Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget 2023-24
MOF Alm.del
Offentligt
2825824_0001.png
Product Environmental Footprint Report
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the environmental footprint
(PEF) of Tuborg ® beer distributed in Denmark in different stock
keeping units
1
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 393: MFU spm. om oversendelse af de i MOF alm. del - svar på spm. 277 omtalte livscyklusanalyser fra DTU, branchen og EU-Kommissionen
2825824_0002.png
Products:
Carlsberg Tuborg
Carlsberg Tuborg
Steel keg 25 liter (returnable)
DraughtMaster Modular 20 PET keg 20 l
Carlsberg Tuborg
way)
0,33 l green glass bottle (returnable and one
Carlsberg Tuborg
0,33 l one-way aluminium can
Product classification:
Company:
Date of publication:
Version:
Geographic validity:
Reference PEFCR:
Compliance with the PEF method
Conformance to other documents
Additional to the PEF method
Name and affiliation of the verifier
C11.0.5 - Manufacture of beer
Carlsberg A/S, Vesterfælledvej, Copenhagen, Denmark
28 January 2020
2.1
Denmark
PEFCR for beer Final version (June 2018)
Ref. section 4.1
Ref. section 4.1
Ref. section 4.1
Marisa Vieira, Principal consultant at PRé Consultants
BV
Author: Matteo Donelli
Ergo s.r.l
2
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 393: MFU spm. om oversendelse af de i MOF alm. del - svar på spm. 277 omtalte livscyklusanalyser fra DTU, branchen og EU-Kommissionen
2825824_0003.png
1
1.1
Description of the content of the study
The goal of this LCA study is to perform a comparative LCA study (according to the PEF methodology) of
the beer produced and distributed in steel and PET (DM) kegs, as well as in aluminium cans and glass
bottles (returnable and non returnable), in Denmark. The brewery where the beer is produced is located in
Fredericia, Denmark, and it is property of Carlsberg A/S
The study has been carried out for the whole life cycle of a specific beer type (one single recipe, Tuborg®
brand) packed and distributed in 5 different SKUs:
25 l returnable steel keg;
20 l DraughtMaster PET keg (one way);
0,33 l aluminium can (one way);
0,33 l returnable glass bottle;
0,33 l non returnable glass bottle.
According to the PEFCR for beer, the functional unit (unit of analysis) is the consumption of 1 hectoliter
(hl).
The study is not intended for comparison against the benchmark beer included in the PEFCR Product
Environmental Footprint Category Rules for Beer (Final version June 2018). The study is intended for
internal comparison, as an input for Carlsberg A/S internal management for future actions for sustainability,
mainly focused on packaging solutions. Therefore, the main target audience will be Carlsberg A/S internal
management, which is also the commissioner of the study.
This study does not use the default datasets tendered by the European Commission, since these datasets are
not available in Sima Pro software format
the next chapter, the study is not intended for comparison against the Beer Pilot Benchmark.
The current study is aligned with the requirements of the the PEFCR Product Environmental Footprint
Category Rules for Beer Final version June 2018", with the exceptions reported in the validation
statement.
1.2
System boundaries
In accordance with the PEFCR for beer (section 4.4), for all the SKUs considered, the life cycle stages and
processes of the product system (system boundaries) are reported in the following figure:
3
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 393: MFU spm. om oversendelse af de i MOF alm. del - svar på spm. 277 omtalte livscyklusanalyser fra DTU, branchen og EU-Kommissionen
2825824_0004.png
Figure 1.2-1: SKUs life cycle system boundaries- The green life cycle stages require company-specific data shall be used.
Secondary data may be used for white boxes.
1.3
Main assumptions and limitations
The results of this LCA study are limited to the following main assumptions:
the product is brewed and sold in Denmark;
packaging end of life has been modelled according to recycled contents (R1) and recycling rates
reported, respectively in chapter 6.3.3 and 6.3.7;
EF compliant datasets, being the comparison against the PEFCR benchmark out of scope, have not
been used. Data from the EF beer pilot screening study and Carlsberg supporting study have been
used as substitute datasets whenever the PEFCR for Beer required the EF compliant datasets;
Data Quality Requirements for Steel keg and aluminium can production do not meet PEFCR
requirement, being not company specific.
