Final Project Report
Secondary Packaging
Benchmarking across the Grocery
Sector
The project has identified the areas where there is the greatest potential
to reduce the carbon impact of secondary packaging in the grocery
sector and subsequently produced benchmarks in these areas.
Project code: PKG001-005
Research date: November 2013-June 2014
Date: February 2015
WRAP’s vision is a world where resources
are used sustainably.
We work with businesses, individuals and
communities to help them reap the
benefits of reducing waste, developing
sustainable products and using resources
in an efficient way.
Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk
Document reference: [WRAP, 2014, Oxford, Secondary Packaging Benchmarking
across Grocery Sector, Prepared by ecoVeritas]
Written by: ecoVeritas
While ecoVeritas and WRAP have tried to make sure this report is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising
out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the
material is accurate
and not
in a2006,
misleading
You must
identify
the source
of theprepared
material by…..Banbury,
and acknowledge
our copyright. You must not use material to
Document
reference:
[e.g.used
WRAP,
Reportcontext.
Name (WRAP
Project
TYR009-19.
Report
WRAP]
endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at www.wrap.org.uk
Executive summary
This report is a study into the carbon content of single use secondary packaging in the
grocery sector and how it might be reduced. For the purposes of this project, carbon content
is defined as the carbon equivalent of the packaging based on its material and weight only1.
The carbon calculation does not include other factors such as transport and manufacturing
and the project did not examine product damage.
The aim of the work is to help Courtauld signatories identify which parts of their portfolio to
focus on when looking to reduce their packaging-related carbon impact. It also provides an
indication of the opportunities for possible carbon reduction (and weight) for different
products by producing benchmarks and outlining the characteristics of the secondary
packaging types that have the lowest carbon content. This has been achieved through a
two-stage process:
1. An examination of the entire grocery sector in order to identify the “hotspot” areas
where there are both high sales and sufficient variation in carbon content of
secondary packaging that meaningful savings could be made.
2. Producing benchmarks for each area which will give Courtauld signatories an
indication of current best practice and possibilities for improvement.
Project Background
The Courtauld Commitment 3 launched in May 2013 and runs until 2015. It aims to reduce
the weight and carbon impact of household food waste, grocery product and packaging
waste, both in the home and the UK grocery sector.
Courtauld Commitment 3 has targets measured against a 2012 baseline:

Household food and drink target: Reduce household food and drink waste by 5% by
2015 from a 2012 baseline. Taking into account external influences, this target represents
a reduction of 9% relative to anticipated changes in food and drink sales.

Manufacturing & retail target: Reduce traditional grocery ingredient, product and
packaging waste in the grocery supply chain by 3% by 2015, from a 2012 baseline.
Taking into account external influences, this target represents a reduction of 8% relative
to anticipated production and sales volumes.

Packaging target: Improve packaging design through the supply chain to maximise
recycled content as appropriate, improve recyclability and deliver product protection to
reduce food waste, while ensuring there is no increase in the carbon impact of packaging
by 2015, from a 2012 baseline. Taking into account external influences, this target
represents a carbon reduction of 3% relative to anticipated sales volumes.
To contextualise, secondary packaging waste makes up around half of the CC3
Manufacturing & Retail tonnage in scope, although only some of this packaging comes from
Courtauld Signatory companies, or businesses supplying own-label products to retail
signatories.
1
Conversion is done using the Courtauld 3 carbon factors
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
1
Whilst WRAP has previously undertaken primary packaging benchmarking studies2, no similar
sector wide benchmarking study has previously been conducted for secondary packaging.
Project Findings
The project identified ten areas where there are both high sales and significant variation in
the carbon content of secondary packaging for similar products/primary packaging. These
areas therefore have significant potential for carbon savings. Through analysis of annual
sales data from retailers and packaging data collected, the estimated opportunity for carbon
savings was calculated:
Packaging class
Wine bottles 75cl
Juice/UHT Milk cartons 1L
Cereal boxes 500g
Crisps 20-30g
Steel cans 390-410g
Plastic bottles 1L
Plastic bottles 2L
Eggs 6 pack
Crisps 150g
Salad bags 90-200g4
Total
Estimated
Estimated opportunity
Estimated
opportunity
(tonnes of packaging/year) opportunity3
(t CO2e/year)
(%)
12,400
16,800
55
5,700
5,200
43
4,000
3,800
59
3,400
3,300
26
3,000
2,500
28
2,300
1,200
25
1,000
400
22
1,000
900
12
500
500
13
200
200
6
33,500
34,800
These savings are based on all products sold by eight participating retailers who provided
sales data moving to the lowest carbon secondary packaging identified5.
There are several classes where different secondary packaging formats have been identified
for the same primary packaging type, for example cans are packaged in either cardboard
Shelf Ready Packaging (SRP) or cardboard trays with plastic wrap. In many of these cases
one packaging format consistently contains less carbon per product than the other formats.
There is not, however, one packaging format that consistently contains less carbon per
product across all classes. Rather, the lowest carbon format varies with primary packaging
type. For example, cardboard SRP might be the lowest carbon packaging format for cans
whilst cardboard trays with plastic wrap might be the lowest carbon packaging format for
plastic bottles.
Other findings include variations in carbon content of secondary packaging driven by:
 Product configuration within secondary packaging e.g. two lines of six products or
three lines of four;
 Secondary packaging dimensions;
 Use of reusable packaging systems; and
 Gauge of secondary packaging materials.
UK Packaging Benchmark database is one example:
(http://www2.wrap.org.uk/retail_supply_chain/research_tools/tools/uk_packaging_benchmark/)
2
3
The estimated opportunity (%) denotes the potential savings for the category compared with current performance
4
Size range of bags is provided for reference only - the unit of grams of salad was used as the normalising unit size
5
The methodology used to calculate these savings is outlined in the main body of the report
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
2
Considerations
The project has identified the areas where there is potential for savings across the grocery
sector. Signatories are advised to focus on these areas when looking to reduce their
secondary packaging related carbon impact.
This report should be used as a tool to aid signatories, and should not be seen as a
comprehensive study into all aspects of secondary packaging in the grocery sector.
Considerations made are based solely on the reduction of carbon embodied in the packaging
materials and calculated by weight. As such, signatories will need to consider their own retail
and logistical operations when looking to make changes to secondary packaging.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
3
Contents
1.0
2.0
Methodology ................................................................................................ 6
1.1
Identifying “hotspot” areas ......................................................................... 6
1.1.1 Ten packaging classes chosen .......................................................... 7
1.2
Benchmarking ........................................................................................... 7
1.3
Interpreting findings .................................................................................. 8
1.3.1 Using the report .............................................................................. 8
1.3.2 Summary Tables .............................................................................. 9
1.3.3 Opportunity Estimation..................................................................... 9
1.3.4 Graphs............................................................................................ 9
1.3.5 Reusable Plastic Containers (RPCs) ................................................. 10
1.4
General findings ...................................................................................... 10
Results ....................................................................................................... 11
2.1
Wine Bottles 75cl ..................................................................................... 11
2.1.1 Summary ...................................................................................... 11
2.1.2 Data distribution ............................................................................ 12
2.1.3 Data Analysis ................................................................................ 13
2.1.4 Considerations............................................................................... 13
2.1.5 Wine bottles 75cl best in class summary .......................................... 14
2.2
Juice/UHT Milk cartons 1L ........................................................................ 15
2.2.1 Summary ...................................................................................... 15
2.2.2 Data distribution ............................................................................ 16
2.2.3 Data Analysis ................................................................................ 17
2.2.4 Considerations............................................................................... 17
2.2.5 Juice/UHT Milk cartons 1L best in class summary ............................. 19
2.3
Cereal boxes 500-570g............................................................................. 20
2.3.1 Summary ...................................................................................... 20
2.3.2 Data distribution ............................................................................ 21
2.3.3 Data Analysis ................................................................................ 21
2.3.4 Considerations............................................................................... 22
2.3.5 Cereal 500-570g best in class summary ........................................... 23
2.4
Crisps 20-30g .......................................................................................... 24
2.4.1 Summary ...................................................................................... 24
2.4.2 Data distribution ............................................................................ 25
2.4.3 Considerations............................................................................... 26
2.4.4 Crisps 20-30g best in class summary ............................................... 27
2.5
Steel Cans 380-420g ................................................................................ 28
2.5.1 Summary ...................................................................................... 28
2.5.2 Data distribution ............................................................................ 29
2.5.3 Data Analysis ................................................................................ 30
2.5.4 Considerations............................................................................... 31
2.5.5 Steel Cans 380-420g best in class summary ..................................... 32
2.6
Plastic Bottles 1L ..................................................................................... 33
2.6.1 Summary ...................................................................................... 33
2.6.2 Data distribution ............................................................................ 34
2.6.3 Data analysis ................................................................................. 35
2.6.4 Considerations............................................................................... 35
2.6.5 Plastic bottles 1L best in class summary .......................................... 36
2.7
Plastic Bottles 2L ..................................................................................... 37
2.7.1 Summary ...................................................................................... 37
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
4
3.0
4.0
5.0
2.7.2 Data distribution ............................................................................ 38
2.7.3 Data analysis ................................................................................. 38
2.7.4 Considerations............................................................................... 39
2.7.5 Plastic bottle 2L best in class summary ............................................ 40
2.8
Eggs 6 pack ............................................................................................ 41
2.8.1 Summary ...................................................................................... 41
2.8.2 Data distribution ............................................................................ 42
2.8.3 Data Analysis ................................................................................ 43
2.8.4 Considerations............................................................................... 43
2.8.5 Eggs 6 pack best in class summary ................................................. 44
2.9
Crisps 150g ............................................................................................. 45
2.9.1 Summary ...................................................................................... 45
2.9.2 Data distribution ............................................................................ 46
2.9.3 Data analysis ................................................................................. 46
2.9.4 Considerations............................................................................... 46
2.9.5 Crisps 150g best in class summary .................................................. 47
2.10 Salad bags 90-200g ................................................................................. 48
2.10.1 Summary ...................................................................................... 48
2.10.2 Data distribution ............................................................................ 49
2.10.3 Data analysis ................................................................................. 49
2.10.4 Considerations............................................................................... 50
2.10.5 Salad bags best in class summary ................................................... 51
Next steps .................................................................................................. 52
Supporting tools ......................................................................................... 52
Appendix 1 ................................................................................................. 53
Glossary
Case quantity – this is the number of units per secondary unit e.g. a box that contains 6
multipacks of 8 crisp packets would have a case quantity of 48.
Pack size – this is the number of units sold to the customer as one primary unit e.g. a
multipack of four cans which is not separated prior to sale would have a pack size of four.
Packaging class – the group for which secondary packaging is being compared e.g. 75cl
wine bottles.
Packaging format – the type of secondary packaging e.g. cardboard box or cardboard
SRP with plastic wrap.
Reusable Plastic Container (RPC), these are multi-trip plastic containers that are reused
a number of times.
Secondary packaging – The packaging around the primary packaging used to group,
protect and transport multiple primary units.
Shelf Ready Packaging (SRP) – packaging that is also used to display products on
shelves.
Acknowledgements
ecoVeritas would like to acknowledge the support of all project partners, Courtauld
signatories; and organisations involved throughout the study including PAFA and CPI.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
5
1.0
Methodology
The study was conducted in two phases:


An examination of the entire grocery sector in order to identify the “hotspot” areas
where there are both high sales and sufficient variation in carbon content of
secondary packaging that meaningful savings could be made by packaging
optimisation.
Once these areas were identified, benchmarks for each area were produced which
give Courtauld signatories an indication of current practice and possibilities for
improvement.
The methodology is based on the comparison of single use secondary packaging for similar
products and primary packaging types. This is so that secondary packaging can be
compared fairly on a like-for-like basis. For example, the secondary packaging of all steel
cans can be compared fairly and any findings are likely to be applicable for the secondary
packaging of any products packaged in steel cans. The study did not examine the impact of
product damage.
1.1
Identifying “hotspot” areas
The portfolios of two large retailers6 were classified by primary packaging type into over 300
packaging classes e.g. 75cl glass wine bottles, 380-420g steel cans. In order to identify the
packaging classes that offered the biggest opportunity for carbon savings a number of
factors were considered. Using the sales data from the two retailers the top 50 classes by
sales were identified. Packaging weight data was then collected from a number of Courtauld
signatories across these 50 classes. This list was analysed and further cut down to 25 of the
top selling packaging classes and grouped.
In almost all cases packaging classes were associated with a single product type, however
there were a few exceptions such as Juice/UHT Milk cartons 1L which were packaged in
similar cardboard cartons despite being different products. There are also a number of
different products packaged in steel cans 380-400g e.g. pet food, soup and vegetables. For
the purposes of this study it is assumed that the secondary packaging for these different
products can be fairly compared as the primary packaging is the same.
After the initial data collection and analysis stages the top 10 classes were chosen using the
following criteria, all of which are based on the carbon savings potential:
 Sales volumes – the greater the sales volume, the greater the impact of carbon
reductions in secondary packaging;
 Carbon range – the range of the embodied carbon across the different packaging
within a class gave an initial, if crude, indication of the savings potential within the
group. A large range indicated that secondary packaging was not uniform across the
class and closer inspection was likely to reveal potential for savings. The carbon
content of the secondary packaging was calculated using the carbon factors set out
in the WRAP carbon ready reckoner (http://www.wrap.org.uk/crr). This was then
The sales data of these two retailers was already held by the consultants and were considered broadly representative of the
sector.
6
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
6



divided by the normalising unit (the case quantity in most circumstances) to get the
carbon per normalised unit;
Carbon distribution – by plotting carbon against sales, the carbon savings potential
across the class could be seen and could therefore reveal whether the high selling
products within the class were below or above average;
Branded and own brand7 split – signatories may have much greater influence over
the secondary packaging of their own brand products. In order to ensure that
signatories can realise savings based on the conclusions of the study it was
important that there was a sufficient own brand presence within the class; and
Signatory feedback – signatories were given an opportunity to give their thoughts
and preferences on the 25 packaging classes and these were taken into account
when the final decisions were made.
1.1.1 Ten packaging classes chosen
Based










