plastics composition 2011 final report 26 02 2013 - wrap composition 2011 report.… · consumer...

Plastics P

Repo

Plast

Janu

Packaging Co

ort

tic Pack

ary 201

omposition R

kaging C

13

Report

Compo

osition 2

2011

Novvember 20122

Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013

Executive Summary

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide a more comprehensive picture of the composition (by packaging

format and by plastic polymer type) of plastic packaging flowing onto the UK market in 2011.

A better understanding of the composition of plastic packaging provides a baseline for further work,

such as projections of future flows of plastic packaging, analysis of the proportions of each polymer or

format currently recycled and assessment of feasible recycling prioritisation strategies.

The research undertaken included both secondary and primary investigations and covered both

consumer and non‐consumer packaging. However, the work focused mainly on implementing a new

methodology for estimating the composition of consumer plastic packaging through sampling

supermarket goods packaging use. This was possible using Valpak’s access to supermarkets’ suppliers

(for packaging weight/format/polymer data) and product sales data. It is believed that this is a novel

way in which to estimate consumer plastic packaging consumption, as previous studies have been based

on either UK industry/stakeholder consultations or waste arisings data1.

Methodology

The total quantity of UK plastic packaging used in this report, and its breakdown by consumer and non‐

consumer streams, were estimated in the PackFlow 20172 study as ranges, and are illustrated in Figure

ES1 below. For simplicity in this project, the mid‐points from the PackFlow 2017 ranges have been used,

for instance, 2.5m tonnes of total plastic packaging of which 1.7m tonnes are consumer plastic

packaging.

Figure ES 1 UK Plastic Packaging Flows 2011 (PackFlow 2017 Estimates)

In order to provide information on the composition of these packaging streams by format (e.g. bottle, film, tray, etc.) and by plastic polymer type (e.g. HDPE, PET, PP, etc.), the following methodologies were adopted:

1 One of the main advantages of this methodology is that the data inherently includes products and packaging imported for sale in the UK and excludes products and packaging exported. 2 PackFlow 2017 is published and is available on the Valpak website http://www.valpak.co.uk/BuildYourKnowledge/MarketResearchAndAnalysis/ProjectsAndCaseStudies.aspx

FLOW ONTO MARKET 2011Total 2,409-2,660kConsumer (Total) 1,638-1,809kConsumer (Household) 1,373-1,516kConsumer (Away from Home) 265-293k

Non-Consumer 771-851k32%

Split100%68%57%11%


ii

Consumer3 For the purposes of this project, consumer packaging composition has been established by randomly

sampling a specific quantity of the packaging used around products (including food and drink, toiletries,

cleaning products, toys, electricals, etc.) found in major UK supermarkets4. Whilst it is acknowledged

that consumer packaging also arises in retailers other than supermarkets, it is believed this is by far the

largest source of consumer packaging and is the best current dataset available for use.

A random survey sample of 4675 products was assessed for packaging weight, format and polymer type

of primary packaging. The sample of products and their associated suppliers were extracted from

Valpak’s EPIC (Environmental Product Information Centre) database6 and over 3,000 suppliers

contacted. Data on weight, format and polymer type were provided by 355 suppliers. The packaging

weights data were then multiplied by the respective supermarket product sales data, to provide a

dataset that represents the format and polymer composition of UK consumer plastic packaging

consumption, in percentages. After the sales weighting, the 467 products sampled represented 421

million products, weighing upwards of 3,000 tonnes.

Broadly speaking, this means the sample is large enough to give 95% confidence that the resulting

estimates of the composition of consumer plastic packaging are within +/‐4.5% of their true value (see

footnote 7 for a more technical statement). This assumes, as noted before, that supermarket packaging

is representative of all consumer packaging.

The composition of this dataset was then applied to the PackFlow estimate of consumer plastic packaging weight (1,724K tonnes in 2011) to derive estimates of UK consumer plastic packaging consumption by polymer type and format, in tonnes. Consumer packaging can be further broken down, depending on where the packaging is disposed of; at

home (household) or away from home (on‐the‐go):

Consumer (on‐the‐go): an analysis of nine local authority litterbin and street sweeping compositions data was considered in order to establish splits and tonnages of away from home formats by rigids, film and bottles. Food and drink data from the random sample detailed above was then used to

3 Consumer packaging is all packaging found around products that are placed on the market for consumer consumption 4 The term ‘supermarkets’ is used loosely to refer to sales from companies operating supermarkets (typically with sales area of 3,001 – 25,000 sq ft selling a broad range of grocery items) and superstores (typically with sales areas above 25,000 sq ft selling a broad range of grocery items as well as non‐food items). The main companies operating supermarkets in the UK include Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, Waitrose, Iceland and the Co‐op, some of which share their sales data with Valpak for packaging regulation purposes and allow Valpak the anonymised use of the associated packaging information. The database in which Valpak holds this information (weight of packaging and, for some packaging also polymer type and/or packaging format) is called ‘EPIC’. 5 Initially a target of 1066 products was set; however, in the limited timescales, the response rate achieved was lower. It has therefore been assumed that the 467 responses received are representative of the 1066 responses aimed for and are non‐biased towards any particular packaging formats or polymer types. 6 The random sample of products was taken from the products with known packaging weights within the EPIC database. This is believed to be a fair representation of supermarket packaging. 7 Assuming a worst case scenario of the ratio of the standard deviation (SD) to the corresponding mean being 0.5, a sample size

of 467 gives a 95% confidence interval of width +/‐4.5% from the sample mean. This confidence interval gives the range within which the likely true amount of consumer plastic packaging is likely to lie, based on the sample of packaging used and assuming the sample is representative of the population of consumer packaging. These margins of error allow for the uncertainty in using a sample to estimate the amount of packaging that is present in the larger population of products.


iii

provide a breakdown by polymer. The resulting proportions were applied to the PackFlow 2017 midpoint estimate of “away from home” consumer packaging in the UK in 2011 (279k tonnes).

Consumer (household): the remaining tonnages (after subtracting the on‐the‐go packaging figures from the total consumer figures) were considered to be packaging disposed of by consumers at home.

Non‐consumer8: The starting point for establishing the recent (2011) levels of non‐consumer plastic packaging was the

PackFlow 2017 midpoint estimate of 811K tonnes. This was broken down by sub‐sector (agricultural,

construction & demolition [C&D], and commercial and industrial [C&I]), based on a split obtained from

WRAP’s 2006 report ‘UK Plastic Waste – A review of supplies for recycling, global market demand, future

trends and associated risks’, which is based on 2005 estimates. In this context, commercial plastic

packaging is packaging used in the retail sector, wholesale sector, hospitality sector and offices, but that

is not sold with product to consumers. It includes items such as secondary and transit packaging and

sacs, pots, crates, etc. that are sold with product to trade customers. Further existing data was gathered

from a variety of sources and used to establish format and polymer breakdowns within each sub‐sector.

Some of the estimates produced using this methodology differ from existing estimates, arrived at by

other methodologies. These differences are highlighted and discussed throughout this report and in this

respect, the work brings to light levels of uncertainty surrounding estimates of plastic packaging.

Key Findings and Conclusions – All Plastic Packaging

Figure ES 2 UK Plastic Packaging by Format and by Polymer type, 20119

8 For the purposes of this study, the non‐consumer flow represents all packaging from the commercial and industrial streams as well as agricultural and construction & demolition (C&D) plastic packaging. 9 As is clear in the main body of the report, the analysis relies on a number of assumptions and approximations. As such, there are margins of error around the data. Furthermore, the level of precision presented here (namely, to the nearest thousand tonne) is not meant to represent the level of accuracy attached to the figures: the figures are simply quoted as they arose from the analysis.

ALL Plastic PackagingLDPE/ LLDPE

HDPE OPP PP PET PS PVC OtherGrand Total

(tonnes)

Grand Total (%)

Film Total 628k 145k 16k 143k 72k 5k 13k 98k 1119k 44%Film 508k 33k 11k 96k 58k 3k 12k 69k 790k 31%Film - Bags 120k 112k 5k 45k 9k 1k 1k 29k 321k 13%Film - Strapping/Tape/Bands 0k 0k 0k 3k 5k 0k 0k 0k 8k 0%

Rigids Total 11k 265k 4k 227k 730k 89k 75k 15k 1415k 56%Bottles 1k 202k 0k 5k 337k 0k 3k 0k 548k 22%Consumer Closures 3k 32k 3k 17k 21k 0k 1k 3k 80k 3%Consumer PTTs 5k 0k 0k 123k 329k 53k 39k 7k 556k 22%Non-Consumer Rigids 0k 19k 0k 76k 30k 22k 0k 0k 147k 6% Closures 0k 1k 0k 1k 1k 0k 0k 0k 2k 0% Injection Moulded Pallets, Crates, etc 0k 0k 0k 22k 0k 0k 0k 0k 22k 1% EPS Transit Packaging 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 9k 0k 0k 9k 0% Pails, Drums, Industrial 0k 17k 0k 12k 0k 0k 0k 0k 29k 1% Non-Consumer PTTs 0k 0k 0k 41k 30k 13k 0k 0k 85k 3%Other 1k 12k 0k 5k 14k 13k 32k 5k 83k 3%

Grand Total (tonnes) 638k 410k 20k 370k 803k 93k 88k 113k 2535k

Grand Total (%) 25% 16% 1% 15% 32% 4% 3% 4% 100%


iv

Key features of plastic packaging in 2011

The following key features of plastic packaging were highlighted and/or identified as part of this study. They are illustrated in Figures ES2, ES3 and ES4.

1. UK plastic packaging consumption amounted to 2.5m tonnes in 2011 (PackFlow 20172 Estimation)

68% of plastic packaging is for consumer consumption (1.7mt)

32% of plastic packaging is for non‐consumer consumption (0.8mt)

2. Rigid packaging (including bottles, PTTs, closures, etc.) account for the majority (56%) of plastic

packaging

45% of rigid plastic packaging is PTTs

39% of rigid plastic packaging is bottles

3. Plastic film including bags, strapping, tape and bands constitute the next largest proportion of

plastic packaging consumed in the UK

44% of plastic packaging is made of film (1119kt)

Of this, 71% is non‐bag film (790kt) and 29% is film used as bags (321kt)

4. Plastic pots, tubs and trays represent 25% of UK plastic packaging

32% of consumer plastic packaging comprises PTTs (556kt)

Only 10% of non‐consumer plastic packaging is PTTs (85kt)

5. Bottles represent 22% of plastic packaging consumption in the UK

91% of plastic bottles arise in the consumer sector

29% of consumer plastic packaging is bottles

6. PET is the most commonly used polymer in UK plastic packaging

32% of UK plastic packaging is made of PET (803kt)

43% of consumer plastic packaging is made of PET (747kt)

7. LDPE/LLDPE is used to make a quarter of plastic packaging (638kt)

9% of consumer plastic packaging is made of LDPE/LLDPE (156kt)

60% of non‐consumer plastic packaging is made of LDPE/LLDPE (483kt)

8. HDPE is used to make 16% of UK plastic packaging

HDPE is used to manufacture 410kt of UK plastic packaging

19% of consumer plastic packaging is made of HDPE (333kt)

9% of non‐consumer plastic packaging is made of HDPE (77kt)


v

9. PP is used to make 15% of UK plastic packaging

PP is used to manufacture 370kt of UK plastic packaging

14% of consumer plastic packaging is made of PP (243kt)

16% of non‐consumer plastic packaging is made of PP (127kt)

10. PET bottles represent the largest single tonnage of consumer plastic packaging

PET bottles represent 13% of UK plastic packaging (337kt)

Industry reports a move towards packaging products in PET bottles rather than HDPE due to changes in bottle requirements, improved visual impact, lighter weight and lower cost

11. The 50% HDPE:50% PET composition split of bottles entering the sorting/recycling stream may not

necessarily be appropriate for packaging consumption

The split derived from the survey sample suggests a split for consumer consumption of around two thirds (62%) PET and one third (38%) HDPE bottles.

Packaging consumption figures and the composition split of bottles entering the sorting/recycling stream can vary due to factors such as disposal of household packaging away from home; as on‐the‐go bottle collections are still extremely limited and a considerable proportion (around one‐third) of PET bottles are potentially disposed of on‐the‐go (and are therefore unlikely to enter the recycling stream as on the‐go recycling is very limited), it is understandable that the quantities of PET and HDPE bottles in household waste arisings and passing through MRFs and PRFs are broadly equivalent.

Key developments in plastic packaging since 2005

These potential trends arise from comparing the data in this report with the previously most

comprehensive composition analysis published by WRAP containing 2005 data. It should be noted that

the methodologies used to derive the estimates in each report are very different and there is

considerable uncertainty over estimates in both reports. Therefore, the comparison data should be

treated with caution and as only one means of establishing potential trends. Data for 2005 is detailed in

Annex II Figures A5 –A7.

1. The largest growth in plastic packaging format appears to have been in PTTs

Results from the current study estimate 641k tonnes of plastic PTTs

This is more than double the quantity of PTTs reported in this report compared to the quantity reported back in 2005

2. Film and Bottle tonnages appear to have remained relatively stable since 2005

Results from the current study estimate 1119k tonnes of plastic film packaging

This is similar to the 897k tonnes (plus assumed 227kt imports) reported in 2005

A wider range of polymers are now used in film and bag manufacture (new polymers representing ~33% and ~28% respectively)

Results from the current study estimate 548k tonnes of plastic bottles

This is similar to the 548k tonne (plus assumed 11kt imports) reported in 2005


vi

Industry’s view confirms any growth in consumption has been negated through light‐weighting of bottles and down‐gauging of films

3. The largest growth in plastic packaging polymer appears to have been in PET

Results from the current study estimate 803k tonnes of plastic PET packaging

This is almost double the quantity reported in 2005 (96% growth)

The majority of this growth is in PTTs (around 300kt)

PET is becoming a preferred polymer due to favourable properties such as visual impact, barrier properties, food‐grade recyclability and price (relative to HDPE)

The largest decline in plastic packaging format appears to have been in plastic bags

Consumer bag (carrier bags and other bags) tonnages have reduced by approximately one third since 2005

Carrier bags look to have reduced by about one quarter

There has been growth in non‐carrier bags such as fresh produce and bread bags

4. The largest decline in plastic packaging polymer appears to have been in LDPE/LLDPE

Results from the current study estimate 638k tonnes of plastic LDPE/LLDPE packaging

This represents a 34% decrease (322kt) on reported 2005 figures

This is likely due to a shift from LDPE bags to HDPE bags and the switching to alternative film polymers with different technical capabilities (e.g. storage in ambient instead of chilled environment, closures on ready meals)

HDPE bags have experienced significant growth at the expense of LDPE bags

Key Findings and Conclusions – Consumer Plastic Packaging

Figure ES 3 UK Consumer Packaging by Format and by Polymer type, 2011

Consumer Plastic PackagingLDPE/ LLDPE


(tonnes)

Grand Total (%)

Film Total 145k 140k 16k 93k 59k 1k 6k 95k 556k 32%Film 59k 28k 11k 58k 50k 0k 5k 67k 279k 16%Film - Bags 86k 112k 5k 35k 9k 1k 1k 29k 277k 16%

Rigids Total 10k 193k 4k 150k 688k 66k 42k 15k 1167k 68%Bottles 1k 158k 0k 4k 333k 0k 2k 0k 498k 29%Consumer Closures 3k 32k 3k 17k 21k 0k 1k 3k 80k 5%Consumer PTTs 5k 0k 0k 123k 329k 53k 39k 7k 556k 32% Thermoformed Packs 3k 0k 0k 23k 293k 8k 39k 2k 368k 21% Injection Moulded Rigids 2k 0k 0k 100k 36k 46k 0k 5k 188k 11%Other 1k 2k 0k 5k 6k 13k 0k 5k 33k 2%

