Crown and Rexam o Glass: Allied Glass, Ardagh Glass, Beatson Clark, O-I, Quinn Glass o Liquid cartons: Tetrapak, Elopak and SIG Combibloc o Plastic: Amcor/APPE, Constar, Esterform and Sidel

Third-party / own-label fillers: Cott Beverages, Gerber Juice and Princes; and

Packaging recyclers and reprocessors, such as Glass Recycling UK and Novellis (cans). There are over 100 plastics recyclers operating in the UK11. Some of those focusing on plastics used for soft drinks include Closed Loop London, Ecoplastics, Petcore and RE PET.

The generic supply chain for soft drinks, which also indicates the different life cycle stages, is shown in Figure 3. Each of the 5 soft drinks sub-categories has particular features so specific supply chain maps showing environmental impacts have been developed and are provided in Section 3 . Figure 3: Generic soft drinks supply chain, by life-cycle stage

2.4. Key trends

As well as an overview of the current status of the UK soft drinks sector, it is useful to understand the emerging trends, in particular those that may have a significant impact on the business and manufacture of UK soft drinks. There are a number of trends emerging in the UK soft drinks sector – in terms of health, nutrition and sustainability. Some of these are outlined below:

10 American Sugar Refining bought Tate & Lyle in 2010. 11 British Plastic Federation (2012) Plastics recycling

12

Trend Description Potential environmental impact

Growth/decline in categories

Overall there has been little change in the consumption of soft drinks between 2010/11. However, some categories have seen growth including bottled water (2.2%), carbonates (4.1%), still and juice drinks (1.2%) and most significantly sports and energy drinks (10%). Dilutables, fruit juice and smoothies have seen a decline of 1.7% and 1.2% respectively. Decline is often associated with poor weather and reduced household income.

An increase in products with a high fruit or sugar content could result in an increase in the total soft drinks environmental impact.

Natural In many parts of the world there is a rising demand and premium price charged for products using natural ingredients. Particularly common are those with reduced or no artificial flavourings, preservatives or colourants (Datamonitor, 2010)12.

An example of this trend is the increased use of stevia13, a sweetening herb of South American origin, as a natural replacement for artificial sweeteners and a healthier replacement for sugar. Already, companies such as Cargill manufacture stevia and Coca-Cola uses it in some of its products.

In essence, there is no obvious link between whether the ingredients are natural and the environmental impact of the product. Each product and ingredient must be assessed on its own merit – depending on what ingredient is being reduced, eliminated or introduced. For example, promoters of stevia as a replacement for sugar claim that the crop is less water intensive than sugar, as its potency means less has to be used in the products that it is sweetening, necessitating fewer crops. Likewise, if stevia is acting as a ‘natural’ replacement for artificial sweeteners, rather than for sugar, the water intensity may in fact be higher, as it is a farmed, rather than artificial, input14.

Healthy products One of the most clear trends in the soft drink market is the drive towards healthier products, whether they be caffeine or sugar-free versions of existing products, those that are perceived to be healthier because they are fruit-based, or existing ‘unhealthy’ products that are packaged in smaller sized.

One notable change could occur from the increased use of smaller pack sizes for ‘sugared’ drinks. This may be due to rising demand or simply the banning of sugary drinks in large sizes (as recently proposed by the Mayor of New York City (BBC, 2012) or currently adopted in most UK schools). In addition, a smaller product to pack ratio could increase packaging waste unless consumers buy the same number of units at lower volumes.

Product concentration There has been an increase in demand for double concentrated products such as squashes. This is often linked to the demand for smaller pack sizes. Many retailers and brand-owners have moved to double concentrate products. (Convenience Store, 2012). There has also been an increased uptake of concentrated fruit juices by the hospitality industry.

Higher concentrate products are more efficient to package and transport

Packaging innovation There has been increased use of packaging innovations.

Many manufacturers are moving to in-house blowing from preforms – for example where a bottle is blown out from a preformed template on the production line. This improves transport efficiencies, and reduces storage requirements (WRAP, 2012a).15

Most of the major manufacturers of soft drinks are using a percentage of rPET in their PET bottles, with the intention to increase this (see (Britvic,

Increased use of rPET: Currently the demand for rPET for use in soft drinks bottles outstrips supply. The soft drinks industry and WRAP are investigating opportunities to improve the situation – in particular the quality of the recycled material and packaging produced from reprocessed PET. This could be a good area for a roadmap to investigate, as using rPET in packaging reduces the amount of energy needed for bottle manufacture which offers resource and energy savings (WRAP, 2007; Gyekye, 2011).

Increased use of plant-based PET: One of the advantages of plant-based PET is it can be recycled in the PET recycling stream. It compares favourably to polylactic acid (PLA)16, which currently

12 Datamonitor (2010) Product Insight Series: Soft drinks in the UK 13 Stevia is a natural, calorie-free sweetening ingredient, being up to 300 times sweeter than sugar. It is a plant native to South America that has been used for centuries as a sweet herb. It is now cultivated throughout the world, but most significantly in China, Paraguay, Colombia, India, Kenya, and Brazil, with development expanding into the United States, Vietnam and other countries. Stevia was approved for consumption in food stuffs by the EU in 2011 (Jobs, 2012; Global Stevia Institute, 2011 and Stones, 2011). 14 While companies, such as Cargill have recognised this and developed social and environmental goals for the production of stevia and other commodities, it is clear that there are difficulties in assessing the link between how natural a product is and the size of its environmental impact (Cargill, 2012). 15 WRAP (2012) Draft Resource Review: Resource efficiency in the UK soft drinks sector 16 PLA is made from starch rich plants such as corn, wheat and sugar beets.

13

2012)(Coca-Cola Enterprises, 2009).

Bottles are increasingly been made from plant-based PET - initially used by Danone for Volvic (20% plant-based), Coca-Cola’s Plantbottle (30% plant-based) and PepsiCo (trialling 100% plant-based)(Danone, 2012; Mercer, 2011; PepsiCo, 2011).

cannot be accommodated in the UK recycling stream resulting in contamination of recycling batches. Some brands, such as innocent drinks, withdrew their PLA bottles and have focused on increasing the recycled content of PET packaging instead (Kiernan, 2007).

3. Environmental impacts & key themes

3.2. Introduction

The environmental impacts and themes identified focused on 5 key metrics (carbon, water not in product consumption,

energy, resource use and waste), and did not cover social, biodiversity and land use impacts, which was not part of the

scope of this project – but could be considered for a roadmap or further investigation in Phase 2.

Based on research to date, the total UK soft drinks supply chain material volumes and GHG emissions have been

estimated at:

Materials: 40 million tonnes17

GHG emissions: 7.8 million tonnes CO2e

As is evident from Figure 4, water18

is the major contributor to the total volume of materials consumed by the sector. However, it is worth noting here that water not in product has low GHG (carbon) impact (see Figure 5). Fruit (2.6m tonnes CO2e) and PET bottles (2m tonnes CO2e) contribute the most to the overall soft drinks GHG impact.

Figure 4: Estimated material volumes associated with the UK soft drinks supply chain

Figure 5: Estimated GHG (tCO2e) emissions associated with the UK soft drinks supply chain

17 Due to a lack of data this currently excludes distribution, domestic refrigeration and end of life use. 18 Process water - does not include the water in the product. It refers to water used during the manufacture of a soft drink, for example cleaning machinery or preparing fruit. Water in product is captured within ‘other ingredients’.

14

3.2. Soft drinks category hotspots

The following section provides a more in-depth look at the five key categories of soft drinks, with particular reference to a category’s environmental impacts (or hotspots

19).

3.3.1 Carbonated soft drinks Carbonated soft drinks (CSDs) make up the largest portion of soft drinks consumed in the UK- 45% of total consumption (BSDA, 2012a), and are defined by their ‘fizzy’ nature, which is achieved by dissolving carbon dioxide (CO2) in water and adding sweeteners and flavourings

20. There are three key types of carbonated soft drinks:

Flavoured: The most common being cola and lemonade, but also includes other fruit flavours, such as citrus or berry. This also includes energy drinks.

