1

Date: 13 May 2016 Version: 2.0

Commissioned by: Mark Macaré, FINAT Ingrid Brase, TLMI Calvin Frost, FINAT & TLMI

Prepared by: PRé Consultants bv Main authors: Jori Coustillas

Anne Gaasbeek Marisa Vieira

LCA of a polypropylene self-adhesive label

FINAT & TLMI Case Study

PRé Consultants bv

i

This report has been prepared by PRé Consultants bv. PRé Consultants puts the metrics behind sustainability, and provides decision makers with the tools, knowledge and network to make products and services more sustainable.

For more than twenty years PRé Consultants has been at the forefront of Life Cycle thinking and has built on its knowledge and experience in sustainability metrics and impact assessments to provide state of the art methods, consultancy and software tools. Internationally, leading organizations work with PRé Consultants to integrate sustainability into their product development procedures in order to create business growth and business value. PRé Consultants has offices in the United States and the Netherlands plus a global partner network to support large international or multi-client projects.

This report has been prepared by the Dutch office of PRé Consultants. Please direct all questions regarding this report to PRé Consultants bv.

PRé Consultants bv Stationsplein 121 3818 LE Amersfoort The Netherlands

www.pre-sustainability.com

PRé Consultants bv

ii

List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation

Climate change CC Ozone depletion OD Terrestrial acidification TA Freshwater eutrophication FE Marine eutrophication ME Human toxicity HTox Photochemical oxidant formation POF Particulate matter formation PMF Terrestrial ecotoxicity TTox Freshwater ecotoxicity FTox Marine ecotoxicity MTox Ionising radiation IR Agricultural land occupation ALO Urban land occupation ULO Natural land transformation NLT Water depletion WD Metal depletion MD Fossil depletion FD

PRé Consultants bv

iii

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................... 1

2 Goal ........................................................................................... 1

3 Scope ......................................................................................... 1

3.1 PRODUCT .............................................................................................................. 1 3.2 FUNCTIONAL UNIT ................................................................................................... 1 3.3 SYSTEM BOUNDARIES............................................................................................... 2 3.4 CUT-OFF CRITERIA ................................................................................................... 2 3.5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHOD .................................................................................. 2

4 Modelling ................................................................................... 3

4.1 ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................................ 3 4.2 DATA COLLECTION & MODELLING ............................................................................... 4

5 Results ....................................................................................... 5

5.1 SINGLE SCORE ........................................................................................................ 5 5.2 CONTRIBUTION ANALYSIS BY LIFE CYCLE STAGE .............................................................. 6

6 Sensitivity analysis ..................................................................... 8

6.1 PRODUCTION OF PLASTIC FILMS FOR FACE MATERIAL AND LINER ....................................... 8 6.2 ELECTRICITY MODEL ................................................................................................. 8 6.3 TRANSPORTATION MODEL ........................................................................................ 8 6.4 LINER WASTE ......................................................................................................... 8 6.5 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................ 10

6.5.1 Printing ink ............................................................................................. 10 6.5.2 Transports after application at brand owner ........................................ 10

7 Conclusions & Recommendations ............................................ 11

7.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE HARMONIZED SECTOR APPROACH .................................... 11 7.1.1 Used End of Life Approach ..................................................................... 12 7.1.2 Functional unit ....................................................................................... 12 7.1.3 Data collection and data sources ........................................................... 12

PRé Consultants bv

1

Disclaimer This report cannot be used for product or material comparisons. The goal of this report is to serve as input for the harmonized sector approach for labelling industry and is not suited to gain insight in product or material performance. Separately conducted LCA studies of products or services can never be compared, as there is no assurance that studies have been conducted similarly. Only LCAs which have been set-up as comparative LCAs can be used for performance comparison. This report is based on data from the case study participant and general information from literature and databases. Application of the information is strictly at the discretion and the responsibility of the reader. PRé Consultants, FINAT and TMLI are not liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of the information in this document.

1 Introduction

The world-wide association for manufacturers of self-adhesive labels and related products and services (FINAT) and the North America’s premier association for the label and package printing industry (TLMI) want to provide their members with an LCA guidance document for the industry in order to ensure one harmonised approach for conducting LCA studies on self-adhesive label products. As part of this work two case studies have been conducted namely a LCA of a polypropylene self-adhesive label and a LCA of a Paper self-adhesive Label. The outcomes from the case studies have been used as input to develop this harmonized LCA approach for labelling products. This current report describes a case study LCA of a polypropylene self-adhesive label. This LCA will provide a good insight into the appropriate scope and system boundaries to be considered, and identification of the relevant life cycle stages, processes and impact categories, and an awareness of the implications of choices and limitations.

