2. 1.0 Improvement
Dale Farm is a large dairy company with 5 manufacturing sites covering the full range
of dairy products. Over the past number of years the group has done a significant
amount of work on understanding the environmental impact the companies activities
have on the environment, however, this has mainly been limited to the direct impact
of manufacturing at a site level (total energy use, total water use etc), there has not yet
been a focus on individual product lines or the impact the packaging used to contain
these products has on the environment.
This has identified an area of improvement within the groups environmental
benchmarking. If the impact by individual product line could be identified (including
packaging) then products could be targeted independently and help to reduce the
overall carbon footprint of the group. This would be an extremely large exercise to
cover all products but if the key products could be targeted (by volume and packaging
spend) then a picture could be quickly built up and reduction targets put in place.
In summary this innovative and sustainable food packaging project aims at identifying
a product and conducting an environmental impact study on it’s production, including
the packaging to identify the full impact on the environment.
2
3. 2.0 Project Outline
Dale Farm has been supplying milk (whole, semi skimmed and skimmed) in a 1 pint
glass bottle format with a foil top for the doorstep market for a number of years. The
glass bottles are manufactured by Quinn Glass at their Derrylin site in County
Fermanagh and distributed to Dale Farm’s bottling site in Pennybridge, Ballymena for
filling.
In recent years the doorstep market has been declining and the glass bottling plant is
reaching the stage when it will soon be beyond economic repair. For these reasons it
is essential that an alternative packaging format is developed for the doorstep market.
The current glass bottle format has many perceived advantages over alternative
packaging options;
• Glass is a readily recyclable and it is perceived as economically viable to do so
• The flint glass used for the 1 pint milk bottle is clear and offers excellent
product visibility
• The glass bottles can be collected transported back to the bottling plant,
washed and refilled, typically offering up to 12 trips per bottle
• Consumers perceive glass to be environmentally friendly
For manufacturing, functionality and economic reasons it was decided that the 1 pint
glass doorstep business would be transferred to a 1 pint Elopak gable top carton with
a screw cap closure. This packaging format is more functional than glass as it offers a
recloseable feature, the carton can also be branded to convey the marketing message
and also provide consumer information. However, in today’s packaging aware
society it is essential that the new packaging format is proven to be environmentally
friendly when compared to glass.
This is a business improvement project that focuses on calculating the carbon
footprint of a 1 pint glass bottle versus a 1 pint Elopak carton.
3
4. 3.0 Project Plan
This project sets out to determine the comparative carbon footprint in grams CO2
equivalents of a 1 pint glass bottle versus a 1 pint Elopak carton. To achieve an
accurate comparison the boundaries for each packaging format had to be determined
to ensure that both packaging format’s were measured equally and against the same
criteria. The below flow charts show the boundaries and carbon consumption
activities for each packaging format.
1 Pint Elopak Carton
Board
Production
Blank
Production
Screw Cap
Production
Filling of Carton
Distribution to
Customer
E1
4
E2
E3
E4 End of Life
Processing
5. 1 Pint Glass Bottle
In each case the analysis was commenced with the production of the packaging to be
filled and terminated once the empty packaging had reached the location for end of
life processing.
The following section breaks down each of these sections (E1 to E4 for the 1 pint
carton and G1 to G5 for the 1 pint bottle) attributing the carbon contributions for each
and explaining the rational behind how the figure was calculated and referencing any
external sources.
5
Glass Bottle
Production
Foil Closure
Production
Filling of Bottle
Distribution to
Customer
Collection and
Return to Filler
Wash Bottle
for Refill
End of Life
Processing
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
6. 4.0 1 Pint Elopak Carton Carbon Footprint
E1 – Board, Blank and Screw Cap Production
The CO2 equivalents required to manufacture the board, blank and screw cap closure
is based on data that Elopak had provided for their 1 litre carton (see Appendix A).
This assumed a linear relationship existed between the weight of a 1 litre and 1 pint
carton and the CO2 required to manufacture each. Tables 1, 2 and 3 below outline
how the impact of the production of a 1 pint Elopak carton was calculated.