Diet: Low- or zero calorie versions of regular flavours and brands, which include the use of both natural and artificial sweeteners; and

Mixers: For mixing with alcoholic drinks, such as tonic water21

. Almost 60% of carbonated soft drinks are sold in PET packaging, with 27% in cans and 10% dispensed on-trade premises from bulk packaging

22 (BSDA, 2012a). Table 2 below outlines the estimated volumes and values associated with the

main supply stages for CSDs consumed in the UK. Table 2: Estimated material volumes associated with the UK CSD supply chain

Sources: Britvic, 2011; BSDA, 2011; Valpak, 2012; WRAP, 2010; WRAP, 2011; and WRAP, 2012a.

Environmental hotspots The most significant hotspots for carbonates are water in product (in volume) and PET and aluminium packaging

23 for

GHG emissions. Figure 6 provides two charts, which represent the estimated material volumes and GHG emissions associated with the UK CSDs supply chain.

19 The term ‘hotspot’ is used to refer to an area of greatest impact. The identification of supply hotspots along a products supply chain enables these areas to be targeted for maximum environmental and potentially economic, reduction opportunities along a product’s supply chain. 20 The CO2 can be added at point of manufacture or point of consumption, for example via a SodaStream in the home, or when dispensed from a fountain in the hospitality trade. This also normally involves dilution of a concentrate to deliver the final drink at the point of consumption. 21 Key Note (2011) Market Report: Soft drinks (carbonated & concentrated) 22 The on-trade refers to on-premise, such as clubs, pubs, restaurants, events, on-site catering and catering in public establishments, such as hospitals, schools and prisons. 23 This would not be the case for CSDs dispensed in the on-trade where the ingredients would dominate the footprint. In terms of recycled content in packaging, this is taken into account in calculating the GHG emissions (as adopted for WRAP’s Courtauld Commitment (WRAP, 2010)).

15

Figure 6: Estimated material volumes and GHG emissions associated with the UK CSDs supply chain24

Figure 7 provides a summary illustration of the UK CSD supply chain, and highlights where the key hotspots occur along the supply chain, thereby providing a focus for opportunities for potentially the most significant reductions.

24 Processed water has been excluded from the materials volume pie chart as it dominates inputs, and makes it difficult to recognise the other key input materials.

Material volumes GHG emissions (tCO2e)

Figure 7: Illustration of the UK carbonated soft drinks supply with environmental hotspots

3.3.2 Dilutables Dilutables are the second most popular soft drink consumed in the UK (22% of total consumption). Dilutables are also often referred to as concentrates, cordials or squash and include powders and other concentrates. As with carbonates, there are low or no-sugar versions, with these variants making up the dominant portion of sales with just over 70% of the dilutables market. The most common flavours are fruit blends (51%), orange (29%) and blackcurrant (11%). Almost all dilutables are packaged in PET bottles (BSDA, 2012a). Table 3 below outlines the estimated volumes and values associated with the main supply stages for UK consumed dilutables.

Table 3: Estimated material volumes associated with the UK dilutables supply chain

Sources: Britvic, 2011; BSDA, 2011; Valpak, 2012; WRAP, 2010; WRAP, 2011 and WRAP, 2012a.

Environmental hotspots The most significant GHG hotspots for dilutables are fruit juice and, to a slightly lesser extent, PET bottles. Like CSDs, water in product is significant in terms of product volume, and the type of liquid used for dilution may have an impact on total impact of the category. Figure 8 provides two charts which represent the estimated material volumes and GHG emissions associated with the UK dilutables supply chain.

Figure 8: Estimated material volumes and GHG emissions associated with the UK dilutables supply chain25

Figure 9 provides a summary illustration of the UK dilutables supply chain, and highlights where the key hotspots occur along the supply chain, thereby providing a focus for opportunities for potentially the most significant reductions.

25

Processed water has been excluded from the materials volume pie chart as it dominates inputs, and makes it difficult to recognise the other key input materials.

GHG emissions (tCO2e) Material volumes


Processing & manufacturing Ingredients 805,000 tonnes



PET 132,000 tonnes

Carton 20,000 tonnes

Glass 15,000 tonnes

Aluminium 0 tonnes


card 42,000 tonnes

plastic 17,000 tonnes

Water used in process 8,052,000 m3



Retail Total retail sales (£) 910,000,000 (£)


Consumer use Water used 28,000,000 m3

Consumer use Waste 53,000 tonnes




18

3.3.3 Fruit juice and smoothies Fruit juice and smoothies are the smallest category of soft drinks consumed in the UK (8% of total consumption). They are defined as having a 100% fruit content equivalent. 55% of fruit-dominant juices are sold chilled. The most common flavours consumed are orange (54%), apple (15%) and fruit blends (14%). At 75% of the total packaging for this product group, liquid cartons are the predominant pack format used with the remaining formats being plastic (17%) and glass (8%) (BSDA, 2012a). Table 4 below outlines the estimated volumes and values associated with the main supply stages for UK fruit juice and smoothies.

Table 4: Estimated material volumes associated with the UK fruit juice and smoothies drinks supply chain

Sources: Britvic, 2011; BSDA, 2011; Valpak, 2012; WRAP 201; WRAP, 2011 and WRAP, 2012a.

Environmental hotspots The most significant hotspot, in both GHG emissions and volume, for fruit juice and smoothies is fruit. For GHG emissions, this is associated with agricultural production of fruit. Figure 10 provides two charts which represent the estimated material volumes and GHG emissions associated with the UK fruit juice, smoothies, still and juice drink supply chains.

Figure 10: Estimated material volumes and GHG emissions associated with the UK fruit juice and smoothies chains26

Figure 11 provides a summary illustration of the UK fruit juice and smoothies supply chain, and highlights where the key hotspots occur along the supply chain, thereby providing a focus for opportunities for potentially the most significant reductions.

26



Processing & manufacturing Ingredients 3,154,000 tonnes


PET Bottles 18,000 tonnes

Cartons 31,000 tonnes

Glass 12,000 tonnes


Card 28,000 tonnes



Sales channels On-trade (sales) 24%

On-trade (vol.) 5%








Figure 9: Illustration of the UK dilutables supply with environmental hotspots

Figure 11: Illustration of the UK fruit juice and smoothies supply with environmental hotspots

3.3.4 Still and juice drinks Still and juice drinks make up 10% of all soft drinks consumed in the UK (the fourth largest category). They are defined as high juice drinks (25-99% fruit content), juice drinks (5-25% fruit content) and other still drinks, functional drinks

27

and iced tea (0-5% fruit content). Juice drinks make up the majority of sales (60%). The most common pack format is liquid cartons (48% of the total), followed by plastic (25%) and glass and other packaging types (27%)(BSDA, 2012a). Table 5 below outlines the estimated volumes and values associated with the main supply stages for UK still and juice drinks.

Table 5: Estimated material volumes associated with the UK still and juice drinks supply chain

Sources: Britvic, 2011; BSDA, 2011; Valpak, 2012; WRAP 201; WRAP, 2011 and WRAP, 2012a.

Environmental hotspots The most significant hotspots for the still and juice drinks are water in product for volume, and fruit for both volume and GHG emissions. For GHG emissions, agricultural production is the primary contributor to fruit. Figure 12 provides two charts which represent the estimated material volumes and GHG emissions associated with the UK still and juice drink supply chains.

Figure 12: Estimated material volumes and GHG emissions associated with the UK still and juice drink supply chains28

27

Functional drinks – enriched beverages, such as juices and waters with added minerals and vitamins. They include sports drinks and neutraceuticals (products with added ingredients targeted at specific medical or health benefits, such as claims for reducing cholesterol)(Nutraingredients-usa.com, 2003). 28




Processing & manufacturing Ingredients 954,000 tonnes



PET (bottles) 22,000 tonnes

Liquid carton 39,000 tonnes

Glass 15,000 tonnes


Card 32,000 tonnes







Consumer use Waste not specified tonnes




22

Figure 13 provides a summary illustration of the UK still and juice drink supply chain, and highlights where the key hotspots occur along the supply chain, thereby providing a focus for opportunities for potentially the most significant reductions.

Figure 13: Illustration of the UK still and juice drink supply with environmental hotspots

3.3.5 Bottled water Bottled water is the third most consumed soft drink in the UK (14% of the total consumed). There are two key classifications for bottled water – naturally

29 and not-naturally sourced water, of which naturally-sourced makes up

approximately 90% of sales. Water can be sold as still, sparkling or lightly sparkling, of which still is predominant (72% of sales). Over 90% of bottled water is sold in plastic PET bottles (BSDA, 2012a and Natural Hydration Council, 2010). Table 6 below outlines the estimated volumes and values associated with the main supply stages for UK bottled water.