As in the pilot screening LCA study, the main gaps in data relate to beer ingredients where no secondary
data exist (e.g. sweeteners, enzymes, fining agents). None of the processes affected by data gaps issues are
in the list of the most relevant processes included in the PEFCR for beer.
The following table summarizes the main aspects of the compared options (SKUs).
4
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 393: MFU spm. om oversendelse af de i MOF alm. del - svar på spm. 277 omtalte livscyklusanalyser fra DTU, branchen og EU-Kommissionen
2825824_0005.png
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 393: MFU spm. om oversendelse af de i MOF alm. del - svar på spm. 277 omtalte livscyklusanalyser fra DTU, branchen og EU-Kommissionen
2825824_0006.png
1.4
PEF results
The next table shows the characterized results for all the PEF impact categories listed in chapter 5.3, for
each SKU considered in the current study
1
.
Table 1.4-1: Characterised results for each impact category for 1hl of beer,
Impact category
Unit
Total Steel
keg
51,91
1,47E-06
3,33
2,89E-01
3,43E-06
5,71E-05
9,38E-07
5,84E-01
1,47E-02
2,78E-01
2,56
81,44
540,90
323,62
656,48
1,02E-04
Total PET
keg
51,92
1,38E-06
3,36
2,59E-01
3,42E-06
5,60E-05
6,03E-07
5,62E-01
1,53E-02
2,67E-01
2,41
93,87
819,86
58,11
654,52
7,16E-05
radle to
Total Glass
bottle (ret.)
62,10
2,21E-06
2,97
2,99E-01
3,59E-06
5,63E-05
6,26E-07
5,89E-01
1,17E-02
2,79E-01
2,57
77,80
558,19
69,03
816,04
6,35E-05
(total).
Total Glass
bottle (non
ret.)
87,46
3,21E-06
4,25
4,06E-01
8,59E-06
5,85E-05
8,86E-07
7,88E-01
1,58E-02
3,21E-01
3,07
87,44
918,13
797,18
815,95
1,14E-04
Total
Aluminium
can
75,68
6,37E-06
8,47
3,20E-01
5,16E-06
6,16E-05
2,05E-06
6,84E-01
2,60E-02
2,87E-01
2,61
102,68
2.237,21
2,38E+04
945,80
1,31E-04
Climate change
Ozone depletion
Ionising radiation, HH
Photochemical ozone
formation, HH
Respiratory inorganics
Non-cancer human
health effects
Cancer human health
effects
Acidification
terrestrial and
freshwater
Eutrophication
freshwater
Eutrophication marine
Eutrophication
terrestrial
Ecotoxicity freshwater
Land use
Water scarcity
Resource use, energy
carriers
Resource use, mineral
and metals
kg CO2 eq
kg CFC11
eq
kBq U-235
eq
kg
NMVOC
eq
disease inc.
CTUh
CTUh
mol H+ eq
kg P eq
kg N eq
mol N eq
CTUe
Pt
m3 depriv.
MJ
kg Sb eq
1
Normalized and weighted results are reported in section 7
6
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 393: MFU spm. om oversendelse af de i MOF alm. del - svar på spm. 277 omtalte livscyklusanalyser fra DTU, branchen og EU-Kommissionen
2825824_0007.png
The following figure shows the results for climate change impact category for all SKUs.
Figure 1.4-1: Overall score: SKUs comparison Climate change total
1.5
Main findings from the analysis of the results
The default results of the study are those required by applying the PEFCR assumptions and requirements,
aimed at assuring consistency and comparability.
However, some of those assumptions might differ, in
. Sensitivity analysis, which is reported in
details in section 8.5, tried to assess those assumptions by using alternative data which seems to be more
representative for the specific Denmark case.
From an overall life cycle perspective,
it appears clearly that:
the aluminium can and the non returnable glass bottle, due to their much higher impact of the
packaging phase, show the worst environmental performance for all the main impact categories.
