Material Efficiency of Packaging in Comparison .pdf

Mainz, den 16.12.2009 Titel der Präsentation
Material Efficiency of Packaging in Comparison
On behalf of:
IK Industrievereinigung Kunststoffverpackungen e.V.
Mainz, May 2023

Mainz, May 2023 Material Efficiency of Packaging in Comparison
Research Objectives,
Methodology
2

1. Objectives
> The goal of the study is to compare the material efficiency of plastic packaging with that
of other packaging materials.
> Furthermore, greenhouse gas calculations were carried out to investigate the impact of
replacing plastic packaging with other materials on the greenhouse gas potential.
2. Reference Year
> Reference year of this study is 2021.
3. Population
> The results relate to the volume of packaging consumption from private end-users in
Germany.
> Single-use beverage packaging in the deposit and return system is also included.
> Consumption hereby refers to the amount of packaging filled and placed on the market in
Germany (also referred to as market volume).
Research Objectives
3

4. Packaging Materials
> The analysis includes the five following groups of packaging material:
• Glass,
• Paper, carton, and cardboard,
• Plastic,
• Ferrous metals,
• Aluminium
> The composite fractions are assigned to the group of the respective main material. It
means, for example, that paper-based composites and beverage carton packaging are
included in paper, carton, and cardboard material group.
> Packaging made of wood and other materials are not included in the study.
Research Objectives
4

5. Material Efficiency, Indicator of Material Efficiency
> Material efficiency describes how much packaging material is required to pack a certain
quantity of goods.
> The material efficiency is given here in grams of packaging material per kilogram of
goods filled (or product packed):
Material efficiency =
Packaging material (Gram)
Goods filled (Kilogram)
6. Closures, Auxiliary Packaging Material
> Material efficiency is indicated without taking into consideration closures and auxiliary
packaging (e.g., labels, spouts, handling aids, inner bags, outer wraps, etc.).
> This approach is somewhat favourable to glass material, because the wide-neck closures
on jars are usually heavier than other closures.
Research Objectives
5

7. Weighted-Mean of Nominal Fill Size
> Arithmetic mean of nominal fill sizes will not be used.
> That means, in the calculation of material efficiency, the market shares of each
packaging variant and fill size are included in the mean value.
> The resulting mean value is therefore a weighted-mean.
> The same is applied in evaluating the impact of substituting plastic packaging with other
packaging materials on the amount of waste. Weighted-mean based on market
importance is also used in calculating the amount of plastic packaging to be substituted
and of the substitute packaging materials.
Methodology
6

8. Conversion and Standardization of Product Unit
> Around 1.400 products segments are depicted in GVM’s database.
> The units of the nominal fill sizes of the individual products vary. The unit in which the
product quantity placed on the market per packaging is usually indicated corresponds to
the nominal fill size.
> Common product units are (selection): liter, kilogram, piece, pair, meter, square meter.
> Therefore, the product units have been converted to kilograms for standardisation.
> This work was carried out in a simplified procedure (primarily for the fast-moving
consumer goods).
Methodology
7

9. Examples for Material Efficiency
> The results are supplemented by examples of comparisons between plastic packaging and
alternatives made from other materials.
> Examples of packaging that were placed on the market in Germany in 2023 were
selected.
> All examples represent important market segments.
> Two following dimensions are given for each of the example.
• Packaging weight (in grams per package)
• Material efficiency (in grams per kilogram of packed product)
> This enables comparability between the packaging materials, even if the fill sizes are
different in individual cases.
> Also in the case studies, only the weight of the container or main packaging material is
taken into consideration. Closures and other ancillary components are not included in
the specified dimensions.
Methodology
8

10. Calculation of Substitution Amount
> In order to show the effects of the substitution of plastic packaging on the amount of
packaging waste, substitution calculations for three case scenarios were carried out.
> In all three scenarios, it was assumed that 10% of the plastic packaging consumption of
private end-user has to be replaced by single-use packaging made of other materials.
Another assumption is that all plastic packaging of private end user will be substituted
equally.
> Calculation was made for the following scenarios:
Methodology
9
Case scenario A Case scenario B Case scenario C
Glass 25% 15% 20%
Paper, carton, cardboard 25% 45% 35%
Ferrous metals 25% 20% 10%
Aluminum 25% 20% 35%
Proportion of substitute materials used to replace
plastic packaging