Table 6: Estimated material volumes associated with the UK bottled water supply chain

Sources: Britvic, 2011; BSDA, 2011; Mintel, 2009; Valpak, 2012; WRAP, 2010; WRAP, 2011 and WRAP, 2012a.

Environmental hotspots

The most significant GHG emission hotspot for bottled water is PET packaging, and for volume it is, as expected, water

as an ingredient. Figure 14 provides two charts which represent the estimated material volumes and GHG emissions

associated with the UK bottled water supply chain. NB that bottled water represents 10% of estimated GHG (tCO2e) in

the UK soft drinks supply chain. This pie chart shows the breakdown of the emissions associated with the bottled water

supply chain, only.

Figure 14: Estimated material volumes and GHG emissions associated with the UK bottled water supply chain30

29 Naturally-sourced water is further categorised into: 1) natural mineral water – which must originate from an identified and protected underground source and be bottled at source, and 2) spring water – which must originate from an underground source, be bottled at source and be microbiologically safe without treatment. It may include the removal of certain minerals as defined by the European Union Scientific Committee for Food. 30 Processed water has been excluded from the materials volume pie chart as it dominates inputs, and makes it difficult to recognise the other key input materials.



Processing & manufacturing Water in product 2,055,000 m3


PET 65,000 tonnes

Paper 2,000 tonnes

Glass 13,000 tonnes


Card 12,000 tonnes











Figure 15: Illustration of the UK bottled water supply with environmental hotspots

3.4. Five key themes Following the environmental hotspot analysis of the five soft drinks categories, it was possible to ascertain the environmental impacts most common to all five categories. Based on current data availability, these emerged as the following:

Fruit & sugar

Energy (incl. refrigeration)

Packaging

Product waste

Water not in product Water not in product is included as it contributes by far the most volume to the total material volume for the sector (see Table 1). Table 7 below identifies the Top 3 GHG emissions (tCO2e) per category, or hotspots contributing over 10% to the total GHG per category. This table could be used to guide the Project Management Group’s thinking on areas of focus for Phase 2. However, this does not include other metrics, such as water and energy use, which were assessed separately and considered when pulling together the list of key themes. Table 7: Main GHG emission (tCO2e) hotspots as a percentage contribution to total of the category

Category

Environmental hotspots

Fruit Sugar Additives PET

bottles Alu. cans

2o packaging

Distribu -tion

Retail refrigera-tion

Carbonates 10% 31% 19% 15%

Dilutables 62% 10% 14% 11%

Fruit juice & smoothies 68% 12%

Still & juice drinks 58% 11% 11%

Bottled water 64% 12% 16%

To ensure these key themes were correctly identified, Best Foot Forward shared the research findings with a range of stakeholders from across the soft drinks supply chain at a workshop and webinar held in May and June respectively. In addition, the findings were assessed in relation to the information submitted by those who undertook an on-line survey on key issues facing the sector. (For a list of organisations that contributed to the workshop and webinar, undertook the on-line survey or were interviewed, see Appendix 3). However, it will be important to check the findings of this research beyond that of the Project Management Group, with a selected group of stakeholders (potentially some BSDA members) for feedback.

Opportunities and barriers In addition to the identification of the environmental impact themes, opportunities and barriers for reducing these impacts have also been identified through a programme of stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder input has been key to filtering the focus areas and activities for a sustainability roadmap. The results of this consultation have been drawn in the discussions below on each environmental impact theme. Within Phase II it is proposed that these insights are combined with further research into environmental impact reduction opportunities, for example through a sweep of current and emerging technologies to aid this change.

It has been recognised that any reduction opportunities should build on the activities and targets that have already been initiated or could be achieved by the sector, whether overarching ambitions, such as the Federation Commitment’s ‘Five Fold Ambition’, WRAP’s Courtauld Commitment or individual company targets and achievements. For a more comprehensive list of collaborative initiatives, see Appendix 5.

3.4.1. Fruit and sugar Fruit production and processing contribute significantly to two categories – dilutables and fruit juice & smoothies and still & juice drinks. Sugar as an ingredient is important for CSDs, in particular its production and processing. For both fruit and sugar production, water use – in particular for irrigation - can be significant (Defra, 2006). Stakeholders agreed that fruit and sugar production is an important theme for the soft drinks sector, not only from an environmental perspective, but also from a social (ethical) and economic perspective. However, this is only an assumption at this stage, and the significance needs to be confirmed with further research into this area.

27

Opportunities and barriers The table below captures stakeholders’ insights on the opportunities and potential barriers associated with reducing the environmental impact associated with fruit and sugar.

Opportunities to: Potential barriers

Work with the whole supply chain to achieve reductions.

Share best practice.

Find baseline metrics for fruit and sugar production (may be available through WRAP’s Product Sustainability Forum). However, this could be complex, as there are many production systems for each fruit type.

Reduce the use of agricultural chemicals.

Reduce processing waste, and identify better uses for by-

products and waste, such as lemon terpeness31

.

Reduce energy, in particular transport and processing.

Reduce water use from water stressed areas. o Sourcing ingredients with low water burden.

An issue with global economics (demand for sugar) – trade restrictions mean sugar can’t be sourced at a commercially viable cost from certain e.g. non-Commonwealth countries, therefore limiting supply.

Lack of engagement along the supply chain to implement resource efficiency activities.

Not being able to share data due to confidentiality issues.

Due to the current financial circumstance, companies or the sector may not be in a position to fund reduction opportunities.

Lack of knowledge or ability to improve skills to identify and/or implement reduction opportunities ‘on the shop/production floor’.

3.4.2. Energy (including refrigeration and freezing) Energy consumption throughout the supply chain contributes most significantly to the soft drinks sector’s environmental impact through direct energy use, in particular the processing of ingredients and manufacture of packaging, fuel use in distribution and refrigeration and freezing

32. This is specifically the case for bottled water,

where fuel (energy) for distribution of the product is significant in relation to other energy use in production, and retail refrigeration for CSDs and fruit juices.

Opportunities and barriers The table below captures stakeholders’ insights on the opportunities and potential barriers associated with reducing the environmental impact associated with energy (including refrigeration and freezing).


Energy:

Increase and implement production site level audits to identify inefficiencies and leaks.

Installation of sub-metering to accurately reflect energy consumption on-site.

Identify appropriate energy efficiency opportunities for reducing the amount of energy consumed by the soft drinks sector.

Reduce energy use in transport: o Optimise fuel usage. o Increase the use of more efficient transport modes,

such as rail. o Improve haulage efficiencies – minimise double-

handling and empty trips.

Increase the use of alternative sources of fuel/energy: o Photovoltaic (PV) cells. o Biomass (although issues around sourcing need to

be considered). o Energy-from- waste (EfW), such as anaerobic

digestion (AD). o Ground source heat pumps and other forms of heat

recovery.

Refrigeration:

Investigate increasing fridge temperatures for storing drinks, or remove the need for refrigeration completely.

o Use additives to preserve instead of the need to refrigerate.

o Use of optimum temperatures for fridges

Energy and refrigeration:

Lack of appropriate technologies to significantly reduce energy consumption. A potential role for the Technology Strategy Board, and link to findings from Defra’s research to reducing GHG emissions in refrigeration.

Investment and running costs. The payback periods need to be commercially viable, and ideally create additional jobs.

A risk that energy markets might change, including government subsidies and support.

Food and safety requirements for the storage of food stuffs.

Lack of knowledge or ability to improve skills to identify and/or implement reduction opportunities.

Convenience resulting in an apathy or resistance (e.g. marketing teams) to change, for example the installation of fridge doors.

Competition in industry does not allow for sharing of best practice.

31 Oil extracted from lemon peels. 32 Refrigeration of fruit purees, concentrates and juice is common practice in the manufacture of fruit juice, still and juice drinks. In particular, for storing juices for use out of a fruit’s growing season (Walkden, 2012).

28

o Only refrigeration and/or freeze when necessary. Build on research undertaken by Defra on reducing the GHG emissions associated with the refrigeration food and drink products.

