4. Goal and Scope of the LCA

In this chapter, the first phase of the LCA will be presented, where the five selected case studies are described, along with the followed methodology, system definitions, and assumptions, in order to fulfil the defined goal.

4.1 Goal of the study

This section aims to determine the goal of the study, intended use of the assessment and its potential users.

4.1.1 Reasons for carrying out the study

Packaging waste volumes are increasing and are amplified by trends in increased convenience, on-the-go consumption, and e-commerce. The EU wants to reduce the consumption of single-use plastics and foster recycling to incrementally ensure plastic packaging circularity (European Commission, 2022). Currently, some packaging waste is recycled but the majority is still incinerated in the Nordic countries. The potential environmental benefits of focusing on circular economy and on reusable packaging alternatives will be analysed in this study.

The reason for carrying out this study is to increase the knowledge base on climate and other environmental effects of reuse of packaging, to support more sustainable choices. The study shall thus evaluate the potential environmental impacts of reusable packaging solutions, specifically transport packaging and primary packaging in takeaway sector, compared to the present single-use, disposable solutions from a cradle-to-grave perspective. Hence, a comparison of the environmental impacts of generic reusable packaging systems against generic single-use packaging will be conducted. The goal is to gain knowledge and identify aspects that makes each solution a better or worst option according to its environmental impacts.

4.1.2 Intended audience and application

The study is commissioned by the Nordic Council of Ministers and steered by representatives from the national environmental protection agencies of respectively Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. The study is to be disclosed to the public as the commissioner will publish the study online.

The intended audience are the public, private companies, and authorities. The results are to be used by public authorities and companies within the geographical scope of the Nordic countries. The results can also be useful for private companies to create better solutions regarding packaging and support identifying important aspects that must be fulfilled to ensure a less environmentally damaging solution. An executive summary is included addressing high-level decision makers within the specified groups.

The study includes comparative assertations between reusable and disposable packaging solutions. The study is conducted according to the principles and framework of ISO 14040 (ISO, 2006a) and the requirements of ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006b).

4.2 Scope

This section scopes the LCA in accordance with the goal and intended application as formulated in the previous section. Together with the goal definition it determines how the other LCA steps should be performed. Scoping ensures the consistency of the applied methods, assumptions, and data and to strengthen the reproducibility of the study. Therefore, case studies are described, as well as time coverage, technology coverage, end-of-life allocation approach, cut-off criteria, LCIA methodology, data quality requirements, Circular Footprint Formula description, assumptions and limitations on a system level, normalisation and weighting, and critical review process.

Two different reusable systems will be assessed and compared to its single-use packaging alternative as part of this study:

Reusable container for takeaway vs single-use container
Reusable e-commerce packaging vs single-use cardboard vs single-use plastic

4.2.1 Case studies description

The comparison of the different systems is based on representative case studies, i.e., studied product systems in their base cases. Each base case assessment is used as a general, hypothetical generic setup to illustrate the potential environmental impact of the respective packaging solutions. Thereby, potentially decisive parameters, assumptions, data, etc. around the respective systems are identified. The base case comparison should thus be understood as an evidence-based reference for deriving potential boundary conditions under which one or the other system may be preferable in terms of certain environmental impacts.

The reuse rate for reusable packaging refers to the number of times a particular packaging material or container is used before it is either recycled or disposed of. The number of uses (for multiple use) relates to the reuse rate as defined in Equation (1).

$$ \textrm{Number of uses }=\frac{1}{100\%-\% \textrm{ reuse rate}} $$

(1)

Takeaway containers

Takeaway containers are packaging containers that store and contain meals. The specific function can be different depending on the type of food being stored, however, it is relevant the container is made of a food grade material that can resist heat.

Functional unit

The following functional unit was chosen for the takeaway food containers,

“To contain and protect one 1.25 litres restaurant meal for 1 use in one of the Nordic countries”.