11. GHG calculation
> To quantify the impact of the substitution of plastic packaging on Climate Change, GHG
calculations for the previously defined case scenarios A to C as well as for the year 2021
(base scenario) were carried out.
> The basis for determining the CO2 equivalents are the estimated quantities and the
respective composition of the packaging consumption of the different scenarios.
> In the underlying life cycle assessment model, all greenhouse gas emissions associated
with the packaging materials studied are accounted for (from ‘cradle-to-grave’).In other
words, it includes the extraction and production of raw materials, converting processes,
transports and the end of life of the regarded packaging materials.
> The datasets used in this study are mainly from life cycle assessment databases or
based on relevant literature.
Methodology
10

GHG calculation - system boundaries
> The following simplified flow charts illustrate the system boundaries considered for the GHG
calculation carried out here:
Raw materials Production Distribution
and use phase
Disposal / recycling
GHG emissions
(in CO2e)
GHG emissions
(in CO2e)
GHG emissions
(in CO2e)
GHG emissions
(in CO2e)
Material/energy input Material/energy input Material/energy input
Material/energy input
T T T
Secondary material
11

Results
12

Tabular Representation of the Results
Results
13
Material efficiency of different packaging materials in comparison
(private end-user consumption)
Glass 572 g/kg packed product
Paper, carton, cardboard 51 g/kg packed product
Plastic 24 g/kg packed product
Ferrous metals 114 g/kg packed product
Aluminium 45 g/kg packed product
All materials 61 g/kg packed product
All materials (without plastic) 116 g/kg packed product
All materials (without plastic and glass) 57 g/kg packed product

Graphic Representation of the Results
Results
14
Material efficiency of different packaging materials in g/kg of packed product
in comparison (private end-user consumption)
572
51
24
114
45
61
116
57
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Glass
Paper, carton, cardboard
Plastic
Ferrous metals
Aluminium
All materials
All materials (without plastic)
All materials (without plastic and glass)

Examples
15

Example 1: Vinegar
16
Fill Size: 1,000 ml Fill Size: 750 ml
Packaging weight (grams): 23.5 Packaging weight (grams): 406.9
Material efficiency (g/l packed product): 23.5 Material efficiency (g/l packed product): 542.5
The glass bottle for 1 liter of vinegar is approximately 23 times heavier than the plastic bottle.
Packaging for Vinegar
Foto Platzhalter Foto Platzhalter
Plastic Packaging Glass Packaging

Example 2: Soft Drink
17
Fill Size: 500 ml Fill Size: 500 ml
Material efficiency (g/l packed product): 24.6 Material efficiency (g/l packed product): 31.2
The aluminium can is about 1.3 times heavier than the PET bottle.
Packaging for Soft Drinks
Plastic Packaging Aluminium Packaging

Example 3: Spaghetti
18
Fill Size: 500 g Fill Size: 500 g
Packaging weight (grams): 3.6 Packaging weight (grams): 16
Material efficiency (g/kg packed product): 7.1 Material efficiency (g/kg packed product): 32.1
The box made of cardboard for pasta is about five times heavier than the plastic bag.
Packaging for Spaghetti
Plastic Packaging Carton Packaging

Example 4: Sauerkraut
19
The tin can is about 6 times heavier tan the plastic stand-up pouch.
Packaging for Sauerkraut
Plastic Packaging Tinplate Packaging

Example 5: Red Cabbage
20
The canning jar for one kilogram of red cabbage is around 30 times heavier than the stand-up plastic bag.
Packaging for Red Cabbage
Plastic Packaging Glass Packaging

Example 6: Chocolate
21
The folding box from carton is about seven times heavier than the plastic bag.
Packaging for Chocolate

Example 7: Chocolate Biscuits with Milk Cream Filling
22
The folding box from carton is about 14 times heavier than the plastic bag.
Packaging for Chocolate Biscuits

Example 8: Cat Food
23
The aluminium can is approximately three times heavier than the plastic stand-up pouch.
Packaging for Cat Food
Plastic Packaging Aluminium Packaging

Conclusions with regard to the Prevention
Targets in the Proposal of EU-Packaging
Regulation
24

Prevention targets in the Proposal for EU-Packaging Regulation
EU Packaging Waste Prevention Targets
25
Proposal for EU Packaging and Packaging Waste
Regulation (published on 30.11.2022)
Proposal for Amendments from EU-Parliament or
Proposal from Rapporteur of EU-Parliament
(Ries-Report)
All Packaging Materials
(per capita)
Only Plastic Packaging
(per capita)
by 2030 5 % lower than in 2018 10 % lower than in 2018