Grand Total (tonnes) 156k 333k 20k 243k 747k 68k 48k 110k 1724k

Grand Total (%) 9% 19% 1% 14% 43% 4% 3% 6%


vii

498k tonnes of plastic bottles were purchased/consumed by consumers in the UK, in 2011

556k tonnes of PTTs were purchased/consumed by consumers in the UK, in 2011

Consumer plastic packaging is split broadly evenly between three main packaging formats: films (32%, 556k tonnes), PTTs (32%, 556k tonnes) and bottles (29%, 498k tonnes)

Combined, rigid plastic packaging accounts for approximately two‐thirds (68%) of consumer plastic packaging and film accounts for one‐third (32%)

The most common polymer found in plastic consumer packaging is PET, which represents 43% of the total tonnage, or 747k tonnes

Key consumer packaging made from PET is bottles, typically containing soft drinks/water/cordials/energy drinks, and PTTs

The second most prominent polymer is HDPE (19%, 333k tonnes), which is mainly found in the form of milk bottles and vest‐style carrier bags

Key Findings and Conclusions – Non‐consumer Plastic Packaging

Figure ES 4 UK Non‐consumer Packaging by Format and by Polymer type, 201110

The majority (69%) of non‐consumer packaging is film (563kt), which is primarily non‐bag film made of LLDPE/LDPE (449kt) and mainly used when transporting goods

The remainder is rigid packaging (31%, 248kt)

10 Some figures do not add due to rounding (Non‐consumer PET Rigids, for example)

Non-consumer Plastic PackagingLDPE/ LLDPE


(tonnes)

Grand Total (%)

Film Total 482k 5k 0k 50k 14k 3k 7k 3k 563k 69%Film 449k 5k 0k 37k 8k 3k 7k 3k 511k 63%Film - Bags 34k 0k 0k 10k 0k 0k 0k 0k 44k 5%Film - Strapping/Tape/Bands 0k 0k 0k 3k 5k 0k 0k 0k 8k 1%

Rigids Total 0k 72k 0k 77k 42k 22k 33k 0k 248k 31%Bottles 0k 44k 0k 1k 4k 0k 1k 0k 50k 6%Consumer Closures 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0%Consumer PTTs 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0%Non-Consumer Rigids 0k 19k 0k 76k 30k 22k 0k 0k 147k 18% Closures 0k 1k 0k 1k 1k 0k 0k 0k 2k 0% Injection Moulded Pallets, Crates, etc 0k 0k 0k 22k 0k 0k 0k 0k 22k 3% EPS Transit Packaging 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 9k 0k 0k 9k 1% Pails, Drums, Industrial 0k 17k 0k 12k 0k 0k 0k 0k 29k 4% Non-Consumer PTTs 0k 0k 0k 41k 30k 13k 0k 0k 85k 10%Other 0k 10k 0k 0k 8k 0k 32k 0k 50k 6%

Grand Total (tonnes) 483k 77k 0k 127k 56k 26k 40k 3k 811k 0Grand Total (%) 60% 9% 0% 16% 7% 3% 5% 0% 0


Glossary ABS – Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene

BPF – British Plastics FederationC&I – Commercial & Industrial DIY – Do It Yourself EA – Environment Agency EPIC – Environmental Product Information Centre EPS – Expanded Polystyrene HDPE – High Density Polyethylenek ‐ Thousandkt ‐ Thousand tonnesLDPE – Low Density PolyethyleneLLDPE – Linear Low Density Polyethylene NPWD – National Packaging Waste Database OPP – Oriented PolypropylenePA – PolyacrylatePAFA – Packaging and Films Association PC – PolycarbonatePE – PolyethylenePET – Polyethylene TerephthalatePO – Polyolefin POM – Polyoxymethylene (Acetal)PP – PolypropylenePrimary Packaging – Any packaging that the customer will take

home, remove and throw away e.g. aluminium can, plastic bottle

PRF – Plastics Recovery Facility PRN – Packaging Recovery NotePRODCOM – PRODuction COMmunautaire PS – PolystyrenePTT – Pots, tubs and traysPVC – Polyvinyl ChlorideRTP – Returnable Transit Packaging Secondary Packaging – Inner packaging used to transport or display

goods to/in store, usually cardboard boxes or shelf‐ready packaging

Transit/Tertiary Packaging

– Any transit packaging e.g. pallets, shrink wrap, staples or strapping

WRAP – Waste and Resources Action Programme


Acknowledgments

This study has been jointly funded by Valpak Ltd and the Waste and Resources Action Programme

(WRAP), who would both like to thank all those who have contributed to the study by providing and/or

reviewing key data.

All attendees of WRAP’s Plastics Round Table

British Plastics Federation (BPF)

British Polythene Industries (BPI)

DEFRA

Innovia Films Ltd

LINPAC Packaging Limited

Nampak Plastics Europe Ltd

Plastics Europe

Recoup and their Board of Directors

RPC Containers Ltd

The Advisory Committee on Packaging (ACP)

The Packaging and Films Association (PAFA)

Verde Recycling Solutions

Disclaimer While Valpak Ltd and WRAP have tried to make sure this report is accurate, we cannot accept

responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with

this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy

it free of charge as long as the material re‐produced is accurate and is not used in a misleading context.

You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material

to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see

terms and conditions on the WRAP website at www.wrap.org.uk.


Table of Contents

1.Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Objectives 1

1.3 Deliverables 1

2.Methodology 2

2.1 Introduction 2

2.1.1 Composition of Plastic Packaging 2

2.1.2 Quantity of Plastic Packaging 2

2.2 Total UK Consumption of Plastic Packaging 2

2.3 Consumer Plastic Packaging 3

2.3.1 Introduction 3

2.3.2 Data Sampling 3

2.3.3 Sample Size Representation 3

2.3.4 Household Plastic Packaging 4

2.3.5 On‐the‐Go Plastic Packaging 4

2.4 Non‐consumer Plastic Packaging 4

2.4.1 Agricultural Plastic Packaging 5

2.4.2 C&D Plastic Packaging 6

2.4.3 C&I Plastic Packaging 7

3.Overview of Plastic Packaging Data Sources 10

3.1 Data Sources 10

3.2 PackFlow 2017 11

3.2.1 Introduction 11

3.2.2 Definitions: Consumer & Non‐Consumer Packaging 12

3.2.3 PackFlow Industry Consultation 12

3.2.4 Key Findings 13

3.2.5 PackFlow 2017 Assumptions 13

3.3 Valpak’s EPIC Database 14

3.4 Packaging Formats 15

4.Total UK Consumption of Plastic Packaging 16

4.1 Introduction 16

4.2 Plastic Packaging Formats 18


4.3 Plastic Packaging Polymer Types 18

4.4 Trends in Plastic Packaging 19

4.4.1 Film 19

4.4.2 Strapping 20

4.4.3 Plastic Bottles 20

4.4.4 Consumer Plastic Pots, Tubs and Trays (PTTs) 21

4.4.5 Non‐consumer Rigid Packaging 22

4.4.6 Consumer Packaging Closures 23

5.Consumer Consumption of Plastic Packaging 24

5.1 Introduction 24

5.2 Plastic Packaging by Format and Polymer 25

5.2.1 Consumer Films (32% of Consumer Plastic Packaging) 25

5.2.2 PTTs (32% Consumer Plastic Packaging) 27

5.2.3 Bottles (29% Consumer Plastic Packaging) 27

5.2.4 Other (2% of Consumer Plastic Packaging) 29

5.3 Consumer (Household) Plastic Packaging 30

5.3.1 Packaging Formats 30

5.3.2 Polymer Types 31

5.4 Consumer (On‐the‐Go) Plastic Packaging 32

6.Non‐consumer Consumption of Plastic Packaging 33

7.Conclusions 34

7.1 Formats of Plastic Packaging 34

7.2 Polymers used in Plastic Packaging 34

7.3 Trends in Plastic Packaging 35

Annexes

Annex I Imports of Plastic Packaging

Annex II Key Data tables from WRAP’s UK Plastic Waste – A review of supplies for recycling,

global market demand, future trends and associated risks’ (Table 2.1 & Table 2.3)

Plastics P

Figure

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9

Figure 10Figure 1Figure 12Figure 13Figure 14Figure 15Figure 16Figure 17Figure 18Figure 19Figure 20Figure 2Figure 22Figure 23

Packaging Co

es

PackFlowBreakdoAgricultuC&D PlaUK C&I PUK C&I PRigid PaPackFlowPackagin

UK Plast0 UK Cons1 UK Cons2 Consum3 Consum4 Typical P5 Consum6 Consum7 Consum8 Consum9 Consum0 Consum1 On‐the‐G2 Non‐Con3

omposition 2

w 2017 Plastown of Sectoural Plastic Pstic PackaginPlastic PackaPlastic Packackaging Formw 2017 Estimng Formats ..tic Packagingsumption of sumption of mer Plastic Pamer Plastic FilProduct Type

mer Plastic Pomer Plastic Bomer Packagingmer (Househomer (Househomer (HousehoGo Plastics Pnsumer Plast

2011

tic Packagingrs included iPackaging Arng Arisings ...aging Arisingsaging Splits bmat & Polymmates of Plas....................g ConsumptioPlastic PackaPlastic Packaackaging (Tonm by Polymees for Consuots, Tubs andottles by Polyg Formats Inold) Plastic Paold) Plastics Pold) Plastics PPackaging bytic Packaging

g Flowing on in Non‐consuisings ..............................s ..................by Format ....mer Splits usestic Consump....................on by Formaaging by Formaging by Polynnes & Perceer ................mer Bags ....d Trays by Poymer ............cluded in Caackaging .....Packaging byPackaging byy Polymer Typg Arisings .....

to the UK Mumer Packag................................................................................ed for Manufption ................................at & Polymermat ..............ymer ............ent) ......................................................olymer ..............................tegory ‘Othe....................y Packaging Fy Polymer Type ....................................

Market in 201ging ..............................................................................................facturing Ind........................................r Type (Tonne............................................................................................................................................er’ ....................................Format ........pe .......................................................

Ja

11 ....................................................................................................................dustries ................................................es) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

anuary 2013

................. 2

................. 5

................. 6

................. 7

................. 8

................. 8

................. 9

............... 12

............... 15

............... 17

............... 18

............... 18

............... 24

............... 25

............... 26

............... 27

............... 28

............... 29

............... 30

............... 30

............... 31

............... 32

............... 33

3

2

6 7 8 8 9 2

7 8 8 4

6 7 8 9 0 0 1 2


1

1. Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive picture of the composition (format and

polymer) of plastic packaging flowing onto the UK market in 2011.

A better understanding of the composition of plastic packaging provides a baseline for further work,

such as projections of future flows of plastic packaging, analysis of the proportions of each polymer or

format currently recycled and assessment of feasible recycling prioritisation strategies.

1.1 Background

This report is the result of research undertaken over an eighteen month period to establish a more

detailed and up‐to‐date breakdown of the format and polymer splits of UK plastic packaging. The

research undertaken included both secondary and primary investigations, and covered both consumer

and non‐consumer packaging. The work focused mainly on implementing a new methodology for

estimating the composition of consumer plastic packaging through the use of plastic packaging data of

supermarket products (weight, format, polymer and sales data). It is believed that this is a novel way in

which to estimate consumer plastic packaging consumption, as previous studies have been based on

either UK industry/stakeholder consultations or waste arisings data.

1.2 Objectives

The final phase of this project had the following key objectives, as addressed in this report:

Establish a sampling methodology and undertake a data specification exercise to understand the

proportions of plastic packaging on the UK market;

Present five plastic packaging composition summary tables: Total, Total Consumer11, Consumer

Household, Consumer On‐the‐Go and Non‐consumer12;

Produce a breakdown of the types of products to be found in key packaging formats; and

Consult with industry on key polymer/format arisings.

1.3 Deliverables

The final deliverable from the project is this report, which presents the composition estimates and

provides associated commentary and analysis.

11 Consumer packaging is all packaging found around products that are placed on the market for consumer consumption 12 For the purposes of this study, the non‐consumer flow represents all packaging from the commercial and industrial streams as well as agricultural and construction & demolition (C&D) plastic packaging

Plastics P

2. M

2.1 I

2.1.1 C

The com

methods

breakdo

(includin

2.1.2 Q

The quan

the vario

Please se

PackFlow

(Section

2.2 T

The tota

describe

13 PackFlohttp://ww

Packaging Co

Methodo

Introducti

Compositio

mposition of p

s and data so

wn of all pla

ng household

Quantity o

ntities of pla

ous subsets,

Figure 1

ee section 3.

w 2017 (Sect

3.1).

Total UK C

al consumptio

ed below.

ow 2017 is publww.valpak.co.uk

omposition 2

ology

ion

on of Plast

plastic packa

ources. The s

stic packagin

d and on‐the

of Plastic Pa

astic packagin

have been a

PackFlow

.2.2 of this re

tion 3.2) and

Consumpt

on data is sim

lished and is avk/BuildYourKno

FLOW OTotalConsumConsumConsum

Non-Con

2011

tic Packagi

aging consum

section below

ng consumed

e‐go packagin

ackaging

ng flowing o

adopted from

w 2017 Plastic

eport for a d

other repor

tion of Pla

mply an addi

vailable on the Vwledge/Marke

ONTO MARK

mer (Total)mer (Househomer (Away from

nsumer

ng

med in the U

w outlines th

d, but also th

ng) and non‐

nto the UK m

m PackFlow 2

c Packaging Fl

definition of t

rts and inform

astic Packa

ition of the c

Valpak websitetResearchAndA

KET

old)m Home)

K has been e

he methodol

hose used to

‐consumer p

market in 20

201713 as illu

owing on to t

these subset

mation used

aging

consumer an

Analysis/Project

2,1,1,

32%

Split100%68%57%11%

estimated us

ogies adopte

o provide a b

ackaging.

11, and a bre

strated in Fig

the UK Marke

ts, along with

in the comp

nd non‐consu

tsAndCaseStudi

2011,409-2,660k,638-1,809k373-1,516k265-293k

771-851k

Ja

sing a variety

ed to estima

reakdown of

eakdown of

gure 1, below

et in 2011

h further det

pilation of th

umer data se

ies.aspx

anuary 2013

2

y of

ate the

f consumer

these by

w:

tails of

is report

ets as

3

2


3

2.3 Consumer Plastic Packaging

2.3.1 Introduction

Consumer packaging is all packaging found around products that are placed on the market for consumer

consumption. This includes the primary packaging around groceries, toiletries, electronics and toys, for

example. Consumer packaging can be further broken down, depending on where the packaging is

disposed of; at home (household) or away from home (on‐the‐go).

2.3.2 Data Sampling

For the purposes of this project, consumer packaging composition has been established by randomly

sampling a specific quantity of the primary packaging used around products found in major UK

supermarkets. Whilst it is acknowledged that consumer packaging also arises in retailers other than

supermarkets, it is believed this is by far the largest source of consumer packaging and is the best

current dataset available for use.

A random survey sample of 46714 products, including items such as margarine tubs, packs of water, toys,

etc., was assessed for packaging weight, format and polymer type. The sample of products and their

associated suppliers were extracted from Valpak’s EPIC (Environmental Product Information Centre)

database15. Throughout autumn 2012, over 3000 different supermarket suppliers were contacted for

information. Data on weight, format and polymer type were provided by 355 suppliers, and were then

sense checked and analysed for the purpose of this study.