1 Litre Elopak Carbon Footprint
(Ostfold Research Foundation according to the principles of ISO
14025)
Process CO2 Equivalents, g
Board Production 8.75
PE Production 6.00
Coating 2.75
Blanks Production 4.50
Screwcap 7.50
TOTAL 1 LITRE 29.50
Table 1
Component Weight, g
1 Litre 30.1
1 Pint 19.2
Closure 2.5
Pint to Litre
Ratio
0.638
Table 2
Segment Process
CO2 Equivalents,
g
E1
Board Production 5.58
PE Production 3.83
Coating 1.75
Blanks Production 2.87
Screwcap 7.50
TOTAL E1 1 PINT ELOPAK 21.53g
Table 3
E2 – Filling
6
7. Filling of the carton was again based on figures provided by Elopak and relative to
those provided for the filling of a 1 litre carton, again assuming a linear relationship,
Table 4.
CO2 Equivalents, g
Segment 1 Litre 1 Pint
E2 5.90 3.76g
Table 4
E3 – Distribution to Customer
For the distribution to the customer it was assumed that the average distance travelled
was 40 miles (64km). The distribution impact was calculated from the CO2
equivalents to transport 1 tonne of material over 1 km in a 16 – 32 tonne lorry which
is quoted as creating 0.168g CO2 equivalents (source Pira). Therefore a 21.7g
package (1 pint carton plus screw cap) creates 0.233 CO2 equivalents, Table 5 (the
weight of the contained product is not included in this analysis as it is an impact of the
product and not the packaging).
Segment 1 tonne over 1 km, CO2 Eq 0.168kg
E3 21.7g over 64km, CO2 Eq 0.233g
Table 5
E4 – Journey to End of Life Processing
In recent years Tetra Pak in partnership with other carton manufacturers have worked
with local councils to develop a recycling network for these PE – Board – PE
laminate cartons (further information can be found on the ‘The Alliance for Beverage
Cartons and the Environment’ website, www.ace-uk.co.uk). In Northern Ireland were
the 1 pint Elopak cartons will be disposed Glassdon Waste and Recycling have the
contract to collect cartons from all 26 NI councils (there are 91 beverage carton
collection bins in total).
The collection bins are emptied on a 4 week cycle and it takes 10 to 12 weeks to
produce a 20 tonne load which is then shipped to Tetra Pak’s recycling facility in
Sweden. The cartons are then shredded and pulped using high temperature water, this
process successfully removes the PE liners from the paper. The PE floats to the
surface and is skimmed from the top of the pulp and incinerated to provide energy to
help power the mill. The pulp is then recovered and used to manufacture plasterboard
liners.
The schematic on the following page outlines the journey to the end of life recycling
centre;
7
Glassdon
Recycling Centre
Carton Bank Port of Belfast
Port of
Rotterdam
Swedish
Recycling Mill
40 miles
(64km) average journey
27.9 miles
(44.6km)
ROAD ROAD
868 miles
(1,389km)
SEA
ROAD
977miles (1,563km) average journey
distance to either Ørebro Pappersbruk or
Fiskeby papermills
8. A similar method was employed to calculate the carbon content of this distribution
network as was used for the distribution to the customer (E3), with a figure of
0.0107kg CO2 equivalents (for 1 tonne of material over 1 km by sea) used to calculate
the impact of the journey from Belfast docks to Rotterdam. Table 6 outlines the
impact of each leg of the journey.
End of Life Journey (E4) CO2 Equivalents, g
Distribute from recycling centre to Glassdon 0.21
Distribute from Glassdon to Belfast Docks 0.14
Belfast Docks to Rotterdam 0.29
Rotterdam to Swedish Paper Mill 5.00
TOTAL E4 5.64g
Table 6
Table 7 below shows the total CO2 equivalents for the production, filling, distributing to
customer and journey to end of life processing for a 1 pint Elopak carton;
Segment CO2 Equivalents, g
E1 21.53
E2 3.76
E3 0.23
E4 5.64
TOTAL 31.16
Table 7
Limitations to these findings for the 1 pint Elopak carton would include;
• Using relative figures versus the 1 litre carton for packaging production.
