single trip or reusable packaging - considering the right choice

Final report: Reusable Packaging - Factors to Consider

Single Trip or Reusable Packaging

- Considering the Right Choice for

the Environment

This report describes the factors which need to be considered when reviewing the environmental performance of single-trip and reusable packaging systems. It is the result of a review of the findings of Life Cycle Assessments and similar studies comparing the environmental burden of single-trip and reusable packaging systems.

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

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

WRAP‟s vision is a world without waste, where resources are used sustainably. We work with businesses and individuals to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, develop sustainable products and use resources in an efficient way. Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk

Document reference: WRAP, 2009, RHI007. Prepared by Innventia Edge.

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

Front cover photography: Reusable transit packaging example

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the

material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must

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

web site: www.wrap.org.uk

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

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

Executive Summary

Introduction

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

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

communicate information to a customer regarding the product‟s contents – whether promotional, factual or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

environmental and/or economic benefits over single-trip solutions; however, reusable packaging systems are not

always appropriate solutions. If conditions are not appropriate, the environmental and/or economic costs of

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

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

Project Objective

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

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

perspective that influence the environmental performance of reusable packaging systems.

Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

single-trip packaging solutions.

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

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

- for most impact categories - to be identified. These factors have been categorised as „primary factors‟. Those

1 25.3 million tonnes of household waste were collected in England in 2007/08, with packaging accounting for around 5 million

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

industrial waste streams is estimated at around 5 million tonnes.

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

and Industrial Waste Survey, 2002/03.

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

of that individual study.


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

isolated impact categories have been classified as „secondary‟.

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

single-trip and reusable packaging systems are:

Raw materials and energy used in manufacture – Single-trip packaging systems‟ total environmental

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

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

the total number of lifetime trips for reusable packaging.

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

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

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

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

burden becomes lower.

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

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

journey distances tend to favour reusable packaging.

Pool size for reusables – The number of packaging units required to support a reusable packaging system

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

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

peaks in volumes, damages and losses in the system.

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

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

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

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

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

single-trip packaging format.

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

identified through the LCA reviews include:

LCA methodology decisions, especially allocation and treatment of carbon sequestration

End-of-life waste management scenarios considered

Location of recycling facilities

Transportation modes

Energy mix in the systems modelled

Impacts associated with the washing and repair of reusable packaging

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

system.

Scope of LCAs Reviewed

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

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

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

against the environmental considerations.

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

not within the scope of the LCAs reviewed) was product damage. Damage occurring during normal distribution

and storage of packaged products can have a significant influence on the environmental burden of the packaged

product system.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

where damage rates are significant. The burden of product damage may outweigh the combined burden of all

the factors relating to the packaging surrounding it.

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

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

between alternatives.

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

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

critical to packaging system choice. The LCA‟s were inconsistent in format, system boundaries, and reporting

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

examined the results of the individual LCA‟s reviewed and have only included those factors that have consistently

emerged as important considerations in selection of most appropriate systems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is reusable packaging the right choice for the environment - Conclusions

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

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

considering reusable packaging systems.

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

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

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

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

systems, whichever format is used.

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

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

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

other, as it may vary according to these factors.

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

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

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

preference is observable.

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

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


Contents

1.0 Introduction and Objectives....................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 7 1.2 Project Objective ................................................................................................................. 9 1.3 How the Report is Structured ............................................................................................... 9

2.0 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) .................................................................................................... 10 2.1 LCA Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 LCA Limitations ................................................................................................................. 11

3.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 13 4.0 Factors which affect relative environmental performance of Single-Trip and Reusable

Packaging Systems ............................................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Primary Factors ................................................................................................................. 15

4.1.1 Raw materials and energy used in manufacture ....................................................... 15 4.1.2 Trip rates of reusables ........................................................................................... 15 4.1.3 Transportation distances........................................................................................ 18 4.1.4 Pool size for reusables ........................................................................................... 20 4.1.5 Vehicle utilisation .................................................................................................. 21 4.1.6 Recycled content and recycling rates ...................................................................... 22

4.2 4.2 Secondary Factors ....................................................................................................... 23 4.2.1 Allocation ............................................................................................................. 23 4.2.2 Location of recycling ............................................................................................. 24 4.2.3 End of life waste management ............................................................................... 24 4.2.4 Transportation mode ............................................................................................. 24 4.2.5 Energy mix in the system ...................................................................................... 25 4.2.6 Repair of reusable secondary packaging .................................................................. 25 4.2.7 Cleaning of reusable packaging .............................................................................. 25 4.2.8 Secondary, tertiary and ancillary packaging ............................................................. 26

4.3 Other Factors .................................................................................................................... 26 4.3.1 Pack sizes ............................................................................................................ 26 4.3.2 Commissioning and Sponsoring Organisation ........................................................... 26 4.3.3 Carbon sequestration ............................................................................................ 27

5.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 28

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


Glossary

CBB – Corrugated board box

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

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

packaging returning

DRC – Display ready corrugated containers

DSD – Duales System Deutschland

FPC – Folding plastic crate

GHG – Greenhouse gas

HDPE – High density polyethylene

IBC – Intermediate bulk container

LCA – Life cycle assessment

LCI – Life cycle inventory

PCF – Potential carbon footprint

PET – Polyester (polyethylene terephthalate)

PP – Polypropylene

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

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

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

RPC – Reusable or returnable plastic crates or containers

RTP – Returnable transit packaging

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

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

recycling or waste disposal).

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

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

chain from supplier to the end user of the product.

Trippage rate – The average number of trips a reusable packaging makes in its lifetime


Acknowledgements

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

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

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

identified and provided the basis for this project:

Angelina de Beaufort

Apeal

Ardagh Glass

BSDA

British Glass

Centre for Design, RMIT University

CEPI

Chalmers University of Technology

CPI

DTI (Danish Technology Institute)

German Association of Drinks Carton Manufacturers

FEFCO

FEVE

Home Retail Group

INCPEN

ITENE

Kees Sonneveld

Loadhog

Loughborough University

Michigan State University

Pakkaustutkimus – PTR ry

Tesco

TetraPak

Valpak

Virginia Tech.


1.0 Introduction and Objectives

1.1 Introduction

Packaging plays a vital role in protecting products as well as wider consumer benefits, and accounts for just one

element of a product‟s overall environmental impact. It is a highly visible use of resources accounting for about a

fifth of the household waste stream and between a tenth to a twentieth of commercial and industrial waste3 and,

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

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

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

consumer packaging. Nonetheless, there are significant examples of reusable packaging systems in existence,

which may offer potential environmental and/or economic benefits over single-trip solutions.

Reducing the environmental impact of packaging continues to be a major focus of innovation within the

packaging industry and providers of packaging identify the following criteria as having importance in the

appropriate selection of single trip or reusable packaging system:

Reduced resource consumption – although the initial specification of reusable packaging may be higher than

that of single-trip alternatives, considered over a number of uses, the total materials used will be less,

therefore avoiding a proportion of the environmental costs (resource use, energy consumption and emissions

such as carbon dioxide) and economic costs associated with the production and conversion of packaging

materials

Reduced packaging waste – similarly, reuse reduces total packaging waste, thereby avoiding environmental

and economic costs of recycling and/or disposal

Reduction of product wastage due to improved product protection during distribution, storage and or use and

ability to afford protection to customer returns

Improved customer loyalty – providing more convenience and requiring customers (business to business or

consumers)

Behavioural and attitude change – encouraging less reliance on and expectation for “throwaway” or

disposable consumption.

Product volumes – if insufficient volumes are required, or too many size variants are required, or volumes are

not at consistent or predictable levels, the initial capital investment for reusables may not be justified. Low

volumes may also restrict opportunities for sector-wide collaboration

Supply chain collaboration – reusable packaging systems may require investment at multiple stages of the

supply chain, requiring substantial collaboration

Distance to market – remote customers can make return technically and economically non viable

Degree of dispersal of consumers/end users – this will influence the efficiency of collection

Physical nature of the supply chain – potential for packaging damage and destruction during distribution

Nature of the product – toxic and hazardous products; foodstuffs which may require additional cleaning

operations to facilitate reuse

Use conditions – the potential for damage or destruction of the packaging during opening and use

Pilferage of the reusable packaging – many reusable packs make useful household or business storage, and

theft of units for this purpose can be significant; for example, this is an issue for crates. In addition, some

reusable packaging is constructed from valuable materials and may be stolen for secondary material value (for

example, steel kegs)

3 25.3 million tonnes of household waste were collected in England in 2007/08, with packaging accounting for around 5 million

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

industrial waste streams is estimated at around 5 million tonnes.

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

and Industrial Waste Survey, 2002/03.


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

than equivalent single-trip systems

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

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

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

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

number of highly dispersed locations and therefore both increase the number of reusables necessary for the

system to operate, but also reduce return and cycle rates

Requirement for new or multiple handling systems

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

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

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

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

interested parties with independent and best available information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

be balanced against the environmental considerations4.

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

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

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

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

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

reduce carbon emissions and prevent waste.

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

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

includes secondary and transit packaging examples as well.

5 The Environmental Benefits of Recycling – 2010 Update – available to download at -

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


1.2 Project Objective

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

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

perspective that influence the environmental performance of reusable packaging systems.

1.3 How the Report is Structured

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

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

conducted which informs the content of this report.

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

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

LCA Studies‟.


2.0 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

LCA is a technique to quantify the environmental impacts of a product or system on the basis of inventories of

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

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

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

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

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

is energy, fuels and raw materials, and the „outputs‟; that is airborne emissions, waterborne discharges, and solid

wastes. The various environmental burdens described within the study can then be compared between products,

processes or activities. The methodological approach is summarised below.

Figure 1: LCA methodology

Goal and scope

definition

Inventory analysis

Impact assessment

Interpretation

Source: ISO 14040

ISO international standards (ISO14040:2006 and 14044:2006) define LCA methodology, but by necessity these

standards are non-prescriptive. They set out a framework to be followed that ensures that LCA practitioners

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

study.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

chosen environmental impact categories.

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

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

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

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

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

ensures credibility.


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

Some important considerations addressed during this stage are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

between different scenarios and alternatives can be made.

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

scope?

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

and which data should be supply chain specific?

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

the final analysis?

2.1 LCA Benefits

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

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

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

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

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

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

categories or on a bundle of impact categories.

2.2 LCA Limitations

Like any model using data captured from a large number of sources and seeking to calculate an end result, the

quality and accuracy of the end result is only as good as the quality of data inputs and the scientific rigour of the

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

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

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

Setting system boundaries and choice of impact categories

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

Data quality or data gaps

Use of average data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

appropriately.


Product Damage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by the quality of the applied data.

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

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

than is commonly made.

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

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

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

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

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

used.

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

not considered to be significant due to uncertainties in inputs.


3.0 Methodology

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

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

packaging in a product distribution system

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

Stage 3: Detailed review of short-listed studies

Stage 4: Identify factors which influence the environmental impact of reusable and single-trip packaging

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

system. These factors are described in the following section.

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

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

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

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

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

reuse of wastes arising.

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

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

the environmental burdens of a system throughout the life cycle from raw materials sourcing and manufacture

through conversion into packaging, filling, warehousing, retailing, customer or consumer use, waste

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

packaging vary according to a number of factors described below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

those in other countries.

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

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

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

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

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

influence on the results - for most impact categories - to be identified. It is these factors that have been categorised as primary

factors. Those factors which also have an influence, but typically affect results to a lesser degree or only influence results for

isolated impact categories have been classified as secondary.


4.1 Primary Factors

4.1.1 Raw materials and energy used in manufacture

Raw materials - sources, their extraction and manufacturing processes - vary dependent on material type. These

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

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

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

containers manufactured from glass, plastic, or metal will exert differing burdens on the environment dependent

on the material used. In addition the type of plastic or metal used, the colour of the pack, and the conversion

method will also have an effect.

Single-trip packaging systems „total environmental impact‟ is more dependent on raw material and energy use in

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

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

reusable packaging.

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

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

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

packaging.

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

4.1.2 Trip rates of reusables

It follows that the number of trips made by reusable packaging in its lifetime is critical because it determines the

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

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

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

becomes lower.

The Apeal/TNO study states that:

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

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

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

importance.

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

packaging is of lesser importance.

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

corrugated board packaging including recycled content.

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

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

high recycling rate for single-trip corrugated trays. As a result, total energy requirements for the reusable tray are

lower than corresponding single-trip trays in all average use scenarios. Reusable trays also have lower total

energy requirements than corresponding single-trip trays in eight out of ten alternative scenarios evaluating the

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

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

single-trip corrugated trays are modelled at the reported container weight for one piece trays. Paperboard industry statistics were used to model the composition and recycled content of linerboard and medium and the

iterative cycles associated with recovery and recycling of boxes at end of life.


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

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

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

burden is allocated to each trip. Environmental impact of reusable packaging decreases in an inverse square

relationship to the number of trips. Therefore once reusable packaging reaches ten trips the incremental benefit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reusable packaging.

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

factors including:

Return rates

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

The frequency of product shipments

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

The life of the product in the market

Losses due to theft or damage

Inspection, cleaning and repair activities.


Figure 6: What the LCAs say about trip rates of reusable packaging

Lower levels of trip rates for reusable packaging favour single trip packaging, higher trip rates for each unit of

reusable packaging favour reusable packaging due to the division of manufacturing burdens discussed above.