Increase the use of refrigerators with doors.

Increase the use of LED lighting for fridges33

.

Increase the use of more ‘environmentally friendly’ refrigerants, such as propane.

Use ‘clever’ packaging to shift from chilled to ambient storage for drinks in the home and on-the-go, thereby reducing the need for refrigeration.

3.4.3. Packaging Primary packaging

34 production and consumption contributes significantly to most of soft drinks categories, especially

PET bottles for example, 31% of total impact for CSDs and 64% for bottled water, and aluminium cans which for example contribute 19% of total impact for CSDs. Secondary packaging

35 is an important impact for bottled water

(12%). Stakeholders agreed that this was one of the most important areas of consideration for a roadmap, however a discussion was held on the ‘actual’ versus ‘perceived’ importance of packaging and that it is acknowledged that:

Packaging is necessary to protect and preserve the product;

Numerous initiatives are in place to reduce the environmental impact of packaging, such as the Courtauld Commitment (WRAP, 2012b) (also see Appendix 5) – which includes optimisation and minimisation, increasing recycled content and increasing recyclability of packaging; and

Many soft drinks companies have actively reduced the packaging on their products or within the supply chain, for example as is evidenced in the UK Soft Drinks Responsibility Report (BSDA, 2012d) and interviews held with plastics bottle manufacturers and recyclers (Moody, 2012).

Opportunities and barriers The table below captures stakeholders’ insights on the opportunities and potential barriers associated with reducing the environmental impact associated with packaging.


Optimisation & minimisation:

Continue investing in optimal packaging and reduction of resources (see WRAP Courtauld Commitment).

Increase the use of renewable materials in packaging. o Use of biomass crops for biopolymers rather than

food crops.

Explore the standardisation of labels.

Explore alternative ways of delivering product to consumer e.g. more concentrates or ‘soda stream’ system.

Recycled content & recycling

Improve food-grade recycling opportunities for polypropylene (PP), as is currently being investigated by WRAP (WRAP, 2011d).

Reduce the use of virgin and increase the recyclability of packaging (see WRAP’s rPET categorisation matrix (WRAP, 2011e)).

o Reduce print on bottles. o Reduce material that causes reprocessing and

problems (e.g. black PET).

Increase recycled content, recycling rates and quality of material collected (e.g. standardising local authority collection)(see WRAP’s roundtable on improving recycled content for the drinks sector (Gyekye, 2011)).

Optimisation & minimisation:

Marketing practices, such as brand protection (shape/size).

Shift to smaller pack sizes for health and convenience could lead to an increase in packaging as packaging to product ratio increase, or this could lead to changes in optimal packaging (which is an opportunity). This needs to consider the interaction with health/obesity initiatives and balance of reduced product waste.

Large labels often the result of presenting information required by EU/domestic legislation.

Recycled content & recycling

Recycling economics not commercially viable.

Diversity of local authority recycling schemes.

Lack of availability of and good quality recycled material.

Design issues as a barrier to 100% recyclable PET.

Brand identity vs increased use of recycled content. o Consumer awareness/ acceptance.

Consumer perception of packaging as a key environmental issue.

33 LED lights use between 50-90% less energy, do not contain mercury and can last up to 20 times longer than a conventional bulb (Matrixled, 2012). 34 Primary packaging or 'sales' packaging is packaging which forms a sales unit for the user or final consumer, for example, a plastic bottle containing water (DOE, 2010). 35 Secondary packaging or 'grouped' packaging is that which contains a number of sales units, for example, a cardboard outer containing a number of bottles of water (DOE, 2010). Within the retail environment this would include retail-ready (RRP) or sales-ready (SRP) packaging.

29

Improve technology in the UK for recycling liquid cartons.

Consumer, hospitality and food sector messaging and awareness to increase recycling.

Increase the collection of recyclables by local authorities from the hospitality and food sector.

Improve recycling ‘on the go’.

Educate consumers on the ‘true’ understanding of packaging.

3.4.4. Product waste Product waste (excluding packaging) does not emerge as a major environmental hotspot in terms of GHG emissions and waste arisings (as per findings from WRAP’s drinks resource map). However it is considered to be an issue of concern with both the Food & Drink Federation (FDF) and WRAP’s Courtauld Commitment both focussing on supply chain waste, and for the latter, food and drink waste thrown away in the home. Based on feedback from stakeholders, waste in manufacturing and distribution processes has been a major focus in recent years and is now not considered to be an issue compared with post-consumer waste. However, this does need to be clarified, with WRAP and the FDF who have been investigating waste arisings in this area, as to whether further work needs to be undertaken in reduce waste arisings in the manufacture of soft drinks. A roadmap would need to work in collaboration with activities being undertaken and promoted by these two organisations.

Research carried out on behalf of WRAP suggests that UK households are wasting over 0.5bn litres of soft drinks a year (WRAP, 2011f). Figure 16 below provides and estimated breakdown of this waste (WRAP, 2011g).

Figure 16: Household soft drinks waste, by category

The reasons behind this waste figure require further investigation and clarification. For example, for CSDs is the wastage due to product ‘going flat’? WRAP are currently undertaking research to better understand the behaviours behind such wastage. This will help to provide guidance on how to reduce drink waste in the home, and it is recommended that for the roadmap the outcomes of this research are taken into consideration. However, there are concerns as to how to education consumers as Government budget is currently not available to fund any campaign to reduce food and drink waste in the home.

Opportunities and barriers The table below captures stakeholders’ insights on the opportunities and potential barriers associated with reducing the environmental impact linked with product waste along the supply chain and in the home.


Reduce any waste produced going to landfill. o Consider waste to energy/anaerobic digestion (AD)

options (collection method from manufacturers to be identified).

o Reduce waste, reuse and then recycle.

Reduction in consumer waste down the drain. o Portion control – although this may result in

increased packaging.

The cost of investing in the reduction of supply chain waste.

Lack of technologies to reduce supply chain waste.

Product innovation does not always consider sustainably.

Training issues – high staff turnover in entire supply chain.

Fear of change / short-sightedness.

Short life-cycle products.

30

Shelf-life, especially carbonated soft drinks.

3.4.5. Water not in product Water used for the processing of ingredients (especially fruit and sugar-based drinks), and manufacture of soft drinks is the most significant material consumed (by volume) by the sector (84% of all materials consumed). Drinks companies rely on water as a primary ingredient for their products, therefore the promotion of the sustainable use and protection of water is a business imperative, in particular as it can be a reputational and environmental risk (especially if sourced from a water stressed area). The Beverage Industry Environment Roundtable (BIER, 2012) recently reported benchmarks for the water use ratio for two soft drinks categories, as follows:

Carbonates: 2.11 litres for 1 litre of product

Bottled water: 1.53 litres for 1 litre of product

Based on the evidence to date and stakeholder feedback, water not in product use is considered to be a very important theme to incorporate into the roadmap and it was agreed that opportunities still exist for improvement. These could be investigated further in Phase 2.

Opportunities and barriers The table below captures stakeholders’ insights on the opportunities and potential barriers associated with reducing water not in product along the supply chain.


Identify and benchmark best practice by sector (see BIER Appendix 5).

Capture direct and indirect water use data to develop a baseline from which to measure improvements.

Identify emerging technologies to reduce water consumption along the supply chain

o Need to assess viability/payback. o Increase the use of and invest in more waterless

cleaning.

Consider and/or increase the use of other water sources e.g. grey water use, and reuse of water where possible e.g. reverse osmosis (what are the legal restrictions?)

Increase the delivery of drinks products to consumers in concentrate form to reduce water in products, thereby improving transport efficiencies.

o Increase use of ‘piped water’ at point of use.

Availability of information of water use throughout the supply chain (which could be a good focus area for a roadmap)

Ensure opportunities take quality control and safety into account.

o Food safety. o Hygiene at ‘point of use’.

Overcome stigma attached to reusing water in the supply chain (which could be a good focus area for a roadmap).

Economic drivers – e.g. local water cost and availability. In the future UK water is likely to become scarcer and expensive due to e.g. changes in abstraction licences.