• The impact of distributing the carton blanks and screw caps to the filling site
has not been taken into account.
• It is assumed that customers will dispose of the cartons at recycling centres
(the impact of the journey to the recycling centre has not been included as it
8
9. has been assumed this journey would not be uniquely to dispose of the
cartons).
5.0 1 Pint Glass Bottle Carbon Footprint
G1 – Glass Bottle and Foil Closure Production
A figure of 0.83 CO2 equivalents per 1kg of glass produced at a cullet composition of
58% (source CIBA database) was used to calculate the impact of the glass bottle
production. A standard 1 pint glass bottle weighs 224g. This gives a CO2 equivalent
for glass bottle manufacture of 185.94g.
However, it must also be noted that unlike the carton which is designed as a single use
package the glass bottle can be re-used, the average trips per bottle is 12 trips, to
obtain the relative CO2 equivalent per bottle the figure of 185.94g must be divided by
12.
The aluminium foil closure weighs 0.2g, a published figures of (Pira) 8.336kg of CO2
equivalents for every 1kg of Al produced and 0.6kg of CO2 equivalents for every 1kg
of aluminium rolled were used to produce a figure of 1.78g CO2 equivalents for the
foil closure production. Table 8 below summarises these calculations.
Segment Process CO2 Equivalents, g
G1
Manufacture of glass (published
figure)
0.83
Weight of glass bottle, g 224.00
CO2 equivalents Divided By 12 15.50
Aluminium Closure3
1.79
Relative CO2 equivalents 17.29
Table 8
G2 – Filling
The impact of filling the glass bottle with product was calculated based on the
electrical consumption of the filler. This was calculated as 180,000kWh per annum
(source engineering department), this figure is based on the filler running 3 days per
week and the Carbon Trust’s published figure of 0.537 kg CO2 per kWh. The total
number of bottles sold in the 2008 calendar year of 10,367,643 was then used to
calculate the CO2 equivalent per bottle. This is summarised on Table 9.
G2 kWh per annum to run filler 180,000
9
10. Mains units to CO2 equivalents, kg 0.537
Bottles filled per annum 10,367,643
CO2 equivalents for filling 9.32g
Table 9
G3 - Distribution to Customer
The distribution to the customer impact was calculated carton over an average
distance of 64km and with only the weight of the packaging considered, similar to the
carton, Table 10.
Segment 1 tonne over 1 km, CO2 Eq 0.168kg
G3 224.2g over 64km, CO2 Eq 2.41g
Table 10
G4 – Collection, Return to Filler and Wash Bottle
An impact of 2.41g was assumed for the collection and return to site. This is a
reasonable assumption as the bottles would be travelling on average 64km back to the
site from customers and collection depots again.
The impact of washing the bottles for re-fill was calculated from the steam use
required to run the bottle washing facility. There is a 3” diameter steam line
connected to the bottle washing plant, this allows a flow of 500kg/hr of steam.
Ecoinvent data indicates that 1kg of steam produces 0.2336kg of CO2 equivalents. It
is also estimated that the plant washes 5,200 bottles per hour. Below Table 11
summarises the impact of bottle washing.
Segment 224.2g over 64km, CO2 Eq 2.41g
G4
Steam required for washing, CO2 Eq 22.46g
TOTAL G4 24.87g
Table 11
G5 – Journey to End of Life Processing
The glass bottles have a much simpler end of life re-processing route when compared
to the cartons. The glass is collected from the Glassdon Recycling centre in Toome,
Co Antrim and transported by road to be reprocessed at the Quinn Glass factory in
Derrylin, County Fermanagh. The distance between the two sites is 76.6 miles
(122.56km). Again the tonne per km CO2 equivalent model for road transport was
used, Table 12.
Segment 1 tonne over 1 km, CO2 Eq 0.168kg
10
11. G5 224g over 122.56km, CO2 Eq 4.61g
Table 12
Table 13 below shows the total CO2 equivalents for the production, filling, distributing to
customer, washing and journey to end of life processing for a 1 pint glass bottle;
Segment CO2 Equivalents, g
G1 17.29
G2 9.32
G3 2.41
G4 24.87
G5 4.61
TOTAL 58.5g
Table 13
Limitations to these findings for the 1 pint glass bottle would include;
• The impact of distributing the glass bottles and foil caps to the filling site has
not been taken into account.