The following examples from the review provide some indications:

Swiss water / ESU drinks study favours reusables at 50 trips

PETcore /IFEU drinks study favours reusables at 20 to 25 trips

Finnish / PTR drinks study favours reusables at 18 to 32 trips

iGPS / ERM pallet study favours reusables at 100 trips

Rehrig / Franklin shrinkwrap v crate study favours reusables at 30 & 60 trips

Linpac / Sustain tray study favours reusables at 92 trips

FEFCO / Vogtlander tray study favours single trip at 20 & 30 trips

Spanish D of E / Itene tray study favours single trip at 20 trips

Using in-depth sensitivity analysis, the Apeal/TNO drinks study review identifed that the trip rate (number of

cycles per bottle) for refillable systems – both reusable PET and reusable glass - are sensitive to this parameter.

Decreasing the number of cycles leads to an increase in environmental impact. Increasing the number of cycles has the opposite effect, although the effect of an increase in cycles is less strong than a decrease.

The Finnish/PTR drinks study determines trip rate through a detailed analysis of reusable losses in all parts of the supply chain; trip rate is calculated using that data.

The Swiss water/ESU drinks study states that 1.5-litre PET bottles, 1-litre glass returnable bottles and jugs accommodating 18.9 litres are each capable of being reused 50 times.

The Linpac/Sustain tray study is based on average plastic crate life cycle of 92 return trips over five years.

An Ademe review of previous studies states that return rates for reusable packaging are poorly reported in

general and rarely based on actual data.

The Spanish D of E/Itene tray study states that from the enquiries made to packaging manufacturers and

consumers regarding the number of rotations that folding plastic crates could actually withstand, no clear agreement emerged. The manufacturers claimed that the crates would tolerate mechanical stress over a life of

100 uses. However, users of the crates stated that in day-to-day practice this number was not easily reached, due

to damage caused by inappropriate use, fractured hinges (the weakest part in the structure of the crate), and the deficient appearance of a repeatedly used plastic crate (despite being technically fit for purpose).

Consequently, a standard value of 20 rotations was adopted for the folding plastic crate. This parameter was

studied by means of a sensitivity analysis, beginning with a low usage value (5 rotations) through to a very high value (100 rotations), and including two further values for the number of cycles of use of the folding crate (the

standard of 20 and the intermediate of 50 rotations).

The RPCC/ Franklin tray study states that one factor dominates the findings. Multiple trips (“turns”) in a

reusable tray closed operating system lead to materials efficiencies that create relatively low environmental

burdens that are only partly offset by backhaul and cleaning steps. In the single trip tray system a container is manufactured for each trip to retail. Recovery and recycling rates for reusable trays are high, but the production

step (including recycling) introduces a higher level of burdens. The more lifetime uses that can be achieved for a

reusable tray, the lower the environmental burdens for tray production that are allocated to each use of the tray. Thus, the success of reusable tray systems depends on keeping reusable trays in circulation for repeated reuse

and recycling. Maximum reductions in tray production burdens and disposal burdens are achieved by multiple uses

of a tray without remanufacturing. The RPCC/ Franklin tray study states that Reusable plastic trays are modelled at the lifetime use rate and loss rate

reported by four tray pool suppliers.

The Rehrig/Franklin crate study uses the following two scenarios for reusable plastic crates:

10 turns/year, 6-year life, 5% annual losses

10 turns/year, 3-year life, 10% annual losses.


4.1.3 Transportation distances

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

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

selected.

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

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

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

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

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

product.

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

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

reducing the volume for the return journey.

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

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

pallets where their returning volume is around 10% of the palletised load on the outward journey. Naturally,

benefits are only realised if the vehicles returning with empty reusable packaging are also transporting other

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

system at much shorter journey distances. This is due not only to the return of empty packs but also to the

reduced manufacturing burdens described in section 4.1.1 above. The relative importance of journey distance is

therefore far more significant to reusables.

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

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


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

environmental burden varies as journey distance increases

Figure 9: What the LCAs say about transportation distances

Longer journey distances tend to favour single trip packaging, shorter journey distances tend to favour reusable

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

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

system variables.

The following examples from the review provide some indications:

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

PETcore drinks study favours reusables at 200km

FEFCO / Vogtlander tray study favours single trip at ≥500km

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

distance.


4.1.4 Pool size for reusables

The number of packaging units required to support a reusable packaging system is significantly higher than the

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

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

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

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

The number of reusables required in the distribution system at any one time and the potential significance to the

impacts is dependent on a number of factors:

Diversity and dispersal of the supply chain

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

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

supply chain

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

Efficiency of collection systems

Asset visibility

Sales volumes and seasonality

Losses and damages.

The total number of reusables in a system is often indicated by the „reusable pack‟s trip rate per year‟ or the

number of „packaging asset turns per year‟. For example, in the scenario below, 2,000 product deliveries (to

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

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

For a Reusable Packaging System:

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

therefore, each reusable pack will make 5 trips per year

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

operate

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

22,000 reusable packaging units would be required annually.

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

Week

Single-trip packaging Reusable packaging

Number required

per week

Number required

cumulative

Number required

per week

Number required

cumulative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 2,000 22,000 50 20,050

12 2,000 24,000 50 20,100

20 2,000 40,000 50 20,500

30 2,000 60,000 50 21,000

50 2,000 100,000 50 22,000

100 2,000 200,000 50 24,400


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

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

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

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

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

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

week 43.

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

product systems using the reusables.

The majority of LCA studies do not include the „pool‟ of reusables on the basis that once the system is

functioning, an equilibrium is reached whereby the new packaging introduced to the system are dependent on

product orders minus packaging returned.

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

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

reusables required to fulfil individual needs.

4.1.5 Vehicle utilisation

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

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

distribution either:

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

more commonly

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

vehicle size.

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

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

rise and environmental burdens increase.

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

wide variation of products and are part of large pools. To restrict the number of crate variants, they are

manufactured in a small number of sizes based on the universal 600x400mm footprint, thus maximising utilisation

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

That is, it is assumed that a pool of reusable trays is already in existence and available for any and all applications

(produce or other) that use each size of reusable trays. Thus, each produce system is charged with replacing the number of reusable trays “used up” by shipping that commodity, based on the number of shipments in reusable

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

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

The study continues to state that although an excess supply of reusable trays (“float” or pool) must be in place

throughout the system in order to ensure that a sufficient number of returnable trays are circulating to and from growers and retailers within the time frame to meet their needs, these reusable trays are available for any and all

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

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

tray uses from the pool rather than individual containers. To calculate the number of reusable trays “used up” for

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

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


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

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

headspace within the crates.

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

and particularly in transit packaging situations

Figure 11: What the LCAs say about vehicle utilisation

Although not identified within the LCAs short-listed for detailed review, there can be supply chain situations

where single-trip packaging is decanted into a reusable format. Double handling and repacking will increase the

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

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

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

4.1.6 Recycled content and recycling rates

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

data used within the LCAs on „percentage of recycled material‟ are often based on averages, fluctuates with

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

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

material. Both single-trip and reusable packaging can have a recycled content. The inclusion of recycled content

will influence the scale of the environmental burdens of raw materials used.

Figure 12: What the LCAs say about recycled content

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

commissioned by the Confederation of Paper Industries.

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

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

instances.

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

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

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

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

volume of produce.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

insensitive to changes in this parameter.

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

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

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

study.


4.2 4.2 Secondary Factors

4.2.1 Allocation

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

system and is particularly relevant to recycling.

For example, if a PET bottle is recycled into textile fibres how should we distribute the environmental benefit,

between the bottle and the fibre, of the recycling linked to the saving of the raw material two systems.

Possible allocation methods are:

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

uses the recycled material is attributed all the benefit

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

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

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

material

An even split of benefits is allocated to each system

Allocation on the basis of market value of materials

Figure 13: What the LCA‟s say about allocation

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

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

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

encompass the same secondary products despite these being fictitious.


4.2.2 Location of recycling

Transportation distances from the point of waste packaging collection to its eventual point of recycling and its

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

Recovery of post consumer single-trip packaging is less straightforward and efficient than recovery of post

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

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

packaging occurs from a smaller number of locations in larger quantities, yielding greater transport efficiencies

and is commonly segregated by material, and less contaminated.

Figure 14: What the LCAs say about location of recycling

4.2.3 End of life waste management

The way in which end of life waste management of materials is taken into account in LCA studies varies

considerably particularly when comparing single-trip versus reusable packaging and also primary packaging

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.2.4 Transportation mode

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

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

ton per kilometre tas rail distribution.

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

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

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

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

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

waste management scenarios.

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

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

The burdens for production of reusable trays are allocated over a (large) number of useful lives,

Reusable trays that remain in the closed-loop pooling system are recycled when they are removed from

service,

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

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

disposed.


Table 2:

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

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

Source: US Department of Energy 2007

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

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

Figure 16: What the LCAs say about transportation mode

4.2.5 Energy mix in the system

Methods of energy generation vary regionally and consist of mixes of fossil fuel (oil and gas), hydro-electric,

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

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

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

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

4.2.6 Repair of reusable secondary packaging

The service life and reuse rates of reusable packaging are dependent on return in serviceable condition. If the

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

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

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

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

4.2.7 Cleaning of reusable packaging

Most systems for reusable packaging involve cleaning between uses. Reusable primary packaging is usually

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

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

or by contracted third party washing sites.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dimensions, whereas the other „standard‟ pallet in Europe the 1200x1000mm was selected to more optimally fit

road truck deck dimensions. Both of these pallets are frequently used across all transportation modes.

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

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

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

Finnish data for processes conducted in Finland.


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

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

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

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

4.2.8 Secondary, tertiary and ancillary packaging

Drinks packaging typically includes a number of ancillary and secondary packaging items e.g. labels, closures,

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

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

banding.

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

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

these items are reused, for example plastic crates used in the distribution of reusable glass bottles, they can

become more significant.

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

4.3 Other Factors

4.3.1 Pack sizes

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

evident in the drinks studies reviewed.

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

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

packs and are therefore heavier and use more materials.

Figure 20: What the LCAs say about pack sizes

4.3.2 Commissioning and Sponsoring Organisation

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

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

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

example the Finnish drinks study and the Spanish crate/tray study. For others it is not clear from the reports if

the cleaning process is included.

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

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

all.

In the IFEU Petcore study a comparison was made between a single-trip 1.5l PET bottle and a 0.7l returnable glass bottle, as these were the most prevalent in the market. The size variation affects the volume of water to pack weight ratio. A returnable glass bottle of 1.5l capacity has a higher water to pack weight ratio and would therefore exert less affect on the environment per litre. This is important because where different pack sizes are compared it will always be favourable for the larger pack.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

4.3.3 Carbon sequestration

This is the temporary „locking up‟ of carbon caused by the absorption of carbon into plant materials as they grow.

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

products.

Figure 21: What the LCAs say about carbon sequestration

The Spanish D of E/Itene tray study states that differences in results between reusable plastic and single-trip corrugated board trays is particularly significant in the climate change category, where the impact of corrugated board is not only lower than that of the plastic crate, but it in fact reduces this impact. This is due to the CO2 sink effect caused by the plantations of fast-growth species of trees from which the raw material for paper manufacture is obtained. Scientific studies have shown that CO2 fixing no longer takes place once a forest has become mature, and thus fast-growth species actually provide an opportunity for environmental improvement (ASPAPEL, 2005). Furthermore, secondary raw materials deriving from used paper and board packaging are also used in the manufacture of these boxes, thus reducing the impacts associated with raw material exploitation and transformation. PAS 2050 states that where atmospheric CO2 is taken up by a product, and that product is not a living organism, the impact of this carbon storage over the 100-year assessment period shall be included in the assessment of the life cycle green house gas (GHG) emissions of the product. Where carbon of biogenic origin forms part of a product, the impact of this carbon storage over the 100-year assessment period shall be included in the assessment of the life cycle GHG emissions of the product.

The assessment of the impact of GHG emissions arising from the life cycle of products shall be the CO2e impact of the GHG emissions over the 100-year period following the formation of the product (i.e. the 100-year assessment period). Emissions arising from all life cycle phases of the product, except the use phase and the final disposal phase, shall be treated as a single release of emissions at the beginning of the 100-year assessment period. Where all GHG emissions arising from the use phase or from final disposal occur within one year following the formation of the product, those emissions shall be treated as a single release of emissions at the beginning of the 100-year assessment period. Where emissions arising from the use phase or from final disposal occur over more than one year, a factor shall be applied to represent the weighted average time the emissions are present in the atmosphere during the 100-year assessment period.


5.0 Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

packaged systems. However, damage was out of scope of the LCAs that were reviewed and for this reason,

although significant, it has not been presented as a factor in the table below, but instead included in discussion

that follows.

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

Raw materials and energy used in manufacture Single-trip packaging systems‟ total environmental impact are more dependent on raw material and energy use in

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

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

the total number of lifetime trips.

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

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

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

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

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

division of manufacturing burdens discussed above.

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

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

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

operate.

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

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

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

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

the volume for the return journey.

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

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

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

the system. Thus, when comparing single-trip packaging with reusable packaging, the full burdens of this

packaging pool should be considered.

