MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget 2023-24
MOF Alm.del
Offentligt

ISSN 1831-9424

Exploring the environmental performance

of alternative food packaging products in

the European Union

Life cycle impacts of single-use and multiple-use packaging

Sinkko, T., Amadei, A., Venturelli, S., Ardente, F.

2024

EUR 31840 EN

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

This document is a publication by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge

service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The contents of this

publication do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission. Neither the European

Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this

publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the

source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations

employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part

of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning

the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

EU Science Hub

https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu

JRC136771

EUR 31840 EN

PDF

ISBN 978-92-68-12495-6

ISSN 1831-9424

doi:10.2760/971274

KJ-NA-31-840-EN-N

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024

The reuse policy of the European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12

December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise noted, the reuse of

this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and

any changes are indicated.

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the European Union permission must be

sought directly from the copyright holders.

- Cover page illustration, © Pixel-Shot / stock.adobe.com

How to cite this report: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Sinkko, T., Amadei, A., Venturelli, S. and Ardente, F.,

Exploring the environmental performance of alternative food packaging products in the European Union,

Publications Office

of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/971274, JRC136771.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Contents

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................................1

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................2

Executive summary .................................................................................................................................................3

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................5

1.1 Packaging reuse in Europe ........................................................................................................................5

1.2 State of the art on packaging reuse ..........................................................................................................5

1.3 Objectives and scope of the study ............................................................................................................6

2 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................8

2.1 Scenarios definition and their relationship with targets in the Regulation ..............................................8

2.2 Identification of case studies ....................................................................................................................8

2.3 Stakeholder consultation ........................................................................................................................11

2.4 Life cycle assessment of the selected case studies .................................................................................11

2.4.1

2.4.2

2.4.3

2.4.4

2.4.5

Functional Unit ............................................................................................................................12

Temporal and technological scope ..............................................................................................12

System boundaries ......................................................................................................................12

Life cycle inventory ......................................................................................................................17

Life cycle impact assessment .......................................................................................................20

2.5 Sensitivity analysis ..................................................................................................................................21

2.5.1

Analysis of additional sensitivity scenarios ..................................................................................25

3 Results .............................................................................................................................................................29

3.1 Results for Scenario 1 ..............................................................................................................................29

3.1.1

3.1.2

Scenario 1

–

Benchmark and sensitivity analysis .........................................................................29

Scenario 1

–

Additional analyses .................................................................................................31

3.2 Results for Scenario 2 ..............................................................................................................................34

3.2.1

3.2.2

3.2.3

Scenario 2

–

CASE A

–

Benchmark and sensitivity analysis ..........................................................34

Scenario 2

–

CASE A

–

Additional analyses ..................................................................................36

Scenario 2

–

CASE B

–

Benchmark and sensitivity analysis ..........................................................38

3.3 Results for Scenario 3 ..............................................................................................................................40

3.3.1

3.3.2

Scenario 3

–

CASE A

–

Benchmark and sensitivity analysis ..........................................................40

Scenario 3

–

CASE B

–

Benchmark and sensitivity analysis ..........................................................42

3.4 Results for Scenario 4 ..............................................................................................................................44

3.4.1

Scenario 4

–

Benchmark and sensitivity analysis .........................................................................44

3.5 Results for the Restaurant Scenario ........................................................................................................46

3.5.1

3.5.2

Restaurant Scenario

–

Benchmark and sensitivity analysis .........................................................46

Restaurant Scenario

–

Additional analyses ..................................................................................47

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

4 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................52

4.1 Key findings from the Scenarios assessed...............................................................................................52

4.2 Framing of the study in the context of the literature .............................................................................56

4.3 Strengths and limitations of the study ....................................................................................................61

5 Conclusion and recommendations ..................................................................................................................66

References ............................................................................................................................................................69

List of abbreviations ..............................................................................................................................................73

List of definitions ...................................................................................................................................................74

List of figures .........................................................................................................................................................75

List of tables ..........................................................................................................................................................79

6 Annexes ...........................................................................................................................................................81

Annex 1. Details on the stakeholder consultation...........................................................................................81

Annex 2. List of the dataset included in the assessment.................................................................................84

Annex 3. Factsheets of each examined Scenario ............................................................................................89

Factsheet

–

Scenario 1 ...............................................................................................................................89

Factsheet

–

Scenario 2

–

CASE A ................................................................................................................99

Factsheet

–

Scenario 2

–

CASE B ............................................................................................................. 109

Factsheet

–

Scenario 3

–

CASE A ............................................................................................................. 117

Factsheet

–

Scenario 3

–

CASE B ............................................................................................................. 127

Factsheet

–

Scenario 4 ............................................................................................................................ 137

Factsheet

–

Restaurant Scenario ............................................................................................................ 147

Annex 4. Additional results on the cartonboard manufacturing impacts analysis ....................................... 157

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Abstract

The aims of this study are aligned with the EU’s objectives of reducing the impacts of packaging waste, in line

with its ambition to transition to a circular economy and with the objectives of the proposal for a new Packaging

and Packaging Waste Regulation. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) models, structured in accordance with the

Environmental Footprint method, were used to establish benchmark results and to scrutinise the variability of

parameters through sensitivity analyses.

The research incorporated six case studies, categorised into four scenarios. These studies evaluated the

environmental impacts of both single use and multiple use packaging products, including packaging used in the

hotel, restaurant and catering sector, such as cups, trays, beverage containers, and glass bottles used for

alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. In addition, the study assessed the environmental performance of single

use and multiple use packaging in a dine-in restaurant case study.

The LCA results revealed that the performance of the packaging products varied, depending on the specific case

study and Environmental Footprint impact category evaluated, with single use and multiple use packaging

products demonstrating either lower or higher impacts. Benchmark scenarios focusing on single use takeaway

carton packaging showed that it had a lower Climate Change impact than its multiple use counterpart. However,

the latter manifested a lower Water Use impact and a slightly lower aggregated Single Score. Conversely,

scenarios assessing the environmental performance of glass bottles and the dine-in restaurant scenario

consistently showed that multiple use packaging products had lower impacts across most impact categories and

the majority of the sensitivity analysis simulations.

A further examination, involving the use of different life cycle datasets for cartonboard manufacturing,

highlighted the large influence of these datasets on the final LCA results for single use packaging. In particular,

when considering life cycle datasets for cartonboard with low environmental impacts, the performance of single

use packaging was clearly better, especially for the Water Use impact category, and also to a lesser extent for

the Climate Change impact category and the aggregated Single Score. Notably, the study identified additional

relevant aspects (and assumptions) that could affect the performance of single use and multiple use packaging

products, particularly those related to consumer behaviour regarding the return of multiple use packaging to the

point of sale, the number of reuses and the impact of washing operations (for multiple use packaging).

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Acknowledgements

This report is a deliverable of the project “Support

for Circular Economy Action Plan 2.0”

between European

Commission Directorate-General for Environment (DG ENV) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) (

The authors of the report would like to thank the JRC publication office who conducted the peer review of the

report by checking all aspects of the study and providing recommendations for improving the quality and

robustness of the output. The authors of the report would like to also thank the European Commission Office

for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels (EC OIB) who provided information and data about the procedures

and the machineries used for packaging washing.

It is also acknowledged the use of GPT@JRC, a Generative Artificial Intelligence tool developed by JRC, for

improving the quality of the text in this report.

Finally, the authors would like to thank the stakeholders who provided data and information and supported the

JRC in improving the quality of inputs and assumptions for the modelling.

Authors

Sinkko, T.

Amadei, A.M.

Venturelli, S.

Ardente, F.

(

)

Administrative Agreement JRC Nº 35889

–

2020 / ENV N° 070201/2020/840561/AA/ENV.B.3.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Executive summary

This

study aims to support the EU’s goals of reducing the impacts of packaging and packaging waste and to

address the knowledge gaps identified in existing literature on the topic. The present Joint Research Centre (JRC)

study assesses the life cycle environmental performance of a selected group of case studies. These studies were

chosen specifically to focus on certain reuse targets set in the proposal for a Packaging and Packaging Waste

Regulation.

The research was conducted with reference to the modelling and impact assessment as in the Environmental

Footprint method, which quantifies 16 impact categories, including Climate Change and Water Use, and also

considers an aggregated Single Score index. The model developed by the JRC incorporated several parameters

to calculate ‘benchmark’ results for the scenarios considered. Subsequently, a sensitivity analysis was conducted

to assess the degree to which the model and results depended on a number of parameters.

Policy context

The 1994 Directive addressing packaging and packaging waste management was amended in 2018 with revised

measures aimed at transitioning towards a circular economy. These measures focus on preventing the

production of packaging waste and promoting the reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery of packaging

waste. In November 2022, the Commission proposed a revision of the 2018 Directive in alignment with the

objectives of the European Green Deal and the 2020 New Circular Economy Action Plan and the commitments

of the 2018 European Plastics Strategy. The proposal for a Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) is

also aligned with the 2022 United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It specifically addresses

Sustainable Development Goal target 12.5 because of the suggested reductions in waste generation through

preventive measures and improvements in waste reduction, recycling and product reuse.

The aim of the present study is to bring new scientific evidence that is potentially relevant in the context of the

2022 PPWR. In particular, the proposal included measures aimed at reducing packaging waste and restricting

over-packaging by setting out mandatory reuse targets

–

set for 2030 and 2040

–

for economic operators in

selected packaging groups.

Key conclusions

The findings from the present analysis underscore the importance of identifying and, potentially, optimising key

parameters to enhance the life cycle performance of the packaging products assessed. Specifically, user

behaviour significantly impacts the environmental performance of takeaway multiple use packaging products,

particularly regarding the mode of transport used to return used packaging to retail points or washing facilities.

This issue, however, is not relevant in the case of the dine-in restaurant scenario. Unlike takeaway meals, the

dine-in option eliminates the need for transport to return the multiple use packaging. Furthermore, it allows a

significantly higher number of reuses, as the multiple use packaging remains under the constant supervision of

the restaurant operators, thereby minimising losses due to improper handling by users.

In addition, washing practices such as rinsing and rewashing can significantly affect the environmental

performance of multiple use packaging products, especially when hot water is used. Impacts related to electricity

usage are also significant for certain impact categories such as

‘Resource

Use, Fossil’. Hence, transitioning

towards a cleaner energy mix could be instrumental in reducing these environmental pressures.

The analysis also focused on how the performance of the packaging studied depended on assumptions about

recycled content and its recyclability at the end-of-life stage, with the latter playing a more prominent role in

driving overall performance than other parameters, such as transport distances (e.g. transport distances from

the manufacturing plant to the point of sale). The estimated number of reuses for multiple use packaging is

naturally a key driver in the product’s life cycle performance. However, assumptions about the number of reuses

are crucial in scenarios that consider only a few rotations (e.g. as in the scenarios related to takeaway cups or

trays). In the case of scenarios with much higher numbers of reuses (e.g. as in the dine-in restaurant scenario),

increases in the number of rotations beyond a certain threshold have less influence than those below the

threshold according to the results of the sensitivity analysis.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Main findings

The analysis of single use and multiple use packaging products yielded varying results depending on the specific

scenario and case studies considered, as well as the impact category assessed. Scenarios examining cups, trays

and beverage containers showed similar results for single use and multiple use packaging products, with either

displaying lower environmental impact depending on the impact category. In particular, in the benchmark results

for takeaway cups and trays, single use packaging exhibited lower life cycle impacts for certain impact categories

(e.g. Climate Change), while multiple use packaging products exhibited lower life cycle impacts for other

categories (e.g. Water Use). The results of the sensitivity analysis for the aggregated Single Score index suggested

comparable life cycle impacts, with a majority of the simulations leading to lower life cycle impacts for the

multiple use packaging only for the cups scenario.

In contrast, scenarios assessing glass bottles and restaurant meals consistently showed lower environmental

impacts for multiple use packaging than for single use alternatives for almost all the assessed impact categories.

Further additional analyses considered various life cycle datasets related to cartonboard production, including

an Environmental Footprint dataset and datasets retrieved during the stakeholder consultation. In particular,

when considering life cycle datasets for cartonboard with low environmental impacts, the performance of single

use packaging was clearly better, especially for the Water Use impact category, and also to a lesser extent for

the Climate Change impact category and the aggregated Single Score. However, cartonboard datasets were

provided as fully aggregated datasets without accompanying documentation and metadata, and therefore it was

not possible to assess their compliance with the Environmental Footprint method and their overall consistency

with other datasets used in the study.

The study also identified a significant number of factors (and assumptions) that can influence the performance

of single use and multiple use packaging products. Among these, assumptions about consumer behaviour

(particularly regarding the return of multiple use packaging to the point of sale), the number of reuses and

washing operations (for multiple use packaging) and assumptions about the mass and recyclability of materials

(especially for single use packaging) are especially pertinent.

Related and future JRC work

The present report is the deliverable of a JRC project supporting the development of scientific evidence for the

Circular Economy Action Plan. It relates to several work streams of the JRC and other services of the European

Commission. It is also related to JRC’s continuous research on the methodological improvement of the

Environmental Footprint method and its use and implementation in EU policies.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Introduction

1.1

Packaging reuse in Europe

In recent years, the concept of reusable packaging has been discussed as a viable means of reducing

environmental impacts and meeting climate targets. However, recent analysis showed a general decrease in

multiple use packaging penetration in the EU market for the year 2018 compared with 1999 (Eunomia, 2022).

Packaging is undeniably essential for the protection, transport and, in some cases, consumption of goods. At the

same time, concern is increasing among the public and policymakers about their potential environmental impacts

in terms of waste production and overall life cycle impacts (EC, 2018a, 2019). The prevailing business model of

low reuse and low recycling of packaging could present a barrier to establishing circular economies in the EU (EC,

2022). A circular economy for packaging could facilitate the decoupling of natural resource use from economic

development and aid the EU in achieving its climate neutrality target by 2050. In recent years, the regulation of

packaging and packaging waste has been at the forefront of EU policy actions. In 1994, the European Parliament

put forward a Directive (EC, 1994) tackling the management of packaging and packaging waste, with the aim of

improving the quality of the environment by preventing and reducing the impact of packaging and packaging

waste on the environment. That directive was last amended in 2018 (EC, 2018b) with updated measures to

achieve a circular economy, such as measures to prevent the production of packaging waste and to promote the

reuse, recycling and other forms of recovery of packaging waste. In November 2022, the Commission proposed

a revision of the 2018 Directive in view of the objectives of the European Green Deal (EC, 2019) and the New

Circular Economy Action Plan (EC, 2020) and the commitments of the European Plastics Strategy (EC, 2018a).

This 2022 proposal (EC, 2022), referred to in this report as the proposal for a Packaging and Packaging Waste

Regulation (PPWR), not only included measures devoted to packaging waste reduction and restriction of over-

packaging but also proposed mandatory reuse targets (for the years 2030 and 2040) for operators in selected

packaging groups. The proposed PPWR is also aligned with the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development (UNEP, 2022), particularly regarding Sustainable Development Goal target 12.5, because of its

proposed reductions in waste generation through preventive measures, improvement in waste reduction

measures, and product recycling and reuse.

1.2

State of the art on packaging reuse

In 2020, the amount of packaging waste generated was estimated to be 177.9 kg per EU inhabitant (Eurostat,

2023). From 2009 to 2020, ‘paper and cardboard’ was the main packaging waste material generated in the EU

(32.7 million tonnes in 2020), followed by plastic and glass (15.5 million tonnes and 15.2 million tonnes,

respectively, in 2020) (Eurostat, 2023). As the amount of single use packaging continues to rise, that puts

pressure on the current EU waste management system. Although certain single use packaging products can be

recycled, the presence of complex materials (e.g. involving layers of different material within the same product)

and the lack of proper management infrastructures can hamper the quality and amount of recycled materials at

the end of their life (Grant et al., 2020; Antonopoulos et al., 2021; Zero Waste Europe, 2022).

Understanding the best approaches to tackling packaging waste is a complex task, especially considering the

increasing popularity of food deliveries and takeaway food. This trend was further amplified during the COVID-

19 pandemic, intensifying the urgency to find solutions to this growing environmental issue. Despite these

challenges, it is crucial to investigate strategies that would enable the packaging value chain to operate more

efficiently and mitigate its environmental impacts in a life cycle perspective. In recent years, it has been

recognised that reducing the quantity of single use packaging, combined with an increase in the use of reusable

containers, could serve as a promising strategy for improvement (Hitt et al., 2023). However, the environmental

performance of reusable packaging products has proven to be largely affected by assumptions for certain life

cycle stages, for instance the washing phase, potentially offsetting their benefits compared with single use

alternatives (Fetner and Miller, 2021). The existing literature comparing single use and multiple use packaging

products lacks consistency particularly concerning (i) the methodological approaches used to compare single use

and multiple use packaging (i.e. with different studies assessing different system boundaries including/excluding

specific life cycle phases), (ii) the heterogeneity and often non-comparability of the approaches used to conduct

the environmental life cycle assessments of the systems in the studies, (iii) the limited range of environmental

impact indicators covered, usually focusing solely on Climate Change, and (iv) the lack of sensitivity analyses on

key model parameters, especially for highly uncertain input data. For instance, although transport of takeaway

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

packaging products (especially by car) during the use phase plays a key role in the environmental performance

of multiple use packaging, there is no consensus on how these impacts should be accounted, and they have also

been neglected in certain studies (Gallego-Schmid et al., 2019; Greenwood et al., 2021). In addition to the

washing phase, customer behaviour during the use phase of refillable or returnable containers and packaging

has been recognised as a key determinant of the impacts of multiple use packaging (Coelho et al., 2020; Hitt et

al., 2023).

1.3

Objectives and scope of the study

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) has been commissioned by the European Commission’s Directorate-General

for

Environment to evaluate the life cycle environmental performance of a selected subset of case studies, targeting

certain reuse targets of the PPWR. The present study aims to contribute to fulfilling the EU’s ambitions

to reduce

plastic packaging waste and to address some of the knowledge gaps identified in the existing literature on the

subject.

In particular, the present study focuses on the targets in Article 26 of the PPWR on reuse and refill targets, which

states the following.

−

"The final distributor making available on the market within the territory of a Member State in sales

packaging cold or hot beverage filled into a container at the point of sale for takeaway shall ensure that:

(a) from 1 January 2030, 20 % of those beverages are made available in reusable packaging within a

system for re-use or by enabling refill;

….";

final distributor that is conducting its business activity in the HORECA [hotel, restaurant and Catering]

sector and that is making available on the market within the territory of a Member State in sales

packaging take-away ready-prepared food, intended for immediate consumption without the need of

any further preparation, and typically consumed from the receptacle, shall ensure that: (a) from

1 January 2030, 10 % of those products are made available in reusable packaging within a system for re-

use or by enabling refill;

….";

"The manufacturer and the final distributor making available on the market within the territory of a

Member State in sales packaging alcoholic beverages in the form of beer, carbonated alcoholic

beverages, fermented beverages other than wine, aromatised wine products and fruit wine, products

based on spirit drinks, wine or other fermented beverages mixed with beverages, soda, cider or juice,

shall ensure that: (a) from 1 January 2030, 10 % of those products are made available in reusable

packaging within a system for re-use or by enabling refill;

….";

"The manufacturer and the final distributor making available on the market within the territory of a

Member State in sales packaging alcoholic beverages in the form of wine, with the exception of sparkling

wine, shall ensure that: (a) from 1 January 2030, 5 % of those products are made available in reusable

packaging within a system for re-use or by enabling refill;

….".

−

In addition, the study focuses on Article 22, Annex V.3, for the following target stipulating that:

−

“… economic operators should not place on the market packaging in the formats and for the purposes

listed in Annex V …,"

implying a switch to 100 % reusable packaging in the dine-in HORECA sector.

Each of the abovementioned PPWR targets is tackled in the present study by analysing a number of ‘Scenarios’.

For each of these PPWR Scenarios, one or more illustrative case studies were hypothesised, and for each case

study key data and parameters were collected. The case studies focused on assessing the Life Cycle

Environmental (LCA) impacts of Single Use (SU) packaging products and of possible alternative Multiple Use (MU)

products. Part of the analysis aimed to understanding how the reusable packaging could be modelled to also

reflect how consumers and operators might behave when (re)using such packaging.

In the present analysis, results were calculated for the 16 impact categories and the Single Score index, as

recommended by the Product Environmental Footprint method (EC 2021a). The study produced a series of

results on (i) the environmental performance of MU and SU packaging calculated with reference to assumed

‘representative’ values for a number of parameters (referred in this study as ‘benchmark’ parameters/results),

(ii) a sensitivity analysis to assess the variation of results as determined by a number of parameters studied

(assumed to be varying within defined ranges), and (iii) a set of additional specific analyses for certain Scenarios.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Case studies of life cycle assessments of SU and MU packaging products are presented, discussing the most

relevant methodological aspects (including modelling steps, key assumptions and main limitations). Lessons

learnt from the study are also discussed, including how to further increase representativeness of the models and

how to shed light on the most critical aspects of the case studies.

This report focuses on selected illustrative case studies, which are not designed to offer definitive estimates of

the environmental impacts or benefits linked to the PPWR targets. The case studies are instead product-specific

analyses, rather than system-level evaluations. The analyses have been performed by compiling the results of

LCA, based on primary data from stakeholders and data from the scientific literature. This compilation may serve

discussion about which scenarios, and under which assumptions, certain MU or SU packaging use may have lower

environmental impacts.

The report is structured as follows:

−

Section 2 describes the methods employed for the identification of the case studies for each Scenario,

the literature review and the stakeholder consultation, which were carried out to gather relevant data,

and the details of the LCA of the environmental performance of the SU and MU packaging. Annexes 1

and 2 provide further details of the stakeholder consultation and the datasets used in the analysis,

respectively;

Section 3 provides the results of the LCA and sensitivity analyses of the case studies. Annex 3 contains

further details on the results of each Scenario. In particular, Annex 3 is structured as a number of

Factsheets that provide full details of the modelling assumptions and parameters, values and ranges

employed for each case study and each packaging product examined;

Section 4 discusses the results and assumptions of the case studies and compares them with those in

the literature, highlighting strengths and limitations of the present study;

Section 5 provides conclusions of the study.

−

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Methods

This section details the method used in the study to quantify the environmental impacts of the selected Single

Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging case studies. In particular, this section provides:

−

a description of the Scenarios and how they relate to the PPWR targets (Section 2.1);

a literature review and explanation of how the representative case studies were identified for each

Scenario assessed (Section 2.2);

an overview of the stakeholder consultation carried out by the JRC (Section 2.3);

the methodology of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the representative case studies (as identified in

point 2), including data collection (Section 2.4);

the sensitivity analyses conducted on the representative case studies (by means of a Monte Carlo

simulation and the analysis of additional/alternative case studies) (Section 2.5).

2.1

Scenarios definition and their relationship with targets in the

Regulation

This study aims to assess the potential environmental impacts of SU and MU packaging in the context of the

targets described in the PPWR, focusing in particular on the reuse and refill targets described in Article 26 of the

PPWR for the year 2030. In this report,

each of these targets represents a ‘Scenario’ under which some

representative case studies have been identified and assessed. The relationship between the Scenarios of the

present study and the PPWR targets are as follows:

−

‘Scenario

1’: covers packaging for cold or hot beverages served in a container at the point of sale for

takeaway;

‘Scenario 2’:

covers packaging for takeaway ready-prepared food intended for immediate consumption

without the need for further preparation;

‘Scenario

3’: covers the packaging for alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages in the form of beer,

carbonated alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, fermented beverages other than wine, aromatised

wine products and fruit wine, etc.;

‘Scenario

4’: covers the packaging for alcoholic beverages in the form of wine, with the exception of

sparkling wine;

the ‘Restaurant

Scenario’: focuses on the use of packaging by economic operators in the dine-in

HORECA sector.

−

The analysis of each

‘Scenario’

is conducted at the case study packaging product level.

Additional analyses, beyond the scope of the current analysis, could be dedicated to the assessment of the PPWR

targets at the system level. This would use market data on the SU packaging products in use in the EU for each

Scenario and all possible MU alternatives. To date, a detailed inventory of such Scenarios and all the underpinning

data are lacking in the literature (due to the wide array of SU and MU packaging products and materials available).

This study also does not investigate the economic viability or convenience of SU and MU packaging products.

2.2

Identification of case studies

By means of an in-depth literature review, a set of SU packaging products currently employed in the market for

the abovementioned Scenarios was identified. The literature review targeted both scientific publications and

reports assessing the environmental impact of different packaging alternatives used for serving food and

beverages for takeaway or in-store consumption.

For the analysis of each Scenario, a limited subset of all potential SU packaging products was selected. The

selection of case study packaging products was primarily driven by the availability of studies in the literature and,

ultimately, by the availability of sufficient data to carry out the analysis. The lack of extensive market data for the

packaging used in each Scenario reduced the ability to define fully representative SU packaging products.

Therefore, the environmental analysis of the selected case study packaging products can only partially inform

the consideration of all the packaging in that specific Scenario.

However, alternative MU packaging products were assumed for each of the selected SU packaging products

based on the authors’ expert judgement from information available in the literature and subsequently verified

during a stakeholder consultation. In a similar way, the MU packaging products studied represent only some of

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

the potential alternatives that could be envisaged in the future and cannot be considered fully representative of

a certain Scenarios. Moreover, the authors acknowledge that the use of MU packaging in the market is still

limited. The assumptions made for the LCA of MU packaging need to be verified in future when reuse systems

are fully developed. To capture the variability of these systems, in Section 2.5 an extensive sensitivity analysis

was performed, focusing on all the parameters identified as key drivers of the results.

Table 1 summarises the case studies analysed for each Scenario (including additional case studies for each

Scenario, called ‘CASEs’), detailing the SU and MU packaging products considered.

The Restaurant Scenario partly relies on the packaging products modelled in

‘Scenario

1’ and

‘Scenario

2’.

However, for the dine-in Scenario, beverage cups are usually used without a lid (

), so the lid has been excluded

from the analyses of both SU and MU beverage cups modelled in the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’.

Based on stakeholder

feedback (Section 2.3), low-density polyethylene (LDPE) lining has also been excluded from SU trays in the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’. Furthermore, the SU carton trays used in the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’ for hamburgers and

fries are the same as the same as those used in

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ but scaled to the correct size (i.e. the volume

and mass are smaller than those used in

‘Scenario

2’). Finally, the MU polypropylene (PP) plate is considered only

in the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’.

(

)

Based on the authors’ direct observations in various fast-food

restaurants, plastic lids are occasionally still used for dine-in services,

particularly when a straw is used with the cup. However, according to feedback from some stakeholders, the use of lids in dine-in

services is expected to be phased out gradually.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Table 1.

Overview of the real-life case studies considered for each Scenario.

Scenario

Case study

Single Use

Carton Cup with Low Density

Polyethylene (LDPE) lining

and carton lid (0.5 l)

Carton tray with LDPE lining

Aluminium tray and carton

cover with LDPE lining

Aluminium can (0.5 l)

Multiple Use

Polypropylene (PP) cup with PP lid

(0.5 l)

PP clamshell tray

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

plastic bottle with PP cap (0.5 l)

Glass beer bottle (thicker) (0.5 l)

Additional details

This Scenario covers packaging for cold or hot beverages served in

a container at the point of sale for takeaway. The volume of the

packaging assessed is equal to 0.5 l.

This Scenario covers packaging for takeaway ready-prepared

food, intended for immediate consumption without the need for

further preparation. The volume of the packaging assessed is 1.1 l.

‘Scenario

1’

‘CASE

A’

‘Scenario

2’

‘CASE

B’

‘CASE

A’

‘Scenario

3’

‘CASE

B’

Glass beer bottle (0.5 l)

This Scenario covers the packaging for alcoholic and non-alcoholic

beverages such as beer, carbonated alcoholic and non-alcoholic

beverages, fermented beverages other than wine, aromatised

wine products and fruit wine. The volume of the packaging

assessed is 0.55 l.

This Scenario covers the packaging for alcoholic beverages in the

form of wine, with the exception of sparkling wine. The volume of

the packaging assessed is equal to 0.75 l.

This Scenario focuses on the use of packaging by dine-in

operators in dine-in restaurants. For this Scenario, dedicated and

specific assumptions on the masses and volumes of the various

packaging products have been included (as detailed in Factsheet

for the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’ of Annex 3).

‘Scenario

4’

Glass wine bottle (0.75 l)

Glass wine bottle (thicker) (0.75 l)

Single use hamburger meal

composed of:

▪

‘Restaurant

Scenario’

‘Hamburger

meal’

▪

A carton cup (with LDPE

lining) for the drink

A carton tray without

LDPE lining for the

hamburger

A carton tray without

LDPE lining for the fries

Multiple use packaging for

hamburger meal composed of:

▪

A PP cup for the drink

A PP plate with sections for

both the hamburger and fries

▪

Source: JRC analysis of the literature and websites.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

2.3

Stakeholder consultation

In October 2023, the JRC conducted a brief stakeholder consultation to collect feedback on the selected case

studies and to collect primary data to model them. This additional methodological step was conducted to

improve data quality, refine and critically review the data collected and improve the robustness of the results

through the stakeholder inputs.

A questionnaire was prepared in Microsoft Excel and distributed to selection of stakeholders (

) to simplify the

data collection and processing. The questionnaire included all seven case studies described in Table 1 by

preparing specific tables devoted to checking the assumptions and data used in the initial analysis and gathering

stakeholder data that were suitable for improving the modelling. These tables were structured to allow inputs

from stakeholders in terms of data, ranges and references. By the end of the consultation period (

), 13

stakeholders had provided inputs, of which 8 provided inventory data in Excel, while other 5 referred to other

studies and documents that could be useful in this study. All data received were carefully analysed and

considered for the modelling of the case studies where possible. Further follow-up exchanges with some

stakeholders and further data gathering and refinement was conducted until mid-December 2023. Annex 1

provides further details on the stakeholder consultation and an example of the tables used for data gathering.

2.4

Life cycle assessment of the selected case studies

The LCA method is increasingly being adopted for the assessment of the environmental impacts of products and

value chains. Following the definition provided by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

standard (ISO 14044:2006, ISO 14040:2006), LCA is the compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and

potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle. In the impact assessment phase

of LCA, the results of the inventory analysis are associated to environmental impact categories and indicators

through Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods, which firstly classify emissions into impacts categories

(e.g. Climate change) and secondly characterise them in common units allowing comparison within the same

impact category (e.g. kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent: kg CO

eq.).

In the present study, the environmental impacts of each Scenario were assessed using the attributional LCA

approach (

), following the rules of the European Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method, as described

in the EU Recommendation (EC, 2021a) and by modelling the end-of-life environmental impacts in accordance

with the Circular Footprint Formula (EC, 2021b) (Section 2.4.4).

The PEF enables practitioners to measure the environmental performance of products based on reliable

environmental information. The PEF method provides detailed instructions on how to model and calculate the

environmental impacts of products and organisations. The modelling of the Scenarios was performed in

Microsoft Excel employing EF3.1 datasets and the EF3.1 impact assessment method (

) (Andreasi Bassi et al.,

2023). The resulting environmental impacts were also Normalised and Weighted in order to calculate the EF

Single Score (SS), that is an index allowing the different environmental impacts of products or Scenarios to be

aggregated and facilitates decision-making (

). Further details on the impact assessment approach are provided

in Section 2.4.5.

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

The Directorate-General for Environment provided suggestions for potential recipients of the questionnaire, primarily including

associations of manufacturers and some non-governmental organisations. These stakeholders were then encouraged to further

distribute the questionnaire to other organisations that might be interested.

From 11.10.2023 to 31.10.2023.

According to UNEP-SETAC (2011), the attributional approach attempts to provide information on what portion of global burdens can

be associated with a product (and its life cycle). The system analysed ideally contains processes that are actually directly linked by flows

to the unit process that supplies the functional unit or reference flow.

Namely [unit]: Climate Change (kg CO

eq.); Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq.); Human Toxicity, cancer (CTUh); Human Toxicity,

non-cancer (CTUh); Particulate Matter (disease incidences); Ionizing Radiation, human health (kBq U235 eq.); Photochemical Ozone

Formation, human health (kg NMVOC eq.); Acidification (mol H

eq.); Eutrophication, Terrestrial (mol N eq.); Eutrophication,

Freshwater (kg P eq.); Eutrophication, Marine (kg N eq.); Land Use (points (pt)); Ecotoxicity, Freshwater (CTUe); Water Use (m

water eq. of deprived water); Resource Use, Fossils (MJ); and Resource Use, Minerals and Metals (kg Sb eq.).

Although the Normalisation, Weighting and aggregation of different impact categories is considered an optional step in ISO 14044, the

calculation of the Single Score is recommended by the EU Environmental Footprint methods.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

The following sections detail the LCA method and the assumptions used in the study to quantify the

environmental effects (i.e. the ‘burdens’ or ‘savings’

(

)) of the case studies under consideration.

2.4.1

Functional Unit

The ISO standards define the Functional Unit (FU) as a quantifiable function of a product selected as the reference

basis for system modelling in environmental assessment. The Functional Unit of the packaging product systems

studied depends on the Scenario under assessment. In particular:

−

For

‘Scenario

1’ the FU

selected was ‘one serving of hot or cold takeaway beverage’;

For ‘Scenario

2’ the FU

selected was ‘one

serving of takeaway food purchased from the restaurant or

using home delivery’.

For ‘Scenario

3’ the FU

selected was ‘one

bottle of alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverage purchased from

retail and consumed at home’.

For ‘Scenario

4’ the FU

selected was ‘one bottle of wine purchased from retail and consumed at home’;

For the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’ the FU

was ‘one

meal consumed in the restaurant, taking into account

packaging for both food and drink’.

2.4.2

Temporal and technological scope

The temporal and technological scope of this report focuses on analysing scenarios pertinent to the current

European situation. The decision to employ models that reflect the current market situation at the time of

conducting the LCA study, as opposed to future technologies, is endorsed by the EF method. As recognised by

Cucurachi et al. (2022), predicting the future development of complex systems, such as those in which

technologies are integrated, is a well-known challenge in prospective LCA, which can only be addressed through

bespoke modelling and analysis.

The available EF3.1 datasets were employed to represent the

‘status

quo’ of the modelled packaging products

and their associated life cycle impacts. This approach was consistently applied to both the SU and MU packaging

assessed. Because of the limited data currently available and the uncertainties surrounding future scenarios for

packaging products, a sensitivity analysis was conducted on key model parameters (e.g. aspects that could

change as a result of future technological advances, such as recycling rates and energy mixes).

2.4.3

System boundaries

The system boundaries of the Scenarios under assessment are described in this section, grouping Scenarios

modelled with the same system boundary structure. System boundaries reflect the life cycle of the (whole)

packaging products under examination in the case studies. When multi-material packaging was assessed (e.g. a

carton cup with LDPE lining and carton lid in

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’), the specific fate of each material was

considered within the system boundaries described (e.g. contrary to the carton part, the LDPE lining of the cup

considered in

‘Scenario 1 –

CASE A’ was assumed not to be recycled). Dedicated Factsheets are included in

Annex 3 and include the details of the system boundaries for each case study.

Information in this section is presented in parallel for SU and MU packaging to allow a rapid understating of the

differences in the system boundaries of the two packaging products under study. The analysis covered the whole

life cycle of SU and MU packaging, including the manufacturing stage (which focused on raw material sourcing,

production of the components of the products and manufacturing of the final packaging product), the transport

stage (covering transports from manufacturing site to point of sale), the reuse stage (only for the MU packaging

product, including transport and washing operations) and the end-of-life stage (covering recycling, incineration

and landfill).

(

)

In LCA, ‘burdens’ indicate the environmental pressures coming directly from the activities under analysis or indirectly from

the

background system related to production, transport, auxiliary processes, etc., needed to carry out the activities under analysis. The

‘avoided burdens’ (known as ‘savings’), indicate the environmental ‘credits’ (i.e. avoided impacts) obtained through avoiding

the

production of material and use of energy thanks to the activities under analysis.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

In particular, the setting of the system boundaries for the packaging product systems studied assumed the

following (

−

In ‘Scenario

1’ (Figure 1) and

‘Scenario

2’ (‘CASE A’ and

‘CASE

B’; Figure 2), the raw materials are first

produced and then transported to the manufacturing facility, where the final packaging products are

manufactured. Following this stage, the products are first transported to a distribution centre, and from

there to the point of sale, where the products are sold for their intended purpose. After the use phase,

which is assumed free of burdens, SU packaging products are assumed to be discarded and reach the

end-of-life stage, during which they are recycled, incinerated or landfilled. In the case of MU, the

packaging products need to be returned to the point where they were bought. Based on consumer

behaviour, this transport step could take place in different ways (e.g. on foot, by bike, by passenger car).

The returned packaging products are washed and given to a new user a number of times (‘number of

reuses’) after which they reach the end-of-life

stage, during which they are recycled, incinerated or

landfilled;

‘Scenario 3’ (‘CASE A’ and ‘CASE B’;

Figure 3)

and ‘Scenario 4’ (Figure

4), the packaging products are

firstly manufactured (employing virgin and recycled raw materials) and then transported to the facility

where the bottles or cans are filled. Following this stage, the products are transported first to a

distribution centre and then to a retail outlet, where the products are sold for their intended purpose.

After the use phase, which is assumed free of burdens, the SU packaging products are assumed to be

discarded and reach the end-of-life stage, during which they are recycled, incinerated or landfilled. In

the case of MU packaging, it needs to be collected to be washed and sanitised. Afterwards, the empty

MU packaging may be brought back to the filling facility to be reused. After a certain amount of reuses,

the MU packaging reaches the end-of-life stage, during which it is recycled, incinerated or landfilled.

In the ‘Restaurant Scenario’ (Figure

5), the raw materials are firstly produced and then transported to

the facility where the final packaging products are manufactured. Following this stage, the products are

transported to a distribution centre and then to the restaurant for their intended purpose. In the case

of SU packaging, it is assumed to be discarded after use and reach the end-of-life stage, when it is

recycled, incinerated or landfilled. In the case of MU packaging, it is assumed to be collected at the

restaurant after use (dine-in) and washed properly by restaurant staff within the restaurant facility.

After a certain amount of reuses, the MU packaging products reach the end-of-life stage, during which

they are recycled, incinerated or landfilled.

−

(

)

Further information is provided in the Factsheets for each case study in Annex 3.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 1.

Single Use and Multiple Use system boundaries for case studies in

‘Scenario

1’.

Source: JRC analysis.

Figure 2.

Single Use and Multiple Use system boundaries for case studies in

‘Scenario

2’.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: The single use system boundaries are the same for the case studies

‘CASE

A’

(‘Single

use carton tray (1.1 l) with

LDPE lining’) and

'CASE B’

(‘Single use aluminium tray (1.1 l) with carton cover’).

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 3.

Single Use and Multiple Use system boundaries for case studies in

‘Scenario

3’.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: The single use system boundaries are the same for the case studies

‘CASE A’ (‘Single

use aluminium beverage

can (0.5 l)’) and ‘CASE B’ (‘Single

use

beer/beverage glass bottle (0.5 l)’). The MU multiple

use system boundaries are the same for the case

studies

‘CASE A’ (‘Multiple use beverage plastic bottle (0.5 l)’) and ‘CASE B’ (‘Multiple use beer/beverage glass bottle (0.5 l)’)

Figure 4.

Single Use and Multiple Use system boundaries for case studies in

‘Scenario

4’.

Source: JRC analysis.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 5.

Single Use and Multiple Use system boundaries for case studies of the

‘Restaurant Scenario’.