Estimated Amount of Substitution
24
Case scenarios differ in the
assumptions regards the
proportion of packaging
materials used to replace
plastic packaging.
Scenario assumption: 10% of
plastic packaging needs to be
replaced
Results: the effects on the
amount of sales packaging
consumed by private end
consumers
The amount of household-generated packaging would increase from 10% to 20% if
10% of plastic packaging had to be replaced by other packaging materials.
Case scenario A Case scenario B Case scenario C
Glass 25% 15% 20%
Paper, carton, cardboard 25% 45% 35%
Ferrous metals 25% 20% 10%
Aluminum 25% 20% 35%
Decrease in plastic -10% -10% -10%
Increase in substitute
materials
+25% +18% +21%
Increase in private end-
user consumption volume
- all materials
+17% +12% +13%
Proportion of substitute materials used to replace
plastic packaging

• The prevention targets specified in Art. 38 of the Proposal for EU-Packaging
Regulation cannot be achieved, if a significant amount of lightweight plastic
packaging is replaced by heavier packaging materials.
• If the market share of plastic packaging is reduced by 10 percentage points by
2030, the total volume of packaging consumption will increase (ceteris paribus).
• The extent to which the volume of packaging consumption increases depends on
the materials with which plastic packaging is replaced.
• The results presented here show: that the amount of household-generated
packaging would increase from 10% to 20% if 10% of plastic packaging had
to be replaced by other packaging materials.
• As a result, there is a pronounced goal conflict between the targets of
“reducing the amount of plastic packaging” and “reducing the amount of
packaging waste”.
Conclusion
27

GHG calculation
28

In the following, greenhouse gas calculations were carried out to investigate the impact of
replacing plastic packaging with other materials on the greenhouse gas potential. The focus is
on the following questions:
• How many greenhouse gas emissions were caused by the volume of packaging consumption
from private end-users in Germany in 2021?
• How does a partial substitution of plastic packaging by other materials affect climate
change results?
In order to answer the questions above, four scenarios were defined and the respective GHG
emissions were determined:
> Base scenario, defined by the volume and the composition of packaging consumption
from private end-users in Germany in 2021
> Case scenario A to C, defined by the assumptions (regarding the volume and the
composition of packaging consumption) made if 10 % of plastic packaging is replaced by
other materials.
GHG calculation – key questions and scenarios
29

0 4.000 8.000 12.000
Base scenario
Case scenario A
Case scenario B
Case scenario C
GHG emissions of packaging consumption
[kt CO2-equivalent]
plastic substitute materials
GHG calculation - results
+ 14.2 % vs. base scenario
> How does the partial substitution of plastic packaging by other materials affect climate change
results?
30

• The GHG emissions for the volume of the packaging consumption in the base scenario
amount for 10,751 kt CO2 equivalents.
• With the estimated quantity and composition of packaging consumption in case scenario A,
the GHG emissions increase by 14 % to 12,276 kt CO2 equivalents when compared with the
base scenario.
• Under the assumptions in case scenario B and C, the GHG emissions increase by 10 %
compared to the base scenario (to 11,845 and 11,816 kt CO2 equivalents respectively).
• The results of the GHG calculations show that the greenhouse gas emissions associated with
the packaging consumption would increase between 10 % and 14 % if 10 % of plastic
packaging had to be replaced by other packaging materials. The extent of the increase in
greenhouse gas emissions depends on the materials with which the plastic packaging is
replaced.
• As a result, there is goal conflict between the target of “reducing the amount of plastic
packaging” and the EU targets of “ reducing the net GHG emissions by at least 55 % by 2030
compared to 1990 levels and making the EU the first climate-neutral continent by 2050”.
GHG calculation – findings and conclusion
31

Mainz, Mai 2023 Auswirkungen auf den Markt für Wellpappeverpackungen bei einem verpflichtenden MW-Anteil für Transportverpackungen
GVM Gesellschaft für Verpackungs-
marktforschung mbH
Alte Gärtnerei 1
D-55128 Mainz
Fon +49 (0) 6131.33673 0
Fax +49 (0) 6131.33673 50
info@gvmonline.de
www.gvmonline.de

Material Efficiency of Packaging in Comparison .pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Material Efficiency of Packaging in Comparison .pdf

Similar to Material Efficiency of Packaging in Comparison .pdf (20)

More from Newsroom Kunststoffverpackungen

More from Newsroom Kunststoffverpackungen (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Material Efficiency of Packaging in Comparison .pdf