• The assumption’s used for calculating the impact of filling and cleaning the
glass bottles.
• The impact of the chemicals used to clean the bottles and their subsequent
disposal was not taken into account in this study.
6.0 Project Findings and Company Benefits
11
12. The project has found that a 1 pint glass bottle has a carbon footprint of 58.5g CO2
equivalents versus a 1 pint Elopak carton’s CO2 equivalents of 31.16g, giving an
increased environmental impact of the glass bottle of 27.34g CO2 equivalents (an 87%
increase). The impact of a 41g 2 litre HDPE polybottle with a 2.7g closure and 1.3g
LDPE sleeve delivered from the manufacturer to the Dale Farm’s bottling site in
Ballymena has been calculated as 142g CO’s equivalents (source Boxmore Plastics).
If this is taken relative to a 1 pint bottle weighing 19g the 1 pint bottle would have a
relative impact of 64g CO2 equivalents, making the polybottle the least
environmentally friendly packaging option, (advances in HDPE milk bottle closed
loop recycling is making 30% recycled HDPE bottles, known as rHDPE, a reality. A
study on the impact of these bottles on the environment would be of great interest).
The findings are of interest as the consumer’s perception is that the glass bottle is
more environmentally friendly than a single use carton. This perception is mainly
from the consumers knowledge that the glass bottle can be used many times and can
be readily recycled. However, the evidence shows that once the full life cycle is taken
into consideration the carton has a smaller environmental footprint.
This finding is of benefit to Dale Farm as it reinforces the decision to move the
doorstep delivery service from a glass bottle to a single trip Elopak carton. This
information can be used to educate customers on the green credentials of the carton
versus the bottle and provides a good marketing message to support the transfer.
There are further benefits as the methodology provides a benchmark to look at other
packaging formats used within the company and to start a carbon footprinting exercise
across a range of pack formats, this will enable the green credentials of packaging to
be included in any future product and packaging designs.
12
APPENDIX A
13. Certificate of
Climate impact
1-litre Pure-Pak®
PE coated beverage cartons
with screw cap
Based on Life Cycle Assessment
the following total Greenhouse Gas
Emissions have been calculated:
38,7 grams CO2-
eqvivalents pr unit
13
Distribution of climate gas emissions for the
subprocesses
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Board
production
PE
production
Coating
Blanks
production
Transport
Filling,
storage,
distribution
Screwcap
CO2-equivalents
CH4
N2O
CO
CO2
14. Framework:
The LCA was carried out in January 2007 by Erik Svanes, Ostfold Research Foundation
according to the principles of ISO 14025. The PCR for Paper Beverage Cartons was used.
Verification has been carried out by Cecilia Askham Nyland and Mie Vold.
The LCA is based on site specific data from 2005 and European average numbers from within
the last ten years.
Data for filling, storage and distribution are site specific data from 2002. Data for screw cap
production and welding are site specific data from 2002.
System boundaries:
This Certificate covers the products life-cycle from forestry and raw material production to
disposal phase. The LCA was Performed according to methodology described in NIMBUS
(Hanssen, O.J.; 2000).
- Production of raw materials (PE, chemicals, tree felling) is included
- Transportation of raw materials to the production sites is included
- Production of basic board is included
- Coating of basic board is included
- Production of blanks from basic board is included
- Filling, storage and distribution is also included.
- Production of purchased energy is included.
- Production of printing inks used is not included, but energy for printing is.
- Disposal of product after use is not included.
Data type:
Site specific data was used for board production, production of coated board and blanks and
filling, storage and distribution. Site specific data was also used for production and welding of
screwcap. Average European data were used for production of PE and for all transports.
GHG emissions comparison
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 Elopak PEblank
w ith cap
1 km w ith petrol
car
1 km w ith low
emission petrol car
Tomato production,
10 g
Meat production,
10 g
CO2equivalents
14