Source: JRC analysis.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

2.4.4

Life cycle inventory

Following the selection of the case studies, the literature was reviewed to gather life cycle inventory data for the

SU and MU models, as described in Section 2.2.

In the present report, the term ‘parameter’ is used to identify aspects of the packaging products’ life cycle for

which inventory data have been collected. The data collection aimed to gather average values for the parameters

(and to assess their variability, which is needed to model the life cycle of the SU and MU packaging products for

each Scenario).

The term ‘benchmark value’ is used for a certain parameter value (or for life cycle inventory

datasets) to indicate

the ‘reference value’ assumed for that specific parameter in the context of a given

Scenario

(i.e. the value that evidence suggests is representative of a certain Scenario for the EU). Benchmark values were

identified from peer-reviewed literature, official reports, statistics and data provided by the stakeholders.

Benchmark scenarios were therefore built as reference scenarios for the assessment and to further develop the

sensitivity analysis.

Information on restaurant practices on the use of MU packaging was also gathered during an on-field visit at the

JRC facilities in June 2023. These direct observations allowed researchers to gather information especially on

washing practices (including rinsing with hot and cold water and procedures for rewashing), which are not well

documented in the literature.

Lastly, values were collected from the literature to assess the variability ranges associated with each parameter.

These ranges were used to run the sensitivity assessment, as described in Section 2.5.

Further details on all the assumptions and data sources for each life cycle stage are presented in the following

sections. Inventory values are provided in Annex 3 in dedicated Factsheets for each case study. The datasets

employed in the modelling are listed in Annex 2.

2.4.4.1

Manufacturing

In the present report, the manufacturing life cycle step includes the production of virgin and recycled raw

material, their transport to the manufacturing site and the energy used in the manufacturing of the packaging

products.

The raw material production was modelled selecting the most appropriate EF3.1 datasets (or stakeholder dataset

in the case of cartonboard manufacturing) for each packaging product (Annex 2). It is important to point out that,

with regard to the life cycle impacts of cartonboard manufacturing, the ‘Benchmark dataset’ used for the

calculation of the benchmark results and the sensitivity analysis results was retrieved from data received at the

stakeholder consultation (see Table 2 and Section 2.5.1).

Other datasets (namely, ‘Alternative 1’ and

‘Alternative 2’) were employed to estimate alternative impacts associated impacts associated with cartonboard

manufacturing processes, one (

) retrieved from the EF method (EF3.1) and another gathered during the

stakeholder consultation (as described in Section 2.5.1). The EF3.1 dataset, in particular, was aggregated and

accompanied by few metadata. As a consequence, it was complex to understand the full list of foreground and

background processes included in the modelling. In the context of the present study and to avoid potential

double-counting, it was assumed that the EF3.1 dataset already includes the impacts associated with the

production of cartonboard and the further processing of cartonboard into carton (

). For this reason, in the

alternative scenarios (

) employing the EF3.1 cartonboard dataset, impacts associated with the conversion of

cartonboard into carton were excluded for the manufacturing of carton cups and trays. By contrast, datasets

retrieved from stakeholders were related only to cartonboard manufacturing, although these datasets have not

been declared as ‘EF compliant’.

When employing the cartonboard manufacturing data retrieved during the

stakeholder consultation, impacts associated with the conversion of cartonboard into carton were included for

the manufacturing of carton cups and trays. Insights on cartonboard and carton manufacturing, and the related

industrial processes, were retrieved from a study by the European Association of Cartonboard and Carton

Manufacturers (ProCarton, 2023a).

The SU carton packaging products and aluminium food trays, as well as the PP MU packaging, were assumed to

be made from only virgin materials in the benchmark analysis, while the SU aluminium cans, the glass bottles (in

both ‘Scenario 3’ and ‘Scenario 4’), as well as the MU

PET bottle were assumed to have a certain recycled content.

(

)

Namely “Solid

board, bleached; Kraft Pulping Process, pulp pressing, bleaching and drying; production mix, at plant; >220 g/m2”.

(

) In the metadata available for this EF 3.1 dataset it stated that

“...

finally the pulp is dried and pressed into the desired shape ...” in the

description of the foreground system of the model.

(

)

Namely ‘Scenario 1’, and ‘Scenario 2’ and ‘Restaurant Scenario’, as detailed in the Scenarios Factsheets in Annex

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Recycled contents of the packaging products assessed in the case studies were retrieved from data collected

during the stakeholder consultation or as gathered within the EF pilot phase (as presented in

‘Annex C’ described

in Zampori and Pant (2019)).

Electricity used in the manufacturing step of carton packaging and aluminium cans has been assumed to refer to

the EU average mix (

), aligning with the purpose of the study of assessing case studies that represent the EU

context as far as possible. In the case of plastic packaging, a dataset related to blow moulding (Annex 2) was used

to represent the impacts of the manufacturing of the final packaging product. In the case of glass bottle

production (‘Scenario 3’ and ‘Scenario 4’), an aggregated dataset including both raw material production and

bottle manufacturing was used (Annex 2).

2.4.4.2

Transport

The transport stage refers to all transport occurring between the manufacturing and the use stage. The transport

occurring during the use stage of the MU packaging have been included in the reuse step itself rather than the

transport step. Assumptions on transport distances were based on the data gathered from the stakeholder

consultation or on information from EC (2021a).

The impacts associated with transport related to raw material manufacturing processes and the transport related

to the packaging manufacturing processes were already included in the associated datasets (in all Scenarios). The

transport from manufacturing to use was assumed to follow the general assumptions applied in the EF

method (

), whereby cups and trays are first transported from the manufacturing site to the distribution centre

and then to the cafeterias or restaurants where they are sold to consumers for takeaway (‘Scenario 1’ and

‘Scenario 2’) or dine-in services (‘Restaurant Scenario’). In the case of takeaway services, the transport from point

of sale to the place of consumption was assumed to be equal for both SU and MU packaging products, and

therefore it was not included in the analysis (

The manufactured and filled cans or bottles are assumed to be transported to the retail outlet and finally to the

home for consumption (‘Scenario 3’ and ‘Scenario 4’). Furthermore, in these case studies, transport from the

retail outlet to home was assumed to be the same for both MU and SU packaging, and it was not included in the

assessment.

2.4.4.3

Reuse

The reuse life cycle stage for all the Scenarios includes the impacts related to washing and sanitising activities,

plus the impacts related to the transport of the MU packaging to the site for washing (except

for the ‘Restaurant

Scenario’ where it is assumed that packaging products are washed in the restaurant where they are used). In the

case of takeaway packaging products (‘Scenario 1’ and ‘Scenario 2’), it is assumed that the washing occurs in the

facility where the products were originally sold (e.g. empty trays are returned to the takeaway restaurant where

the user purchased them).

Specific assumptions for the return of empty packaging have been made for the various Scenarios, in particular

for ‘Scenario 1’ and ‘Scenario 2’:

−

Assumptions on the return of empty packaging to the point of sale can involve value choices. As the

transport may be coupled with other user activities (e.g. a trip to buy more food or on the way to do

other shopping), this is an example of allocating the impacts among different services/activities, and for

which there is not an unambiguous way of modelling in the LCA. In the present study, when the return

trip is made on foot or by bicycle, no impacts are allocated to the reuse of the MU packaging. In addition,

for takeaways it was also assumed that food may be delivered to the home by delivery services, which

could take away empty packaging while delivering more food (25 % of purchases) (

). It was then

assumed that in (roughly) 10

% of cases, the MU packaging in ‘Scenario 1’ is transported back to the

point of sale by passenger car, with no purpose other than returning the packaging, driving for an overall

distance of 2.5

km. In the case of the MU packaging in ‘Scenario 2’ (both ‘CASE A’ and ‘CASE B’), it was

(

) This refers to the EF dataset named

“Electricity

grid mix 1kV-60kV; technology mix; consumption mix, to consumer; 1kV - 60kV”

(see

Annex 2 for further details).

(

) See section 4.4.3 in EC, (2021) and section 4.4.3 in Zampori and Pant (2019).

(

) In this sense, this transport occurs equally for both MU and SU packaging, and therefore it is independent from the type of packaging

used and not relevant for the present analysis.

(

) In these cases, it may also be assumed that no impacts should be allocated to the returning of empty packaging for reuse. The home

delivery rate is estimated to be around 25 % of purchased food (Kearney, 2023).

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

then assumed that in (roughly) 25 % of the cases the empty containers are collected by the same

delivery services. Therefore, in only 75 % of the cases are the items returned by consumers, and it was

assumed that in 10 % of these cases transport was by car for an overall distance of 5 km and the journey

had no purpose other than returning the packaging. In addition, it was assumed that five items are

returned at the same time (

) for

the MU packaging in ‘Scenario 1’

and in

‘Scenario 2’ (both ‘CASE A’

and ‘CASE B’).

It is important to note that, as shown by the results in the next sections, the impacts of

MU packaging are largely influenced by such assumption about passenger car transport. For this reason,

these assumptions have been further analysed via specific analysis aimed at assessing the assumptions

influence on the results. These assumptions could be further cross-checked in future when additional

information will be available on the reuse systems in place.

In the case of bottles (‘Scenario 3’ and ‘Scenario 4’), the following assumptions were made:

−

The washing was assumed to occur in a centralised facility; therefore, the impacts of the following

journeys have been included:

transport from home to collection point (e.g. supermarket or other point of sale);

transport from the collection point to the washing facility;

transport from the washing facility to the bottle filling facility (e.g. winery, brewery).

Concerning the transport from home to collection point, assumptions similar to those in the

‘Scenario

1’

have been made, meaning that transport impacts were allocated to the MU bottles only in 10 % of

the returning trips. In these cases, it was assumed that 5 wine bottles (‘Scenario 4’) or 12 beer bottles

(‘Scenario 3’) are returned in each return trip. Transport

from the collection point to the washing facility

and transport from the washing facility to the bottle filling facility were both assumed to be by 7.5 t

articulated lorry (Annex

2). For the case studies in ‘Scenario 3’ and ‘Scenario 4’, assumptions on the

transport distances from the washing facility to the filling station were developed during the stakeholder

consultation (the same distances were

considered for ‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’ and ‘Scenario 4’, while a

different one was used for ‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’ because of the different

packaging used in the case

studies). The distance from the collection point to the washing facility was assumed to be 100 km for all

case studies in ‘Scenario 3’ and ‘Scenario 4’.

−

Other aspects included in the reuse step modelling considered the presence of specific washing practices:

−

The washing of MU cups and trays in the benchmark scenarios was assumed to always include a rinsing

stage (i.e. pre-washing of the item with cold water or warm water at 30°C) before regular washing in a

dishwasher. Data on consumption during the washing stage were collected at the stakeholder

consultation and cross-checked with the available literature and data retrieved from a visit to JRC

facilities. The amount of water consumed per item during the rinsing was estimated to be equal to the

water consumed by the dishwasher. In all scenarios including a rinsing step, the potential use of cold

water in place of hot water was considered in the sensitivity analyses (Section 2.5).

The washing of MU bottles was modelled using data from stakeholders and from sources in the

literature (Cleary, 2013; Ramboll, 2022a),

and the same assumption was made for ‘Scenario 3’ and

‘Scenario 4’.

Some additional washing steps (i.e. rewashing) may be added if the MU packaging is not thoroughly

cleaned during the washing. Assumptions about rewashing vary between scenarios.

In ‘Scenario 1’, it is

assumed that rinsing cups before washing is sufficient to prevent further rewashing, whereas in the case

of food trays it is assumed that additional washing may be needed (in 1 % of cases). For bottles

(‘Scenario 3’ and ‘Scenario 4’) the rewashing rate was based on data from the stakeholder consultation,

namely 2 % for glass bottles and 0.5 % for PET bottles (

In the ‘Restaurant Scenario’ it is assumed that

1 % of the plates are rewashed.

−

Lastly, regarding the life cycle impacts of the detergents used during the washing of MU packaging, a proxy

dataset was calculated for (i) the washing of bottles and (ii) the washing of all other MU packaging products, as

detailed in Annex 2.

(

) Thus, the impacts of the passenger car trip are supposed to be divided among five MU packaging items.

(

) This difference in the assumptions is justified by the fact that removing labels may be easier for plastic bottles than for glass bottles.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

2.4.4.4

End-of-Life

The end-of-life stage includes recycling, incineration and landfilling (as well as the related transport to the

facilities).

The modelling of the end-of-life stage has been done for all the scenarios with the Circular Footprint Formula of

the EF method as detailed in Figure 6.

Figure 6.

The Circular Footprint Formula and its main components (Zampori and Pant, 2019) (

Source: Environmental Footprint method (Zampori and Pant, 2019).

Recycling rates were retrieved from stakeholder inputs, from ‘Annex C’ of the EF method (EC, 2021b) or from the

literature. For example, for SU cups and trays it is assumed that 15 % of the carton is recycled after use (Kearney,

2023), whereas the LDPE layer is separated and is disposed of or processed in energy recovery facilities. Materials

that are not recycled are assumed to go to incineration (45 % in mass) or landfilling (55 %) (Zampori and Pant,

2019), reflecting the current

‘status

quo’ rather than expected future trends in end-of-life waste management

(for more details, see Section 2.4.2).

2.4.5

Life cycle impact assessment

The life cycle impact assessment of the case studies was conducted with reference to the most up-to-date impact

assessment methods recommended for the EF method (Andreasi Bassi et al., 2023) (

Given the wide range of environmental aspects covered by LCA, and the possible trade-offs between impact

categories, it is recommended to perform the Normalisation and Weighting steps in the analysis of different

product systems (De Laurentiis et al., 2023). Normalisation and Weighting allow to aggregate the different

environmental dimensions to be aggregated into a so-called Single Score (SS) index (

(

) Notes on the parameters in use in the CFF:

: the proportion of the material that has been recycled from the previous system;

: the

proportion of the material that will be recycled in the end-of-life;

: the proportion of the material that will be used for energy recovery

in the end-of-life;

allocation factor of burdens and credits between supplier and user of recycled materials;

allocation factor of

energy recovery (applies for both burdens and credits);

Sin

: quality of the ingoing secondary material;

Sout

: quality of the outgoing

secondary material;

: quality of the primary material;

recycled

: emissions and resources consumed arising from the recycling process

of the recycled material;

recyclingEoL

: emissions and resources consumed arising from the recycling process at end-of-life;

: emissions

and resources consumed arising from the acquisition and pre-processing of virgin material;

: emissions and resources consumed

arising from the acquisition and pre-processing of virgin material assumed to be substituted by recyclable materials;

: emissions and

resources consumed arising from the energy recovery;

SE,heat

and

SE,elec

: emissions and resources consumed arising from the

substituted heat and electricity;

: emissions and resources consumed arising from disposal of waste materials at the end-of-life;

ER,heat

and

ER,elec

: the efficiency of the energy recovery process for both heat and electricity;

LHV:

lower heating value. For further details. For

further details, the reader is invited to refer to (EC, 2021).

)

(

Compared with the previous version of the impact assessment method, EF3.0, the latest version, EF3.1, updated the assessment of

impact categories such as Climate Change, Ecotoxicity Freshwater, Human Toxicity (cancer and non-cancer) at the level of

Characterization Factors (CFs) and Normalization Factors (NFs).

)

(

During the Normalization step, the life cycle impacts of a given impact category are divided by a specific NF related to that specific

impact category. NFs can be calculated in various ways: for instance, a common approach is to divide the characterised results of a

packaging product by the characterised total emissions and extractions linked to the production or the consumption taking place within

a political or geographical boundary (De Laurentiis et al., 2023). It is common practice, following the normalisation step, to weight

normalised results in the so-called Weighting step. During this step percentage-based dimensionless Weighting Factors (WFs) are

applied to the normalised results. These factors can be derived in various way (e.g. by means of expert judgement, by means of

monetisation approaches, by means of multi-criteria decision analysis) and aim to allocate a weight to each impact category. All the

weighted impacts for of all impact categories may be summed up to give the Single Score index.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

The Normalisation and Weighting steps are mandatory for the EF method (EC, 2021a) and were therefore

performed in the present study using the EF3.1 Normalisation Factors (NFs) and Weighting Factors (WFs)

provided in Andreasi Bassi et al. (2023).

The present study considered all 16 impact categories, as recommended in the EF method. However, the results

presented in the following chapters mainly focus on the Climate Change (

) and Water Use (

) impact categories,

because of their relevance for the case studies and packaging product systems examined. The results for all the

impact categories are presented in the Scenario Factsheets.

Regarding the Water Use impact, the EF3.1 datasets used to model the scenarios refer to water retrieved from

various sources (e.g. rivers, lakes, sea) and different geographical locations. The EF dataset for the EU average

‘tap water’ was used to model the water consumed during the washing of MU packaging. This dataset refers to

the EU average mix of water used in different EU Member States calculated as the weighted average of water

consumed in the EU considering (i) the share of EU Member States (in terms of tap water consumption) and (ii)

the Characterisation Factors considering water scarcity or availability in each EU Member State.

2.5

Sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate how changes in the benchmark values of several parameters

could impact the environmental performance of the packaging used in each case study (

). The sensitivity

analyses were based on the Monte Carlo simulation (

). To perform a Monte Carlo simulation, it is necessary to

attribute variability ranges to each parameter under examination and identify a probability distribution for these

variability ranges. The Monte Carlo simulations involve randomly selecting values for each parameter, according

to the variability range and probability distribution provided, and then storing the model’s outcomes.

This

process is repeated for a thousand simulations, and it allows the

analysis of the model’s behaviour and its

relationship with its parameters.

For the purpose of the present analysis, a uniform distribution (

) was applied to parameters assumed to vary

within their respective ranges of variability. The uniform distribution was selected because of the absence of

evidence supporting the choice of an alternative probability distribution. This type of distribution was applied

consistently for both the SU and the MU packaging products analysed. This ensures that all the values (including

the extreme minimum and maximum values) within the ranges are equally likely to be randomly selected in a

given simulation of the sensitivity analysis. The choice was also driven by the lack of detailed information in the

literature about the variability of the parameters for the business models under scrutiny.

Variability ranges associated with the parameters were determined based on values provided by stakeholders,

based on data retrieved from literature or by considering ranges

derived from the research team’s own

assumptions. For instance, the

parameter of the Circular Footprint Formula (CFF formula) (Section 2.4.5) was

assumed to vary in a symmetrical range (e.g. the

of PET for the MU packaging product in ‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’

varied by 14 percentage points, from 33 % to 61 % considering a benchmark of 47 %) (

). Factsheets in Annex 3

(

) The Climate Change impact category was modelled to be in line with the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change (Forster et al., 2021). The consequences of emitting global warming substances include increased average global

temperatures and sudden regional climatic changes. Climate Change is an impact affecting the environment on a global scale and is

modelled considering radiative forcing as global warming potential (i.e. changes in Earth’s temperature can be ‘forced’ by imbalances

in the in–out equilibrium of atmospheric energy).

)

(

Water Use impacts are calculated through the AWARE method. The AWARE method is based on the quantification of the relative

available water remaining per unit area once the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems has been met, answering the question:

‘What is the potential to deprive another user (human or ecosystem) when consuming water in this area?’ (Boulay et al., 2018). Each

water flow in the used datasets (i.e. in the background and/or in the foreground data) is characterised with its characterisation factor

considering (i) the ‘type’ of water (e.g. river, lake, sea) and (ii) the water scarcity in the area from which water is being

retrieved.

)

(

In the realms of statistics and LCA uncertainty, the analysis executed in this report incorporated a probabilistic uncertainty propagation

and a corresponding discernibility analysis, based on clustering and performance assessment against specific thresholds. However, for

the sake of simplicity and effective communication, the general term ‘sensitivity analysis’ was used throughout the report in

lieu of the

more specific term ‘discernibility analysis’.

(

) The Monte Carlo method (Metropolis and Ulam, 1949) is a probabilistic numerical technique employed for estimating outcomes that

are dependent on uncertain processes or parameters. This approach was developed before the advent of computers and first presented

in 1949 by Stanisław Ulam.

(

) Uniform distributions are probability distributions with equally likely outcomes.

(

) In some cases, parameters may be interlinked. For example, the recyclability (R

) and the energy recovery (R

) parameters of the CFF

are linked to the residual fraction to disposal (1

–

). This interrelationship must also be considered in the sensitivity analysis

simulations, ensuring that the sum of the recycled, disposed of and energy recovered fractions equals 100 %.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

provide for each case study the list of the parameters considered in the sensitivity analysis and their specific

variability ranges.

In those case studies devoted to takeaway packaging products (e.g. ‘Scenario 1’ and ‘Scenario 2’), the impacts

associated with return travel were allocated to the MU packaging products under examination by considering

the number of items transported during these journeys. The number of items transported was also considered

to randomly change within a certain range during each sensitivity analysis simulation. Similarly, the number of

reuses (of MU packaging) was assumed to vary, and the effects of such changes have been assessed in the

simulations of the sensitivity analysis. A slightly different approach was adopted to assess the variability of the

Electricity Energy Mix (‘E-Mix’). The EF3.1 dataset for the EU territory (‘Electricity grid mix 1

kV–60 kV; technology

mix; consumption mix, to consumer; 1 kV–60

kV’) was employed as a benchmark value to account for the impacts

of the average kilowatt-hour of electricity produced in the EU (see Section 2.4.4). Subsequently, a set of four

additional electricity mixes were considered in the analysis to represent EU Member States with vastly different

electricity production systems and related environmental impacts. In particular, the electricity mixes of Poland,

Germany, Belgium and Sweden were considered representative of countries with progressively larger fractions

of energy from renewable sources and lower carbon footprints (EEA, 2023). EF datasets were used to account

for the impacts of the different electricity mixes and named as follows: ‘E-Mix1’ (EU), ‘E-Mix2’ (Germany), ‘E-

Mix3’ (Sweden), ‘E-Mix4’ (Poland), ‘E-Mix5’ (Belgium).

In each simulation of the sensitivity analysis, one of these

electricity mixes was randomly selected and used to model, for example, the impacts of electricity used during

the MU packaging washing. Further details on these electricity mixes are reported in Annex 2.

Particular attention was given to the sensitivity analysis of parameters relevant for the reuse stage. Energy, water

and detergent consumption during the washing of MU packaging products was estimated from values in the

literature and primary data collected during the stakeholder consultation (Section 2.3).

The modelling of the reuse stage of MU packaging products also considered some additional washing operations

such as rinsing (i.e. pre-washing) and rewashing. In the sensitivity analysis it was considered that only rinsing,

only rewashing or both could occur. Moreover, the following assumptions were made:

−

Rinsing may consume more water than the consumed amount by dishwashers per item. In 50 % of

sensitivity simulations, warm water was assumed to be used, while cold water was assumed for the

remaining simulations.

Different rates were assumed for the rewashing of MU packaging in the different scenarios, considering

the energy, water and detergent consumption that this additional washing operation would entail.

−

A total of 1 000 simulations (

) was run for each parameter considered and for each Scenario, calculating the

different impacts of the case study packaging. Then, for each simulation the percentage difference between the

life cycle environmental impacts of the MU and SU packaging was calculated according to equation 1:

��_��

��_��_��

��

where:

−

��_��

��_��_��

= percentage difference between the impacts of MU and SU packaging for

the impact category “j” in the

Scenario considered;

��_��

��

��,��

= impact of the MU packaging (for the impact category “j”), in the sensitivity

analysis simulation “i” of the

Scenario considered;

��_��

��

,��

= impact of the SU packaging (for the impact category “j”), in the sensitivity

analysis simulation “i” of the

Scenario considered.

��_��

��

,��

− ��_��

��

,��

��_��

��

,��

(1)

Subsequently, it was estimated that:

−

impacts of the MU packaging were considered lower than SU packaging if Perc_Difference

MU_vs_SU

≤

15 %;

(

) This number of simulations was selected so that it was sufficiently large but also took account of the computational time of the software

used. The results of the sensitivity analysis were observed to be stable once 800 simulations had been performed.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

−

impacts of the MU packaging were considered higher than SU packaging if Perc_Difference

MU_vs_SU

≥

+ 15 %;

impacts of the two types of packaging were considered comparable if

–

15 % < Perc_Difference

MU_vs_SU

< + 15 %.

This assessment was repeated for all the simulations ‘i’ and impact categories ‘j’ in all the

scenarios considered.

The results of the sensitivity analysis have been plotted in dedicated figures that visually capture how the

environmental performance of the different types of packaging changed by varying a large number of

parameters. The 15 % threshold was selected considering the uncertainties associated with the models and the

data employed, and it was assumed that a percentage difference within the range of ± 15 % does not represent

a significant difference between the life cycle performance of the packaging systems compared.

The model used for the sensitivity analysis is summarized in Figure 7.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 7.

Model used for the sensitivity analysis for a given Scenario.

Source: JRC analysis. Additional details: In the first phase of the analysis, the parameters used to model the impacts of the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging are randomly extracted 1 000 times within

their specific variability ranges. Subsequently, for each iteration, the life cycle impacts of the SU and the MU packaging are calculated. Afterwards, the impacts of the SU and the MU packaging are compared for each

impact category. Lastly, for each environmental impact indicator (including the Single Score) the number of iterations in which MU packaging had higher, lower or similar impacts to the SU is estimated.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

2.5.1

Analysis of additional sensitivity scenarios

As well as the sensitivity analysis illustrated above in Section 2.5, a series of specific additional scenarios were

analysed to further discover and understand the environmental performance of the SU and MU packaging

products when certain parameters or assumptions were changed. The subsections below describe these

analyses.

2.5.1.1

Use of alternative life cycle datasets for the analysis of cartonboard production

Given that the production of raw materials is one of the most significant life cycle stages, additional scenarios

were developed to determine the extent to which changes in the impacts associated with modelling this process

could impact the performance of the SU and MU packaging products. In particular, to evaluate the relevance of

cartonboard production on the life cycle impacts of cartonboard-based packaging products, a dedicated analysis

was conducted using different cartonboard life cycle datasets as inputs to the model.

Among the inputs received from the stakeholders during the consultation period (Section 2.3), some datasets

related to specific cartonboard production processes based on primary industry data were received. These

datasets provided life cycle impacts related to specific processes of the life cycle modelled, especially regarding

the manufacturing step of the raw material employed in the cartonboard manufacturing. For confidentiality

reasons, these datasets were provided fully aggregated by stakeholders (

It is important to notice that, as declared by stakeholders, the data provided ‘cover

approximately 80 % of all

case scenario-relevant paper-based food packaging on the EU market’.

However,

separate datasets were

provided by different stakeholders in aggregated format and without supporting life cycle metadata (or detailed

explanatory notes) on how the LCA of these processes was conducted. Therefore, it was not possible to build a

new dataset that would be fully representative of the whole EU market. This aspect could therefore be a subject

for future investigations. As a consequence, it was decided to adopt one of the datasets received from

stakeholders as the ‘Benchmark dataset’

(

) for modelling cartonboard manufacturing impacts. The influence of

this choice was then tested in a dedicated analysis, considering alternative cartonboard production datasets

(Section 2.5.1), including:

−

a dataset available in the EF3.1 database and related to

‘Solid board,

bleached; Kraft Pulping Process,

pulp pressing, bleaching and drying; production mix, at plant; >220 g/m2’

(see Annex

2 for further

details);

an additional dataset provided by a stakeholder, fully based on primary industry data and built

considering the industry-specific electricity mix (with remarkably high share of renewable energy

sources).

−

(

) As a consequence, it was not possible to assess their level of consistency with the EF method and other EF datasets used in the model.

(

) Based on information provided by the stakeholder, this dataset referred to a cartonboard production facility located in northern Europe.

The dataset was described as fully based on primary industry data, although an EU average electricity mix was considered as input to

the life cycle model. The Climate Change life cycle impacts of this dataset were aligned with impacts indicated in a recent study by

ProCarton (Pro Carton, 2023b), excluding biogenic carbon flows. As a consequence, this dataset was deemed the best proxy currently

available to represent the EU level.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Table 2.

Overview of the alternative life cycle datasets used to model the impacts associated with cartonboard

manufacturing.

Dataset

used in the

analysis

‘Benchmark dataset’

‘Alternative

1’

‘Alternative

2’

Industry dataset retrieved during stakeholder

consultation. This refers to primary data

collected by the industry in a facility and is

assumed to model electricity consumption

based on the average EU electricity mix.

Impacts close to results from the ProCarton

study (ProCarton, 2023b), at least concerning

carbon footprint (excluding biogenic carbon

emissions and carbon removals). Impacts for

water use were estimated (

). In particular,

impacts of water use were modified to make

them consistent in terms of impact category

considered in the study.

The dataset has not

been declared as ‘EF

compliant’

by stakeholders

and therefore not

consistent with other background datasets

used in the study.

Additional energy needs related to converting

cartonboard into carton were included when

assessing this dataset.

EF3.1 dataset, consistent with

other datasets used in the study.

The dataset is representative of

an average kraft pulping process

in the EU (data from 2012) (

Based on the available

metadata, it was assumed that

this dataset included impacts

associated with cartonboard

manufacturing and converting

cartonboard into carton. For this

reason, the energy needs

required to convert cartonboard

into carton were excluded in the

calculations of life cycle impacts

when using this dataset.

Industry dataset retrieved during

the stakeholder consultation. This

refers to primary data collected by

the industry in a facility and is

assumed to model electricity

consumption based on the specific

electricity mix claimed by the

industry in such a facility.

The dataset has not been declared

‘EF

compliant’

by stakeholders

and therefore not consistent with

other background datasets used in

the study.

Additional energy needs related to

converting cartonboard into carton

were included when assessing this

dataset.

Notes

Source: EF3.1 dataset and information received during the stakeholder consultation. Note: (

) The Water Use impact was calculated as the

mathematical average of the Water Use

impacts of ‘Alternative 1’ and ‘Alternative 2’.

(

) Concerning Water Use impacts, the value provided

in the ‘Alternative 1’ dataset is

2.32 m

water eq. As a comparison, the range of Water Use impacts of other EF3.1 datasets is 0.19–2.33 m

water

eq. for “containerboard production, fluting medium, semichemical; technology mix; production mix, at plant; 1000

kg”

and “Solid

board;

Kraft Pulping Process, pulp pressing and drying; production mix, at plant; >220 g/m2”

datasets, respectively. Water Use impacts for the EF3.1

datasets “Carton

board; Kraft Pulping Process, pulp pressing and drying, box manufacturing; production mix, at plant; 280 g/m2”

and “kraft

paper; technology mix; production mix, at plant; kg”

are equal to 2.32

and 0.34 m

water eq., respectively. When compared with datasets

provided by other external databases such as Ecoinvent version 3.6, the Water Use impacts calculated with the AWARE method (Boulay et

al., 2018) would be in the range of 0.32–0.38 m

water eq. for EU Ecoinvent datasets referring to corrugated box production; in the range of

0.38 0.99 m

water eq. for EU Ecoinvent datasets referring to folding boxboard/chipboard production; in the range of 1.29–2.19 m

water eq.

for EU Ecoinvent datasets referring to solid bleached/unbleached board production and in the range of 2.08–2.13 m

water eq. for EU

Ecoinvent datasets referring to kraft paper bleached/unbleached production. Such variability observed in literature data is captured by the

‘Alternative 1’ and ‘Alternative 2’ datasets employed in the present analysis, and by having the ‘Benchmark dataset’ as the average

value of

these two used to model benchmark scenarios.

2.5.1.2

Assumptions on the use and type of packaging lids

In the benchmark analysis performed in ‘Scenario 1’, a carton lid was modelled. An additional analysis was

performed to test the influence of different assumptions about the presence and type of lid in use in case study

packaging products in ‘Scenario 1’.

The steps performed in the specific additional analysis on lids can be

summarised as follows:

⎯

in the benchmark analysis, the mass of the SU packaging product amounted to 17.6 g (assuming that

the lid has a total mass of 5.3 g and contains 0.5 g of LDPE lining), while the mass of the MU packaging

product amounted to 48.3 g (PP cup with PP lid);

⎯

in the alternative 1 analysis, it was assumed that a polystyrene (PS) lid was used for the SU case study;

in this case, the total mass of the SU packaging product amounted to 14.04 g (including a PS lid with a

mass of 1.8 g), while the total mass of the MU packaging product was kept the same as that in the

benchmark analysis;

⎯

in the alternative 2 analysis, it was assumed that an SU cup without a lid (having a total mass of 12.28 g)

was used; similarly, an MU cup without a lid with a mass of 33.3 g was considered in this case.

The results of the additional sensitivity analyses are presented in Section 3.1.2.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

2.5.1.3

Influence of passenger car transport and related impacts

During the analysis and modelling of the takeaway scenarios (especially related to ‘Scenario 2 –

CASE

A’ analysis),

the relevance of the consumer behaviour on the overall accounting of the life cycle impacts of MU packaging

products was acknowledged. In the benchmark scenario, a certain amount of impact due to transport by

passenger car back to the point of sale was allocated to the MU packaging products. An additional analysis was

developed assuming a scenario in which the impacts of transport due to the returning of the MU packaging

products to the point of sale are removed. This analysis assumes, for instance, that all transport occurs either by

transport means without impacts (e.g. on foot or bike) or that no impact of transport is allocated to the reusable

packaging (supposing, for example, that the car trip to return the packaging was had a different purpose, e.g.

returning to the point of sale to purchase new food products (

)).

This analysis has been applied to the packaging used in ‘Scenario 2 –

CASE

A’, and the results are presented in

Section 3.2.2.

2.5.1.4

Assumptions on end-of-life parameters and calculation of break-even points

Results for a series of scenarios were calculated by modifying benchmark values for parameters used to model

the end-of-life stage of the packaging. Then, Break-Even (BE) points were calculated, that is, the value of a certain

parameter for which the SU and MU packaging products had the same impact. BE points were calculated for the

Climate Change and Water Use impact categories and the aggregated Single Score, with reference to the

‘Restaurant Scenario’ (results presented in Section

3.5.2). The BE point analyses were as follows:

⎯

BE point analysis 1: varying the value of the recycling at the end-of-life stage (parameter

of the CFF)

of carton material used for the SU packaging product in the

‘Restaurant Scenario’;

⎯

BE point analysis 2: as in BE point analysis 1, but assuming improved recycling at the end-of-life stage of

PP plastic used for the MU packaging;

⎯

BE point analysis 3: varying the number of reuses of the MU packaging in the

‘Restaurant Scenario’.

Regarding

‘BE

point analysis

1’, the benchmark value selected for recycling at the end-of-life

stage of carton was

supposed to be 15 % (Kearney, 2023) (

). This value was employed in the benchmark analysis of all SU carton

packaging included,

for example, in the ‘Restaurant Scenario’ (i.e. tray for hamburger, tray for

fries and cup).

However, some Member States may achieve high collection rates for paper waste, and some recyclers may

separate the carton and its lining and being able to achieve high rates of carton recycling. The

‘BE

point analysis 1’

aimed to find the value of the end-of-life recycling rate of carton at which the impacts of the SU packaging

product are equal to those of the alternative MU packaging product (

). This analysis was performed for all the

alternative cartonboard production datasets presented in Section 2.5.1 (i.e. a set of three BE points were

identified when different cartonboard datasets were considered). The changes in the assumptions about the

recycling rates pertained only to the carton used in the cup and trays and not to the LDPE used for the lining,

since this was assumed to be non-recyclable

in all scenarios. The ‘BE point analysis 1’ was carried out as follows:

⎯

The results of the scenario were recalculated each time assuming that the recycling rate (R

) for carton

increased from 0 % (worse case) to 100 % (ideal situation).

−

All other parameter values were held constant, such as the recycled content (R

) of carton remaining at

0 %, and the recycled content and recycling rate of the PP used in the MU cup was kept unchanged at

0 % and 41 %, respectively. In this analysis, it was also considered how the recycling rate might

vary/increase depending on potential open-loop applications of the recycled material, while the

recycled content could stay constant as a consequence, for instance, of the food grade requirements

for these packaging products.

A second BE point analysis (‘BE point analysis 2’) was performed, assuming an improved end-of-life

recycling rate

) for the PP used in MU packaging products in the ‘Restaurant scenario’. This alternative analysis aims to

discover the potential effect of and how improved recycling of materials in the MU packaging products could

affect the BE points. The assumptions in this new scenario were the same as those of the BE point analysis 1,

(

) As an example, if the allocation of the impacts of transport for returning the packaging was based on economic factors, the value of the

returned MU packaging could be considered negligible compared with the value of other products purchased during the same trip.

(

) A low recycling rate at the end-of-life stage may be the consequence of a low collection rate of the waste and the technical difficulties

in recycling multilayer materials. Moreover, possible food and drink residues in the cups and trays may hinder recycling at the end of

life (making it difficult to achieve high recycling rates).

(

) When the recycling rate (R

) exceeds the break-even point, the impacts of the SU packaging are lower than those of the MU packaging

product.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

although the recycling rate of the PP in MU packaging products was assumed to increase up to 85 %. As for

‘BE

point analysis

1’, ‘BE point analysis 2’ was performed for all alternative cartonboard production datasets (i.e. a

set of three BE points were identified, when different cartonboard datasets were considered).

In the ‘BE point analysis 3’, the effect of a change in the number of reuses of the MU packaging products was

explored for the ‘Restaurant scenario’. Because of the nature of the dine-in meal modelled for the ‘Restaurant

scenario’, and also based on the insights

gathered from stakeholders and the literature, it is conceivable that

operators could achieve high numbers of reuses for MU packaging products. In the ‘Restaurant Scenario’, it was

therefore assumed that MU packaging products could be reused up to 100

times as benchmark. The ‘BE point

analysis

3’ was developed to determine for which number of reuses the MU and the SU packaging had same

impact. Apart from the number of reuses of the MU packaging products, all other parameters were kept constant

in the

analysis. As for the previous BE analyses, the ‘BE point analysis 3’ was repeated considering all the

alternative cartonboard production datasets.

Table 3 summarises the three BE point analyses presented in this section.

Table 3.

Overview of the Break-Even

(BE) point analyses performed for the ‘Restaurant Scenario’.

Benchmark

Packaging

End-of-life

recycling

rate

No. of

reuses

“BE

point analysis 1”

End-of-life recycling

rate

From 0 % to 100 %

(carton).

All other parameter

values do not vary

“BE

point analysis

2”

End-of-life recycling

rate

From 0 % to 100 %

(carton).

All other

parameters’

values do not vary

85 %

(polypropylene).

All other parameters’

values do not vary

“BE

point analysis 3”

No. of reuses

Single Use

packaging in the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’

Multiple Use

packaging in the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’

Source: JRC analysis.

15 %

(carton)

41 %

(polypropyle

ne)

100

(cup and

tray)

All other parameter

values do not vary

From 5 to 200

(both for cup and

tray). All other

parameter values do

not vary

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Results

This section provides an overview of the results of the analyses for all the scenarios, detailing the results of the

LCA considering the benchmark values and the results of the sensitivity analyses.

3.1

Results for Scenario 1

‘Scenario

1’ compares the environmental performance of packaging for cold or hot beverages served in a

container at the point of sale for takeaway; further details are given in the

‘Scenario

1’ Factsheet in Annex 3. This

Scenario focused on a comparison of the performance of a carton cup with LDPE lining and a carton lid (SU) with

a PP cup and PP lid (MU).