The packaging weights data were then multiplied by the respective product sales data to provide a

dataset that represents the format and polymer composition of UK consumer plastic packaging

consumption, in percentages. The composition of this dataset was then applied to the PackFlow

estimate of consumer plastic packaging weight (1,724K in 2011) to derive estimates of UK consumer

plastic packaging consumption by polymer type and format, in tonnes.

2.3.3 Sample Size Representation

It has been assumed that supermarket packaging is representative of all consumer packaging. Assuming

a worst case scenario of the ratio of the standard deviation (SD) to the corresponding mean being 0.5, a

sample size of 46716 gives a 95% confidence interval of width +/‐4.5% from the sample mean. This

14 Initially a target of 1066 products was set; however, in the limited timescales the response rate achieved was lower. It has therefore been assumed that the 467 responses received are representative of the 1066 responses aimed for and are non‐biased towards any particular packaging formats or polymer types. 15 The random sample of products was taken from the products with known packaging weights within the EPIC database. This is believed to be a fair representation of supermarket packaging. 16 It should be noted that once the sample size is multiplied by the number of sales of those products, the number of products for which weights, formats and polymers were identified increases to 421 million, weighing upwards of 3,000 tonnes.


4

confidence interval gives the range within which the likely true amount of consumer plastic packaging is

likely to lie, based on our sample of packaging, assuming the sample is representative of the population

of consumer packaging. These margins of error allow for the uncertainty in using a sample to estimate

the amount of packaging that is present in the larger population of products.

It should be noted that once the sample size is multiplied by the number of sales of those products, the

number of products for which weights, formats and polymers were identified increases to 421 million,

weighing upwards of 3,000 tonnes.

2.3.4 Household Plastic Packaging

The consumer (household) dataset was calculated by subtracting the consumer (on‐the‐go) elements

from the complete consumer dataset. Consumer (on‐the‐go) packaging composition was established as

described below.

2.3.5 On‐the‐Go Plastic Packaging

In order to establish the format and polymer breakdown of consumer (on‐the‐go) plastic packaging,

further secondary research was undertaken. This established an average split of plastic bottles, plastic

film and other plastic packaging as reported in a number of litterbin and street sweeping analyses

undertaken in different parts of the UK over the last ten years. Litterbin and street sweeping

compositions were deemed to be a fair reflection of the mix of consumer plastic packaging disposed of

on‐the‐go. The average splits adopted were (see section 3.1 for data sources):

Plastic Bottles: 42%;

Plastic Film: 37%; and

Other Rigid Plastic Packaging: 20%.

The formats and polymer types of the plastic packaging and the composition of ‘other rigid plastics’

were estimated using the format splits of food and drink products derived from the survey sample (see

above). The exception to this was plastic bottles, which has been assumed to be all PET soft

drink/water/energy drink bottles only, rather than a wider mix of HDPE milk bottles and PP/PVC

cleaning or toiletry bottles.

2.4 Non‐consumer Plastic Packaging

For the purposes of this study, the non‐consumer flow represents all packaging from the commercial

and industrial streams as well as agricultural and construction & demolition (C&D) plastic packaging.

Commercial plastic packaging includes that which arises from the retail, wholesale, hospitality, offices

and similar operations. Non‐consumer plastic packaging accounts for all three layers of packaging,

including primary (from trades sales, not consumer sales), secondary and transit.

Plastics P

The start

PackFlow

This was

proporti

demand

Whilst b

consume

show the

Each of t

2.4.1 A

The resu

packagin

within va

Using th

farms, w

17 It is impyears old. 18 http://w19 UK Plas20 Develop21 UK Plas

Packaging Co

ting point fo

w 2017 estim

s broken dow

ons from the

, future tren

eing six year

er plastic pac

e estimated

Figu

the three key

Agricultura

ults of the En

ng format typ

arious plastic

is data, WRA

which equate

portant to note

webarchive.natstic Waste – A rping the Evidenstic Waste – A r

omposition 2

or establishin

mate of 811K

wn by sub‐se

e WRAP repo

nds and assoc

rs old, this re

ckaging arisi

breakdown

Breaure 2

y non‐consu

al Plastic P

nvironment A

pe of annual

c reports sin

AP (2006)21 id

ed to 4.5% of

e that this repor

tionalarchives.greview of supplince Base for Plareview of suppli

2011

ng the recent

K tonnes.

ctor (agricult

ort: ‘UK Plast

ciated risks’ ,

eport remain

ngs publicly

of non‐consu

akdown of Se

mer sectors

Packaging

Agency’s Agr

plastic pack

ce 2003, inc

dentified tha

f the Agri/C&

rt is fairly dated

gov.uk/2011040ies for recyclingastics Recycling ies for recycling

t (2011) leve

tural, constr

tic Waste – A

, researched

ns the latest,

available17. F

umer plastic

ectors include

is discussed

ricultural Wa

kaging arising

luding WRAP

at around 32

&D/C&I prop

d now, particula

07094538/httpg, global markein Scotland. ZWg, global marke

ls of non‐con

ruction, etc.)

A review of s

d in 2006.

most compr

Figure 2 has

c packaging:

ed in Non‐con

in turn belo

ste Survey 2

gs from UK fa

P19 and Zero

2k tonnes of

ortions. Usin

arly with regard

p://www.agwaset demand, futuWS, 2012. et demand, futu

nsumer plast

, based on th

supplies for r

rehensive br

been adapte

sumer Packag

w.

00318 provid

arms. These

Waste Scotl

plastic packa

ng this 4.5% a

d to non‐consum

steplastics.org.uure trends and a

ure trends and a

Ja

tic packaging

he Agri/C&D

recycling, glo

reakdown of

ed from this

ging

de a breakdo

results have

land (ZWS)20

aging arises f

and applying

mer data, which

uk/agri/about.associated risks

associated risks

anuary 2013

5

g was the

D/C&I

obal market

non‐

report to

own by

e been used

.

from UK

g it to the

h is up to 14

html. s. WRAP, 2006.

s. WRAP, 2006.

3

5

Plastics P

2011 dat

be aroun

ZWS23 es

which if

agricultu

use the e

Using th

arisings d

2.4.2 C

WRAP (2

represen

calculate

around 1

Wider so

Council o

2011, is

This wou

the WRA

ZWS (20

be aroun

22k tonn

22 PackFlo23 Develop24 Assumi25 http://w26 UK Plas27 PackFlohttp://ww28 Plastic 29 AssumiManufactu30 Develop31 Assumi

Packaging Co

ta calculated

nd 37k tonne

stimates tha

scaled up to

ure may have

estimate of a

is and the br

displayed in

C&D Plasti

2006)26 ident

nts around 1

ed by Valpak

11.4k tonnes

ources were

of Vinyl Man

around 158k

uld result in a

AP and Valpa

12)30 data w

nd 2k tonnes

nes31. This fig

ow 2017. ping the Evidening Scotland repwebarchive.natstic Waste – A row 2017 is publww.valpak.co.ukWaste from Buing a proportionurers (2011) anping the Evidening Scotland rep

omposition 2

d by Valpak/W

es, and as su

t agricultura

o represent U

e differing ch

around 37k t

reakdown of

Figure 3 bel

Figure

c Packagin

tified that ar

.4% of the A

k/WRAP (201

s, and as suc

also used to

nufacturers, w

k28. It is belie

around 8k to

ak estimates.

were also use

s. If this volu

gure is much

nce Base for Plapresents 8.8% otionalarchives.greview of supplilished and is avk/BuildYourKnouilding & Constrn of PP and PE ind corroboratednce Base for Plapresents 8.8% o

Po

PE

PP

HDP

HDP

Tota

2011

WRAP (2012

ch, is in line

l plastic pack

UK arisings, w

haracteristics

tonnes to rep

f formats/po

ow.

Agricue 3

ng

ound 10k to

Agri/C&D/C&

12)27, the flow

h, is broadly

o investigate

which estima

eved that aro

onnes of C&D

.

d to assess C

me is scaled

larger than

astics Recycling of UK total empgov.uk/2011040ies for recyclingvailable on the Vwledge/Markeruction, Europeis packaging usd by Developingastics Recycling of UK total emp

lymer For

Film

Film

PE Bottl

PE Core

al

2)22, the flow

with earlier

kaging in Sco

would equate

s to the rest

present the f

olymers prov

ultural Plastic

nnes of plas

&I proportion

w of C&D pla

y in line with

the flow of C

ates that the

ound 5% of t

D plastic pac

C&D arisings

up to repre

those produ

in Scotland. ZWployment. 07094538/httpg, global markeValpak websitetResearchAndAan Council of Vsing Plastic Wasg the Evidence Bin Scotland. ZWployment.

mat % o

Arisi

56%

26%

es 14%

s 4%

of agricultu

estimates.

otland in 200

e to around

of the UK, it

flow of agric

ided by the E

Packaging Ar

tic packaging

s. Using this

astic packagi

earlier estim

C&D plastic p

e total C&D p

otal C&D pla

kaging arisin

, and estima

sent UK arisi

uced from th

WS, 2012.

p://www.agwaset demand, futu Analysis/ProjectVinyl Manufactuste from BuildinBase for PlasticsWS, 2012.

of

ngs

Appro

Ton

% 2

% 1

% 5

%

3

ral plastic pa

09 equated to

25k tonnes24

t was conside

ultural plast

Environment

risings

g arises from

1.4% and ap

ng in 2011 is

mates.

packaging, in

plastic use in

astic consum

ngs, which is

ted those oc

ings, this wo

e three alter

steplastics.org.uure trends and a

tsAndCaseStudiurers, 2011. ng & Constructis Recycling in S

oximate

nnage

21k

10k

5k

1k

37k

Ja

ackaging is es

o around 2,24. However,

ered more su

tics onto the

t Agency res

m C&D in the

pplying it to

s estimated t

ncluding the

n the UK by t

mption is pack

broadly con

ccurring in Sc

ould equate t

rnative sourc

uk/agri/about.associated risks

ies.aspx

ion, European CScotland. ZWS, 2

anuary 2013

6

stimated to

200 tonnes,

as Scottish

uitable to

UK market.

ults25 in the

UK, which

data

to also be

European

he sector in

kaging29.

sistent with

cotland to

to around

ces

html. s. WRAP, 2006.

Council of Vinyl 2012.

3

6

Plastics P

investiga

the rest

this proj

In order

report ‘E

March 2

informat

indicativ

are show

2.4.3 C

To estim

polymer

Firstly, u

identifie

result in

format a

more up

Various

publishe

C&D sec

business

the prop

the plast

32 www.w33 UK Plas34 Comme35 In the aproxy for pconsumpti

Packaging Co

ated and is p

of the UK. A

ect.

to break dow

Establish Ton

00432. Altho

tion on splits

ve and were

wn in Figure

C&I Plastic

mate the rem

r and format,

using PackFlo

d above, an

a 2011 flow

and polymer

p‐to‐date dat

C&I waste su

ed by Defra in

ctors34. The d

s sector, but

portion of pla

tic packaging

wrap.org.uk/docstic Waste – A rercial and Indusabsence of any plastic packaginion.

omposition 2

potentially an

As a result, th

wn the 11k t

nnages, and C

ugh this rese

s on construc

established f

4.

Fig

c Packaging

aining tonna

, various dat

ow 2017 and

estimate of

w of approxim

type, the da

ta sources w

urveys have

n 2010. This

data available

not specifica

astic waste a

g arisings35 in

cument.rm?id=review of supplistrial Waste Surother data the ng waste arisin

Po

PE

PP

HD

Tot

2011

n over‐estim

he estimate o

tonnes into f

Cost Effectiv

earch is fairly

ction plastic

from packag

C&gure 4

g

age from the

a sources co

accounting

the remainin

mately 763k t

ata displayed

ere research

been undert

survey cove

e from this s

ally by plastic

arising from e

n each key bu

=1592. ies for recyclingrvey 2009: Finasimplified assugs, and in turn

olymer Fo

Film

Pots

DPE Pots

tal

ation as Scot

of 11k tonne

format and p

veness of Col

y dated, it st

packaging. I

ging audits ca

&D Plastic Pac

e non‐consum

ould be used

for the 48k t

ng non‐cons

tonnes of pla

d by WRAP (2

hed.

taken over th

red business

urvey allow

c packaging.

each sector,

usiness secto

g, global markeal Report. Defraumptions that thplastic packagi

ormat %

Ar

m 8

s 1

s & Bags

ttish C&D m

s was consid

polymer type

lection, of C

ill contains t

t should be n

arried out on

ckaging Arisin

mer stream a

. Each of the

tonnes of ag

umer packag

astic packagi

2006)33 could

he past 10 ye

ses in Englan

for plastic w

Using the D

which in tur

or, as shown

et demand, futua, 2010. he proportions ing waste arisin

% of

risings

App

To

86%

10%

4%

ay have diffe

dered the mo

e, splits were

onstruction

he most rece

noted that th

n 25 construc

gs

and break th

ese sources is

ricultural an

ging could be

ng. To asses

d be used; ho

ears, the mo

nd, excluding

waste arisings

efra data pro

rn has been u

n in Figure 5 b

ure trends and a

of plastic wastengs are a proxy

roximate

onnage

9k

1k

0k

11k

Ja

ering charact

ost suitable f

e taken from

Site Packagi

ent publicall

he splits are

ction sites. T

is down by k

s described h

d C&D packa

e made. This

ss this tonnag

owever, alte

ost recent of

g the agricult

s to be asses

ovides a bre

used as an in

below.

associated risks

e arisings in eay for plastic pack

anuary 2013

7

teristics to

for use in

the WRAP

ng Waste’,

y available

only

The results

key sector,

here.

aging

s would

ge by

rnative

which was

tural and

ssed by key

akdown of

ndication of

s. WRAP, 2006.

ch sector are a kaging

3

7

Plastics P

In order

assumpt

Below th

describe

Where d

splits, th

Fo

Te

Po

Ch

Me

Ma

Re

Ho

Pu

Ed

Tra

Ot

To

Food, drin

Textiles/w

Power and

Chemicals

Metals ma

Machinery

Retail & w

Hotels & c

Public adm

Education

Transport

Other Serv

Packaging Co

to estimate

tions have be

his, the assum

ed.

data was una

he following

od, drink & t

xtiles/wood

ower and uti

emicals/non

etals manufa

achinery & e

tail & whole

otels & cater

blic adminis

ucation

ansport & sto

her Services

tal

Business Typ

nk & tobacco

wood/paper/pub

d utilities

s/non‐metallic m

anufacturing

y & equipment (

wholesale

catering

ministration & so

& storage

vices

omposition 2

Figu

the format s

een made. T

mptions mad

Figure 6

available to d

methodolog

Business Typ

tobacco

d/paper/pub

lities

n‐metallic m

acturing

equipment (

esale

ring

stration & so

orage

s

pe

blishing

minerals manuf.

(other manuf.)

ocial work

2011

UK Cure 5

split of this C

he table belo

de to fill the

UK C&I 6

determine th

y was used:

pe

blishing

minerals man

other manu

ocial work

Film

60%

88%

57%

55%

46%

Data not

Data not

Data not

Data not

Data not

Data not

Data not

C&I Plastic Pa

C&I packagin

ow illustrate

gaps and pro

Plastic Packag

he film/rigid

Propo

nuf.

f.)