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

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

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

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

in a given cubic capacity or vehicle size.

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

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

rise and environmental burdens increase.


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

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

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

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

material.

Secondary and other factors are concluded below:

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

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

primary factors.

Carbon sequestration Deciding whether to credit a packaging system for the absorption - or „locking up‟ - of carbon for paper and board

products will also influence the system‟s overall environmental burden.

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

can affect the environmental burden of the system.

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

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

packaging or secondary packaging.

Transportation mode Although the energy consumed by different modes of transportation varies considerably, when comparing

between single-trip and reusable packaging systems, the transportation mode is usually assumed to be the same

for both.

Energy mix in the system Methods of energy generation vary and each method has varying impacts. Energy generation is important as it

can have a major impact on the overall impact of a packaging system.

Repair of reusable secondary packaging Repairs to reusable packaging, to enable them to be returned to the reusable packaging pool, can vary from

minor refurbishment to major work; the associated environmental impact will therefore vary accordingly.

Cleaning of reusable packaging The energy and resources used in cleaning reusable primary packaging are normally a relatively small part of the

environmental burdens of the whole system. It is less clear what the contribution to burdens is for secondary

packaging.

Secondary, tertiary and ancillary packaging Consider ancillary and secondary packaging items, e.g. labels, shrink-wrap etc. Generally, where used for a

single-trip, these items represent only a small percentage of the overall packaging materials and contribute

relatively less to the overall environmental impacts.

Other Factors

In addition to the factors identified in the LCA studies and described above as primary or secondary factors, the

authors and WRAP recognise that other factors also have potentially significant impact on both the environmental

performance of different packaging systems and also on the assessment and interpretation of relative

environmental impacts. These include:


Product damage The LCAs reviewed in this study focused on packaging related environmental burdens and did not consider

burdens associated with product manufacture or damage. This report has therefore reviewed differences that are

attributable to the packaging system only. However, product damage occurring during normal distribution and

storage of packaged products has a significant influence on the environmental burdens of a packaged product

system. It is also recognised that the type and level of damage sustained in a given product distribution will vary

for different for single-trip and reusable packaging formats.

A fundamental role of any packaging is to deliver the product to the customer or consumer in fit for purpose,

undamaged condition. If a product is damaged in distribution it results in the waste of that product, or it being

sold at reduced cost or having to be repaired. Because all the product manufacturing, packaging and logistics

processes of that damaged item have already occurred, and have been wasted as a consequence of the damage,

their impact on the environmental burden of the complete system can be significant. This is particularly

important where the ratio of the environmental burden associated with product manufacture versus packaging

and delivery is high or where damage rates are significant. The burden of product damage may outweigh the

combined burden of all the factors relating to the packaging surrounding it. Therefore, the impact on product

damage rates between different single-trip and reusable packaging systems is a highly significant commercial and

environmental factor.

Pack sizes When comparing packs of different sizes, larger pack sizes are likely to come out favourably; this is because

smaller packs have a larger surface area for a given volume of product than larger packs and are therefore

heavier and use more materials.

Commissioning and sponsoring organisation When LCAs are conducted on behalf of interested parties there is the potential to express the results and in

particular the conclusions of a study to favour the sponsors‟ interests. In such cases, it is prudent to exercise

caution when interpreting the results.

In summary, despite a number of limitations of Life Cycle Assessments, including the lack of consideration of

product damage impacts, the reviews highlight that data and information from LCAs can be useful when

considering reusable packaging systems.

Identified through the review of LCA studies, this report sets out the key factors that influence the environmental

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

other factors should help packaging decision makers to consider alternative packaging options on an informed

basis and - crucially - will help establish priorities for minimising the environmental impacts of those systems,

whichever format is used.

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

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

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

other, as it may vary according to these factors.

The reviews show that conclusions on the environmental advantages of different packaging systems are

dependant on the priorities set for each impact category and that discrimination between concepts and materials

on the basis of LCA findings should be avoided when the results of sensitivity analyses are not available. Even

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

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

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

preference is observable.

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

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


List of Appendices

Appendix 1 Review of Life Cycle Assessments

Appendix 2 Methodology

Appendix 3 List of Life Cycle Assessment studies identified


Appendix 1 – Review of Life Cycle

Assessments (LCAs)

Contents

1.0 Introduction and Objectives..................................................................................................... 33 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 33

2.0 The Review Results and Findings – Drinks Packaging ............................................................ 34 2.1 Existing Reviews ............................................................................................................... 35

2.1.1 TNO / APEAL Reviews ........................................................................................... 35 2.1.2 GrassRoots Recycling Network Review of Environmental Benefits of Refillable Drinks

Containers ........................................................................................................................ 39 2.1.3 Study on the Implementation of Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging Waste and Options to

Strengthen Prevention and Re-use of packaging .................................................................. 41 2.2 Study Review Summaries – Drinks ...................................................................................... 42

2.2.1 LCA of potential environmental impacts of Finnish drinks packaging systems .............. 43 2.2.2 LCA of one way PET bottles & recycled products ...................................................... 44 2.2.3 Comparison of the environmental impact of drinking water vs bottled water............... 45

3.0 The Review Results and Findings – Distribution Packaging ................................................... 47 3.1 Study Review Summaries – Pallets ...................................................................................... 48

3.1.1 The environmentally oriented LCA of multiple use wood and synthetic pallets ............. 49 3.1.2 LCA of the EUR pallet ............................................................................................ 49 3.1.3 Streamlined LCA of iGPS pallet, typical pooled wooden pallet and the single use wood

pallet 50 3.2 Study Reviews – Shrink-wrap Collation vs. Plastic Crate ........................................................ 52

3.2.1 Building the business case for reusable transport packaging ..................................... 53 3.3 Study Reviews – „Common Footprint‟ Corrugated Trays vs. Plastic trays ................................. 54

3.3.1 Corrugated board boxes & plastic container systems ................................................ 55 3.3.2 A comparative study of the environmental & economic characteristics of corrugated

board boxes & reusable plastic crates ................................................................................. 55 3.3.3 RTP proves its green credentials............................................................................. 57 3.3.4 LCI of reusable plastic crates and display ready corrugated containers ....................... 57

4.0 Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 59


1.0 Introduction and Objectives

1.1 Introduction

This Appendix provides details of a review of life cycle assessment studies (LCAs) that consider single-trip and

reusable packaging systems. As per previous WRAP projects (such as investigating the findings of LCA studies

comparing recycling versus disposal of waste materials), a structured and reasoned review can identify key trends

from the studies regarding the key factors from an environmental life cycle perspective that influence the

environmental performance of reusable packaging systems. Collating this information should help packaging

decision makers to consider single-trip and reusable packaging options on an informed basis.

Budgetary restraints limited the total number of studies that we were able to review during this project. Also, the

objective of the work was to identify which factors have greatest influence on the results, rather than to provide a

detailed commentary on specific results or make recommendations for one system over another. Even in

instances where studies were undertaken for different reasons, by different organisations and using different

approaches (e.g. ISO14040 peer reviewed or not), the review identified consistency in the factors that have

greatest influence over the results.

We found that a more „superficial‟ reading of some of the other studies, not reviewed in detail, confirmed this. It

was therefore agreed that further detailed reviews would reinforce the conclusions already reached and would be

unlikely to add extra value to the study.

The review of LCAs illustrated that there are significant examples of reusable packaging systems in existence,

some of which offer potential environmental and/or economic benefits over single-trip solutions. However,

reusable packaging systems are not always appropriate solutions. The review of LCAs also highlights that if

conditions are not appropriate, the environmental and/or economic costs of reusable packaging will outweigh the

benefits.


2.0 The Review Results and Findings – Drinks Packaging

The figure below shows a timeline highlighting some of the key studies from the past ten years investigating the

environmental performance of single-trip and reusable drinks packaging (although this is by no means

comprehensive). Other studies have been completed during this period, by private companies, academics and

government departments, some publicly available others confidential to the commissioning body.

Figure A2: Timeline of selected drinks packaging studies and their main conclusions

1998

Danish EPA Life cycle assessment of packaging systems for beer and soft drinks – extensive series of LCA studies on drinks packaging

1999

Montreal Refillable and disposable beer containers: An analysis of the environmental impacts

Reuse of primary packaging – identifies the market situation for reusables across Europe

EC

2000

Landmark UBA II study

German

Federal Environment

Agency

Austrian

Ministry of Environment

Landmark GUA study

2001

DG Environment

Evaluation of costs and benefits

Data certification for LCA comparisons: Inventory of current status, strengths and weaknesses

Apeal

LCA sensitivity and eco efficiency of drinks packaging systems re-evaluates previous studies

Apeal

Analysed and evaluated a number of key European studies and concluded that final results of the LCAs studied are greatly influenced by data quality and therefore do not enable objective comparisons to be made

2002

Reviews 11 LCA studies from 1985 to 2000 and concludes that refillable containers: put less pollution into the air; generate less solid waste; emit less water pollution; use less energy. It also concludes that refillables emit more water pollution and use more energy than aluminium cans and that PET appears to be a better material for refillables than glass.

Grass Roots Recycling Network

Finnish

Technology Development Centre

Life cycle of Finnish drinks packaging updates 1995 study and concludes that returnable glass and returnable PET bottles are preferable to the single-trip aluminium can

2004

Petcore LCA of one way PET bottles and recycled products finds that there is no clear advantage to either system, but then gives a number of scenarios where returnable glass is advantageous

2005

Comparison of environmental impact of drinking water versus bottled water concludes that returnable glass bottles preferred over single-trip PET

Swiss Gas and Water

Association EU

Review of previous LCA study results are highly dependent on the parameters and assumptions that are made about product supply systems, such as electricity generation method, transport distances, return rates, recycling rates and the existence of control mechanisms such as deposits. It states that many LCAs have been unable to reach conclusions due to these factors. It goes on to say that if the parameters and assumptions are separated out studies tend to agree

2006

Defra Investigation of how deposits could work for non-returnable beverage packaging in the UK

LCA comparison between packaging for fruit juice, iced tea and milk

IFEU

2008

Refillable Glass drinks containers in the UK includes an overview of the results of selected past studies

WRAP

ADEME Report on the economic and environmental impact of a deposit system for drinks packaging and the recycling of plastic packaging reviews selected previous studies

2009

WRAP This study


In addition, a further twenty LCA studies comparing single-trip and reusable drinks packaging have been

identified that were undertaken in the ten year period prior to 1998. As this was prior to the publication of the

ISO 14040 standards for life cycle assessment, these studies will not have followed a standardised approach, and

have not, therefore, been considered for review as part of this project.

This project makes a structured review of some of the most important LCA studies and other environmental

appraisals of drinks packaging from recent years, in order to provide an understanding of the key parameters

which influence the results and conclusions drawn. Through this approach, it is the aim of the project to draw

conclusions on the conditions when reusable drinks packaging may be favourable, and to provide advice to

packaging specifiers as to the parameters that need to be considered when making a choice between single-trip

and reusable drinks packaging.

To compliment this work, a number of previous publications that review existing LCA studies have also been

examined to highlight and reinforce conclusions within this report and these are presented below.

2.1 Existing Reviews

The starting point for this project was to consider the results of previous reviews that compare single-trip and

reusable drinks packaging. A number of other projects have also made comparisons, some very comprehensive

and others only at a limited level of detail. These existing reviews provide a valuable starting point and include:

TNO, 2001, Data certification for LCA comparisons: Inventory of current status and strengths and weaknesses

analysis, for Apeal, Brussels

TNO, 2002, LCA sensitivity and eco-efficiency analysis of beverage packaging systems, for Apeal, Brussels

Institute for Local Self Reliance, 2002, Environmental benefits of refillable beverage containers, for GrassRoots

Recycling Network (GRRN), in 2002 Washington DC. USA,

Ecolas and Pira International, 2005, Study on the Implementation of Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging Waste

and Options to Strengthen Prevention and Re-use of packaging, for EU DG Environment, Brussels

2.1.1 TNO / APEAL Reviews

As part of a private consultancy commission for APEAL in 2001, TNO analysed and evaluated a number of key

European studies comparing several single-trip and reusable drinks packaging systems (TNE-MEP 2001). TNO

reported that the final results of these LCAs were greatly influenced by data quality and therefore did not enable

objective comparisons to be made. Seven studies were evaluated in greater detail and the comparison of these

seven showed “remarkable differences with regard to several parameters” (TNO, 2002a)

Subsequently, APEAL contracted TNO to perform an in-depth analysis to establish the sensitivity and eco-

efficiency of several packaging systems to variations in selected parameters. This analysis reworked the previous

“UBA II” study, a project commissioned by the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA) (Plinke et al 2000).

Data and LCA methods applied in this analysis were externally reviewed.

The aim of the TNO work was to establish, for the drinks packaging systems considered in UBA II:

The parameters for which a system is the most sensitive and the parameters for which it is insensitive, and

The effect of the variation in the values of these parameters on the significance of observed differences

between the systems.

The packaging systems considered in the TNO work are summarised below. The comparison focused on 330ml

containers, but as not all the systems modelled in the UBAII study considered this volume some re-calculations

and assumptions were required.