4. Data gaps

As part of building the evidence for the roadmap, the aim has been to draw on currently available data from within and external to the soft drinks sector and to cover the entire supply chain (including international sourcing of product and ingredients) and a variety of sustainability metrics (including carbon, water, energy and waste). From the initial data completion exercise and analysis, literature review and stakeholder engagement, it is apparent that there is a wide range of variability in the availability and quality of data pertaining to the sector. The most common data gaps or where data requires clarification – as identified in the table below (orange indicating gaps or poor information). It is hoped that in Phase 2 industry stakeholders will be willing to help improve this data and information by either sharing information they have, or indicating if such data exists but may not be available for confidentiality reasons..

Life-cycle stage CSDs Dilutables Fruit juice

& smoothies

Still & juice

drinks

Bottled water

Processing & manufacturing Manufactured sales (£)

Manufactured units

Ingredients

Water in product

31

Packaging

Secondary packaging

Water used in process

Waste

Sales channels On-trade (sales)

On-trade (vol.)

Off-trade (sales)

Off-trade (vol)

Retail Total retail sales (£)

Total retail units

Packaging

Water used

Waste

Consumer use Water used

Waste

Packaging

End of life Reuse

Recycled

Landfill

Energy recovery

5. Recommendations for Phase II Research

This section provides a synthesis of research recommended to be undertaken during Phase II. The recommendations are drawn from gaps identified in data assessed for the UK overview, environmental hotspots analysis and stakeholder engagement. These recommendations are outlined below, and require Project Management Group views on which to prioritise and focus on in Phase 2.

5.1 Fruit & sugar

Fruit production data gaps:

The aim will be to try and gather further information and data on the production of the most commonly used fruits for fruit juice in the UK, including: Orange, Apple, Pineapple, Grapefruit, Lemons and limes, Grape, Cranberry and Blackcurrant. This will include country of origin, production and processing methods, volumes, refrigeration along the chain and supply chain routes to the UK.

This will also include clarification of the average amount of fruit required to produce 1 litre of soft drink.

Best Foot Forward has begun to identify and engage with key organisations producing, processing or selling fruit for soft drinks or fruit juice to manufacturers to try to refine the findings ascertained to date. Some of the additional organisations identified for this purpose are: British Fruit Juice Association; Citrosuco (oranges); Continental Juice (oranges); European Fruit Juice Association; Gerber Juice Company (manufacturer); GSK (manufacturer of Ribena); International Federation of Fruit Juice Producers.

Sugar production:

The aim will be to try and gather further information and data on sugar cane production to gain a clearer understanding of the volumes produced for UK soft drinks use, agricultural and processing impact. Information has become available for this to be clarified.

To clarify and characterise the supply chains, such as origins of sugar and environmental impacts associated with e.g. sugar refining.

To clarify the consumption of corn syrup as a sugar in the production of soft drinks consumed in the UK.

Best Foot Forward has begun to identify and engage with key organisations producing, processing or selling fruit or fruit juice to manufacturers to try to refine the findings ascertained to date. Some of the additional organisations identified for this purpose are: American Sugar Refining (Tate & Lyle); British Sugar; Committee of European Users of Sugar (CIUS) and UK Sugar Users Group (BSDA).

Environmental impact of sweeteners:

As requested by stakeholders, there is a desire to understand the environmental impact associated with the production and processing of sweeteners (artificial and natural) compared to sugars for the use in soft drinks. This will include:

32

o Producing a list of sweeteners used by the soft drinks sector, and associated volumes, source and method of production

The aim will be to consult with producers of sweeteners and gather information from secondary data, such as LCA’s to try and clarify the impact of sweeteners. In particular, how would the growing trend in the use of no-calorie sweeteners impact on the current soft drinks GHG baseline.

Production methods:

An additional recommendation, again proposed by stakeholders, would be to carry out a sweep of the different types of sugar and fruit production methods that are reported to have a lower environmental impact than some current methods, for example concentrating fruit near the agricultural production or manufacturing site. This could include, for example, investigating alternative supply chains such as increased concentration of juices to reduce transport impacts.

The aim of this sweep would be to gather evidence for potential reduction opportunities that could be adopted during the implementation of a roadmap.

5.2 Energy (including refrigeration and freezing)

Refrigeration in the supply chain:

The aim of this activity will be to better understand and clarify where along the supply chain refrigeration and freezing starts and ends for each soft drinks category, and why it takes place at any given stage. For example, why is some fruit juice frozen between fruit producer/processor and drinks manufacturer?

Additionally, clarifying the GHG impacts of refrigeration and freezing from both energy use and refrigerant emissions to the atmosphere will enable identification of the most appropriate solutions for reduction and optimisation

A number of key sources have recently come to light36 in order to enable this activity to be undertaken, such as Defra’s recent report on an investigation into the GHG emissions associated with the refrigeration of food and drink products. In addition stakeholders and LinkedIn will be used to survey organisations to clarify the refrigeration and freezing processes along their supply chains.

5.3 Packaging

On-trade packaging:

It has been recommended by stakeholders to undertake additional research to try and derive more robust figures for packaging consumed by and disposed of through the on-trade. Information being produced by WRAP on the hospitality and foodservice sectors, and exploring engagement with Valpak’s Data Solutions hospitality clients, further insights could be obtained.

On the go recycling:

Stakeholder feedback would suggest that the evidence on where soft drinks packaging purchased on the go is unclear. The intention would to try and better understand the final destination of this packaging and where it is actually disposed, for example in the workplace or at home/kerbside. This would provide more insight and evidence for developing any programmes for increasing the collection of packaging on the go for recycling.

Secondary packaging:

Data on secondary data is available, however within the timeframe of Phase I it was not possible to allocate additional time to deriving more reasonable figures for secondary packaging arising along the supply chain. With assistance from Valpak we propose delving deeper into data submitted for PRNs to provide better estimates on secondary packaging for the different drinks categories.

Aluminium and steel cans:

The split between aluminium versus steel cans requires clarification, as the research currently assumes all metal packaging for cans is aluminium when the UK has a large number of steel cans in circulation. This data is available for supermarket sales, but would need to be more robust for the on-trade.

Data to refine this split can be extrapolated from Valpak sources for supermarket packaging, the Beverage Can Manufacturers of Europe (BCME) and Every Can Counts campaign material and research.

36 Additional useful data sources for refrigeration: Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment (Arthur D. Little, 1996); Energy use in food refrigeration: Calculations, assumptions and data sources (Swain, 2006); Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Food Retailing (Brunel University, 2008); How much electricity does my refrigerator use? (Bluejay, 2011); Refrigeration (Greenconsumerguide.com, 2012) and Reducing refrigerant emissions & leakage (Institute of Refrigeration, 2010)

33

New technology:

A range of new technologies are under development for primary and secondary packaging, including increased use of bio-materials, accessing recovered materials for re-cycling or re-use, and for beverage delivery. A review of known and emerging technologies is proposed for Phase II, in particular mapping existing initiatives and identifying where there are any information gaps.

5.4 Product waste

Arisings in the supply chain:

Work has been carried out recently for WRAP to identify waste arisings in the drinks sectors’ supply chains. However, access to data was problematic and as a result the figures derived from the research are incomplete (WRAP, 2012a).

It is proposed that further research is undertaken to improve these figures, and confirm whether product waste in manufacture, distribution and retail is significant or not. This will be undertaken by obtaining data from Best Foot Forward’s soft drinks clients, project stakeholders and secondary data from life-cycle research, as well as building on the lessons learnt from WRAP’s study. Included in this would also be a review of why product waste arises, such as

product shelf life, stock and order policy of retailers.

5.5 Water not in product

Benchmarking:

The aim of this exercise will be to build on the work BIER have undertaken to benchmark the water not in product to litre of product ratio for CSDs and bottled water. Benchmarks for fruit juice & smoothies, still & juice drinks and dilutables will be identified.

Secondary data sources, such as LCA’s and corporate responsibility reports will be analysed, in conjunction with engagement with stakeholders and BIER.

Water footprint assessment:

Currently this research focuses on water not in product, and does not include a category’s water footprint37

. Stakeholders have recommended that within this project a water footprint and/or assessment is undertaken for each soft drinks category.