With this functional unit, the single-use and reusable containers can be compared, as they are expected to achieve the same function. A volumetric function is used, as it accounts for the fact that the packaging solutions might weight different based on their materials. Also allowing suitability for different types of food, such as salads, Chinese, Indian, Thai, etc. It is assumed that the materials used in the takeaway market at the moment are made from food grade materials and are heat resistant.

Additional functions (also referred to as secondary use or service) could be relevant to include in the study as single-use products can be reused, either for the same or a different purpose by the user. For example, many takeaway containers can be washed and reused for storing food and leftovers. Yet this assessment is studying the environmental impacts of packaging as a system, for which secondary use will be out of scope, and therefore excluded as part of this study. Additional uses may be avoided if there are sufficient incentives to return the reusable packaging systems which is a presumption for this study.

Single-use takeaway container

Single-use takeaway containers come in many different designs and shapes. They differ based on the type of food being stored on, e.g., on size, material, see Figure 7.

In general, many takeaway food containers on the Nordic markets are expected to be made from fibres (lined with plastic) or plastic or a composite. For example, it is common for salads to see a design consisting of a fibre bowl with a plastic lid. The most common plastic material for hard containers are polypropylene and extruded polystyrene (Gallego-Schmid, Mendoza, & Azapagic, 2019). Aluminium containers with a cardboard lid are also present but is considered rare.

Figure 7 Examples of single-use takeaway containers.

To specify which container type to be assessed as the reference product, the current, most widely use containers in the Nordics were assessed. Given that part of the reason of the study is to evaluate reusable packaging against plastic single-use packaging, a plastic takeaway container will be evaluated. The single-use container was defined as a polypropylene plastic tray, which is one of the more common plastic containers on the market (Gallego-Schmid, Mendoza, & Azapagic, 2019).

Multiple-use takeaway container

Reusable packaging for takeaway food refers to containers, boxes, or bags designed to be used multiple times for the purpose of transporting and storing meals. These packaging solutions come in various volumes, materials, and sizes tailored to the diverse needs of consumers and businesses. Volume-wise, they can range from small individual portions (500 ml) to larger sized containers (1250 ml), or with compartments to accommodate different quantities of food. In terms of materials, reusable packaging can be made from durable options such as stainless steel, glass, or high-quality food-grade plastic. The choice of materials depends on factors like cost, weight, durability, and sustainability. This versatility in volume, materials, and size allows for the effective transportation of takeaway food while minimising single-use waste. The reusable container was defined as a plastic container, based on data reported by reusable container operators (see Appendix E)

Reference Flow

Considering the different lifetimes for the two types of packaging the reference flow will describe the quantified number of product(s), including product parts, necessary for a specific product system to deliver the performance described by the functional unit.

The reference flow for each of the product systems are listed in Table 5.

Table 5 Takeaway – Description of the product systems and key parameters for the base case comparison.

Aspect	Single-use	Multiple use
Picture	(TIYA Takeout Food Containers, 2023)	(Mepal, u.d.)
Raw material and subsequent processing/manufacturing	Virgin PP	Virgin PP
Type of use	Single-use	Multiple use
Number of uses	Out of scope	10
Reuse rate (%)	0%	90%
Max. load capacity (liter)	1.25
Net container weight (kg)	0.059	0.226
Transport Factory to retail	3,500 km by truck (>32 t, EURO 4)
Transport Retail to final client	62%: 5 km, by passenger car (average) 5%: 5 km round trip, by van (lorry <7.5t, EURO 3 with utilisation ratio of 20%) 33%: no impact modelled
End-of-life treatment	Average treatment within the Nordic Countries
Reference Flow
Reference Flow (kg)	0.059	0.022

The following further assumptions are made in the table:

Reuse rate (for multiple use): Due to lack of information, a 90% reuse rate is assumed.

E-commerce

The e-commerce packaging (secondary transport packaging) has the main purpose of covering and protecting goods, while being transported from the manufacturing to the use phase. Packaging usually differs greatly in size and material depending on the contained products. For the sake of this study, the type of goods being contained in the e-commerce packaging is defined as clothing, as it is the most common type of goods sold in the Nordic countries under study (Tilastokeskus, 2022; Statistics Denmark, 2022; Statistics Sweden, 2022; Statistics Norway, 2022). Therefore, a standard cloth packaging is chosen, i.e., assuming that no special care is required such as protection of fragile, heat-sensitive, and hazardous goods.