2 Goal

In close collaboration with a label material manufacturer and a printer-converter, an LCA case study was performed on the production of self-adhesive labels which are dispensed on PET bottles. The goal was to determine the environmental impact of the self-adhesive labels and to identify the environmental hotspots in the life cycle. Additionally, the insights of this case study are used for the development of a harmonized L C A approach for the labelling sector. On basis of this study a one-pager showing the most relevant insights has been created. This one-pager may be used for external communication.

3 Scope

3.1 Product The product under study is a self-adhesive label for a PET bottle. The label is made of a polypropylene face material with a clear permanent acrylic adhesive, on a siliconised clear polyester liner. The label is die-cut and matrix-stripped at high speeds on standard web-fed presses with either flatbed or rotary dies. The labels are flexo-printed using UV printing inks and a direct or rotary relief printing process with elastic, raised print forms or plates which are attached to a plate cylinder. 3.2 Functional unit The functional unit describes qualitatively and quantitatively the function(s) or the service(s) provided by the product analysed. The functional unit is used to define what the LCA is measuring, and provides a reference to which the inputs and outputs can be related.

PRé Consultants bv

2

In this case, the functional unit of the product under study was defined as 1 m2 of label, applied at the brand owner. 3.3 System boundaries The scope of the study is cradle to grave. This means that all activities throughout the life cycle of each panel will be included in the assessment, that is: the production stage, use (i.e. application onto the bottle), and waste processing for recycling and disposal. A simplified flow chart of the life cycle is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. A simplified flow chart of the life cycle of a printed label. 3.4 Cut-off criteria All processes were included in the LCA, so no cut-off criteria were used. The only distinction is that specific data is used for foreground processes and generic data is used for background processes. 3.5 Impact assessment method The Impact Assessment Method (IAM) used is the ReCiPe1 Endpoint (H) method (H stands for a Hierarchist perspective, which is the default version). ReCiPe proposes a feasible implementation of a combined midpoint categories (expressed in units of a reference substance) and damage approach, linking all types of LCI results (elementary flows and other interventions) via midpoint categories to four damage categories: human health, ecosystem quality, climate change, and resources. Normalization can be performed either at midpoint or at damage level. Midpoints are used for a more specific and detailed analysis, whereas damage endpoints are useful to communicate the results obtained to broader audience. The pre‐defined (mathematical) weighting of the different midpoint score within the ReCiPe assessment method allow us to come to a single score.

1 Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., & Van Zelm, R. (2009). ReCiPe 2009. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. The Hague, The Netherlands: VROM.

PRé Consultants bv

3

4 Modelling

This chapter describes the main hypotheses and modelling assumptions that were taken when conducting the LCA. Assumptions that could affect the final conclusions are investigated further with sensitivity analysis in chapter 6. 4.1 Assumptions Assumptions in the lifecycle of the applied label were made following the process chart on Figure 2.

Figure 2: schematic representation of life cycle of a PP label

The main assumptions for this study are:

- Production steps: Materials (film, adhesive and liner) are delivered from actual suppliers’ locations to the PSL manufacturer. Energy use & production losses are averaged based on the yearly production of each actor. Capital goods, namely tools replacement, machinery and facility (with 50 year amortisation assumed) have been taken in account using the same rule.

- Transports: All transports distances between processes and stages are actual distances between actors, except for intermediate waste, and before the Use and End-of-life phases, for which transport is not considered.

- Intermediate waste: Waste routes are actual routes as declared by actors, except for liner waste at brand owner (recycling of PET liner is declared as recycling overseas by printer-converter, and we assumed same destination for waste at brand owner). For all incineration with recovery and recycling scenarios, closed loop approximation were used: The benefits of recycling materials are allocated to the product that makes material available for recycling. Inks & varnish waste at printer-converter facility are considered as hazardous industrial waste and are incinerated as such.

- End-of-life: The label is considered to be landfilled as non-hazardous waste, along with the PET bottle it’s attached too.

PRé Consultants bv

4

4.2 Data collection & modelling The second step (Life‐cycle inventory of and LCA) is a ‘cradle to grave’ accounting of the environmentally significant inputs and outputs of the system. The inventory involves the compilation and quantification of the inputs (materials and resources) and outputs for the product system throughout its life cycle. The environmental burdens measured in this case study include material input requirements, total energy consumed, air and water emissions released, and total solid waste associated with the product’s life‐cycle. LCI data is normalized with respect to the study’s functional unit. For the most important stages, specific to the PSL manufacturer and /or to the printer-converter, primary data has been gathered from the producers such as products bill of material, transport distances, energy amounts. For secondary data such as production of raw materials, production technologies, transport vehicles etc., the Ecoinvent 3 recycled content database has been used. For a few stages which are not considered of high relevance, because they do not depend on the product characteristics, such as distribution or application, generic data from literature and expert consultation was used. The main modelling decisions for this study are:

- Transports: Transports in Europe were modelled as average European fleet (EURO 4 standard), considered to be fit for modelling a US average as well. For transport in the US, we modelled with a large truck >32 tons, because we assumed that trucks are generally larger in the US.