Rigid

40%

12%

43%

45%

54%

t available

t available

t available

t available

t available

t available

t available

ackaging Arisi

g, various ad

es the initial s

ovide furthe

ging Splits by

composition

ortion of Tot

Valpak Waste A

150k tonnes es

data, 2012), an

Waste from Sc

Motor, Wholes

The Compositi

Industry, WRA

The Compositi

Social Care, Ed

in 2011, ZWS 20

The Compositi

Social Care, Ed

in 2011, ZWS 20

ngs

dditional sou

splits found f

r format and

Format

n and in orde

tal UK Plastic

6%

7%

2%

20%

1%

8%

32%

2%

3%

2%

13%

3%

100%

Sou

Audits

stimate as back o

d remaining use

ottish Health &

sale & Retail Sec

on of Waste Dis

P 2011

on of Mixed Wa

ucation & Moto

012

on of Mixed Wa

ucation & Moto

012

Ja

urces of infor

for rigids and

d polymer sp

er to estimat

c (Defra Ton

urce

of store film (Va

es The Composit

Social Care, Edu

ctors in 2011, ZW

sposed of by the

aste from Scottis

or, Wholesale &

aste from Scottis

or, Wholesale &

anuary 2013

8

rmation and

d film.

plits are

e polymer

nage)

alpak internal

tion of Mixed

ucation &

WS 2012

e UK Hospitality

sh Health &

Retail Sectors

sh Health &

Retail Sectors

3

8

Plastics P

Busisocia

For s

All ‘m

For r

For h

For m

36 This estreview of sdata was 537 This est38 This estdataset. 39 Split of 40 Split of 41 In the a42 UK Plas

EPS tranPallets, cPails, druThermofInjectedBottlesOther

Packaging Co

ness types wal work, and

simplicity, al

manufacturin

retail & who

The weig

Bags we

The poly

The split

The split

No repreapplied t

hospitality, t

The 5% s

All film w

The poly

The propdata (10

No repreapplied t

manufacturi

All film w

The breaPackaginWRAP re

Figure 7

timate was masupplies for rec5%. timate was matimate was ma

f bags by polymf film by polymeabsence of any stic Waste – A r

nsit packagingcrates, etc ums & industrformed packs moulded rigid

omposition 2

were groupedEducation) o

l business ty

ng’ business

lesale, the fo

ght of strapp

re assumed

ymer split of

t of bags by p

t of film by p

esentative spto PP and PE

the following

strapping pro

was assumed

ymer split for

portion of clo0%); and

esentative spto PP and PE

ng the follow

was assumed

akdown of ring, Pails/Drueport, exclud

Rigid Packag

de as the averacycling, global m

de using 2011 Ede using 2010 E

mer: LDPE 75%,Per HDPE 2%, LDother data, thisreview of suppli

rialsds

2011

d into either or ‘manufact

ypes in ‘hosp

types were

ollowing assu

ping was take

to be 1% of t

strapping w

polymer was

olymer was

plit of PTTs bET: the most

g assumption

oportion wa

d to be LDPE

r bottles was

osures reflec

plit of PTTs bET: the most

wing assump

d to be LDPE

gids into pacms/Industriading imports

ging Format &

age proportion omarket demand

Epic secondary Epic secondary

PET 4%, PP 17%PE 69%, PET 4%s was deemed ties for recycling

‘retail’, ‘hosturing’ (all re

itality’ were

given the 60

umptions we

en as 5% of t

total film37;

was 67% PP a

s taken from

taken from 2

by polymer wlikely polym

ns were also

s adopted as

;

s taken from

cts the ratio

by polymer wlikely polym

ptions were a

;

ckaging formal, PTTs) andand films as

& Polymer Sp

of strapping tod, future trends

and tertiary daand tertiary da

%, PS 2%, PVC 2%%, PP 18%, PS 2the most suitabg, global marke

112

12

spitality’ (Hoemaining typ

given the 57

0%/40% film/

ere also mad

the weight o

nd 33% Pet38

2011 Epic se

2011 Epic se

was availablemers.

made:

s above;

m the consum

of closures t

was availablemers.

also made

mats (Closured polymer typs shown belo

lits used for M

Non‐bag Film iand associated

ata. ata as insufficie

%. 2%, PVC, 3%, Otble for use: PVCet demand, futu

5% (PS 10012% (PP 10016% (PP 40%22% (PP 44%1% (100%

18% (100% 26% (66% P

tels & cateripes);

7%/43% film/

/rigid split.

e:

f all film36;

8;

econdary and

condary and

; therefore,

mer plastic bo

to bottles/PT

; therefore,

s, Pallets/Crpes was adopow:

Manufacturing

in the WRAP red risks’ and in Ep

nt polymer spli

her Plastic 1%. 52%, PP 29%, L

ure trends and a

0%)0%)%, HDPE 60%%, PS 33%, PPP)HDPE)

PVC, 17% HD

Ja

ng, Public ad

/rigid split; a

d tertiary da

d tertiary dat

a 50:50 split

ottle splits41;

TTs split in th

a 50:50 split

rates, EPS Trapted from th

g Industries

eport ‘UK PlasticEpic secondary a

its were availab

LDPE 19%. associated risks

%)PET 23%)

DPE, 16 %PET

anuary 2013

9

dmin. &

and

ata39;

ta40; and

t was

he consumer

t was

ansit he 200642

c Waste – A and tertiary

ble in the 2011

s’ WRAP, 2006.

T, 1% Other)

3

9

r

)


10

3. Overview of Plastic Packaging Data Sources

The overview of data sources used in the methodologies described in Section 2, is separated into the

following sections:

Data Sources;

PackFlow 2017; and

Valpak’s EPIC Database.

3.1 Data Sources

Three main data sources were used in the production of this report:

PackFlow 201743: a report on the flows of UK packaging (see section 3.2 below);

Valpak’s EPIC (Environmental Product Information Centre) database: contains information on over 400,000 packaging items, including packaging weights and formats, and in the case of plastic packaging, polymer types (see section 3.3 below); and

The WRAP report ‘UK Plastic Waste – A review of supplies for recycling, global market demand, future trends and associated risks’44.

In addition, following the secondary research phase of the project, the following reports and information sources were used:

Key Note 2010 Packaging (Food & Drink)45;

UK Household Plastics Packaging Collection Survey 2011, Recoup46;

Environment Agency’s Agricultural Waste Survey 200347;

The Agricultural Waste Plastic Programme48;

Establish Tonnages, and Cost Effectiveness of Collection, of Construction Site Packaging Waste, WRAP, March 200449;

Environment Agency NPWD Public Reports50;

National Statistics’ PRODCOM data51;

Defra: Commercial and Industrial Waste Survey 200952: Final Report 2010;

North London Waste Authority Waste Composition Analysis Project, October 2010 53;

Plymouth City Council, Municipal Solid Waste Composition Analysis, November 200554;

43 PackFlow 2017 is published and is available on the Valpak website http://www.valpak.co.uk/BuildYourKnowledge/MarketResearchAndAnalysis/ProjectsAndCaseStudies.aspx 44 http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/UK%20Plastics%20Waste.pdf. See Annex II of this report for key tables. 45 http://www.keynote.co.uk/ 46 http://www.recoup.org/business/homedocs/HPPC_2011_survey.pdf 47http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110407094538/http://www.agwasteplastics.org.uk/agri/about.html 48 The results of The Agricultural Waste Plastics Collection and Recovery Programme trials were reported in the Final Report of this project, which remains unpublished. Please see http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110407094538/http://www.agwasteplastics.org.uk/agri/about.html for further details of the Agricultural Waste Plastic Programme. 49 www.wrap.org.uk/document.rm?id=1592 50 http://npwd.environment‐agency.gov.uk/Public/PublicSummaryData.aspx accessed 08/01/2012 51 National Statistics, Product Sales and Trade, Final Estimates 2009, Division 22, Manufacture Of Rubber and Plastic Products 52 Commercial and Industrial Waste Survey 2009: Final Report Defra 2010 53 http://www.nlwa.gov.uk/docs/2011/wastecomposition2010.pdf 54 http://www2.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Plymouth_Trade_Waste_Analysis_05.399cdb9c.8740.pdf


11

Greater London Authority, Waste Composition Scoping Study, October 200455;

Davies, G (2004) The Recycling Impact Of Targeting And Separating Selected Packaging Waste In

Split Bodied Street Litter Bins. In: Waste 200456;

Zero Waste Scotland, The composition of municipal solid waste in Scotland, April 201057; and

UK market composition data of polypropylene packaging, WRAP, 201258.

Gaps in current secondary data were identified in the areas of consumer (on‐the‐go), agricultural,

construction and manufacturing plastic packaging. Specifically, this pertained to an up‐to‐date

breakdown by format and polymer type. Also, no supportive/comparative data was found for non‐

consumer plastic packaging in general.

3.2 PackFlow 2017

3.2.1 Introduction

PackFlow 2017 is the latest edition of the PackFlow Project, which seeks to understand the flow of

packaging materials onto the UK market, the quantity of packaging materials collected for recycling and

from this, the potential for achieving UK recycling targets.

As the PackFlow 2017 high level estimates of UK plastic packaging tonnages form the baseline for this

composition project, key points from that report are summarised below to explain the definitions,

consultation process, assumptions and findings.

All figures representing the flow of packaging material onto the UK market (or ‘consumption’ of

packaging) are estimates: past, present and future. This is due to the way packaging data is reported in

the UK. Whilst this serves the purpose of demonstrating compliance with packaging regulations for

obligated companies, it does not lend itself to providing actual quantities of packaging flowing onto the

market in the UK.

For example, only obligated packaging is covered (companies handling fewer than 50 tonnes of

packaging or with a turnover of less than £2 million do not report any packaging data); ‘free rider’

companies that are unaware that they are obligated do not report any packaging data. Further,

packaging data can be reported multiple times by a number of obligated companies and data is only

reported to the level of material type (e.g. not by format, polymer type, consumer or non‐consumer use,

etc.).

This report has adopted the midpoint of the latest PackFlow estimates to provide totals for plastic

packaging consumption in 2011 (2,535k tonnes), and suggests the proportion of this that is consumer

(68%) and non‐consumer packaging (32%). These categories are explained in more detail below.

55http://legacy.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/waste/docs/waste_composition_scoping_study.rtf. 56 http://warrr.org/971/ 57 http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Scotland_MSW_report_final.pdf 58 http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Phase%203%20Food%20Grade%20rPP%20Market%20Final%20Report.pdf

Plastics P

3.2.2 D

For the p

Consum

In this re

by the lo

typically

pots, tub

Consum

Househo

Non‐Con

Packagin

as drums

These st

levels of

3.2.3 P

In order

undertak

consiste

The indu

intention

was then

All inform

agreeme

59 It shoulThe data is

FLOW ONTotal

ConsumerConsumerNon-Consu

Packaging Co

Definitions

purposes of

er Packaging

eport, consu

ocal authorit

y includes key

bs and trays.

er Packaging

old‐type prim

nsumer Pack

ng consumed

s and pallets

reams have

f contaminat

PackFlow I

to review U

ken. This wa

nt and comp

ustry consult

n to revise P

n contacted

mation colla

ent. The plas

ld be noted thas also illustrate

NTO MARKET

r (Household)r (Away From Houmer

omposition 2

s: Consume

PackFlow, co

g (Household

mer packagi

y for disposa

y primary pa

g (On‐the‐Go

mary packagi

kaging

d by industry

s along with

been report

ion and pote

Industry Co

K consumpti

s carried out

prehensive se

tation involve

ackFlow, a re

by phone to

ted was ana

stic consultat

Figure 8

at the PackFlowed as a range to

ome)32%

Split100%

57%11%

2011

er & Non‐C

onsumption

d)

ng likely to e

al or recyclin

ckaging form

o)

ng consume

y is considere

most second

ed separatel

ential as unta

onsultatio

ion figures o

t using a top

et of questio

ed relevant s

equest for th

discuss pack

lysed and or

tion results a

PackFlow 20

w figures are esto highlight the u

20062,295k

1,308k252k734k

Consumer

has been div

end up in the

g, is termed

mats such as

ed on‐the‐go

ed to be non

dary and tert

ly due to the

apped mater

n

f plastic pac

ic guide to e

ons.

stakeholders

heir support

kaging flow f

rganised and

are summari

017 Estimates

timates and notuncertainty aro

20072,318-2,387k

1,321-1,360k255-263k742-764k

Packaging

vided into th

e household

‘consumer p

drinks bottl

and dispose

n‐consumer p

tiary packagi

eir difference

rial for recyc

kaging, an in

ensure releva

s being sent a

and a copy o

for their part

presented b

sed in Figure

of Plastic Con

t necessarily acound precise flo

20082,341-2,458k

1,334-1,401k258-270k749-787k

g

ree key strea

waste stream

packaging (h

es; plastic fil

ed of away fr

packaging an

ng.

es in terms o

cling.

ndustry consu

ant stakehold

an introduct

of the topic g

ticular mater

back to the re

e 8.

nsumption59

curate to the new estimates.

20092,363-2,520k

1,347-1,436k260-277k756-806k

Ja

ams, as deta

m, and as su

ousehold)’. T

lm and bags;

rom home.

nd includes it

of ease of rec

ultation was

ders were as

tory email ou

guide. Each s

rial.

elevant stak

earest one thou

20102,385-2,583k

1,359-1,472k262-284k763-827k

anuary 2013

12

ailed below:

ch collected

This

; and plastic

tems such

covery,

sked a

utlining the

stakeholder

eholders for

usand tonnes.

20112,409-2,660k

1,373-1,516k265-293k771-851k

3

2

r


13

3.2.4 Key Findings

The latest estimations for packaging consumption are for 2011, which suggest that the total quantity of

plastic packaging placed on the market was between 2.4M and 2.6M tonnes. Of this, it is estimated that

57% is consumer (household) plastic packaging, which amounts to between 1.4M and 1.5M tonnes.

Consumer (on‐the‐go) plastic packaging accounts for 11% of all plastic packaging, which equates to

approximately 0.3M tonnes. Non‐consumer plastic packaging accounts for 32% of all plastic packaging,

or around 0.8M tonnes.

3.2.5 PackFlow 2017 Assumptions

The following assumptions were made in calculating the PackFlow 2017 plastic packaging projections:

Consumer (household) plastic packaging, likely to be collected by local authority bring or kerb collections, is 57% of the total flow onto the market;

Consumer (on‐the‐go) plastic packaging, consisting of both plastic bottles and mixed plastics, equates to 11% of the total flow onto the market;

Non‐consumer plastic packaging, most likely to be film, equates to 32% of the total flow onto the market;

These splits were established from pooled WRAP /Recoup/BPF and Valpak knowledge;

All three categories of flow will grow at the same rate; and

Growth rates take into consideration further potential light‐weighting of plastic packaging.


14

3.3 Valpak’s EPIC Database

Valpak’s EPIC database holds considerable data on consumer and non‐consumer packaging. This includes packaging weights, sales volumes and, for many products, either the format, the polymer or both. Data on various retail, hospitality, clothing, electrical, etc., packaging is held. However, the largest volumes of plastic packaging are associated with supermarket supply chains, which account for over 90% of consumer plastic packaging sales by weight recorded in EPIC. In the earlier part of the study, additional data from EPIC was interrogated, covering any available relevant consumer household data (for example, from clothing, toy and electrical retailers); however, the total additional tonnage, the majority of which was not specified by format or polymer type, represented less than 3% of supermarket tonnage and its inclusion would have had very little impact on the coverage of consumer household data or its breakdown by format or polymer type. As a result, the analysis focused on packaging from supermarket goods. Supermarket packaging covers a wide variety of goods, including not only food and drink products but many other products too: 56% of the EPIC supermarket data relates to food and drink packaging, with the remaining 44% covering products such as cosmetics, health & hygiene products, cleaning products, clothing, toys and electricals. The working assumption of this report has therefore been that the analysed supermarket data sufficiently represents consumer packaging and is referred to from here on as ‘consumer data’. Whilst it is acknowledged that it is not an exact representation, no further data was found that provided more accurate or detailed results, or proved the working assumption to be inappropriate.