in the assessment described, the final ten packaging classes chosen were:
Wine bottles 75cl
Juice/UHT Milk cartons 1L
Cereal boxes 500-570g
Crisps bags 20-30g
Steel cans 380-420g
Plastic bottles 1L
Plastic bottles 2L
Eggs 6 pack
Crisps bags 150g
Salad bags 90-200g8
1.2
Benchmarking
Packaging weight data was collected from nine retailers9 over a period of six months from
December 2013 to June 2014. Time was spent at stores and/or Regional Distribution
Centres (RDCs) for eight retailers whilst one retailer provided weight data directly. Once
collected, the data was then matched to sales data. All sales of branded products common
to multiple signatories were aggregated.
The first stage of analysis was to find an appropriate normalising unit. In most cases this
was a single unit i.e. for a box of multipack crisps the normalising unit would be one single
bag of crisps. However in the case of cereal an exception was made as the 500-570g boxes
were all different sizes. In this case 1 cm2 of surface area of the secondary package was the
normalising unit for reasons that are outlined in the main text. An exception was also made
for salad bags where, due to the variance in bag size, the unit of grams of salad was used
as the normalising unit.
The definition of own brand in this study is any product that includes the retailer’s name, except in the case of Aldi where all
products were considered own brand.
7
8
Size range of salad provided for reference only - the unit of grams of salad was used as the normalising unit size
9
eight signatory retailers and 1 non-signatory retailer
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
7
The carbon content of the secondary packaging was calculated for each product using the
WRAP carbon ready reckoner as outlined in the previous section.
Products were sorted into groups based on case quantity and the secondary packaging with
the lowest carbon per normalised unit was considered the best in class. All other products in
that group were then compared, and a saving per product was calculated based on the
carbon reduction that could be made by optimising the packaging format to best in class.
This was then multiplied by the total sales numbers of that product to give the overall
annual saving that could be made. The potential carbon saving within the whole packaging
class was calculated as the sum of all savings that could be made within the sample, scaled
by the annual UK sales provided by eight retailers. This opportunity is therefore relevant to
eight retailers who provided sales data. For an example of this calculation please refer to the
example in Appendix 1. For retailers who did not provide sales data, weight data was used
for benchmarks but they were not included in the opportunity calculation.
Figure 1 shows how the opportunity was estimated
1.3
Interpreting findings
1.3.1 Using the report
As previously stated, the considerations made in this report are not meant to be used in
isolation but rather with reference to a number of other factors not covered by this project.
There may be a number of potential barriers to change that could include:
 Economic factors such as manufacturing costs of packaging;
 Logistical factors such as palletisation, distance travelled and transportation method
of product. For example products that have further distances may require greater
protection and therefore thicker gauge cardboard than products sourced locally and
travelling smaller distances;
 Recyclability of secondary packaging - retailers may only have access to facilities to
recycle certain materials;
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
8


Marketing of products - secondary packaging that is intended to be visible on the
shelf may have surface area requirements; and
The variation in size and type of shop that stock the products.
All analysis is based on the data collected by the project team, it does not capture every
product and brand within the class and therefore all calculations of savings are based on the
lowest carbon examples found in this study. Similarly all considerations and best in class
examples are based on the sample of data collected.
1.3.2 Summary Tables
The summary table for each product category gives an overview of the class and includes a
list of the materials used and the extent of the use of Shelf Ready Packaging (SRP) and
Reusable Plastic Containers (RPCs). It also gives the predominant secondary packaging
system, i.e. the format which occurred most often within the sample. The branded vs own
brand percentage is calculated based on all sales provided by participating signatories, not
just those products for which packaging weights were collected. The total sales figure within
the class is calculated from the annual sales data provided by eight retailers.
1.3.3 Opportunity Estimation
The opportunity estimation is calculated based on moving all products in the sample to the
lowest carbon examples found without changing the case quantity. This saving is then
scaled up using the sales provided by the eight retailers to give the total opportunity
estimated across those eight retailers. The opportunity is therefore estimated for only the
eight retailers, but the findings may be applicable to the wider grocery sector.
1.3.4 Graphs
The graphs included in the reports show all sampled secondary packaging for that particular
packaging class. The x axis shows the carbon per normalising unit which in most cases is
the carbon per single primary unit - the carbon for multipacks would be divided by the
number of single units in the multipack. The y axis shows the reported annual sales of the
product. This creates a graphic representation of the current distribution of secondary
packaging and the potential for the greatest carbon savings. A large number of products in
the top right quadrant indicates that there is potential for a packaging change in that class
that would result in a great impact, as there are high selling products with high carbon
content secondary packaging.
Graphs in the report are split by case quantity. This is because, in almost all circumstances,
case quantity is the greatest factor determining the secondary packaging carbon content per
primary unit. Given that case quantity is often determined by store size and cannot be
altered, opportunities are shown separately for different case quantities. The graphs chosen
for the report are those that show the greatest variation and the greatest opportunity. For
example if there is little variation in the secondary packaging for case quantities of 36 but
great variation and opportunity in the case quantities of 12 and 24 then the graphs for 12
and 24 will be shown and the graph for 36 will be omitted.
There are a number of points on graphs which appear to have zero or near zero sales. This
is either because the product in question could not be found within sales files or because it
had very few sales. This could be because the product is new so wasn’t captured in sales
files or only a portion of annual sales were captured. It could also be because it is a product
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
9
exclusive to one of the retailers who did not provide sales data or provided partial sales
data. It is therefore important not to ignore those products that have high carbon secondary
packaging but low sales as there may be higher levels of opportunity than the graphs
suggest.
1.3.5 Reusable Plastic Containers (RPCs)
Although the use of RPCs can be common for particular product groups, these have not
been included in the benchmarking comparisons because deriving the carbon content of
these depends on many factors (number of times used, material choice etc.). Where these
are being used this has been noted, but it is up to the individual retailer to establish whether
there would be a carbon benefit in moving similar products into reusable systems.
1.4
General findings
There were a number of findings common to most packaging classes that are therefore not
included in the individual sections below.
 In the majority of cases greater case quantities lead to less secondary packaging per
product. This is not always possible to implement as case quantities are primarily
driven by store size, store room size, sales of product, and shelf life of product. Also
for products packaged in SRPs, shelf space available for that product is also a
consideration;
 As expected, in most situations the secondary packaging types with the lowest
carbon content were characterised by lower gauge cardboard or plastic wrap; and
 SRPs with the lowest carbon content contained less cardboard through features such
as low wall heights.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
10
2.0
Results
2.1
Wine Bottles 75cl
Glass wine bottles of 75cl are sold in very high volumes. Our analysis includes both own
brand and branded wines. The primary packaging for wine is fairly consistent across
different brands, which allows for the easy comparison of secondary packaging across many
product lines. There are no multipacks within this packaging class.
2.1.1 Summary
Materials used
Cardboard, Plastic
SRP usage
Occasional
RPC usage
None
Predominant secondary packaging
system
Number of primary units per
secondary pack
Branded vs Own brand
Cardboard box
Sales*
900 million units per annum
Average CO2e of secondary packaging
26.8 g CO2e per unit
Opportunity estimation*
12,400 t CO2e or 16,800 tonnes of
packaging
55%
Opportunity estimation as percentage
6, 12
24% own brand
*aggregated for eight supermarkets
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
11
2.1.2 Data distribution
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging of 75cl wine per
bottle for case quantity 6
5,000,000
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
Sales
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
gCO2e of secondary packaging per bottle
Cardboard box only
Cardboard box with dividers
Cardboard tray with plastic film
Figure 2 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging per bottle and sales colourcoded by packaging format
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging of 75cl wine per
bottle for case quantity 12
1,200,000
1,000,000
Sales
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
gCO2e of secondary packaging per bottle
Cardboard box only
Cardboard box with dividers
Figure 3 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging per bottle and sales colourcoded by packaging format
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
12
2.1.3 Data Analysis
It can be seen from Figure 3 (above) that whilst most wine is now packaged in boxes
without dividers, there are still a number of cardboard boxes that still contain them. There
were four examples of retailer own brand wine using cardboard trays with plastic shrink
wrap that had a lower carbon content than even the lowest carbon content cardboard boxes.
Figure 4 shows an example of two different formats of secondary wine packaging
2.1.4 Considerations