Table A1: Drinks packaging systems considered in the TNO-APEAL sensitivity analysis

Type of system Packaging System Contents

One-way Steel can

Aluminium can

Glass bottle

PET bottle

Drinks carton

330ml

330ml

330ml

330ml

330ml

Refillable Glass bottle

PET bottle

330ml

330ml

An in-depth sensitivity analysis was then applied to the following parameters, using a method close to random

simulation (Monte Carlo approach), and some specific sensitivities were identified:

Weight of the primary packaging – all systems are sensitive to changes in the mass of primary packaging

Transport distance between filler and retailer or point of sale – the results for the reusable glass bottle are

sensitive to this parameter, but all other systems are insensitive

Percentage of secondary materials used (recycled content) – the aluminium drinks can results are very

sensitive to a lowering of the percentage of secondary aluminium considered in the can body. The steel can

and drinks carton are highly insensitive to changes in this parameter

Trip rate (number of cycles per bottle) for refillable system – both reusable PET and glass systems are

sensitive to this parameter. Decreasing the number of cycles leads to an increase in environmental impact.

Increasing the number of cycles has the opposite effect, although the effect of an increase in cycles is less

strong than a decrease

Trip rate (number of cycles per pallet) for secondary packaging (no details of the sensitivity of results to this

parameter are discussed in the public report)

Waste disposal option (percentage waste to incineration versus percentage to landfill) – the drinks carton and

aluminium can display some sensitivity in relation to changes in waste management scenarios

Composition of drinks carton (no details of the sensitivity of results to this parameter are discussed in the

public report).

Two major limiting assumptions had to be applied in the sensitivity analysis:

As the spread of input data for mass, trip rate etc. was not available its variation was assumed to be +/-50%

of the reference value

If the mean values of two systems fell outside of each others range, the differences between the systems were

regarded as insignificant, as demonstrated in the diagram below.


Figure A3: Conditions for significant differences in TNO/APEAL study

System A System A

System B

System B

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Imp

act

Key

Average result

Range of results

For Scenario 1, in the example above, the two systems are deemed to have a significant difference. Although the

range of results for each system overlaps, the averages for each system fall outside of each other‟s range of

results. However, for Scenario 2 there is no significant difference, as the average result for System B falls within

the range of results for System A, and therefore no significant difference is identified.

The authors drew some important conclusions that are relevant in the context of this WRAP study:

As the differences that arise between systems in LCA results are not always large enough to be significant, it

may be better to identify the occurrence of groups of drinks packaging with similar environmental

performance. The groups include the systems for which the individual means fall within the range of one or

more of the other systems ranges

For the one-way (single-trip) packaging systems considered, the primary packaging largely determines the

environmental impact for nearly all of the impact parameters considered. Transport and secondary packaging

are of lesser importance

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

packaging is of lesser importance.

Results of the LCA comparisons are combined with financial costs of the packaging systems to produce an eco-

efficiency evaluation. The eco-efficiency results are presented next.


Figure A4: TNO range of eco-efficiency results

Note: Systems are judged on their position in the grid. The highest environmental impact and economic cost of all the systems

compared is set to 1. All other results are presented relative to this.

TNO identifies two eco-efficiency groups. The first group, consisting of the steel and aluminium cans, reusable

glass and reusable PET bottles, and the drinks carton, has a relatively higher eco-efficiency. The second group,

formed of the single-trip glass and single-trip PET bottles, has a relatively lower eco-efficiency. However, it is also

clear that within these two groups overlap is present.

Trip rate is an important parameter influencing the environmental impact of the refillable bottles considered. The

study shows that lowering the trip rate from 21 to 11 cycles reduces their eco-efficiency. Nonetheless, the

reusable bottles still remain in the grouping with the better eco-efficiency score.

Considering these results, TNO draws three main conclusions:

The borderline between ecologically favourable and unfavourable returnable packaging is tenuous

Discrimination between formats and materials on the basis of LCA results should be avoided when the results

of in-depth sensitivity analyses are not available

Results are strongly influenced by allocation aspects (e.g. inclusion of recycling and the valuation of the input

of secondary materials) and by the quality of the applied data.

Due to the implications of this final conclusion, APEAL commissioned a follow-up study from TNO to look at the

quality of data used for drinks packaging LCA studies (TNO 200b). In particular, the UBA II study and earlier

studies by Chalmers for the Danish EPA were considered. The authors concluded that both of these studies were

lacking in terms of overall data quality when a systematic and in-depth review of data quality was applied. The

authors recognised the important role that critical review can play in improving data quality in future studies, but

also highlighted some very important limitations that are still true today:

“The peer review of LCAs is one of the ways to increase the quality of an LCA. However, within these reviews

there is normally no in-depth data verification as this requires a far greater effort than is commonly made.”


2.1.2 GrassRoots Recycling Network Review of Environmental Benefits of Refillable Drinks Containers

In 2002, the GrassRoots Recycling Network (GRRN) commissioned a review of existing LCA studies comparing

refillable and one way (single-trip) drinks containers in order to evaluate their environmental benefits. The study

of eleven LCA studies was undertaken by the Institute for Local Self Reliance, Washington DC. USA.

Table A2: The eleven LCA studies reviewed:

Author Sponsor Initials1 Year

Lundholm and Sundstrom TetraPak Inc. LS 1985

Franklin Associates National Association for Plastic Container Recovery

(NAPCOR)

FA 1989

Sundstrom Swedish Brewers Association GS 1990

Deloitte & Touche Canada Inc. TetraPak Inc. DT 1991

Proctor and Redfern Ltd Liquor Control Board of Ontario PR 1991

First Consulting Group Ontario Multi Material Recycling Inc. (OMMRI) FCG 1992

Schmitz, Oels, and Tiedemann German Federal Environment Agency (UBA I) UBA I 1995

US EPA US EPA US 1997

Chalmers Industriteknik and

Institute for Product Development

Danish EPA DEPA 1998

Prognos, IFEU, GVM, Pack Force,

and UBA

German Federal Environment Agency (UBA II) UBA II 2000

Gesellschaft fur Umfassende

Analysen GmbH

Austrian Ministry of the Environment GUA 2000

1 These initials are used to describe the studies in the later tables in this section

This review recognised the different methodological approaches, system boundary inconsistencies, and variations

in a number of factors (e.g. transportation distances, recycling rates, trippage of reusable, and recycled content)

which can affect results and conclusions of the individual LCAs. The results of the eleven studies are presented in

tables showing the number of studies favouring different packaging systems against environmental impact

categories. The review seeks to suggest how consistently one type of drinks container compares to another with

regard to a set of criteria across all of the individual studies. The criteria considered are air pollution, water

pollution, solid waste and energy.

The review makes particular note of the fact that the comparisons of refillable glass to refillable PET bottles

involve glass bottles that are 25-35% smaller in volume than the PET bottles.

The results are shown in the four tables below. The number and initials of LCAs with results pertaining to and

included in each table is indicated in the table titles [refer to the table above for list of LCA studies].


Table A3: Refillable glass bottles vs. One way glass bottles

LS,FA,DT,PR,FCG,UBA I,US,DEPA (8 studies)

Environmental Impact Air Pollution Water Pollution Solid Waste Energy

CO CO2 CH4 SOx NOx

Number favouring one way containers 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Number favouring refillables 3 2 2 3 4 4 5 5

Number reporting the impact 4 2 2 3 4 4 5 7

Table A4: Refillable glass bottles vs. One way aluminium cans

FA,GS,PR,FCG,UBA I,DEPA,GUA (7 studies)


CO CO2 CH4 SOx NOx

Number favouring cans 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 3



Table A5: Refillable PET bottles vs. One way PET bottles

GS,DEPA 500ml,DEPA 1.5l, GUA mineral water, GUA soft drinks (5 studies)


CO CO2 CH4 SOx NOx

Number favouring one way containers 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Table A6: Refillable glass bottles vs. Refillable PET bottles

DEPA,UBA II,GUA (3 studies)

Environmental Impact Air Pollution Water Pollution Solid

Waste

Energy

CO CO2 CH4 SOx NOx

Number favouring glass 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Number favouring PET 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 1


The review concludes that:

4 Refillable containers put less pollution into the air

5 Refillables generate less solid waste

6 Refillable glass and PET emit less water pollution and use less energy than one way containers of the same

material

7 Refillables emit more water pollution and use more energy than aluminium cans

8 PET appears to be a better material for refillables than glass.

An additional conclusion could be that refillable glass containers put less pollution into the air than aluminium

cans.

The review also draws attention to the fact that the Danish EPA study, the only study to estimate water

consumption, found that refillable glass and PET bottles use less water than their one way equivalents; the

amount of water used to wash refillable glass bottles is much less than the amount used to manufacture new one

way glass bottles for a given volume of drinks. Refillable glass bottles of 330ml use less water than 330ml

aluminium cans.

Cost Benefit Analyses

The review also considered two environmental cost benefit analyses one from the Austrian Ministry of the

Environment in 2000 (GUA), and an RDC-Environment/Pira International study for the European Commission

(2003).


This study compared 330ml returnable and one way glass bottles with the following assumptions:

The return rate for refillables is 100%

All bottle losses occur during washing and filling

The round trip distance form warehouse to store is 100km

Consumers recycled mixed bottles and other containers only at drop off centres

Industry bears all of the cost of recycling

The portion of one way bottles not recycled is split equally between landfill and incineration.

The study concluded that refillable glass bottles cost less environmentally than one way glass bottles do

whenever the distance from the bottling plant to the warehouse is:

less than 3,500km with 20 trips for the refillable bottle and a 91% recycling rate for the one way bottle

less than 4,200km with 20 trips and a 42% recycling rate

less than 2,300km with 5 trips and a 91% recycling rate

and less than 3,000km with 5 trips and a 42% recycling rate.

2.1.3 Study on the Implementation of Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging Waste and Options to Strengthen Prevention and Re-use of packaging

This 2005 report, authored by Ecolas and Pira International for the European Commission, provides commentary

on the findings of LCA studies comparing reusable and single-trip primary packaging in general (not specific to

drinks).

The report states that LCA results are highly dependent on the parameters and assumptions that are made about

product supply systems, such as electricity generation method, transport distances, return rates, recycling rates

and the existence of control mechanisms such as deposits. It states that many LCAs have been unable to reach

conclusions due to these factors.

However, it goes on to say that if the parameters and assumptions are separated out studies tend to be in

agreement to a greater extent:

Product supply systems with low transport distances and high return rates tend to favour reusable packaging

systems

Product supply systems with longer transport distances and low return rates tend to favour single-trip

packaging systems

Studies which consider long transport systems and high return rates or short distances and low return rates

are often inconclusive.

It reports that a Europen commissioned review of LCAs gave estimations of the transport distances over which

reusable packaging or one way packaging may be environmentally superior or the situation is mixed.

On the basis of the LCA studies reviewed, the Ecolas/Pira report concludes:

The mixed range cannot be defined precisely but based on current data is approximately 100km to 1000km

Around 100km (or below) the majority of LCAs show reusable packaging to be advantageous

Around 1000km (or above) virtually all the LCA studies show single-trip packaging to be advantageous.


2.2 Study Review Summaries – Drinks

Four drinks studies were examined in detail. These studies were selected using the methodology described in Appendix 2 accompanying the main report. The following section

summarises the main study details and provides commentary on the study approach and findings.

Study Title (abbrev.)

Public-ation year

Commiss. By

Performed by

Single-trip PET bottle

Single-trip Aluminium can

Reusable glass bottle

Reusable PET bottle

Re- usable jug1

Trips for reusable

Journey distance

Impact Cats.

Favours

Comparison of the environmental impact of drinking water vs bottled water

2005 Swiss Gas & Water Assoc. (SVGW)

ESU Services 1.5l carbonated & still

1l carbonated & still

18.9l 50 50km & 1000km (short 5 or 10km customer in some cases)

CPEC, COE, GGE, EI99, EIP1997

Jug preferred. Reusable glass preferred over single-trip PET

LCA of one way PET bottles & recycled products

2004 PETcore IFEU 0.5l, 1.5l & 2.0l carbonated & still (1.5l only)2

0.33l, 0.5l & 0.7l carbonated3

(0.33l) 25 (0.5l ) 21 (0.7l) not stated

190km for returnable vs 250km for single-trip 120km for returnable vs 320km for single-trip

FRC, UN, GW, A, TE, AE, SS, CPE, TI

States no clear advantage to either system, but then gives a number of scenarios where reusable glass is advantageous

LCA of potential environmental impacts of Finnish drinks packaging systems

2000 (pub. 2002)

Finnish Tech. Dev. Centre et al.

PTR 0.33l & 0.5l 0.3l, 0.33l & 0.5l

0.5l (0.3l glass) 24.55 (0.33l glass) 32.16 (0.5l glass) 30.26 (0.5l PET) 18.23

Not stated GW, A, NE, POF, BOD, PMW

Reusable glass over single-trip aluminium can Reusable PET over single-trip aluminium can

Impact categories CPEC – Cumulative primary energy consumption, COE - Crude oil equivalent, GGE – Greenhouse gas emissions, EI99 – Eco Indicator 99 H/A, EIP1997 – EIP‟s 1997, FRC – Fossil resource consumption, UN – Use of nature, GW – Global warming, A – Acidification, TE – Terrestrial eutrophication, AE – Aquatic eutrophication, SS – Summer smog, CPE – Cumulative primary energy, TI – Transport intensity, CAWV – Critical air and Water consumption, E – Eutrophication, SW – Solid waste, WC – Water consumption, EC – Energy consumption, CAM – Consumption of auxiliary materials, NE – Nutrient enrichment, POF – Photochemical ozone formation, BOD – BOD, PMW – Packaging material wastes Notes 1 – Reusable jug is refillable container used in water dispensing machines 2 – Bottle weights: 0.5l carbonated 20.5g; 1.5l carbonated 36.5g; 2.0l carbonated 49g; 1.5l still 33.0g 3 – Bottle weights: 0.33l 434g; 0.5l 360g; 0.7l 590g 4 – Single-trip and returnable bottle are the same weight?