Plastics P

3.4 P

Figure 9

Packaging Co

Packaging

provides an

omposition 2

g Formats

overview of

2011

f some key p

Figure 9

packaging for

Packaging

rmats discuss

g Formats

sed in this re

Ja

eport.

anuary 2013

15

3

5


16

4. Total UK Consumption of Plastic Packaging

The next three sections of this report provide a detailed understanding of the consumption of plastic

packaging in the UK. UK plastic packaging consumption has been analysed and reported in two parts:

consumer plastic packaging (Section 5) and non‐consumer plastic packaging (Section 6). This section

covers the totality (consumer and non‐consumer) of plastic packaging. This is a simple summation of the

two estimated data sets. However, consumer plastic packaging accounts for the majority (68%) of total

packaging and the methodology developed for this report offers most insight into this area, compared

with non‐consumer packaging, where data is sparser and fragmented.

Consumer plastic packaging composition has been estimated using primary research. A significant

sample of consumer packaging data was sought from major retailer suppliers, and the proportions of

packaging formats and polymers were established by using retailer sales figures. Please see Section 2.3

of this report for further details on methodology. Where possible, results have been informed using

comparative data from secondary research.

Non‐consumer plastic packaging has been estimated using a combination of secondary research data

and data from Valpak’s EPIC database. The key documents consulted are given in Section 3.1 of this

report and further details on methodology are provided in Section 2.3.

A small selection of key stakeholders were invited to participate in a consultation, to sense‐check the

orders of magnitude of the findings and help provide context and industry insight into the analysis.

Where discrepancies with existing data or knowledge were identified, they are reported in the text.

4.1 Introduction

Combining the datasets for consumer and non‐consumer plastic packaging generates format and

polymer splits for all plastic packaging, as can be seen in Figure 10 below. This represents an updated

version of WRAP’s Table 2.1 from the report: “UK Plastics Waste – A review of supplies for recycling,

global market demand, future trends and associated risks”.

Figure 10 differs slightly from this table due to the following:

The column ‘Unspecified OP’ (other polyolefins) was not required/able to be defined;

The column ‘Bio Plastic’ has been excluded;

The row ‘HDPE Other’ was not required;

The row ‘Semi‐rigid Sheet’ was unable to be defined;

The row ‘Fibre for Packing’ was unable to be defined; and

Imports of plastic packaging are inherently included throughout the estimates, but have not been separately identified60. Annex 2 reports some estimates of imports of packaging for completeness, although not by format or polymer type.

60 For consumer packaging, the survey sample included imported products, but did not identify them or have any statistical analysis undertaken. For non‐consumer estimates, this level of data was not available from secondary research. All quantities of plastic packaging used are based on PackFlow 2017 estimates and these include both UK and imported packaging placed on the UK market.

Plastics P

61 The anathe level ofattached t

ALL

Film Total

Film

Film - Bags

Film - Strap

Rigids Total

Bottles

Consumer C

Consumer P

Thermoform

Injection Mo

Non-Consum Closures

Injection Mo

EPS Transit

Pails, Drums

Non-Consum

Other

Grand Total

Grand Total

Packaging Co

Figure 10

alysis relies on of precision presto the figures: t

L Plastic Packagin

ping/Tape/Bands

l

Closures

PTTs

med Packs

oulded Rigids

mer Rigids

oulded Pallets, Crates

t Packaging

s, Industrial

mer PTTs

l (tonnes)

l (%)

omposition 2

UK Plastic

a number of assented here (nathe figures are s

ngLDPELLDP

628k

508k

120k

0k

11k

1k

3k

5k

3k

2k

0k0k

s, etc 0k

0k

0k

0k

1k

638k

25%

2011

Packaging Co

ssumptions andamely, to the nesimply quoted a

E/ PE

HDPE

k 145k

k 33k

k 112k

0k

k 265k

202k

32k

0k

0k

0k

19k1k

0k

0k

17k

0k

12k

k 410k

% 16%

onsumption b

d approximationearest thousandas they arose fr

OPP PP

16k 143k

11k 96k

5k 45k

0k 3k

4k 227k

0k 5k

3k 17k

0k 123k

0k 23k

0k 100k

0k 76k0k 1k

0k 22k

0k 0k

0k 12k

0k 41k

0k 5k

20k 370k

1% 15%

y Format & P

ns. As such, thed tonne) is not mrom the analysi

PET

72k

58k

9k

5k

730k

337k

21k

329k

293k

36k

30k1k

0k

0k

0k

30k

14k

803k

32%

olymer Type6

re are margins meant to repress.

PS PVC

5k 13k

3k 12k

1k 1k

0k 0k

89k 75k

0k 3k

0k 1k

53k 39k

8k 39k

46k 0k

22k 0k0k 0k

0k 0k

9k 0k

0k 0k

13k 0k

13k 32k

93k 88k

4% 3%

Ja

61 (Tonnes)

of error aroundesent the level o

OtherGrTo

(ton

98k 11

69k 79

29k 32

0k 8

15k 14

0k 54

3k 8

7k 55

2k 36

5k 18

0k 140k 2

0k 2

0k 9

0k 2

0k 8

5k 8

113k 25

4% 10

anuary 2013

17

d the data, andof accuracy

rand otal nnes)

Grand Total (%)

119k 44%90k 31%21k 13%8k 0%

415k 56%48k 22%

80k 3%56k 22%68k 15%88k 7%47k 6%2k 0%

22k 1%9k 0%

29k 1%85k 3%83k 3%

535k

00%

3

7

d

Plastics P

4.2 P

As can b

followed

4.3 P

As can b

principa

LDPE/LL

Packaging Co

Plastic Pac

e seen in Fig

d by consum

Plastic Pac

e seen in Fig

lly in the for

DPE, typicall

omposition 2

ckaging Fo

gure 11 below

er pots, tubs

Figure 11

ckaging Po

gure 12 below

mat of consu

y used as film

Figure 12

2011

ormats

w, the most

s and trays a

UK Consum

olymer Ty

w, the most

umer drinks

m for tertiary

UK Consum

commonly f

nd plastic bo

mption of Plas

ypes

commonly f

bottles and

y packaging

mption of Plast

ound packag

ottles.

stic Packaging

ound packag

pots, tubs an

and transpo

tic Packaging

ging format i

g by Format

ging polymer

nd trays. This

rtation.

by Polymer

Ja

in the UK is f

r in the UK is

s is followed

anuary 2013

18

film,

s PET,

d by

3

8


19

4.4 Trends in Plastic Packaging

The following paragraphs describe the trends that emerge from comparing the data in this report with

the previously most comprehensive composition analysis published by WRAP, containing 2005 data19. It

should be noted that the methodologies used to derive the estimates in each report are very different

and there is uncertainty over these estimates in both reports. Therefore, the comparison data should be

treated with caution and as only one means of establishing potential trends.

Furthermore, assumptions have been made as to the split of non‐consumer/consumer tonnages and the

allocation of imports to the 2005 data. These are detailed in footnotes and in Annex II.

4.4.1 Film

Overall

Overall, the data suggests that the consumption of film (bag, non‐bag and strapping) has remained

stable at around 1,119k tonnes. In 2005 this was reported at 927k tonnes excluding imports, which if

included62, brings the 2005 figure to around 1,155k tonnes. Bags separately appear to have decreased,

balanced by an increase in non‐bag films (please see below).

A wider variety of polymers exists in the 2011 non‐bag film composition, including previously

unreported tonnages of HDPE, PP, PET, PS and Other. These represent a third of the 2011 composition

(259kt, 33%). Likewise with bag film, additional tonnages of PP, PET, OPP, PS, PVC and Other film are

reported, representing 28% of the 2011 composition (90kt).

Innovia63 Films agrees with the finding of a split between more polymers in 2011, since retailers have

moved products from frozen, to chilled, to ambient. The reason for this trend is that retailers are trying

to reduce their carbon footprint, and chilling and freezer cabinets account for relatively high carbon

emissions. To facilitate this without increased food waste has required more technical products e.g.

barrier films, requiring new polymers to be used. Also, at the same time, retailers have been focusing on

reducing food waste, which has required more technical films.

The data shows that the split of all film arisings for consumer and non‐consumer is 50:50, this is in line

with industry understanding of a relatively balanced split.

Approximately two‐thirds (65%) of non‐bag film arises in the non‐consumer sector, leaving a substantial

proportion (35%) of non‐bag film arising in the consumer sector. This split is in line with WRAP’s 2005

estimates (65% and 35% respectively) and suggests that, whilst the tonnages have increased, the

proportional split has remained similar.

From discussions with a small number of stakeholders, it emerges that industry believes there has been

little shift in film tonnages since 2005. This is because film usage has increased in line with light‐

weighting activity. This view therefore supports the trend of no overall increase in film tonnages.

62 2005 WRAP figures were broken down by polymer type only; therefore, for the purposes of this comparison it has been assumed that all imported PE and OPP are film and 1/3 of imported HDPE is film. 63 Taken from consultation carried out by Valpak October 2012.


20

Film – Bags

The total tonnage of film‐bags appears to have reduced by approximately a third64 since 2005 to 321k

tonnes in 2011.

The tonnage of consumer bags appears to have reduced by up to a quarter65 to 277k tonnes. There were

an estimated 60kt of supermarket thin‐gauge carrier bags in the UK in 2011, down from 110K tonnes in

200666 (55%). However, there has been an increase in fresh produce and bread bags, which would

counter some of the reduction in carrier bags.

The results of the EPIC 2011 survey sample indicate a large swing in tonnage from LDPE bags (350k, 74%

decrease) 67 to HDPE Bags (81K, 261% increase)68. This is likely to have been caused by many single‐use

LDPE carrier bags switching to the commonly found ‘vest‐style’ HDPE bags. This switch is recognised due

to the fact that HDPE bags can be made thinner; using less material and costing less.

4.4.2 Strapping

The reported tonnage has decreased by 23k tonnes (74%)69. This is mainly due to a reduction of PP and

PET strapping. Again, this may be due to strapping not being specifically recorded in EPIC or separately

reported in secondary research, rather than a real reduction in tonnages.

4.4.3 Plastic Bottles

Overall, bottle tonnages have remained broadly the same (559kt in 2005, 548k t in 2011)70; this fits with

industry’s view that any growth in consumption has been negated through light weighting of bottles.

Looking at bottles by polymer type shows an increase in PET bottles (26kt, 8% increase), broadly

matched by a decrease in the other polymer type bottles of HDPE, PVC, PP and PS (28k tonnes

combined). This potentially illustrates a trend of ‘switching’ to PET bottles, away from other polymer

type bottles.

The lower reported tonnage of HDPE and increase in PET bottles could reflect the following:

A shift from HDPE to PET bottles. According to Nampak71, there has been a shift from HDPE to PET bottles over the last five years or so. Other than milk72, there has been a move towards packaging products in PET bottles rather than HDPE, for example, detergents. This is mainly due to changes in

64 This assumes that 2005 imports of PE and HDPE are allocated as follows ‐ PE: 49% bags; HDPE: 31% bags. 65 The 2005 consumer bag estimate does not include any imports, therefore the 25% is a maximum and would be less if any

tonnage of consumer bags were imported. 66 http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/new‐figures‐carrier‐bags‐use‐released‐wrap, based on data from participating retailers (Asda (including ex‐Netto stores), Co‐operative Group, Marks & Spencer, Morrison’s, Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Tesco and Waitrose) 67 The reduction in LDPE/LLDPE assumes a 2005 figure of 470kt including imports.

68 The increase in HDPE assumes a 2005 figure of 31kt including imports. 69 This assumes an additional 1kt for imported strapping. 70 This assumes an additional 11kt for imported PET bottles. 71 Taken from consultation carried out by Valpak October 2012. 72 The exception to this is one litre bottles of Cravendale milk, which were switched from HDPE to PET bottles in 2012.


21

bottle requirements. Detergents are becoming more concentrated and smaller so there is no need for a handle. The visual impact of PET is also regarded as more attractive than HDPE, which can influence sales of detergent products. Finally, the price of PET has reduced relative to HDPE. Other industry representatives suggest the HDPE tonnage, particularly that representing non‐food consumer and non‐consumer HDPE bottles, is low. A proxy of 50% food/drink, 50% non‐food/drink HDPE bottles of a total around 220tonnes was indicated73, which implies the food/drink figure derived from the survey sample is a little high (~153kt) and the non‐food consumer and non‐consumer tonnage figure is a little low (59kt). However, taken in combination, the total HDPE bottle figure is broadly aligned with industry views.

Light‐weighting. There has been significant work done on the light‐weighting of PET and HDPE bottles (potentially as much as 20% in the last 5 or six years).

The 50% HDPE:50% PET composition split of bottles entering the sorting/recycling stream may not necessarily be appropriate for packaging consumption According to waste industry discussions, the split of PET to HDPE bottles entering the

sorting/recycling stream sits at around 50% each. The split derived from the EPIC data sample

suggests a different split for consumption: 62% PET and 38% HDPE. As ‘on‐the‐go’ bottle collections

are still extremely limited and a considerable proportion (around one‐third, please see section 5.4

for more details) of PET bottles are potentially disposed of on‐the‐go, and are therefore unlikely to

enter the recycling stream, it is understandable that the quantities of PET and HDPE bottles passing

through MRFs and PRFs are more similar. Furthermore, data from Wales shows 50:50 for recyclates,

but 60/40 (PET/HDPE) for residual waste74.

4.4.4 Consumer Plastic Pots, Tubs and Trays (PTTs)

Due to the difficulty in distinguishing between consumer thermoformed packs and injection moulded

packaging from the packaging description (format and polymer types requested in the survey sample

and/or stored in the EPIC database) the breakdown of consumer PTTs into thermoformed packs and

IMRs provided is at best indicative, and should be treated with caution.

Overall, it would appear that there has been a dramatic increase in consumer PTTs over the last six

years, potentially doubling in weight, bringing current levels to 556k tonnes. This increase is discussed

below, in terms of thermoformed and IMR packaging. (Please see Annex II for estimates of 2005 splits by

Non‐consumer, from which the Consumer figures have been calculated).

Thermoformed Packs

Overall tonnage of consumer thermoformed packs has increased by over 100k tonnes75 (40‐50%). This is

due to a very large increase of around 250k tonnes76 in consumer PET packs. Although some increase is

in line with industry expectations, this level of increase is very high. According to industry,

thermoformed packaging in food has grown around 2% per annum since 2005 i.e. only around 13% in

total since 2005. Industry believes increases are primarily due to PP and PET growth because of their:

73 Conversation with Stuart Foster, CEO, Recoup, December 2012. 74 The composition of MSW in Wales, WRAP, 2010. 75 This assumes an approximate import tonnage of 19k in 2005. 76 The split of consumer/non‐consumer figures by polymer type was not included in the WRAP 2006 report.


22

Barrier properties (extending shelf life of perishable goods);

Suitability for recycling; and

Clarity, strength and robust nature as polymers.

Once again, it should be noted that industry views contradict the potential size in growth trend, rather

than the current tonnages presented or the polymer splits. As highlighted at the beginning of this

section, the arisings figures in the two reports were derived in very different ways and comparisons in

data should be done so cautiously. It may well be that there has been a lesser trend in increasing

quantities of consumer PTTs or that inaccuracies in either/both the 2005 or the current dataset exist.

