Title 10/11
First Europe-wide life-cycle
assessment for
UHT milk packaging
IFEU analysis compares environmental impacts of carton packs, HDPE and PET bottles:
carton packs are top performers in the categories CO2 emission and fossil resource consumption.
A recent, Europe-wide life-cycle assessment conducted by the Institute for Energy
and Environmental Research (IFEU) has
confirmed that, compared to disposable
HDPE and PET bottles, carton packs for
UHT milk have a significantly better environmental profile − particularly with respect
to CO2 emission, use of fossil resources and
consumption of primary energy. In the 1-litre format, carton packs generate 34 per cent
less CO2, use 56 per cent less fossil resources,
and consume 30 per cent less primary ener-
gy compared to HDPE multilayer bottles;
when compared to disposable PET bottles,
these figures are 45 per cent for CO2, 57 per
cent for fossil resources and 36 per cent for
primary energy. The comparative, independently verified study of the environmental
impact of those UHT milk packaging solutions with the greatest market relevance
in Europe sees the good performance of
the renewable main raw material and the
resource-efficient use of materials as the
key factors contributing to the carton pack’s
Beverage carton
1,000 ml
positive results. Carton packs are made from
around 75 per cent wood fibre, a sustainable,
completely renewable and bio-based resource.
Throughout its life cycle, every product
has demonstrable environmental impacts –
and so packaging does. Life-cycle assessments help to obtain credible, scientifically
proven and reliable facts on these impacts.
Michael Hecker, Head of Group Environment, Health & Safety at SIG Combibloc:
“Our objective was to obtain valid facts about
PET bottle
1,000 ml
HDPE bottle
1,000 ml
sig.biz / combibloc 02/12
Title 12/13
the environmental performance of all the
current market-relevant packaging solutions
for UHT milk throughout their life cycle. In
Europe, alongside carton packs the prevalent
packaging solutions include HDPE and PET
multilayer bottles in the 1,000 ml volume. In
light of this information, we commissioned
the Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research in Heidelberg to carry out a comparative, Europe-wide life-cycle assessment
studying the environmental impacts of these
packaging systems – naturally, in accordance
with the ISO Standard 14040ff for life-cycle
assessments”. The IFEU Institute is one of the
most reputable environmental institutes in
Europe, also carrying out studies and analyses for, among others, government ministries,
international environmental organisations,
Germany’s Federal Environmental Agency,
and various companies and corporations.
Comprehensive environmental profile
In the latest life-cycle assessment, all key
factors and processes within the life cycles of
the various packaging solutions that are of
relevance for the product’s environmental
performance were evaluated: beginning with
the extraction and refining of the raw material used to make the packaging, through the
processes of manufacturing and transporting
the finished packages, the packaging of the
beverage, and distribution up to the retailing
stage, right up to the recycling or disposal of
the packaging after use. At each stage of the
product life-cycle, the key environmental
impact categories relevant to the resource and
Overview LCA results
beverage carton vs. PET bottle and HDPE bottle
HDPE
Fossil resource
consumption
-57%
-56%
Non-renewable
primary energy
-50%
-46%
Total primary energy
consumption
-36%
-30%
+95%
+95%
-45%
-34%
-43%
-14%
(in g PO 4 equivalent)*
-16%
+22%
Human toxicity PM10
-39%
-9%
(in kg crude oil equivalent)*
(in giga joule)*
(in giga joule)*
Use of nature
(in m 2 )*
Climate change
(in kg CO 2 equivalent)*
Acidification
(in g SO 2 equivalent)*
Eutrophication
(in g PM 10 equivalent)*
carton significantly better1
carton significantly „worse“1
Resource-related
impact categories
carton vs.
Emission-related
impact categories
carton vs. PET
no significant difference1
* per packaging required for 1,000 L UHT milk
1
at a 10% significance level
sig.biz / combibloc 02/12
Title
the emission-related categories were investigated and evaluated. In terms of resources,
factors such as the consumption of fossil
resources, the amount of primary energy used
and the use of nature are looked at. With
respect to emissions, it is the criteria relating
to climate change measured in CO2, the
particulate loading of the air and the eutrophication and acidification of soils and
watercourses that are of interest. At present,
the key environmental impact categories
world-wide are emission of greenhouse gases,
consumption of fossil resources and use of
primary energy sources.