2.2.1 LCA of potential environmental impacts of Finnish drinks packaging systems

This study published in 2002 (based on 2000 data and analysis) was commissioned by the Finnish Technology

Development Centre (TEKES), PTR (a packaging trade body), the Finnish Environmental Register of

Packaging, The Federation of the Brewing and Soft Drinks Industries, the Finnish Food Marketing Association,

O I Finnish Holdings (Glass packaging manufacturer), and Suomen Uusiomuovi (Plastic packaging trade

body).

The study was undertaken by PTR

The English summary report reviewed runs to some 111 pages and is detailed and transparent. The report is

the most detailed and thorough of all the LCA reports reviewed in all categories.

Packaging Formats

The study examined single-trip aluminium cans and reusable glass and PET bottles for soft drinks, beer and cider,

and compares the same size of containers.

Study Assumptions

The recycled content of each of the container types is based on industry averages and Finnish collection rates.

Return rates are justified with loss rates detailed down the supply chain.

End of life waste management for reusable containers is assumed to be landfill.

Primary packaging components (in addition to the bottles or cans) are fully described as is the secondary

packaging for all packaging systems.

Trippage rates for reusable containers were described as ranging from 24.55 for 300ml clear glass bottles up to

30.26 for 500ml brown glass and 32.16 for 330ml brown glass.

The reusable 500ml PET bottle was described as having a trip rate of 18.23. The main reason for the lower PET

bottle reuse rate appears to be due to losses at the brewery 4.0% compared to 1.3% for glass.

The study focuses on Finland, but does include some raw material supplies from other parts of Europe. The

study does not describe the transportation scenarios simply stating that data profiles from previous LCA studies

were used. This is the least transparent part of the study.

The system boundaries considered are full life cycle for all primary and secondary materials from raw material

production through to consumption with all return and waste management systems included. The description of

these is thorough and detailed.

Results and Peer Review

Peer review was undertaken by representatives of the industrial stakeholders of the systems studied,

administrative authorities and consumer representatives. The peer review findings have been fed back during the

study and included in the findings of suggested amendments fully reported in the study.

Results are presented in a large number of inventory result graphs describing current systems for each container

and each emission category. Graphs are also shown detailing the relative impact potential, against impact

category, of each of the competing packaging systems. All of these graphs are repeated for systems which only

consider the primary packaging.

Study Conclusions:

“330ml aluminium can versus 330ml refillable glass bottle

In the acidification, global warming and photochemical formation of tropospheric ozone impact categories the

refillable glass bottle had lower impact.

In the oxygen depletion category the aluminium can had lower impact.

In the eutrophication category there was no significant difference.

The sub system contributing most favourably to the refillable glass was primary material production. The sub

system most in favour of aluminium cans is waste management.

500ml aluminium can versus 500ml refillable glass bottle

In the acidification, global warming and photochemical formation of tropospheric ozone impact categories the

refillable glass bottle had lower impact.

In the oxygen depletion and eutrophication categories the aluminium can had lower impact.


The sub system contributing most favourably to the refillable glass was primary material production. The sub

systems most in favour of aluminium cans are waste management and drinks logistics.

500ml aluminium can versus 500ml refillable PET bottle

In the acidification, global warming, eutrophication and photochemical formation of tropospheric ozone impact

categories the refillable PET bottle had lower impact.

In the oxygen depletion category the aluminium can had lower impact.

The sub systems contributing most favourably to the refillable PET were primary material production and material

recycling and transport of materials. The sub system most in favour of aluminium cans is waste management.”

Both reusable glass and PET bottles were favoured over the single-trip aluminium can. No direct comparison of

the reusable glass versus reusable PET bottle is given in the study report or conclusions. This could be due to a

mix of advantages and disadvantages of the competing materials regarding relative impact potentials.

2.2.2 LCA of one way PET bottles & recycled products

This 2004 study was commissioned by PETCORE and undertaken by the Institute of Energy and

Environmental Research, Heidelberg (IFEU)

The report reviewed runs to 28 pages

The study focuses on Germany.

Packaging Formats

The study examines single-trip PET bottles and reusable glass bottles for carbonated and still mineral water. It

includes 0.5l, 1.5l and 2.0l PET bottles and 0.33l, 0.5l, and 0.7l glass bottles, but only presents results for 1.5l

single-trip PET and 0.7l reusable glass, stating that these „in principal also apply to the other bottle volumes

examined‟. This study did not compare single-trip PET and glass, with returnable PET and glass – this could be

considered a limitation of the study.

The report provides statistics on the usage of the different sizes and these are the most commonly used for home

consumption. The choice to review single-trip PET bottles of significantly larger capacity than the reusable glass

bottle will favour the PET bottle. This is due to volume of product (considered in the functional unit) packaging

material ratio; larger capacity containers require less material per ml to package them.

Study Assumptions

The recycled content of the PET bottles appears to be based on DSD (Duales System Deutschland) recovery rates

and recovery rates from deposit based systems. The recycled content of the glass bottles is not described.

Similarly end of life waste management is described for PET but not for glass. The PET that is not recycled going

to incineration and landfill. Whether energy recovery is credited to the PET system is not described, neither is

the proportion of material going to landfill.

Primary packaging components (e.g. labels, glue, closures) in addition to each of the bottles are fully described

as is the secondary packaging for all packaging systems. Trippage rates for reusable containers were described

as ranging from 21 trips for 0.5l glass bottles up to 25 for 0.33l and 50 for 0.7l. Justification for trippage is not

stated.

Journey distances (presumably lorry) are based both on the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA)

distribution model of 190km for reusable containers and 250km for single-trip bottles and findings from more

recent studies which found 120km for reusable containers and 320km for single-trip bottles to be more realistic.

The system boundaries considered are full life cycle but includes expanded boundaries for credits relating to

secondary product manufacture (i.e. material recovery and recycling into fibre, sheet and strapping production)

for both the PET and glass systems. This could reflect real life scenarios for PET and glass, but it would not

recognise all recycled routes, some of which would perform less well (e.g. glass into aggregates).

The study does take account of the fact that about 80% of the PET bottles recovered are exported to the Far

East for recycling. Whilst it is advantageous for the PET system to include the credit from secondary products, it

must also include the impacts of transportation. For recycled glass, 41% is recycled into containers in the UK and

22% abroad. No information is provided on the assumptions for end of life waste management for glass.



Peer review was undertaken by Prof Dr Walter Kloppfer of the International Journal of LCA, but the review

findings are not detailed.

Results are presented for 1.5l single-trip PET and 0.7l reusable glass bottles, with both DSD collection and deposit

scheme collection, in ten impact category graphs sub divided by contributory process within the system

boundary.

Study Conclusions:

“Both the ...one-way PET and the refillable glass bottle systems are strongly influenced by the assumptions

related to collection and recovery of used packaging materials as well as the distribution logistics. The

implications of these aspects and some relevant additional findings of the study can be structured and

summarized in the following statements which particularly apply to the packaging systems for home

consumption:

Under the conditions of a source separated kerbside collection of PET bottles there is no clear environmental

advantage for either… packaging systems

Under the conditions of a deposit based collection system and a shipping of baled bottles to the Far East for

recycling there is a clear environmental advantage for the refillable glass bottle system. This is mainly due to

the transport efforts involved and partly to the less strict emission standards in the Far East

The environmental advantage of the refillable glass bottle systems over the deposit based one way PET bottle

systems would disappear if recycling of one way PET was to happen in Europe.

A distribution situation with relative shorter distances for refillable glass bottle systems and relative larger

distances for one way PET bottle systems (as assumed to be the case in the current distribution practice in

Germany) shows environmental advantages of refillable glass bottle systems independent from collection and

recycling routes chosen in the one way PET bottle systems.

Regarding the packaging systems related to the „away from home‟ consumption clear environmental

advantages of the 0.5l refillable glass bottle and slight advantages of the 0.33l refillable glass bottle over the

0.5l one way PET bottle can be found.”

2.2.3 Comparison of the environmental impact of drinking water vs bottled water

This 2005 study was commissioned by the Swiss Gas and Water Association (SVGW) and undertaken by the

consultancy company ESU Services

The report reviewed is 11 pages in length.

Packaging Formats

The study examines bottled water versus tap water; our review was focused on the bottled water variants and

comparisons. Single-trip 1.5l PET and reusable 1.0l glass bottles and a reusable 18.9l „jug‟ for both carbonated

and still water were studied, as was refrigeration and ambient storage by the consumer. This will favour the

larger size containers, but reflects the real life situation.

Study Assumptions

The recycled content of each of the container types was not stated. Return rates and end of life waste

management were not stated.

Trippage rates for all the reusable containers was stated as 50; somewhat higher than most other studies.

The study focuses on Switzerland, but does consider one scenario in other parts of Europe. The study describes

transportation scenarios for local delivery within Switzerland (50km lorry, 50km lorry plus 5km car or van, and

50km lorry plus 10km car or van) and a longer 1000km journey.

The system boundaries considered water catchment through treatment, filling, packaging, distribution, consumer

transportation and storage. It does not appear to include waste management, other than the return of the

reusable bottles.



No peer review appears to have been undertaken.

Results are presented in tabular format describing current systems for each container and each emission category

in quantitative form.

Study Conclusions:

“The environmental impact of bottled mineral water is essentially determined by refrigeration, packaging and

transportation. Other parts of the system are relatively insignificant. There are no major differences with regard

to packaging. Returnable bottles and jugs result in somewhat better results for short distances. However, the

higher weight of glass bottles when transported over extended distances results, on the whole, in higher

environmental impact as compared to PET bottles.”

Interpreting the results, the jug has the lowest impact in all impact categories, the reusable glass has the next

least impact, the single-trip PET has the greatest impact.


3.0 The Review Results and Findings – Distribution Packaging

Timelines highlighting some of the key studies from the past ten years investigating the environmental

performance of single-trip and reusable distribution packaging are shown below (although this is by no means

comprehensive). Other studies have been completed during this period, by private companies, academics and

government departments, some publicly available others confidential to the commissioning body.

Figure A5: Timeline of key pallet LCA studies and their main conclusions

Returnable wood versus returnable plastic Euro pallet favours wood pallet French Wood

Pallet Producers Unknown

1994

Netherlands Packaging

and Pallet Industry

Association

Returnable wood versus returnable plastic 1200x1000mm pallet favours wood pallet

2008

Single-trip versus returnable wood versus returnable plastic 1200x1000m pallets finds that the returnable plastic pallet had lower impacts in all categories

Intelligent

Global Pooling Systems

2009

WRAP This study

Figure A6: Timeline of key „Common Footprint‟ tray, crate and shrink-wrap collation LCA studies and their main

conclusions

2004

FEFCO

Single-trip corrugated trays versus returnable rigid and folding plastic crates of 600x400mm and 400x300mm for fruit and vegetables favours the single-trip corrugated trays

Single-trip corrugated trays versus returnable plastic crates of 600x400mm for fruit and vegetables favours the reusable plastic crate

Reusable Pallet and Container

Coalition

2005

Spanish Department of the Environment

Single-trip corrugated trays versus returnable folding plastic crates of 600x400mm for fruit and vegetables favours the single-trip corrugated trays

2008

Single-trip shrink-wrap collations with corrugated base pad and tray versus returnable plastic crate favours the returnable plastic crate

Rehrig Pacific Company

Single-trip corrugated trays versus returnable rigid plastic crates of 600x400mm favours the reusable plastic crate

Linpac Allibert

2009

WRAP This study

Several other LCA studies comparing single-trip and reusable distribution packaging have been identified that

were undertaken in the ten year period prior to 1998. However, as the data used in these studies will be dated

and the work pre-dates the publication of the ISO 14040 standards for life cycle assessment these studies have

not been considered for this project.

This project makes a structured review of some of the most important LCA studies of distribution packaging from

recent years, in order to provide stakeholders with an understanding of the key parameters which influence the

results achieved and conclusions drawn. Through this approach, it is the aim of the project to draw conclusions

on the conditions when reusable distribution packaging may be favourable, and to provide advice to packaging

specifiers as to the parameters that need to be considered when making a choice between single-trip and

reusable distribution packaging. These findings and conclusions are detailed in the main report.

Eight distribution studies were examined in detail. These studies were selected using the methodology described

in Appendix 2 of the main report. For each LCA review, the main study details are summarised and a

commentary on the study approach and findings is set out. The LCA studies are sub-divided into pallets, trays

and crates, and shrink-wrap collations and crates.


3.1 Study Review Summaries – Pallets

Three studies were reviewed in detail.