Industry believes that there is more PP & PET replacing PS & PVC. This is not totally in line with the

current results presented here, since PVC was not reported at all in 2005 and represents a tonnage of

39k tonnes in 2011. PP has also seen a reduction of around 80k tonnes.

Injected Moulded Rigids (IMRs)

The total reported tonnage has increased by approximately 170k tonnes (over 1000%, from a low base

of an estimated 14K77 tonnes in 2005). This is due to an increase in PP IMRs (86k tonnes) and new

tonnages of PET (36k tonnes) and PS (46k tonnes).

This growth has most likely been driven by increased demand for convenience foods, itself driven by

portion control packs such as Heinz snap pots and Heinz fridge packs, both of which have substituted tin

cans.

Industry suggests a minimum increase of about 10% ‐ 15% per year; however, current figures suggest a

much larger growth of around 35% per year.

Industry also suggests that PS has declined because retailers have sought to reduce the number of

polymers in the market place, in line with WRAP’s guidelines. PET has definitely grown as this material is

seen as aesthetically better for point of sale attributes. This growth has also been a quick response to

the incorporation of food grade recycled materials (as a system exists for PET and such a system is still

several years away for rPP food grade). PET is a new IMR polymer, recorded after the 2005 table was

produced.

4.4.5 Non‐consumer Rigid Packaging

For the purpose of this report, non‐consumer rigid packaging formats were broken down into:

Closures;

Injection Moulded RTPS, Crates, etc.;

EPS Transit Packaging;

Pails, Drums & Industrial; and

PTTs.

This breakdown was not available in any of the secondary research found, other than the WRAP 2006

report. Therefore, the proportions of non‐consumer rigids format were transposed onto the non‐

consumer rigids total (derived from a variety of secondary research ‐ please see section 2 and 3 of this

77 Assumes 2k tonnes of 2005 tonnage is non‐consumer and 1kt is imported


23

report for methodologies and data sources used). The splits presented are therefore only indicative and

should be treated with caution.

EPS Transit Packaging

Overall tonnage has decreased by around 20k (~70%) for this packaging format. This may be due to:

The assumptions made in defining EPS transit packaging in the non‐consumer table;

Alternative forms of protective packing being adopted, such as use of corrugated card, shredded paper and blown LDPE pouches;

Packaging reduction initiatives in the supply chain; and

Data inaccuracies.

Injected Moulded RTPS, Crates

The reported tonnage of PP returnable plastic transit packaging has decreased by around 50k tonnes

(~67%) since 2005.

Pails, Drums & Industrial

The overall tonnage of pails, drums and industrial has reduced by around 70k tonnes (~70%), with HDPE

now seeing the highest tonnage compared to PP in 2005.

Closures

It is not possible to identify the proportion of non‐consumer from the 2005 figures. Therefore, no

comparison can be made.

4.4.6 Consumer Packaging Closures

Reported total tonnage for consumer closures has approximately doubled78 (~30k increase) since 2005,

which according to RPC Containers, is reasonable. In 2005, polymers for closures were not specified. In

2011, polymers have been identified and the key ones are HDPE (32k tonnes), PET (21k tonnes) and PP

(17k tonnes). However, RPC believes that the majority of caps are made of PP, which isn’t in line with

what has been found here. Differences in the definition of what is included as lids/caps79 in each report

and the assumptions made in estimating non‐consumer data most likely contribute to the discrepancies

in polymer breakdown.

78 The split of consumer/non‐consumer figures for closures was not included in the previous WRAP report and therefore the 60% is a minimum, as the 2005 baseline figure includes a proportion of non‐consumer closures. 79 For this report, any packaging item described by suppliers as a cap or closure or lid in its own right has been included. Where the lid is part of the body of the packaging it has not been included as a cap but rather with the remainder of the packaging format.

Plastics P

5. C

5.1 I

Consum

random

section 3

quantitie

PackFlow

section 2

The follo

and poly

breakdo

consume

Consu

Film Total

Film

Film - Bags

Rigids Total

Bottles

Consumer C

Consumer P Thermoform

Injection Mo

Other

Grand Total

Grand Total

Consu

Film Total

Film

Film - Bags

Film - Strap

Rigids Tota

Bottles

Consumer

Consumer Thermoform

Injection M

Other

Grand Tota

Packaging Co

Consume

Introducti

er packaging

sample of co

3.3 above), d

es. The prop

w consumer

2.3 of this re

owing tables

ymer type, an

wn of consu

er packaging

mer Plastic Packa

l

Closures

PTTsmed Packs

oulded Rigids

l (tonnes)

l (%)

umer Plastic Pac

s

pping/Tape/Band

al

Closures

PTTsmed Packs

Moulded Rigids

al (%)

omposition 2

er Consu

ion

g (including h

onsumer (su

determining

ortions of pa

packaging q

port for furt

provide a br

nd is discuss

mer data by

g disposed of

Figure 13

agingLDPELLDP

145k

59k

86k

10k

1k

3k

5k3k

2k

1k

156k

9%

ckagingLL

ds

0

0

2011

umption o

household an

permarket) p

its weight, fo

ackaging form

uantity of 17

her details o

reakdown of

ed below. Th

y packaging t

f away from

Consumer

E/ PE

HDPE

k 140k

k 28k

k 112k

k 193k

158k

32k

0k0k

0k

2k

k 333k

% 19%

LDPE/ LDPE

HDPE

8.4% 8.1%

3.4% 1.6%

5.0% 6.5%

0.0% 0.0%

0.6% 11.2%

0.1% 9.2%

0.2% 1.9%

0.3% 0.0%0.2% 0.0%

0.1% 0.0%

0.1% 0.1%

9.0% 19.3%

of Plasti

nd on‐the‐go

packaging ga

ormat and p

mats and po

724k tonnes,

on the metho

f the consum

he remainde

that is dispos

the home (c

Plastic Packag

OPP PP

16k 93k

11k 58k

5k 35k

4k 150k

0k 4k

3k 17k

0k 123k0k 23k

0k 100k

0k 5k

20k 243k

1% 14%

OPP

0.9%

0.6%

0.3%

0.0%

0.2%

0.0%

0.2%

0.0%0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.1%

c Packag

o) has been e

athered for V

olymer type

lymers foun

, to estimate

odology.

mer element

er of this sect

sed of at hom

onsumer on

ging (Tonnes

PET

59k

50k

9k

688k

333k

21k

329k293k

36k

6k

747k

43%

PP PET

5.4% 3.4%

3.4% 2.9%

2.0% 0.5%

0.0% 0.0%

8.7% 39.9%

0.2% 19.3%

1.0% 1.2%

7.1% 19.1%1.4% 17.0%

5.8% 2.1%

0.3% 0.4%

14.1% 43.3%

ging

estimated by

Valpak’s EPIC

and applyin

d have then

e scaled‐up q

of UK plastic

tion then pre

me (consume

‐the‐go).

& Percent)

PS PVC

1k 6k

0k 5k

1k 1k

66k 42k

0k 2k

0k 1k

53k 39k8k 39k

46k 0k

13k 0k

68k 48k

4% 3%

T PS

% 0.1%

% 0.0%

% 0.1%

% 0.0%

% 3.9%

% 0.0%

% 0.0%

% 3.1%% 0.4%

% 2.7%

% 0.8%

% 3.9%

Ja

y taking a sig

C database (p

g the approp

been applie

quantities. Pl

c packaging b

esents a furt

er household

OtherGrTo

(ton

95k 55

67k 27

29k 27

15k 11

0k 49

3k 8

7k 552k 36

5k 18

5k 3

110k 17

6%

PVC Oth

0.3% 5.5

0.3% 3.9

0.0% 1.7

0.0% 0.0

2.4% 0.8

0.1% 0.0

0.0% 0.2

2.3% 0.42.3% 0.1

0.0% 0.3

0.0% 0.3

2.8% 6.4

anuary 2013

24

gnificant

please see

priate sales

d to the

ease see

by format

her

d) and

rand otal nnes)

Grand Total (%)

56k 32%79k 16%77k 16%

167k 68%98k 29%

80k 5%56k 32%68k 21%88k 11%33k 2%

724k

herGrand

Total (%)

5% 32.3%

9% 16.2%

7% 16.1%

0% 0.0%

8% 67.7%

0% 28.9%

2% 4.7%

4% 32.3%% 21.3%

% 10.9%

3% 1.9%

4% 100.0%

3

4

Plastics P

5.2 P

Consum

556k ton

packagin

(32%).

The mos

total ton

soft drin

333k ton

most sig

The thre

5.2.1 C

Film pac

stand in

bag film

The estim

proporti

Packaging Co

Plastic Pac

er plastic pa

nnes), PTTs (

ng accounts f

st common p

nnage, or 747

nks/water/co

nnes), which

gnificant poly

ee main pack

Consumer

ckaging can b

fairly equal

can be blurr

mated split o

on of carrier

omposition 2

ckaging by

ckaging is sp

32%, 556k to

for approxim

polymer foun

7k tonnes. K

ordials/energ

is mainly fo

ymer is PP (1

kaging forma

Films (32%

be further br

proportions.

ry, and accor

of bag and no

r bags and th

Figu

2011

y Format

plit broadly e

onnes) and b

mately two‐th

nd in plastic c

Key consume

gy drinks, and

und in the fo

4%, 243k ton

ts, and their

% of Consu

oken down i

. The distinct

rdingly there

on‐bag film i

he breakdow

Consre 14

and Polym

evenly betwe

bottles (29%,

hirds (68%) o

consumer pa

er packaging

d PTTs. The s

orm of milk b

nnes), which

r associated p

umer Plasti

into bag and

tions betwee

e is some unc

is shown in F

wn of non‐bag

sumer Plastic

mer

een three ma

, 498k tonne

of consumer

ackaging is P

made from

second most

bottles and v

h is principall

polymers, ar

ic Packagin

non‐bag film

en some type

certainty aro

Figure 14 bel

g film by pol

c Film by Poly

ain packaging

es). When co

plastic pack

ET, which re

PET is bottle

t common po

vest‐style car

ly used to ma

re discussed

ng)

ms, and the a

es of bags an

ound the exa

ow, which a

ymer type.

mer

Ja

g formats: fi

mbined, rigi

kaging and fil

epresents 43

es, typically c

olymer is HD

rrier bags. Th

ake PTTs.

below.

analysis sugg

nd some typ

ct split.

also illustrate

anuary 2013

25

lms (32%,

d plastic

lm one‐third

% of the

containing

DPE (19%,

he third

gests they

es of non‐

es the

3

5

Plastics P

Film‐ bag

The data

WRAP U

carrier b

tonnage

vegetabl

mapping

The brea

is used f

common

Please se

is consum

Non‐bag

A wide v

comprisi

believed

years du

Redufilms

The

The

Please se

80 UK Sup

Packaging Co

gs

a does not di

K Supermark

bags used by

in our analy

les, bread, et

g the type of

akdown in Fi

or single use

nly as a gene

ee section 4.

mer packagi

g Film

variety of pol

ing LDPE/LLD

d by industry

ue to a numb

ucing carbons that aid lon

focus on red

growth in co

ee section 4.

permarket Retai

omposition 2

istinguish be

ket Retailers

the major su

ysis, up to 20

tc. Figure 15

f products as

Figure 1

gure 15 was

e carrier bags

eral film, wra

.4.1 of this re

ng and the p

lymer types

DPE (21% of

that the ran

ber of factors

n footprints hngevity in am

ducing food w

onsumer PTT

.4.1 of this re

ilers Voluntary

Fr

Br

Cr

Po

Br

Tis

M

Pe

Ch

Ot

2011

etween carrie

s Voluntary C

upermarkets

00k tonnes of

5 illustrates t

sociated wit

Typical 5

confirmed a

s, LDPE/LLDP

p, lining or la

eport for fur

potential gro

were identif

non‐bag film

nge of polym

s:

has led to lesmbient tempe

waste has re

Ts and the as

eport for fur

Carrier Bag Agr

Bags

uit & Veg

read

risps

otatoes

reakfast Cere

ssue/Kitche

eat Products

et Food

heese

ther

er bags and o

Carrier Bag80

s was just ov

f plastic bags

he specific u

th ‘other bag

Product Type

as ‘reasonab

PE for long lif

abel.

rther comme

wth and poly

fied for non‐

m, 26% of all

mers currently

ss chilling aneratures, req

equired more

ssociated film

rther comme

reement, 2011

eal

n Roll

s

other bags. N

Agreement,

er 60k tonne

s are used to

uses, based o

gs’ (other tha

es for Consum

le’ in the ind

fe carrier ba

entary on the

ymer substit

bag films in t

film), PP (21

y used in non

d freezer caquiring differ

e technical fi

m lids/seals r

entary on pot

Carrier Bag Us

% of Bags

27%

21%

15%

14%

10%

3%

2%

2%

1%

5%

Nevertheless

in 2011 the

es. Based on

o package pr

on detailed a

an single use

mer Bags

dustry consul

gs or as plas

e proportion

tution trends

this report; t

%, 17%) and

n‐bag films h

binets and mrent polymer

lms; and

required.

tential consu

e, WRAP July 20

Ja

s, according t

weight of si

this, and the

roducts such

analysis of EP

e carrier bags

ltation. Gene

stic wrap and

of all plastic

s identified.

the larger sh

d PET (18%, 1

has grown in

more technicrs;

umer plastic

012

anuary 2013

26

to the

ngle use

e total bags

as fruit and

PIC data,

s).

erally, HDPE

d PP more

c bags that

are

11%). It is

recent

al barrier

film trends.

3

6

Plastics P

5.2.2 P

The anal

thirds of

below, a

Please n

moulded

sample a

and IMR

The majo

Detailed

small qu

some bo

The majo

constitut

further 1

Please se

potentia

5.2.3 B

The anal

tonnes. T

81 The splcertain tercombined

Packaging Co

PTTs (32%

lysis suggest

f PTTs), with

along with th

ote due to t

d packaging f

and/or store

Rs provided is

ority of therm

d analysis of t

antities of b

oxes. PVC the

ority of injec

tes 24% of in

19% of this ty

ee section 4.

al consumer

Bottles (29

lysis suggest

This proport

lit of thermoforrms such as plaas PTTs with gr

omposition 2

Consumer

s that PTTs a

the remaind

he polymer s

he difficulty

from the pac

ed in the EPIC

s at best indi

Figure 16

moformed p

the packagin

oxes and blis

ermoformed

ction moulde

njection mou

ype of packa

.4.4 of this re

PTTs trends.

9% Consum

s that bottle

tion is lower

rmed packs andstic boxes, contreater confiden

2011

r Plastic Pa

are mainly in

der being inje

plits of therm

in distinguis

ckaging desc

C database, t

icative and s

Consumer P

packs are ma

ng formats su

ster packs. S

packaging is

ed rigid packa

ulded rigid pa

aging.

eport for fur

mer Plastic

es account fo

than that pr

d injection moultainers, etc. counce; the split pro

ackaging)

n the form of

ection mould

moformed p

hing betwee

cription, form

the breakdow

should be tre

lastic Pots, Tu

de of PET (8

uggests that

Similarly, PP t

s also mainly

aging is PP (5

ackaging, ma

rther analysis

Packaging

or 29% of Con

resented in t

lded rigids relieuld be either typovided for therm

f thermoform

ded rigids81.

acks.

en consumer

mat and poly

wn of consum

eated with ca

ubs and Trays

0% of Therm

nearly all th

thermoform

y trays.