Investigate whether any wines could be moved into cardboard trays with plastic
wrap.
Remove dividers from cardboard boxes.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
13
2.1.5 Wine bottles 75cl best in class summary
Secondary
Case
quantity
Best in
class
packaging
format
Best in class
product
6
Cardboard
tray with
plastic film
12
Cardboard
box without
dividers
Cardboard weight per
unit (g)
Plastic wrap weight per
unit (g)
Carbon per unit (g CO2e)
Best in
class
Average
Best in class
Average
Best in
class
Average
Average
saving
Tesco Simply
Zinfandel Rose,
75cl
4.68
29.01
3.25
0.04
13.60
30.28
16.68 (55%)
The Cooperative
California Fab
Cab, 75cl
15.66
34.22
0
0
16.28
35.59
19.31 (54%)
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
14
2.2
Juice/UHT Milk cartons 1L
The data was collected at a range of retailers and include branded and own brand products.
The primary packaging of juice cartons is relatively consistent across the product category,
allowing for easy comparison of the secondary packaging. UHT milk is also packaged in the
same way as juice, so this product has been included in this product category. Due to there
being multipacks within this category, the comparison of the secondary packaging across
product lines is carried out based on the weight and carbon content of the secondary
packaging per 1 litre carton.
2.2.1 Summary
Materials used
Cardboard, Plastic
SRP usage
Widespread
RPC usage
Used by one retailer
Predominant secondary packaging
Cardboard SRP
system
Number of primary units per
6, 8, 12, 36
secondary pack
Branded vs Own brand
61% own brand
Sales*
850 million units per annum
Average CO2e of secondary packaging
15.95 g CO2e per unit
Opportunity estimation*
5,700 t CO2e or 5,200 tonnes of packaging
Opportunity estimation as percentage
43%
*aggregated for eight supermarkets
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
15
2.2.2 Data distribution
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging of 1L juice and UHT
milk per carton by case quantity
20,000,000
18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
Sales
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
gCO2e of secondary packaging per carton
6
8
12
36
Figure 5 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging per carton and sales colourcoded by case quantity
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging of 1L juice and UHT
milk per carton for 12 case quantity
20,000,000
18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
Sales
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
8.00
18.00
28.00
38.00
48.00
58.00
gCO2e of secondary packaging per carton
Cardboard SRP
Cardboard SRP with plastic wrap
Cardboard box with plastic wrap
Cardboard box with dividers
Cardboard box
Figure 6 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging per carton for the 12 case
quantity group colour-coded by packaging format
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
16
2.2.3 Data Analysis
There is wide variation in secondary packaging format for juice and UHT milk. One retailer
uses RPCs for all of its own brand juice, other formats include cardboard SRP, cardboard SRP
with plastic shrink wrap, cardboard box, cardboard box with dividers, and plastic shrink
wrap.
The most common case quantity is 12 and within this case quantity there is a variety of
secondary packaging formats. Most of these are cardboard SRPs with or without plastic
wrap. The best in class examples were found in cardboard SRPs, however even within this
format there were examples that had much higher carbon contents than the best in class.
This is due to configuration and surface area of cardboard used.
Figure 7 demonstrates the variation in cardboard SRP- for case quantities of 12
For the largest case quantities (36), cardboard pallets have the lowest carbon content due to
their smaller surface area when compared to cardboard boxes.
Figure 8 shows an example of cardboard SRP for case quantities of 36
2.2.4 Considerations


Investigate the design of SRPs containing 10 & 12 cartons to see if surface
area to volume ratio could be reduced by optimising carton configuration.
Consider moving large case quantities into cardboard SRP.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
17
As a retailer has shown reusable systems can be used in some cases, it might be worth
investigating whether a move to reusable systems would result in a carbon saving.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
18
2.2.5 Juice/UHT Milk cartons 1L best in class summary
Secondary
Case
quantity
Best in class
packaging
format
Best in class
product
6&8
Plastic wrap
10 & 12
36
Cardboard weight per
unit (g)
Plastic wrap weight per
unit (g)
Carbon per unit (g CO2e)
Best in
class
Average
Best in class
Average
Best in
class
Average
Average
saving
Rachel Organic
Fresh Whole
Milk 1 Litre
0
21.81
1.38
0.26
3.74
23.38
19.64 (84%)
Cardboard
SRP
Rio Doro Apple
Juice 1 Litre
8.51
13.19
0
0.50
8.85
15.08
6.23 (41%)
Cardboard
SRP
Asda Pure
Orange Juice
4x1L
6.40
6.59
0
0
6.66
6.85
0.19 (3%)
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
19
2.3
Cereal boxes 500-570g
Data was collected at a range of retailers and includes branded and own brand products. All
secondary packs assessed took the form of cardboard SRPs, the standard system used in
this particular packaging class. There is no plastic within the secondary packaging system.
2.3.1 Summary
Materials used
Cardboard
SRP usage
Widespread
RPC usage
None
Predominant secondary packaging
system
Number of primary units per
secondary pack
Cardboard SRP
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20
Branded vs Own brand
35% own brand
Sales*
300 million units per annum
Average CO2e of secondary packaging
0.0108 g CO2e per cm2 of total secondary
package
Opportunity estimation*
4,000 t CO2e or 3,800 tonnes of packaging
Opportunity estimation as percentage
59%
*aggregated for eight supermarkets
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
20
2.3.2 Data distribution
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging of cereal per cm2 by
box configuration
7,000,000
6,000,000
Sales
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
gCO2e of secondary packaging per
Single line configuration
0.05
0.06
cm2
Double line configuration
Figure 9 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging of cereal boxes per cm2 surface
area of the whole secondary package and sales
Given that cereal boxes have different dimensions due to the number of boxes and
configuration thereof, the carbon content for their secondary packaging cannot be
investigated fairly based on individual boxes. It was therefore decided that the carbon
content would be calculated by calculating the carbon content using for the total surface of
the secondary packaging. The data points on the left-hand side of the graph are the best in
class as they have the lowest carbon content of secondary packaging taking into account
the dimensions of the cereal box, the secondary case quantity, and the configuration within
the pack.
2.3.3 Data Analysis
The main variables which affect the carbon content of the secondary packaging for cereal:


The configuration of the cereal boxes. The boxes that are packaged in a long line
have a greater surface area to volume ratio than those packaged in multiple lines
and therefore require more cardboard to enclose the boxes.
The SRP design. As can be seen in Figure 10 (below) there is a great deal of variety
in design of SRP and those with a more open design use significantly less cardboard
than some of the more enclosing designs.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
21
Figure 10 shows the variation in the design of cardboard secondary packaging within this
product category, with the double lines on the left and single lines on the right
2.3.4 Considerations
The carbon content of secondary packaging can be reduced in the following ways:
 Changing the configuration of cereal boxes within the secondary packs in order to
reduce the surface area to volume ratio of the whole pack.
 Optimising the design of the SRP by reducing the area of cardboard used by
reducing the coverage of the secondary packaging.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
22
2.3.5 Cereal 500-570g best in class summary
Secondary
Case
quantity
Best in class
packaging
format
Best in class
product
All
Cardboard
SRP with
boxes
arranged in 2
lines
Kellogg’s
Crunchy nut
cornflakes
Cardboard weight per
cm2(g)
Plastic wrap weight per
cm2(g)
Carbon per cm2 (g CO2e)
Best in
class
Average
Best in class
Average
Best in
class
Average
Average
Saving
0.0042
0.0103
0
0
0.0044
0.0108
0.0064 (59%)
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
23
2.4
Crisps 20-30g
The range of secondary packaging used for crisps 20-30g is limited in format but has been
found to vary considerably in weight and carbon content. Data was collected on the
materials and weights used in the secondary packaging of crisps 20-30g from a range of
retailers, covering both branded and own-brand products. Crisps 20-30g are commonly sold
both as single packets and as multi-packs of varying size. To allow a fair comparison in the
same category, the weights and carbon contents of secondary packaging samples per
individual crisps packet is examined.
2.4.1 Summary
Materials used
Cardboard
SRP usage
Occasional
RPC usage
None
Predominant secondary packaging system
Cardboard box
Number of individual packets per
40-300
secondary case
Branded vs own brand
28% own brand
Sales*
2,900 million units per annum
Average CO2e of secondary packaging
5.20 g CO2e per packet
Opportunity estimation*
3,400 t CO2e or 3,300 tonnes of packaging
Opportunity estimation as percentage
26%
*aggregated for eight supermarkets
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
24
2.4.2 Data distribution
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging of 20-30g crisps per
packet by case quantity
70,000,000
60,000,000
Sales
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
gCO2e of secondary packaging per packet
48
60
80, 90 & 96
108 & 120
150 & 176
216 & 220
330
Figure 11 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging per single packet and sales
colour-coded by case quantity
There is little variation in secondary packaging format within the crisps 20-30g product
category, with almost all crisps coming in cardboard boxes. Some examples of cardboard
SRP are also seen. No examples of plastic secondary packaging were found. Most 20-30g
crisps are sold as multipacks.
Some of the lowest carbon examples found were cardboard SRPs. This is because the
amount of cardboard needed is less than that of the cardboard boxes. There was only one
brand found using SRPs and this could only be utilised for multipacks.
Figure 12 shows an alternative design of a cardboard SRP with a removable cardboard lid
which is an example of one of the lower carbon contents.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
25
With the most common secondary packaging format being cardboard boxes (rather than
cardboard SRPs), reduced carbon content is due to a combination of lower gauge cardboard,
and reducing the area of cardboard used. The latter can be achieved both through
eliminating the overlap of end flaps, and also designing the dimensions of the box to
optimise the use of space. This will maximise the volume (of product) to surface area (of
box) ratio. There were also a number of examples found where there was space in the top of
boxes, indicating that there may be instances of redundant cardboard.
Figure 13 shows a cardboard box that has a 5cm tall unutilised space at the top
Figure 14 shows two typical secondary packaging designs. The box on the left has
considerable overlap of the end flaps, while the box on the right has been designed to
minimise this overlap, thereby reducing the area of cardboard used.
2.4.3 Considerations




Investigate whether multipack crisps could be moved into SRPs.
Check that there is not redundant space in the top of boxes.
Consider whether the end flaps of boxes could be reduced.
Investigate whether volume to surface area ratio could be improved by changing box
dimensions.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
26
2.4.4 Crisps 20-30g best in class summary
Secondary
case
quantity
40 & 48
72
10
Best in class
packaging
format
Cardboard
box
Cardboard
Box
80, 84, 90
& 96
Cardboard
Box
108 & 120
Cardboard
Box
132
Cardboard
Box
144, 150,
168, 176
& 180
Cardboard
Box
216, 220
& 224
Cardboard
Box
300 & 330
Cardboard
Box
Cardboard weight per unit (g)
Best in class
product
Walkers Squares,
27.5g
Unnamed Brand
Crisps10 6x25g
Smith’s Frazzles
Bacon Crisps,
8x22g
The Co-operative
Variety Pack,
6x20g
Snackrite Prawn
Cocktail, 6x25g
Asda Smart Price
Variety Pack,
12x18g
Walkers Meaty
Variety Pack,
14x25g
Snackrite Thick
Ridged Crisps,
6x30g
Equivalent carbon per unit (g CO2e)
Best in class
Average
Best in class
Average
Average
Saving
5.30
6.52
5.51
6.78
1.26 (19%)
4.81
5.90
5.00
6.14
1.14 (19%)
3.72
6.37
3.87
6.63
2.76 (42%)
4.21
6.00
4.38
6.00
1.62 (27%)
4.74
5.03
4.93
5.23
0.30 (6%)
2.98
4.86
3.10
5.05
1.96 (39%)
3.29
3.43
3.43
3.57
0.14 (4%)
2.75
3.06
2.86
3.18
0.32 (10%)
This brand has requested not to be named in this report
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
27
2.5
Steel Cans 380-420g
The range of products packaged in steel cans spans several categories and includes many
high volume ranges. These ranges include both retailer own brand goods as well as some
major brands. The primary packaging is uniform and consistent in size and shape across the
different product lines. It contains a fairly consistent weight of product, between 380-420g.
This allows secondary packaging to be easily compared across like-for-like primary packaging
formats. There are also multipacks within this packaging class with four packs being the
most common and occasional occurrences of six packs.
2.5.1 Summary
Materials used
Cardboard, Plastic
SRP usage
Widespread
RPC usage
Only for multipacks
Predominant secondary packaging
system
Number of primary units per
secondary pack
Cardboard SRP with plastic wrap
6, 12, 20, 24
Branded vs own brand
37% own brand
Sales*
2,200 million units per annum
Average CO2e of secondary packaging
5.03 g CO2e per can
Opportunity estimation*
3,000 t CO2e or 2,500 tonnes of packaging
Opportunity estimation as percentage
28%
*aggregated for eight supermarket
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
28
2.5.2 Data distribution
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging of 380-420g steel
cans per can
40000000
35000000
30000000
Sales
25000000
20000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
gCO2e of secondary packaging per can
6
12
20
24
Figure 15 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging per can colour-coded by case
quantity.
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging of 380-420g steel
cans per can for case quantities of 12
30,000,000
25,000,000
Sales
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
gCO2e of secondary packaging per can
Cardboard SRP
Cardboard SRP with plastic wrap
Double-stacked cardboard SRP with plastic wrap
Figure 16 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging per can for the case quantity
12 colour-coded by packaging format.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
29
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging of 380-420g cans
per can by packaging format for case quantity 20 & 24 (not
multipacks)
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
Sales
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
gCO2e of secondary packaging per can
Cardboard SRP
Cardboard SRP with plastic wrap
Double-stacked cardboard SRP with plastic wrap
Double-stacked plastic wrap
Figure 17 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging per can for the case quantities
20 & 24 (not multipacks), colour-coded by packaging format
The cans in case quantities 6 were all in cardboard SRP with plastic wrap.
2.5.3 Data Analysis
Multipacks and individual cans need to be considered separately in terms of their secondary
packaging because these have different requirements, and so the lowest carbon examples
were found for each of these. In the multipack category, there were two types of secondary
packaging – one was single use transit packaging using plastic wrap only, and the other was
stacked directly onto the pallet (reusable system). The benchmarking can only compare
single use systems so this is reported as best in class.
For individual cans, in many instances it was found that SRPs using only cardboard had a
lower carbon content than SRPs that used a cardboard and plastic combination. Despite
having more cardboard due to higher walls on the SRP, the saving in carbon was greater by
having this compared to adding plastic wrap. An example can be seen in Figure 18 (below).
This packaging format was found for case quantities of 12, 20, 24 and 72, which suggests
that it can be utilised across many different case quantities.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
30
Figure 18 shows an example of the best in class secondary packaging format, which
consists of a cardboard SRP without plastic wrap
Figure 19 shows some examples of cardboard SRPs with plastic wrap with different wall
heights
2.5.4 Considerations