The clothing itself may be packed in a primary packaging for the handling in the warehouse in, e.g., a plastic bag. This primary packaging is not included in the scope as it is understood to be the same regardless of secondary packaging.

Functional Unit

The following functional unit was chosen for the e-commerce packaging:

“To contain and protect one shipment of clothes (1 time) with a maximum capacity of 21 litres in the Nordics”

Like the takeaway containers, a functional unit was defined based on the service provided by the packaging, which is to facilitate distribution and storage of a certain volume from the retailers to the users. Likewise, the positioning properties, e.g., labelling, perceived eco-friendliness, were not included as part of the functional unit as it might make the packaging not comparable.

Single-use E-commerce packaging

There are multiple transport packaging solutions on the Nordic market currently ranging from cardboard boxed with all kinds of fillers to simple shipping bags (see Figure 8). Their design and material composition differentiate greatly depending on volume, cost, and retailer preference. Boxes provide structural protection of the goods inside whereas bags (also referred to as soft packaging) are generally used for items that do not break e.g., clothing.

Figure 8 Examples of disposable e-commerce packaging.

The most bought items online in Europe (including Nordic countries Denmark, Norway, and Finland) are clothing and footwear according to a PostNord market survey (Postnord, 2021). In Sweden clothing and footwear were the second most bought only exceeded by pharmaceuticals.

In order to investigate which type of packaging is most common for clothing and footwear, the two biggest fashion retailers were identified, and their packaging solutions investigated. In 2022, the retailers with the highest net sales were Zalando in Norway, Denmark, and Finland, and H&M in Sweden (Yltaevae, 2022). Both retailers inform that they are in process of switching away from plastic to paper-based packaging solutions (Zalando, 2022, H&M, 2023) which seems to be the general trend in the market. As seen in Figure 8 Zalando and H&M packaging differentiates between paper bags (softbags) or cardboard boxes. It was understood the paper bags are used for smaller orders of clothing. Boxes are used for fragile items and larger orders.

The reference product for this study is defined as soft packaging suitable for containing clothing. The study covers both a comparison of the with a Single Use Plastic bag (SUPL) solution and a comparison with a Single Use Paper bag solution (SUPA). For SUPL a reference product of LDPE film is chosen, for SUPA a reference product like the Zalando and H&M packaging is chosen.

Both materials are assumed recyclable in the waste management system.

Reusable e-commerce

The e-commerce packaging is suitable for clothes as previously mentioned but can be used for any smaller items that are not fragile.

Reusable e-commerce bags on the market come in different sizes, from small to large. A solution that can hold up to 21 litres was chosen as reference (RePack, 2023).

Reference Flow

Considering the different lifetimes for the three packaging types, the reference flow will describe the quantified number of product(s), including product parts, necessary for a specific product system to deliver the performance described by the functional unit.

The reference flow for each of the product systems are listed in Table 6.

Table 6 E-commerce packaging – Description of the product systems and key parameters for the base case comparison.

Aspect	Single-use		Reusable
Picture
Name of product system	SUPL	SUPA	Reusable
Raw material and subsequent processing/manufacturing	Low density Polyethylene (LDPE) Extrusion	Paper Paper sack production	Polypropylene (PP) Extrusion and weaving
Type of use	Single-use		Multiple-use
Number of uses	1	1	4
Return rate (%)	Not applicable	Not applicable	75%
Breakage rate (%)	0	0 It is assumed that even if a single use container breaks after one trip, it has already fulfilled its purpose (functionality) unless the product gets damaged.
Dimensions (cm)	34x25x10
Max. load capacity (litre)	21 l
Net container weight (kg)	0.012 (Miljøstyrelsen, 2023)	0.065	0.118 https://www.originalrepack.com/files/RePack-Carbon-and-Waste-Footprint-english.pdf
Transport factory to distribution centre	Assumed to be 3,500 km by truck (>32 t, EURO 4) (LCA method)
Transport distribution centre to final client	100% Local: 250 km round trip by van (lorry <7.5t, EURO 3, utilisation ratio of 20%). (LCA method)
End-of-life treatment	Average treatment within the Nordic Countries
Reference Flow
Reference Flow (kg)	0.012	0.065	0.0295