Public-ation year

Commissioned by

Performed by Product type

Single-trip Wood pallet type

Returnable wood pallet type

Returnable plastic pallet type

Trips for returnables

Journey distance

Impact Categories

Favours Comments

The environmentally oriented LCA of multiple use wood and synthetic pallets

1994 The Netherlands Packaging & Pallet Industry Association

TNO Generic n/a 1200x1000mm (weight not stated)

1200x1000mm HDPE 50% virgin/ 50% recycled (weight not stated)

42 trips wood 36 trips plastic

Not stated

UFNRRM, UFRM, L, GE, IOL, RIMAWS, A, TD

Returnable wood pallet

Streamlined LCA of iGPS pallet, typical pooled wooden pallet and the single use wood pallet

2008 Intelligent Global Pooling Systems (iGPS)

ERM Generic 1200x1000mm 23kg

1200x1000mm 32kg

1200x100mm 21.6kg HDPE 100% virgin & 15% recycled & 99% recycled

15 trips wood 100 trips plastic

Not stated

GW, OD, SS, UFNRRM, E, A, AE, TE

Returnable plastic pallet

Returnable plastic pallet had lower impacts in all categories

LCA of the EUR pallet

Not known

The French Wood Pallet Producers

Centre Technique du Bois et de L‟Ameublement (CTBA) and Ecobilan

Generic n/a 1200x800mm 1200x800mm Not stated Not stated

EC, CO2, SOx, NOx, Dust, CO, SW

Returnable wood pallet

States wood pallet demonstrate clear advantages despite higher weight and shorter life

Impact categories

UFNRRM – Use of non renewable raw materials, UFRRM – Use of renewable raw materials, L – Landfill, GE – Greenhouse effect, IOL – Impact on ozone layer, RIMAWS – Risk

of intoxication for man, animal, water and soil, A – Acidification, TD – Top dressing, GW – Global warming, OD – Ozone depletion, E – Eutrophication, AE – Aquatic ecotoxicity,

TE – Terrestrial ecotoxicity, EC – Energy consumption, CO2 – Carbon dioxide emissions, SOx – Emissions, NOx – Emissions, Dust – Emissions, CO – Carbon monoxide emissions,

SW – Solid Waste


3.1.1 The environmentally oriented LCA of multiple use wood and synthetic pallets

This study was published in 1994 by the Netherlands Packaging and Pallet Industry Association and

undertaken by TNO Centre for Wood Technology

The English synopsis reviewed is 4 pages in length

The study appears to relate to the Netherlands.

This study pre-dates ISO 14040, but is included because of its pre-eminence in the wider debates regarding

reusable packaging.

Packaging Formats

The study examines reusable timber and plastic pallets of 1200x1000mm.

Study Assumptions

The timber pallet is manufactured using new timber, the plastic pallet from 50% recycled HDPE and 50% virgin

HDPE.

Return rates are justified with numbers lost, rejected and repaired described.

Trippage rates for the timber pallet are described as 42, and for plastic 36.

The study does not describe the transportation mode or distances.

End of life waste management for the plastic pallet is described as recycled; the waste management of the timber

pallet is not stated.

The system boundaries considered are full life cycle excluding waste management. It considers different impact

categories than more recent (ISO 14040) studies.


No peer review was stated.

Results are presented in tabular format quantifying environmental impacts per pallet.

Study Conclusions:

“The wood pallets offer considerably more positive image as concerns environmental aspects than the synthetic

[sic] pallet.

For raw material and energy consumption, the wood pallet scores better than does the synthetic [sic] pallet. For

emissions into air and water, the wood pallet also scores better and the amount of waste is significantly lower

than the synthetic pallet.

The raw material for the wood pallets originates from production woods where less is chopped down than

planted. To safeguard this „renewable raw material‟ for the future and extend it new production woods must be

planted, which intrinsically has a favourable effect on the environment. Possibly the reuse of wood may be

further stimulated. Sustained efforts are being made in this field.

The assumption of the Netherlands Packaging and Pallet Industry Association is confirmed by this report. From

an environmental standpoint the wood pallet can also be considered as a source of pride. This research provides

sound arguments to endorse the production of wood pallets and even extend it in the future.”

The conclusion may imply that the sequestration of carbon by new growing trees is considered in the study. The

commissioning body makes clear its objectives and interests in this study.

3.1.2 LCA of the EUR pallet

This study was commissioned by the French Wood Pallet Producers and undertaken by CTBA and Ecobilan.

The year of publication is unknown

The report summary reviewed is 3 pages and lacks detail, but it is stated that the analysis was conducted in

accordance with ISO 14040

The study relates to Europe.


Packaging Formats

The study examines reusable timber and plastic „Euro‟ pallets of 1200x800mm. The material specification of the

pallets is not described. The timber pallet is described as heavier and having a shorter life than the plastic pallet.

Study Assumptions

Details of return rates, trippage rates as well as transportation mode and distances are not provided.

End of life waste management is incineration for the timber pallet, energy recovery has been credited. The waste

management of the plastic pallet is not described.



Results are presented in tabular format quantifying environmental impacts for 1000 cycles.

Study Conclusions:

“The wood harvesting and transformation have little impacts on the environment during the production phase;

however the influence of drying, when necessary, is by itself notable.

The impact of transport is very important. Despite this impact the total balance remains positive.

Note that after five repairs the choice of eliminating the pallet and producing a new one only increases by 10%

the global environmental impacts.

In terms of balance the impacts of the valorisation are positive.

Wooden pallets demonstrate clear advantages over synthetic pallet despite their upper weight and its shorter

life.”

Without access to the full report it is difficult to judge the validity of this report.

3.1.3 Streamlined LCA of iGPS pallet, typical pooled wooden pallet and the single use wood pallet

This study was published in 2008 and was commissioned by Intelligent Global Pooling Systems (iGPS) and

undertaken by ERM

The report is 19 pages long

The geographical coverage is Europe

Packaging Formats

The study examines a single-trip timber pallet and reusable timber and plastic pallets of 1200x1000mm. The

reusable plastic pallet is iGPS‟s own HDPE pallet and is studied as virgin, 15% and 99% recycled content. The

timber pallet is manufactured using new timber.

Study Assumptions

The study starts with a critique of a TNO study publicly cited by Virginia Tech academics which compared plastic

and wooden pooled pallet systems and concluded that wooden pallets were environmentally preferable to plastic

pallets. ERM states and concludes in its critique that the age of the study (1994) pre the 1997 ISO

standardization discounts its findings. No further evaluation is provided.

The weight for a typical single-trip wooden pallet is high and probably doesn‟t always include hardwoods in its

construction. The construction of the plastic pallet, particularly with reference to the steel content is not detailed.

Return rates are stated as 96% for the reusable wooden pallet and 99% for the reusable plastic pallet.

Trippage rates for the reusable timber pallet are described as 15, and for plastic 100. This trip rate for the plastic

pallet is higher than other studies.

With the absence of pallet test or real life data it is not possible to give a view on the likelihood of a 20 year

service life and therefore likely lifetime trippage. Also iGPS appear to be a relatively new company and may not

have sufficient data to draw estimated lifetime conclusions. As the results of the study are most sensitive to

trippage, this could be important. No mention of pilferage is made in the study.


The study appears to relate to typical transportation distances associated with distribution by truck in the US and

Canada, but actual distances are not described. Fill levels of returning vehicles are not described. Transportation

distances appear to be based on assumptions regarding the location of manufacturing, inspection and repair

facilities for wooden pallets in US and Canada identified from publicly available information. As the %

contribution of inspection and repair trips is not described it is impossible to determine whether or not this is a

significant factor in determining the results. It is also not possible to determine whether transportation distances

for wooden and plastic pallets are realistic, equivalent or comparable.

End of life waste management for the timber pallets is described as mulch (percentage not stated) and municipal

solid waste of which 80% goes to landfill and 20% to incineration with energy recovery; the waste management

of the plastic pallet is described as 80% landfill and 20% to incineration. Repair operation for the reusable timber

pallet is included in the system boundary, but flows or journey distances etc. are not described.

The system boundaries considered are full life cycle and fully described.



Results are presented in tabular format and graphically quantifying environmental impacts per pallet.

Sensitivity analysis to pallet weight appears to have only considered increase in wooden pallet weight due to

moisture content. This does not appear to take account of the potential range of pallet weights that may be

available.

Study conclusions:

“The results of this study showed that the iGPS plastic pallet had lower environmental impacts in all impact

categories compared to the typical pooled wooden pallet, and a substantially smaller environmental footprint than

the single-use pallet. Incorporating a relatively small proportion (15% by weight) of recycled HDPE into the iGPS

pallet further improved the environmental performance, while the 100% recycled HDPE pallet had a markedly

smaller environmental footprint.

Since current typical pooled wooden pallet data were not readily available except through secondary sources,

sensitivity analyses were performed to determine how varying certain data inputs would change the LCA results.

Analyses of these “what-if” scenarios indicated that the most significant input variable was the trips per pallet

lifetime (a function of pallet durability and useful life), followed by the distance each pallet travels, and then pallet

weight.

A review of the environmental impacts for each life-cycle stage showed that the majority of environmental

impacts from the iGPS pallet accrue from the production of virgin high density polyethylene (HDPE), the key raw

material in the plastic pallet. This is a life cycle stage over which iGPS has no control. However, incorporating

recycled HDPE content into the iGPS pallet mitigated environmental impacts associated with HDPE production.

The transportation phase of the life cycle was where the iGPS pallet demonstrated significant environmental

benefits compared to the pooled wooden pallet. This was due primarily to the iGPS pallet‟s ability to make many

more trips per pallet lifetime as well as its lighter weight. Elimination of the repair step common to the typical

pooled wooden pallet system resulted in fewer truck miles travelled per pallet trip, hence lower fuel use and

transportation-related emissions and impacts.

Due to the iGPS pallet‟s comparatively short time in the marketplace (since 2006) compared to the pooled pallet

system and single-use pallet, iGPS intends to continue to collect data to validate the assumptions made in this

report, particularly with respect to trips per pallet lifetime and transport distances.”


3.2 Study Reviews – Shrink-wrap Collation vs. Plastic Crate

One Study was reviewed in detail.


Year Commissioned by

Performed by

Product type

Plastic crate

(material)

Shrink-wrap collation

(material)

Trips for returnable

Journey distance

Impact Categories

Favours

Comments

Building the business case for reusable transport packaging

2008 Rehrig Pacific Company

Franklin Associates

Water Not stated1 Corrugated pad (25% & 50% recycled) and shrink film (50% & 95% recycled) Corrugated tray (25% & 50% recycled) and shrink film (50% & 95% recycled)

30 & 60 modelled

Not stated EU, SWC, GG Reusable plastic crate

Favours reusable plastic crate for all scenarios studied

Impact categories

EU – Energy use, SWC – Solid waste contribution, GG – Greenhouse gases

Notes:

1 – Rehrig manufacture both HDPE and PP.


3.2.1 Building the business case for reusable transport packaging

This study was published in 2008 and was commissioned by Rehrig Pacific Company and undertaken by

Franklin Associates

The 26 slide Powerpoint presentation containing the LCA reviewed is detailed and well presented.

Packaging Formats

The study examines single-trip shrink film collations (one with a corrugated layer pad and another with a

corrugated tray) versus a reusable plastic crate. All three systems studied containing 12 x 20oz bottles of mineral

water.

Study Assumptions

For the shrink-wrap collations, 25% and 50% recycled content of the corrugated is modelled; the recycled

content of the film is not described. The reusable plastic crate is Rehrig‟s own HDPE or PP crate; any recycled

content is not described.

Return rates for the plastic crate are not stated, but trippage is modelled at 30 and 60 cycles.

End of life waste management for the shrink-wrap collation materials is stated as 95% recycling for the

corrugated board and both 50% and 95% recycling of the film are modelled. The waste management of the

plastic crate is not described.

The study appears to relate to typical transportation distances associated with distribution in the US, but mode

and actual distances are not described. Fill levels of delivery and returning vehicles are not described.

The system boundaries considered appear to be full life cycle.



Results are not presented; conclusions are presented in tabular format.

Study Conclusions:

“Scenario: 25% recycled content of corrugated board, 50% film recycling, crate life of 60 trips

Reusable plastic crates:

Require 60% less total energy than the film with corrugated pad and 75% less total energy than the film with

corrugated tray

Produce 91% less total solid waste than the film with corrugated pad and 95% less total solid waste than the

film with corrugated tray

Generate 64% less total global warming potential (GWP) than the film with corrugated pad and 81% less

GWP than the film with corrugated tray

Generate 145 pounds CO2 equivalent while the film with corrugated pad generate 407 pounds and the film

with corrugated tray generate 762 pounds.

Scenario: 50% recycled content of corrugated board, 95% film recycling, crate life of 30 trips

Reusable plastic crates:

Require 9% less total energy than the film with corrugated pad and 46% less total energy than the film with

corrugated tray

Produce 81% less total solid waste than the film with corrugated pad and 89% less total solid waste than the

film with corrugated tray

Generate 32% less total global warming potential (GWP) than the film with corrugated pad and 65% less

GWP than the film with corrugated tray

Generate 244 pounds CO2 equivalent while the film with corrugated pad generate 360 pounds and the film with

corrugated tray generate 705 pounds.”