3.1.1

Scenario 1

–

Benchmark and sensitivity analysis

As explained in Section 2.4.3 (Figure 1),

‘Scenario

1’ analysed the life cycle impacts of takeaway SU carton and

takeaway MU PP cups. The life cycle impacts in terms of the benchmark values are shown in Figure 8. The analysis

shows that the MU packaging product has lower impacts for the majority of the impact categories, although the

two packaging products had similar impacts for many indicators. Despite this, the life cycle impacts of the SU

packaging product were lower for the Climate Change, Ecotoxicity Freshwater and

‘Resource

Use, Fossil’ and

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’ impact categories. High impact levels in these categories for MU packaging

are mostly due to the plastics manufacturing and the passenger car used to return the reusable cups to the point

of sale. The benchmark results show that, despite the water consumed during washing for reuse, the Water Use

life cycle impact of the MU packaging was lower than for the SU life cycle. This is mainly due to the water

consumption values assumed for the cartonboard production dataset. The aggregated Single Score indicates a

slightly better performance of the MU packaging product.

Figure 8.

Comparison of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

for

‘Scenario

1’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c =

Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU =

Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity

Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

Figure 9 illustrates the results of the sensitivity analysis, based on the range of variation associated with each

parameter in the model (see Factsheets in Annex 3 for the details).

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 9.

Results of the sensitivity analysis for

‘Scenario 1’ for all impact categories for the Single Use (SU) and

Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c =

Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU =

Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity

Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

According to the results of the sensitivity analysis for the aggregated Single Score, the MU packaging had lower

impacts in around 40 % of simulations, with SU and MU packaging products comparable in about 30 % of the

simulations, and in the remaining simulations SU had lower impacts. In the case of the Climate Change impact

category, SU packaging products had lower impact in the majority of the cases (around 50 % of the simulations).

In three impact categories (namely:

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’;

‘Resource

Use, Fossils’; and Ecotoxicity

Freshwater) the SU packaging product exhibited significantly lower impacts than the MU packaging product. For

other impact categories, the MU packaging product generally had lower impacts in the majority of the

simulations.

Factsheets in Annex 3 provide additional results for this Scenario, comprising (i) an overview of the contribution

of the various life cycle stages to the impacts of the SU and MU packaging and (ii) the breakdown of the impacts

for the reuse stage of the MU packaging.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

3.1.2

3.1.2.1

Scenario 1

–

Additional analyses

Use of alternative life cycle datasets for the analysis of cartonboard production

As explained in Section 2.5.1, the influence of varying life cycle impacts associated with the production of

cartonboard used in the manufacturing of the SU packaging product in ‘Scenario 1’ was tested in a dedicated

analysis. This compared the results obtained with the ‘Benchmark dataset’ (retrieved during the stakeholder

consultation; see Table 2),

with ‘Alternative 1’ (referring to the EF3.1 solid board bleached production dataset)

and

‘Alternative 2’ (based on an alternative dataset retrieved during the stakeholder consultation). All the

parameters (and ranges) and inventory datasets have been kept constant in this analysis, and only the

cartonboard impacts were varied.

The modified results for

‘Scenario

1’ are presented in Figure 10 and Figure 11 (comparing the results of sensitivity

analyses, keeping the same ranges and parameter values as for

‘Scenario

1’ in Section 3.1.1 and varying the

cartonboard manufacturing impacts), focusing on the Climate Change and the Water Use impact categories as

well as the aggregated Single Score. Complete results for all the impact categories are provided in Annex 4.

Figure 10.

Results of the analysis of cartonboard impacts for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging

products. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = climate Change; WU = Water Use; SS = Single Score. The

’Benchmark

dataset’ (Bench.) used in the analysis

refers to a dataset retrieved during the stakeholder consultations; the

‘Alternative

1’ dataset refers to the EF3.1 dataset, the

‘Alternative

2’

dataset refer to a dataset retrieved during the stakeholder consultation. For further details see Section 2.5.1 and Annex 2.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 11.

Results of the analysis of cartonboard impacts, comparing the results of the Sensitivity analysis

simulations for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; WU = Water Use; SS = Single Score. The

’Benchmark dataset’

(Bench.) used in the analysis

refers to a dataset retrieved during the stakeholder consultations; the

‘Alternative

1’ dataset refers to the EF3.1 dataset, the

‘Alternative

2’

dataset refer to a dataset retrieved during the stakeholder consultation. For further details see Section 2.5.1 and Annex 2.

Results for both Figure 10 and Figure 11 suggest how the effects of the two alternatives are particularly relevant

especially when assessing the

Water Use impact category as it is noticeable how both the ‘Benchmark’ and

‘Alternative 1’ datasets manifest a clear advantage for the MU packaging product, while in the case of the

‘Alternative 2’ dataset, the results are shifted in favour of SU packaging.

In the case of the Single Score index, the

importance of the choice of the cartonboard dataset is also noticeable to a lower extent, as for

‘Alternative

2’

the SU packaging performance improves

compared to the ‘Benchmark’.

A similar result is observed for the

Climate Change impact category.

Overall, the aggregated Single Score results for the SU packaging are improved in the case of the

‘Alternative

2’

dataset, while moving from the

‘Benchmark’

‘Alternative

1’ dataset generally increases the impacts of SU

packaging in the majority of the simulations.

This analysis overall highlights how, in future studies, additional effort should be dedicated to developing

datasets for cartonboard production that are as representative as possible of the EU context, also ensuring full

methodological consistency with the EF method and with all remaining datasets (

(

) Ideally, it is recommended that EF-compliant datasets are developed that are representative of the current market shares of

cartonboard producers in the EU-27.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

3.1.2.2

Assumptions on the use and type of packaging lids

As explained in Section 2.5.1, this specific analysis aims to discover the influence of the presence and type of lid

on the environmental performance of the packaging in Scenario 1. Apart from the presence (or not) of the lid

and its mass, all other parameters were kept constant in this analysis.

The results are illustrated in Figure 12 for the Climate Change, Water Use and aggregated Single Score (for the

benchmark scenario in panel (a), the scenario with the PS lid in panel (b) and the one without the lid in panel (c)).

Figure 12.

Results of the specific analysis of lid types for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging

products. The graphs illustrate the results for (a) SU packaging product including a carton lid with low-density

polyethylene (LDPE) lining and (b) SU packaging including a polystyrene (PS) lid. The bottom graph (c) illustrates

the results where both packaging products do not include any lid. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact

category considered.

(a) Carton lid

–

Benchmark case

(b) PS lid

Source of all images (a, b, c): JRC analysis.

The results suggest that the impacts of MU packaging for the Water Use impact category are lower than those

of SU packaging in all three cases analysed. The opposite behaviour is observed for the Climate Change impact,

where SU packaging shows lower impacts than MU packaging. Considering the Single Score, MU packaging shows

lower impacts in the benchmark scenario than the SU alternative, while the reverse was observed in the scenario

without a lid. These differences may be ascribed to the impacts related to the manufacturing of the different

materials (PS and carton), and the different masses of the lids in the three scenarios (detailed in Section 2.5.1.2).

Despite the potential advantages from a life cycle impacts perspective of having a PS lid, it must be noted that

the use of plastics lids may be associated with additional environmental impacts (such as plastic littering) that

are not captured in the present analysis. Moreover, the use of single material products could be preferable from

an end-of-life treatment perspective, as it is generally more complex to separate and recycle multi-material

waste. Overall, the assumptions related to the lid in the scenarios are less relevant than other assumptions (as

analysed in the other sensitivity analysis and additional analysis for the various scenarios).

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

3.2

Results for Scenario 2

‘Scenario

2’ analyses the life cycle impacts of SU and MU packaging used for takeaway food. In particular, two

case studies have been addressed:

−

‘CASE

A’: analysis of the impacts of a carton tray with LDPE lining (SU) and a PP clamshell tray (MU);

‘CASE

B’: analysis of the impacts of an aluminium tray with carton cover and LDPE lining (SU) and a PP

clamshell tray (MU).

Further details on

‘Scenario

2’ are provided in the two Factsheets in Annex 3.

3.2.1

Scenario 2

–

CASE A

–

Benchmark and sensitivity analysis

As explained in Section 2.4.3 (Figure 2), the

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ covers the whole life cycle of the takeaway SU

carton tray and the takeaway MU PP tray. Figure 13 illustrates the results of the life cycle impacts considering

the benchmark values for

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’. The SU packaging exhibits lower impacts for the Climate Change,

Ecotoxicity Freshwater,

‘Resource

Use, Fossil’ and

‘Resource Use,

Mineral and Metals’, whereas the MU

packaging has lower impact for all the other impact categories. High impacts for Ecotoxicity Freshwater and

‘Resource

Use,

Fossil’ and ‘Resource Use Minerals and Metals’

for the MU packaging are mostly due to the

plastics manufacturing and the passenger car used to return the packaging to the point of sale. The benchmark

results highlight how the water requirements of the MU packaging life cycle led to lower impacts in the water

use category than the SU life cycle. Lastly, the aggregated Single Score shows that the MU packaging product has

overall slightly lower life cycle impacts.

Figure 13.

Comparison of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

for

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c =

Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU =

Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity

Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

Figure 14 illustrates the results of the sensitivity analysis, based on the range of variation associated with each

parameter in the model (see Factsheets in Annex 3 for the details).

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 14.

Results of the sensitivity analysis for

’Scenario

–

CASE A’ for all impact categories for the Single Use

(SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c =

Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU =

Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity

Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

The sensitivity analysis simulations indicate that the SU and MU packaging products are comparable in terms of

the aggregated Single Score and also for other impact categories, such as the

‘Eutrophication, Marine’

and

‘Eutrophication, Terrestrial’

impact categories. Focusing on the aggregated Single Score, for approximately one

third of the simulations, the SU packaging product has lower impacts, while for another third the MU packaging

product has lower impacts. Lastly, in the remaining third of the simulations, the two packaging systems have

comparable impacts.

In the case of the Climate Change impact category, the SU packaging product has lower impacts than the MU

packaging in around 60 % of the simulations. For three impact categories (namely:

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and

Metals’;

‘Resource

Use, Fossils’ and Ecotoxicity Freshwater), the performance of the SU packaging product is

significantly better than that of the MU packaging product. For all other impact categories, the MU packaging

product had lower impacts than the SU packaging in the majority of the simulations.

The Factsheets in Annex 3 provide additional results for this Scenario, comprising (i) an overview of the

contribution of the various life cycle stages to the impacts of the SU and MU packaging and (ii) the breakdown

of the impacts for the reuse stage of the MU packaging.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

3.2.2

3.2.2.1

Scenario 2

–

CASE A

–

Additional analyses

Influence of passenger car transport and related impacts

As explained in Section 2.5.1, a dedicated scenario was assessed to discover the relevance of the assumptions

related to transport by passenger car in the reuse step of the MU packaging product in

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’. The

results for the benchmark values of the parameters are illustrated in Figure 15, while Figure 16 illustrates the

results for the sensitivity analysis.

Figure 15.

Comparison of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

for the

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’, when the passenger car impacts of the reuse step of the MU packaging are

excluded from the analysis. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c =

Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU =

Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity

Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

When the results in Figure 15 and Figure 16 are compared with the corresponding results in Section 3.2.1, it is

evident how the assumptions about consumer behaviour in the reuse step play a crucial role in the performance

of the MU packaging product. This is especially relevant for certain impact categories (such as Climate Change,

‘Resource

Use, Fossils’ and

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’) where passenger car transport plays a

significant role in the overall life cycle performance. Overall, when the impacts associated with transport by

passenger car are removed from the model, the MU packaging product’s performance significantly improves and

becomes favourable in almost all impact categories (Figure 16). For example, in the case of the aggregated Single

Score, the results of the sensitivity analysis presented in Section 3.2.1 did not show a preference for any

particular option (SU packaging having lower impacts in one third of cases, MU packaging having lower impacts

in another third of the simulations, and the impacts being comparable in the remaining third of cases). By

contrast, the results in Figure 16 show the impact of MU packaging as lower in a large majority of the simulations.

A similar shift in the results is observed in particular for some impact categories, including Climate Change.

This sensitivity analysis underlined the relevance of the assumptions about consumer behaviour in takeaway

packaging products during the reuse phase, especially those concerning the return of the packaging to the point

of sale. The benchmark model assumes that in 25 % of the cases the items are collected by the delivery service.

In only 75 % of the cases are the items returned by consumers and it was assumed that in 10 % of these cases

the transport should be allocated to the packaging products under examination in this case study, and also

assumes that five items are transported on each journey (Annex 3). Such assumptions were cross-checked with

inputs from stakeholders during the consultation. However, as this is also a matter of allocating the impacts,

there is not an unambiguous way of modelling them, as the assumptions are also based on value choices. It is

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

recommended that more primary data from the business models in place in the market should be collected in

future to properly capture consumer behaviour and better allocate the impact associated with this step.

Figure 16.

Results of the sensitivity analysis for

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ for all impact categories of Single Use (SU)

and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products, when the passenger car impacts of the reuse step of the MU

packaging are excluded from the analysis.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c =

Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU =

Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity

Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

3.2.3

Scenario 2

–

CASE B

–

Benchmark and sensitivity analysis

As explained in Section 2.4.3 (Figure 2),

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’ analyses the life cycle of a takeaway SU aluminium

tray and a takeaway MU PP tray. Figure 17 provides the results of the life cycle impacts calculated for the

benchmark values for

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’. The analysis shows that the MU packaging product has lower impacts

for all impact categories, except for the

‘Resource

Use, Fossil’ and

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’ impact

categories. The Benchmark for this scenario results also show that the Water Use impacts for the MU packaging

life cycle are lower compared than those for the SU life cycle.

The aggregated Single Score shows overall lower environmental impacts for the MU packaging product.

Figure 17.

Comparison of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c =

Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU =

Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity

Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

Based on the ranges (i.e. minimum and maximum) associated with each parameter in the model (see Factsheets

in Annex 3), the results of the sensitivity analysis are provided in Figure 18.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 18.

Results of the sensitivity analysis for

’Scenario

–

CASE B’ for all impact categories for Single Use

(SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c =

Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU =

Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity

Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

According to the sensitivity analysis simulations, the impacts of the SU and MU packaging products are

comparable for the Climate Change impact category (in roughly one third of the simulations). In the case of the

aggregated Single Score, the MU packaging product had lower impacts in the majority of the simulations. Only

in two impact categories (namely

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’ and

‘Resource

Use, Fossil’) the impacts of

the SU packaging lower in the majority of the simulations or the impacts of the two packaging products are

comparable.

The Factsheets in Annex 3 provide additional results for this Scenario, comprising (i) an overview of the

contribution of the various life cycle stages to the impacts of the SU and MU packaging and (ii) the breakdown

of the impacts for the reuse stage of the MU packaging.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

3.3

Results for Scenario 3

‘Scenario

3’ focuses on the analysis of the environmental performance of packaging for alcoholic and non-

alcoholic beverages in the form of beer, carbonated alcoholic beverages, fermented beverages other than wine,

aromatised wine products and fruit wine, etc. Further details of

‘Scenario

3’ are provided in the two Factsheets

in Annex 3. In particular, two case studies have been addressed:

−

‘CASE A’: analysis of the impacts of an aluminium can (SU) and of a plastic bottle with a PP cap (MU);

‘CASE

B’: analysis of the impacts of a glass bottle (SU) and a glass bottle (MU).

3.3.1

Scenario 3

–

CASE A

–

Benchmark and sensitivity analysis

As outlined in Section 2.4.3 (Figure 3),

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ analyses the life cycle impacts of both an SU

aluminium can and an MU plastic bottle. Figure 19 shows the life cycle impacts calculated for the benchmark

values for

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’.

For the SU packaging the production of the aluminium is mainly driving the life cycle impacts across the various

impact categories. The SU packaging had lower impacts in the majority of cases, especially for the Land Use,

‘Eutrophication, Freshwater’

and

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’ impact categories. High impacts in these

categories are due to the manufacturing of plastic components for the MU packaging, coupled with the

passenger car used to return the bottles for washing (and related energy needs for the washing step). In contrast,

the SU packaging impacts are higher, for instance in the case of the Water Use impact category (due to the

substantial amounts of water consumed in the aluminium production) and the Acidification impact category. The

aggregated Single Score shows the overall lower environmental impacts of the SU packaging product.

Figure 19.

Comparison of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

for

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c =

Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU =

Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity

Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

Figure 20 illustrates the results of the sensitivity analysis, based on the range of variation associated with each

parameter in the model (see Factsheets in Annex 3 for the details).

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 20.

Results of the sensitivity analysis for

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ for all impact categories of the Single Use

(SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c =

Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU =

Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity

Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

The results underline lower impacts of the SU packaging product compared with the MU alternative for several

impact categories (e.g.

‘Eutrophication,

Freshwater’ and

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’). By contrast, the

MU packaging product exhibits lower impacts than SU packaging for other categories (e.g. Particulate Matter

and Ionising Radiations). In the case of the Climate Change impact, the overall performance of the two packaging

products is comparable. For the aggregated Single Score, the results indicate that the SU packaging product has

lower impacts in about 50 % of the simulations, whereas in 20 % of the simulations the MU packaging has lower

impacts, and in around 30 % of the simulations the impacts of the two packaging products are comparable.

The factsheets in Annex 3 provides additional results for this Scenario, comprising (i) an overview of the

contribution of the various life cycle stages to the impacts of the SU and MU packaging and (ii) the breakdown

of the impacts for the reuse stage of the MU packaging.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

3.3.2

Scenario 3

–

CASE B

–

Benchmark and sensitivity analysis

As outlined in Section 2.4.3 (Figure 3),

the ‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’ analyses the life cycle of both an SU glass beer

bottle and an MU glass beer bottle; the latter has a greater thickness than the SU glass bottle. Figure 21 provides

the results of the life cycle impacts calculated considering the benchmark values for ‘Scenario

–

CASE B’. The

results of the benchmark analysis underline the better performance of the MU packaging product compared with

the SU product in almost all impact categories, except Land use (

). For all the other categories, the impacts of

the MU packaging are always less than 60 % of the SU impacts. Similarly, the Single Score results show that the

impacts of the MU bottle are lower overall.

Figure 21.

Comparison of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

for

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c =

Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU =

Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity

Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

Along similar lines to that observed in the benchmark results, the sensitivity analysis also highlights the better

performance of the MU bottle compared with the SU bottle. Figure 22 illustrates the results of the sensitivity

analysis, based on range of the variation associated with each parameter in the model. Apart from the Land Use

impact category, the MU packaging generally had lower impacts for all the impact categories. In addition, the

Single Score shows that the MU packaging had overall lower impacts in more than 95 % of the simulation.

(

) The results for the Land Use impact category are affected by the credits in the aggregated EF dataset employed to model virgin and

recycled glass manufacturing.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 22.

Results of the sensitivity analysis for

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’ for all impact categories for the Single Use

(SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c =

Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU =

Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity

Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

Factsheets in the Annex 3 provides additional results for this Scenario, comprising (i) an overview of the

contribution of the various lifecycle stages to the impacts of the SU and MU packaging and (ii) the breakdown of

the impacts for the reuse stage of the MU packaging.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

3.4

Results for Scenario 4

‘Scenario 4’ analyses the environmental impacts of bottles for alcoholic beverages in the form of wine (with the

exception of sparkling wine). The results for ‘Scenario 4’ are further detailed in the Factsheets in Annex

3. In

particular, a case study analyses the impacts of an SU glass bottle and a thicker glass bottle (MU).

3.4.1

Scenario 4

–

Benchmark and sensitivity analysis

As outlined in Section 2.4.3 (Figure 4),

‘Scenario 4’ analyses the life cycle of both an SU glass wine bottle and an

MU glass wine bottle, the latter being thicker than the SU bottle. Figure 23 shows the results for the life cycle

impacts calculated considering the benchmark values. The MU packaging product has lower impacts than the SU

packaging product for all impact categories, except Land Use. In particular, the impacts of the MU packaging are

60 % or less than those of the SU bottle.

Figure 23.

Comparison of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

for

‘Scenario

4’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c =

Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU =

Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity

Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

Figure 24 illustrates the results of the sensitivity analysis, based on the range of variation associated with each

parameter in the model (see Factsheets in Annex 3 for the details). Apart from the Land Use impact category,

the MU packaging has lower impacts than the SU packaging for all impact categories. Even the Single Score results

point to the overall lower impacts of the MU packaging in almost all simulations.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 24.

Results of the sensitivity analysis for

‘Scenario

4’ for all impact categories for the Single Use (SU) and

Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c =

Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU =

Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity

Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score

Factsheets in the Annex 3 provides additional results for this Scenario, comprising (i) an overview of the

contribution of the various lifecycle stages to the impacts of the SU and MU packaging and (ii) the breakdown of

the impacts for the reuse stage of the MU packaging.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

3.5

Results for the Restaurant Scenario

The ‘Restaurant Scenario’ provides a case study analysis of the environmental impacts of SU and MU packaging

used by operators in the dine-in HORECA sector. A case study was investigated as follows:

−

Analysis of a ‘hamburger meal’ provided with either SU or MU packaging. The SU packaging is composed

of a carton cup with LDPE lining for the drink, a carton tray with LDPE lining for the hamburger and a

carton tray with LDPE lining for the fries. The MU packaging is composed of a PP cup for the drink and a

PP plate for both the fries and the hamburger.

Further details are provided in the ‘Restaurant Scenario’ Factsheet in Annex

3.5.1

Restaurant Scenario

–

Benchmark and sensitivity analysis

As outlined in Section 2.4.3 (Figure 5),

the ‘Restaurant Scenario’ analyses the

life cycle impacts of SU packaging

used for a hamburger meal (composed of a carton cup, with LDPE lining and no lid, for the drink; a carton tray

for the hamburger and a smaller carton tray for the fries) and of MU packaging used for the meal (composed a

PP cup, without lid, for the drink, and a PP plate for both the hamburger and fries).

Figure 25 shows the results for the life cycle impacts calculated considering the benchmark values. The MU

packaging has lower impacts than the SU packaging for almost all impact categories, except the Ionising

Radiations and the Ecotoxicity Freshwater impact categories. Despite the water consumed during the washing

for reuse, the MU packaging has overall lower impacts for the Water Use impact category. The Single Score index

also shows that impacts of the MU are overall lower.

Figure 25.

Comparison of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) meals for the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c =

Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU =

Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity

Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 26 illustrates the results of the sensitivity analysis, based on the range of variation associated with each

parameter in the model (see Factsheets in Annex 3 for the details).

The MU packaging has lower impacts for almost all impact categories and the majority of the simulations. For

Climate Change impact, the MU packaging had lower impacts than the SU packaging in more than 60 % of the

simulations, and the aggregated Single Score for of the MU packaging was lower in around 90 % of the

simulations. Only for two impact categories (namely Ecotoxicity Freshwater and Ionising Radiation) did the

simulations show comparable impacts for the SU and MU packaging products.

Figure 26.

Results of the sensitivity analysis for the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’ for all impact categories for the Single

Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c =

Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU =

Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity

Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

Factsheets in Annex 3 provides additional results for this Scenario, comprising (i) an overview of the contribution

of the various lifecycle stages to the impacts of the SU and MU packaging and (ii) the breakdown of the impacts

for the reuse stage of the MU packaging.

3.5.2

3.5.2.1

Restaurant Scenario

–

Additional analyses

Use of alternative life cycle datasets for the analysis of cartonboard production

As outlined in Section 2.5.1, this additional sensitivity analysis assesses the influence of using different input

datasets for the production of cartonboard used in the ‘Restaurant Scenario’. This analysis considered the

‘Benchmark dataset’ (retrieved during the stakeholder consultation;

see Table 2)

and the ‘Alternative 1’ dataset

(referring to the EF3.1 dataset on solid board bleached production) and

‘Alternative 2’

dataset (an additional

dataset retrieved during the stakeholder consultation). All other parameters (and ranges) and inventory values

were kept constant in the analysis.

Figure 27 presents the results of the analysis (considering benchmark values for the parameters and varying the

cartonboard manufacturing impacts), and Figure 28 presents the results of the sensitivity analysis (calculated

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

keeping the same ranges and parameter values as for the base scenario in Section 3.5.1 and varying the

cartonboard manufacturing impacts). The results are illustrated for the Climate Change and the Water Use

impact categories and the aggregated Single Score. A complete set of results for all impact categories is provided

in Annex 3.

Figure 27.

Results of the specific sensitivity analysis for cartonboard impacts for the Single Use (SU) and

Multiple Use (MU) packaging products. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; WU = Water Use; SS = Single Score. The

’Benchmark dataset’

(Bench.) used in the analysis

refers to a dataset retrieved during the stakeholder consultations; the

‘Alternative

1’ dataset refers to the EF3.1 dataset, the

‘Alternative

2’

dataset refer to a dataset retrieved during the stakeholder consultation. For further details see Section 2.5.1 and Annex 2.

Figure 28.

Results of the specific sensitivity analysis for cartonboard impacts, comparing the results of the

sensitivity analysis simulations for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; WU = Water Use; SS = Single Score. The

’Benchmark dataset’

(Bench.) used in the analysis

refers to a dataset retrieved during the stakeholder consultations; the

‘Alternative

1’ dataset refers to the EF3.1 dataset, the

‘Alternative

2’

dataset refer to a dataset retrieved during the stakeholder consultation. For further details see Section 2.5.1 and Annex 2.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

The results shown in Figure 27 and Figure 28 suggest that the changes in the two alternative scenarios are

particularly relevant, especially for

the Water Use impact category. Switching to the ‘Alternative 2’ packaging

dataset results in lower Water Use impacts for the SU packaging.

For the Climate Change impact category and the aggregated Single Score, the MU packaging has lower impacts

for all the tested alternatives, although the differences with the SU impact are reduced when considering

‘Alternative 2’ dataset scenario.

Similarly, the results of the sensitivity analysis (Figure 28) show that MU packaging has lower impacts in the

majority of the simulations, with the exception of water use in the ‘Alternative 2’ scenario, for which the SU

packaging products had a better environmental performance.

3.5.2.2

Assumptions on end-of-life parameters and calculation of break-even points

As outlined in Section 2.5.1, a set of three additional scenarios for calculating the BE point were analysed for the

‘Restaurant Scenario’, looking at the effects of varying assumptions concerning recycling at the end-of-life

stage

parameter of the CFF) of the carton (‘BE analysis 1’), recycling at the end-of-life stage of the carton together

with improved recycling at the end-of-life

stage of PP (‘BE analysis 2’) and the number of reuses of the MU

packaging (‘BE analysis 3’).

The results presented in Figure 29 illustrate the effect of varying the recycling rate at the end-of-life stage of the

carton from 0 % to 100 %, considering the different alternatives for the input dataset for cartonboard (as

described in Section 2.4.4 and in Section 2.5.1).

Considering the ‘Benchmark dataset’ for cartonboard production

(see Table 2 in Section 2.5.1), the BE point for the recycling rate of carton would be reached at around 75 %. This

means that, when carton waste packaging is recycled at a rate of 75 %, MU and SU packaging have a similar

carbon footprint; for recycling rates higher than 75 %, SU packaging has a lower carbon footprint.

In the case of the ‘Alternative 1’ (when the EF3.1 dataset is used in the model), the BE point would be reached

at a lower carton recycling rate (around 70 %). This is because of the differences in the Climate Change impacts

for the ‘Benchmark’ and the ‘Alternative 1’ dataset and the system boundaries of the carton production for this

dataset

By contrast, using the

‘Alternative

2’ dataset for cartonboard production, the BE point is reached at around 50 %.

This can also be explained by the difference in the Climate Change impacts associated with the

‘Alternative 2’

dataset, which are lower than in the ‘Benchmark’ and ‘Alternative 1’ scenarios. Under the ‘Alternative 2’ scenario,

SU packaging would have a lower carbon footprint than MU packaging when the recycling rate of carton waste

packaging is higher than 50 %.

These results confirm the significant role of the impacts of cartonboard manufacturing, and the life cycle dataset

used in the model. Using low-impact cartonboard for SU packaging and achieving a remarkably high recycling

rate at the end-of-life stage will substantially improve its environmental performance, potentially resulting in

lower impacts for SU packaging than MU alternatives, even in dine-in scenarios.

Figure 30 presents the results of an additional sensitivity analysis with all the assumptions as in

‘BE

analysis

1’

with the exception of the end-of-life recycling rate of PP in MU packaging products, which is assumed to be

largely increased up to 85 %. It is notable that the improved performance of the MU has an overall minimal effect

on the values of the BE points, and the BE points remain almost unchanged for all cartonboard datasets.

Figure 31 (

) presents the results of the analysis when different number of reuses are assumed for the MU

packaging products in the ‘Restaurant Scenario’. In particular, the number or reuses is assumed to vary from 5

to 200, in combination with different datasets on cartonboard manufacturing (as described in Section 2.4.4 and

in Section 2.5.1) used as inputs to the model. The results show that the BE point is reached at 20–30 reuses,

when the

‘Benchmark’ cartonboard dataset is used. For a higher number of reuses, the MU packaging products

have a lower carbon footprint than the SU packaging products. The BE point is reached at around 20 reuses

(when ‘Alternative 1’ cartonboard dataset is assumed) or 40 uses (for the ‘Alternative 2’). These results are

aligned with the differences in the Climate Change impacts assumed for the three datasets: for instance, the

lower Climate Change impacts associated with cartonboard in ‘Alternative 2’ dataset results

in a higher BE point

for number of reuses for MU packaging compared with the other alternatives.

(

) The

y-axis

of the graphs have been adjusted to provide more detail for lower numbers of reuses.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 29.

Results for the additional analysis Break-Even (BE) points for the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’, assessing the

effects of varying the end-of-life recycling rate (R

) for Single Use (SU) carton cups and trays. The end-of-life

recycling rate of PP in Multiple Use packaging products is kept constant and equal to the benchmark value (41

%). All other parameters are kept constant.

Source: JRC analysis.

In this figure, “Benchmark” refers to the cartonboard production

dataset used for the benchmark analysis and

retrieved during the stakeholder consultation. The

“Alternative

1” dataset refers to the EF3.1 cartonboard production dataset, while the

“Alternative “2

dataset refer to an alternative cartonboard production dataset retrieved during the stakeholder consultation. Further

details are provided in Section 2.5.1 and Annex 2.

Figure 30.

Results of the additional analysis of Break-Even (BE) points for the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’, assessing

the effects of varying the end-of-life recycling rate (R

) for Single Use (SU) carton cups and trays. The end-of-life

recycling rate of PP in Multiple Use (MU) packaging is set at 85 %. All other parameters are kept constant.

Source: JRC analysis.

In this figure, “Benchmark” refers to the cartonboard production dataset used for the benchmark analysis and

retrieved during the stakeholder consultation. The

“Alternative 1” dataset refers to the EF3.1 cartonboard production dataset, while

the

“Alternative “2 dataset refer to an alternative cartonboard production dataset retrieved during the stakeholder consultation.

Further

details are provided in Section 2.5.1 and Annex 2.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 31.

Results of the additional analysis of Break-Even (BE) points for the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’, assessing

the effects of varying the number of reuses of the Multiple Use (MU) packaging. Single Use (SU) impacts for

each impact category are set to 100. All other parameters are kept constant.

Source: JRC analysis.

In this figure, “Benchmark” refers to the cartonboard production dataset used for the benchmark analysis and

retrieved during the stakeholder consultation. The

“Alternative 1” dataset refers to the EF3.1 cartonboard production dataset, while

the

“Alternative “2 dataset refer to an alternative cartonboard production dataset retrieved during the stakeholder consultation.

Further

details are provided in Section 2.5.1 and Annex 2.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Discussion

In this chapter the main findings of the study are discussed and framed in the context of the existing literature.

The mains strengths and limitations of the study are also explored.

4.1

Key findings from the Scenarios assessed

This JRC study focused on the analysis of several case studies dedicated to assessing the life cycle environmental

performance of SU and MU packaging. The scenarios and related MU and SU case studies were selected from a

wide array of possible alternatives, as they relate to the Commission’s policy proposals on reuse targets (EC,

2022). Case studies were developed and modelled to be as up-to-date and representative of the European

context as possible.

The analysis of the SU and MU packaging products showed variable results according to the specific Scenario and

case study considered and also depending on the impact category assessed.

First, the research team analysed different SU and MU packaging materials for takeaway services in ‘Scenario 1’

and

‘Scenario 2’ (‘CASE A’ and ‘CASE B’). The results for ‘Scenario 1’ and ‘Scenario 2 –

CASE

A’, showed that SU

packaging (cups and trays, respectively) had lower Climate Change impacts than the alternative MU PP

packaging. Lower impacts for the SU packaging products were also found for some other impact categories (such

as the Ecotoxicity Freshwater and the

‘Resource

Use, Fossil’ and

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’). However,

in both these scenarios, MU packaging products had lower impacts than SU packaging in other categories, such

as Water Use, Ozone Depletion Potential and

‘Human

Toxicity, cancer’ and

‘Human Toxicity,

non-cancer'. Overall,

with regard to the Single Score aggregated index, the MU packaging had lower impacts than SU packaging in

around 40

% the simulations in the sensitivity analysis for ‘Scenario 1’

(

). Concerning the Single Score in

‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’, the MU packaging product had lower impacts in approximately one third of the

simulations, while in another third, the SU packaging product had lower impacts, and in the remaining third the

impacts of the two types of packaging were comparable.

Additional analyses were also performed with different life cycle datasets modelling the impacts associated with

the cartonboard production process. These datasets proved to be significant for the results of the analyses, as

the cartonboard manufacturing process is a key contributor to the overall life cycle impacts of the SU packaging

products assessed in the present study. In fact, when using datasets for cartonboard manufacturing with low

impacts, the environmental performance of SU packaging was clearly improved, especially for the Water Use

impact category and, to a lower extent, for the Single Score. However, it must be noted that the cartonboard

production datasets retrieved from the stakeholder consultation could not be guaranteed to be consistent or

compliant with the EF method. Furthermore, changing assumptions about the presence and type of lid had a

minor effect on the outcomes of the ‘Scenario 1’.

Moreover, the study allowed a large number of factors (and assumptions) that may influence the performance

of SU and MU packaging products to be identified. Assumptions about consumer behaviour are particularly

relevant concerning the return of MU packaging to the point of sale. The packaging could be transported by

various means, leading or not to certain impacts (e.g. transport by bike or on foot can be considered impact free,

whereas transport by car can have relevant impacts, but more items may be returned in one trip). Allocating the

impacts of transport for the return of MU packaging may turn into a LCA allocation problem (

), as the journey

might also be made for other purposes (e.g. for purchasing more food). In the present study it was assumed, as

default, that only a share of the transport occurred by car (e.g. 10 %

in ‘Scenario 1’)

and that more than one item

was returned each time. The analysis revealed that such assumptions play a key role in the life cycle impacts of

MU packaging products (especially in

‘Scenario 1’and ‘Scenario 2’). In an additional sensitivity analysis, the effect

of excluding the impacts of transport from the life cycle of reused packaging products was tested (assuming, for

example, that the journey to return the items to the points of sale would be made mainly for other purposes). In

this case, the impacts of the MU packaging sensibly decreased. This underlines how the assumptions about user

behaviour and the use of passenger cars to transport MU packaging items back to the point of sale may be crucial

(

) In this Scenario, the SU packaging product had lower impacts in 25 % of the simulations, whereas in the remaining simulations MU and

SU packaging products had similar impacts.

(

) Allocation problems are among the most debated aspects of LCA in the literature on the topic. Although some guidance is provided by

standards (including ISO 14040/44 and the EF method), allocating impacts among different products or services (as in the case of

returning MU packaging) is a complex issue entailing multiple assumptions and value choices.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

for takeaway scenarios and should be further investigated in the future (i.e. when collection and reuse systems

will be more established in the market and real-world data will be available).

Another analysis of takeaway packaging was carried out in

‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’, considering an aluminium SU

packaging product. The MU case study packaging product was assumed to be the same in both analyses in

‘Scenario 2’. Differences in material composition and mass resulted in an overall lower life cycle impact

of the

MU packaging product ‘Scenario 2 –

CASE

B’ than for the SU alternative. This is particularly evident in the

sensitivity analysis for this Scenario, resulting in the MU packaging product having lower impacts in more than

60 % of simulations for the aggregated Single Score. However, the results of the sensitivity analysis for the

Climate Change impact category were generally comparable, suggesting that the MU and SU packaging products

can also have similar performance (in one third of the simulations). Similar to that observed in the case of

‘Scenario 1’ and ‘Scenario 2 –

CASE

A’, in ‘Scenario 2 –

CASE

B’, the environmental performance of the MU or

packaging products depends on the business model in place and the values of the various parameters used to

model the different impacts.

In the case of ‘Scenario 3’ (‘CASE A’ and ‘CASE B’) and ‘Scenario 4’, the washing step was supposed to occur in a

centralised washing facility. The packaging products needed to be transported to the point of sale after use and

then transported to the washing facility. Some impact allocation issues arise in the modelling, which have been

tackled in a similar way as in the abovementioned scenarios (i.e. a fraction of the impact of car transport has

been allocated to the MU packaging).

Overall, the results of ‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’ pointed to lower environmental impacts for the SU packaging product

for several impact categories (e.g.

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’;

‘Eutrophication, Freshwater’; ‘Human

Toxicity, cancer’, etc.). In this Scenario, the sensitivity analysis for the aggregated Single Score showed lower

impacts for the SU packaging product in around 50 % of the simulations (whereas the MU packaging had lower

impacts in only around 20 % of the simulations and the two types of packaging were comparable in about 30 %

of simulations). The assumption about the number of reuses for the MU packaging was found to be particularly

relevant for

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’. Based on stakeholder input, nine reuses were assumed for the MU packaging

product under analysis. Overall, this contributed to lower impacts for the SU packaging product. However, this

result could be reversed if the number of reuses were considerably increased. Despite the number of reuses

assumed, the MU packaging exhibited lower impacts for certain impact categories, for instance Water Use,

Ecotoxicity Freshwater and Particulate Matter.

By contrast, in

‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’ and ‘Scenario 4’ on glass bottles, the MU packaging

product showed lower

impacts across almost all impact categories (apart from Land Use impact category and, to a lesser extent, the

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’ and

‘Human

Toxicity, cancer’ impact categories). It is also interesting to note

that, in these scenarios, MU glass bottles resulted in lower impacts despite being heavier and assuming that they

would need additional transport to a centralised washing facility. Moreover, for both wine and beer bottles, the

outcome of the sensitivity analysis showed lower impacts for the MU bottles in more than 90 % of the simulations

in the Climate Change impact category and the aggregated Single Score.

The results of the ‘Restaurant Scenario’ looked at the environmental performance of a set of SU packaging

products (carton-based cup and trays) and MU alternatives (PP-based cup and plate), used to serve a simple dine-

in ‘hamburger meal’. The ‘Restaurant Scenario’ resulted in lower impacts

for the MU packaging in the majority

of impact categories and simulations. This can be primarily attributed to the inherent nature of the dine-in

option. Unlike takeaway meals, the dine-in option eliminates the need for transport to return the MU packaging.

Furthermore, it allows for a significantly higher number of reuses, as the MU packaging remains under the

constant supervision of the restaurant staff, thereby minimising losses due to improper handling by users. The

results underlined how the meal in MU packaging could be preferable in more than 60 % of the cases for the

Climate Change impact category and more than 80 % of cases for the aggregated Single Score (see the results of

the sensitivity analysis, described in Section 3.5).

Figure 32 illustrates the contribution of each impact category to the aggregated Single Score for each benchmark

scenario.

The Climate Change and ‘Resource Use, Fossil’ impact categories contribute the most to the Single

Score (on average 34 % and 24 %, respectively). Overall, the contribution of Climate Change and

‘Resource

Use,

Fossil’ to the total Single Score was higher for MU packaging products than for SU packaging. However, impact

categories such as Particulate Matter, Acidification and Ecotoxicity Freshwater each contributed on average no

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

more than 6 % to the Single core, across all scenarios. The average contribution of the Water Use category to the

single score was 4 % (

). The impacts associated with the manufacturing of the PET bottle (in the case of the MU

packaging in ‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’, for MU packaging) was the main driver for the contribution of the ‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’ to the Single Score for this Scenario.