4.2.2 System Boundaries

The study includes all life cycle stages from cradle-to-grave for the five studied systems, an initial diagram of both systems is presented in Figure 9.

Figure 9 System boundaries for the single-use and reusable systems for both takeaway container and e-commerce. Transportation and utilities are included inside the system boundaries, but not shown in the diagram for simplicity.

Environmental impacts are presented in this study grouped by life cycle stages – this is aimed at facilitating disclosure of results. Table 7 lists the life cycle stages included for each system.

Table 7 Overview of life cycle stages and processes of the two single-use and reusable systems included in the analysis.

Life cycle stage	Single-use	Reusable
Raw material extraction	Cradle-to-gate production of the main materials	Cradle-to-gate production of the main materials
Manufacturing	gate-to-gate production of the single-use packaging cradle-to-gate production of auxiliary materials and products gate-to-gate recycling to recycled plastic granulate (input) waste treatment of pre-consumer production waste intermediate transports	gate-to-gate production of the reusable packaging cradle-to-gate production of auxiliary materials and products gate-to-gate recycling to recycled plastic granulate (input) waste treatment of pre-consumer production waste intermediate transports
Distribution	transport of the packaging from manufacturing plants to retailer/restaurants
Use	transport of the packaging to the final user	transport of the packaging to the final user Pre-cleaning by user either by hand or dishwasher (Only for takeaway container system) Reverse logistics for transporting packaging to service/ distribution centre. Washing of the packaging (Only for the takeaway)
End-of-life treatment: recycling	transport from customer to recycling plant post-consumer collection and sorting recycling process intermediary transports
End-of-life treatment: incineration	transport from customer to incineration plant incineration with energy recovery of sorted post-consumer waste intermediary transports
Credits for material	Post-consumer credits, as cradle-to-gate plastic granulate production or paper fibre	Post-consumer credits from the converting, as cradle-to-gate granulate production
Credits for energy	Post-consumer credits, as cradle-to-consumer Nordic electricity grid mix Post-consumer credits, as cradle-to-consumer thermal energy according to the Nordic mix	Post-consumer credits, as cradle-to-consumer Nordic electricity grid mix Post-consumer credits, as cradle-to-consumer thermal energy according to the Nordic mix

Exclusion

The content inside the packaging, including the main goods and extra additaments (e.g. cutlery in the case of the takeaway or plastic bag in the case of clothing) and possible secondary use of the packaging box or possible return of clothes is expected to be the same between the compared systems.

Clothing return (e-commerce case) is excluded for this study, as the process is assumed to be identical for both systems (single-use and reusable)

4.2.3 System boundaries towards nature and geographical Scope

All known use of resources and emissions to air, water, and soil are included. The environmental impacts of the various activities in the life cycle are included regardless of geographic location. The sensitivity of the recipient environment in question has not been considered. The geographical location for the use of the packaging solutions is the Nordics.

This geographical boundary mostly is reflected in the assumptions around the foreground systems (e.g., manufacturing processes, transport distance and recycling rates) and the implemented background datasets (e.g., electricity from grid). The geographical scope of all background processes is documented transparently.