3.3 Study Reviews – „Common Footprint‟ Corrugated Trays vs. Plastic trays

Four studies were reviewed in detail. These studies were selected using the methodology described as Appendix 2 accompanying the main report. The following section

summarises the main study details and provides commentary on the study approach and findings.

Impact categories

A - Acidification, E – Eutrophication, HM – Heavy metals, C – Carciogenics, SS – Summer smog, WS – Winter smog, GW – Global warming, CF – Carbon footprint, ROE

Respiratory organic elements, RIE – Respiratory inorganic elements, CC – Climate Change, R – Radiation, DOL – Destruction of the ozone layer, ET – Ecotoxicity, LU – Land

use, DMR – Depletion of mineral resources, TE – Total energy, TSW – Total solid waste, TGG – Total greenhouse gases

Notes:

1 – Lorries delivering single-trip corrugated trays were stated to return 70% full of other (unspecified goods). This claim is not substantiated in the report.

2 – Material type unspecified in Vogtlander report, but claimed to be recycled in TNO report. Unlikely to be 100% recycled in cool chain distribution of fruit and vegetables.

3 – Based on commissioning parties member data.


Year Commiss. by

Performed by

Product type

Plastic (material & format)

Corrugated

(material & format)

Trips for returnable

Journey distance

Impact Categories

Favours Comments

Corrugated board boxes & plastic container systems

2004 FEFCO Vogtlander/TNO

Fruit & Veg.

Returnable HDPE Rigid and folding

Single-trip Recycled1,2

20 folding 30 rigid

0-2,500km

A, E, HM, C, SS, WS, GW

Single-trip Corrugated

Results are presented as costs and eco costs shown by journey distance

RTP proves its green credentials

2008/9

Linpac Allibert

Sustain Generic Returnable PP Rigid and folding

Single-trip Not stated

92 Not stated

CF Returnable plastic

States that returnable plastic tray has a carbon footprint 68% less than single-trip corrugated tray

A comparative study of the environmental & economic characteristics of corrugated board boxes & reusable plastic crates

2005 Ministerio De Medio Ambiente

Itene/Valencia University

Fruit & Veg.

Returnable HDPE & PP both folding

Single-trip 50% recycled papers

20 C.2600km (Almeria, Spain to Hamburg, Germany)

C, ROE, RIE, CC,R, DOL ,ET ,A, E, LU, DMR

Single-trip corrugated

Does take into account carbon sequestration of tree growth

LCI of reusable plastic crates and display ready corrugated containers

2004 Reusable Pallet & Container Coalition

Franklin Associates

Fruit and Veg.

Returnable PP

Single-trip Not stated

Not stated3 Not stated

TE, TSW, TGG

Returnable plastic

States returnable plastic: requires 39% less energy; produces 95% less total solid waste; generates 29% less greenhouse gases


3.3.1 Corrugated board boxes & plastic container systems

This study was published in 2004 and was commissioned by FEFCO and undertaken by Dr Ir Joost G

Vogtlander

The report reviewed runs to 25 pages

The study focuses on Netherlands and Germany.

Packaging Formats

The study examines single-trip „common footprint‟ 600x400mm and 400x300mm corrugated fibreboard trays of

varying heights and reusable „common footprint‟ 600x400mm and 400x300mm rigid and folding plastic trays for

fruit and vegetables. 600x400mm trays of nominal height 240mm are compared as are 600x400mm trays of

nominal height 110mm and 400x300mm trays of nominal height 140mm.

The internal volume of the corrugated trays is between 6 and 22% greater than the plastic equivalents despite

having approximately 15% less height. This is due to the wall thickness of the reusable trays. Therefore, the

reusable packaging systems will have lower cube utilisation.

Study Assumptions

Neither the recycled content of the corrugated fibreboard trays, nor the plastic trays, is stated. Similarly end of

life waste management is not described.

Trippage rates for the reusable plastic trays is stated as 30 for rigid and 20 for folding. Trippage rates were

provided by „The Greenery‟ Holland.

The study focuses on transportation of produce from the Netherlands to Frankfurt, Germany. Journey distances

by lorry are 500km and extrapolated out to 2500km and lorry fill levels are calculated according to tray volume

and vehicle capacity in some detail. Return trip is stated as 70% full of other types of commercial goods for the

corrugated tray vehicles and 100% full of return crates for the plastic tray vehicles. This seems unlikely and

inconsistent, and favours plastic trays.

The system boundaries considered are full life cycle and well described.


Peer review is not stated.

Results are presented as a series of graphs comparing costs and eco-costs of each size of tray for all three tray

variants against transport distance.

Study Conclusions:

“The corrugated board systems are better in all cases from the environmental point of view.

Transport by means of the plastic containers is only cheaper in 600x400 containers for short distances (shorter

than 500 km).

For very long transport distances (longer than 2000 km), the re-packing of vegetables and fruit, from the

corrugated box into the containers of the retailers sees the best current system solution (better than transporting

the plastic containers over long distances).

An attempt should be made to introduce re-usable “transfer plates” which are to be used at the retailer‟s

distribution centre, to make the corrugated board box compatible with the retailer‟s internal transport system;

such a solution seems to be attractive for distances longer than 1000 km.”

3.3.2 A comparative study of the environmental & economic characteristics of corrugated board boxes & reusable plastic crates

This study was published in 2005 and was commissioned by the Spanish Department of the Environment and

undertaken by Itene and Valencia University Polytechnic

The report reviewed is 34 pages


The study focuses on Spain and Germany.

Packaging Formats

The study examines a single-trip „common footprint‟ 600x400mm corrugated fibreboard tray 90mm high and

reusable „common footprint‟ 600x400mm folding plastic (HDPE and PP) trays 115mm high used for fruit and

vegetables.

Study Assumptions

Detailed material specification of the corrugated board used is detailed including recycled content which by

calculation equates to 50%. The recycled content of the plastic trays is not stated. End of life waste

management is not described.

Trippage rate for the reusable plastic trays is stated as 20, which concurs with the Vogtlander / FEFCO study.

The study focuses on transportation of produce from Almeria, Spain to Hamburg, Germany. Journey distances

are approximately 2,500km. Lorry fill levels and return trip details are not specified.

The system boundaries considered are full life cycle and well described.


Peer review was conducted by Dr Joan Rieradevall I Pons of the Barcelona University. The overall evaluation of

the critical review was good.

Results are presented as a series of graphs comparing impact categories of the three systems.

Study conclusions:

“The main conclusion drawn is that CBBs (corrugated board box) have lower environmental impact and costs

than FPCs (folding plastic crate), specifically in the export of tomatoes to the German market in 7 kilogram boxes

or crates.

Other conclusions derived from the study are as follows:

The CBB has a lower environmental impact than the FPC in most of the environmental impact categories

studied. When the estimation is modified to vary the number of complete cycles of plastic crate use, this

circumstance is either accentuated or diminishes.[sic]

CBBs reduce impacts on climate change. This is due to the carbon dioxide sink effect brought about by young

trees that provide the raw material for the manufacture of the paper components of corrugated board, and to

the use of secondary raw material from the recycling of used paper and corrugated board packaging.

In the case of both packagings, the greatest contribution to environmental impact during the life cycle occurs

at the production stage, due to the environmental impact of the raw materials (corrugated board and high

density polyethylene respectively), and the use stage, due to the refrigerated transport of the packagings

during their assignment to contain and protect the tomatoes.

In FPCs, this contribution is even higher due to their greater weight and bulk. Consequently, more resources

are required to transport the same quantity of tomatoes in FPCs than in CBBs.

Furthermore, once they have served their purpose at the destination they must be returned, unlike the CBBs

which are recycled close to the destination point.

The precise appraisal of the number of cycles the FPC accomplishes during its useful life is critical, as it

determines the environmental impact contribution of its life cycle in the packaging production stage.

Nonetheless, when 20 FPC rotations, and the improbably high number of 50 or 100 rotations are considered,

analysis reveals that the CBB (according to the Eco-indicator 99-I), has a lower environmental impact in most

of the impact categories analysed.

When polypropylene, as opposed to high density polyethylene, was examined as the FPC raw material, the

result is not as environmentally favourable as the case of the CBB.”


3.3.3 RTP proves its green credentials

This study relates to 2008/9 and was commissioned by Linpac Allibert and undertaken by Sustain

The 3 page summary report was reviewed

The study focuses on Germany, Spain, UK and France.

Packaging Formats

The study examines a single-trip „common footprint‟ 600x400mm corrugated fibreboard tray 180mm high and

reusable „common footprint‟ 600x400mm rigid and folding plastic (PP) Linpac trays 199mm and 196mm high

respectively. No specific product is considered.

Study Assumptions

No detail of corrugated board specification or recycled content is given and no detail regarding the recycled

content of the plastic trays is stated. End of life waste management is not described.

Trippage rate for the reusable plastic trays is stated as 92 over 5 years. No justification is provided for this

figure.

No journey or transportation details are provided.

The system boundaries considered appear to be full life cycle.


No peer review is stated.

Results are presented in a graph comparing the carbon footprint of the three systems by life cycle stage.

Study Conclusions:

“Based on an average plastic crate lifecycle of 92 return trips over five years, Maxinest‟s PCF is 26

CO2e kg per unit and XLXS has an even smaller PCF at 23 CO2e kg. Using exactly the same criteria, cardboard‟s

PCF however is 71 CO2e kg per unit, making the PCF of LINPAC Allibert RTP 68% less than cardboard.”

(Note: Maxinest and XLXS are Linpac Allibert trade names for a nestable and foldable crate respectively)

3.3.4 LCI of reusable plastic crates and display ready corrugated containers

This study was published in 2004 and was commissioned by the Reusable Pallet & Container Coalition (RPCC)

and undertaken by Franklin Associates

The report reviewed was 15 pages.

The study examines a single-trip „common footprint‟ 600x400mm corrugated fibreboard tray and reusable

„common footprint‟ 600x400mm plastic (PP) tray for fruit and vegetables. Neither the recycled content of the

corrugated fibreboard tray nor the plastic tray is stated. End of life waste management of the corrugated tray is

stated as 95% recycling, 4% landfill and 1% incineration with energy recovery. End of life management of the

plastic tray is stated as 100% reground for recycling.

Trippage rates for the reusable plastic tray are not stated, but are said to be based on RPCC member data.

The study does not state geography, or journey details and distances, but presumably relates to the US.

The system boundaries considered are full life cycle.

Peer review is not stated.

Results are presented as a table and bar graphs detailing greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and

solid waste generation comparisons based on three sensitivity scenarios (reduced backhauling, reduced re-use

rate and increased loss).

Study Conclusions:

“For the average condition produce shipping scenarios analysed within the defined scope of this study, findings

indicate that, on average across all ten produce applications, RPCs:


Require 39% less total energy

Produce 95% less total solid waste

Generate 29% less total greenhouse gas emissions

than do DRCs for corresponding produce applications.

One factor dominates the findings. Multiple trips in an RPC closed operating system lead to materials efficiencies

that create relatively low environmental burdens that are only partly offset by backhaul and cleaning steps. In the

DRC system a container is manufactured for each trip to retail. Recovery and recycling rates for DRCs are high,

but the production step (including recycling) introduces a higher level of burdens. In the case of RPCs and DRCs,

multiple reuses of RPCs result in lower environmental burdens than single-trip DRC containers.

The more lifetime uses that can be achieved for an RPC, the lower the environmental burdens for container

production that are allocated to each use of the container. Thus, the success of a reusable container system

depends on keeping RPCs in circulation for repeated reuse and recycling. Maximum reductions in container

production burdens and disposal burdens are achieved by multiple uses of a container without remanufacturing

(i.e. RPC reuse compared to DRC recycling).

Total System Energy Results:

In almost every product application studied, the benefits of the closed-loop RPC pooling operation more than

offset the benefits of lighter container weight and a high recycling rate for corrugated containers. As a result,

total energy requirements for RPCs are lower than corresponding DRCs in all average use scenarios. RPCs also

have lower total energy requirements than corresponding DRCs in eight out of ten alternative scenarios

evaluating the effects of lower reuse rates and higher loss rates for RPCs compared to light-weighted DRCs.

Total System GHG Results:

GHG results generally track closely with fossil fuel consumption, since that is the source of the majority of GHG

emissions. GHG comparisons for the RPC and DRC average scenarios are lower for RPCs for 18 of 20 average

scenarios covering 10 produce applications.

Total System Solid Waste Results:

RPCs produce less solid waste than corresponding DRCs in all produce applications and scenarios. This is due to

several key factors:

The burdens for production of RPCs are allocated over a (large) number of useful lives,

RPCs that remain in the closed-loop pooling system are recycled when they are removed from service,

Losses of RPCs from the closed-loop system are small,

DRCs make only one trip before they are recycled (requiring re-pulping and remanufacture) or disposed.

EPA has long used the waste management hierarchy of “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”. This LCI considers all three

techniques: reduction in weight of DRCs, reuse of RPCs, and recycling of both RPCs and DRCs. The results

indicate that, for the produce applications studied, reuse with closed-loop recycling at end of life is the most

efficient means of reducing not only solid waste but also energy use and GHG emissions. Reduction in container

weight was observed to reduce not only the environmental burdens for container production and end-of-life

management, but also the burdens for container transportation (less weight to haul = less fuel consumption). In

this study, light-weighting was evaluated only for DRCs; however, the observations about the benefits of light-

weighting hold true for any type of container.”