For single cans that are currently using plastic wrap and cardboard trays, consider
removing the plastic wrap and using higher walled cardboard trays if additional
support is required.
As examples were found of reusable secondary packaging systems being used for
multipacks (as opposed to plastic wrap), consideration could be given as to whether a move
to reusable systems would result in a carbon saving.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
31
2.5.5 Steel Cans 380-420g best in class summary
Secondary Case
quantity
Best in class
packaging
format
Best in class
product
6
Cardboard
SRP with
plastic wrap
12
Cardboard weight per
unit (g)
Plastic wrap weight
per unit (g)
Carbon per unit (g CO2e)
Best in
class
Average
Best in class
Average
Best in
class
Average
Average
Saving
Branston
Beans and
Sausages,
405g
3.23
3.39
1.30
1.47
6.87
7.48
0.61 (8%)
Cardboard
SRP
Aldi Tomato
Soup 400g
4.12
3.91
0
0.68
4.43
5.92
1.49 (25%)
20
Cardboard
SRP
Tesco Value
Plum
Tomatoes,
400g
4.01
3.80
0
0.48
4.17
5.25
1.08 (21%)
24
Cardboard
SRP
Asda Price
Baked Beans,
400g
2.77
3.02
0
0.74
2.88
5.15
2.27 (44%)
Plastic wrap
Butchers
Variety
Chicken in
Jelly (pet food)
0
1.57
0.65
0.93
1.74
4.15
2.41 (58%)
24 (multipacks)
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
32
2.6
Plastic Bottles 1L
Data was collected at a range of retailers and includes branded and own brand products.
Most products are sold as individual bottles but there are also some multipacks of 6. The
predominant secondary packaging format is plastic wrap but cardboard SRPs are also used.
2.6.1 Summary
Materials used
Cardboard, Plastic
SRP usage
Occasional
RPC usage
None
Predominant secondary packaging
system
Number of primary units per
secondary pack
Plastic wrap
6, 12
Branded vs Own brand
64% own brand
Sales*
490 million units per annum
Average CO2e of secondary packaging
8.98 g CO2e per 1L bottle
Opportunity estimation*
2,300 t CO2e or 1,200 tonnes of packaging
Opportunity estimation as percentage
25%
*aggregated for eight supermarket
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
33
2.6.2 Data distribution
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging of 1L plastic bottles
per bottle by case quantity
14,000,000
12,000,000
Sales
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
gCO2e of secondary packaging per bottle
6
12
Figure 20 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging per bottle and sales colourcoded by case quantity
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging of 1L plastic
bottles per bottle by packaging format
14,000,000
12,000,000
Sales
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
gCO2e of secondary packaging per bottle
Cardboard SRP with plastic wrap
Cardboard box
Plastic wrap
Figure 21 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging per bottle and sales colourcoded by packaging format
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
34
2.6.3 Data analysis
For this product category the predominant secondary packaging is plastic wrap; 13 of the 20
product lines that were sampled are packaged solely in plastic wrap. Other packaging
formats are plastic wrap with cardboard SRP and there was one example found which was
packaged in a cardboard box.
Secondary packages in our sample contain either 6 or 12 bottles. For the product lines
packaged only in plastic wrap, there is a trend that the larger case quantities of 12 bottles
have lower carbon content per individual bottle than the smaller case quantities of 6.
However, because of the need for extra support from cardboard trays or bases for larger
case quantities in some cases, the average carbon content for the packs of 6 is lower than
the case quantities of 12 for our sample.
Figure 22 shows some examples of secondary packaging formats within this product
category
2.6.4 Considerations


Consider whether cardboard trays can be removed from secondary packaging.
If this is not possible, consider whether cardboard trays can be substituted for
cardboard sleeves (cardboard tray without sides).
As examples were found of reusable secondary packaging systems being used for some
multipacks, consideration could be given as to whether a move to reusable systems would
result in a carbon saving.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
35
2.6.5 Plastic bottles 1L best in class summary
Secondary
Case
quantity
Best in
class
packaging
format
Best in class
product
6
Plastic wrap
12
Plastic wrap
Cardboard weight per
unit (g)
Plastic wrap weight per
unit (g)
Carbon per unit (g CO2e)
Best in class
Average
Best in class
Average
Best in
class
Average
Average
saving
Badoit Natural
Water Sparkling
0
0
2.87
3.18
7.74
8.59
0.85 (10%)
Sainsbury’s
Sparkling Mango
and Passion Fruit
0
4.04
1.93
2.08
5.02
9.82
4.80 (49%)
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
36
2.7
Plastic Bottles 2L
Data was collected at a range of retailers and include branded as well as own brand
products. Just under half (31) of the 66 samples assessed use reusable trays/pallets as
secondary packaging. The remaining products are packed in variations of cardboard and/or
plastic wrap. The majority of products are wrapped in plastic and only 5 of the 35 that use
non-returnable secondary packaging use any cardboard at all.
2.7.1 Summary
Materials used
Cardboard, Plastic
SRP usage
Widespread
RPC usage
Widespread
Predominant secondary packaging
system
Number of primary units per
secondary pack
Branded vs Own brand
Plastic wrap and Reusable trays/pallets
Sales*
600 million units per annum
Average CO2e of secondary packaging
6.53 g CO2e per 2L bottle
Opportunity estimation*
1000 t CO2e or 400 tonnes of packaging
Opportunity estimation as percentage
22%
6, 8
35% own brand
*aggregated for eight supermarkets
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
37
2.7.2 Data distribution
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging of 2L plastic
bottles per bottle by case quantity
50,000,000
45,000,000
40,000,000
35,000,000
Sales
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
gCO2e of secondary packaging per bottle
6
8
Figure 23 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging per bottle and sales colourcoded by case quantity
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging per bottle by
packaging format
50,000,000
45,000,000
40,000,000
35,000,000
Sales
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
gCO2e of secondary packaging per bottle
Cardboard tray with plastic wrap
Cardboard box
Cardboard sleeve with plastic wrap
Plastic wrap
Figure 24 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging per bottle and sales colourcoded by case quantity
2.7.3 Data analysis
The two products showing the highest carbon per bottle are the only two product lines
packaged in complete cardboard boxes. Across all case quantities, the lowest weight
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
38
secondary packaging is found for those product lines packaged only in plastic wrap with no
supporting cardboard. Given that the largest case quantity sampled consists of only plastic
wrap, this suggests that there are no stability issues with removing cardboard from the
secondary packaging.
Figure 25 shows a number of different secondary packaging formats including plastic shrink
wrap, plastic shrink wrap with cardboard sleeve; and cardboard tray with plastic shrink wrap
Figure 26 shows examples of the reusable packaging format used for 31 of the 66 product
lines sampled
2.7.4 Considerations