Main criteria: material and quantity
The results of the current study show
clearly that the environmental impacts
produced by a UHT milk packaging during
the packaging life-cycle are determined first
and foremost by the material from which the
packaging is manufactured, and how much
of the material was used. In this context, the
current life-cycle assessment proved that the
carton pack offers significant benefits − with
respect to the use of resources and in terms
of greenhouse gas emissions. The specific
properties and the composite structure of the
carton pack have a particularly beneficial
LCA results
Fossil resource consumption
(in kg crude oil equivalent: per packaging required
for packaging 1,000 L UHT milk)
22.53
50.84
52.28
-57 %
-56 %
Beverage carton
sig.biz / combibloc 02/12
HDPE bottle
PET bottle
Title 14/15
effect in nearly all of the environmental
impact categories and especially in all the
important ones like ‘Consumption of fossil
resources’, ‘Use of primary energy sources’,
and ‘CO2-output/climate change’. Compared
to 1-litre HDPE multilayer bottles (the UHT
milk packaging solution that has the greatest
market relevance in Europe after the carton
pack), the carton pack generates 34 per cent
less CO2, uses 56 per cent less fossil resources
and consumes 30 per cent less primary energy; when compared to disposable PET
bottles, these figures are 45 per cent for CO2
emissions, 57 per cent for fossil resources and
36 per cent for primary energy.
Above all, the resource-efficient use of
raw paperboard, which is manufactured using
a high fraction of renewable energy, and the
low weight of a carton pack contribute significantly to its favourable environmental performance. Carton packs use significantly
fewer fossil resources than HDPE and PET
bottles, because the carton is manufactured
up to around 75 per cent from pulp fibres
obtained from wood, a renewable resource.
For this reason, in the ‘Use of nature’ environmental impact category, the carton pack
Climate change
Total primary energy consumption
(in kg CO2 equivalent: per packaging required for
packaging 1,000 L UHT milk)
(in giga joule; per packaging required for
packaging 1,000 L UHT milk)
85.46
129.18
155.16
-45 %
3.06
3.35
HDPE bottle
PET bottle
-36%
-34%
Beverage carton
2.13
-30%
HDPE bottle
PET bottle
Beverage carton
sig.biz / combibloc 02/12
Title 16/17
lags behind the packaging solutions manufactured from fossil resource-based raw materials. In contrast to finite resources, however, with responsible forest management,
there can be a constant supply of this renewable raw material. Another positive effect is
that with sustainable forest management,
wood is carbon-neutral and therefore does
not alter the CO2 balance of the atmosphere.
The reason for this CO2-neutrality is that
while they are growing, trees extract carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere and store it.
When they later burn or decay, they release
exactly the same quantity of CO2 that they
absorbed during their lifespan.
The results of the life-cycle assessment
conducted by the IFEU have been monitored,
critically reviewed and confirmed by independent LCA and packaging experts HansJürgen Garvens, Dr. Philippe Osset and
Dr. Mercedes Hortal.
Michael Hecker: “The results of the current life-cycle assessment show us that when
it comes to environmental life-cycle assessments, the carton pack in its current composite structure has clear advantages over
other packaging solutions for UHT milk. In
its guidance documents the institute that
carried out the study is recommending the
carton pack to business and consumers as a
packaging solution whenever environmental
considerations are a factor in decision-making. But that doesn’t mean we can sit back
and rest on our laurels − in fact, we’re working continuously to further improve the environmental performance of our carton packs
for UHT milk, so that they continue to be
one of the most environmentally friendly
packaging solutions around. One possibility
we’re looking into, for instance, is further
increasing the fraction of the sustainable,
renewable raw material used in the composite structure of our carton packs, so that
we can improve the environmental footprint
of the carton pack and at the same time offer
consumers the convenience they have come
to expect and value”.
With the latest life-cycle assessment, SIG
Combibloc now has an up-to-date, valid data
set which covers the environmental life-cycle
evaluation of carton packs compared to packaging alternatives from every market segment. Following on the heels of the Europewide life-cycle assessment for food packaging
(2009) and the Europe-wide life-cycle assessment of NCSD packaging (2011), with the
new IFEU analysis there is now a comprehensive, scientifically proven investigation
of the environmental performance of packaging solutions for UHT milk products. The
wider view across all studies shows that carton packs offer a significantly better environmental performance than the competing
packaging systems. This applies above all for
the key indicator CO2 and fossil resources
categories, and for the consumption of energy
category.
sig.biz / combibloc 02/12