Figure 32.

Contribution of each impact category to the Single Score index, for Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use

(MU) packaging in each benchmark Scenario.

Source: JRC analysis.

“Scen.” = “Scenario”.

Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-

cancer; HTOX_c = Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC =

Acidification; TEU = Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX =

Ecotoxicity Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

(

) Ranging for SU packaging products between a minimum of around 1

% for ‘Scenario 3 – CASE A’ and ‘Scenario 4’ and a maximum around

% for ‘Scenario 1’ and the ‘Restaurant Scenario’; and for MU packaging products between a minimum of around 1 % for ‘Scenario

–

CASE A’

and

‘Scenario 3 –

CASE B’,

and ‘Scenario 4’ and a maximum

of around 6

% for the ‘Restaurant Scenario’.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

As tested in this report for

‘Scenario 1’ and the ‘Restaurant Scenario’

(Section 3.1.2 and Section 3.5.2,

respectively), the impacts associated with the cartonboard manufacturing could affect the overall life cycle

performance of SU packaging. Assuming a dataset with low impacts associated with cartonboard manufacturing

plays a crucial role in the Water Use impact category, leading to more favourable results for the SU packaging

products. By contrast, the outcome for the Climate Change impact category and the Single Score index were less

affected by such a change in the cartonboard manufacturing dataset.

The assumption about the share of recycling at the end-of-life stage of the carton packaging could reverse the

benchmark results in favour of the SU-packaged meal for recycling shares in the order of 70–80 % (50 % when

considering the ‘Alternative 2’ dataset for cartonboard manufacturing), as tested in the ‘Restaurant Scenario’

(Section 3.5.2). The assumptions about the recycling at the end-of-life stage of materials in the MU packaging

products were less relevant. If the recyclability of PP is assumed to increase from 41 % to 85 % (for both the MU

tray and cup for the dine-in meal in the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’), the BE point (

) for Climate Change is almost

unchanged for all cartonboard datasets. Such behaviour could be explained by the higher number of reuses

expected in the case of the MU packaging products in the

‘Restaurant Scenario’, which reduces the dependence

of these types of packaging on assumptions about their recyclability. Based on inputs received from stakeholders

and literature data, 100 reuses were assumed for the MU packaging for the dine-in meal scenario. The

performance of the MU-packaged meal is strongly influenced by the number of reuses in the range from 5 to 20,

as the BE point for the benchmark scenario is reached

at around 20 reuses (around 18 reuses if the ‘Alternative

1’ dataset for cartonboard production is employed, or around 40 if the ‘Alternative 2’ dataset is used).

Overall, the cases in which MU packaging products have a higher impact than SU packaging could be associated

with:

−

the impacts related to the transport of used packaging back to the collection or selling point, including

transporting multiple items of packaging at the same time;

the effect of the assumed number of reuses;

the high energy and water needs associated with the reuse operations (mainly due to the impacts of

washing).

In general, the results of the MU packaging product systems are affected by a subset of key assumptions and

methodological choices in the modelling, such as:

−

the type and efficiency of washing machine used;

the distance between the consumption point and the take-back point;

how the packaging is transported (e.g. by passenger car);

how many items are transported at the same time;

how the impacts of bringing packaging back to the collection or selling point are allocated between

returning packaging and other purposes of the journey (e.g. buying new food products).

Concerning the analysis of the assumptions about cartonboard manufacturing, the present study highlighted

that:

−

assuming datasets with lower impacts of cartonboard manufacturing plays a crucial role, leading to a

more favourable performance of the SU packaging especially for the Water Use impact category;

the Climate Change impact category and the aggregated Single Score index were differently affected in

‘Scenario 1’ and in the ‘Restaurant Scenario’. In the ‘Scenario 1’ the SU packaging had lower Climate

Change impact independently from the cartonboard dataset selected,

while for the ‘Restaurant

Scenario’ the MU packaging had lower Climate Change impact independently from the cartonboard

dataset selected. In the case of ‘Scenario 1’, employing a cartonboard dataset with low impacts led to

lower Single Score

for the SU packaging, while in the ‘Restaurant Scenario’ the MU packaging had lower

Singe Score independently from the cartonboard dataset selected;

future analyses could focus on using datasets for cartonboard production that are representative of the

whole EU market and fully aligned with the EF method (particularly concerning the background datasets

−

(

) The BE point here is the value of the recyclability of the carton waste when the SU and the MU had the same Climate Change impact

(considering all the other parameters fixed as in the benchmark scenario). For higher values of carton recyclability, the SU packaging

then had lower Climate Change impacts.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

used and all the impact categories, including Water Use). It was indeed not possible to assess the level

of consistency

of ‘Alternative 1’ and ‘Alternative 2’

with the EF method and other EF datasets used in

the model.

Additional details on the strengths and limitations of this analysis are provided in Section 4.3.

4.2

Framing of the study in the context of the literature

This section focuses on comparing the scenarios assumptions and system boundaries with those in the available

literature studies in this field.

4.2.1.1

Cups

– ‘Scenario

1’

The mass of the SU cups modelled in the context of ‘Scenario 1’ (17.58

g, according to input from the stakeholder

consultation) is aligned with both the mass assumed in the CupClub report (CupClub, 2018) and the weight

reported by the German Environment Agency in its final report of 2019 (respectively, 18.3 g and 17.8 g; Umwelt

Bundesamt, 2019).

The mass of the ‘Scenario 1’ MU cup is also aligned with the value reported by CupClub

(2018), namely a reusable cup with a mass of 49.3 g, which is comparable to the 48.3 g employed in the present

study (based on stakeholder input).

Considering the modelling assumptions of the reuse step in ‘Scenario 1’, the electricity consumption for the

washing phase (0.021 kWh, received via stakeholder consultation) showed a good alignment with the value

proposed by Eunomia (2023) of 0.021 kWh (for warm drinks), while being higher than the Eunomia (2023) value

of 0.014 kWh (for cold drinks). Concerning the electricity requirements, those indicated in the KeepCup report

(KeepCup, 2018), 0.025 kWh, are aligned with those of the present study, despite the KeepCup findings being

focused on reusable coffee cups. Looking at the washing needs, the present study assumed 0.41 g detergent per

MU cup wash cycle (figure received from the stakeholder consultation). That value is in line with the amount

suggested in the report prepared by Ramboll for the European Paper Packaging Alliance (Ramboll, 2022a), which

estimated a detergent demand of 0.43 g per cup washed.

‘Scenario

1, a total of 15 reuses was assumed for the benchmark MU cups that are actually returned to the

point of sale, which is lower than the 25 reuses assumed by Eunomia (2022) for plastic cups. In addition, the

assumption adopted by Ramboll (2022a) was 50 reuses for cups and other takeaway packaging products,

although it is assumed that only 50 % of cups are returned. The Ramboll (2022a) study considered 50 reuses for

a wide set of takeaway packaging products (e.g. cutlery, bags, clamshell containers for burgers). That assumption

was employed notwithstanding the product-specific differences in terms of number of reuses that occur in real-

life scenarios, thereby limiting comparison with the assumptions of the present report. In the sensitivity analysis

‘Scenario 1’ (Annex

3), the number of reuses is assumed to vary between 10 and 25. Higher number of reuses

were identified for KeepCup (2018) and CupClub (2018) (62.5 reuses and 132 reuses for PP cups, respectively).

In the case of KeepCup (2018), the number

of reuses was calculated considering the company’s own assumption

that a reusable coffee cup is used around 62 times before being discarded. The 132 reuses estimated in CupClub

(2018) are also

the company’s own assumption considering the theoretical performance

of CupClub cups and

therefore is not directly comparable with the assumptions of the present study. Another report (Reloop and Zero

Waste Europe, 2020) indicates that the number of reuses of cups was 1.7 (based on data gathered from a

particular event for the study, which showed an extremely low return rate of 20 %), supporting the results of a

case study of reusable cups at a major event in Barcelona in 2004 (Barcelona Universal Forum of Cultures;

described in Garrido, 2007). These low values could be associated with the nature of the event and the specific

consumer behaviour adopted on the occasion.

As previously mentioned, because of a lack of established EU business models, proper modelling of the transport

distances and means of transport for the reuse step was complex and uncertain. In the Ramboll report (Ramboll,

2022a), various means of transport were considered, including car, scooter, bike and walking. Similarly, in the

present study transport via car was assumed to be one of the options for returning used packaging and to be the

one causing environmental impacts (compared, for instance, with transport

by bike or on foot). In ‘Scenario 1’,

it was assumed that MU cups were returned to the point of sale by passenger car on 10 % of occasions and for a

total distance of 2.5 km. That distance falls between the 2 km assumed by Hitt et al. (2023) and Eunomia (2023)

and the 3 km assumed by Ramboll (2022a). Furthermore, the same Ramboll study (Ramboll, 2022a) allocated

10 % of transport as occurring via car, which is aligned with the assumptions made in the present analysis.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

The findings of KeepCup (2018) and CupClub (2018) both underlined how MU polypropylene cups could exhibit

a lower environmental impact than SU carton cups. In particular, CupClub (2018) calculated environmental

impacts using the ReCiPe midpoint method (Huijbregts et al., 2017) and found that MU cups exhibited lower

impacts than SU cups for the three paper cups used in the midpoint categories considered (

). Similarly, KeepCup

(2018) calculated environmental impacts in accordance with the ReCiPe method (hierarchist), and the midpoint

results showed that MU cups have a lower environmental impact than SU cups for the Climate Change (

) impact

category. The results of the present study showed lower environmental impacts for SU cups than for MU cups,

for Climate Change impacts (in the benchmark scenario). However, the results for the other impact categories

were more heterogeneous, with MU having lower impacts for the majority of other categories (including Water

Use and Single Score). Such differences in the results could be explained by the different assumptions made for

a number of aspects including end-of-life recycling rates: the present report assumed a recycling rate of 15 % for

MU cups, while the CupClub report assumed a rate of 90 % and the KeepCup report assumed a rate of 50 %. In

addition, the KeepCup report considered a lighter SU cup (12 g) than the mass assumed in the present analysis

(17.5 g). Moreover, differences in the results could be also explained by differences in the number of reuses: 132

in the CupClub report, compared with 15 reuses in the present study.

4.2.1.2

Trays

–

Scenario 2 (‘CASE A’ and

‘CASE

B’)

For the analysis focusing on packaging trays, the mass assumed for of the SU tray (carton and LDPE) for ‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’ was based on Verburgt (2021) and amounted to 27.3

g. This mass is higher than the 18 g assumed by

Eunomia (2023) for a SU tray made solely of carton and of a smaller volume (1.044 l) than the one in the present

study (1.1 l). For the SU trays in

‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’ (aluminium and carton), a total mass of 23.8

g was assumed

(Verburgt, 2021). That mass is consistent with the one assumed by Hitt et al. (2023), namely 25 g. Looking instead

at MU PP trays (‘Scenario 2 –

CASE

A’ and ‘CASE B’), a total mass of 172

g was assumed in the present study, as

suggested by Verburgt (2021). The mass of the tray assumed in the current scenario is 30 % higher than that

considered in the Eunomia (2023) report for burger boxes (119 g).

Regarding the washing stage of the reuse step for MU trays in ‘Scenario 2’ case studies, the Eunomia report

(Eunomia, 2023) assumed a water requirement of 0.76 l and detergent amounting to 0.733 g per tray washed.

Those

values are aligned with those assumed in ‘Scenario 2’ case studies of the present report (0.606

l and

0.706

g, respectively; both retrieved during the stakeholder consultation). In ‘Scenario 2 –

CASE

A’ the recycling

rate for carton trays was set at 15 %, based on Kearney (2023), which is half of the 30 % recycling rate assumed

in the Ramboll (2022a) report. The recycling rate derived from Kearney (2023) represents one of the most recent

findings relevant to the

‘Scenario

2’ SU packaging products. To capture part of the variability recognised in the

literature, in the present study the recycling rate for cartonboard trays was assumed to vary from 5 % to 30 % in

the sensitivity analysis. On the other hand, the recycling rate for MU PP trays was set at 41 % (employed in both

‘Scenario 2 –

CASE

A’ and ‘CASE B’; and derived from Ramboll (2022a)). That value is aligned with the recycling

rate for plastic packaging reported by Eurostat in 2018 (41.8 %; Eurostat, 2023).

For MU trays in ‘Scenario 2’ (‘CASE A’ and ‘CASE B’), the reuse step (e.g. water, detergent

and electricity needs)

was modelled on the basis of direct input from stakeholders for reusable food and beverage packaging, including

clamshell trays. As an example, the present analysis assumed that MU PP trays are reused 20 times in the

benchmark case, a value that is consistent with the assumption made by Hitt et al. (2023) (25 times). However,

the estimated number of reuses (on average 20 and varying between 15 and 25) was based on the research

team’s own

assumption because of a lack of data available from stakeholders. Notably, the study from Ramboll

(2022b) reports the number of reuses as 24, although that refers to plastic crates.

The results for ‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’ demonstrated that MU PP trays could exhibit environmental impacts

comparable to (e.g. for the Climate Change impact category) or lower than (e.g. for the aggregated Single Score)

(

) As an example, the Climate Change impacts for SU paper cup in the CupClub (2018) report amounted to 8.368 kg CO

eq., while the MU

cup exhibited impacts equal to 4.267 kg CO

eq. for the same impact category.

)

(

The KeepCup report compared the environmental impacts of MU and SU cups across three different use scenarios: light use (250 coffees

per year), medium use (500 coffees per year) and heavy use (750 coffees per year). For light use, the Climate Change (CC) impact range

was 10–15 kg CO

eq. for SU cups and 2–5 kg CO

eq. for MU cups. For medium use, the CC impact was 20–35 kg CO

eq. for SU cups

and 3 8 kg CO

eq. for MU cups. Lastly, for heavy use, the CC impact range was 30–50 kg CO

eq. for SU cups and 5–12 kg CO

eq. for

MU cups.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

those for SU aluminium trays. Eunomia underlined how such boxes could limit their use in washing machines,

since their shape could limit the number of items that could be stacked and washed at the same time (thereby

hindering the number of items washed per cycle). This limitation could also potentially apply to the MU trays

considered in the present analysis, as clamshell trays were assumed.

The manufacturing step for the SU packaging and the professional washing stage for the MU containers were

recognised by Eunomia (2023) as primary contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions of the packaging,

especially for burger boxes.

The overall findings of the Eunomia report (Eunomia, 2023) indicated lower greenhouse gas emissions for MU

trays than for SU trays. Notwithstanding the potential methodological differences in greenhouse gas emission

accounting (

), the results of the present study underlined the comparable life cycle Climate Change impacts for

the MU and SU trays in the ‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’. Such divergence could be explained by the differences in weight

assumed in the two studies and the difference in the assumptions used for modelling the reuse step. Eunomia

assumed that almost all trays are returned in the MU packaging product reuse phase (despite providing data only

on return rates rather than the number of reuses), leading to higher expected reuse rates compared to those

assumed in the present study. This difference in the reuse phase, which is a key stage for MU trays, affects the

overall environmental life cycle performance of MU trays compared with SU trays.

4.2.1.3

Beverage containers and bottles

– ‘Scenario

3’ (‘CASE A’ and

‘CASE

B’) and

‘Scenario

4’

In the context of ‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’ focuses on beverage containers and an analysis

the performance of SU

aluminium cans and MU PET bottles. The mass assumed for the MU PET bottle (45.15 g; retrieved from

stakeholder consultation) is consistent with that indicated by Amienyo et al. (2013) (47.9 g). In addition, the mass

assumed for the SU aluminium can (15.9 g; retrieved from stakeholder consultation) is aligned with the can used

in the UNEP (2020) report (13 g).

With regard to the beer bottles analysed

in ‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’, the present study assumed an SU bottle of

280 g and a 23 % increase in mass for the thicker MU beer bottle (343 g). Poinsten et al. (2018) assumed a mass

of 527 g for their 0.75 l MU glass bottle: if the volume of that bottle were scaled down to the 0.5 l bottle adopted

in this study, the mass of the bottle used in Poinsten et al. (2018) would be equal to 351 g. That value would be

in line with the one adopted in the present study. The mass of wine bottles assumed for ‘Scenario 4’

(542 g and

596 g for SU and MU packaging products, respectively) appeared lower than those suggested by Poinsten et al.

(2018), namely a mass of 400 g for the SU and 527

g for the MU. In the case of ‘Scenario 4’, the 0.75

l bottle

volume is aligned with the value suggested by Ferrara and De Feo (2020), indicating a volume range of 0.75 l to

1 l for wine containers. These are the volumes most commonly used for wine, according to the findings of Cleary

(2013).

Looking at the assumptions associated with the washing step for the case studies on beverage containers and

bottles (i.e. ‘Scenario 3’ –

CASE

A’ and ‘CASE B’ and ‘Scenario 4’), the electricity consumption was retrieved from

stakeholders and amounted to 0.014 kWh per wash cycle. That value differs from the one suggested by Ponstein

et al. (2018), who indicated a lower electricity consumption of 0.008 kWh. This difference may be explained by

the diverse types and efficiencies of the industrial washing machines employed in the studies. This divergence

was captured in the sensitivity analysis of the present study by considering the range of variability associated

with the energy need (see Scenario 3 Factsheets in Annex 3; lower bound 0.007 kWh, upper bound 0.028 kWh).

In relation to the manufacturing process, the present study assumed a certain recycled content (7 %, as

suggested by inputs from stakeholders) for the MU packaging PET ‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’. That is lower than the

value proposed by Eunomia (2022), indicating a recycled content of 12 % (based on BKV GmbH data, Plastic

Concepts Recovery).

Considering the glass bottles in ‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’ (beer bottles) and ‘Scenario 4’ (wine bottles), a total of 20

reuses were assumed for both scenarios (retrieved from the stakeholder consultation). That value is lower than

the one suggested by Ponstein et al. (2018) and by Eunomia (2022), both of which assumed 50 reuses. It is,

(

) However, the Eunomia (2023) report does not explicitly explain the method employed for the calculation of these greenhouse gas

emissions.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

however, particularly relevant to observe how, even at a lower number of reuses than those suggested in the

literature, the present analysis still found a more favourable environmental performance for MU bottles for most

impact categories (Section 3.3.2 and Section 3.4.1).

Regarding the end-of-life

modelling of ‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’ and ‘Scenario 4’, it has been assumed that 75

% of

glass bottles would be recycled (based on stakeholder consultation), which is consistent with the values reported

by Ferrara and De Feo (2020). These authors suggested a share of 72.8 % of glass bottles being recycled at the

end-of-life stage. According to data retrieved during the stakeholder consultation, it was assumed that 74.9 % of

wine and beer bottles would be recycled at the end of their life, with the remaining 3.7 % incinerated and 21.4 %

landfilled. The recycling and landfill rates assumed in the present study are aligned with those assumed in Ferrara

and De Feo (2020), indicating a recycling rate of 72.8 % and a landfill rate of 27.2 %.

In relation to the ‘Scenario

–CASE A’, Amienyo et al. (2013) concluded that aluminium cans have a higher

environmental impact in terms of Climate Change than PET bottles when using the CML (Centre of Environmental

Science method; Guinée et al, 2001). By contrast, in the present study, Climate Change impacts were similar for

SU and MU packaging products, although lower impacts for the SU packaging products were observed for other

impact categories, including the aggregated Single Score.

The results of ‘Scenario 4’ indicated that the performance of MU packaging is generally lower than that of SU

packaging for most of the impact categories of the EF, including Climate Change, Water Use and the aggregated

Single Score. Such findings are aligned with those presented in the Reloop and Zero Waste Europe (2020) report,

which estimated that SU glass bottles have higher carbon dioxide emissions than MU packaging. In Reloop and

Zero Waste Europe (2020), the manufacturing phase has the highest environmental impact because of the high

energy consumption of glass production, as also recognised in the present study.

4.2.1.4

Hamburger meal

– ‘Restaurant

Scenario’

In the ‘Restaurant Scenario’,

the parameters associated with the washing step were overall aligned with data in

the literature, especially for the energy and detergent needed for the MU plate washing. In particular, the energy

consumption related to the MU PP plate was 0.033 kWh (retrieved from stakeholder consultation), which is

slightly higher than the value of 0.027 kWh assumed in the Ramboll (2020) report. However, the detergent

demand assumed by Ramboll (2020) (0.417 g) is slightly lower than that considered in the present study (0.510 g;

retrieved from stakeholder consultation)

In the ‘Restaurant Scenario’, the benchmark value for the number of reuses (i.e. 100 for both MU cups and MU

plates for the MU hamburger meal) was derived from data retrieved from stakeholders and further confirmed

by several literature sources (as illustrated in Table 4).

Table 4.

Comparison of the number of reuses (also called “number of rotations”) in various literature

sources

that could be compared with the dine-in

‘Restaurant

Scenario’ of the present study.

Number of reuses

100

Note

General assumption for Multiple Use (MU) dine-in

restaurant items (no difference between the articles)

General assumption for MU plastic food refill scheme

boxes

Information from a different stakeholder, indicating a

high return rate

Reference

Ramboll, 2020

200

Eunomia, 2022

Input to JRC stakeholder

consultation (October

2023)

142

Source: JRC literature analysis and stakeholder consultation data.

Table 4 shows reuse rates from various sources and for various system assumptions and indicates that the 100

reuses selected for the present analysis of the dine-in

‘Restaurant Scenario’ is equal to the value assumed in the

Ramboll (2020) report. The results of Table 4 show that this value is lower than, for instance, the one proposed

by Eunomia (2022), referring to food refill scheme boxes. A set of BE point analyses were performed for the

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

‘Restaurant Scenario’

in the present study, focusing on recycling at the end-of-life stage, and varying the recycling

rate of SU carton packaging products and the number of reuses of MU packaging products (Section 2.5). This BE

point analysis illustrated that in the case of scenarios with much higher numbers of reuses (e.g. as in the dine-in

restaurant scenario), increases in the number of rotations beyond a certain threshold have less influence than

those below the threshold. A BE point analysis of the number of reuses for different packaging types (hamburger

boxes and cups) was also performed in the Eunomia (2023) report. The results for greenhouse gas emissions

showed that around 30 reuses for boxes and 6 for cups were necessary to reach comparable life cycle

performance for the SU and MU packaging products (

). These findings are similar to the Climate Change results

of the present study, which showed comparable emissions after around 20 reuses in the

‘Restaurant Scenario’

for SU and MU containers. Such results are particularly interesting, although the mass of the MU PP plate in the

present study (170 g; based on data retrieved from stakeholder consultation) is greater than the mass assumed

by Eunomia (2023), equal to 119 g.

4.2.1.5

Additional consideration from comparisons with literature sources

As well as the Eunomia studies (Eunomia, 2022, 2023), the Ramboll reports (2020, 2022a) also represented key

literature sources in the context of the present study.

When the methodological assumptions and results of the Eunomia (2022) and Eunomia (2023) reports are

analysed, a major difference is evident. The methodological approach employed in the Eunomia (2022) report

served the purpose of supporting the finalisation of the legal proposal and the impact assessment for the review

of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive. For this reason, a system-level comparison of packaging

products was preferred in place of a product-specific comparative analysis. The latter analysis was employed in

the more recent Eunomia (2023) report. Such product-specific detail enabled a more thorough comparison with

the findings of the present report and was therefore prioritised as a source of information for this study over the

Eunomia (2022) study. Furthermore, the findings of the Eunomia (2022) study refer to forecast scenarios rather

than

‘status

quo’ ones, which are included in the Eunomia (2023) report. The latter report concluded that, in

relation to greenhouse gas emissions, the MU packaging products have a better environmental performance in

the takeaway sector. However, Eunomia (2023) acknowledged that aspects such as consumer behaviour could

play a key role in driving the environmental performance of the packaging products in the analysis.

Overall, it is worth bearing in mind that the food and beverage packaging used in the Ramboll studies (Ramboll,

2020, 2022a) is not fully comparable to that used in the ‘Restaurant Scenario’ in the present analysis, due to the

different packaging products used (e.g. the present analysis does not consider the life cycle environmental

impacts associated with a salad box). Furthermore, it is worth noting that the environmental impact assessment

methods used in the Ramboll reports differed from those used in the current analysis (i.e. the EF3.1 method).

Specifically, Ramboll’s in-store

report (Ramboll, 2020) used the ReCiPe method (Huijbregts et al., 2017), and

Ramboll’s takeaway report (Ramboll, 2022a) adopted the EF2.0 method. These differences should be considered

when comparing the findings of the two reports with those of the present study. The key findings of the Ramboll

reports (Ramboll, 2020, 2022a) show that, in the case of the SU packaging product, the main impact was due to

upstream manufacturing of the SU packaging. By contrast, the primary contribution to the total life cycle impacts

of MU packaging came from the reuse phase. These findings are consistent with those of the present study,

which have been detailed for each Scenario in the respective Factsheets in Annex 3. Both Ramboll reports

concluded that, with regard to the Climate Change impact category, the life cycle environmental impacts of SU

packaging containers (assessed via system-level analysis) were lower than the MU alternatives.

Another recent relevant study is the report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF, 2023). This report

assessed four business-to-consumer packaging types, comparing SU and MU packaging for different applications

(i.e. beverage containers, personal care product containers, fresh food containers and cupboard food

containers). In contrast to the present report, the EMF (2023) models selected ‘France’ as a representative study

area, and mostly compared SU packaging and returnable packaging products of the same material (e.g. SU PET

bottle compared with MU PET bottle). Moreover, the study provides only a partial LCA of the different system

(

) In the BE analysis, Eunomia (2023) compared SU and MU burger boxes and cups. The BE point analysis performed in Eunomia (2023) is

a product-specific assessment of takeaway packaging (e.g. cup, burger box), while in the present study the BE point analysis was

performed for the dine-in hamburger meal (served with SU and MU packaging products).

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

configurations, discussing the results for environmental and economic indicators (greenhouse gas emissions,

water use and material use) for the alternative packaging. Overall, the results indicated that lower greenhouse

gas emissions could be achieved by using the MU packaging analysed. The methodological differences between

the Ellen MacArthur Foundation report (EMF, 2023) and the present study limit a thorough comparison of the

scenarios assessed. However, it is interesting to note that the Ellen MacArthur Foundation report (2023) assumed

a 100 % recycling rate for all the MU packaging products analysed. Such high rates are considered achievable

thanks to the existence of a ‘reusable packaging system’ that facilitates collection, sorting and recycling. Such

assumption would also improve the performance of the MU packaging products assessed in the present study

(which instead assumed a more cautious value of a 47

% recycling rate for ‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’). The Ellen

MacArthur Foundation study (EMF, 2023) also highlighted how practices such as shared collection points (

) and

customer convenience (

) could help drive behavioural change and achieve higher return rates.

4.3

Strengths and limitations of the study

The present study focused on the analysis of possible packaging alternatives, representative of the EU context,

and employed a combination of information from various sources to provide an up-to-date analysis of the

considered Scenarios. As few established business models devoted to MU packaging products are currently in

place, data collected during the stakeholder consultation were prioritised as far as possible and complemented

when needed with data from the literature to model the key parameters of the life cycle of MU packaging

products. In particular, little information related to washing practices during the reuse step was available. For

this reason, data retrieved during the stakeholder consultation represented key information for properly

modelling this step and the related demand for energy, water and detergents.

JRC facilities were also visited during the development of the present study. Such visits served the purpose of

clarifying washing practices (such as rinsing and rewashing operations), which were not well documented in the

literature. The results of the present analysis demonstrated how such washing practices have a significant role

in the overall performance of MU packaging products.

Overall, the following procedure for data selection was employed:

−

literature data were gathered and then combined with the research team’s own assumptions to draft

hypothetical, representative, comparative SU and MU Scenarios;

such assumptions and Scenarios were presented to stakeholders (during a brief consultation) with a

view to checking the scenarios and/or providing different insights and primary data;

lastly, the initial scenarios and assumptions (and the underlining models or initial data gaps) were

revised based on the stakeholder inputs received and used to analyse the life cycles of SU and MU

packaging products and to develop sensitivity analysis.

This approach ensured a thorough understanding of the assumptions underpinning the various scenarios.

Furthermore, as acknowledged in Annex 2, EF3.1 datasets were employed to ensure methodological consistency

with the EF method (and impact assessment categories considered) but also to ensure the overall consistency

and representativeness of all the background datasets used in the analysis. The EF3.1 datasets used in the

modelling of the EU electricity mix and EU tap water used in the reuse washing step are assumed to be

representative of the EU context and to represent the shares of different types of energy and water (e.g. ground,

rivers, lakes) used in a generic (dine-in or takeaway) restaurant in the EU.

With regard to the end-of-life impact modelling, the present study adopted the CFF formula (Section 2.4.4) which

ensures that all relevant end-of-life aspects are properly captured when assessing the life cycle impacts of a given

packaging product (including modelling the share of recycled content, the share recycled at the end-of-life stage

and the associated credits, the recycling quality factors, and the allocation of the burdens and credits of recycled

and virgin material production between two life cycles). The values of the CFF parameters (Section 2.4.4) were

either collected during the stakeholder consultation or retrieved from the literature and could be revised in

future if additional and up-to-date data become available.

(

) For instance, enabling the collection of multiple packaging products in the same place.

(

) For instance, standardisation of packaging design and the existence of return and deposit-return schemes could make the return of

packaging a habit.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

In the present report, benchmark scenarios were first analysed (by assuming average representative values for

a number of the parameters considered). Next, to increase the robustness of the results, an extensive sensitivity

analysis was conducted, based on the ranges of variability associated

with each relevant model’s parameters.

This approach ensured that the intrinsic uncertainty and variability of each parameter was captured, analysed

and considered when discussing the results for the SU and MU packaging products. Furthermore, an additional

analysis of a set of scenarios (Section 2.5.1) was also performed to investigate the effects of specific changes in

the packaging product that could play a decisive role in their performance (i.e. by testing the influence of

passenger car transport in the reuse step of MU packaging products; by analysing the influence of alternative life

cycle impacts associated with cartonboard manufacturing processes; by investigating the BE points for dine-in

packaging when the share of recycling at the end-of-life stage of SU packaging is varied or the number of reuses

of MU packaging is varied; or by assessing the influence of the type and presence of lid on cup scenarios).

Concerning the use of lids in the serving of takeaway beverages (‘Scenario 1’), comments received from

stakeholders suggested the use of carton lids in place of plastic ones. Such comments are supported by the

progressive EU banning of SU plastics leading to the phasing out of plastic lids from the market. However, some

fast-food restaurants and cafeterias may still use plastic lids, and therefore an additional sensitivity analysis on

lids was conducted. The results of this analysis indicated that plastic-based lids could potentially reduce the

overall SU packaging products’ life cycle impacts (disregarding potential plastic littering issues). Furthermore,

real-life observations coupled with stakeholder comments suggested that lids were not used in dine-in

restaurants, and for this reason lids were excluded from the ‘Restaurant Scenario’.

The results of the present report revealed that raw material production had a dominant role in the environmental

impacts of packaging, especially for the SU packaging products (

). A specific analysis was performed in this study

to investigate the relevance of the datasets used to model the impacts of the cartonboard used in some

cartonboard-based products (i.e. packaging products in

the ‘Scenario 1’ and the ‘Restaurant Scenario’). Two

datasets collected during the stakeholder consultation (

) were included in the study and used to build the

‘Benchmark’ and a potential further ‘Alternative’ scenarios (in comparison also with results obtained with an

EF3.1 available dataset; further details are provided in Section 2.5).

The ‘Benchmark dataset’ (Table

2) for

cartonboard was assumed to be representative of EU production and, at least for the Climate Change impact

category, in line with other available studies in the literature (e.g. ProCarton, 2023b). However, it is

acknowledged that the ‘Benchmark’ value was not developed using EF3.1 datasets to model the background

systems, and therefore it is not fully consistent with the other datasets used in the modelling of the present

study.

Assumptions about the Water Use impact category for cartonboard manufacturing have proven to be uncertain

and particularly sensitive. Only some of the data received from stakeholders on this subject were suitable for use

in this study, as the datasets provided often pertained to a different impact category and/or were based on

background datasets that were not entirely consistent with the EF3.1 datasets. Some stakeholders indicated that

the dataset on cartonboard production, used in the EF3.1 database, may overestimate water impacts. The

observed discrepancies in water impacts could be attributed to more recent data, stakeholders’ use of more

efficient technologies, or lower water scarcity in stakeholders’ production regions.

Therefore, the model and

sensitivity analysis (for ‘Scenario 1’ and the ‘Restaurant Scenario’) was constructed to include the upper and

lower values for the water scarcity impacts for cartonboard in the sensitivity analysis, using their average as a

‘Benchmark value’.

A similar range of variation was also observed in other life cycle datasets available in another

database.

(

) The selection of datasets for the raw materials used in the MU packaging products has, instead, a lower relevance, as the impacts of

these materials are shared across the different uses of the packaging during its life cycle.

)

(

These datasets provided the life cycle impacts related to the manufacturing of cartonboard used in the manufacturing of the SU case

study packaging products.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

The strengths and limitations of the datasets employed to model cartonboard manufacturing can be summarised

as follows:

−

‘Benchmark dataset’ (see

Table 2): the dataset was provided by a stakeholder and is fully based on

primary data and representative of a European manufacturer of cartonboard for cups and other SU

packaging products. The dataset uses as input the average EU mix for electricity (

) with regard to the

foreground electricity production. This could make this dataset representative of a generic production

process in the EU without using a specific electricity mix claimed by an industry (

). The Climate Change

life cycle impacts of this dataset were aligned with impacts reported in a study by the European

Association of Cartonboard and Carton Manufacturers (ProCarton, 2023a; excluding biogenic carbon

flows (

). The dataset provided was not fully consistent with the impact categories used in the EF

method, especially the Water Use impacts (which considered a different life cycle impact category from

the EF3.1 method, which accounts instead for the water scarcity impact, as discussed in Section 2.4.5).

The Water Use impact for the benchmark scenario was then estimated as the mathematical average of

the impacts in the ‘Alternative 1’ and ‘Alternative 2’ datasets. This is acknowledged as a limitation of

the present assessments. Moreover, the modelling approach adopted for calculating the life cycle

impacts for the

’Benchmark

dataset’ was not fully consistent with the EF method, especially concerning

the background datasets, which may have been derived from a different database (i.e. the life cycle

datasets used to calculate this dataset may not be EF compliant and therefore not consistent with all

the other datasets employed in the model).

‘Alternative 1’ dataset (EF3.1 dataset ‘Solid board, bleached; Kraft Pulping Process, pulp pressing,

bleaching and drying; production mix, at plant; >220 g/m2’; see

Table 2): this EF dataset has been

developed based on a mix of primary and secondary data collected by LCA data providers. This dataset

is fully consistent with all other datasets employed in the modelling of the scenarios presented in this

report (i.e. the datasets are compliant with the same set of EF rules). This is of relevance especially

regarding the modelling of background impacts for SU packaging products. According to the data

provider who developed the EF datasets, this is geographically representative of EU production.

Furthermore, based on the available metadata, it was assumed that this dataset covered the impacts

associated with cartonboard manufacturing and the processing of cartonboard into carton. However,

this dataset refers to production process in the year 2012 and could be only partially considered as

representative of the ‘current’ market concerning carton manufacturing. Moreover, the dataset refers

to the production of ‘solid board, bleached’, which is not necessarily representative of the raw materials

used to produce the SU packaging products under analysis in the present study. The Water Use impacts

estimated in this dataset (amounting to 2.3 m

water eq.), and considered by some stakeholders as

potentially high, may depend on several aspects, including the Characterisation Factors employed in the

AWARE method used in the calculations; the background processes included in the models; and the

underpinning assumptions about the supply of raw materials. However, additional analyses of this

dataset were not possible, as it was provided as wholly aggregated and with a limited amount of detail

in the metadata.

‘Alternative 1’

dataset has been therefore used only for conducting the additional

alternative analyses.

‘Alternative 2’ dataset (see

Table 2): this dataset also refers to a process for manufacturing cartonboard,

as provided by a stakeholder supplying the EU market. In contrast

to the ‘Benchmark dataset’, this

alternative dataset has not been calculated considering an EU mix for electricity use, but considering

the specific electricity mix claimed by the stakeholder in its facility. The dataset presented all impacts

categories calculated consistently with the EF3.1 method (including Water Use impacts). However, it

was not possible to check if the background life cycle data used to calculate this dataset were EF

compliant. In this sense, the dataset may not be consistent with all the other datasets used in the model.

−

The effects of using alternative datasets for the modelling of the cartonboard manufacturing impacts were

explored with a specific focus on the Climate Change and Water Use impact categories, as well as the aggregated

Single Score. Results were derived both for the benchmark comparative analysis and for the sensitivity analyses

for ‘Scenario 1’ (presented in Section

3.1.2)

and the ‘Restaurant Scenario’ (Section

3.5.2). To achieve improved

(

)

The dataset was built using the Ecoinvent 3.9.1 dataset ‘market group for electricity, high voltage | Europe without Switzerland’.

(

) It is worth of noting that, also according to the EF method, a company may claim a certain electricity mix in the inputs to its processes

based on purchased certificates for electricity supply (the ‘Guarantee of Origin’ certificates) (EC, 2021).

(

) According to EF rules, biogenic carbon flows should not be accounted for in the Climate Change impact category (EC, 2021).

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

analyses in future, it is recommended that a dataset is developed for cartonboard production that is

representative of the EU and aligned with the EF method, particularly concerning the Water Use impact category

and background datasets.

Concerning the ‘Restaurant Scenario’, a set of BE points were tested (Section

2.5.1). The results indicate that

improvements in the recycling rate of carton at the end-of-life stage of SU packaging products could lead to BE

points in the range of 50–80 % depending on the choice of the cartonboard manufacturing dataset. However, it

must be determined whether and how such high rates could be representative and achieved in the overall EU

context and not only for specific best-case examples in specific areas, such as certain EU Member States or

regions. The BE point for the number of reuses revealed that below 20 rotations (or below 40, using the

cartonboard manufacturing dataset in ‘Alternative 2’) using MU packaging may result in higher impacts than SU

alternatives, although those numbers of reuses may be reasonably exceeded in dine-in scenarios (in which

restaurant operators have full control of the packaging during use and can therefore minimise any potential

losses). Future studies on the restaurant sector could include data collected from broader studies of EU dine-in

restaurants, further refining the key assumptions made and overcoming the limitations acknowledged for the

Restaurant Scenario and discussed in the present section.

The results of the scenarios analysed also revealed the influence of certain assumptions related to the reuse step

for MU packaging products. Assumptions about consumer behaviour in returning MU packaging after use could

play a key role in the life cycle performance of the MU packaging, especially if journeys to return packaging are

made by car. The number of items returned by users during each journey back to the selling point is also crucial.

In general, the modelling of the impacts of these journeys may turn into an allocation

problem (as the user’s

journey could be made for reasons other than returning the packaging, for instance the purchase of more food

and drink). The modelling approach proposed in the present study was cross-checked during the stakeholder

consultation, although the research team did not receive any additional evidence from stakeholders on the

different assumptions. This aspect of the study is therefore recognised as potentially uncertain and relevant for

future studies, which could focus on revising and refining it, especially including more in-depth analyses of user

behaviour. The potential effects of using electric vehicles for returning packaging were not investigated.

However, the use of electric vehicles by users (which is expected to increase in the near future) could potentially

lead to a reduction in the impacts associated with transport in the reuse step for various impact categories (e.g.

Climate Change), but potentially worse effects in other categories (e.g.