4.2.4 Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methodology

The impact assessment method used is the EU Environmental Footprint method 3.1,

The EF Flows, Methods, Characterisation Factors, Unit Groups and Flow Properties can be accessed through the website of the European Platform on LCA (EPLCA) https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/LCDN/developerEF.xhtml

which is an internationally recognized method, using the ecoinvent 3.9.1 database. This impact method was selected as it is on scope for the Nordic countries, and it covers a broad range of relevant environmental impacts.
The default impact categories are listed in Table 8, including the impact category indicator and its robustness according to the Plastic LCA method (Nessi, et al., 2021). This study includes the impact categories that have a robustness of I or II. For indicators with robustness III a case specific reasoning was developed. For all of these the following disclaimer should be considered:

Disclaimer for results of indicators with Robustness level III (default EN 15804+A2 disclaimer)

The results of this environmental impact indicator shall be used carefully as the uncertainties on these results are high or as there is limited experienced with the indicator.

Included in the study are the listed indicators with robustness class III due to the following reasoning:

Land Use
- To reveal the effect between biobased and fossil systems, i.e., paper and fossil
- The LANCA method could be included to the extend implemented in the database, as generic products are modelled.
Water Use
- To reveal the effect of washing in reusable systems
- The AWARE method could be included to the extend implemented in the database, and as implemented in the software.
Resource Use – minerals and metals;
- To reveal the effect of resource use in reusable systems
- It is understood that the characterisation method with ultimate stock reserves might be outdated, but the study is consistent across the assessed systems, such that an indication for the resource depletion can still be derived
Resource use – fossils
- To reveal the effect of resource use in reusable systems
- It is understood that the characterisation method with ultimate stock reserves might be outdated, but the study is consistent across the assessed systems, such that an indication for the resource depletion can still be derived

From the study excluded impact categories are “Human toxicity – non-cancer effect”, “Human toxicity – cancer effects“ and “Ecotoxicity, fresh water”. (Nessi, et al., 2021) specify that the uncertainties of these indicators can be up to 1-2 orders of magnitude. To avoid misleading comparative assertions due to mistakes in the background data or LCIA method no results are presented for these indicators.

Table 8 Impact categories from EF method 3.1, their robustness and inclusion in the study.

EF Impact category	Impact category indicator	Robustness	Included
Climate change	kg CO2eq	I	X
Ozone Depletion	kg CFC-11 equivalent	I	X
Human toxicity – non-cancer effect	CTUh (Comparative Toxic Unit for humans)	III
Human toxicity – cancer effects	CTUh (Comparative Toxic Unit for humans)	III
Particulate Matter/Respiratory Inorganics	Disease incidences	I	X
Ionising Radiation – human health effects	kBq U-235 eq	II	X
Photochemical Ozone Formation	kg NMVOC eq	II	X
Acidification	mol H+ eq	II	X
Eutrophication, terrestrial	mol N eq	II	X
Eutrophication, fresh water	kg P eq	II	X
Eutrophication, marine	kg N eq	II	X
Land Use	pt (Regionalised CFs)	III	X
Ecotoxicity, fresh water	CTUe (Comparative Toxic Unit for ecosystems)	III
Water Use	m3 water eq of deprived water (Regionalised CFs)	III	X
Resource Use – minerals and metals	kg antimony (Sb) equivalent	III	X
Resource use – fossils	MJ	III	X

4.2.5 Data quality requirements

According to ISO 14044 data quality requirements must be included for the following aspects:

Technological representativeness

The technological representativeness for both singe use and reusable packaging systems relate to modern, current state level in means of production, transport, and EoL processing. Secondary data represents average technologies used in the respective geographies of the life cycle stage, as described in respective background datasets.

Geographical representativeness

In general, all data and assumptions refer to or are applicable to the respective geographical scopes, as long as data availability allows. Geographical coverage is, however, dependent on the available data. Geographical coverage of primary and secondary data is disclosed in the respective inventories in the Life Cycle Inventory section of this study.

Time-related representativeness

The reference time of the primary data is no older than 2020. Secondary data is retrieved, when possible, from the past 5 years. If no data can be retrieved in the past 5 years, the research is extended to the past 10 years, especially for the secondary data which is mainly based on desk-research findings. However, for some secondary datasets, the research is extended to more than 10 years.