However, water footprinting and its associated methodologies are still in an embryonic phase with most of the work to date having focussed on the agricultural production of products. For this purpose, Best Foot Forward proposes undertaking the water footprints of the key ingredients (fruits and sugars) used in soft drinks, and undertaking a water assessment (including water scarcity) by drawing on:

o Water assessments undertaken for soft drinks for WRAP’s Product Research Forum (PRF) environmental hotspots analysis (undertaken by BFF), and

o The Water Footprint Network’s38

WaterStat database, which contains green, blue and grey water39

for: apple juice, sugar cane, glucose and fructose syrups, sugar beet, orange juice, lemons & limes, grapefruit juice, grape juice and pineapple juice. It is acknowledged that the WFNs data is under discussion, however by undertaking this footprint and assessment, at least an indicator of water impact can be proposed.

6. Revised project plan

Following the review of this report, and recommendations for additional work to be undertaken in Phase II, a meeting is to be held on 17

th July 2012 with the Project Management Group to agree on the additional work to be taken forward

and the timeframe. In order to guide these decisions, a proposed timeline, broken down by proposed activity is outlined on the following page.

37

A water footprint is an indicator of water use that looks at both direct and indirect water use of a consumer or producer. The water footprint is defined as the total volume of freshwater that is used to produce goods and services consumed by an individual or community or produced by a business (Water Footprint Network, 2012a). 38 Best Foot Forward is a Water Footprint Network partner. 39 The green water footprint measures which part of the total evaporative flow is actually appropriated for human purposes. The runoff flow – the water flowing in aquifers and rivers – can be used for all sorts of purposes, including irrigation, washing, processing and cooling. The blue water footprint measures the volume of groundwater and surface water consumed, i.e. withdrawn and then evaporated. The grey water footprint measures the volume of water flow in aquifers and rivers polluted by humans (Water Footprint Network, 2012b).

34

Key decision points, deliverables & stakeholder workshop

Best Foot Forward welcome a discussion on which activities to proceed with, and are flexible as to which activities are selected within the current remaining budget, unless deemed otherwise by the Project Management Group.

July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

16th 30th 6th 20th 3rd 17th 1st 15th 29th 5th 19th 3rd

Phase II activities agreed

Fruit & sugar

Fruit production data gaps

Sugar production

Environmental impact of sweeteners

Production methods

Energy (incl. refrigeration)

Refrigeration & freezing in the supply chain

Packaging

On-trade packaging

Secondary packaging

Aluminium vs s teel cans

Technology review

Product waste

Aris ings in the supply chain

Process water

Benchmarking

Water footprinting

Stakeholder workshop & feedback

Draft & final report

Activity

Week commencing

35

Appendix 1: UK soft drinks sector overview process and approach

The methodology used to define the UK soft drinks sector overview is outlined in the figure below:

36

Appendix 2: Literature review process and approach The literature review examined a great diversity of literature of different origins, ranging from academic life cycle assessment papers to industry reports; from manufacturer websites to opinion pieces in the industry press. Examples of the types of information reviewed are listed below:

Industry bodies - collate statistics to provide an overview of drinks sectors.

Market research organisations - review different market segments, although these may be at several year intervals.

Drinks manufacturers - contribute to press releases and opinion pieces about innovations, and report their sustainability efforts on their websites. These are a good source of news about trends and innovations.

The packaging industry - undertakes internal studies on new materials, new technologies and recycling initiatives.

Environmental Product Declarations - becoming more commonly published, and provide a detailed life cycle analysis of a small group of products.

Academic life cycle analyses - study particular processes in detail, with specific scenarios.

Literature review process The literature research for this project was conducted as illustrated:

A list of likely sources was compiled. These included:

Industry bodies such as BSDA, Food & Drink Federation, Beverage Industry Environment Roundtable, Beer & Pub Association.

UK soft drinks manufacturers.

Packaging trade bodies such as Beverage Can Manufacturers of Europe, British Plastics Federation, British Glass, Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association and Recoup.

Market research companies in the soft drinks sector, such as Mintel, Zenith International, Canadean, Nielsen, Euromonitor.

Sustainability organisations such as Environment Agency, WRAP.

Life Cycle Analysis published papers.

Trade press, such as Just drinks, Packaging News, The Grocer, Off-Licence News, Beverage Innovation, and Soft Drinks International.

Best Foot Forward’s internal database of references and statistics.

Researchers built up a list of references that looked potentially interesting and useful. Where the references appeared to provide data or useful insights, these were extracted. Preliminary analysis drew on some of the extracted data, but not all was required. These sources were reviewed and quality assessed. Areas where data was poor or less robust were noted for future investigation.

Gaps and issues The research for the literature review provided a very wide overview of the UK soft drinks industry. However, there were several areas where robust research was not available and the current study has used assumptions or proxies. It is possible that further research may reveal additional sources, but it might be necessary and beneficial to approach companies in the industry, and the BSDA, to seek their internal monitoring data.

37

1. Published estimates of market volume vary by 90% between two respected industry sources (BSDA and Britvic) due to different estimation methodologies

2. Market studies tend to concentrate on supermarket sales; therefore sales through other channels (such as on-trade and ‘on-the-go’) seem to be less well covered even though they are likely to be significant for soft drinks.

3. Studies of packaging volumes are primarily based on supermarket sales while other outlets such as convenience stores are less well represented in the data. Available published packaging data has been found to be inconsistent and possibly incomplete.

4. Published data on water used in processing is sparse and possibly inconsistently reported. 5. Published ingredient data – content of drinks, geographical origins etc. – is largely unavailable. A few Life Cycle

Assessments were found but these apply to very specific cases. Ingredients are documented in very general terms other than for pure fruit products.

6. Dilutables sales data had to be drawn from several different sources to make a complete set. 7. Data on the use of energy in processing was not found. 8. Distribution data had to be extrapolated from a small number of sources. 9. Refrigeration data had to be extrapolated from a small number of sources. Further research may be able to fill some of these gaps, but clarification on some details must be provided from within the industry.

38

Appendix 3: List of proactive stakeholders

Company

Workshop

attendance

31 May

Webinar

attendance

12 June

On-line

surveyInterviewed

Contributed

information

Brand owners/manufacturers/packer-fillers

A G Barr plc

Britvic plc

Coca-Cola Enterprises Ltd

Coca-Cola Global

Cott Beverages

Ecofresch

Gerber Juice Company Ltd

GSK

Highland Spring

PepsiCo

Princes Ltd

Goods & service suppliers

Alpla

Aptar Food & Beverage

Ball Packaging

Cargill

Elopak UK Limited

Esterform

Graham Packaging

Krogab

Krones

Nampak Plastics

Quinn Glass

Rexam

RPC Superfos

Solo Cup Europe Ltd

Strapt-pak

T & L Sugars Ltd

Tetra Pak Ltd

Retailers & wholesale (off-trade)

M&S

Morrison's

Musgrave, Londis, Budgens

Sainsbury's

Tesco

The Co-operative

Distribution

Wincanton

End of life (reprocessors/waste/recycling)

Closed Loop Recycling

EcoPlastics

Jayplas

PET Processors

Recoup

Associations & other

ACE UK

Association of Convenience Stores

British Beer & Pub Association

British Glass

British Plastics Federation

British Soft Drinks Association

BCME Can makers

Defra

Food & Drink Federation

INCPEN

Metal Packaging Manufacturers Assocation

Natural Hydration Council

Responsible Hospitality Partnership

UK Industrial Sugar Users Group

University of Manchester

WRAP

Denotes the activity to which an organisation has contributed.

39

Appendix 4: Detailed data tables for total soft drinks and drinks categories

These tables reflect where data gaps exist, the variance in data from different sources and some assumptions and explanations associated with the data. For Phase II, the intention is to work more closely with stakeholders and carry out additional research to try and fill in some of the data gaps, refine the data and/or clarify the most appropriate sources if more than one source exists.

Estimated material volumes and values associated with the annual UK consumption of soft drinks*

Retail sales: For retail sales data there were several possible sources of information. The sources selected were based on discussions with the BSDA and other stakeholders. BSDA (BSDA, 2011) retail sales data is based on manufacturer-supplied data whereas the alternative Britvic report (Britvic, 2011) was based on retail samples and household surveys from Nielsen, and gave a total less than half of the BSDA figure. NOTE: At the time of writing up the Phase I Synthesis Report, the BSDA-derived data had not been updated to reflect the 2012-released data. This will be updated in the next stage of the research.