‘Resource

Use, Mineral and Metals’)

cannot be excluded.

An additional relevant aspect is the potential for multiple washing cycles (as the user may wash the MU items at

home before returning them). This aspect was excluded from the analysis of takeaway scenarios in the present

study (as investigated for instance in the Ramboll (2022a) study). Its influence could potentially be significant and

could offset the benefits of centralised, efficient in-store washing in which items might be re-washed anyway

once returned. Furthermore, home washing practices may vary widely among consumers, potentially leading to

a considerable increase in the life cycle impacts if hot water is used.

Consumer behaviour could also significantly influence the environmental impact of reusable food and beverage

packaging, since consumers actions are crucial in the reuse phase of containers (Corona et al., 2023). This is a

relevant aspect flagged for future research. Moreover, as demonstrated by Eunomia (2023) through sensitivity

analysis of changing the mass of packaging, product design and lower weight can play a key role in reducing the

environmental impact.

The impact of secondary and tertiary packaging was not explored in the present study, although both have been

recognised (Ferrara and De Feo, 2020) as potentially significant contributors to environmental impact in the case

of certain system models (e.g. wine packaging). To determine the potential impact of these additional packaging

systems in the context of the present study, the analysis should be improved by including such packaging within

the system boundaries and emphasising their importance in the overall life cycle performance of certain

scenarios.

As explained in Section 2.4.2, the temporal and technological scope of the present report is scenarios that are

representative of the current EU market. This choice is a consequence of supported by the lack of reliable

information on the future development of packaging systems, especially on the establishment of MU business

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

models for packaging products. This choice is also in line with the recommendations of the EF method for the

definition of representative products in study. Future revisions of the present study could introduce an analysis

of future scenarios (e.g. including forecasts for the next decade) to be addressed via prospective LCA modelling.

For the sensitivity analysis of the present study, a uniform distribution was consistently applied to the parameters

of SU and MU packaging products (Section 2.5). The effect on the results of the sensitivity analysis of applying

different probability distributions (e.g. normal distribution, triangular distribution) could be further explored in

further studies.

Concerning the material composition of MU packaging products, during the stakeholder consultation it was

highlighted how Tritan (

) (or a combination of Tritan and PP) could also be used in the manufacture of MU

packaging products such as beverage containers. No further details were provided regarding the specific market

share of Tritan-based packaging products, and no EF3.1 datasets are available to date to support proper

modelling of its manufacturing impacts. In addition, stakeholder inputs highlighted how recycling of Tritan is still

not well established. Considering the above, in the present study, PP was selected as the material used in plastic

MU packaging products.

The results of the present report should be considered in the context of the specific case study packaging

products and scenarios. The results presented here cannot be considered representative of assessments at the

system level (i.e. considering that substantial changes could occur in different sectors of society, including a

variety of different packaging products in use for different purposes and services that could be potentially

affected by the PPWR targets (Section 1.3)). Despite this, the results of certain scenarios exhibited significantly

lower environmental impacts for MU packaging products than for SU alternatives. Such results were observed,

for instance, in the case of the ‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’ and ‘Scenario 4’ and in the ‘Restaurant Scenario’. In addition,

the results for the ‘Restaurant Scenario’ may also be considered potentially more robust than others, as they

avoid making assumptions about the transport mode used to return MU items (which was found to be largely

uncertain in other scenarios).

(

) Tritan is a copolyester made from three monomers: dimethyl terephthalate, cyclohexanedimethanol and 2,2,4,4-tetramethyl-1,3-

cyclobutanediol.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Conclusion and recommendations

The present study aimed to contribute to the EU ambitions related to reducing the environmental impacts of

packaging by addressing some of the knowledge gaps identified in the existing literature on the subject. The JRC

conducted an analysis to evaluate the life cycle environmental performance of a selected subset of case studies,

targeting certain reuse targets set out in the proposal for a Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation. The study

was carried out following the recommendations of the EF method for the modelling and assessment of

environmental impact, by quantifying 16 different impact categories (including Climate Change and Water Use

impacts) and also considering an aggregated Single Score index. The JRC study described in the present report

modelled and assessed several parameters for the calculation of benchmark case study results and defined

parameter ranges for running a series of sensitivity analyses.

The analysis of the SU and MU packaging products showed variable results according to the specific scenario and

case studies considered but also depending on the impact category assessed. Concerning benchmark results, in

the case of takeaway cups (‘Scenario 1’) and trays (‘Scenario 2

–

CASE A’ and

‘CASE

B’), SU packaging exhibited

lower life cycle impacts for certain impact categories (e.g. for Climate Change in the case of

‘Scenario

1’ and

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’), while MU packaging products exhibited lower life cycle impacts for other categories (e.g.

for Water Use for

‘Scenario

1’ and

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ and

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’). The results of the sensitivity

analysis of the aggregated Single Score index suggested comparable life cycle impacts, notably with around 40 %

of the simulations leading to lower life cycle impacts for the MU packaging in

‘Scenario

1’ and more than 60 %

for the MU packaging in

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’.

The results for ‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’ analysis of SU aluminium beverage containers with PET reusable

alternatives, overall highlighted lower environmental impacts for the SU packaging for certain impact categories

(e.g.

‘Human

Toxicity, cancer’ and

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’). By contrast, results for the Climate

Change impact category showed instead that the performance of the MU and SU packaging considered was more

comparable. The assumptions related to the number of reuses for the MU bottle play a key role in determining

the life cycle impacts of the MU packaging product in this scenario.

By contrast, in

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’ and

‘Scenario

4’ on glass bottles (for beer and wine, respectively), the MU

packaging products showed lower impacts across almost all impact categories (apart from

‘Land

Use’ and, to a

lesser extent,

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’ and

‘Human

Toxicity, cancer’). It is also interesting to note

that, in such scenarios, MU glass bottles resulted in lower impacts despite their assumed greater mass and

despite assumptions about additional transport to and washing in a centralised washing facility.

Based on the findings of these case studies it was not possible to conclude that certain packaging options have

systematically lower impacts in all scenarios, whereas either SU or MU may have overall lower impacts when key

parameters (that are the main driver of the overall packaging product life cycle impacts) are optimised for the

life cycle of the examined packaging. Examples of key parameters for SU packaging products are the share of

recycling at the end-of-life stage, the assumed mass of the item and the specific material composition. In the

case of MU packaging products, the identified key parameters include the expected number of reuses, the energy

and heat need in the washing phase of the reuse step (including practices such as rinsing and rewashing) and the

overall mass of the packaging.

In particular, this study confirmed the key role of user behaviour in the life cycle impacts of takeaway MU

packaging products, in the case of washing either at the point of sale or at a centralised washing facility. In fact,

returning used packaging products by car significantly increased the life cycle impacts of the packaging products,

compared with other means of transport such as bicycle or walking. The number of items transported is also an

important parameter, as carrying multiple items on one journey lowers the environmental pressure on the

system. In addition, there is not an unambiguous modelling approach that properly allocates the impacts among

different services (e.g. if the packaging is returned on the way to a grocery store). The absence of large-scale

established business models hindered the use of primary data for these assumptions and highlights the need for

further refinement of the models when such data are available and representative of the EU scale.

Additional scenarios were analysed by considering different life cycle datasets modelling the impacts associated

with the cartonboard production process and tested for takeaway cups (‘Scenario 1’) and a hamburger meal

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

(‘Restaurant Scenario’). These datasets were found to be important for the final results, as the cartonboard

manufacturing process is a key contributor to the overall life cycle impacts of SU packaging products assessed in

the present study. In particular, when considering life cycle datasets for cartonboard with low environmental

impacts, the performance of single use packaging is clearly improved, especially for the Water Use impact

category, and also to a lesser extent for the Climate Change impact category and the aggregated Single Score

(see Section 3.1.2, Section 3.5.2 and Section 4.1 for further details).

It is important to note that the

‘Benchmark

dataset’ (see Table 2 in Section 2.5.1) used for analysing the

benchmark scenarios and conducting the sensitivity analysis, specifically concerning the life cycle impacts of

cartonboard manufacturing, was derived from data provided by stakeholders. Additional datasets for the

cartonboard manufacturing process (‘Alternative 1’ and

‘Alternative

2’ in Table 2, obtained from the EF database

and from stakeholders, respectively) were employed to model alternative scenarios. Regarding

‘Alternative

1’, it

was not possible to precisely identify all the background and foreground processes included due to the absence

of detailed metadata. To prevent potential double-counting of the impacts of manufacturing carton products

(cups and trays) in scenarios using this EF dataset, the impacts associated with cartonboard conversion were

excluded. Conversely, cartonboard datasets obtained from stakeholders (for both

the ‘Benchmark

dataset’ and

‘Alternative

2’) were highly aggregated and lacking detailed supporting metadata. As a consequence, it was not

possible to assess their level of consistency with the EF method and other EF datasets used in the model.

The present study also used as far as possible information from a recent ProCarton study on cartonboard and

carton

manufacturing and the associated industrial processes. It is also worth highlighting that the ‘Benchmark

dataset’ for cartonboard used in this study had a carbon footprint value closely aligned with the value estimated

in the ProCarton study (which pertains

to the ‘cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of cartons’, with the exclusion of

biogenic carbon flows and carbon removals).

The results for the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’ focused on the environmental performance of a simple hamburger dine-

in meal, modelled considering a set of SU packaging products (carton-based cup and trays) or MU alternatives

(PP-based cup and plate). The

‘Restaurant

Scenario’ generally resulted in lower impacts for the MU packaging in

a majority of impact categories and simulations. This can be primarily attributed to the inherent nature of the

dine-in option. Unlike takeaway meals, the dine-in option eliminates the need for transport to return the MU

packaging. Furthermore, it allows a significantly higher number of reuses, as the MU packaging remains under

the constant supervision of the restaurant staff, thereby minimising losses due to improper handling by users. In

the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’, the MU packaging had a lower impact in more than 60 % of the simulations in the

sensitivity analysis for the Climate Change impact category and more than 90 % of the simulations for the

aggregated Single Score. The assumptions about the recyclability of waste carton can change the benchmark

results in favour of SU packaging, which had lower Climate Change impacts when the recycling of waste carton

at the end-of-life stage was higher than 70–80 %. The assumptions about recycling at the end-of-life stage of

materials in the MU packaging products were less relevant for the environmental performance. If the recyclability

of PP is assumed to increase from 41 % to 85 % (for both the MU tray and cup for the dine-in meal of the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’), the BE point (

) for Climate Change is almost unchanged for all cartonboard datasets.

This could be explained by the higher number of reuses expected in the case of the MU packaging products in

the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’, which makes the performance of this packaging less dependent on the assumptions

about the recyclability of the materials. In the takeaway scenarios, transport via passenger car and the number

of items transported back to the point of sale or the centralised washing facility had the most influence on the

overall MU packaging impacts. By contrast, the MU packaging in the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’ appeared to be mostly

influenced by assumptions about the energy and water requirement for the washing step occurring within the

restaurant. The performance of the MU meal packaging in the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’ is also strongly influenced

by the number of reuses if they fall in the range 5–20 reuses, as the BE point analysis for the benchmark scenario

(

) The BE point here is the value of the recyclability of the carton waste when the SU and the MU packaging had the same Climate Change

impacts (considering all the other parameters fixed as in the benchmark scenario). For higher values of carton recyclability, the SU

packaging then had then lower Climate Change impacts.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

suggested that the BE point would be reached at around 20 reuses (around 18 reuses if the

‘Alternative

1’ dataset

for cartonboard production is employed; around 40 if the

‘Alternative

2‘ dataset is used instead).

The study also highlighted the contribution of each impact category to the Single Score results derived from the

benchmark scenarios. It was found that the Climate Change and

‘Resource

Use,

Fossil’

impact categories

accounted for the majority of the Single Score across all scenarios. Conversely, the impact of Water Use was

significantly less influential for the Single Score results. On the whole, the various impact categories made similar

contributions to the Single Score for both SU and MU packaging across all scenarios, with Climate Change and

‘Resource Use, Fossil’

impacts having slightly more influence on the Single Score for MU packaging.

In addition, the present study also allowed aspects relevant for the life cycle impacts of MU packaging to be

identified, for which few assessments exist in the literature. For instance, practices adopted during the washing

of MU packaging including rinsing (with hot or cold water) and rewashing (after a first washing cycle in a

dishwasher). The key parameters identified in the present study (e.g. the importance of the number of rotations,

packaging mass, recycling at the end-of-life stage, consumer behaviour) were also recognised by most of the

comparable literature studies in the packaging product field. It has also been acknowledged that the specific

assumptions about some of these parameters could significantly affect the overall life cycle impacts of the

packaging products analysed. However, employing different methodologies for the calculation of environmental

life cycle impacts and different system boundaries could undermine the comparability of different study findings.

Such variability in the approaches and assumptions made in the literature highlighted the need for a harmonised

approach to the calculation of life cycle impacts. In addition, the metadata accompanying the available

information in the literature (e.g. source of the data, source of the assumption) was frequently scarce or

confidential, thereby further limiting a thorough analysis of the data and associated findings. Overall, this study

revealed a number of insights and considerations regarding the impacts of MU and SU packaging. Particular

attention was given to running a large number of simulations and scenarios in the sensitivity analysis. In line with

the analysis of the limitations of the study, the report identifies crucial parameters and assumptions for the

modelling of comparative LCA for SU and MU packaging products, on which future research should focus

(including increasing the collection and quality of primary data on reuse operations, or the development of up-

to-date and representative life cycle datasets for the manufacturing of cartonboard packaging products).

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

References

Andreasi Bassi, S., Biganzoli, F., Ferrara, N., Amadei, A., Valente, A., Sala, S. and Ardente, F., Updated

characterisation and normalisation factors for the Environmental Footprint 3.1 method, EUR 31414 EN,

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, ISBN 978-92-76-99069-7, 2023, doi:10.2760/798894.

Antonopoulos, I., Faraca, G. and Tonini, D., Recycling of post-consumer plastic packaging waste in the EU:

Recovery rates, material flows, and barriers. Waste management, vol. 126, 2021, pp. 694-705,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.04.002.

Amienyo, D., Gujba, H., Stichnothe, H. and Azapagic, A., Life cycle environmental impacts of carbonated soft

drinks. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 18, 2013, pp. 77-92, doi:10.1007/s11367-012-

0459-y.

Boulay, A. M., Bare, J., Benini, L., Berger, M., Lathuillière, M. J., Manzardo, A., Margni M., Motoshita, M., Núñez,

M., Pastor, A.M., Ridoutt, B., Oki, T., Worbe, S. and Pfister, S., The WULCA consensus characterization model for

water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE).

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 23, 2018, pp. 368-378. doi:10.1007/s11367-017-1333-8.

Cambell, A., Waegemaekers, L., van Batavia, A. and Whittenham, K., A study of the waste free cup systems at

events as commissioned by Rijkswaterstaat in cooperation with Plastic Promise, The LCA centre packaging life

cycle assessment, 2020.

Cleary, J., Life cycle assessment of wine and spirit packaging at the product and the municipal scale: a Toronto,

Canada case study. Journal of Cleaner Production vol. 44, 2013, pp. 143-151, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.009.

Cucurachi, S., Steubing, B. Siebler, F., Navarre, N., Caldeira, C. and Sala, S., Prospective LCA methodology for

Novel and Emerging Technologies for BIO-based products

–

JRC129632, The PLANET BIO project., Publications

Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022, doi:10.2760/167543.

CupClub, CupClub Sustainability report 2018. A comparative Life Cycle Assessment of 12 oz CupClub cup and lid.

Version 2.0, 2018.

Coelho, P.M., Corona, B., ten Klooster, R. and Worrell, E., Sustainability of reusable packaging

–

Current situation

and trends. Resources, Conservation & Recycling: X 6, 100037, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.rcrx.2020.100037.

Corona, B., Tunn, V.S.C. and van den Broek, K.L., Integrating consumer behaviour into the environmental

assessment of circular packaging: a scoping review, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment , vol. 29,

2023, pp. 80–98. doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02218-1.

De Laurentiis, V., Amadei, A., Sanyé-Mengual, E., and Sala, S., Exploring alternative normalization approaches for

life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 28(10), 2023, pp. 1382-1399.

EC (European Commission), Directive 94/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December

1994 on packaging and packaging waste, 1994.

EC (European Commission), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular

Economy, 2018a.

EC (European Commission), Directive 2018/552 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018

amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, 2018b.

EC (European Commission), Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the European

council, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. The

European Green Deal, 2019.

EC (European Commission), Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the European

council, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. A new

Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and more competitive Europe, 2020.

EC (European Commission), Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/2279 of 15 December 2021 on the use of

the Environmental Footprint methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance

of products and organisations, 2021a.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

EC (European Commission), Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/2279 of 15 December 2021 Environmental

Footprint

–

Circular Footprint Formula

–

Annex II

–

Part C, 2021b.

EC (European Commission), Proposal for a Regulation on the European Parliament and of the Council on

packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and

repealing 94/62/EC, COM(2022) 677 final, 2022.

EEA (European Environment Agency), Greenhouse gas emission intensity of electricity generation in Europe,

2023. Available at:

https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/greenhouse-gas-emission-intensity-of-

1#:~:text=The%20GHG%20intensity%20of%20total,nuclear%20plants%20and%20renewable%20sources

(accessed September 2023).

EMF (Ellen MacArthur Foundation), Unlocking a reuse revolution: scaling returnable packaging, 2023. Modelling

and analysis by Systemiq and Eunomia. Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/scaling-

returnable-packaging/overview (accessed January 2024).

Eurostat, Packaging waste statistics, 2023. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-

20231019-1 (accessed October 2023).

Eunomia, Study to support the finalisation of the legal proposal and the impact assessment for the review of the

Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, Final Report, Framework Contract ENV.F.1/FRA/2019/0001, European

Commission, DG Environment, 2022.

Eunomia, Assessing Climate Impact: Reusable Systems vs. Single-use Takeaway Packaging, Eunomia Research &

Consulting Ltd, 2023.

Ferrara, C. and De Feo, G., Comparative life cycle assessment of alternative systems for wine packaging in Italy.

Journal of Cleaner Production vol. 259, 2020, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120888.

Fetner, H. and Miller, S.A., Environmental payback periods of reusable alternatives to single-use plastic

kitchenware products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 26, 2021, pp. 1521–1537

doi:10.1007/s11367-021-01946-6.

Forster, P., Storelvmo, T., Armour, K., Collins, W., J. L. Dufresne, J. L., Frame, D., D. J. Lunt, D. J., Mauritsen, T., M.

D. Palmer, M. D., Watanabe, M., Wild, M. and Zhang, H.,

2021, The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedback,

and Climate Sensitivity. In: Climate change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to

the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, Cambridge University Press.

2021.

Foteinis, S., How small daily choices play huge role in Climate change: The disposable paper cup environmental

bane, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 255, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120294.

Gallego Schmid, A., Fernandez Mendoza, J. M. and Azapagic, A., Environmental impacts of takeaway food

containers. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 211, 2019, pp. 417-427, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.220.

Garrido N. and Alvarez del Castillo M.D., Environmental evaluation of single-use and reusable cups, The

International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 12, no. 4, 2007, pp. 252–256.

Guinée, J., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., Koning, A., van Oers, L., Wegener Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S.

and Udo de Haes, H., An operational guide to the ISO standards, final report, Centre of Environmental Science

–

Leiden University (CML), 2001.

Grant, A., Cordle, M. and Bridgwater, E., Quality of Recycling - Towards an operational definition, Canfora, P., Dri,

M., Antonopoulos, I. and Gaudillat, P. editor(s), Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020,

ISBN 978-92-76-25426-3, doi:10.2760/225236, JRC122293.

Greenwood, S.C., Walker, S., Baird, H.M., Parsons, R., Mehl, S., Webb, T.L., Slark, A.T., Ryan, A.J. and Rothman,

R.H., Many Happy Returns: combining insights from the environmental and behavioural sciences to understand

what is required to make reusable packaging mainstream, Sustainable Production and Consumption, vol. 27,

2021, pp. 1688–1702, doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.03.022.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Hitt, C., Douglas, J. and Keoleian, G., Parametric life cycle assessment modelling of reusable and single-use

restaurant food container systems. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 190, 2023.

doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106862.

Huijbregts, M.A.J., Steinmann Z.J.N., Elshout P.M.F., Stam G., Verones F., Vieira M.D.M., Hollander A., Zijp M. and

van Zelm R., ReCiPe 2016 v1.1 A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level

- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 2016.

International

Energy

Agency

(IEA),

World

Energy

Outlook,

2024.

Available

https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023#overview (accessed January 2024).

at:

ISO (International Standard Organization), ISO 14040 - environmental management - life cycle assessment -

principles and framework, 2006.

ISO (International Standard Organization), ISO 14044 - environmental management - life cycle assessment -

requirements and guidelines, 2006.

Kearney, No silver bullet. Why the right mix of solutions will achieve circularity in Europe’s informal eating out

(IEO) sector, 2023.

KeepCup, Reusable coffee cups life cycle assessment and benchmark, Edge Environment, 2018.

Metropolis, N., and Ulam, S., The monte carlo method. Journal of the American statistical association, 44(247),

335-341, 1949.

Ponstein, H.J., Meyer-Aurich, A. and Prochnow, A., Greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options for German

wine production. Journal of Cleaner Production vol. 212, 2018, pp. 800-809. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.206.

ProCarton, Environment Database, European database for cartonboard and carton production. Confidential

report shared during stakeholder consultation, 2023a.

ProCarton, Ri.Se Executive Summary, 2023b. Available at: https://www.procarton.com/wp-

content/uploads/2023/03/The-Carbon-Footprint-of-Carton-Packaging_2023_ES.pdf (accessed December 2023).

Pro.mo/Unionplast, Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) study of tableware for alimentary use, 2015.

available at: https://profooditalia.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/LCA-PRO.MO_english-final_r3.pdf.

Ramboll, Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA)

–

Single-use and multiple-use tableware systems for dine-in in

quick services restaurants. Prepared for EPPA

–

European Paper Packaging Alliance, 2020.

Ramboll, Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA)

–

Single-use and multiple-use tableware systems for take-away

services in quick services restaurants. Prepared for EPPA

–

European Paper Packaging Alliance, 2022a.

Ramboll, Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) packaging solution for the food. Prepared for European

Federation of Corrugated Board Manufacturers (FEFCO), 2022b.

Reloop and Zero Waste Europe, Reusable vs single-use packaging

–

A review of environmental impacts, 2020.

Tua, C., Grosso, M. and Rigamonti, L., Reusing glass bottles in Italy: A life cycle assessment evaluation. Procedia

CIRP 90, 2020, pp. 192–197. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2020.01.094.

Umwelt Bundesamt, Untersuchung der ökologischen Bedeutung von Einweggetränkebechern im Außer-Haus-

Verzehr und mögliche Maßnahmen zur Verringerung des Verbrauchs Abschlussbericht, 2019. Available at:

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/1410/publikationen/2019-02-20_texte_29-

2019_einweggetraenkebechern_im_ausser-haus-verzehr_final.pdf (Accessed January 2024).

UNEP-SETAC (United Nations Environment Program - Society of Environmental Toxicology And Chemistry),

Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases

—

A basis for greener processes and products, In

Shonan Guidance Principles, UNEP-SETAC: Paris, France, 2011.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Program), Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Sustainable

Development, 2022. Available at: https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/sustainable-development-goals

(accessed September 2023).

UNEP (United Nations Environment Program), Single-use plastic bottles and their alternatives,

Recommendations from Life Cycle Assessments, 2020.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Verburgt, T., Life Cycle Assessment of reusable and single-use meal container systems, Utrecht University, 2021.

Zampori, L. and Pant, R., Suggestions for updating the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method, EUR 29682

EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-00654-1,

doi:10.2760/424613, JRC115959.

Zero Waste Europe, Packaging at the core, 2022. Available at: https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2022/07/blog-

packaging-at-the-core/ (accessed October 2023).

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

List of abbreviations

BKV

EEA

EFTA

EPPA

FEFCO

Break Even

Plastics Concepts Recovery (English translation)

European Commission

European Environment Agency

European Free Trade Association

European Paper Packaging Alliance

European Union

European Federation of Corrugated Board Manufacturers

HORECA Hotels Restaurants and Catering

DG ENV

LCA

LDPE

JRC

PEF

PPWR

UUID

Directorate-General for Environment

Life Cycle Assessment

Low-density polyethylene

Multiple Use

Single Use

Joint Research Centre

Product Environmental Footprint

Polypropylene

Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation

Polystyrene

Universal Unique Identifier

United Kingdom

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

List of definitions

Cartonboard

In this study, the word “cartonboard”

refers to a material that can be produced from primary

wood fibres and/or from recovered fibres and is usually manufactured via pulping. This material needs

to be further processed to arrive at the final packaging product.

Thus “cartonboard” is used in this

report to refer to a different packaging paper than the thick paper (usually brown) which is instead

used especially for making boxes (i.e. secondary or tertiary packaging) and not used for the food and

beverage packaging referenced in the study.

Carton

In this study, the

word “carton” refers to a material that is produced by processing (in so-called

“converters”) the cartonboard

delivered from the mills plants into the final packaging product. As an

example, folding and gluing are included in the converting of cartonboard into carton.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

List of figures

Figure 1.

Single Use and Multiple Use system boundaries for case studies in ‘Scenario 1’.

.......................14

Figure 2.

Single Use and Multiple Use system boundaries for case studies in ‘Scenario 2’.

.......................14

Figure 3.

Single Use and Multiple Use system boundaries for case studies in ‘Scenario 3’.

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

Figure 4.

Single Use and Multiple Use system boundaries for case studies in ‘Scenario 4’.

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

Figure 5.

Single Use and Multiple Use system boundaries for case studies of the ‘Restaurant Scenario’.

.......16

Figure 6.

The Circular Footprint Formula and its main components (Zampori and Pant, 2019) .

.................20

Figure 7.

Model used for the sensitivity analysis for a given Scenario.

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

Figure 8.

Comparison of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

for

‘Scenario 1’.

SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

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

Figure 9.

Results of the sensitivity analysis for ‘Scenario 1’ for all impact categories for the Single Use (SU) and

Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

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

Figure 10.

Results of the analysis of cartonboard impacts for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU)

packaging products. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

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

Figure 11.

Results of the analysis of cartonboard impacts, comparing the results of the Sensitivity analysis

simulations for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

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

Figure 12.

Results of the specific analysis of lid types for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging

products. The graphs illustrate the results for (a) SU packaging product including a carton lid with low-density

polyethylene (LDPE) lining and (b) SU packaging including a polystyrene (PS) lid. The bottom graph (c) illustrates

the results where both packaging products do not include any lid. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact

category considered.

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

Figure 13.

Comparison of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

for ‘Scenario 2 – CASE A’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

...................34

Figure 14.

Results of the sensitivity analysis for

’Scenario

–

CASE

A’

for all impact categories for the Single Use

(SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.....................................................................35

Figure 15.

Comparison of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

for the

‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’,

when the passenger car impacts of the reuse step of the MU packaging are

excluded from the analysis. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered..................36

Figure 16.

Results of the sensitivity analysis for

‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’

for all impact categories of Single Use (SU)

and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products, when the passenger car impacts of the reuse step of the MU

packaging are excluded from the analysis.

...........................................................................37

Figure 17.

Comparison of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

in ‘Scenario 2 – CASE B’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

....................38

Figure 18.

Results of the sensitivity analysis for

’Scenario

–

CASE

B’

for all impact categories for Single Use

(SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.....................................................................39

Figure 19.

Comparison of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

for ‘Scenario 3 – CASE A’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

...................40

Figure 20.

Results of the sensitivity analysis for

‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’

for all impact categories of the Single Use

(SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.....................................................................41

Figure 21.

Comparison of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

for

‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’.

SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

...................42

Figure 22.

Results of the sensitivity analysis for

‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’

for all impact categories for the Single Use

(SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.....................................................................43

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 23.

Comparison of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

for

‘Scenario 4’.

SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

..............................44

Figure 24.

Results of the sensitivity analysis for

‘Scenario 4’

for all impact categories for the Single Use (SU) and

Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

..............................................................................45

Figure 25.

Comparison of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) meals for the

‘Restaurant Scenario’.

SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

.......................46

Figure 26.

Results of the sensitivity analysis for the

‘Restaurant Scenario’

for all impact categories for the Single

Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

...............................................................47

Figure 27.

Results of the specific sensitivity analysis for cartonboard impacts for the Single Use (SU) and

Multiple Use (MU) packaging products. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

...48

Figure 28.

Results of the specific sensitivity analysis for cartonboard impacts, comparing the results of the

sensitivity analysis simulations for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

............48

Figure 29.

Results for the additional analysis Break-Even (BE) points for the

‘Restaurant Scenario’,

assessing the

effects of varying the end-of-life recycling rate (R

) for Single Use (SU) carton cups and trays. The end-of-life

recycling rate of PP in Multiple Use packaging products is kept constant and equal to the benchmark value (41

%). All other parameters are kept constant.

.........................................................................50

Figure 30.

Results of the additional analysis of Break-Even (BE) points for the

‘Restaurant Scenario’,

assessing

the effects of varying the end-of-life recycling rate (R

) for Single Use (SU) carton cups and trays. The end-of-life

recycling rate of PP in Multiple Use (MU) packaging is set at 85 %. All other parameters are kept constant.

...50

Figure 31.

Results of the additional analysis of Break-Even (BE) points for the

‘Restaurant Scenario’,

assessing

the effects of varying the number of reuses of the Multiple Use (MU) packaging. Single Use (SU) impacts for

each impact category are set to 100. All other parameters are kept constant.

....................................51

Figure 32.

Contribution of each impact category to the Single Score index, for Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use

(MU) packaging in each benchmark Scenario.

.......................................................................54

Figure 33.

Screenshot of the Microsoft Excel file shared during the stakeholder consultation, detailing the sheet

“Introduction and context”.

...........................................................................................82

Figure 34.

Screenshot of the Microsoft Excel file shared during the stakeholder consultation, detailing the sheet

“Data collection Instructions”.

........................................................................................83

Figure 35.

Overview of the contribution of the various lifecycle stages in the SU and MU packaging products

(percentages calculated for the absolute values of the benchmark impacts, after Normalization and Weighting).

Note: Raw materials and Production are included in the manufacturing step.

....................................95

Figure 36.

Analysis of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products for

the

‘Scenario 1’.

SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

.............................96

Figure 37.

Breakdown of the benchmark impacts for the reuse phase of the Multiple Use (MU) packaging

product (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the impacts, after Normalization and Weighting).

Figure 38.

Results of the sensitivity analysis of

‘Scenario 1’

for all impact categories of the Single Use (SU) and

Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

..............................................................................98

Figure 39.

Overview of the contribution of the various lifecycle stages in the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use

(MU) packaging products (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the benchmark impacts, after

Normalization and Weighting). Note: Raw materials and Production are included in the manufacturing step.

........................................................................................................................ 105

Figure 40.

Analysis of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products for

the

‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’.

SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

................. 106

Figure 41.

Breakdown of the benchmark impacts for the reuse phase of the Multiple Use (MU) packaging

product (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the impacts, after Normalization and Weighting).

........................................................................................................................ 107

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 42.

Results of the sensitivity analysis of

‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’

for all impact categories for the Single Use

(SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products...................................................................

108

Figure 43.

Overview of the contribution of the various lifecycle stages in the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use

(MU) packaging products (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the benchmark impacts, after

Normalization and Weighting). Note: Raw materials and Production are included in the manufacturing step.

........................................................................................................................ 114

Figure 44.

Analysis of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products for

the

’Scenario

–

CASE

B’.

SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

................. 115

Figure 45.

Results of the sensitivity analysis of

‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’

for all impact categories for the Single Use

(SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products...................................................................

116

Figure 46.

Overview of the contribution of the various lifecycle stages in the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use

(MU) packaging products (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the benchmark impacts, after

Normalization and Weighting). Note: Raw materials and Production are included in the manufacturing step.

........................................................................................................................ 123

Figure 47.

Analysis of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products for

the

‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’.

SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

................. 124

Figure 48.

Breakdown of the benchmark impacts for the reuse phase of the Multiple Use (MU) (percentages

calculated for the absolute values of the impacts, after Normalization and Weighting).

....................... 125

Figure 49.

Results of the sensitivity analysis of

‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’

for all impact categories for the Single Use

(SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products...................................................................

126

Figure 50.

Overview of the contribution of the various lifecycle stages in the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use

(MU) packaging products (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the benchmark impacts, after

Normalization and Weighting). Note: Raw materials and Production are included in the manufacturing step.

........................................................................................................................ 133

Figure 51.

Analysis of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products for

the

‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’.

SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

................. 134

Figure 52.

Breakdown of the benchmark impacts for the reuse phase of the Multiple Use (MU) packaging

product (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the impacts, after Normalization and Weighting).

........................................................................................................................ 135

Figure 53.

Results of the sensitivity analysis of

‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’

for all impact categories for the Single Use

(SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products...................................................................

136

Figure 54.

Overview of the contribution of the various lifecycle stages in the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use

(MU) packaging products (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the benchmark impacts, after

Normalization and Weighting). Note: Raw materials and Production are included in the manufacturing step.

........................................................................................................................ 143

Figure 55.

Analysis of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products for

the

‘Scenario 4’.

SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

........................... 144

Figure 56.

Breakdown of the benchmark impacts for the reuse phase of the Multiple Use (MU) packaging

product (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the impacts, after Normalization and Weighting).

........................................................................................................................ 145

Figure 57.

Results of the sensitivity analysis of ‘Scenario 4’ for all impact categories for the

Single Use (SU) and

Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

............................................................................ 146

Figure 58.

Overview of the contribution of the various lifecycle stages in the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use

(MU) meals (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the benchmark impacts, after Normalization and

Weighting). Note: Raw materials and Production are included in the manufacturing step.

.................... 153

Figure 59.

Analysis of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) meals for the

‘Restaurant Scenario’.

SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category considered.

..................... 154

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 60.

Breakdown of the benchmark impacts for the reuse phase of the Multiple Use (MU) meal

(percentages calculated for the absolute values of the impacts, after Normalization and Weighting).

........ 155

Figure 61.

Results of the sensitivity analysis of the

‘Restaurant Scenario’

for all impact categories for the Single

Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) meals.

............................................................................ 156

Figure 62.

Results of the specific sensitivity analysis for cartonboard impacts for the Single Use (SU) and

Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

for ‘Scenario 1’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category

considered.

........................................................................................................... 157

Figure 63.

Results of the specific sensitivity analysis for cartonboard impacts, analysis the performances with

regards of the sensitivity analysis results for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products for

‘Scenario 1’.

.......................................................................................................... 158

Figure 64.

Results of the specific sensitivity analysis for cartonboard impacts for the Single Use (SU) and

Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

for the ‘Restaurant Scenario’.

SU impacts are set to 100 % for each

impact category considered.

........................................................................................ 159

Figure 65.

Results of the specific sensitivity analysis for cartonboard impacts, analysis the performances with

regards of the sensitivity analysis results for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products for

the ‘Restaurant Scenario’.

........................................................................................... 159

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

List of tables

Table 1.

Overview of the real-life case studies considered for each Scenario.

....................................10

Table 2.

Overview of the alternative life cycle datasets used to model the impacts associated with cartonboard

manufacturing.

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

Table 3.

Overview of the Break-Even

(BE) point analyses performed for the ‘Restaurant Scenario’.

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

Table 4.

Comparison of the number of reuses (also called “number of rotations”) in various literature sources

that could be compared with the dine-in

‘Restaurant Scenario’ of the present study.

...........................59

Table 5.

Overview of the EF3.1 datasets employed for the study, coupled with the specific Universal Unique

Identifier (UUID) of each dataset.

....................................................................................84

Table 6.

Overview of the EF3.1 datasets employed for modelling the detergent considered in the study

(excluding for bottles). The shares are based on Campbell et al. (2020) and Ramboll (2022a).

..................86

Table 7.

Overview of the EF3.1 datasets employed for modelling the detergent considered in the study for

bottles’ washing. The shares are based on Tua et al. (2020).

.......................................................87

Table 8.

Overview of the EF3.1 datasets employed for modelling the energy mixes considered in the study.

..87

Table 9.

Overview of the life cycle stages considered for ‘Scenario 1’ for both Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use

(MU) packaging products.

.............................................................................................90

Table 10.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Single Use (SU)

packaging of

‘Scenario 1’.

.............................................................................................92

Table 11.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Multiple Use (MU)

packaging of

‘Scenario 1’.

.............................................................................................93

Table 12.

Overview of the life cycle stages considered for

‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’

for the Single Use (SU) and

Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

............................................................................ 100

Table 13.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Single Use (SU)

packaging product of the

‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’.

................................................................... 102

Table 14.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Multiple Use (MU)

packaging product of the

‘Scenario

–

CASE

A’.

................................................................... 103

Table 15.

Overview of the life cycle stages considered for

‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’

for the Single Use (SU) and

Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

............................................................................ 110

Table 16.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Single Use (SU)

packaging product

of the ‘Scenario 2 – CASE B’.

................................................................... 112

Table 17.

Overview of the life cycle stages considered for

‘Scenario –

CASE

A’

for the Single Use (SU) and

Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

............................................................................ 118

Table 18.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Single Use (SU)

packaging product

of the ‘Scenario 3 – CASE A’.

................................................................... 120

Table 19.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Multiple Use (MU)

packaging product

of the ’Scenario 3 – CASE A’.

................................................................... 121

Table 20.

Overview of the life cycle stages considered for

‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’

for the Single Use (SU) and

Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

............................................................................ 128

Table 21.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Single Use (SU)

packaging product of the

‘Scenario

–

CASE

B’.

................................................................... 130

Table 22.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Multiple Use (MU)

packaging product

of the ‘Scenario 3 – CASE B’.

................................................................... 130

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Table 23.

Overview of the life cycle stages considered for

‘Scenario 4’

for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use

(MU) packaging products.

........................................................................................... 138

Table 24.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Single Use (SU)

packaging product of the

‘Scenario 4’.

............................................................................. 140

Table 25.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Multiple Use (MU)

packaging product

of the ‘Scenario 4’.

............................................................................. 141

Table 26.

Overview of the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) meal for the Hamburger meal.

............ 148

Table 27.

Overview of the life cycle stages considered for the PP plate of the Multiple Use (MU) hamburger

meal.

.................................................................................................................. 149

Table 28.

Overview of the Inventory and parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the PP plate in

Multiple Use (MU) meal of the ‘Restaurant Scenario'.

............................................................ 151

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Annexes

Annex 1. Details on the stakeholder consultation

This Annex aims at providing further details on the stakeholder consultation carried out by the JRC. As described in Section 2.3, the consultation aimed at collecting relevant

data from stakeholders for all case studies under exam, towards improving their robustness and representativeness. The shared questionnaire took the form of a Microsoft

Excel file, comprised of several sheet (e.g. Figure 33 and Figure 34). Hereafter the contents of the questionnaire are illustrated.

−

In the sheet named “Introduction and context”, the purpose of the call for data and the relevant methodological information on

the models were provided.

In the sheet named “Data collection Instructions”, information on how to provide data and on the use of such information were

provided.

Other sheets were dedicated to specific data collections, in particular:

In the sheet “Beverage Cups (0.5L)” general information on the case study were illustrated and stakeholders were invited to share

data for SU and MU

packaging products included in the sheet entitled

“single

use product Paper cup with LDPE plastic lining and PS lid (0.5 litre) vs multiple use product PP cup

with PP Lid (0.5 litre)” [‘Scenario 1’].