- Label stock production: Face material is modelled as stretch blown PP film and liner is modelled as standard PET film for packaging. Electricity is modelled as medium voltage from the RFC (US) network.

- Printer-Convertor: Energy use is modelled as medium voltage from the RFC (US) network. Printing ink is modelled as acrylic varnish, as being closer to the actual substance than the water based ink as present in Ecoinvent. Printing tools such die-cutting tools and printing plates have been included in the assessment.

- Recycling scenarios: For all recycling scenario, we considered an 80% efficiency (i.e. 800g of secondary material is recovered for each kilogram of waste material entering the recycling process)

- PET recycling: PET waste at printer-converter are declared to be recycled overseas. However, no additional data could be collected. We modelled this considering a transport to China and a recycling as fleece, using generic data available in Ecoinvent.

PRé Consultants bv

5

5 Results

5.1 Single score Result shows that impact of the label is distributed over a variety of processes, mainly during the material supply and printing stage, as shown on Figure 3.

Figure 3: Figure 4: Life cycle of a PPlabel Calculated with ReCiPe Endpoint (H) v1.12 with European normalisation factors

Production of the PP for the face material and the PET for the liner are the main source of impact, followed by electricity needs for the printing press. Transports (in particular transport between printer-converter and brand owner, due to the long distance modelled), material losses at the printing stage and production of inks are also non-negligible contributors. The matrix waste is assumed to be landfilled, resulting in relatively small contribution to the overall environmental impact (5%). For the application phase, the liner waste, assumed to be recycled overseas as polyethylene fleece, avoided material production is significantly reducing the environmental burden for the whole lifecycle, leading to a negative value for showed for the liner waste. The contribution of the capital goods2 to the overall impact is relatively small (4%), the impact mainly originates (2,1 %) from to use of printing tools such as die-cutting tools and printing plates.

2 Capital goods: all goods needed for the production of the label such as factory ,machinery, and printing tools

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Astitel

Labelstock supplyLabel stock productionInk supplyPrintingMatrix wasteTransportsLinerwasteApplicationCapital goodsEoL

PRé Consultants bv

6

5.2 Recycling of liner waste We investigated what would happen with overall impact of a label if the liner and matrix waste would get a different end of life destination, namely: incineration without energy recovery, landfill recycling or incineration with energy recovery. In the case study it is now assumed that the matrix waste is landfilled and the liner waste recycled overseas as polyethylene fleece. Recycling both waste streams results in a significant reduction of the overall impact, also illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Influence recycling matrix and liner waste

Calculated with ReCiPe Endpoint (H) v1.12 with European normalisation factors 5.3 Contribution analysis by life cycle stage The life cycle stages with the highest contribution to the environmental impacts were identified using characterised midpoint results from ReCiPe. Results are displayed in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Characterized midpoint results for a PP label

Calculated with ReCiPe midpoint(H) v1.12 Label stock supply: The materials and their pre-processing are important contributors for the characterised midpoint results (between 15% to 45%), particularly for the fossil depletion indicator, where it reaches 57%. The major part of the environmental impact is caused by the use of petrol-based material for the PP and PET (hence the high value on fossil depletion), and by energy input for the film extrusion of materials (modelled as stretch blow moulding for PP).