Consider removing cardboard trays and cardboard sleeves and move solely to plastic
wrap.
Consider substituting cardboard trays for cardboard sleeves.
As reusable systems are widespread for this product category, it may be worth investigating
whether a change to these would result in a carbon saving.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
39
2.7.5 Plastic bottle 2L best in class summary
Secondary
Case
quantity
Best in
class
packaging
format
Best in class
product
6
Plastic wrap
8
Plastic wrap
Cardboard weight per
unit (g)
Plastic wrap weight per
unit (g)
Carbon per unit (g COg CO2e)
Best in class
Average
Best in class
Average
Best in
class
Average
Average
saving
Schweppes Diet
Lemonade, 2l
0
5.66
3.52
3.77
9.50
16.06
6.56 (41%)
The Co-operative
Cola, 2l
0
0.15
3.16
3.75
8.54
10.28
1.74 (17%)
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
40
2.8
Eggs 6 pack
Egg sales are dominated by own brand lines and a small number of big brands. Data was
collected on the materials and weights used in the secondary packaging of eggs from a
range of retailers, covering both branded and own-brand products. The primary packaging is
uniform in size and shape allowing secondary packaging to be easily compared across likefor-like primary packaging formats. There are two main secondary packaging formats:
cardboard boxes/SRPs typically containing between 8 and 32 primary units and metal or
plastic reusable cages containing several hundred primary units.
2.8.1 Summary
Materials used
Cardboard and Plastic
SRP usage
Widespread
RPC usage
Widespread
Predominant secondary packaging
Cardboard SRP and Reusable cages
system
Number of primary units per
8, 12, 16, 24, 27, 32
secondary pack
Branded vs Own brand
68% own brand
Sales*
220 million units per annum
Average CO2e of secondary packaging
7.55 g CO2e per 6-pack of eggs
Opportunity estimation*
1,000 t CO2e or 900 tonnes of packaging
Opportunity estimation as percentage
12%
*aggregated for eight supermarkets
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
41
2.8.2 Data distribution
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging of 6 pack eggs
per box by case quantity
14,000,000
12,000,000
Sales
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
gCO2e of secondary packaging per box
8 & 12
16
24
27 & 32
Figure 27 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging per box and sales for all
sampled products both branded and own brand across all retailers colour-coded by case
quantity.
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging per box by
packaging format
14,000,000
12,000,000
Sales
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
gCO2e of secondary packaging per box of eggs
Cardboard SRP
Cardboard SRP with plastic wrap
Figure 28 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging per box and sales for all
sampled products both branded and own brand across all retailers colour-coded by
packaging format.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
42
Data Analysis
The predominant secondary packaging format for egg 6-packs is cardboard SRP, although
there are several examples of plastic wrap being used alongside this. In some cases this
plastic wrap has led to a reduction in the gauge of cardboard and overall the carbon content
is lower – but there are also cases where the cardboard SRP has a lower carbon content
than its cardboard and plastic counterpart.
It was also found that there were a number of lines using metal and plastic reusable
systems. These are currently mostly being utilised for large volumes of high selling product
lines but their use is not limited to the larger stores.
Figure 29 shows different secondary packaging designs. The left-hand photo shows a
reusable system, the middle photo shows a cardboard SRP and the right-hand photo shows a
cardboard SRP with plastic wrap.
2.8.3 Considerations


Investigate whether the addition of plastic wrap could allow the gauge of cardboard
to be reduced without increasing egg breakages.
Similarly investigate whether the removal of plastic wrap and a small increase in
cardboard gauge could result in an overall carbon reduction.
As reusable systems are being used for this product category, it may be worth investigating
whether a change to this type of system would result in carbon savings. Despite it not being
common to use RPCs for lower volume lines, there may still be an opportunity to investigate
whether the use of smaller RPCs could result in a carbon savings.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
43
2.8.4 Eggs 6 pack best in class summary
Secondary
Case
quantity
Best in class
packaging
format
Best in
class
product
8 & 12
Cardboard weight per
unit (g)
Plastic wrap weight per
unit (g)
Carbon per unit (g CO2e)
Best in
class
Average
Best in class
Average
Best in class
Average
Average
Saving
Cardboard SRP
Clarence
Court Burford
Browns
f/range Eggs
10.20
12.44
0
0
10.61
12.94
2.33 (18%)
16
Cardboard SRP
Hoads Farm
Free Range
Eggs
11.54
10.37
0
0.61
12.00
12.44
0.44 (4%)
24
Cardboard SRP
and plastic
wrap
Happy Egg
Biggies Free
Range Eggs
7.83
9.81
0.80
0.16
10.31
10.64
0.33 (3%)
27 & 32
Cardboard SRP
Morrisons
Savers Eggs
6.62
8.17
0.00
0.11
6.89
8.79
1.90 (22%)
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
44
2.9
Crisps 150g
Data was collected at a range of retailers and include branded as well as own brand
products. There are no multipacks in this category and the secondary packaging is roughly
consistent for all product lines sampled, being cardboard boxes with no plastic. However,
there is still variation within the single packaging format due to the case quantity, surface
area and gauge of cardboard used.
2.9.1 Summary
Materials used
Cardboard
SRP usage
Widespread
RPC usage
None
Predominant secondary packaging
system
Number of primary units per
secondary pack
Cardboard box
8, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24, 25
Branded vs Own brand
22% own brand
Sales*
130 million units per annum
Average CO2e of secondary packaging
28.32 g CO2e per packet
Opportunity estimation*
500 t CO2e or 500 tonnes of packaging
Opportunity estimation as percentage
13%
*aggregated for eight supermarkets
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
45
2.9.2 Data distribution
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging of 150g crisps per
packet by case quantity
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
Sales
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
18
23
28
33
38
43
48
gCO2e of secondary packaging per crisp packet
8
12
15
16
18
20
24
25
Figure 30 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging per packet and sales colourcoded by case quantity.
2.9.3 Data analysis
Similar to the crisps 20-30g category, there is little variation in secondary packaging format
within the crisps 150g product category, with all crisps coming in cardboard boxes.
The lowest-carbon products come in similar packaging formats (i.e. cardboard boxes) to
their higher carbon counterparts. Reduced carbon content is due to a combination of lower
gauge cardboard, and reducing the area of cardboard used. The latter can be achieved both
through eliminating the overlap of end flaps, and also designing the dimensions of the box to
optimise the use of space. This will maximise the volume (of product) to surface area (of
box) ratio. There were also a number of examples found where there was space in the top of
boxes, suggesting some redundant cardboard is being used.
Although no examples were found of cardboard SRPs for 150g crisps, many multipacks of
20-30g crisps have similar dimensions to 150g crisp bags and therefore it is worth
investigating whether cardboard SRPs could be used for 150g crisps.
2.9.4 Considerations