Secondary data is retrieved from ecoinvent 3.9.1, and it could be possible that some of the datasets are older than 10 years. In some cases, datasets (more than 10 years old) have been “extrapolated to the year of calculation [year 2022]”. The latter means that, to some extent, information used for providing the dataset has not been updated, but rather calculations have been performed to extrapolate this information to the year of the publishing of the database.

Crucial life cycle stages and processes refer to the most recent literature and guidance documents or otherwise publicly available information. At the time of modelling latest available secondary data is implemented for background processes (see section 5.4).

Precision

The accuracy of the data is achieved by using primary data to the extent possible. Key parameters with a high level of uncertainty will be tested on the sensitivity analysis to assess their variability.

Completeness

Data exclusions are reported transparently under the system boundaries and limitation section. Cut-offs have been applied consistently across the life cycle for each of the products being compared.

Consistency

Consistency in the assumptions, modelling choices, and the selection of data sources is of utmost importance for this comparative assessment. In the absence of unambiguous data or references for critical assumptions equal assumptions or references are applied to all product systems. The LCA methodology is uniformly applied to all product systems, and it is ensured that modelling and methodological choices do not affect the results and conclusions. If so, respective modelling and methodological choices are reflected in the sensitivity analysis. The CFF formula is used in this study to increase consistency of the results. Moreover, to increase consistency of the results, one single database for background data (secondary data) is used in the model.

Reproducibility

Primary data, context information, and reference flows are disclosed to the extent possible. All other assumptions as well as implementation of secondary data is documented in a way that allows for reproduction of the underlying models.

Uncertainty of information

Major uncertainties are addressed by means of a sensitivity analysis as well as qualitative discussions. Remaining uncertainties are taken into consideration when interpreting results.

4.2.6 Allocation

Allocation refers to the partitioning of the inputs and outputs of a process or product system between the product system under study and one or more other product systems. Allocation methods reflect value choices; thus it was chosen to follow the recommendations of the Plastic LCA method in this study. This leads to different allocation methods across the study aiming to reflect the relationship of the product systems to the connected environmental impact of different processes. These are for example for washing (number of dishes), transport by van (weight), transport by car (volume), and waste management (the CFF).

Further the secondary data induce their inbuilt allocation procedures. These were adopted unchanged.

4.2.7 Circular Footprint Formula implementation

This study implements the Circular Footprint Formula (CFF), which is based on the latest available guidance.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021H2279#page=7 Annex 1

The most recent applicable default application-specific and material-specific values are considered in the CFF, as available in the PEFCR and Annex C (transition phase).

https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/LCDN/developerEF.xhtml

The provided default parameters can be adjusted context-specifically, following the PEF method (European Commission, 2021) and the European Plastics LCA method in particular (Nessi, et al., 2021).

The formula is detailed on equation 2, with its respective parameters explains in Table 9.

\left(1-R\right)E_v+R_1\times\left(AE_{recycled}+\left(1-A\right)E_v\times\frac{Q_{\sin}}{Q_p}\right)+\left(1-A\right)R_2\times\left(E_{recycl\in gEoL}-E_v\times\frac{Q_{Sout}}{Q_P}\right)

$$ \quad \quad \quad +\left(1-B\right)R_3\times\left(E_{ER}^{\prime}-LHV\times X_{ER,heat}\times E_{SE,heat}-LHV\times X_{ER,elec^{\prime}}\times E_{SE,elec}\right) $$

$$ \quad \quad \quad +\left(1-R_2-R_3\right)\times E_D $$

(2)

\left(1-R\right)E_v+R_1\times\left(AE_{recycled}+\left(1-A\right)E_v\times\frac{Q_{\sin}}{Q_p}\right)+\left(1-A\right)R_2\times\left(E_{recycl\in gEoL}-E_v\times\frac{Q_{Sout}}{Q_P}\right)

$$ \quad \quad \quad +\left(1-B\right)R_3\times\left(E_{ER}^{\prime}-LHV\times X_{ER,heat}\times E_{SE,heat}-LHV\times X_{ER,elec^{\prime}}\times E_{SE,elec}\right) $$

$$ \quad \quad \quad +\left(1-R_2-R_3\right)\times E_D $$

(2)

Table 9 Parameters for the CFF, copied directly from EU,2021.