0102030405060708090

Incineration withrecovery

Landfill Recycling Incinerationwithout recovery

Resources

Ecosystems

Human Health

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EoL

Application

Transports

Printing

Inks supply

Label stock production

Label stock supply

PRé Consultants bv

7

Label stock production: The contribution of manufacturing is mainly seen in the metal depletion and in toxicity indicators. It originates from the assumptions made for capital goods: Steel used in the factory and machinery, and emissions from the factory. These are probably overestimated, but do not affect the overall result, since indicators impacted have low weighting factors. Inks supplies: This covers both the manufacturing of inks and varnishes used at the printer-converter. It affects all indicators to a certain extent (5-15%), except for terrestrial ecotoxicity where it reaches 40%. For all indicators, the origin of impacts comes from the ingredients of the inks. Printing: This life cycle phase is the second most important contributor after material production, mainly because of the electricity input needed at this stage, but also because of losses of material such as cutting to size and the matrix waste. Transport: All transports directly under the control of the label material manufacturer and the printer-converter are grouped in this category. That is: all transports happening directly before or after the laminate manufacture and printing. Half of the impact comes from the transport from printer-converter, due to the long distance the label travels at this stage (printed labels are travelling the US nearly from coast to coast), but also because the label is completely formed at this stage (laminates, inks & varnish) and has a higher mass value per m² than at other stages in the lifecycle. Application: Application has a negative contribution to the overall environmental impact, due to the assumed liner waste recycling. Liner waste recycling mainly has a lowering effect on the fossil depletion indicator. Direct burden for the application of label at brand owner comes from the electricity input, which is very low (0.5% of the total lifecycle score). End of Life: This represent the final discarding of the bottle, with the label attached to it. The impact of end of life is mainly in freshwater & marine ecotoxicity, because of emissions to water in landfills Again, the weighting factor is low for these two indicators, and they do not influence the overall score.

PRé Consultants bv

8

6 Sensitivity analysis

Given the result found at Chapter 5, it is important to test the robustness of some of the assumptions made at Chapter 4 6.1 Production of plastic films for face material and liner Production of face material and liner account for a large share of the overall impact, but no data are available in Ecoinvent for the actual material under study. Proxies were used, that we consider as close as possible from the modelled material. Using different proxy to test these hypotheses (e.g. film extrusion instead of stretch blow moulding for the face material, or data from other databases for the plastic resins) did not show significant difference in the result. 6.2 Electricity model As mentioned earlier, electricity was modelled using the model for the RFC network in Ecoinvent, which is a European database (i.e., background data for this model are European datasets) Replacing it with one of the models for the RFC network from the USLCI database, has a non-negligible effect on the result: share of impact for the printing stage vary from 21% to 29%, depending on the dataset selected. This, however, does not impact the conclusion drawn earlier: Printing is still one of the phases that contributes significantly to the overall impact, due to amount of the electricity used. 6.3 Transportation model For transportation, the highest share, by far come from the truck journey between the printer-converter and brand owner .Again, replacing it with specific datasets for US average trucks from the USLCI database does not impact the conclusion: Transport by truck is impacting the overall lifecycle impacts, but to a lower extent than materials and electricity use. 6.4 Liner waste For the case study we assumed that the liner waste was overseas recycled, since this also what is happening with the PET waste at the printer-converter. This is of course an assumption therefore we have tested what happens with the total environmental impact of the label if another waste destination is chosen namely: incineration without energy recovery, landfill and recycling. Furthermore we did an sensitivity on the closed-loop versus the recycled content approach. The closed-loop approach is used for this model. The closed-loop assumption assumes that flows entering the secondary market are used to replace “virgin” flows with the same inherent properties. In practical, this means that the impacts of recycled material or recovered energy are taken out of the overall score. The most common approach in LCA is the recycled content method, which considers that environmental benefits and burdens of the recycling processes are attributed to the producer/product that uses the recycled material. As a consequence, the product that provides the material for recycling does not receive any benefits or burdens for the recycling processes.

PRé Consultants bv

9

Figure 7 shows the values for the single score depending on the selected assumption for the liner waste destination. As expected, the score is higher for scenarios other than recycling in closed-loop. The more impacting scenario (incineration at a local municipal incinerator, without energy recovery) is about 11% higher than the base scenario selected.

Figure 7: Lifecycle of label. Single score for liner waste routes Calculated with ReCiPe Endpoint (H) v1.12 with European normalisation factors

However, taking closer look at this incineration without energy recovery scenario, the hotspots found at chapter 5 are still there, as can be seen on Figure 8

Figure 8: Origin of impact for PP label with incineration of liner waste without energy recovery

Calculated with ReCiPe Endpoint (H) v1.12 with European normalisation factors

0102030405060708090

Resources

Ecosystems

Human Health

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

labelstock supply

Laminate manufacturing

Inks supply

Printing

Transports

Linerwaste

Application

EoL

PRé Consultants bv

10

6.5 Limitations With two assumptions, it was not possible to conduct a sensitivity analysis, because of a lack of data in the Ecoinvent database, or because the span of possible scenario is not in the controlled scope of the labelling industry. We will now discuss these two assumptions in further detail and how we think these could influence the final results 6.5.1 Printing ink No data corresponding to the actual type of inks used was available in the Ecoinvent database. Following advice from one ink supplier, we selected a varnish as a proxy. A comparison of this Ecoinvent dataset with carbon footprint data from the same supplier has shown very similar results. Thus, we assume that the choice of a varnish dataset instead of the actual ink does not have a significant impact on the conclusions. 6.5.2 Transports after application at brand owner PET bottles on which the label has been applied are sent to retailers across the whole United States. Since we have had no direct contact with the brand owner, data is missing to take into account the transports from brand owner to retailers, from retailers to final customers and from customers to end-of-life destination once the bottles are discarded. The label industry has very little control over what’s happening at this stage. Although this data is missing it is not expected that this data would have a significant impact on the overall conclusion.