4.0 Summary and Conclusions

A summary of the LCA reviews is presented below, together with information on how findings of the reviews were

used to identify the key factors influencing the environmental burdens of alternative single-trip and reusable

packaging systems.

LCA Reviews

The LCAs have provided valuable information and data describing the environmental burdens associated with

various packaging systems for a range of different applications and products. The studies present comparisons

between single-use and reusable packaging alternatives and allow the reader to make selections against impact

categories.

However, the quality and accuracy of the results are dependent on the quality of data inputs and the scientific

rigour of the LCA practitioner. The reviews highlight that sufficient explanations of systems and data sources are

not always provided, in which case care must be taken when interpreting the results. Particular attention should

be paid to potential interests of the commissioning organisations, to ensure that the system or systems have

been treated fairly and appropriately.

In summary, the LCA studies themselves found:

that the borderline between ecologically favourable and unfavourable packaging is tenuous. Discrimination

between concepts and materials on the basis of LCA results should be avoided when the results of in-depth

sensitivity analyses are not available. Results are strongly influenced by allocation aspects (for instance,

inclusion of recycling and the valuation of the input of secondary materials) and by the quality of the applied

data.

the peer review of LCAs is one of the ways to increase the quality of an LCA. However, within these reviews

there is normally no in-depth data verification as this requires a far greater effort than is commonly made.

the question of the order of the overall environmental impacts of different packaging systems cannot be

unambiguously answered. Instead, the conclusions on the environmental advantages of different packaging

systems depend on the selected aspect; i.e. the priorities set for each impact category. However, for the

setting of these priorities there are no commonly accepted methods though. Therefore the choice of the

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

Information on the benefits and limitations of using LCA has outlined in Section 2 of this Appendix. However, one

notably omission from the scope of the LCAs reviewed is „product damage‟. The studies focus on packaging

related environmental burdens and so have not considered burdens associated with product manufacture or

damage, although these will have a significant influence on the overall environmental burdens of packaged

product systems.

Product damage is linked to the wider commercial considerations that must be taken into account when deciding

between reusable and single-trip packaging formats. Due to resource use, embedded carbon, water use etc. in

the manufacture and distribution of the product, any damage resulting in product wasteage will have a significant

impact on the environmental burden of the packaged product system. Any comparison of packaging systems

therefore needs to include an assessment of the impact of any change on potential and actual damage rates. In

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

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

the environmental considerations8.

Factors Influencing Environmental Performance

This Appendix forms part of the main Wrap report „Is Reusable Packaging the Right Choice for the

Environment?”. The reviews of LCA studies detailed here have subsequently been used to help draw out the

factors that have a significant influence on the relative environmental performance of alternative single-trip and

reusable packaging systems. These factors are presented in the main report.

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

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

includes secondary and transit packaging examples as well.


The factors described should enable packaging users and packaging specifiers to consider reusable packaging in a

structured way, to help make informed decisions when choosing between reusable and single-trip packaging

systems.


Appendix 2 – Methodology

This Appendix sets out the methodology for the research that supports this project. The work was conducted in

a series of stages:

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

packaging in a product distribution system



Stage 4: Identify factors which influence the environmental impact of reusable versus single-trip packaging

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

to choice of single-trip or reusable system.

Each of these stages is described in more detail below.

Stage 1: Identify LCA studies and other environmental appraisals

An extensive literature and Internet search aimed at identifying as wide a list of studies comparing the

environmental performance of single-trip and reusable packaging as possible. At this stage in the process, all

reusable packaging applications were considered, with the exclusion of reusable carrier bags and reusable cutlery

and crockery as used in food retail outlets (for example, paper/plastic plates versus china plates, etc).

The table below provides a list of the reusable packaging applications considered in the initial literature search.

Table A6: List of reusable packaging applications considered in the initial literature review

Reusable packaging format

Packaging level End users Typical applications

Reusable glass bottles – on-trade and off-trade

Primary packaging Consumers Catering

Soft drinks and alcoholic drinks Door-to-door milk deliveries

Reusable plastic bottles Primary packaging Consumers Catering

Soft drinks and alcoholic drinks

Reusable trigger sprays and other closures/dispensers and delivery mechanisms

Primary packaging Consumers

Household cleaning products

Reusable rigid plastic containers combined with stand-up pouch refills

Primary packaging Consumers For example, detergents, household cleaning products, cosmetics, etc

In-store refill systems Primary and display packaging

Retailers Consumers

Ingredients (whole foods such as nuts, cereals, coffee)

Plastic trays (rigid or folding) Transit and display packaging

Retailers Industrial / manufacturing

Fruit and vegetables Bread Automotive parts supply

Kegs and barrels Transit packaging Catering Alcoholic drinks

Dollies, roll cages and similar wheel-in collation units

Transit and display packaging

Retailers Milk Soft drinks (e.g. Coca Cola model)

Packing crates (wood or plastic)

Transit packaging Wide range of retail, commercial and industrial supply chains

Highly varied

Drums, Jerricans, Pails Transit packaging Wide range of commercial and industrial supply chains

Chemicals Ingredients

Sacks Transit packaging Wide range of commercial and industrial supply chains

Chemicals Ingredients

Totes (dedicated transport systems which transfer the

Transit packaging Wide range of commercial and industrial

Electronics (e.g. Xerox copiers)


packaging function to the transport system

supply chains Components Magazines

Intermediate bulk containers

(IBCS) – rigid and flexible

Transit packaging Industrial /

manufacturers

Chemicals

Ingredients

Bulk delivery Transit packaging Wide range of industrial supply chains, including construction

Chemicals Ingredients Building materials (e.g. cement silos)

Pallets and unit loads (wooden, plastic and corrugated)

Transit packaging Wide range of retail, commercial and industrial supply chains, including construction

Highly varied

The results of the literature and internet search were then validated through consultation with key industry

stakeholders, in particular:

Key packaging and packaging material trade associations

Packaging and packaging material research and technology organisations

LCA practitioners and other consultancy companies known to be active in this field.


A short-list of sixteen studies was identified for more detailed evaluation. The studies identified in the initial

review fall into three groups of studies:

Studies addressing drinks packaging account for approximately 50% of all studies identified

Studies addressing transit packaging typically used in the retail supply (for example, RTPs versus corrugated

packaging; single-trip and returnable pallets) account for approximately 30% of all studies identified

Studies addressing other reusable packaging applications (for example, dishwashing detergent refills, bulk

chemicals containers, refillable cosmetics, etc) account for the remaining 20%.

In order to identify trends and commonalities between study results, it was agreed with WRAP that the detailed

review should focus on studies falling into the first two groups only, with a target of approximately eight studies

to be reviewed covering drinks containers and eight covering retail supply chain packaging.

Inevitably, it was difficult to define a rigid set of criteria for selecting which studies to short-list and which to

reject. However, the following ground rules were used as a general guide during the selection process:

A cut-off date of 2002 was applied – no studies older than this date were to be reviewed directly by the

consultants

First preference will always be given to LCA studies which comply with the standards described in the

ISO14040 series

The studies selected must cover the full life cycle of the packaging options being considered

The studies selected must include a comparison of the reusable system against at least one alternative single-

trip packaging format.

Ideally, LCAs that met standards described in the ISO14040 series were selected, covering the full life-cycle of

the packaging being considered and included a comparison between reusable and single-use formats. We also

used a cut-off date of 2004, with studies that were more than 5 years old rejected, so that the most up to date

LCAs were considered. However, after these short-list criteria were applied, limited studies were left for review

within each category, which is why some of those studies included for detailed review have limitations, or may

not fully meet the short-list criteria.

For example, in the drinks packaging group, it was evident that a number of important “landmark” studies were

performed prior to the cut-off date, for example, the Danish EPA studies, the GUA study and the European

Commission‟s life cycle cost benefit study. However, a number of projects conducted during and after 2002

effectively review these major projects, and therefore the results of these review studies have been included. As


well as capturing these “landmark” studies, this approach has the benefit of extending the number of studies

whose results have been included in the analysis.

The shortlisted studies for detailed review are listed below:

Drinks packaging studies:

Apeal / TNO – LCA sensitivity and eco efficiency analysis of drinks packaging systems (2002)

PETCORE / IFEU – LCA of one way PET bottles and recycled products (2004)

Swiss Gas and Water Association / ESU – Comparison of environmental impact of drinking water vs bottled

mineral water (2005)

Kaunas Region Development Agency / Kaunas University – Assessment of opportunities for drinks packaging

waste reduction by means of deposit refund systems (2006) [On review found to date from 2005 and to only

include part of the life cyle]

IFEU – LCA comparison between packaging for fruit juice, ice tea and milk (2006) [On review found to relate

to single-trip packaging only]

Consortium of stakeholders (industry, government, research associations) / PTR – Life cycle of Finnish drinks

packaging (2006) [On review found to date from 2000 and entitled Life cycle assessment of potential

environmental impacts of Finnish drinks packaging systems – 0.30l-0.50l glass bottles, aluminium cans and

PET bottles for beer, cider and carbonated soft drinks]

WRAP / Oakdene Hollins – Refillable glass drinks containers in the UK (2008)

ADEME / RDC – Report on the economic and environmental impact of a deposit system for drinks packaging

and the recycling of plastic packaging (2008)

Grass Roots Recycling Network review of drinks studies (2002)

Retail supply chain packaging studies:

Reusable Pallet and Container Coalition / Franklin Associates – Life cycle inventory of reusable plastic

containers and display ready corrugated containers used for packaging fresh fruits and vegetables (2004)

FEFCO / Vogtlander – Corrugated board boxes and plastic container systems: An analysis of costs and eco

costs (2004)

Spanish Department of the Environment / Itene & Valencia University – Environmental and economic

comparison of corrugated cardboard boxes and plastic crates used in the exportation of fruit and vegetable

products (2005)

Reusable Pallet and Container Coalition / Franklin Associates & Paul Singh - Life cycle inventory and analysis

of reusable plastic containers and display ready corrugated containers used for packaging fresh fruits and

vegetables (2006) [On review found to be the same study as 2004 study above]

TU Delft – Case study: Transport packaging (2007) [On review LCI data found to date from 1999, LCA

commissioned by FEFCO in 2004 and eco costs 2007]

Linpac Allibert / Sustain – RTP carbon footprint (2008/09)

Netherlands Packaging and Pallet Association / TNO – Unknown (2008) [On review found to date from around

1996 and entitled The environmentally oriented life cycle analysis of multiple use wood pallets and multiple

use synthetic pallets]

French Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Health / Ecobilan and CTBA wood research institute – Unknown

(2008) [On review found to date from around 1996 and entitled Life cycle analysis of the EUR pallet]

Intelligent Global Pooling Systems (iGPS) Company LLC / ERM – Streamlined life cycle assessment of the iGPS

pallet, the typical pooled wooden pallet, and the single use wooden pallet (2008)

Rehrig Pacific Company / Franklin Associates – Rehrig Pacific Company study (2008)[On review title is RTP

proves its green credentials and Building the business case for reusable transport packaging].



Sourced LCA study documents varied in quality from full reports through to detailed synopses, to brief papers.

Every attempt was made to secure the most detailed papers available. Each individual study was reviewed

against a review template. Summaries of each study were then compiled and are detailed in Appendix 1 – Review

of LCAs. The studies which reviewed or built on existing LCA studies, rather than being an LCA study in their own

right, were reviewed on their own merits and are also reported separately.

Budgetary restraints limited the total number of studies that we were able to review during this project. Also, the

objective of the work was to identify which factors have greatest influence on the results, rather than to provide a

detailed commentary on specific results or make recommendations for one system over another. Even in

instances where studies were undertaken for different reasons, by different organisations and using different

approaches (e.g. ISO14040 peer reviewed or not), the review generally identified consistency in the factors that

have greatest influence over the results.

We found that a more „superficial‟ reading of some of the other studies, not reviewed in detail, confirmed this. It

was therefore agreed that further detailed reviews would reinforce the conclusions already reached and would be

unlikely to add extra value to the study.

Stage 4: Comparison of the potential benefits of reuse and single-trip packaging

Tables detailing the main pertinent details and conclusions of each of the detailed reviews conducted were

compiled for the drinks packaging and the distribution categories separately in order that distribution details could

be compared against results and conclusions drawn and commonalities in findings could be identified.

The studies which in themselves reviewed previous studies were assessed for their results and findings in order

that a view on the critical factors affecting the choice of packaging system could be compared to the findings of

the detailed reviews.

Stage 5: Description of the factors which packer fillers need to consider in order to make an

informed environmental decision as to choice of single-trip or reusable system

From the review of LCAs, a comprehensive list and description of the factors which affect the environmental

burden of competing single-trip and reusable systems was collated and presented in the main report. These

factors should help inform and provide guidance to decision makers when making choices between single-trip and

reusable systems.


Appendix 3 – List of LCAs identified

Appendix 3 is an excel spreadsheet and provides details of all Life Cycle Assessment studies and other

environmental appraisals that assess reusable and single-trip packaging in a product distribution system.

Please contact Nikki Bailey, Retail Team, at WRAP to ask for a copy of this spreadsheet:

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

www.wrap.org.uk/retail

single trip or reusable packaging - considering the right choice

Documents