Life-cycle stage Total Unit Year Source Value #2 Year 2# Source #2 Notes/assumptions

Processing & manufacturing Manufactured sa les (£) (£)

Manufactured units

Ingredients 5,408,000 tonnes excl water


Packaging 682,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak

based on supermarket sales and size ranges, missing

on-trade packaging profile.

PET (bottles) 403,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""

Paper / card 106,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""

Glass 102,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""

Steel #REF! tonnes 2012 Valpak ""

Aluminium #REF! tonnes 2012 Valpak ""

Secondary packaging 175,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak secondary packaging data incomplete

Paper / Card 133,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""

Plastic 42,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""

Wood #REF! tonnes 2012 Valpak wood incomplete so omitted from totals

Water used in process 27,383,000 l i tres 2011 WRAP

Waste tonnes

Sales channels On-trade (sa les ) 19% % 2009 Mintel (BFF ca lculated) 30% 2011 Bri tvic

On-trade (vol .) % 7% 2011 Bri tvic

Off-trade (sa les ) % 70% 2011 Bri tvic

Off-trade (vol ) % 93% 2011 Bri tvic

Retail Total reta i l sa les (£) 13,880,000,000 (£) 2011 BSDA 9,434,300,000 2011 Bri tvic

BSDA based on manufacturer data: Britvic based on

Nielsen data

Total reta i l units 14,585,000,000 l i tres 2011 BSDA 7,685,800,000 2011 Bri tvic

Ingredients tonnes

Packaging tonnes

Water used l i tres

Waste tonnes

Consumer use Water used #REF! l i tres

Waste 402,000 tonnes 2009 WRAP

Packaging tonnes

End of life Reuse tonnes

Recycled 528,000 tonnes 2010 Courtauld Commitment Based on UK recycling rates achieved, 2009

Landfi l l 429,000 tonnes 2010 Courtauld Commitment Based on UK recycling rates achieved, 2009

Energy recovery 58,000 tonnes 2010 Courtauld Commitment Based on UK recycling rates achieved, 2009

40

Estimated material volumes and values associated with the annual UK consumption of CSDs


Life-cycle stage Total Unit Year Source Value #2 Year 2# Source #2 Notes/assumptions

Processing & manufacturing Manufactured sa les (£)

Manufactured units

Ingredients 495,000 tonnes excl water




on-trade packaging profile


Paper / card 14,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""


Steel (Metal caps for glass bottle) 19,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""

Aluminium 52,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""


Paper / Card 19,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""

LLDPE film 17,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""

Wood tonnes 2012 Valpak wood incomplete so omitted from totals

Water used in process 8,980,000 m3 2011 WRAP excludes water in product

Waste tonnes

Sales channels On-trade (sa les ) 66% % 2009 Mintel 42% 2011 Bri tvic Mintel 2007 data

On-trade (vol .) 32% % 2009 Mintel 12% 2011 Bri tvic Mintel 2007 data

Off-trade (sa les )

Off-trade (vol )

Retail Total reta i l sa les (£) 8,000,000,000 (£) 2011 BSDA

Total reta i l units 6,400,000,000 l i tres 2011 BSDA

Ingredients tonnes

Packaging tonnes

Water used l i tres

Waste tonnes

Consumer use Water used l i tres


This is only product waste and does not include

packaging waste

Packaging tonnes





41

Estimated material volumes associated with the UK dilutables supply chain


Life-cycle stage Total Unit Year Source Notes/assumptions


Manufactured units

Ingredients 805,000 tonnes excl water





PET 132,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""

Carton 20,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""


Valpak ""

Aluminium 0 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""


card 42,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""

plastic 17,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""

wood tonnes 2012 Valpak wood incomplete so omitted from totals

Water used in process 8,052,000 m3 2011 WRAP

Assumed still drinks levels (Drinks Resource Map

Summary). Excludes water in product

Waste tonnes

Sales channels On-trade (sa les ) 27% % 2010 Mintel 36% 2011 Bri tvic

On-trade (vol .) 3% % 2010 Mintel 3% 2011 Bri tvic

Off-trade (sa les )

Off-trade (vol )

Retail Total reta i l sa les (£) 910,000,000 (£) 2011 BSDA

Total reta i l uni ts 3,500,000,000 l i tres 2011 BSDA

Ingredients tonnes

Packaging tonnes

Water used l i tres

Waste tonnes

Consumer use Water used 28,000,000 m3

Assuming 25% of dilutables are double strength.



packaging waste

Packaging tonnes





42

Estimated material volumes associated with the UK fruit juice & smoothies supply chains




Manufactured units

Ingredients 3,154,000 tonnes excl water

Water in product m3




PET Bottles 18,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""

Cartons 31,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""


Valpak ""

Valpak ""


Card 28,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""




Assumed fruit juice levels (Drinks Resource Map

Summary)

Waste tonnes

Sales channels On-trade (sa les ) 24% 49% 2010 Mintel

On-trade (vol .) 5% 2% 2010 Mintel

Off-trade (sa les ) 76% % 2011 Bri tvic

Off-trade (vol ) 95% % 2011 Bri tvic



Ingredients tonnes

Packaging tonnes

Water used l i tres

Waste tonnes


Waste tonnes

This i s only product waste and does not include

packaging waste

Packaging tonnes


Recycled 62,000 tonnes 2010 Courtauld Commitment Based on UK recycl ing rates achieved, 2009

Landfi l l 23,000 tonnes 2010 Courtauld Commitment Based on UK recycl ing rates achieved, 2009

Energy recovery 3,000 tonnes 2010 Courtauld Commitment Based on UK recycl ing rates achieved, 2009

43

Estimated material volumes associated with the UK still & juice drinks supply chains


Processing & manufacturing Ingredients 954,000 tonnes excl water






Liquid carton 39,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""






Assumed fruit juice levels(Drinks Resource Map

Summary). Excludes water in product

Sales channels On-trade (sa les ) 49% % 2010 Mintel 25% 2011 Bri tvic



Total reta i l units 1,450,000,000 l i tres 2011 BSDA

Consumer use Waste 0 tonnes 2009 WRAP


packaging waste

End of life Recycled 83,000 tonnes 2010 Courtauld Commitment Based on UK recycling rates achieved, 2009


44

Estimated material volumes associated with the UK bottled water supply chain




Manufactured units

Ingredients tonnes excl water





PET 65,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""

Paper 2,000 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""


Steel 0 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""

Aluminium 0 tonnes 2012 Valpak ""





Water used in process 2,884,000 m3 2011 WRAP Assumed still drinks (Drinks Resource Map Summary)

Waste tonnes

Sales channels On-trade (sa les ) 14% 2011 Bri tvic


Off-trade (sa les )

Off-trade (vol )



Ingredients tonnes

Packaging tonnes

Water used l i tres

Waste tonnes




packaging waste

Packaging tonnes





Appendix 5: Some key voluntary and regulatory sustainability initiatives

Initiative Lead/owner Geographical boundary

Objectives/targets Soft drinks members/signatories

Beverage Industry Environmental

Roundtable (BIER)40

[Data or other outputs accessible to rest of industry, and/or in public domain?]

Facilitated by Antea Group

International BIER is a partnership of leading global beverage companies working together to advance the standing of the beverage industry in the realm of environmental stewardship. Focus areas:

Water stewardship

Energy and climate change

Stakeholder engagement

The Coca-Cola Company, Danone Waters, Nestle Waters (North America), Ocean Spray and PepsiCo. Most of the major alcoholic drinks brand owners are also members.

British Soft Drinks Association (BSDA)

BSDA UK Developed a sustainability strategy41

to which members have signed up. The

strategy outlines the ambitions, challenges and how these can achieved. Focus areas: Climate change, Waste and packaging, Water and Transport Targets:

Transport: reduce the external impacts of transport by 20 per cent. Energy: achieve at least a 35 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide

emissions from manufacturing by 2020 compared to 2002 levels.

Waste: reduce that amount of waste to zero by 2015.

Water: reduce water use by 20 per cent by 2020 compared to 2007.