The straightforward reason lies in the energy intensive production process for aluminium and glass
materials, which is only partially counterbalanced by the credit from the avoided materials related
to recycling at the end of life;
by applying the default PEFCR assumptions:
the comparison between PET and steel kegs shows that both PEF are substantially equal
for
the majority of the main impact categories, with the exception of water scarcity and resource use,
minerals and metals;
both PET and steel kegs show a significant advantage (higher than 10%) against bottles and
can,
for some of the main impact categories:
climate change; resource use, energy carriers
while
PET only also show a significant advantage (higher than 10%) against bottles and can, for
water scarcity;
7
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 393: MFU spm. om oversendelse af de i MOF alm. del - svar på spm. 277 omtalte livscyklusanalyser fra DTU, branchen og EU-Kommissionen
2825824_0008.png
on the contrary,
returnable glass bottles have a substantial advantage against PET keg in one
single main impact category
(which according to weighted results, was excluded from the most
relevant impact categories as shown in chapter 8.1)
resource use, minerals and metals
(due
mainly to the high reuse rate);
from the outcome of sensitivity analysis,
PET keg
could have been penalized by the mandatory
PEFCR assumptions on the distribution and use phase;
by applying Carlsberg specific assumptions for Denmark (sensitivity analysis):
sensitivity analysis shows that
PEFCR default data used for the use phase
(electricity
consumption for cooling and beer losses)
might differ substantially from real measured data.
by using measured data for the use phase (energy for cooling and beer losses), in comparison to
the default scenario, whenever a refrigerator is needed at the point of sale to keep the steel kegs
cooled,
the PET keg shows a significant better environmental performance (>10%) than all
the other SKUs for all the most relevant impact categories,
with the exception of respiratory
inorganics, where the advantage is, however, approximately 9%. Being so relevant on the final
results, the measured input data needs, however, to be confirmed by further samples, possibly of
higher size, in order to manage the related uncertainty;
sensitivity analysis shows that the recycling of
PET can lead to an interesting reduction of the
footprint for the majority of the main impact categories
with the exception of water scarcity
and resource use energy carriers (where the effect is slightly worst). However,
this sensitivity
analysis is highly dependent on the recycling process and the avoided material
that will be
selected. This potentiality has been assessed thanks to recent new data (June 2019) on a new
technology to upcycle used kegs and obtain plastic tiles to be use as construction material, which
proved that
this technology, associated with the ability of reaching high recycling rates, has
the potential to reduce the majority of the main impact categories in the life cycle of the
product.
The sensitivity analysis proved that the CO
2
saved emissions, with the upcycling of used
kegs, ranges from 0,94 to 1,35 kg/Hl if the recycling rate ranges from 52% to 95%. Projecting
these figures on the annual DraughtMaster beer production in Fredericia (198.200 hl) would mean
a
total saving of approximately 185 to 267 tonnes of CO
2
eq. emissions per year;
by combining all the alternative scenarios based on more specific data, in comparison to some
PEFCR mandatory assumptions, namely PET upcycling at the end of life, distance and
transportation mean from distribution centres to final client, beer losses and electricity
consumption at the use phase, it appears that
o
whenever a refrigerator is needed, the advantage of PET kegs against all other SKUs,
steel keg included, is substantial (>10%), even at lower recycling rates;
o
in case no refrigerator is needed, the PET keg still has an advantage over the steel keg in
climate change impact category, thought it never reaches +10% threshold. For the other most
relevant impact categories, the advantage of the PET over the steel keg is substantial even at
very low PET recycling rates. A greater (close to +10%) advantage in climate change impact
category can be reached by PET against steel keg in case a higher recycling rate (from 75%
upwards) is achieved in the upcycling scenario of used kegs. Since the collection of the kegs
will be performed under Carlsberg control, the recycling rate of used PET would be
presumably higher than the recycling rate from the municipal collection.
8
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 393: MFU spm. om oversendelse af de i MOF alm. del - svar på spm. 277 omtalte livscyklusanalyser fra DTU, branchen og EU-Kommissionen
2825824_0009.png
2
9
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 393: MFU spm. om oversendelse af de i MOF alm. del - svar på spm. 277 omtalte livscyklusanalyser fra DTU, branchen og EU-Kommissionen
2825824_0010.png
10
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 393: MFU spm. om oversendelse af de i MOF alm. del - svar på spm. 277 omtalte livscyklusanalyser fra DTU, branchen og EU-Kommissionen
2825824_0011.png
11
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 393: MFU spm. om oversendelse af de i MOF alm. del - svar på spm. 277 omtalte livscyklusanalyser fra DTU, branchen og EU-Kommissionen
2825824_0012.png
12
 MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 393: MFU spm. om oversendelse af de i MOF alm. del - svar på spm. 277 omtalte livscyklusanalyser fra DTU, branchen og EU-Kommissionen
2825824_0013.png
13