53%) and inc

ainly as pots

s of consume

g)

nsumer plast

he PackFlow

es on the descrippe of packagingmoformed pack

med packs (a

This is illustr

r thermoform

mer types re

mer PTTs int

aution.

s by Polymer

moformed Pa

ermoformed

ed packaging

cludes pots, p

and tubs an

er PTTs and c

tic packaging

w 2017 report

ption of the pacg. Therefore, thks and injection

Ja

approximatel

rated in Figu

med packs an

equested in t

to thermofor

acks, 53% of

d packs are t

g is nearly al

punnets and

nd PET consti

commentary

g, amounting

t (40%); how

ckaging as entehe data is presen moulded rigid

anuary 2013

27

ly two‐

re 16

nd injection

the survey

rmed packs

all PTTs).

rays, with

ll trays with

d tubs. PS

itutes a

y on

g to 498K

wever, this

ered into EPIC –ented ds is indicative.

3

7

–

Plastics P

current p

to deter

proporti

(consum

packagin

then the

fairly con

What is

reported

consume

estimate

packagin

approxim

plastic p

Discussio

import a

study re

growth i

material

bottle to

industry

Figure 17

82 WRAP Mhttp://ww83 Recoupwith the Rappreciate84 Percent

Packaging Co

piece of wor

mine the pro

on consists o

mer on‐the‐go

ng disposed o

e figures are

nsistent with

less consiste

d as part of t

er plastic bot

es have been

ng data weig

mate 2% yea

ackaging ton

ons with Rec

and C&I tonn

cognising an

n the weight

s), but subst

onnage figure

and become

7 below illus

Market Situatioww2.wrap.org.up engaged with Recoup Board aned and recognistages do not su

omposition 2

rk succeeds P

oportion of c

of plastic bot

o). If the pro

of at home (

broadly com

h current vie

ent with indu

his study (49

ttle consump

n derived in v

hts/formats/

r‐on‐year bo

nnage.

coup83 have h

nages of plas

n average 2%

t of bottle an

tantial growt

e presented

es accepted

strates the po

Figure

on Report, Realuk/downloads/MValpak on a nund telephone cased in publishinum due to round

2011

PackFlow and

consumer pla

ttles dispose

portion that

26%) is com

mparable and

ws.

ustry percept

98kt), due to

ption adopte

very differen

/polymers an

ottle growth

highlighted t

tic bottles. T

% annual incre

nd film packa

th in other ri

in this repor

as the best a

olymer split

Consu17

lising the value MSR_Redesign_umber of occasialls regarding tg this report. ding.

d has followe

astic packagi

ed of at hom

t is consume

pared to Wr

d suggest tha

tion to date

o this being c

ed by Recoup

nt ways: this

nd Recoup’s

rate betwee

the sensitivit

The principal

ease in plast

aging (due to

gid plastic p

rt may be ad

available bot

of consume

mer Plastic B

of recovered pl_June_2011.6aions in the prepthe difference in

ed a more st

ing that is bo

e (consumer

r plastic bott

ap and Defra

at the overal

is the quanti

considerably

p46. However

study throug

through ind

en 2005 and

ty of applying

difference i

tic packaging

o light weigh

ackaging suc

opted by Re

ttle arising fig

r plastic bott

ottles by Poly

lastic – an upda6e1bc2.10876.pparation of this n bottle tonnag

tatistically ro

ottles. The co

r household)

tles from all

a’s most rece

l consumer b

ity of consum

lower than t

r, it should b

gh sampling

ustry consul

2011, based

g growth rat

n the two fig

g overall, in w

hting and dow

ch as PTTs. It

coup in the f

gure.

tles consume

ymer84

ate, Spring 2010pdf report, includines. Their suppo

Ja

obust metho

onsumer bot

) and away fr

consumer p

ent estimate

bottle propo

mer plastic b

the 605k ton

be noted that

2011 superm

ltation suppo

d on a higher

tes and estim

gures arises f

which there

wn gauging o

t is possible t

future, if it is

ed in the UK

0,

ng presentationort and particip

anuary 2013

28

d in order

ttle

rom home

lastic

e82 (23%),

rtion is also

bottles

nnes of

t the two

market

orting an

r 2005 total

mating

from this

has been no

of

that the

s agreed by

:

n/discussion ation is much

3

8

Plastics P

The majo

carbonat

mainly u

and LDP

Nampak

the majo

consume

estimate

remainin

Accordin

waste ar

two third

consider

potentia

understa

similar.

5.2.4 O

Figure 18

not ‘Bott

The resu

the total

85 Taken f86 NampaConsumpt

Packaging Co

ority of plast

ted drinks, b

used as milk,

E (just over 1

k85 estimates

ority of whic

er bottles su

ed that aroun

ng 45k tonne

ng to industr

risings. The s

ds (68%) PET

rable propor

ally disposed

andable that

Other (2%

8 provides a

tle’, ‘Film’, ‘C

Figu

ults calculate

l consumer p

from consultatiak’s figure is bation & Productio

omposition 2

tic bottles bo

bottled wate

cleaning or

1% combine

that 119k86

h is consume

ch as those u

nd 113k tonn

es (28%) are

ry discussion

split derived

T and one th

tion (around

of on‐the‐go

t the quantit

of Consum

list of the pa

Closure’ or ‘P

Conure 18

ed a tonnage

packaging.

ion carried out bcked by Defra’son Taskforce.

2011

ought by con

r, cordials an

toiletries bot

d).

tonnes of HD

er, but includ

used by cafe

nes (72%) of

used for con

s, the split o

from the EP

ird (32%) HD

d one‐third, p

o and are the

ies of PET an

mer Plastic

ackaging for

PTTs’.

nsumer Packa

of 33k tonn

by Valpak Octos milk road map

O

Act

App

Bas

Hi C

Pad

Pum

Spr

Ste

Stri

Tie

Tub

Val

nsumers are

nd energy dr

ttles. A smal

DPE milk bot

des an unkno

es, restauran

f consumer H

nsumer non‐

f PET to HDP

IC data samp

DPE. As on‐th

please see se

erefore unlik

nd HDPE bott

Packaging

mats that we

aging Formats

es that comp

ober 2012. p report produc

ther Descrip

tuator

plicator

se

Cone

d

mp

ray Top

m

ip

be

ve

made of PET

rinks. This is f

ll proportion

ttles were pl

own (small, p

ts, etc.. This

HDPE bottles

grocery pack

PE bottles sit

ple suggests

he‐go bottle

ection 5.6 fo

kely to enter

tles passing t

g)

ere included

s Included in C

prises these

ced by the Dairy

ptions

T (67%, 333kt

followed by

of bottles a

aced onto th

perhaps 5%)

being the ca

are used for

kaging.

s at around

a different s

collections a

r more detai

the recyclin

through MRF

in the ‘Othe

Category ‘Oth

packaging fo

y Supply Chain F

Ja

kt), commonl

HDPE (32%,

re also made

he UK marke

quantity of

ase, it could

r milk and th

50% each, at

split for cons

are still limit

ils) of PET bo

ng stream, it

Fs and PRFs

er’ packaging

her’

ormats. This

Forum’s Sustain

anuary 2013

29

ly used for

158kt),

e of PP, PVC

et in 2010,

non‐

be

he

t least as

umption:

ted and a

ottles are

is

are more

g format, i.e.

s is 2 % of

nable

3

9

.

Plastics P

5.3 C

Total con

consume

calculate

disposed

5.3.1 P

The mos

thermof

tonnes).

Consumer

Film Total

Film

Film - Bags

Rigids Total

Bottles

Consumer C

Consumer PT Thermoforme

Injection Mou

Other

Grand Total

Grand Total

Packaging Co

Consumer

nsumer plast

er on‐the‐go

ed by extract

d on‐the‐go,

Packaging

st common p

formed packs

Figure

r Household Plastic

losures

TTsed Packs

ulded Rigids

(tonnes)

(%)

omposition 2

r (Househ

tic packaging

o plastic pack

ting the tonn

from the tot

Figure 1

Formats

packaging for

s (23%, 336k

Cons20

c PackagingLDLL

1

5

7

1

1

9

2011

old) Plast

g can be bro

kaging (see S

nages of vari

tal consume

Consum19

rmats identif

k tonnes), film

umer (Househ

DPE/ LDPE

HDPE

27k 105k

53k 20k

74k 85k

10k 189k

1k 158k

3k 28k

4k 0k2k 0k

2k 0k

1k 2k

37k 294k

9% 20%

tic Packag

ken down in

ection 2.3). T

ous plastic p

r figures, as

mer (Househo

fied are bott

m non‐bags

hold) Plastics

OPP PP

13k 77k

9k 47k

4k 29k

4k 138k

0k 4k

3k 15k

0k 113k0k 21k

0k 92k

0k 5k

16k 215k

1% 15%

ing

nto consume

The consum

packaging for

illustrated b

old) Plastic Pac

tles (26%, 38

(16%, 228k t

s Packaging by

PET

47k

40k

7k

k 539k

215k

18k

k 300k267k

33k

6k

k 586k

41%

r household

er (househo

rmats and po

elow.

ckaging

1k tonnes), f

tonnes) and f

y Packaging Fo

PS PVC

1k 5k

0k 4k

1k 1k

61k 39k

0k 2k

0k 1k

49k 36k7k 36k

42k 0k

12k 0k

62k 43k

4% 3%

Ja

plastic pack

ld) figures ha

olymers estim

followed by

film bags (16

ormat

OtherGranTota

(tonne

77k 452k

54k 228k

23k 224k

14k 993k

0k 381k

3k 73k

6k 509k2k 336k

4k 174k

4k 30k

91k 1445

6%

anuary 2013

30

aging and

ave been

mated to be

6%, 224k

nd al es)

Grand Total (%)

k 31%k 16%k 16%

k 69%k 26%

k 5%k 35%k 66%

k 34%

k 2%

5k

3

0

Plastics P

5.3.2 P

With reg

up of PE

The large

meals, fo

HDPE is t

majority

due to it

A key for

items su

A recent

used89) p

87 http://w22 Novem88 UK mar89 The mestatistical

Packaging Co

Polymer Ty

Figu

gard to polym

T (41% of to

est proportio

ollowed by b

the second m

y of HDPE pla

ts chemical r

rmat of PP is

ch as yoghu

t report by W

presents esti

www.wrap.orgber 2012 rket compositioethods used areanalysis of con

omposition 2

ypes

Conure 21

mer type, the

tal Consume

on of PET pla

bottles (37%)

most used po

astic packagi

esistant pro

s injection m

rts, deli filler

WRAP88 on PP

imates that c

g.uk/sites/files/w

on data of polype very different sumption data

2011

nsumer (Hous

e most comm

er [household

astic packagi

) to package

olymer (20%

ng is bottles

perties.

oulded rigid

rs, spreads a

P packaging (

can be comp

wrap/Phase%2

propylene packadue to WRAP’s.

sehold) Plastic

mon type of

d] plastic pa

ng is thermo

juice drinks.

% of total Con

(54%) and it

s (43%), whi

nd margarin

(to be used w

pared with PP

203%20Food%2

aging, WRAP, 2s report being b

cs Packaging b

plastic packa

ckaging, 586

oformed pac

.

nsumer [hou

t is mainly us

ch is princip

ne tubs and ic

with caution

P consumer

20Grade%20rPP

2012 ased on consul

by Polymer Ty

aging used in

6kt).

ks (46%) use

sehold] plast

sed to packa

ally made up

ce cream tub

due to the d

household p

P%20Market%2

tation and Valp

Ja

ype

n the househ

ed to packag

tic packaging

age milk and

p of pots to p

bs87.

different me

packaging he

20Final%20Repo

pak’s being bas

anuary 2013

31

hold is made

e ready

g). The

toiletries,

package

thodology

re:

ort.pdf, visited

sed on

3

1

Plastics P

W

C

e

T

5.4 C

In order

packagin

plastic fi

undertak

The anal

packagin

It should

report (1

Collectio

are not r

recycling

90 UK mar

ConsumerPlast

Film Total

Film

Film - Bags

Rigids Tota

Bottles

Consumer C

Consumer P Thermoform

Injection Mo

Various App

Grand Tota

Grand Tota

Packaging Co

PP consume

WRAP: 60‐10

Consumer ho

estimate of 6

The breakdo

PP report90 f

Consumer

to establish

ng, further se

lm and othe

ken in differe

lysis suggest

ng and, accor

d be noted th

118kt) is far g

on Survey 20

recycled and

g. Further re

rket compositio

r Away from Hometic Packaging

s

l

Closures

PTTsmed Packs

oulded Rigids

plications

l (tonnes)

l (%)

omposition 2

r household

00K tonnes);

ousehold PP

60K tonnes;

own of consu

for details.

r (On‐the‐

the format a

econdary res

er plastic pac

ent parts of t

Figure 22

s that bottle

rdingly, PET

hat the tonna

greater than

01146. This is

d therefore re

search in thi

on data of polyp

e LDPE/ LLDPE

18k

6k

12k

0k

0k

0k

0k0k

0k

0k

19k

7%

2011

film is consi

;

P bottles is m

and

umer PTTs fo

‐Go) Plast

and polymer

search was u

kaging as rep

the UK over

On‐the‐Go

es are the sin

(mainly PET

age of plastic

n the 25kt est

an importan

epresent a co

s area is req

propylene packa

HDPE OPP

35k 3k

8k 2k

27k 1k

4k 0k

0k 0k

4k 0k

0k 0k0k 0k

0k 0k

0k 0k

39k 3k

14% 1%

stent betwe

much lower in

or PP in both

ic Packagi

r splits of the

undertaken t

ported in a n

the last ten

o Plastics Pack

ngle largest c

bottles) is th

c bottles est

timated in R

nt figure as th

onsiderable

uired to esta

aging, WRAP, 2

PP

17k

11k

6k

11k

0k

2k

10k2k

8k

0k

28k

10%

en both repo

n this analysi

reports diffe

ing

e consumer (

o estimate a

number of lit

years (See se

kaging by Poly

component (4

he most com

imated to be

ecoup’s UK H

he vast majo

tonnage of u

ablish a more

2012

PET PS

12k 0k

10k 0k

2k 0k

149k 6k

118k 0k

2k 0k

28k 4k26k 1k

3k 4k

1k 1k

161k 6k

58% 2%

orts (77K ton

s at 4K tonn

er in style an

(away‐from h

appropriate s

tterbin and s

ection 2.3.2

ymer Type

42%) of tota

mmonly found

e disposed o

Household P

ority of bottle

untapped pla

e accurate, a

PVC O

1k

1k

0k

3k

0k

0k

3k3k

0k

0k

4k

2%

Ja

nnes compar

es compared

nd tonnages,

home) plasti

splits of plast

street sweep

for more de

l consumer (

d polymer (5

of on‐the‐go

Plastics Packa

es disposed o

astic packagi

agreed figure

OtherGrand Total

(tonnes

18k 105k

12k 51k

5k 54k

1k 174k

0k 118k

0k 8k

1k 47k0k 32k

0k 15k

0k 2k

19k 279k

7%

anuary 2013

32

red to

d to WRAP’s

please see

c

tic bottles,

ing analyses

tail).

(on‐the‐go)

58%).

in this

aging

of on‐the‐go

ing for

e.

s)

Grand Total (%)

37%18%19%

63%42%3%

17%11%

5%

1%

3

2

s

o

Plastics P

6. N

For the p

commer

packagin

hospitali

The start

PackFlow

data sou

apply an

detail on

this repo

Figure 25

best esti

The majo

made of

LLDPE/L

applicati

and tray

broadly

packagin

most like

non‐con

91 UK mar

Non-con

Film Total

Film

Film - Bags

Film - Strap

Rigids Total

Bottles

Consumer C

Consumer P

Non-Consum Closures

Injection Mo

EPS Transit

Pails, Drums

Non-Consum

Other

Grand Total

Grand Total

Packaging Co

Non‐con

purposes of t

rcial and indu

ng. Commerc

ity, offices an

ting point fo

w 2017 estim

urced from a

ny errors of m

n the method

ort.