Members are from across the soft drinks supply chain. Key members include: AG Barr, Britvic, Nestle UK (Buxton Mineral Water), Cobell, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Danone Waters (UK & Ireland), Feel Good Drinks, GSK, Munoz Mehadrin (UK), Nichols plc, Princes Gate, Princes, Red Bull, Refresco, Tata Global Beverages, Tynant Spring Water

Courtauld Commitment42

WRAP UK A responsibility deal aimed at improving resource efficiency and reducing the carbon and wider environmental impact of the grocery retail sector.

Targets:

Packaging: to reduce the weight, increase recycling rates and increase the recycled content of all grocery packaging, as appropriate. Through these measures the aim is to reduce the carbon impact of this grocery packaging

Britvic Soft Drinks, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Cott Beverages, Danone Waters (UK & Ireland), innocent drinks, Mars (UK), Kraft Foods, Nestlé Waters UK, Vimto Soft Drinks (Nichols), Unilever UK. All the major retailers are also signatories.

40

BIER (2012) Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable http://bieroundtable.com/index.html 41

BSDA (2012) A sustainable future for soft drinks: Soft Drinks Industry Sustainability Strategy http://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/PDF/020608%20BSDA%20sustainability%20strategy%20_3_.pdf 42

WRAP (2012) Courtauld Commitment www.wrap.org.uk/content/courtauld-commitment-2-0

http://bieroundtable.com/bier_members.html

http://bieroundtable.com/index.html

http://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/PDF/020608%20BSDA%20sustainability%20strategy%20_3_.pdf

http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/courtauld-commitment-2-0

46

by 10%. Household food and drink waste: to reduce UK household food and drink

waste by 4%.

Supply chain product and packaging waste: to reduce traditional grocery product and packaging waste in the grocery supply chain by 5% - including both solid and liquid wastes.

Every Can Counts Alupro UK A partnership between drink can manufacturers and the recycling industry, which aims to encourage increased recycling at work, colleges, events or festivals whilst on-the-go.

Alupro, Beverage Can Makers Europe (BCME), Can-pack UK, Novellis, Red Bull, Tata Steel and WRAP

Five-fold Environmental Ambition

FDF UK Founded on the need for greater resource efficiency in the food and drink sector's operations. Targets:

CO2 emissions: Achieve a 35% absolute reduction by 2020 against a 1990

baseline.

Food and packaging waste: to send zero food and packaging waste to

landfill at the latest by 2015 and make a significant contribution to WRAP's

Courtauld Commitment target of reducing product and packaging waste in

the supply chain by 5% by end of 2012 against a 2009 baseline.

Packaging: Contribute to WRAP's Courtauld Commitment target for

reducing the carbon impact of packaging by 10% by 2012 against a 2009

baseline.

Water: To reduce water use by 20% by 2020 compared to 2007.

Transport: Embed environmental standards in transport practices and contribute to the IGD's Efficient Consumer Response UK Sustainable

Distribution Initiative to save 200 million HGV miles over the period 2007-12

in the grocery sector.

AB Sugar, Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe, British Sugar, Cargill, Coca-Cola GB, Danisco, Danone UK, Firmenich, GSK, HB Ingredients, Kraft Foods, Nestle UK, PepsiCo, Synergy, Syral, Tata Global Beverages, Tate & Lyle, Unilever, United Coffee, Vimto

Product Research Forum

(PRF)43

WRAP UK Established to bring together a range of stakeholders with a common interest in improving the availability and accuracy of environmental impacts data for consumer products. It is supported by all UK Governments and relevant industry bodies. Aim: To create a joined-up approach to researching, measuring, communicating and reducing the environmental impacts associated with everyday products.

Predominantly, but not exclusively, signatories to the Courtauld Commitment.

43 WRAP (2012) Product Research Forum www.wrap.org.uk/content/product-research-forum

http://www.fdf.org.uk/environment/zero_waste.aspx

http://www.fdf.org.uk/environment/reduce_packaging.aspx

http://www.fdf.org.uk/environment/transport_miles.aspx

http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/product-research-forum

47

The Sustainability

Consortium (TSC)44

International A group of international companies (US dominant) who have set the challenge to work collaboratively, developing an approach that drives better understanding, standardisation, and informed decision making on sustainability. Key drivers and focus areas:

Consumers

Global regulations

Supply chains

Science (better evidence)

Cargill, Coca-Cola, DSM, Mars, PepsiCo, Tetrapak, Unilever UK retailers (on- and off-trade) include: Tesco, Walmart (Asda), M&S, McDonald’s

44 TSC (2012) The Sustainability Consortium www.sustainabilityconsortium.org/

http://www.sustainabilityconsortium.org/

Bibliography

Arthur D. Little, 1996. Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment.

BBC, 2012. New York mayor proposes ban on big sugary drinks.

BIER, 2012. Water Use Benchmarking in the Beverage Industry: Trends and Observations 2011. Beverage Industry

Environment Roundtable.

Bluejay, M., 2011. How much electricity does my refrigerator use?

Britvic, 2011. Soft Drinks Report 2012.

Britvic, 2012. Increasing the use of rPET.

Brunel University, 2008. Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Food Retailing. for Defra.

BSDA, 2011. The 2011 UK Soft Drinks Report.

BSDA, 2012a. The 2012 UK Soft Drinks Report. London.

BSDA, 2012b. A sustainable future for soft drinks: Soft Drinks Industry Sustainability Strategy.

BSDA, 2012c. Sugar.

BSDA, 2012d. UK Soft Drinks Responsibility Report.

Coca-Cola Enterprises, 2009. Reusing materials and increasing recycled content.

Convenience Store, 2012. Soft drinks: The heat is on.

Dairy Supply Chain Forum, 2011. Dairy Roadmap: Our route towards environmental success.

Danone, 2012. Packaging http://www.danone.co.uk/BetterWorld/Environment/Water/Packaging/

Datamonitor, 2010. Product Insights: Soft Drinks in the UK. Deciphering the trends that drive the UK soft drinks market

through an analysis of the new product launches.

DOE, 2010. Definition of Packaging.

Global Stevia Institute, 2011. About Stevia.

Greenconsumerguide.com, 2012. Refrigeration.

Gyekye, L., 2011. WRAP meeting to address rPET food grade concerns.

Institute of Refrigeration, 2010. REAL Zero: Reducing refrigerant emissions & leakage: Feedback from the IOR Project.

Jobs, L., 2012. Stevia: A Better Alternative to Sugar and Artificial Sweeteners.

Key Note, 2011. Market Report: Soft Drinks (carbonated & concentrated).

Kiernan, S., 2007. Innocent cuts PLA in 100% recycled drive. Packaging News.

Manchester Business School for Defra, 2006. Environmental Impacts of Food Production and Consumption.

Matrixled, 2012. Do LED lights have any environmental benefits?

Mercer, C., 2011. GLOBAL: The Coca-Cola Co aims to create PlantBottle II. Just-Drinks.

Mintel, 2009. Bottled Water, Market Intelligence.

Moody, L., 2012. Evidence to support the development of a sustainability roadmap for soft drinks: Stakeholder

engagement responses.

Natural Hydration Council, 2010. Bottled water classifications.

Nutraingredients-usa.com, 2003. Functional drinks are the future.

49

PepsiCo, 2011. PepsiCo Develops World’s First 100 Percent Plant-Based, Renewably Sourced PET Bottle.

Stones, M., 2011. Stevia wins final approval.

Swain, M., 2006. Energy use in food refrigeration: Calculations, assumptions and data sources.

Valpak Consulting, 2012. Final Report: Soft Drinks Sustainability Roadmap: Packaging.

Walkden, A., 2012. Personal communication: AG Barr.

Water Footprint Network, 2012a. Direct and indirect water use.

Water Footprint Network, 2012b. Why distinguish between a green, blue and grey water footprint?

WRAP, 2007. Case study: Using recycled content in plastic packaging: the benefits.

WRAP, 2010. Courtauld Commitment Methodology.

WRAP, 2011a. Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK.

WRAP, 2011b. Are we approaching the “final frontier” of plastic recycling?

WRAP, 2011c. rPET categorisation matrix.

WRAP, 2011d. New estimates for household food and drink waste in the UK.

WRAP, 2012a. Resource efficiency in the UK soft drinks sector.

WRAP, 2012b. Courtauld Commitment 2.

WRAP, W., 2011e. The water and carbon footprint of household food and drink waste in the UK.

11108 20130321phaseisynthesisreport final

Documents