PRé Consultants bv

11

7 Conclusions & Recommendations

The main environmental impact of a polypropylene self-adhesive label, which was manufactured, printed and applied to a PET bottle in the United States have been assessed in this study. From the results, we can conclude the following:

x The impact of the PP label is divided over the various life cycles stages. The material supply (~52%) is the main contributor to the overall environmental impact, followed by the printing (~18%), transport (~17%) and inks & varnish supplies (9%). End of Life (~2%) has a relatively low contribution to the overall environmental impact of a PP label.

x The results are relatively robust as they are little sensitive to most assumptions. However, transport and waste destination of the liner material can influence the results significantly. The waste destination was now chosen based on the approach taken at the printer-converter. Further substantiation if this is the correct approach would be recommended. Transport will depend on the specific situation on a case by case basis, but should not be overlooked.

x Production losses such as matrix waste and cutting losses are an important contributor to the overall environmental impact and should be accounted for carefully. Reducing the amount of production losses or recycling the production losses has a great potential to reduce the overall environmental impact of a label.

It would be recommended to gain additional data on:

x The composition and the production of the face and liner material. Proxys were now used for the liner and face material. Since material supply is the biggest environmental hotspot it would be recommended collect more specific data in this area.

x The printing inks. Further data on the printing inks would improve the robustness of the study, although they don’t have a prominent effect on the overall score.

x In the case-study, there was no direct contact with the brand-owner, therefore everything that happens at brand-owner level is based on assumptions. More actual information on what happens at brand-owner level, especially concerning the liner waste and energy use, would increase the robustness of the study.

7.1 Recommendations for the harmonized sector approach From both case-studies (LCA of a Paper self-adhesive Label and LCA of a polypropylene self-adhesive label) we learnt that there are certain areas which need to be defined more clearly in the harmonized sector approach or where further discussion is needed.

PRé Consultants bv

12

7.1.1 Used End of Life Approach For this case study the closed loop approach was used, this approach can make a significant difference to the overall score, and therefore we would advise to have more detailed discussions on what approach wants to recommend it in the harmonized sector approach. As previously discussed the Closed-loop approach assumes that flows entering the secondary market are used to replace “virgin” flows with the same inherent properties. In practical, this means that the impacts of recycled material or recovered energy are taken out of the overall score. Another more commonly used approach in LCA, is the recycled content cut-off approach. This approach considers that environmental benefits and burdens of the recycling processes are attributed to the product that uses the recycled material. As a consequence, the product that provides the material for recycling does not receive any benefits or burdens for recycling processes. When using the closed loop approach one needs to be very aware of double-counting. If the labelling industry uses the closed loop approximation and the organisations who use the recycled materials use the recycled content cut-off approach double counting will take place. 7.1.2 Functional unit The basis of an LCA study is the functional unit. During the case study we learnt that the used functional unit of 1m² of ready-made label was interpreted differently by the various stakeholders. Most case study participants interpreted the functional unit as 1m² of “product” coming out their own gate, while the aim was to gather on the inputs needed to produce 1m² ready-made label applied on package. After some discussion, it became clear that, in the labelling sector, it is not always known by the label stock manufacturers what kind of labels the label stock material are used for. Therefore, two functional units are proposed, one for cradle to gate and one for cradle to grave assessments. The functional unit for cradle to gate is as follows: ‘1m² of ready-made self-adhesive label stock material leaving gate at the label stock manufacturer’ The functional unit for cradle to grave is as follows: ‘1m² ready-made printed label on package’ 7.1.3 Data collection and data sources Different approaches on how data is collected can have a significant impact on the overall results. This became clear especially for the accounted electricity inputs. The participants used different approaches to account for their electricity use, some participants accounting only for electricity use of the machines, while others taking into account the electricity use of their entire factory. We would advise as recommended approach in the harmonized sector approach, to consider the electricity spent for the whole factory weighted by the functional unit (i.e. kWh/m² of printed face material coming out of the printing facility) For liner waste, application and end-of-life, very little data was available, and it was shown that liner waste scenario can have an important contribution to the overall environmental impact. We would therefore advise to take up in the harmonized approach default scenarios for waste routes and energy use at application.