5 below pres

imated in thi

ority (69%) o

f LLDPE/LDPE

DPE makes u

ions, at 60%

ys and pallets

equates to t

ng report91; h

ely due to th

sumer rigids

rket compositio

sumer Plastic Pac

ping/Tape/Bands

l

Closures

PTTs

mer Rigids

oulded Pallets, Crates

t Packaging

s, Industrial

mer PTTs

l (tonnes)

l (%)

omposition 2

sumer C

this study, n

ustrial stream

cial plastic pa

nd similar op

or establishin

mate of 811K

wide range

margin and t

dology follow

sents the bre

is study.

Figure 2

of non‐consu

E (449kt). Th

up the bigges

of all polym

s/crates. The

he 80k tonn

however, the

he assumptio

s in this study

on data of polyp

ckagingLDPELLDP

482k

449k

34k

0k

0k

0k

0k

0k

0k0k

s, etc 0k

0k

0k

0k

0k

483k

60%

2011

onsump

on‐consume

ms as well as

ackaging incl

perations.

ng the recent

K tonnes. The

of secondary

he format an

wed to estab

eakdown of n

Non‐Co3

umer plastic

e remainder

st proportion

ers. PP const

e 77k tonnes

es estimated

e breakdown

ons, methodo

y.

propylene packa

E/ PE

HDPE

k 5k

k 5k

k 0k

0k

72k

44k

0k

0k

19k1k

0k

0k

17k

0k

10k

k 77k

% 9%

tion of P

er consumpti

s agricultural

ludes that w

t (2011) leve

e packaging f

y research fi

nd polymer s

blish non‐con

non‐consum

nsumer Plast

packaging is

r is rigid pack

n of plastic p

titutes 16% o

total PP non

d in WRAP’s

n of non‐con

ologies and a

aging, WRAP, 2

OPP PP

0k 50k

0k 37k

0k 10k

0k 3k

0k 77k

0k 1k

0k 0k

0k 0k

0k 76k0k 1k

0k 22k

0k 0k

0k 12k

0k 41k

0k 0k

0k 127k

0% 16%

Plastic Pa

ion represen

l and constru

which arises f

ls of non‐con

formats and

ndings. It ha

splits should

nsumer pack

mer plastic pa

ic Packaging A

made up of

kaging (31%,

packaging po

of non‐consu

n‐consumer

UK market c

sumer rigids

age of data u

2012

PET

14k

8k

0k

5k

42k

4k

0k

0k

30k1k

0k

0k

0k

30k

8k

56k

7%

ackaging

nts all packag

uction & dem

rom the reta

nsumer plast

polymers we

s therefore n

be treated a

aging splits,

ackaging by f

Arisings

film (563kt)

248kt).

lymer used i

umer packag

rigids figure

omposition

s is considera

used to provi

PS PVC

3k 7k

3k 7k

0k 0k

0k 0k

22k 33k

0k 1k

0k 0k

0k 0k

22k 0k0k 0k

0k 0k

9k 0k

0k 0k

13k 0k

0k 32k

26k 40k

3% 5%

Ja

ging from the

molition (C&D

ail, wholesale

tic packaging

ere broken d

not been po

as indicative

please see S

format and p

, primarily n

in non‐consu

ging, mainly

from this re

data of poly

ably differen

ide a breakd

OtherGrTo

(ton

3k 56

3k 5

0k 4

0k 8

0k 24

0k 5

0k 0

0k 0

0k 140k 2

0k 2

0k 9

0k 2

0k 8

0k 5

3k 8

0%

anuary 2013

33

e

D) plastic

e,

g was the

down using

ssible to

. For further

Section 2 of

polymer, as

on‐bag film

umer

as pots tubs

port

propylene

t. This is

own of

rand otal nnes)

Grand Total (%)

63k 69%11k 63%

44k 5%8k 1%

48k 31%50k 6%0k 0%0k 0%47k 18%2k 0%

22k 3%9k 1%

29k 4%85k 10%50k 6%

11k 00

3

3


34

7. Conclusions

7.1 Formats of Plastic Packaging

Rigid packaging (bottles, PTTs, closures, etc.) account for the majority (56%) of plastic packaging

45% of rigid plastic packaging is PTTs

39% of rigid plastic packaging is bottles

Plastic film including bags, strapping, tape and bands constitute the next largest proportion of plastic

packaging consumed in the UK

44% of plastic packaging is made of film (1119kt)

Of this, 71% is non‐bag film (790kt) and 29% is film used as bags (321kt)

Plastic pots, tubs and trays represent 25% of UK plastic packaging

32% of consumer plastic packaging is comprised of PTTs (556kt)

10% of non‐consumer plastic packaging are PTTs (85kt)

Bottles represent 22% of plastic packaging consumption in the UK

91% of plastic bottles arise in the consumer sector

29% of consumer plastic packaging is bottles

7.2 Polymers used in Plastic Packaging

PET is the most commonly used polymer in UK plastic packaging

32% of UK plastic packaging is made of PET (803kt)

43% of consumer plastic packaging is made of PET (747kt)

LDPE/LLDPE is used to make a quarter of plastic packaging

9% of consumer plastic packaging is made of LDPE/LLDPE (156kt)

60% of non‐consumer plastic packaging is made of LDPE/LLDPE (483kt)

HDPE is used to make 16% of UK plastic packaging

HDPE is used to manufacture 410kt of UK plastic packaging

19% of consumer plastic packaging is made of HDPE (333kt)

9% of non‐consumer plastic packaging is made of HDPE (77kt)


35

PP is used to make 15% of UK plastic packaging

PP is used to manufacture 370kt of UK plastic packaging

14% of consumer plastic packaging is made of PP (243kt)

16% of non‐consumer plastic packaging is made of PP (127kt)

PET bottles represent the largest single tonnage of consumer plastic packaging

PET bottles represent 13% of UK plastic packaging (337kt)

Industry confirms a move towards packaging products in PET bottles rather than HDPE due to changes in bottle requirements, improved visual impact, lighter weight and lower cost

The 50% HDPE:50% PET composition split of bottles entering the sorting/recycling stream may not

necessarily be appropriate for packaging consumption

The split derived from the survey sample suggests a split for consumer consumption of around two thirds (62%) PET and one third (38%) HDPE bottles.

Packaging consumption figures and the composition split of bottles entering the sorting/recycling stream can vary due to factors such as disposal of household packaging away from home; as on‐the‐go bottle collections are still extremely limited and a considerable proportion (around one‐third) of PET bottles are potentially disposed of on‐the‐go (and are therefore unlikely to enter the recycling stream as on the‐go recycling is very limited), it is understandable that the quantities of PET and HDPE bottles in household waste arisings and passing through MRFs and PRFs are broadly equivalent.

7.3 Trends in Plastic Packaging

These potential trends arise from comparing the data in this report with the previously most comprehensive composition analysis published by WRAP, containing 2005 data. It should be noted that the methodologies used to derive the estimates in each report are very different and there is considerable uncertainty over these estimates in both reports. Therefore, the comparison data should be treated with caution and as only one means of establishing potential trends. Data for 2005 is detailed in Annex II Figures A5 –A7. The largest growth in plastic packaging format appears to have been in PTTs

Results from the current study estimate 641k tonnes of plastic PTTs

This is more than double the quantity of PTTs reported in this report compared to the quantity reported back in 2005.

Film and Bottle tonnages appear to have remained relatively stable since 2005

Results from the current study estimate 1119k tonnes of plastic film packaging


A wider range of polymers are now used in film and bag manufacture (new polymers representing ~33% and ~28% respectively)

Results from the current study estimate 548k tonnes of plastic bottles


36


Industry’s view confirms any growth in consumption has been negated through light weighting of bottles and down gauging of films

The largest growth in plastic packaging polymer appears to have been in PET

Results from the current study estimate 803k tonnes of plastic PET packaging

This is almost double the quantity reported in 2005 (96% growth)

The majority of this growth is in PTTs (around 300kt)

PET is becoming a preferred polymer due to favourable properties such as visual impact, barrier properties, food‐grade recyclability and price (relative to HDPE)

The largest decline in plastic packaging format (in tonnes) appears to have been in plastic bags

Plastic bag (carrier bags and other bags) tonnages have reduced by approximately one third since 2005 (36%, 181kt)

Carrier bags look to have reduced by up to one quarter

There has been growth in non‐carrier bags such as fresh produce and bread bags The largest decline in plastic packaging polymer appears to have been in LDPE/LLDPE

Results from the current study estimate 638k tonnes of plastic LDPE/LLDPE packaging

This represents a 34% decrease (322kt) on reported 2005 figures

This is most likely due to a shift from LDPE bags to HDPE bags and the switching to alternative film polymers with different technical capabilities (e.g. storage in ambient instead of chilled environment, closures on ready meals)

HDPE Bags have experienced significant growth at the expense of LDPE bags


37

Annex I: Imports of Plastic Packaging

Imported Obligated Packaging

Using the data reported to the Environment Agency for compliance with the Packaging Regulations,

available from the National Packaging Waste Database (NPWD), it was possible to estimate the

proportion of obligated plastic packaging sold onto the UK market that was imported, either as empty

packaging or packaging filled with product.

These calculations indicate that, in 2011, approximately 32% of all plastic packaging placed on the

market was imported obligated tonnage, of which 38% was imported empty (and subsequently filled

and sold in the UK) and 62% was imported as pre‐packaged products.

Figure A4 2011 Obligated Plastic Packaging Imports

Imported Non‐obligated Packaging

Calculating the non‐obligated plastic packaging imported into the UK requires identifying the quantity of

plastic packaging imported by companies that are not obligated due to their size, i.e. are excluded from

reporting their packaging data as they handle fewer than 50 tonnes of packaging or have a turnover

below £2m. This is known as the de‐minimus threshold.

If it were possible to calculate the proportion of de‐minimus tonnage of all non‐obligated plastic

packaging, then this proportion could be applied to the above import data to calculate a proxy tonnage

of non‐obligated plastic packaging imported.

The most commonly used method to calculate the tonnage of non‐obligated packaging is to subtract the

obligated tonnage for a given year (as reported in NPWD41) from an estimated packaging flow tonnage.

Following this method, adopting the 2011 total plastic packaging flow estimate from PackFlow of 2,535k

tonnes (please see Section 3.2 for details on PackFlow) and the NPWD 2011 total obligated plastic

packaging figure of 1,868k tonnes, gives a tonnage difference of 667k tonnes or 26%.

However, this 667k tonnes of plastic packaging is not uniquely due to the de‐minimus threshold as

packaging can be excluded from the packaging regulations for a number of other reasons, for example:

There are still a number of ‘free‐riders’ i.e. companies that are not reporting packaging data that should be. For example, not all leased packaging (plastic crates) appears to have picked up its full obligation yet. Companies leasing this packaging out may still not have registered or are not picking up full obligation. There is no list available of those registered to lease out packaging.

000 Tonnes %

2535k

821k 32%

506k 62%

314k 38%

'Filled Imports'

'Empty Imports'

2011

PackFlow Total Flow (midpoint)

Total Imports (NPWD)


38

‘Internal use packaging’: large amounts of both disposable and re‐useable packaging are used ‘internally’ within a legal entity, and because supply to an external company does not take place, no obligation currently exists.

Packaging used for things like storage/moving crates outside the system may still end up being recycled but never pick up an obligation.

Ownership of imports:

Raw material/conversion sector: this is an issue in the petro chemical industry especially as many companies have moved offices abroad for tax reasons

Lots of grey imports missing (free riding)

Contract packing operations: a lot of packaging operations are performed by contract packers and/or logistics companies. They may add or remove packaging on behalf of clients; for example, they may remove imported transit packaging which the product owner then forgets to account for, and the contractor does not submit data on as they are a de‐minimus company.

Incapacity: when companies go bust their obligation is normally lost, even if the business is taken on by someone else.

Applying the 26% proxy non‐obligated plastic packaging figure to the 821k tonnes estimation of

obligated imported plastic packaging given in Figure A4 above would therefore give a maximum, but

most likely over estimated, 1,053k tonnes of imported plastic packaging in 2011. It could therefore be

said that imported plastic packaging represents between 40% and 44% of all UK plastic packaging.

Imported Empty Packaging by Packaging Format

National Statistics’ PRODCOM data provides some insight into the proportion of empty packaging

formats imported, using either the tonnage or number of items sold.

Calculations made on 2010 data suggest that approximately 59% of empty plastic sacks and bags were

imported, along with 46% of plastic boxes, cases and crates, 16% of plastic carboys, bottles and flasks

and 29% of bottle caps, capsules, other stoppers & lids.

Plastics P

Anne

su

Figure A

Packaging Co

ex II: Key

upplies fo

A5 Tabl

omposition 2

y Data tab

or recycl

associ

le 2.1 Polym

2011

bles from

ing, glob

ated risk

er demand b

the

m WRAP’

bal marke

ks’ (Table

by applicatio

UK (2005), k

s UK Plas

et deman

e 2.1 & T

on in product

k tonnes

stic Wast

nd, future

able 2.3)

tion of packa

Ja

te – A re

e trends

)

aging for con

anuary 2013

39

view of

and

sumption in

3

9

Plastics P

Figure A

Figure A

th

Bottles

Closures

EPS transit

Film

Film - bags

Injected mo

Other HDPE

Pails, drum

Semi-rigid s

Strapping

Thermoform

Injected mo

Fibre for pa

Various app

Process/sup

Total (Tonn

Total (%)

Packaging Co

A6 Tab

A7 Tabl

he UK (2005),

packaging

oulded RTPS, crat

E

s & industrial

sheet

med packs

oulded rigids

ackaging

plications

pply chain losses

es)

omposition 2

ble 2.3 Chara

le 2.1 Polym

, k tonnes w

PE HD

22

490k470k 31

tes

70

960k 3239% 13

2011

cterisation o

er demand b

ith assumed

DPE OPP P

20k 10

122k1k

750k

40

2212163

21k 122k 283% 5% 12

of C&I plastic

(est. 2005

by applicatio

imports allo

PUnspec

POPE

0k 3152k

5k

0k 58k26

2k 1021k 626k3k

87k 110k 412% 4% 17

c packaging a

5)

on in product

ocated and n

ET PS PV

1k 5k 13

31k10

6k 110k2k 93k

0k 128k 137% 5% 5%

arisings, exc.

tion of packa

on‐consume

VCBio-

plastic

Tota(Tonn

)

3k 55952k31k

0k 62250275k70k98k

1k 13732k

27616k3k

3k 3k

4k 3k 2475% 0%

Ja

. ‘domestic‐l

aging for con

er/consumer

al nes

Total (%)

AssumC&

k 23% 42kk 2%k 1% 14kk 25% 318k 20% 127k 3% 38kk 3% 42kk 4% 52kk 6% 48kk 1% 27kk 11% 20kk 1% 2k

0% 3k0%

91k5k 824

anuary 2013

40

ike’ arisings

sumption in

r splits

med I

Assumed Consumer

k 517k52k

k 17k8k 304k7k 375kk 37kk 28kk 46kk 89kk 5kk 256kk 14kk 0k

3kk -91k4k 1651k

3

0

plastics composition 2011 final report 26 02 2013 - wrap composition 2011 report.… · consumer...

Documents