In the sheet “General Food Trays 1 (1.1L)” general information on the case study were illustrated and stakeholders were invited

to share data for SU and

MU packaging products included in the sheet entitled

“single

use product Carton tray with LDPE lining (1.1 litre) vs multiple use product PP tray (1.1 litre)”

[‘Scenario 2

–

CASE A’].

In the sheet “General Food Trays 2 (1.1L)” general information on the case study were illustrated and stakeholders were invited

to share data for SU and

MU packaging products included in the sheet entitled

“single

use product Aluminium tray with carton cover and LDPE lining (1.1 litre) vs multiple use product

PP tray (1.1 litre)” [‘Scenario 2

–

CASE B’].

In the sheet “Glass Wine Bottles (0.75L)” general information on the case study were illustrated and stakeholders were invited

to share data for SU and MU

packaging products included in the sheet entitled

“single

use product glass bottle (0.75 litre) vs multiple use product glass bottle thicker (0.75 litre)”

[‘Scenario 4’].

In the sheet “Glass Beer Bottles (0.5L)” general information on the case study were illustrated and stakeholders were invited

to share data for SU and MU

packaging products included in the sheet entitled

“single

use product glass bottle (0.5 litre) vs multiple use product glass bottle thicker (0.5 litre)” [‘Scenario

–

CASE B’].

In the sheet “Alcoholic beverages (0.5L)” general information on the case study were illustrated and stakeholders were invited

to share data for SU and MU

packaging products included in the sheet entitled

“single

use Aluminium Can (0.5 litre) vs multiple use Plastic Bottle (0.5 litre)” [‘Scenario 3

–

CASE A’].

In the sheet “Hamburger Meal (Restaurant)” general information on the case study were illustrated and stakeholders were invited

to share data for SU and

MU packaging products included in the sheet entitled

“single

use Hamburger Meal vs multiple use Hamburger Meal)” [‘Restaurant Scenario’].

For sake of completeness, screenshots taken from the file are provided hereafter for the “Introduction and context”, “Data collection Instructions” and “Beverage Cups (0.5L)”

sheets.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 33.

Screenshot of the Microsoft Excel file shared during the stakeholder consultation, detailing the sheet “Introduction and context”.

Source: JRC analysis.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 34.

Screenshot of the

Microsoft Excel file shared during the stakeholder consultation, detailing the sheet “Data

collection Instructions”.

Source: JRC analysis.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Annex 2. List of the dataset included in the assessment

In Table 5 the full list of datasets employed for the analysis is reported.

Note that the

dataset “Solid

board, bleached; Kraft Pulping Process, pulp pressing, bleaching and drying; production mix, at plant; >220 g/m2” reported in Table 5 has been

employed in the analysis of alternative cartonboard production impacts (named:

‘Alternative

1’, as described in Section 2.5.1), and was not employed in the benchmark

analysis presented in the report with regard to carton-based packaging products.

This dataset was included among the “cartonboard” manufacturing alternatives albeit it was

considered that its impacts were covering cartonboard manufacturing and also conversion of cartonboard into carton (see main report in Section 2 for further details). The

‘Benchmark

dataset’ (as well as the

‘Alternative

2’ dataset) was collected during the stakeholder consultation: further details are provided in Section 2.5.1. These two datasets

covered cartonboard manufacturing production only, and when employed in the life cycle analysis additional energy was considered in the models to account for the

converting needs to further process cartonboard into carton.

Table 5.

Overview of the EF3.1 datasets employed for the study, coupled with the specific Universal Unique Identifier (UUID) of each dataset.

EF3.1 dataset name

Aluminium extrusion; primary production, aluminium extrusion; single route, at plant; 2.7 g/cm3

Aluminium ingot (manganese main solute); primary production, aluminium casting and alloying; single route, at plant; 2.7 g/cm3

Articulated lorry transport, Euro 4, Total weight <7.5 t; diesel driven, Euro 4, cargo; consumption mix, to consumer; up to 7,5t gross

weight / 3,3t payload capacity

Articulated lorry transport, Euro 4, Total weight >32 t; diesel driven, Euro 4, cargo; consumption mix, to consumer; more than 32t gross

weight / 24,7t payload capacity

Articulated lorry transport, Euro 4, Total weight 12-14 t; diesel driven, Euro 4, cargo; consumption mix, to consumer; 12-14t gross weight /

9,3t payload capacity

Blow moulding; blow moulding; production mix, at plant; PET, HDPE and PP

Container glass, ER, Recycled Content 100%; Recycled container glass (all sizes) to be used for glass bottles and food jars; Production mix.

Technology mix. EU-28 + EFTA; 1 kg of formed and finished recycled container glass

Container glass, green colour; Green colour container glass (all sizes) to be used for glass bottles and food jars; Production mix.

Technology mix. EU-28 + EFTA; 1 kg of formed and finished container glass

Container glass, virgin; Virgin container glass (all sizes) to be used for glass bottles and food jars; Production mix. Technology mix. EU-28 +

EFTA; 1 kg of formed and finished container glass

Detergent proxy

Detergent proxy bottles

Energy Mix

Film Extrusion (blowing); plastic extrusion; production mix, at plant; for PP, PE, PVC, PET and PS

Incineration PP; waste-to-energy plant with dry flue gas treatment, including transport and pre-treatment; production mix, at consumer;

polypropylene

Landfill of inert (aluminium); landfill including leachate treatment and with transport without collection and pre-treatment; production

mix (region specific sites), at landfill site

UUID

1739a600-8e46-4595-ba49-867b8d6f9a11

5ad00e36-649c-471e-9b7c-a855b20e6f5f

b551d8e9-91ea-4ee4-a3bb-a3437a45ec83

e1ded83e-a02f-42cd-92f9-81cce21a3a98

d231e082-c74c-4108-ae47-c7decd908094

215dd4d8-52ad-4eee-bd63-7a6193f2b8d5

ab4e945f-9955-4414-b3fb-d42507cc4e2d

cd904baf-b510-4e0a-958e-2a588a59e8f6

5ccf94ab-173c-4688-bcc8-d434166be45e

Additional details provided in

Table 6

Additional details provided in

Table 7

Additional details provided in

Table 8

34591654-1708-49f3-a12c-34180aae8290

3e1c1433-a79f-47e7-bcd0-be45781f7ed7

3f7d5e8a-a112-4585-9e2f-dc8b667d66dc

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

EF3.1 dataset name

Landfill of inert (glass); landfill including leachate treatment and transport (no pre-treatment); production mix (region specific sites), at

landfill site

Landfill of paper and paperboard waste; landfill including leachate treatment and with transport without collection and pre-treatment;

production mix (region specific sites), at landfill site; The carbon and water content are respectively of 30% C and 22% Water (in weight %)

Landfill of plastic waste; landfill including leachate treatment and with transport without collection and pre-treatment; production mix

(region specific sites), at landfill site; The carbon and water content are respectively of 62%C and 0% Water (in weight %)

LDPE granulates; Polymerisation of ethylene; production mix, at plant; 0.91- 0.96 g/cm3, 28 g/mol per repeating unit

Passenger car, average; technology mix, gasoline and diesel driven, Euro 3-5, passenger car; consumption mix, to consumer; engine size

from 1,4l up to >2l

PET granulates, amorphous; Polymerisation of ethylene; production mix, at plant; 0.91- 0.96 g/cm3, 28 g/mol per repeating unit

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) granulate secondary ; no metal fraction; from post-consumer waste, via washing, granulation,

palletisation; production mix, at plant; 90% recycling rate

Polypropylene, recycled, post-consumer; washing, drying, shredding, pelletizing; production mix, at plant; Erec/ErecEoL, efficiency 90%

Polystyrene production, high impact; polymerisation of styrene; production mix, at plant; 1.05 g/cm3

PP granulates {EU+EFTA+UK} | polymerisation of propene | production mix, at plant | 0.91 g/cm3, 42.08 g/mol per repeating unit | LCI

result

Recycling glass, waste management, technology mix, at plant; collection, sorting, transport, recycling; production mix, at plant; glass

waste, efficiency 95%

Recycling of aluminium into aluminium ingot - from post-consumer; collection, transport, pretreatment, remelting; production mix, at

plant; aluminium waste, efficiency 90%

Recycling of post-consumer waste polypropylene (PP); collection, sorting, transport, washing, granulation, palletisation; production mix, at

plant; 48,9% recycling rate

Recycling of post-consumer waste polyethylene terephthalate (PET); collection, sorting, transport, washing, granulation, palletisation;

production mix, at plant; 48,9% recycling rate

Recycling paper and cardboard, waste management, technology mix, at plant; collection, sorting, transport, recycling; production mix, at

plant; paper waste, efficiency 90,9%

Screw cap, PP; raw material production, plastic injection moulding; production mix, at plant; 0.91 g/cm3, 42.08 g/mol per repeating unit

Secondary aluminium ingot (manganese main solute); secondary production, aluminium casting and alloying; single route, at plant; 2.7

g/cm3

Solid board, bleached; Kraft Pulping Process, pulp pressing, bleaching and drying; production mix, at plant; >220 g/m2

Tap water; average technology mix; consumption mix, at consumer; Technology mix for supply of drinking water to users

Thermal energy from natural gas; technology mix regarding firing and flue gas cleaning; production mix, at heat plant; MJ, 100% efficiency

Treatment of residential wastewater, small plant; wastewater treatment including sludge treatment; production mix, at plant; 1m3 of

wastewater treated

Waste incineration of inert material; waste-to-energy plant with dry flue gas treatment, including transport and pre-treatment;

production mix, at consumer; inert material waste

UUID

01196227-0627-440c-9f2f-94b8f1e7d1ad

86ff0001-4794-4df5-a1d4-083a9d986b62

f2bea0f5-e4b7-4a2c-9f34-4eb32495cbc6

d327f4a5-93a1-4ead-856c-aeb8b2f25080

1ead35dd-fc71-4b0c-9410-7e39da95c7dc

52ecabcf-fb6a-4d58-895c-41078326bbcb

49a42d24-84be-42d5-8fe4-48efad0f4487

637779a3-5c48-55b2-a42b-3e29f96325e1

42affac5-a207-4ec5-bd7d-2dffd85ff50e

eb6c15a5-abcd-4d1a-ab7f-fb1cc364a130

25d927a6-022d-4797-aee5-c5918da38e91

c7f28f2a-f262-49ad-ba96-0cab313b186f

2ec1afd9-7d95-4b64-8120-c362bb0c8bee

4a5df62a-5991-4862-a249-4eb07d2e943c

308685e7-15fe-417e-a016-1f6060a0ff10

05a26a08-1ab5-4523-b25f-41b9be0ffc76

a44f2af0-f15b-4d46-89a6-5deb49e9f166

0405501b-e12f-4d45-ab51-c5b1f5f12620

2195cfe0-a5cc-5be2-9102-c0a0cb656bcb

6db46295-201a-47d1-af8f-c2a7bee43946

8126980a-29e9-416c-991d-2aa5fdad9062

061572a7-989d-4104-8e39-85b46e3d249b

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

EF3.1 dataset name

Waste incineration of non-ferro metals, aluminium, more than 50µm; waste-to-energy plant with dry flue gas treatment, including

transport and pre-treatment; production mix, at consumer; aluminium waste

Waste incineration of paper and board; waste-to-energy plant with dry flue gas treatment, including transport and pre-treatment;

production mix, at consumer; paper waste

Waste incineration of PE; waste-to-energy plant with dry flue gas treatment, including transport and pre-treatment; production mix, at

consumer; polyethylene waste

Waste incineration of PET; waste-to-energy plant with dry flue gas treatment, including transport and pre-treatment; production mix, at

consumer; polyethylene terephthalate waste

Waste incineration of PS; waste-to-energy plant with dry flue gas treatment, including transport and pre-treatment; production mix, at

consumer; polystyrene waste

UUID

0a1bc8da-ef57-4464-9065-b156cdf3a458

08856e05-f2e1-47b1-832a-a429c989f665

010702b1-b39e-4d64-bcbc-dd826ee8654b

03c6ca38-c023-41e2-9aca-8d86670bff2c

036307fb-9c35-4762-b6a7-322849ff73d9

Source: EF datasets. Note: Details on the Detergent and energy mixes models are reported in Table 6, Table 7 and in Table 8. All datasets were selected with the EU+EFTA+UK geography beside the dataset for recycled

post-consumer polypropylene and the dataset for passenger car both having a Global geography (these two were selected due to lack of EU-specific EF3.1 datasets).

In the case of detergents used for the washing operations of the MU packaging products (excluding for bottles), a proxy dataset was calculated based on Campbell et al.

(2020) and Ramboll (2022a). This proxy dataset

(named “Detergent proxy” in

Table 5) was modelled considering 71 % of chemicals distributed as follows: 43% of impacts

associated to soda ash, 30 % of impacts associated with citric acid, 10 % of impacts associated with layered sodium silicates SKS6 powder, 7% of sodium percarbonate powder,

6 % of polycarboxylates active substance, 2 % of ethylenediamine and 2 % of fatty alcohol sulphate and 29 % of softened water. Details on the datasets employed for the

modelling of the detergent is provided in Table 6. In the case of detergents used for the washing operations of MU bottles (i.e. wine and beer bottles), a proxy dataset was

calculated considering the chemicals used in the washing of bottles as identified by Tua et al. (2020). This proxy dataset (named

“Detergent

proxy bottles”

Table 5) was

modelled considering the need of 76 % disinfectant (peracetic acid), 0.03 % release agents for label removal, 8.6 % acidic products for the removal of the mineral residue and

15.8 % detergents based on caustic soda. Details on the datasets employed for the modelling of the detergent is provided in Table 6.

Table 6.

Overview of the EF3.1 datasets employed for modelling the detergent considered in the study (excluding for bottles). The shares are based on Campbell et al.

(2020) and Ramboll (2022a).

EF3.1 dataset name

Ehtylenediamine production; technology mix; production mix, at plant; 100% active substance

Sodium silicate powder production; technology mix; production mix, at plant; 100% active substance

Soda production; technology mix; production mix, at plant; 100% active substance

Citric acid production; technology mix; production mix, at plant; 100% active substance

Polycarboxylate production; technology mix; production mix, at plant; 100% active substance

Fatty alcohols production; technology mix; production mix, at plant; 100% active substance

Sodium percarbonate, powder production; technology mix; production mix, at plant; 100% active substance

Water, completely softened; average technology mix; production mix, at plant; Technology mix for supply of

softened water to users

Total share

Specific share

10 %

43 %

30 %

UUID

12192840-df2f-498c-9ca5-a9d4401de922

140b222f-7fe3-4efb-8692-2b387054960a

546d4097-a453-4706-ac17-389325a04b6f

d0becc20-49c4-4e8f-9ff8-8c392d5610ed

dbdbd19e-38e7-47e7-8894-f6c51ee1a90c

f0d6cd33-9022-4cd6-af15-9a88c1081685

55a8e0ee-2acd-4167-8d2e-95300f7dfeb7

00e145fd-f5cb-5571-94f3-054ddbba312b

71 %

29 %

Source: EF datasets and literature review. Note: all datasets were selected with the EU+EFTA+UK geography beside the dataset for ethylenediamine production and the dataset for fatty alcohols production both having

a Global geography (selected due to lack of EU-specific EF3.1 datasets).

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Table 7.

Overview of the EF3.1 datasets employed for modelling the detergent considered in the study

for bottles’ washing.

The shares are based on Tua et al. (2020).

EF3.1 dataset name

Acetic acid production; technology mix; production mix, at plant; 100%

active substance

Hydrogen peroxide, 100% production; technology mix; production mix, at

plant; 100% active substance

EDTA production; technology mix; production mix, at plant; 100% active

substance

Sodium cumenesulphonate production; technology mix; production mix, at

plant; 100% active substance

Sulphuric acid production; technology mix; production mix, at plant; 100%

active substance

Lactic acid production; technology mix; production mix, at plant; 100%

active substance

Sodium hydroxide production; technology mix; production mix, at plant;

100% active substance

75.66 % (these two datasets were employed based on

the molecular weight of the two chemicals for deriving

the peracetic acid used as disinfectant)

0.008 % (release agent)

0.016 % (release agent)

4.28 % (mineral residue removal)

15.79 % (release agent)

UUID

09c336e4-436b-4be0-95bd-444d2295dc0d

edaebb9c-73a9-4e3a-a682-4fbb75b7a1d9

f8eb9518-ab48-4476-a74e-56a28b6414da

c4e9ca1c-f77c-4aef-a1e3-394f86dd44ae

eb6abe54-7e5d-4ee4-b3f1-08c1e220ef94

460f4294-2b1f-41d9-9596-d0168a51b10c

2ba49ead-4683-4671-bded-d52b80215e9e

Source: EF datasets and literature review. Note: all datasets were selected with the EU+EFTA+UK geography; rounding effect from the calculated share might be present.

The electricity

consumption was modelled based on the EF3.1 “Electricity grid mix 1kV-60kV;

technology mix; consumption mix, to consumer; 1kV -

60kV” dataset. A set of

different geographies was identified for a total of 5 Energy Mix (E-Mix) types. The dataset concerning the EU mix was selected as the reference benchmark for the models

(named “E-Mix1”). The remaining four geographies represent extremes of the emissions intensities among Member States

(as described in EEA, 2023). In particular, Poland,

Germany, Sweden and Belgium were selected to represent a wide range of renewable shares in the country mixes. Each geography

was therefore associated to a specific “E-

Mix”, as follows: “E-Mix1” (EU), “E-Mix2” (Germany), “E-Mix3” (Sweden), “E-Mix4” (Poland), “E-Mix5” (Belgium). In each

sensitivity analysis simulation of each Scenario, the

impacts associated to the energy mix were randomly extracted between these 5 mixes. A summary of the employed datasets included for the modelling of the energy mixes

is provided in Table 8. All the datasets reported in Table 8 refer to the year 2012.

Table 8.

Overview of the EF3.1 datasets employed for modelling the energy mixes considered in the study.

EF3.1 dataset name

Electricity grid mix 1kV-60kV; technology mix;

consumption mix, to consumer; 1kV - 60kV

Electricity grid mix 1kV-60kV; technology mix;

consumption mix, to consumer; 1kV - 60kV

Electricity grid mix 1kV-60kV; technology mix;

consumption mix, to consumer; 1kV - 60kV

Short name

E-Mix1

Geography

EU+EFTA+UK

Used in

- Benchmark calculations

- Could be randomly extracted in sensitivity analysis

simulations

- Could be randomly extracted in the sensitivity

analysis simulations

- Could be randomly extracted in the sensitivity

analysis simulations

UUID

34960d4d-af62-43a0-aa76-adc5fcf57246

(1)

E-Mix2

E-Mix3

Germany

Sweden

99fb7b5a-b681-40ea-9ccb-7b54b336d23c

(2)

afa958d8-182c-4481-b81c-e2cbdb638930

(3)

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

EF3.1 dataset name

Electricity grid mix 1kV-60kV; technology mix;

consumption mix, to consumer; 1kV - 60kV

Electricity grid mix 1kV-60kV; technology mix;

consumption mix, to consumer; 1kV - 60kV

Short name

E-Mix4

E-Mix5

Geography

Poland

Belgium

Used in

- Could be randomly extracted in the sensitivity

analysis simulations

- Could be randomly extracted in the sensitivity

analysis simulations

UUID

646d61ac-1d33-4c2c-bc11-89dd1c829d1e

(4)

28290933-1fb0-42f4-a204-4e41169685a7

(5)

Source: EF datasets and own assumption. Note: (1) This dataset refers to an average EU mix share based on data from the International Energy Agency (IEA, 2024). The information available from the World Energy

Outlook report (EIA, 2024) concerning the year 2012 did not provide a European energy mix breakdown by primary sources. Further, the level of aggregation of the dataset hindered a detailed overview of the sources

mix employed in the dataset modelling. As a reference, the carbon footprint of this dataset amounted to 0.12 kg CO2 eq./MJ; (2) This dataset refers to electricity in Germany, considering the following mix composition

(retrieved from the available dataset metadata): Nuclear 14.23 %, Lignite 23.95 %, Hard coal 18.25 %, Coal gases 1.78 %, Natural gas 9.77 %, Heavy fuel oil 0.96 %, Biomass 1.71 %, Biogas 5.20 %, Waste 1.99 %, Hydro

3.86 %, Wind 12.28 %, Photovoltaic 6.00 %, Geothermal 0.02 %. As a reference, the carbon footprint of this dataset amounted to 0.16 kg CO2 eq./MJ; (3) This dataset refers to electricity in Sweden, considering the

following mix composition (retrieved from the available dataset metadata): Nuclear 38.45 %, Peat 0.24 %, Hard coal 0.29 %, Coal gases 0.25 %, Natural gas 0.54 %, Heavy fuel oil 0.39 %, Biomass 6.31 %, Biogas 0.02 %,

Waste 1.75 %, Hydro 47.46 %, Wind 4.30 %, Photovoltaic 0.01 %. As a reference, the carbon footprint of this dataset amounted to 0.01 kg CO2 eq./MJ; (4) This dataset refers to electricity in Poland, considering the

following mix composition (retrieved from the available dataset metadata): Lignite 33.34 %, Hard coal 49.71 %, Coal gases 1.12 %, Natural gas 3.86 %, Heavy fuel oil 1.26 %, Biomass 5.88 %, Biogas 0.35 %, Waste 0.04

%, Hydro 1.52 %, Wind 2.93 %. As a reference, the carbon footprint of this dataset amounted to 0.28 kg CO2 eq./MJ; (5) This dataset refers to electricity in Belgium, considering the following mix composition (retrieved

from the available dataset metadata): Nuclear 48.64 %, Hard coal 4.09 %, Coal gases 2.51 %, Natural gas 28.42 %, Heavy fuel oil 0.39 %, Biomass 4.45 %, Biogas 0.98 %, Waste 2.61 %, Hydro 2.00 %, Wind 3.32 %,

Photovoltaic 2.59 %. As a reference, the carbon footprint of this dataset amounted to 0.07 kg CO2 eq./MJ.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Annex 3. Factsheets of each examined Scenario

In this Annex, all Factsheets related to the various scenarios under examination are listed, summarizing the main methodological assumptions, system boundaries and results.

Factsheet

–

Scenario 1

PPWR reference: “cold or hot beverages filled into a container at the point of sale for

takeaway

by the final distributor”

Scenario 1 - SU Carton Cup with LDPE lining and PS lid vs MU PP Cup

-------------------- Scenario 1 - Overview of the approach --------------------

In this Factsheet, the underpinning information and results related to the analysis of the environmental impacts of a 500 ml SU cup and a 500 ml MU cup are provided.

This annex is divided in subsections providing insights on: (i) the life cycle stages covered in the modelling, (ii) the inventory and the parameters employed in the calculations

and the related benchmark values and ranges and (iii) the results of the analysis.

The analysis covered the whole life cycle of packaging, including the manufacturing step (including raw material sourcing, production of the components of the packaging and

manufacturing of final packaging), the transport step (covering transports from manufacturing site to the selling point), the end-of-life steps (covering recycling, incineration

and landfill) and the “Reuse” step for the MU

packaging product.

In the case of the SU packaging, the following assumptions were employed (data on the masses retrieved during the stakeholder consultation):

•

The impacts were calculated for a carton cup with a total mass of 17.58 g. The cup is composed of a carton body (11.22 g) with a LDPE lining (1.068 g) and a carton

lid (4.79 g) with a LDPE lining (0.506 g).

The SU packaging is manufactured, and then consumed. At the end-of-life, it was assumed that the SU packaging could be either recycled, incinerated or landfilled.

All transports between life cycle stages were included in the analysis, except transport from the selling point to home, as it was assumed to be the same for both SU

and MU packaging.

In the case of the MU packaging, the following assumptions were employed:

•

The impacts were calculated for a PP cup (including lid) with a mass of 48.3 g.

The MU packaging is manufactured, and then consumed. The MU packaging was assumed to be washed (including rinsing of packaging) and consumed multiple

times. At the end-of-life, it was assumed that the SU packaging could be either recycled, incinerated or landfilled. All transports between life cycle stages were

included in the analysis, except transport from restaurant to home, because it was assumed to be same for both SU and MU packaging.

The analysis leveraged parametrized assumptions for key aspects of the value chain. In particular, the following key aspects were parametrized:

•

For both the SU and MU packaging: the recycling, incineration and landfill end-of-life shares; the quality factors for the recycled and recyclable material; the efficiency

of the recycling process; the transport distances along the value chain.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

•

For the MU packaging: the recycled content of the PP; the number of reuses; the amount of energy required for the reuse step (i.e. washing, rinsing); the amount of

water required in the rinsing; the transport distances in the reuse step and the amount of items transported to the washing; the amount of detergent used for

washing.

In the analysis, a set of energy mixes sets were derived and employed for the calculations as described in Annex 2.

The environmental impacts results of the two life cycles were analysed considering (i) the benchmark values for the parameters under exam and (ii) a sensitivity analysis

carried out allowing random extractions of parameters’ values in their associated ranges. Further sensitivity analyses

have been performed in the context of

‘Scenario

1’ and

are detailed in the main report.

--------------------

Scenario 1

–

Life cycle stages

--------------------

Details on the modelling of each life cycle stage are provided in Table 9.

Table 9.

Overview of the life cycle stages considered for

‘Scenario

1’ for both Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Life cycle stages

Included in model

Included in the life cycle stage

Comments

All the materials’ transports are already included in the

datasets related to this life cycle stage. The recycled

content of all materials was assumed to be 0 % (note that

the PP recycled content is allowed to reach values as high

as 10 % in the sensitivity analysis simulations).

All materials’ transports are already included in the

datasets related to this life cycle stage.

- SU: The electricity consumption to insert LDPE lining and

to make a cup.

- MU: The PP extrusion (blowing).

Covering the transport of packaging from manufacturing

to distribution centre and finally to use.

No recycling of LDPE in the SU packaging was considered.

All the transports concerning recycling are already

included in the datasets related to this life cycle stage.

Raw materials

SU, MU

- SU: Production of cartonboard and LDPE sheet

- MU: Production PP granulates

Cup manufacturing

SU, MU

- SU: Manufacturing of the carton cup and its lid

- MU: Manufacturing of the PP cup

Transport

SU, MU

- SU and MU: Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t),

Transport heavy duty lorry (<7.5 t)

- SU: carton recycling and avoided production

(credits)

- MU: PP recycling and PP avoided production

(credits)

End-of-life - Recycling

SU, MU

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Life cycle stages

Included in model

Included in the life cycle stage

Comments

All the transports concerning incineration are already

included in the datasets employed for this life cycle stage.

Credits associated to the waste-to-energy treatment are

already accounted in the dataset employed for the

incineration process.

End-of-life - Incineration

SU, MU

- SU: Incineration of carton, LDPE, and PS

- MU: incineration of PP

End-of-life - Landfill

SU, MU

- SU and MU: Transport articulated lorry (12-14t)

- SU: Landfill of plastic waste (for LDPE) and landfill

of carton and carton waste

- MU: Landfill of plastic waste (PP)

- Transport passenger car

- Water consumption from washing

- Heat consumption

- Electricity consumption

- Detergents consumption from washing

- Wastewater treatment

Reuse

Includes inputs and outputs of the washing process,

including rinsing with hot water before washing

(prewashing) and passenger car for returning 10 % of the

cups.

Source: JRC analysis.

--------------------

Scenario 1

–

Inventory and Parameters (Benchmark values and related Ranges)

--------------------

The employed inventory values, parameters (benchmark values and the associated ranges employed for the sensitivity analysis) are presented in Table 10 for the SU packaging

product, and in Table 11 for the MU packaging product. The SU and MU cups masses and compositions have been estimated based on inputs received from stakeholder

during the stakeholder consultation.

The transport from manufacturing to use was assumed to follow the EF method, considering that cups are first transported from the manufacturing site to the distribution

centre and then to the selling points where they are sold to consumers. When available, distances were modelled according to the inputs received during the stakeholders’

consultation. The consumption was assumed to happen close to the purchasing points (including on the streets). As a consequence, in case of the SU packaging, the cups are

disposed to public rubbish bins, from where they end up to different end-of-life options. It was assumed that 15 % of carton cups are recycled, because of the lack of collection

and recycling infrastructure of multilayer materials (Kearney, 2023). In the recycling facility, the LDPE layer is separated from carton, and only carton part is recycled, while

LDPE layer is either landfilled or incinerated. In the case of MU packaging, cups have to be returned in the selling point from where they were bought. In that case it was

assumed that 10 % of cups are transported back to the original place using passenger car without other purposes than returning the purchased packaging, whilst 90 % of the

cups are returned by foot or bicycle (or by car, assuming the travel is done for other purposes such as shopping). As a consequence, no impacts were assigned for the 90 % of

the returned cups. In case of 10 % of cups returned by passenger car, it was assumed that 5 cups are returned same time (i.e. the impacts are divided for 5 cups).

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

The reuse rate of MU PP cups vary largely between literature studies retrieved concerning this kind of packaging (e.g. KeepCup, 2018; CupClub, 2018). As an example, Ramboll

(2022a) assumed 50 reuses with the assumption that only 50 % of cups are returned, thus each cup would have only 25 actual reuses. In the present study, a more cautious

approach was employed, assuming 15 reuses and considering that not all cups are returned.

The Washing of MU cups was assumed to include rinsing and regular washing. Data of the washing cycle were received during the stakeholder consultation. Water

consumption was based on stakeholder consultation input and is aligned with the value proposed by several literature sources (such as Pro.mo/Unionplast, 2015; CupClub,

2018; KeepCup, 2018; Foteinis, 2020). The rinsing water was estimated to be equal to the water consumption in the dishwasher. The heat consumption during rinsing was

estimated considering the water specific heat capacity and that the rinsing water is heated to 30°C in the benchmark case or heated or used cold (50:50) in the sensitivity

analysis (no impacts associated to heat consumption if used cold).

The parameters related to the CFF were selected based on the information available in the Annex C of the EF method (Zampori and Pant, 2019; EC, 2021b) or on the data

collected from stakeholders, and were introduced in the Annex 1. The parameters related to the CFF include: “R

”, “A”, “Q

sin

”, “Q

sout

”, “R

”; “1 –

–

”. Notably,

the

parameter for MU cup was estimated from Ramboll et al. (2022a).

The benchmark value for

includes the collection and sorting efficiency, together with the recycling efficiency. The energy mix employed was modelled as described in the

introduction of Annex 1. The parameter named “Recycling

Variability”

allows, during the

sensitivity analysis, a further ± 15 % variation in the impacts of the recycling step at

the end-of-life to allow for a better representativeness of potential case-specific recycling processes in the EU context (this parameter has no influence in the benchmark

calculations).

Table 10.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Single Use (SU) packaging of

‘Scenario

1’.

Inventory values

Cup, total mass, g

Carton, g

Plastic lining LDPE, g

Electricity consumption in cup manufacturing, kWh

Recycled content, % [R

]

A value (carton)

A value (LDPE and PS)

sin

(carton)

sin

(LDPE)

Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t) from factory to

distribution centre, km

Transport heavy duty lorry (<7.5 t) from distribution

centre to cafeteria/restaurant, km

Recycling, % (carton) [R

]

Benchmark

value

17.58

16.01

1.57

0.0085

0.2

0.5

0.85

0.75

630

150

Min

0.1

0.25

0.43

0.38

504

Max

0.3

0.75

756

225

Remarks

Including weight of the lid

For all materials

Distance, final amount considers

mass

Distance, final amount considers

mass

Reference

Stakeholder consultation

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

Stakeholder consultation

Kearney, 2023

(1)

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Inventory values

Recycling, % (LDPE) [R

]

Recycling Variability

Sout

(carton)

Sout

(LDPE)

Incineration, % (carton) [R

]

Incineration, % (LDPE) [R

]

Transport articulated lorry (12-14t) to landfill, km

Landfill, % (carton) [1-R

-R

]

Landfill, % (LDPE) [1-R

-R

]

Landfill, % (PS) [1-R

-R

]

Benchmark

value

0.85

0.75

100

Min

0.85

0.17

0.15

Max

1.15

120

Remarks

For all materials

Depends on R

min/max values

Stakeholder consultation

Distance, final amount considers

mass

Calculated on R

and R

values

Calculated on R

values

Calculated on R

values

Reference

EF method, annex C (EC,

2021b)

Own estimation

EF method, annex C (EC,

2021b)

Adapted from EF method

(EC, 2021a)

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

Source: JRC analysis. Note: (1) The benchmark value (15 %) was selected from the Kearney report (Kearney, 2023), in which it is indicated how such percentage could be driven by inadequate collection/sorting

infrastructure, a multi-material

mix lowering the recyclers’ acceptance of these packaging, and the potentially

high level of food contamination.

Table 11.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Multiple Use (MU) packaging of

‘Scenario

1’.

Process

Benchmark

value

48.3

0.5

0.9

454

172

2.5

Min

Max

Remarks

Reference

Calculated based on literature

data provided during the

stakeholder consultation

Stakeholder consultation

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

Stakeholder consultation

Cup mass (PP), g

Recycled content, % [R

]

A value

sin

Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t) from factory to

distribution centre, km

Transport heavy duty lorry (<7.5 t) from distribution

centre to cafeteria/restaurant, km

Transport passenger car from home to

cafeteria/restaurant, km

0.25

0.45

363

1.25

0.75

544

375

3.75

Distance, final amount

considers mass

Distance, final amount

considers mass

10 % of cups transported by

car

Own estimation

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Process

Items in passenger car from home to

cafeteria/restaurant, pieces

Water for rinsing, l

Heat for rinsing, MJ

Electricity for washing, kWh

Water for washing, l

Detergents for washing, g

Wastewater from rinsing and washing, l

Number of reuses

Recycling, % [R

]

Recycling Variability

Sout

Incineration, % [R

]

Transport articulated lorry (12-14t) to landfill, km

Landfill, % [1-R

-R

]

Source: JRC analysis.

Benchmark

value

0.225

0.028

0.021

0.225

0.41

0.45

0.9

100

Min

0.11

0.011

0.349

0.34

0.85

0.8

Max

0.34

0.042

0.472

0.56

1.15

120

Remarks

Equal to washing needs

Linked to the amount of

water used in rinsing

Considers that all cups are not

returned for reuse

Depends on R

min/max

values

Distance, final amount

considers mass

Calculated on R

and R

values

Reference

Stakeholder consultation

Own estimation (cold water

or hot water 30 °C)

Stakeholder consultation

Derived from all water needs

Own estimation

Ramboll, 2022a

Own estimation

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

Adapted from EF method (EC,

2021a)

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

--------------------

Scenario 1 - Results

--------------------

All values are calculated after Normalization and Weighting according to the EF3.1 Normalization Factors and Weighting Factors (Zampori and Pant, 2019). Single Score (SS)

results of a given life cycle stage have been derived by summing all Normalized and Weighted impacts for all impact categories.

--------------------

Scenario 1 -

Benchmark results

--------------------

Life cycle stages contribution for SU and MU are provided in Figure 35. In the SU case, the manufacturing step has the biggest contribution in the total impacts (average of 85

% of the impacts in all impact categories), while in the MU case, the reuse step has the highest contribution (average of 76 % of the impacts in all impact categories). The

reuse stage has almost 100 % contribution in the

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’ and in the Ozone Depletion Potential impact categories.

Figure 35.

Overview of the contribution of the various lifecycle stages in the SU and MU packaging products (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the

benchmark impacts, after Normalization and Weighting). Note: Raw materials and Production are included in the manufacturing step.

Source: JRC analysis.

The label “Transport” in

the legend of this figure refers to all transports occurring in the whole life cycles of the packaging except for the transports occurring in the

“Reuse” step

for the multiple

use packaging (e.g. transport for bringing back the packaging), which are instead included within

the “Reuse”

label (for further details of the impacts of the reuse step see

Figure 37).

Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP =

Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c = Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF = Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU

= Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use,

Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

The analysis of the benchmark impacts between SU and MU are provided in Figure 36 and commented in the main text of the report.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 36.

Analysis of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products for the

‘Scenario

1’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact

category considered.

Source: JRC analysis. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential; HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c = Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF =

Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU = Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU = Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity Freshwater; WU = Water

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

Breakdown of the contribution of the benchmark impacts for the reuse phase of the MU are provided in Figure 37. In most of the impact categories, the transport via car has

the highest impact. Water used in the washing has significant impact in the Water Use,

‘Human

Toxicity, cancer’ and

‘Human

Toxicity, non-cancer' and in Ozone Depletion

Potential impact categories, while wastewater from washing has the highest share of the impacts in the

‘Eutrophication,

Freshwater’ impact category. In addition, the energy

used in the washing has a significant share of the impacts in many impact categories, especially in Ionising Radiation. On the other hand, impacts associated to detergents

has a significant impact in the Ozone Depletion Potential impact category.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 37.

Breakdown of the benchmark impacts for the reuse phase of the Multiple Use (MU) packaging product (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the

impacts, after Normalization and Weighting).

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

--------------------

Scenario 1

–

Sensitivity analysis results

--------------------

Results of the sensitivity analysis simulations for

‘Scenario

1’ are provided in Figure 38 and commented in the main text of the report.

Figure 38.

Results of the sensitivity analysis of

‘Scenario

1’ for all impact categories of the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Factsheet

–

Scenario 2

–

CASE A

PPWR reference: “takeaway

ready-prepared

food, intended for immediate consumption without the need of any further preparation, sold by the distributor”

Scenario 2

–

CASE A - SU Carton tray with LDPE lining vs MU PP food tray

--------------------

Scenario 2 - CASE A - Overview of the approach

--------------------

In this Factsheet, the underpinning information and results related to the analysis of the environmental impacts of a 1.1 l SU and MU food trays are provided.

This annex is divided in subsections providing insights on: (i) the life cycle stages covered in the modelling, (ii) the inventory and the parameters employed in the calculations

and the related benchmark values and ranges and (iii) the results of the analysis.

The analysis covered the whole life cycle of both packaging products, including the manufacturing step (including raw material sourcing, production of the components for

the products and manufacturing of final product), the transport step (covering transports from manufacturing site to the selling point), the end-of-life steps (covering recycling,

incineration and landfill) and the reuse step for the MU packaging product.

In the case of the SU packaging product, the following assumptions were employed:

•

The impacts were calculated for a carton container with a mass of 26.11 g, having a LDPE lining having a mass of 1.19 g (total mass of the packaging product under

assessment: 27.3 g).

The SU packaging product is manufactured and then consumed. At the end-of-life, it was assumed that the carton part of the SU packaging product could be recycled,

incinerated or landfilled, whilst the LDPE part could be either incinerated or landfilled. All transports between life cycle stages were included in the analysis, except

transport from the selling point to home, as it was assumed to be the same for both SU and MU packaging products.

In the case of the MU packaging product, the following assumptions were employed:

•

The impacts were calculated for a PP clamshell with a mass of 172 g.

The MU packaging product is manufactured and then consumed. The MU packaging product was assumed to be washed (including rinsing and rewashing) and

consumed multiple times. At the end-of-life, it was assumed that the packaging product could be recycled, incinerated or landfilled. All transports between life cycle

stages were included in the analysis, except transport from the selling point to home, as it was assumed to be the same for both SU and MU packaging products.

The analysis leveraged parametrized assumptions for key aspects of the value chain. In particular, the following key aspects were parametrized:

•

For both the SU and MU packaging products: the recycling, incineration and landfill end-of-life shares; the quality factors for the recycled and recyclable material;

the efficiency of the recycling process; the transport distances along the value chain.

For the MU packaging product: recycled content of the PP; the number of reuses; the amount of energy required for the reuse step (i.e. in rinsing and washing); the

amount of water required in rinsing and washing; the rewashing rate; the transport distances in the reuse step and items transported un the car; the amount of

detergent used for washing.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

In the analysis, a set of energy mixes sets were derived and employed for the calculations as described in Annex 2.