Investigate whether 150g crisps could be moved into SRPs.
Check that there is not redundant space in the top of boxes.
Consider whether the end flaps of boxes could be reduced.
Investigate whether volume to surface area ratio could be improved by changing box
dimensions.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
46
2.9.5 Crisps 150g best in class summary
Secondary
Case
quantity
Best in
class
packaging
format
Best in class
product
8
Cardboard
box
12, 15 &
16
11
Cardboard weight per
unit (g)
Plastic wrap weight per
unit (g)
Carbon per unit (g CO2e)
Best in class
Average
Best in class
Average
Best in
class
Average
Average
saving
Unnamed Brand
Crisps11 150g
35.54
38.98
0
0
36.96
40.53
3.57 (9%)
Cardboard
box
Waitrose Hand
Cooked Sea Salt
150g
18.58
26.71
0
0
19.32
27.78
8.46 (30%)
18 & 20
Cardboard
box
Asda Bacon
Bites 150g
20.76
22.18
0
0
21.59
23.07
1.48 (6%)
24 & 25
Cardboard
box
Snackrite Thai
Sweet Chicken
150g
13.93
19.48
0
0
19.71
21.22
1.51 (7%)
This brand has requested not to be named in this report
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
47
2.10
Salad bags 90-200g
Data was collected at a range of retailers and includes branded as well as own brand
products. Most were retailer own brand although some branded products were also included
in the sample. Seventy nine percent (79%) of the product lines sampled (23 out of 29) were
packaged in reusable plastic containers and the other 7 product lines were packaged in
cardboard boxes.
2.10.1 Summary
Materials used
Cardboard
SRP usage
Widespread
RPC usage
Widespread
Predominant secondary packaging
system
Number of primary units per
secondary pack
Reusable containers
8, 12, 20
Branded vs Own brand
90% own brand
Sales*
270 million units per annum
Average CO2e of secondary packaging
11.9 g CO2e per bag
Opportunity estimation*
200 t CO2e or 200 tonnes of packaging
Opportunity estimation as percentage
6%
*aggregated for eight supermarkets
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
48
2.10.2 Data distribution
Equivalent carbon of secondary packaging of salad bags per
gram of salad
10,000,000
9,000,000
8,000,000
Sales
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.22
0.24
0.26
gCO2e per gram of salad
Carton quantity: 8
Carton quantity: 12
Carton quantity: 20
Figure 31 shows the carbon content of secondary packaging per gram of salad and sales
colour-coded by packaging format
2.10.3 Data analysis
Most of the examples found used RPCs similar to that shown in Figure 32.
Figure 32 shows an example of an RPC used as the predominant secondary packaging
format for transporting bagged salads
The samples were packaged in large, open ‘tray’ design cardboard SRPs (as shown in Figure
33 below).
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
49
Figure 33 shows examples of cardboard SRPs used as the secondary packaging for some
products within this product category
2.10.4 Considerations

Optimise packaging to suit quantity, avoiding unnecessary space.
As RPCs are widespread for salad bags, it may be worth investigating whether a change to
RPCs (where they are not used) would result in a carbon saving.
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
50
2.10.5 Salad bags best in class summary
Secondary
Case
quantity
Best in
class
packaging
format
Best in class
product
8, 12, 20
Cardboard
SRP
Aldi Fresh Leaf
Mixed Mild Leaf
Salad 200g
Cardboard weight per
gram of salad (g)
Plastic wrap weight per
gram of salad (g)
Carbon per gram of salad (g CO2e)
Best in class
Average
Best in class
Average
Best in
class
Average
Average
saving
0.14
0.18
0
0
0.15
0.19
0.04 (21%)
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
51
3.0
Next steps
It is hoped that the findings and considerations within this report are useful to many within
the grocery sector. If any action is to be taken as a result of this study, it is suggested that
initial discussions be taken up between retailers and their suppliers / packaging
manufacturers to discuss current transit systems. There are some other critical factors that
would need to be considered from the business-side such as the economics, logistics and
feasibility of implementing any potential changes and any wider impacts such as increases in
product damage.
4.0
Supporting tools
For information and guidance on converting material weights to carbon equivalent, please
refer to the WRAP carbon ready reckoner which is available on the WRAP website
(http://www.wrap.org.uk/crr).
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
52
5.0 Appendix 1
The following is an example of how the total opportunity is estimated for categories as done for the 8 retailers in this project. This is not a real
category and figures used are not real.
In this category of “Cans”, 50 different products were identified within the sales data of 8 retailers. Of these 50 products, 12 were sampled and the
weights of secondary packaging materials were collected. The opportunity within the category is calculated in two parts; the saving opportunity
within the sampled population and then the saving within the unsampled population.
Sampled data:
Product
Sales of
primary
units per
annum
Case
quantity
0
g CO2e
13.63
g CO2e
11.20
Saving per
primary
unit per
annum
g CO2e
2.43
8.99
1.12
12.37
11.20
1.17
34,046
10.77
0
11.20
11.20
0.00
0
8.12
0
8.44
5.31
3.13
747,815
12
7.98
0.87
10.65
5.31
5.33
8,362,737
3,656,896
12
6.89
0
7.17
5.31
1.85
6,769,646
Can 7
234,789
12
5.09
0.51
6.67
5.31
1.36
318,421
Can 8
67,789
12
5.11
0
5.31
5.31
0.00
0
Can 9
456,467
24
4.55
0
4.73
3.21
1.52
693,099
Can 10
323,589
24
3.89
0
4.05
3.21
0.83
269,226
Can 11
56,666
24
4.11
0
4.27
3.21
1.06
60,111
Can 12
78,567
24
3.09
0
3.21
3.21
0.00
0
Can 1
102,890
6
Can 2
29,030
6
Can 3
32,888
6
Can 4
238,888
12
Can 5
1,567,876
Can 6
Total
Secondary packaging
weight/primary unit
Cardboard (g)
13.11
6,846,335
Carbon of
secondary/
primary unit*
Plastic (g)
Best in
class
carbon
Total
Total Saving
per annum
g CO2e
250,393
17,505,495
* carbon of secondary packaging is calculated as the total carbon of the cardboard plus total carbon of plastic using the carbon factors shown in the text box.
Unsampled data:
Products
Total sales of primary units
per annum
Cans 13-50
10,340,984
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
53
1. First the saving within the sample is calculated by splitting the products into case quantities, finding the best in class for each case quantity
and calculating the saving for each product based on the best in class for that case quantity. The total saving (per annum) within the sample
is calculated as 17,505,495 for the category of “Cans”.
2. Next the saving in the unsampled population is calculated by multiplying the sales of the unsampled products by the average saving within
the sampled products. The average saving in the sampled population is calculated by dividing the total saving by the total sales. i.e.
17,505,495/6,846,335 = 2.56
Average carbon saving
in sample (g CO2e)
Sales in unsampled
population per annum
2.56
10,340,984
Total saving in
unsampled population
per annum (g CO2e)
26,472,919
3. The saving in the sampled and unsampled populations are then summed to give the total saving within the category for the eight retailers.
This divided by 1,000,000 to convert it into t CO2e.
Total saving in category
per annum (t CO2e)
43.98
Secondary Packaging Benchmarking across the Grocery Sector
54
www.wrap.org.uk/ CC3projects