The environmental impacts results of the two life cycles were analysed considering (i) benchmark values for the parameters under exam and (ii) a sensitivity analysis carried

out allowing random extractions of parameters’ values in their associated ranges. Further sensitivity analyses

have been performed in the context of Scenario 2

–

CASE A and

are detailed in the main report.

--------------------

Scenario 2

–

CASE A

–

Life cycle stages

--------------------

Details on the modelling of each life cycle stage are provided in Table 12.

Table 12.

Overview of the life cycle stages considered for

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Life cycle stages

Included in model

Included in the life cycle stage

Comments

All the

materials’ transport

are already included in the datasets

related to this life cycle stage. The recycled content of all

materials was assumed to be 0 % (note that the PP recycled

content is allowed to reach values as high as 10 % in the

sensitivity analysis simulations).

All materials’ transports are already included in the datasets

related to this life cycle stage.

- SU: The LDPE lining is added to the cartonboard and tray is

manufactured

- MU: The PP granulates are extruded (blowing)

Covering the transport of packaging products from

manufacturing to distribution centre and finally to the selling

point.

All the transports concerning recycling are already included in

the datasets related to this life cycle stage.

Raw materials

SU, MU

- SU: Production of cartonboard and LDPE sheet

- MU: Production PP granulates

Tray manufacturing

SU, MU

- SU: Manufacturing of the carton tray

- MU: Manufacturing of PP tray

Transport

SU, MU

- SU and MU: Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t),

Transport heavy duty lorry (<7.5 t)

- SU: Carton recycling, Carton avoided production

(credits)

- MU: PP recycling, PP avoided production (credits)

End-of-Life - Recycling

SU, MU

100

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Life cycle stages

Included in model

Included in the life cycle stage

Comments

All the transports concerning incineration are already included

in the datasets related to this life cycle stage. Credits

associated to the waste-to-energy treatment are already

accounted in the dataset employed for the incineration

process.

End-of-life - Incineration

SU, MU

- SU: Incineration of carton and LDPE

- MU: Incineration of PP

End-of-life - Landfill

SU, MU

- Transport articulated lorry (12-14t)

- SU: Landfill of plastic waste (LDPE) and landfill of

carton and carton waste.

- MU: Landfill of plastic waste (PP).

- Transport passenger car

- Electricity consumption

- Heat consumption

- Water consumption

- Detergents consumption

- Wastewater treatment

Reuse

Includes inputs and outputs of the washing process and

transport related to reuse step, including rinsing with hot

water before washing (prewashing) and transport of food trays

from home to reuse.

Source: JRC analysis.

--------------------

Scenario 2

–

CASE A

–

Inventory and parameters (benchmark values and related ranges)

--------------------

The employed inventory values, parameters (benchmark values and the associated ranges employed for the sensitivity analysis) are presented in Table 13 for the SU packaging

product, and in Table 14 for the MU packaging product.

The SU tray manufacturing includes carton and LDPE sheet production, as well as actual tray manufacturing where LDPE lining is added to the cartonboard, and a tray is

formed. In the MU packaging product, PP granulates are extruded to form a tray.

The transport from manufacturing to use was assumed to follow the EF method, considering that trays are first transported from the manufacturing site to the distribution

centre and then to the selling point where they are sold to consumers. When available, distances were modelled according to the inputs received during the stakeholders’

consultation. In the case of the MU packaging product, trays should be returned in the restaurant from where they were bought. It was assumed that 25 % of trays are

transported back to the original place using same home delivery service that delivers the food (25 % of food sold as home delivery; Kearney, 2023). In this case, no impacts

were allocated to the trays under exam. For the remaining 75 %, it was assumed that 90 % is returned by foot or bicycle (or by car, assuming the travel is done for other

purposes, e.g. shopping) with zero impacts, and that 10 % is returned instead via passenger car without other purposes than returning the purchased packaging. In that case,

it was assumed that 5 trays are returned same time (i.e. the impacts were divided for 5 trays).

101

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

It was assumed that 15 % of carton trays are recycled, as a consequence of the lack of collection and recycling infrastructure of multilayer materials (Kearney, 2023). In the

recycling facility, LDPE layer is separated from carton, and only carton part is recycled, while LDPE layer is either landfilled or incinerated.

The washing of MU trays was assumed to include rinsing (with cold or hot water), rewashing and regular washing. Data of the washing cycle and were received during the

stakeholder consultation. Heat consumption during rinsing was estimated considering the water specific heat capacity and that the rinsing water could be either heated to

30°C in the benchmark case. In the sensitivity analysis rinsing water was assumed to be heated or used cold (50:50) (no impacts associated to heat consumption if used cold).

Also, additional washing was added in case that trays are not cleaned properly during the washing (1 % of the trays in the benchmark).

The parameters related to the CFF were selected based on the information available in the Annex C of the EF method (Zampori and Pant, 2019; EC, 2021b) or on the data

collected from stakeholders, and were introduced in the Annex 1. The parameters related to the CFF include: “R

”, “A”, “Q

sin

”, “Q

sout

”, “R

”; “1 –

–

”. Notably,

the

parameter for MU trays was estimated from Ramboll et al. (2022a).

The benchmark value for

includes the collection and sorting efficiency, together with the recycling efficiency. The energy mix employed was modelled as described in the

introduction of Annex 1.

The parameter named “Recycling Variability” allows, during the sensitivity analysis, a further ± 15

% variation in the impacts of the recycling step at

the end-of-life to allow for a better representativeness of potential case-specific recycling processes in the EU context (this parameter has no influence in the benchmark

calculations).

Table 13.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Single Use (SU) packaging product of the

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’.

Inventory values

Tray, total mass, g

Carton, g

Plastic lining LDPE, g

Electricity consumption in tray manufacturing, kWh

Recycled content, % [R

]

A value (carton)

A value (LDPE)

sin

(carton)

sin

(LDPE)

Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t) from factory to distribution

centre, km

Transport heavy duty lorry (<7.5 t) from distribution centre to

restaurant, km

Recycling, % (carton) [R

]

Recycling, % (LDPE) [R

]

Benchmark

value

27.3

26.11

1.19

0.0547

0.2

0.5

0.85

0.75

630

150

Min

0.1

0.25

0.43

0.38

504

102

Max

0.3

0.75

756

225

Remarks

All materials

Distance, final amount considers

mass

Distance, final amount considers

mass

Reference

Verburgt, 2021

EF method, Annex

C (EC, 2021b)

Stakeholder

consultation

Kearney, 2023

EF method, Annex

C (EC, 2021b)

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Inventory values

Recycling Variability

Sout

(carton)

Sout

(LDPE)

Incineration, % (carton) [R

]

Incineration, % (LDPE) [R

]

Transport articulated lorry (12-14t) to landfill, km

Landfill, % (carton) [1-R

-R

]

Landfill, % (LDPE) [1-R

-R

]

Source: JRC analysis.

Benchmark

value

0.85

0.75

100

Min

0.85

0.17

0.15

Max

1.15

120

Remarks

For all materials

Depends on R

min/max values

Depends on R

min/max values

Distance, final amount considers

mass

Calculated on R

and R

values

Calculated on R

values

Reference

Own estimation

EF method, Annex

C (EC, 2021b)

Adapted from EF

method (EC, 2021a)

EF method, Annex

C (EC, 2021b)

Table 14.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Multiple Use (MU) packaging product of the

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’.

Process

Tray mass (PP), g

Recycled content, % [R

]

A value

sin

Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t) from factory to

distribution centre, km

Transport heavy duty lorry (<7.5 t) from distribution

centre to restaurant, km

Transport passenger car from home to restaurant,

Items in passenger car, pieces

Water for rinsing, l

Heat for rinsing, MJ

Benchmark

value

172

0.5

0.9

454

172

0.303

0.038

Min

0.25

0.45

363

2.5

0.15

Max

0.75

544

258

7.5

0.45

0.057

Remarks

Distance, final amount considers mass

Stakeholder consultation

Distance, final amount considers mass

Returning trays, 10 % of 75 % that is not

home delivery in the reuse phase

Equal to the washing needs

Linked to the amount of water used in

rinsing

Own estimation

Stakeholder consultation

Own estimation (cold water or

hot water 30 °C)

Reference

Verburgt, 2021

Stakeholder consultation

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

103

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Process

Benchmark

value

0.046

Min

Max

Remarks

The additional energy need due to

rewashing is added to these amounts in

the model

The additional water need due to

rewashing is added to this amount in the

model

The additional detergents need due to

rewashing is added to these amounts in

the model

Additional water (and wastewater),

detergent and energy consumption to be

considered additional to the related

benchmark inventories

Considers that all trays are not returned

Depends on R

min/max values

Distance, final amount considers mass

Calculated on R

and R

values

Reference

Electricity for washing, kWh

0.023

0.092

Stakeholder consultation

Water for washing, l

0.303

Stakeholder consultation

Detergents for washing, g

Wastewater from rinsing and washing, l

Rewashing rate, %

0.706

0.606

0.60

0.454

0.812

0.756

Stakeholder consultation

Derived from all water needs

Stakeholder consultation

Number of reuses

Recycling, % [R

]

Recycling Variability

Sout

Incineration, % [R

]

Transport articulated lorry (12-14t) to landfill, km

Landfill, % [1-R

-R

]

Source: JRC analysis.

0.9

100

0.85

0.8

1.15

120

Own estimation

Ramboll, 2022a

Own estimation

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

Adapted from EF method (EC,

2021a)

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

104

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

--------------------

Scenario 2

–

CASE A

–

Results

--------------------

All values are calculated after Normalization and Weighting according to the EF3.1 Normalization Factors and Weighting Factors (Zampori and Pant, 2019). Single Score (SS)

results of a given life cycle stage have been derived by summing all Normalized and Weighted impacts for all impact categories.

--------------------

Scenario 2

–

CASE A -

Benchmark results

--------------------

Life cycle stages contribution for SU and MU are provided in Figure 39. In the SU case, the manufacturing step has the biggest contribution in the total impacts (average of 87

% of the impacts in all impact categories), while in the MU case, the reuse step has the highest contribution (average of 68 % of the impacts in all impact categories). The

reuse step has more than 90 % contribution in the Ozone Depletion,

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’ impact categories, while in the Climate Change and Particulate

Matter impact categories its contribution is lower than 70 %.

Figure 39.

Overview of the contribution of the various lifecycle stages in the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products (percentages calculated for the

absolute values of the benchmark impacts, after Normalization and Weighting). Note: Raw materials and Production are included in the manufacturing step.

Source: JRC analysis.

The label “Transport” in the legend of this figure refers to all transports occurring in the whole life cycles of the packaging

except for the

transports occurring in the “Reuse” step for the multiple

use packaging (e.g. transport for bringing back the packaging), which are instead included within the “Reuse” label (for further

details of the impacts of the reuse step see Figure 41). Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP =

Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

The analysis of the benchmark impacts between SU and MU are provided in Figure 40 and commented in the main text of the report.

105

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 40.

Analysis of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products for the

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for

each impact category considered.

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

Breakdown of the contribution of the impacts for the reuse phase of the MU are provided in Figure 41. In most of the impact categories, the transport car has the highest

impact (returning used trays in the retail/selling point). Water used in the washing has significant impact in the Water Use,

‘Human

Toxicity, cancer’ and

‘Human

Toxicity,

non-cancer' and in Ozone Depletion Potential impact categories. Wastewater from washing has the highest share of the impacts in the

‘Eutrophication,

Freshwater’ impact

category. In addition, the energy used in the washing has a significant share of the impacts in many impact categories, especially in the Ionising Radiation impact category.

Impacts associated to detergents have significant impact in the Ozone Depletion Potential impact category.

106

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 41.

Breakdown of the benchmark impacts for the reuse phase of the Multiple Use (MU) packaging product (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the

impacts, after Normalization and Weighting).

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

107

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

--------------------

Scenario 2

–

CASE A

–

Sensitivity analysis results

--------------------

Results of the sensitivity analysis simulations for

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ are provided in Figure 42 and commented in the main text of the report.

Figure 42.

Results of the sensitivity analysis of

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ for all impact categories for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

108

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Factsheet

–

Scenario 2

–

CASE B

PPWR reference: “takeaway ready-prepared

food, intended for

immediate consumption without the need of any further preparation, sold by the distributor”

Scenario 2

–

CASE B - SU Aluminium tray with carton cover vs MU PP food tray

--------------------

Scenario 2

–

CASE B - Overview of the approach

--------------------

In this Factsheet, the underpinning information and results related to the analysis of the environmental impacts of a 1.1 l SU and MU food trays are provided.

This annex is divided in subsections providing insights on: (i) the life cycle stages covered in the modelling, (ii) the inventory and the parameters employed in the calculations

and the related benchmark values and ranges and (iii) the results of the analysis.

The analysis covered the whole life cycle of both packaging products, including the manufacturing step (including raw material sourcing, production of the components for

the products and manufacturing of final packaging product), the transport step (covering transports from manufacturing site to the selling point),

the “End-of-life” step

(covering recycling, incineration and landfill), and the reuse step for the MU packaging product.

In the case of the SU packaging product, the following assumptions were employed:

•

The impacts were calculated for an aluminium tray with a mass of 12.5 g, having a carton cover 10.8 g, coated with a LDPE lining having a mass of 0.5 g (total mass

of the packaging product under assessment: 23.8 g).

The SU packaging product is manufactured, and then consumed. At the end-of-life, a certain amount of the packaging products is recycled, with the remaining parts

being incinerated or landfilled. All transports between life cycle stages were included in the analysis, except transport from the selling point to home, as it was

assumed to be the same for both SU and MU packaging products.

In the case of the MU packaging product, the same assumptions as for the MU PP tray of

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ were employed.

The analysis leveraged parametrized assumptions for key aspects of the value chain. In particular, the following key aspects were parametrized:

•

For both the SU and MU packaging products: the recycling, incineration and landfill end-of-life shares; the quality factors for the recycled and recyclable material;

the efficiency of the recycling process; the transport distances along the value chain.

For the MU packaging product: recycled content of the PP; the number of reuses; the amount of energy required for the reuse step (i.e. in rinsing and washing); the

amount of water required in rinsing and washing; the rewashing rate; the transport distances in the reuse step; the amount of detergent used for washing.

In the analysis, a set of energy mixes sets were derived and employed for the calculations as described in Annex 2.

The environmental impacts results of the two life cycles were analysed considering (i) benchmark values for the parameters under exam and (ii) a sensitivity analysis carried

out allowing random extractions of parameters’ values in their associated ranges.

109

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

--------------------

Scenario 2

–

CASE B

–

Life cycle stages

--------------------

Details on the modelling of each life cycle stage are provided in Table 15.

Table 15.

Overview of the life cycle stages considered for

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’ for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Life cycle stages

Included in model

Included in the life cycle stage

Comments

All

the materials’ transport

are already included in the

datasets related to this life cycle stage. The recycled

content of all materials was assumed to be 0 % (note

that the PP recycled content is allowed to reach values

as high as 10 % in the sensitivity analysis simulations,

whilst the Aluminium recycled content is allowed to

reach values as high as 40 % in the sensitivity analysis

simulations).

All

the materials’ transport

are already included in the

datasets related to this life cycle stage.

- SU: Aluminium sheet is produced; LDPE lining is added

in the carton lid.

- MU: The PP granulates are extruded (blowing).

Covering the transport of packaging products from

manufacturing to distribution centre and finally to the

selling point.

All the transports concerning recycling are already

included in the datasets related to this life cycle stage.

All the transports concerning incineration are already

included in the datasets related to this life cycle stages.

Credits associated to the waste-to-energy treatment are

already accounted in the dataset employed for the

incineration process.

Raw materials

SU, MU

- SU: Aluminium, cartonboard and LDPE sheet

production

- MU: Virgin and recycled PP granulates production

Tray manufacturing

SU, MU

- SU: Manufacturing of the tray and the lid.

- MU: Manufacturing of PP tray

Transport

SU, MU

- SU and MU: Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t),

Transport heavy duty lorry (<7.5 t).

- SU: Aluminium recycling, Aluminium avoided

production (credits); Carton recycling, Carton

avoided production (credits).

- MU: PP recycling, PP avoided production (credits).

End-of-life - Recycling

SU, MU

End-of-life - Incineration

SU, MU

- SU: Incineration of aluminium, Carton, and LDPE

- MU: Incineration of PP

110

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Life cycle stages

Included in model

Included in the life cycle stage

- SU and MU: Transport articulated lorry (12-14t).

- SU: Landfill of aluminium), plastic waste (LDPE)

and Carton waste

- MU: Landfill of plastic waste (PP)

- Transport passenger car

- Electricity consumption

- Heat consumption

- Water consumption

- Detergents consumption

- Wastewater treatment

Comments

End-of-life - Landfill

SU, MU

Reuse

Includes inputs and outputs of the washing process and

transport related to reuse step, including rinsing with

hot water before washing (prewashing).

Source: JRC analysis.

--------------------

Scenario 2

–

CASE B

–

Inventory and parameters (benchmark values and related ranges)

--------------------

The employed inventory values, parameters (benchmark values and the associated ranges employed for the sensitivity analysis) are presented in Table 16 for the SU packaging

product, whilst the values for the MU packaging product are the same as those presented in the Factsheet related to

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ (Table 14). In the aluminium tray

manufacturing, the aluminium sheet is firstly produced, and then shaped into the final tray. The lid for the aluminium tray is made of carton and includes LDPE lining.

The transport from manufacturing to use was assumed to follow the EF method, considering that trays are first transported from the manufacturing site to the distribution

centre and then to the selling point where they are sold to consumers as takeaway food or delivered home using home delivery service. When available, distances were

modelled according to the inputs received during the

stakeholders’

consultation. In the case of the MU packaging product, trays should be returned in the restaurant from

where they were bought. It was assumed that 25 % of trays are transported back to the original place using same home delivery service that delivers the food (25 % of food

sold as home delivery; Kearney, 2023). In this case, no impacts were allocated to the trays under exam. For the remaining 75 %, it was assumed that 90 % is returned by foot

or bicycle (or by car, assuming the travel is done for other purposes, e.g. shopping) with zero impacts, and that 10 % is returned instead via passenger car without other

purposes than returning the purchased packaging. In that case, it was assumed that 5 trays are returned same time (i.e. the impacts were divided for 5 trays).

It was assumed that 15 % of carton trays are recycled, because of the lack of collection and recycling infrastructure of multilayer materials (Kearney, 2023). In the recycling

facility, LDPE layer is separated from carton, and only carton part is recycled, while LDPE layer is either landfilled or incinerated.

The washing of MU trays was

modelled as described in Annex 3 for the Factsheet related to ‘Scenario 2 – CASE A’.

The parameters related to the CFF were selected based on the information available in the Annex C of the EF method (Zampori and Pant, 2019; EC, 2021b) or on the data

collected from stakeholders, and were introduced in the Annex 1.

The parameters related to the CFF include: “R

”, “A”, “Q

sin

”, “Q

sout

”, “R

”; “1 –

–

”. Notably,

the

parameter for MU trays was estimated from Ramboll et al. (2022a); whilst the maximum in the variability range associated to the

parameter for aluminium was

assumed to be equal to 40 %.

111

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

The benchmark value for

includes the collection and sorting efficiency, together with the recycling efficiency. The energy mix employed was modelled as described in the

introduction of Annex 1.

The parameter named “Recycling Variability” allows, during the sensitivity analysis, a further ± 15

% variation in the impacts of the recycling step at

the end-of-life to allow for a better representativeness of potential case-specific recycling processes in the EU context (this parameter has no influence in the benchmark

calculations).

Table 16.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Single Use (SU) packaging product of the

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’.

Inventory values

Tray, total mass, g

Aluminium, g

Carton, g

Plastic lining LDPE, g

Electricity consumption in tray manufacturing, MJ

Recycled content, % (Carton, LDPE) [R

]

Recycled content, % (Aluminium) [R

]

A value (Aluminium)

A value (Carton)

A value (LDPE)

sin

(Aluminium)

sin

(Carton)

sin

(LDPE)

Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t) from factory to

distribution centre, km

Transport heavy duty lorry (<7.5 t) from distribution centre

to restaurant, km

Recycling, % (Aluminium) [R

]

Recycling, % (Carton) [R

]

Recycling, % (LDPE) [R

]

Recycling Variability

Sout

(Aluminium)

Sout

(Carton)

Benchmark

value

23.8

12.5

10.8

0.5

0.007

0.2

0.5

0.85

0.75

1200

250

0.85

Min

0.1

0.25

0.5

0.43

0.38

960

125

0.85

0.2

0.17

112

Max

0.4

0.3

0.75

1440

375

1.15

Remarks

Lid production

Maximum, own assumption

Distance, final amount considers

mass

Distance, final amount considers

mass

For all materials

Reference

Verburgt, 2021

EF method, Annex C

(EC, 2021b)

EF method (EC, 2021a)

EF method, Annex C

(EC, 2021b)

Kearney, 2023

EF method, Annex C

(EC, 2021b)

Own estimation

EF method, Annex C

(EC, 2021b)

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Inventory values

Sout

(LDPE)

Incineration, % (Aluminium) [R

]

Incineration, % (Carton) [R

]

Incineration, % (LDPE) [R

]

Transport articulated lorry (12-14t) to landfill, km

Landfill, % (Aluminium) [1-R

-R

]

Landfill, % (Carton) [1-R

-R

]

Landfill, % (LDPE) [1-R

-R

]

Source: JRC analysis.

Benchmark

value

0.75

100

Min

0.15

Max

120

Remarks

Depends on R

min/max values

Depends on R

min/max values

Depends on R

min/max values

Distance, final amount considers

mass

Calculated on R

and R

values

Calculated on R

and R

values

Calculated on R

values

Reference

Adapted from EF

method (EC, 2021a)

EF method, Annex C

(EC, 2021b)

113

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

--------------------

Scenario 2

–

CASE B

–

Results

--------------------

All values are calculated after Normalization and Weighting according to the EF3.1 Normalization Factors and Weighting Factors (Zampori and Pant, 2019). Single Score (SS)

results of a given life cycle stage have been derived by summing all Normalized and Weighted impacts for all impact categories.

--------------------

Scenario 2

–

CASE B -

Benchmark results

--------------------

Life cycle stages contribution for SU and MU are provided in Figure 43. In the SU case, the manufacturing step has the biggest contribution in the total impacts (average of 74

% of the impacts in all impact categories), while in the MU case, the reuse step has the highest contribution (average of 68 % of the impacts in all impact categories). The

reuse step has more than 90 % contribution in

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’, and in Ozone Depletion Potential impact categories, while in Climate Change, Particulate

Matter, Acidification and

‘Eutrophication,

Terrestrial’ impact categories its contribution is lower than 70 %.

Figure 43.

Overview of the contribution of the various lifecycle stages in the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products (percentages calculated for the

absolute values of the benchmark impacts, after Normalization and Weighting). Note: Raw materials and Production are included in the manufacturing step.

Source: JRC analysis.

The label “Transport” in the legend of this figure refers to all transports occurring in the whole life cycles of the packaging except for the transports occurring in the “Reuse” step for the multiple

use packaging (e.g.

transport for bringing back the packaging), which are instead included within the “Reuse” label (for further details of the impacts

of the reuse step see Figure 41). Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP =

Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

114

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

The analysis of the impacts between SU and MU are provided in Figure 44 and commented in the main text of the report.

Figure 44.

Analysis of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products for the

’Scenario

–

CASE B’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for

each impact category considered.

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

The breakdown of the contribution of the impacts for the reuse phase provided in the Factsheet related to

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ (Figure 41).

115

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

--------------------

Scenario 2

–

CASE B

–

Sensitivity analysis results

--------------------

Results of the sensitivity analysis simulations for

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’ are provided in Figure 45 and commented in the main text of the report.

Figure 45.

Results of the sensitivity analysis of

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’ for all impact categories for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

116

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Factsheet

–

Scenario 3

–

CASE A

PPWR reference: “alcoholic beverages in the form of beer, carbonated alcoholic beverages, fermented beverages other than wine,

aromatised wine products and fruit

wine, products based on spirit drinks, wine or other fermented beverages mixed with beverages, soda, cider or juice, non-alcoholic beverages in the form of water, water

with added sugar, water with other sweetening matter, flavoured water, soft drinks, soda lemonade, iced tea and similar beverages which are immediately ready to drink,

pure juice, juice or must of fruits or vegetables and smoothies without milk and non-alcoholic beverages containing milk fat, sold by the manufacturer and the final

distributor”

Scenario 3

–

CASE A

–

SU Aluminium can vs MU Plastic bottle

--------------------

Scenario 3

–

CASE A - Overview of the approach

--------------------

In this Factsheet, the underpinning information and results related to the analysis of the environmental impacts of a 0.5 l beverage can (SU) and bottle (MU) are provided.

This annex is divided in subsections providing insights on: (i) the life cycle stages covered in the modelling, (ii) the inventory and the parameters employed in the calculations

and the related benchmark values and ranges and (iii) the results of the analysis.

The analysis covered the whole life cycle of the packaging products, including the manufacturing step, the retail and use step (covering transports to retail and from retail to

consumer), the end-of-life steps (covering recycling, incineration and landfill) and the reuse step for the MU packaging product. The impacts of certain life cycle stages, such

as washing before first filling, bottle filling and transport from retail to home, were excluded from the analysis as being common in the two-life cycle under assessment. For

the same reason, the energy needs in retail and the impacts associated to the use phase were also excluded.

In the case of the SU packaging product, the following assumptions were employed:

•

The impacts were calculated for an aluminium can with a mass of 15.9 g (considering a mass of 13.5 g for the can body, and a mass of 2.4 g for the can end).

The SU packaging product is manufactured, and then consumed. At the end-of-life, a certain amount of the can is recycled, with the remaining parts being incinerated

or landfilled. All transports between life cycle stages were included in the analysis, except transport from retail to home, as it was assumed to be the same for both

SU and MU packaging products.

In the case of the MU packaging product, the following assumptions were employed:

•

The impacts were calculated for a PET bottle with a mass of 43 g, having a PP cap with a mass 2.15 g (total mass of the packaging product under assessment: 45.15

g).

The MU packaging product is manufactured, and then consumed. The same bottle is then washed and cleaned and reused multiple times before reaching its end-of-

life. At the end-of-life, a certain amount is recycled, with the remaining parts being incinerated or landfilled. All transports between life cycle stages were included

in the analysis, except transport from retail to home, as it was assumed to be same for both SU and MU packaging products.

The analysis leveraged parametrized assumptions for key aspects of the value chain. In particular, the following key aspects were parametrized:

117

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

•

For both the SU and MU packaging products: the recycled content of raw material; the recycling, incineration and landfill end-of-life shares; the quality factors for

the recycled and recyclable material; the efficiency of the recycling process; the transport distances along the value chain.

For the MU packaging product: the number of reuses; the amount of energy and detergents required for the reuse step (i.e. in washing); the transport distances in

the reuse step; rewashing rate.

In the analysis, a set of energy mixes sets were derived and employed for the calculations as described in Annex 2.

The environmental impacts results of the two life cycles were analysed considering (i) benchmark values for the parameters under exam and (ii) a sensitivity analysis carried

out allowing random extractions of parameters’ values in their associated ranges.

--------------------

Scenario 3

–

CASE A

–

Life cycle stages

--------------------

Details on the modelling of each life cycle stage are provided in Table 17.

Table 17.

Overview of the life cycle stages considered for

‘Scenario –

CASE A’ for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Life cycle stages

Included in model

Included in the life cycle stage

Comments

All

the materials’ transport

are already included in the

datasets related to this life cycle stage. All materials beside

the PP cup were assumed to have a certain share of recycled

content as later detailed in this Factsheet.

All

the materials’ transport

are already included in the

datasets related to this life cycle stage.

- SU: The can is manufactured combining the body and end

parts

- MU: blow moulding of PET granulated for bottle

manufacturing

Covering the transport of packaging products from

manufacturing to distribution centre and finally to the retail.

All the transports concerning recycling are already included

in the datasets related to this life cycle stage.

Raw materials

SU, MU

- SU: Virgin and recycled aluminium production

- MU: Virgin and recycled PET granulate production

Manufacturing

SU, MU

- SU: Manufacturing of the aluminium can and

energy needs for assembly

- MU: PET bottle production, PP cap manufacturing

(includes PP granulates and moulding)

Transport

SU, MU

- SU and MU: Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t)

- SU: Aluminium recycling, Aluminium avoided

production (credits).

- MU: PET recycling, PET avoided production

(credits).

118

End-of-life - Recycling

SU, MU

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Life cycle stages

Included in model

Included in the life cycle stage

Comments

All the transports concerning incineration are already

included in the datasets related to this life cycle stages.

Credits associated to the waste-to-energy treatment are

already accounted in the dataset employed for the

incineration process.

End-of-life - Incineration

SU, MU

- SU: Incineration of aluminium.

- MU: Incineration of PET and PP

End-of-life - Landfill

SU, MU

- SU and MU: Transport articulated lorry (12-14t)

- SU: Landfill of aluminium

- MU: Landfill of plastic waste (PP and PET)

- Transport passenger car

- Transport light duty

- Electricity consumption

- Heat consumption

- Water consumption

- Detergents consumption

- Wastewater treatment

Reuse

MU (PET)

Includes inputs and outputs of the washing process,

including rewashing, and the transport of bottles from home

to the collection centre and further to the washing and back

to the filling.

Source: JRC analysis.

--------------------

Scenario 3

–

CASE A

–

Inventory and parameters (benchmark values and related ranges)

--------------------

The employed inventory values, parameters (benchmark values and the associated ranges employed for the sensitivity analysis) are presented in Table 18 for the SU packaging

product, and in Table 19 for the MU packaging product.

The SU aluminium can is composed of a two parts, named aluminium

“body”

and

aluminium “end”.

These two parts have different recycled content, both derived from the

stakeholder consultation. Comparable recycled contents are also retrievable from EC (2021b). The MU bottles consist of PET bottle body and PP cap. In this study, only the

PET bottle body was assumed to be reused. The manufactured and filled can or bottles are transported to the retail, and again at home for the consumption. However,

transport from retail to home was assumed to be the same for both packaging products and was therefore excluded from the analysis. In case of the MU packaging, it was

assumed that 90 % of bottles are transported without any impact to the collection centre by a transport performed primarily for other purposes (e.g. transport by car but

occurring for other purposes, such as going shopping), or are transported by bicycle or by foot. Impacts associated to transport occurring via passenger car were allocated

instead to the remaining 10 %, assuming such travel having no other purposes than returning the purchased packaging.

The washing of MU bottles was based on stakeholders’ inputs collected during the stakeholder consultation. An additional washing

(re-washing) was added in case that

bottles are not cleaned properly during the washing (0.5 % of bottles in the benchmark).

119

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

The parameters related to the CFF were selected based on the information available in the Annex C of the EF method (Zampori and Pant, 2019; EC, 2021b) or on the data

collected from stakeholders. The parameters related to the CFF include: “R

”, “A”, “Q

sin

”, “Q

sout

”, “R

”; “1 –

–

”.

The benchmark value for

includes the collection and sorting efficiency, together with the recycling efficiency. The energy mix employed was modelled as described in the

introduction of Annex 1.

The parameter named “Recycling Variability” allows, during the sensitivity analysis, a further ± 15

% variation in the impacts of the recycling step at

the end-of-life to allow for a better representativeness of potential case-specific recycling processes in the EU context (this parameter has no influence in the benchmark

calculations).

Table 18.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Single Use (SU) packaging product of the

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’.

Inventory values

Can, total mass, g

Aluminium body, g

Aluminium end, g

Electricity consumption in manufacturing, kWh

Recycled content, % [R

]

Recycled content, % [R

]

A value

sin

Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t) from factory to

retail, km

Recycling, % [R

]

Recycling Variability

Sout

Incineration, % [R

]

Transport articulated lorry (12-14t) to landfill, km

Landfill, % [1-R

-R

]

Source: JRC analysis.

Benchmark value

15.9

13.5

2.4

0.0194

0.2

542

100

Min

0.1

0.5

434

0.85

0.8

Max

0.3

650

1.15

120

Remarks

Aluminium body

Aluminium end

Aluminium body & end

Distance, final amount considers

mass

Aluminium body & end

For all materials

Aluminium body & end

Depends on R

min/max values,

Aluminium body & end

Distance, final amount considers

mass

Calculated on R

and R

values,

Aluminium body & end

Reference

Stakeholder consultation

EF method, Annex C (EC, 2021b)

Stakeholder consultation

EF method, Annex C (EC, 2021b)

Own estimation

EF method, Annex C (EC, 2021b)

Adapted from EF method (EC,

2021a)

EF method, Annex C (EC, 2021b)

120

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Table 19.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Multiple Use (MU) packaging product of the

’Scenario

–

CASE A’.

Inventory values

Bottle, total mass, g

PET body, g

PP cap, g

Recycled content, % [R

] (PET)

Recycled content, % [R

] (PP)

A value (PET & PP)

sin

(PET & PP)

Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t) from

manufacturing to filling, km

Benchmark value

45.15

2.15

0.5

0.9

250

Min

0.25

0.45

Max

0.75

450

Remarks

Distance, final amount considers

mass. This distance is covered once

in the assumed total number of

uses.

Distance, final amount considers

mass. This distance is covered in

each reuse.

Returning bottles, 10 % of the

travels back to retail are allocated

for empty bottles

Distance, final amount considers

mass

Distance, final amount considers

mass

The additional electricity need due

to rewashing is added to these

amounts in the model

The additional detergents need due

to rewashing is added to these

amounts in the model

Own estimation

Stakeholder consultation

Reference

Stakeholder consultation

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

Stakeholder consultation

Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t) from filling to

retail, km

Transport passenger car from home to collection

centre, km

Items in passenger car from home to collection

centre, pieces

Transport light duty lorry (<7.5 t), from collection

centre to washing, km

Transport light duty lorry (<7.5 t) from washing to

bottle filling, km

Electricity for washing, kWh

200

360

100

200

0.014

2.5

160

0.007

7.5

180

240

0.028

Own estimation

Water for washing, l

0.2

121

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Inventory values

Detergents for washing, g

Wastewater from washing, l

Benchmark value

0.0006

0.201

Min

0.00051

Max

0.00069

Remarks

The additional water need due to

rewashing is added to this amount in

the model

Additional water (and wastewater),

detergent and energy consumption

to be considered additional to the

related benchmark inventories

Only PET bottle part

For all materials

Reference

Stakeholder consultation

Derived from all water

needs

Stakeholder consultation

Calculated based on

stakeholder consultation

inputs

Own estimation

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

Calculated based on

stakeholder consultation

inputs

Adapted from EF method

(EC, 2021a)

Calculated based on

stakeholder consultation

inputs

Rewashing rate, %

Number of reuses

Recycling, % (PET) [R

]

Recycling, % (PP) [R

]

Recycling Variability

Sout

Incineration, % (PET) [R

]

Incineration, % (PP) [R

]

Transport articulated lorry (12-14t) to landfill, km

Landfill, % (PET) [1-R

-R

]

Landfill, % (PP) [1-R

-R

]

Source: JRC analysis.

0.5

0.9

100

0.85

0.18

1.15

120

Depends on R

min/max values

Distance, final amount considers

mass

Calculated on R

and R

values

122

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

--------------------

Scenario 3

–

CASE A

–

Results

--------------------

All values are calculated after Normalization and Weighting according to the EF3.1 Normalization Factors and Weighting Factors (Zampori and Pant, 2019). Single Score (SS)

results of a given life cycle stage have been derived by summing all Normalized and Weighted impacts for all impact categories.

--------------------

Scenario 3

–

CASE A -

Benchmark results

--------------------

Life cycle stages contribution for SU and MU are provided in Figure 46. In the SU case, the manufacturing step has the biggest contribution in the total impacts (average of 59

% of the impacts in all impact categories), while in the MU case, the reuse step has a relevant contribution (average of 40 % of the impacts in all impact categories). The

manufacturing of the MU packaging product contributes significantly to the overall life cycle performance of the packaging product averaging to a 44% contribution across

impact categories. The reuse step has more than 60 % contribution in the

‘Eutrophication,

Freshwater’ and Ozone Depletion Potential impact categories, while in the

‘Human

Toxicity, cancer’,

‘Resource

Use, Fossil’ impact categories and

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’ its contribution is lower than 30 %.

Figure 46.

Overview of the contribution of the various lifecycle stages in the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products (percentages calculated for the

absolute values of the benchmark impacts, after Normalization and Weighting). Note: Raw materials and Production are included in the manufacturing step.

Source: JRC analysis.

use packaging (e.g. transport for bringing back the packaging),

which are instead included within the “Reuse” label (for further details of the impacts of the

reuse step see Figure 48). Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP =

Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score

123

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

The analysis of the impacts between SU and MU are provided in Figure 47 and commented in the main report.

Figure 47.

Analysis of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products for the

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for

each impact category considered.

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

Breakdown of the contribution of the impacts for the reuse phase of the MU are provided in Figure 48. In most of the impact categories, the transport car has the highest

impact (returning used trays in the washing centre). Water used in the washing has significant impact in the Water Use, and in the Ozone Depletion Potential impact categories,

while wastewater from washing has the highest share of the impacts in the

‘Eutrophication,

Freshwater’ impact category. In addition, the energy used in the washing has a

significant share of the impacts in many impact categories, especially in the Ionising Radiation impact category. Impacts associated to detergents

124

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 48.

Breakdown of the benchmark impacts for the reuse phase of the Multiple Use (MU) (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the impacts, after

Normalization and Weighting).

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

125

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

--------------------

Scenario 3

–

CASE A

–

Sensitivity analysis results

--------------------

Results of the sensitivity analysis simulations for

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ are provided in Figure 49 and commented in the main report.

Figure 49.

Results of the sensitivity analysis of

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ for all impact categories for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

126

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Factsheet

–

Scenario 3

–

CASE B

PPWR reference: “alcoholic beverages in the form of beer, carbonated alcoholic beverages, fermented beverages other than wine,

aromatised wine products and fruit

wine, products based on spirit drinks, wine or other fermented beverages mixed with beverages, soda, cider or juice, non-alcoholic beverages in the form of water, water

with added sugar, water with other sweetening matter, flavoured water, soft drinks, soda lemonade, iced tea and similar beverages which are immediately ready to drink,

pure juice, juice or must of fruits or vegetables and smoothies without milk and non-alcoholic beverages containing milk fat, sold by the manufacturer and the final

distributor”

Scenario 3

–

CASE B

–

SU Glass beer bottle vs MU Glass beer bottle

--------------------

Scenario 3

–

CASE B - Overview of the approach

--------------------

In this Factsheet, the underpinning information and results related to the analysis of the environmental impacts of a 0.5 l SU and MU beer bottles are provided.

This annex is divided in subsections providing insights on: (i) the life cycle stages covered in the modelling, (ii) the inventory and the parameters employed in the calculations

and the related benchmark values and ranges and (iii) the results of the analysis.

The analysis covered the whole life cycle of the packaging products, including the manufacturing step (excluding bottle closure), the retail and use step (covering transports

to retail and from retail to consumer), the end-of-life steps (covering recycling, incineration and landfill) and the reuse step for the MU packaging product. The impacts of

certain life cycle stages, such as washing before filling and filling of the bottles, were excluded from the analysis as being common in the two-life cycle under assessment. For

the same reason, the energy needs in retail, the transport from retail to home, and the impacts associated to the use phase were also excluded.

In the case of the SU packaging product, the following assumptions were employed:

•

The impacts were calculated for a glass bottle with a mass of 280 g.

The SU packaging product is manufactured, and then consumed. At the end-of-life, a certain amount of glass is recycled, with the remaining parts being incinerated

or landfilled. All transports between life cycle stages were included in the analysis, except transport from retail to home, as it was assumed to be the same for both

SU and MU packaging products.

In the case of the MU packaging product, the following assumptions were employed:

•

The impacts were calculated for a glass bottle with a mass of 343 g.

The MU packaging product is manufactured, and then consumed. The same bottle is then washed and cleaned and reused a certain number of times before reaching

its end-of-life. At the end-of-life, a certain amount of glass is recycled, with the remaining parts being incinerated or landfilled. All transports between life cycle stages

were included in the analysis, except transport from retail to home, as it was assumed to be the same for both SU and MU packaging products.

The analysis leveraged parametrized assumptions for key aspects of the value chain. In particular, the following key aspects were parametrized:

•

For both the SU and MU packaging products: the recycled content of glass; the recycling, incineration and landfill end-of-life shares; the quality factors for the

recycled and recyclable material; the efficiency of the recycling process; the transport distances along the value chain.

127

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

•

For the MU packaging product: the number of reuses; the amount of energy and detergents required for the reuse step (i.e. in washing); the transport distances in

the reuse step; rewashing rate.

In the analysis, a set of energy mixes sets were derived and employed for the calculations as described in Annex 2.

The environmental impacts results of the two life cycles were analysed considering (i) benchmark values for the parameters under exam and (ii) a sensitivity analysis carried

out allowing random extractions of parameters’ values in their associated ranges.

--------------------

Scenario 3

–

CASE B

–

Life cycle stages

--------------------

Details on the modelling of each life cycle stage are provided in Table 20.

Table 20.

Overview of the life cycle stages considered for

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’ for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Life cycle stages

Included in model

Included in the life cycle stage

Comments

All

the materials’ transport

are already included in the

datasets related to this life cycle stage. Bottle closures were

excluded.

All

the materials’ transport

are already included in the

datasets related to this life cycle stage.

Glass container manufacturing (finished and formed).

Retail and Use

SU, MU

- SU and MU: Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t)

- SU and MU: Glass recycling, Glass avoided

production (credits)

Covering the transport of packaging products from

manufacturing to filling and to retail.

All the transports concerning recycling are already included

in the datasets related to this life cycle stage.

All the transports concerning incineration are already

included in the datasets related to this life cycle stage.

Credits associated to the waste-to-energy treatment are

already accounted in the dataset employed for the

incineration process.

Raw materials

SU, MU

- SU and MU: Virgin and recycled glass production

Manufacturing

SU, MU

SU and MU: Bottle manufacturing

End-of-life - Recycling

SU, MU

End-of-life - Incineration

SU, MU

- SU and MU: Incineration of inert material

128

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Life cycle stages

End-of-life - Landfill

Included in model

SU, MU

Included in the life cycle stage

- SU and MU: Transport articulated lorry (12-14t),

Landfill of inert material

- Transport passenger car

- Transport light duty

- Electricity consumption

- Heat consumption

- Water consumption

- Detergents consumption

- Wastewater treatment

Comments

Reuse

Includes inputs and outputs of the washing process, including

rewashing, and the transport of bottles from home to the

collection centre and further to the washing and to the

filling.

Source: JRC analysis.

--------------------

Scenario 3

–

CASE B

–

Inventory and parameters (benchmark values and related ranges)

--------------------

The employed inventory values, parameters (benchmark values and the associated ranges employed for the sensitivity analysis) are presented in Table 21 for the SU packaging

product, and in Table 22 for the MU packaging product.

The mass of the SU and MU bottles were retrieved during the

stakeholders’

consultation. The manufactured and filled bottles are transported to the retail, and again at home

for the consumption. However, the transport from retail to home was assumed to be the same for both packaging products and was therefore excluded from the analysis. In

case of the MU packaging, it was assumed that 90 % of bottles are transported without any impact to the collection centre by a transport performed primarily for other

purposes (e.g. transport by car but occurring for other purposes, such as going shopping), or are transported by bicycle or by foot. Impacts associated to transport occurring

via passenger car were allocated instead to the remaining 10 %, assuming such travel having no other purposes than returning the purchased packaging.

The washing of MU bottles was based on stakeholders’ inputs gathered during the stakeholder consultation. Additional washing

was added in case that bottles are not cleaned

properly during the washing (2 % of the bottles in the benchmark).

Certain parameters (e.g. quality factors, the “A” factor, etc.) related to the CFF were selected based on the information available

in the Annex C of the EF method (Zampori

and Pant, 2019; EC, 2021b); whilst others such as

“R

”, “R

”; “1 –

–

” were collected via stakeholder consultation. The parameters related to the CFF include: “R

”,

“A”, “Q

sin

”, “Q

sout

”, “R

”; “1 –

–

”.

The benchmark value for

includes the collection and sorting efficiency, together with the recycling efficiency. The energy mix employed was modelled as described in the

introduction of Annex 1.

The parameter named “Recycling Variability” allows, during the sensitivity analysis, a further ± 15

% variation in the impacts of the recycling step at

the end-of-life to allow for a better representativeness of potential case-specific recycling processes in the EU context (this parameter has no influence in the benchmark

calculations).

129

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Table 21.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Single Use (SU) packaging product of the

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’.

Inventory values

Bottle, total mass (glass), g

Recycled content, % [R

]

A value

sin

Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t) from factory to retail, km

Recycling, % [R

]

Recycling Variability

Sout

Incineration, % [R

]

Transport articulated lorry (12-14t) to landfill, km

Landfill, % [1-R

-R

]

Source: JRC analysis.

Benchmark

value

280

0.2

1306

100

Min

0.1

0.5

1045

0.85

0.5

0.4

Max

0.3

1567

1.15

120

Remarks

Distance, final amount

considers mass

Depends on R

min/max

values

Distance, final amount

considers mass

Calculated on R

and R

values

Reference

Stakeholder consultation

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

Stakeholder consultation

Own estimation

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

Calculated based on data

gathered in the

stakeholder consultation

Adapted from EF method

(EC, 2021a)

Calculated based on data

gathered in the

stakeholder consultation

Table 22.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Multiple Use (MU) packaging product of the

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’.

Inventory values

Bottle, total mass (glass), g

Recycled content, % [R

]

A value

sin

Benchmark

value

343

0.2

Min

0.1

0.5

Max

0.3

Remarks

130

Reference

Stakeholder consultation

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Inventory values

Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t)

from factory to filling, km

Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t)

from filling to retail, km

Transport passenger car from home

to collection centre, km

Items in passenger car from home

to collection centre, pieces

Transport light duty lorry (<7.5 t),

from collection centre to washing,

Transport light duty lorry (<7.5 t)

from washing to bottle filling, km

Electricity for washing, kWh

Water for washing, l

Detergents for washing, g

Wastewater from washing, l

Rewashing rate, %

Number of reuses

Recycling, % [R

]

Recycling Variability

Sout

Incineration, % [R

]

Benchmark

value

764

Min

153

Max

1375

Remarks

Distance, final amount considers mass. This distance is

covered once in the assumed total number of uses.

Distance, final amount considers mass. This distance is

covered in each reuse.

Returning bottles, 10 % the travels back to retail

Reference

Stakeholder consultation

542

434

650

100

542

0.014

0.2

0.075

0.204

2.5

108

0.007

0.064

0.85

0.5

0.4

7.5

180

976

0.028

0.086

1.15

Own estimation

The additional energy need due to rewashing is added to

these amounts in the model

The additional water due to rewashing is added to this

amount in the model

The additional detergents need due to rewashing is

added to these amounts in the model

Additional water (and wastewater), detergent and

energy consumption to be considered additional to the

related benchmark inventories

Own estimation

Stakeholder consultation

Ramboll, 2022a

Derived from all water needs

Stakeholder consultation

Own estimation

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

Calculated based on data

gathered in the stakeholder

consultation

Depends on R

min/max values

131

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Inventory values

Transport articulated lorry (12-14t)

to landfill, km

Landfill, % [1-R

-R

]

Source: JRC analysis.

Benchmark

value

100

Min

Max

120

Remarks

Reference

Adapted from EF method

(EC, 2021a)

Calculated based on data

gathered in the stakeholder

consultation

Distance, final amount considers mass

Calculated on R

and R

values

--------------------

Scenario 3

–

CASE B

–

Results

--------------------

All values are calculated after Normalization and Weighting according to the EF3.1 Normalization Factors and Weighting Factors (Zampori and Pant, 2019). Single Score (SS)

results of a given life cycle stage have been derived by summing all Normalized and Weighted impacts for all impact categories.

--------------------

Scenario 3

–

CASE B -

Benchmark results

--------------------

Life cycle stages contribution for SU and MU are provided in Figure 50. In the SU case, the manufacturing step has the biggest contribution in the total impacts (average of 68

% of the impacts in all impact categories), while in the MU case, the reuse step has the highest contribution (average of 57 % of the impacts in all impact categories). In the

MU packaging product, the reuse stage contributes to lower share of the life cycle impacts in the Ozone Depletion,

‘Eutrophication, Freshwater’

and Ecotoxicity Freshwater

impact categories, impacts compared to other impact categories. Such difference is mostly due to the relevance of the manufacturing and end-of-life stages for these impact

categories.

132

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 50.

Overview of the contribution of the various lifecycle stages in the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products (percentages calculated for the

absolute values of the benchmark impacts, after Normalization and Weighting). Note: Raw materials and Production are included in the manufacturing step.

Source: JRC analysis.

use packaging (e.g. transport for bringing back the packaging),

which are instead included within the “Reuse” label (for further details of the impacts of the reuse step see

Figure 52).

Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP =

Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

The analysis of the impacts between SU and MU are provided in Figure 51 and commented in the main text of the report.

133

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 51.

Analysis of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products for the

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for

each impact category considered.

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

The breakdown of the contribution of the impacts for the reuse phase of the MU are provided in Figure 52. In most of the impact categories, transport lorry from bottle

collection to the washing and again to bottle filling has the highest contribution for the reuse impacts. However, in case of the

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’ impact

category, passenger car to transport empty bottles from home to collection centre has the highest contribution. In case of the Ionising Radiation impact category, electricity

in the washing has the highest contribution, and in case of the Ozone Depletion Potential impact category both detergents and water used in the washing have more than 80

% contribution together.

134

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 52.

Breakdown of the benchmark impacts for the reuse phase of the Multiple Use (MU) packaging product (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the

impacts, after Normalization and Weighting).

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

135

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

--------------------

Scenario 3

–

CASE B

–

Sensitivity analysis results

--------------------

Results of the sensitivity analysis simulations for

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’ are provided in Figure 53 and commented in the main text of the report.

Figure 53.

Results of the sensitivity analysis of

‘Scenario

–

CASE B’ for all impact categories for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

136

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Factsheet

–

Scenario 4

PPWR reference: “alcoholic beverages in the form of wine, with the exception of sparkling wine, old by the manufacturer and the final distributor”

Scenario 4

–

SU Glass wine bottle vs MU Glass wine bottle

--------------------

Scenario 4 - Overview of the approach

--------------------

In this Factsheet, the underpinning information and results related to the analysis of the environmental impacts of a 0.75 l SU and MU wine bottles are provided.

This annex is divided in subsections providing insights on: (i) the life cycle stages covered in the modelling, (ii) the inventory and the parameters employed in the calculations

and the related benchmark values and ranges and (iii) the results of the analysis.

The comparison covered the whole life cycle of the packaging products, including the manufacturing step (excluding bottle closure), the retail and use step (covering transports

to retail and from retail to consumer), the end-of-life steps (covering recycling, incineration and landfill) and the reuse step for the MU packaging product. The impacts of

certain life cycle stages, such as washing before filling and filling of the bottles, were excluded from the analysis as being common in the two life cycle under assessment. For

the same reason, the energy needs in retail, the transport from retail to home, and the impacts associated to the use phases were also excluded.

In the case of the SU packaging product, the following assumptions were employed:

•

The impacts were calculated for a glass bottle with a mass of 542 g.

The SU packaging product is manufactured, and then consumed. At the end-of-life, a certain amount of glass is recycled, with the remaining parts being incinerated

or landfilled. All transports between life cycle stages were included in the analysis, except transport from retail to home, as it was assumed to be the same for both

SU and MU packaging products.

In the case of the MU packaging product, the following assumptions were employed:

•

The impacts were calculated for a glass bottle with mass of 596 g.

The MU packaging product is manufactured, and then consumed. The same bottle is then washed and cleaned and reused a certain number of times before reaching

its end-of-life. At the end-of-life, a certain amount of glass is recycled, with the remaining parts being incinerated or landfilled. All transports between life cycle stages

were included in the analysis, except transport from retail to home, because it was assumed to be same for both SU and MU packaging products.

The analysis leveraged parametrized assumptions for key aspects of the value chain. In particular, the following key aspects were parametrized:

•

For both the SU and MU packaging products: the recycled content of glass; the recycling, incineration and landfill end-of-life shares; the quality factors for the

recycled and recyclable material; the efficiency of the recycling process; the transport distances along the value chain.

For the MU packaging product: the number of reuses; the amount of energy and detergents required for the reuse step (i.e. in washing); the transport distances in

the reuse step; rewashing rate.

In the analysis, a set of energy mixes sets were derived and employed for the calculations as described in Annex 2.

137

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

The environmental impacts results of the two life cycles were analysed considering (i) benchmark values for the parameters under exam and (ii) a sensitivity analysis carried

out allowing random extractions of parameters’ values in their associated ranges.

--------------------

Scenario 4

–

Life cycle stages

--------------------

Details on the modelling of each life cycle stage are provided in Table 23.

Table 23.

Overview of the life cycle stages considered for

‘Scenario

4’ for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Life cycle stages

Raw materials

Included in model

SU, MU

Included in the life cycle stage

- SU and MU: Virgin and recycled glass production

Comments

All

the materials’ transport

are already included in the datasets

related to this life cycle stage. Bottle closures were excluded.

All

the materials’ transport

are already included in the datasets

related to this life cycle stage.

Glass container manufacturing (finished and formed).

Retail and Use

SU, MU

- SU and MU: Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t)

- SU and MU: Glass recycling, Glass avoided

production (credits)

Covering the transport of packaging products from

manufacturing to filling and to retail.

All the transports concerning recycling are already included in

the datasets related to this life cycle stage.

All the transports concerning incineration are already included

in the datasets related to this life cycle stage. Credits

associated to the waste-to-energy treatment are already

accounted in the dataset employed for the incineration

process.

Manufacturing

SU, MU

SU and MU: Bottle manufacturing

End-of-life - Recycling

SU, MU

End-of-life - Incineration

SU, MU

- SU and MU: Incineration of inert material

End-of-life - Landfill

SU, MU

- SU and MU: Transport articulated lorry (12-14t),

Landfill of inert material

138

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Life cycle stages

Included in model

Included in the life cycle stage

- Transport passenger car

- Transport light duty

- Electricity consumption

- Heat consumption

- Water consumption

- Detergents consumption

- Wastewater treatment

Comments

Reuse

Includes inputs and outputs of the washing process, including

rewashing, and the transport of bottles from home to the

collection centre and further to the washing and to the filling.

Source: JRC analysis.

--------------------

Scenario 4

–

Inventory and parameters (benchmark values and related ranges)

--------------------

The employed inventory values, parameters (benchmark values and the associated ranges employed for the sensitivity analysis) are presented in Table 24 for the SU packaging

product, and in Table 25 for the MU packaging product.

The SU bottle mass was retrieved during the stakeholder consultation, whilst the MU bottle mass was estimated to be 10 % thicker compared to the SU bottle. The

manufactured and filled bottle is transported to the retail, and again at home for the consumption. However, transport from retail to home was assumed to be the same for

both packaging products and is not included in the assessment. In case of the MU packaging, it was assumed that 90 % of bottles are transported without any impact to the

collection centre by a transport performed primarily for other purposes (e.g. transport by car but occurring for other purposes, such as going shopping), or are transported

by bicycle or by foot. Impacts associated to transport occurring via passenger car were allocated instead to the remaining 10 %, assuming such travel having no other purposes

than returning the purchased packaging.

Washing of MU bottles was based on the information retrieved during the stakeholder consultation. Additional washing was added in case that bottles are not cleaned

properly during the washing (2 % of the bottles in the benchmark).

The parameters related to the CFF were selected based on the information available in the Annex C of the EF method (Zampori and Pant, 2019; EC, 2021b) or on the data

collected from stakeholders.

The parameters related to the CFF include: “R

”, “A”, “Q

sin

”, “Q

sout

”, “R

”; “1 –

–

”.

The benchmark value for

includes the collection and sorting efficiency, together with the recycling efficiency. The energy mix employed was modelled as described in the

introduction of Annex 1.

The parameter named “Recycling Variability” allows, during the sensitivity analysis, a further ± 15

% variation in the impacts of the recycling step at

the end-of-life to allow for a better representativeness of potential case-specific recycling processes in the EU context (this parameter has no influence in the benchmark

calculations).

139

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Table 24.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Single Use (SU) packaging product of the

‘Scenario

4’.

Inventory values

Bottle, total mass (glass), g

Recycled content, % [R

]

A value

sin

Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t)

from factory to retail, km

Recycling, % [R

]

Recycling Variability

Sout

Incineration, % [R

]

Transport articulated lorry (12-14t) to

landfill, km

Landfill, % [1-R

-R

]

Source: JRC analysis.

Benchmark value

542

0.2

1306

100

Min

0.1

0.5

1045

0.85

0.5

0.4

Max

0.3

1567

1.15

120

Remarks

Distance, final amount considers

mass

Depends on R

min/max values

Distance, final amount considers

mass

Calculated on R

and R

values

Reference

Stakeholder consultation

EF method, Annex C (EC, 2021b)

Stakeholder consultation

Own estimation

EF method, Annex C (EC, 2021b)

Calculated based on data gathered in the

stakeholder consultation

Adapted from EF method (EC, 2021a)

Calculated based on data gathered in the

stakeholder consultation

140

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Table 25.

Overview of the Inventory, parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the Multiple Use (MU) packaging product of the

‘Scenario

4’.

Inventory values

Bottle, total mass (glass), g

Recycled content, % [R

]

A value

sin

Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t)

from factory to filling, km

Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t)

from filling to retail, km

Transport passenger car from home

to collection centre, km

Items in passenger car from home

to collection centre, pieces

Transport light duty lorry (<7.5 t),

from collection centre to washing,

Transport light duty lorry (<7.5 t)

from washing to bottle filling, km

Electricity for washing, kWh

Water for washing, l

Detergents for washing, g

Wastewater from washing, l

Benchmark value

596

0.2

764

Min

0.1

0.5

153

Max

0.3

1375

Remarks

Distance, final amount considers mass.

This distance is covered once in the

assumed total number of uses.

Distance, final amount considers mass.

This distance is covered in each reuse.

Returning bottles, 10 % the travels back

to retail

The additional energy need due to

rewashing is added to these amounts in

the model

The additional water due to rewashing

is added to this amount in the model

The additional detergents need due to

rewashing is added to these amounts in

the model

Own estimation

Stakeholder consultation

Ramboll, 2022a

Reference

Calculated from data gathered

during stakeholder consultation

Stakeholder consultation

EF method, Annex C (EC, 2021b)

Stakeholder consultation

542

434

650

100

542

0.014

0.2

0.075

0.204

2.5

108

0.007

0.064

7.5

180

976

0.028

0.086

Derived from all water needs

141

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Inventory values

Benchmark value

Min

Max

Remarks

Additional water (and wastewater),

detergent and energy consumption to

be considered additional to the related

benchmark inventories

Depends on R

min/max values

Distance, final amount considers mass

Calculated on R

and R

values

Reference

Rewashing rate, %

Number of reuses

Recycling, % [R

]

Recycling Variability

Sout

Incineration, % [R

]

Transport articulated lorry (12-14t)

to landfill, km

Landfill, % [1-R

-R

]

Source: JRC analysis.

100

0.85

0.5

0.4

1.15

120

Own estimation

Stakeholder consultation

Own estimation

EF method, Annex C (EC, 2021b)

Calculated based on data gathered

in the stakeholder consultation

Adapted from EF method (EC,

2021a)

Calculated based on data gathered

in the stakeholder consultation

142

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

--------------------

Scenario 4

–

Results

--------------------

All values are calculated after Normalization and Weighting according to the EF3.1 Normalization Factors and Weighting Factors (Zampori and Pant, 2019). Single Score (SS)

results of a given life cycle stage have been derived by summing all Normalized and Weighted impacts for all impact categories.

--------------------

Scenario 4 -

Benchmark results

--------------------

Life cycle stages contribution for SU and MU are provided in Figure 54. In the SU case, the manufacturing step has the biggest contribution in the total impacts (average of 68

% of the impacts in all impact categories), while in the MU case, the reuse step has the highest contribution (average of 56 % of the impacts in all impact categories).

Figure 54.

Overview of the contribution of the various lifecycle stages in the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products (percentages calculated for the

absolute values of the benchmark impacts, after Normalization and Weighting). Note: Raw materials and Production are included in the manufacturing step.

Source: JRC analysis.

use packaging (e.g. transport for bringing back the packaging),

which are instead included within the “Reuse” label (for further details of the impacts of the reuse step

see

Figure 56).

Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP =

Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

The analysis of the impacts between SU and MU are provided in Figure 55 and commented in the main report.

143

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 55.

Analysis of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products for the

‘Scenario

4’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact

category considered.

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

Breakdown of the contribution of the impacts for the reuse phase of the MU are provided in Figure 56. In most of the impact categories, transport lorry from bottle collection

to the washing and again to bottle filling has the highest contribution for the reuse impacts. However, in case of the

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’ impact category

passenger car to transport empty bottles from home to collection centre has the highest contribution. In case of the Ionising Radiation impact category, electricity in the

washing has the highest contribution, and in case of the Ozone Depletion Potential impact category both detergents and water used in the washing have more than 80 %

contribution together.

144

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 56.

Breakdown of the benchmark impacts for the reuse phase of the Multiple Use (MU) packaging product (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the

impacts, after Normalization and Weighting).

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

145

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

--------------------

Scenario 4

–

Sensitivity analysis results

--------------------

Results of the sensitivity analysis simulations for

‘Scenario

4’ are provided in Figure 57 and commented in the main text of the report.

Figure 57.

Results of the sensitivity analysis of

‘Scenario

4’ for all impact categories for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products.

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

146

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Factsheet

–

Restaurant Scenario

PPWR reference: “bans as of 2030 single use packaging for consumption in restaurants, which implies in practice a switch to 100

% reusable packaging. Moreover,

Member States may exempt economic operators from point 3 of Annex V if they comply with the definition of micro-company”

Restaurant Scenario - SU Hamburger meal vs MU Hamburger meal

--------------------

Restaurant Scenario - Overview of the approach

--------------------

In this Factsheet, the underpinning information and results related to the analysis of the environmental impacts of a dine-in SU

“hamburger

meal” and a dine-in MU

“hamburger

meal” are provided.

This annex is divided in subsections providing insights on: (i) the life cycle stages covered in the modelling, (ii) the inventory and the parameters employed in the calculations

and the related benchmark values and ranges and (iii) the results of the analysis.

The analysis covered the whole life cycle of the packaging products, including the manufacturing step, the transport step covering transports from manufacturing site to

distribution centre and finally to restaurant, the end-of-life step (covering recycling, incineration and landfill) and the reuse step for the MU packaging product.

In the case of the SU packaging product, the following assumptions were employed:

•

The impacts for the SU meal were modelled as follows:

A carton container assumed to contain the hamburger. The model for this packaging product is adapted from the SU

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ but including

only carton with a different mass (modelled according to data retrieved during the stakeholder consultation). This carton has a total mass of 14.8 g, without

a LDPE lining (also in this case, based

stakeholders’ inputs).

This SU packaging product is manufactured (with a total electricity consumption equal to 0.003

kWh, according to stakeholder data) and then consumed. At the end-of-life, it was assumed that the carton part of the SU packaging product could be

recycled, incinerated or landfilled. All transports between life cycle stages were included in the analysis.

A smaller carton container used to contain the fries. The model for this packaging product is adapted from the SU

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ but including only

carton with a different mass (modelled according to data retrieved during the stakeholder consultation). This carton has a total mass of 7.3 g, without a

LDPE lining (also in this case, based

stakeholders’ inputs).

This SU packaging product is manufactured (with a total electricity consumption equal to 0.0098

kWh, according to stakeholder data), and then consumed. At the end-of-life, it was assumed that it could be recycled, incinerated or landfilled.

A 500 ml carton cup containing the drink was also included and the model for this packaging product is adapted from the SU

‘Scenario

1’. Based on

stakeholders’ inputs

(and direct real-life observations), the cups were modelled as for the SU

‘Scenario

1’ but without a lid. The carton used for the cups

amounted to 11.2 g, with a LDPE lining having a mass of 1.07 g (also in this case,

based stakeholders’ inputs).

This SU packaging product is manufactured

and then consumed. At the end-of-life, it was assumed that the carton part could be recycled, incinerated or landfilled, whilst the LDPE part could be either

incinerated or landfilled. All transports between life cycle stages were included in the analysis.

147

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

•

The impacts for the MU meal were modelled as follows:

A PP plate with own compartments for hamburger and fries, with a mass of 170 g (based on data retrieved during the stakeholder consultation). This MU

packaging product is manufactured and then consumed. At the end-of-life, a certain amount is recycled, with the remaining parts being incinerated or

landfilled. All transports between life cycle stages were included in the analysis. An ad-hoc model was prepared for this packaging product, which is described

in the below sections of this Annex. Based on stakeholder data, it was assumed that the plate is reused 100 times in the benchmark simulation.

A PP cup with a mass of 33 g (assuming that 15 g related to the lid weight should be removed from the total mass of the cup of

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’). This

MU packaging product is manufactured and then consumed. At the end-of-life, it was assumed that the SU packaging product could be recycled, incinerated

or landfilled. All transports between life cycle stages were included in the analysis. The model for this packaging product is the same as the one for the

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ multiple use packaging product, apart from the passenger car transport in the reuse step which has been excluded to model the dine-

in Restaurant meal. As for the PP plate, also cups are reused 100 times.

An overview of the meal is proposed in Table 26.

Table 26.

Overview of the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) meal for the Hamburger meal.

Hamburger meal SU

•

Carton box for the hamburger (adapted from

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ Single

Use packaging product - Annex 1.4)

Carton folder for the fries (adapted from

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ Single Use

packaging product).

Carton cup for the beverage (adapted from

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ Single

Use packaging product).

Hamburger meal MU

•

PP Plate for the hamburger and the fries (see details below)

PP Cup for the beverage (adapted from

‘Scenario

–

CASE A’ multiple use

packaging product)

Source: JRC analysis.

The analysis leveraged parametrized assumptions for key aspects of the value chain. In particular, the following key aspects were parametrized:

•

For both the SU and MU packaging products: the recycling, incineration and landfill end-of-life shares; the quality factors for the recycled and recyclable material;

the efficiency of the recycling process; the transport distances along the value chain.

For the MU packaging product: the recycled content of the plate and cup; the number of reuses; the amount of energy required for the reuse step (i.e. in rinsing and

washing); the amount of water required in rinsing and washing; the rewashing rate; the amount of detergent used for washing.

In the analysis, a set of energy mixes sets were derived and employed for the calculations as described in Annex 2.

148

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

The environmental impacts results of the two life cycles were analysed considering (i) the benchmark values for the parameters under exam and (ii) a sensitivity analysis

carried out allowing random extractions of parameters’ values in their associated ranges. Further sensitivity analyses have been performed in the context of the ‘Restaurant

Scenario’ and are detailed in the main report.

--------------------

Restaurant Scenario

–

Life cycle stages

--------------------

Details on the modelling of PP plate (MU meal) in each life cycle stage are provided in Table 27 whilst for SU and MU components of the meal, further details are provided in

the Annexes described in Table 26.

Table 27.

Overview of the life cycle stages considered for the PP plate of the Multiple Use (MU) hamburger meal.

Life cycle stages

Included in model

Included in the life cycle stage

Comments

All

the materials’ transport

are already included in the datasets

related to this life cycle stage. The recycled content of all

materials was assumed to be 0 % (note that the PP recycled

content is allowed to reach values as high as 10 % in the

sensitivity analysis simulations).

All

the materials’ transport

are already included in the datasets

related to this life cycle stage.

The PP granulates are blow moulded.

- Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t)

- Transport heavy duty lorry (<7.5 t)

Covering transport of packaging products from manufacturing

site to distribution centre and from distribution centre to

restaurant.

All the transports concerning recycling are already in the

datasets related to this life cycle stage.

All the transports concerning incineration are already included

in the datasets related to this life cycle stage. Credits

associated to the waste-to-energy treatment are already

accounted in the dataset employed for the incineration

process.

Raw materials

- Production of virgin and recycled PP granulates

Plate manufacturing

- Manufacturing of the PP plate

Transport

End-of-life - Recycling

- PP recycling, PP avoided production (credits)

End-of-life - Incineration

- Incineration of PP

149

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Life cycle stages

End-of-life - Landfill

Included in model

Included in the life cycle stage

- Transport articulated lorry (12-14t)

- Landfill of plastic waste (PP)

- Electricity consumption

- Heat consumption

- Water consumption

- Detergents consumption

- Wastewater treatment

Comments

Includes inputs and outputs of the washing process and

relevant process, including rinsing with hot water before

washing (prewashing). No transport is considered as the

Restaurant meal is dine-in.

Reuse

Source: JRC analysis. Note: for a description of the models of the other packaging products in the SU and MU hamburger meals, see Table 26.

--------------------

Restaurant Scenario

–

Inventory and parameters (benchmark values and related ranges)

--------------------

The employed inventory values and parameters (benchmark values and the associated ranges employed for the sensitivity analysis) are presented in Table 28 for the PP plate

in MU packaging product. Inventory values and parameters of other SU and MU meal components are presented in the dedicated Annexes and summarized in Table 26.

The MU plate for hamburger and fries was assumed to contain different compartments for different food items. It was estimated to have a mass of 170 grams based on data

collected during the stakeholder consultation. The recycled content was set as 0 % based on

stakeholders’ inputs and allowed to range from 0

% to 10 % in the sensitivity

analysis of the benchmark values.

Transport from manufacturing to use was assumed to follow the EF method, considering that plates are first transported from the manufacturing site to the distribution

centre and then to the restaurant, and transport distances were based on data retrieved from the stakeholders. In this Scenario consumption and reuse (including washing

operations) take place in the restaurant, thus additional transports were not included.

The washing of MU plates was assumed to include rinsing (with cold water or hot water), rewashing and regular washing. Data related to the washing step (e.g. including the

energy consumption, the detergents need, the water consumption, etc.) were retrieved during the stakeholder consultation. Water consumption amount for rinsing was

estimated to be equal to the water consumption on the regular washing. Rinsing water was estimated to be double of the water consumption in washing machine. Heat

consumption during rinsing was estimated considering the water specific heat capacity and that the rinsing water could be either heated to 30°C in the benchmark case. In

the sensitivity analysis rinsing water was assumed to be heated or used cold (50:50) (no impacts associated to heat consumption if used cold). Also, additional washing was

added in case that plates are not cleaned properly during the washing (rewashing rate equal to 1 % of the plates in the benchmark, based on stakeholder consultation).

The parameters related to the CFF were selected based on the information available in the Annex C of the EF method (Zampori and Pant, 2019; EC, 2021b) or on the data

collected from stakeholders. The parameters related to the CFF include: “R

”, “A”, “Q

sin

”, “Q

sout

”, “R

”; “1 –

–

”.

The benchmark value for

includes the collection and sorting efficiency, together with the recycling efficiency. The energy mix employed was modelled as described in the

introduction of Annex 1.

The parameter named “Recycling Variability” allows, during the sensitivity analysis, a further ± 15

% variation in the impacts of the recycling step at

the end-of-life to allow for a better representativeness of potential case-specific recycling processes in the EU context (this parameter has no influence in the benchmark

calculations).

150

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Table 28.

Overview of the Inventory and parameters (benchmark values and ranges) for the PP plate in Multiple Use (MU) meal of the

‘Restaurant

Scenario'.

Process

Plate mass (PP), g

Recycled content, % [R

]

A value

sin

Transport heavy duty lorry (>32 t) from factory

to distribution centre, km

Transport heavy duty lorry (<7.5 t) from

distribution centre to restaurant, km

Water for rinsing, l

Heat for rinsing, MJ

Electricity for washing, kWh

Water for washing, l

Detergents for washing, g

Wastewater from rinsing and washing, l

Rewashing rate, %

Number of reuses

Recycling, % [R

]

Recycling Variability

Sout

Incineration, % [R

]

Transport articulated lorry (12-14t) to landfill,

Benchmark

value

170

0.5

0.9

454

172

0.22

0.028

0.033

0.22

0.510

0.44

100

0.9

100

Min

0.25

0.45

363

0.11

0.017

0.434

0.33

0.85

0.8

Max

0.75

544

258

0.33

0.041

0.066

0.587

0.55

120

1.15

120

Remarks

Distance, final amount considers mass

Stakeholder consultation

Distance, final amount considers mass

Equal to the water needs for washing

Linked to the amount of water used in rinsing

The additional energy need due to rewashing is

added to these amounts in the model

The additional water due to rewashing is added

to this amount in the model

The additional detergents need due to rewashing

is added to these amounts in the model

Additional water (and wastewater), detergent

and energy consumption to be considered

additional to the related benchmark inventories

Depends on R

min/max values

Distance, final amount considers mass

Own estimation

Own estimation (cold water or

hot water 30 °C)

Stakeholder consultation

Derived from all water needs

Stakeholder consultation

Own estimation based on

stakeholder data

Ramboll, 2022a

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

Adapted from EF method (EC,

2021a)

Reference

Stakeholder consultation

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

151

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Process

Benchmark

value

Min

Max

Remarks

Reference

EF method, Annex C (EC,

2021b)

Landfill, % [1-R

-R

]

Source: JRC analysis.

Calculated on R

and R

values

152

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

--------------------

Restaurant Scenario

–

Results

--------------------

This section provides preliminary

‘Restaurant

Scenario’ (Hamburger meal) results.

All values are calculated after Normalization and Weighting according to the EF3.1 Normalization Factors and Weighting Factors (Andreasi Bassi et al., 2023). Single Score (SS)

results of a given life cycle stage have been derived by summing all Normalized and Weighted impacts for all impact categories.

--------------------

Restaurant Scenario

–

Benchmark results

--------------------

Life cycle stages contribution for SU and MU packaging products are provided in Figure 58. In the SU case, the manufacturing step has the biggest contribution in the total

impacts (average of 84 % of the impacts in all impact categories), while in the MU case, the reuse step has the highest contribution (average of 86 % of the impacts in all

impact categories).

Figure 58.

Overview of the contribution of the various lifecycle stages in the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) meals (percentages calculated for the absolute values of

the benchmark impacts, after Normalization and Weighting). Note: Raw materials and Production are included in the manufacturing step.

Source: JRC analysis.

The label “Transport” in the legend of this figure refers to all transports occurring in the whole life cycles of the packaging except for the transports occurring in the “Reuse” step for the

multiple

use packaging (e.g. transport for bringing back the packaging), which are instead included within the “Reuse” label (for

further details of the impacts of the reuse step see

Figure 60).

Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP =

Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

153

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

The analysis of the impacts between SU and MU are provided in Figure 59 and commented in the main report.

Figure 59.

Analysis of the benchmark impacts of Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) meals for the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’. SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact

category considered.

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

Breakdown of the contribution of the impacts for the reuse phase of the MU are provided in Figure 60. In most of the impact categories, the electricity used in the washing

has the highest impact. Water used in the washing has significant impact in the Water Use,

‘Human

Toxicity, cancer’ and

‘Human

Toxicity, non-cancer'), Ozone Depletion

Potential and

‘Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals’ impact categories. Wastewater from washing has the highest share of the impacts in the

‘Eutrophication,

Freshwater’

impact category. In addition, impacts associated to detergents have a significant share in the Ozone Depletion Potential impact category.

154

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 60.

Breakdown of the benchmark impacts for the reuse phase of the Multiple Use (MU) meal (percentages calculated for the absolute values of the impacts, after

Normalization and Weighting).

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

155

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

--------------------

Restaurant Scenario

–

Sensitivity analysis results

--------------------

Results of the sensitivity analysis simulations for

‘Restaurant

Scenario’ are provided in Figure 61 and commented in the main text of the report.

Figure 61.

Results of the sensitivity analysis of the

‘Restaurant

Scenario’ for all impact categories for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) meals.

Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

156

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Annex 4. Additional results on the cartonboard manufacturing impacts analysis

The effects of varying cartonboard production impacts are presented in Figure 62 (benchmark results) and in

Figure 63 (sensitivity analysis results) for all impact categories with regard to

‘Scenario

1’.

Figure 62.

Results of the specific sensitivity analysis for cartonboard impacts for the Single Use (SU) and

Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

for ‘Scenario 1’.

SU impacts are set to 100 % for each impact category

considered.

Source: JRC analysis. For further details see Section 2.5.1 and Annex 2. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential;

HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c = Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF =

Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU = Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU =

Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

157

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Figure 63.

Results of the specific sensitivity analysis for cartonboard impacts, analysis the performances with

regards of the sensitivity analysis results for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products for

‘Scenario 1’.

Source: JRC analysis. For further details see Section 2.5.1 and Annex 2. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential;

HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c = Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF =

Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU = Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU =

Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

158

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

The effects of varying cartonboard production impacts are presented in Figure 64 (benchmark results) and in

Figure 65

(sensitivity analysis results) for all impact categories with regard to the ‘Restaurant Scenario’.

Figure 64.

Results of the specific sensitivity analysis for cartonboard impacts for the Single Use (SU) and

Multiple Use (MU) packaging products

for the ‘Restaurant Scenario’.

SU impacts are set to 100 % for each

impact category considered.

Source: JRC analysis. For further details see Section 2.5.1 and Annex 2. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential;

HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c = Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF =

Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU = Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU =

Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

Figure 65.

Results of the specific sensitivity analysis for cartonboard impacts, analysis the performances with

regards of the sensitivity analysis results for the Single Use (SU) and Multiple Use (MU) packaging products for

the ‘Restaurant Scenario’.

159

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

Source: JRC analysis. For further details see Section 2.5.1 and Annex 2. Note: CC = Climate Change; ODP = Ozone Depletion Potential;

HTOX_nc = Human Toxicity, non-cancer; HTOX_c = Human Toxicity, cancer; PM = Particulate Matter; IR = Ionising Radiation; POF =

Photochemical Ozone Formation; AC = Acidification; TEU = Eutrophication, Terrestrial; FEU = Eutrophication, Freshwater; MEU =

Eutrophication, Marine; LU = Land Use; ECOTOX = Ecotoxicity Freshwater; WU = Water Use; FRD = Resource Use, Fossil; MRD = Resource

Use, Minerals and Metals; SS = Single Score.

160

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU

In person

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you online

(european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en).

On the phone or in writing

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:

—

by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),

—

at the following standard number: +32 22999696,

—

via the following form:

european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en.

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU

Online

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website (european-

union.europa.eu).

EU publications

You can view or order EU publications at

op.europa.eu/en/publications.

Multiple copies of free publications can be obtained by

contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en).

EU law and related documents

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex (eur-

lex.europa.eu).

Open data from the EU

The portal

data.europa.eu

provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies and agencies. These can be downloaded

and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from

European countries.

The portal

data.europa.eu

provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies and agencies. These can be downloaded

and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from

European countries.

MOF, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Supplerende 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