A	Allocation factor of burdens and benefits (jointly: “credits”) between supplier and user of recycled materials.
B	Allocation factor of energy recovery processes. It applies both to burdens and benefits.
Q_sin	Quality of the ingoing secondary material, i.e., the quality of the recycled material at the point of substitution.
Q_sout	Quality of the outgoing secondary material, i.e., the quality of the recycled material at the point of substitution.
Q_p	Quality of the primary material, i.e., quality of the virgin material.
R₁	Proportion of material in the input to the production that has been recycled from a previous system.
R₂	Proportion of the material in the product that will be recycled (or reused) in a subsequent system. R2 shall therefore take into account the inefficiencies in the collection and recycling (or reuse) processes. R2 shall be measured at the output of the recycling plant
R₃	Proportion of the material in the product that is used for energy recovery at EoL.
E_recycled	Specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional unit) arising from the recycling process of the recycled (reused) material, including collection, sorting and transportation process
E_recyclingEoL	Specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional unit) arising from the recycling process at EoL, including collection, sorting and transportation process
Ev	Specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional unit) arising from the acquisition and pre-processing of virgin material
*Ev**	Specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional unit) arising from the acquisition and pre-processing of virgin material assumed to be substituted by recyclable materials
E_ER	Specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional unit) arising from the energy recovery process (e.g. incineration with energy recovery, landfill with energy recovery, etc.).
E_SE,heat	Specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional unit) that would have arisen from the specific substituted energy source, heat and electricity respectively.
E_D	Specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional unit) arising from disposal of waste material at the EoL of the analysed product, without energy recovery or other usable product output.
X_{ER, heat}	The efficiency of the energy recovery process for both heat and electricity
LHV	Lower heating value of the material in the product that is used for energy recovery.

Table 10 summarises the CFF parameters for the base case analysis, used in this study. The values R1, A, B as well as Qsin/Qp and Qsout/Qp follow the default value. R2 and R3 were calculated based on the latest statistics, see section 5.3. Refer to Appendix F for a full list of factors.

Table 10 CFF parameters for different materials used in the model (base case).

Parameter*	R1	A	B	R2	R3	Qsin/Qp and Qsout/Qp
Paper packaging	0	0.2	0	80.78% (Nordic average)	19.23% (Nordic average)	1 (recycling process considers fibre loss)
Plastic packaging	0	0.5	0	30.93% (Nordic average)	69.08% (Nordic average)	0.9 (PP) 0.75 (LDPE film)
*Legend: R1= recycled content manufacturing; A= burdens and credits between supplier and user of the recycled material; R2 = recycling output rate; R3 = incineration rate; Qsin = quality of the ingoing secondary material; Qp = quality of the primary material (virgin ones); Qsout = quality of the outgoing secondary material.

4.2.8 Assumptions and limitations on a systems level

This study is based on hypothetical generic products. Thus, the life cycle inventory is based on default assumptions and available secondary production processes. Nevertheless, surveys were made to companies operating reusable packaging, to define the hypothetical generic products.

4.2.9 Normalisation and weighting

According to ISO 14040, normalisation and weighting of midpoint impact categories are optional parts of the life cycle impact assessment procedure. According to ISO 14040, weighting shall not be used in LCA studies with comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to the public. In this comparative LCA study, both normalisation and weighing are not taken into account.

4.2.10 Requirements for Comparative Studies

The assessment presented in this report will support comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to the public, therefore the following additional reporting requirements will be stated on the report, as specified in ISO 14044 (2006b):

analysis of material and energy flows to justify inclusions or exclusion;
assessment of the precision, completeness and representativeness of data used;
description of the equivalence of the systems being compared;
description of the critical review process;
an evaluation of the completeness of the LCIA;
a statement as to whether or not international acceptance exists for the selected category indicators and a justification for their use;
an explanation for the scientific and technical validity and environmental relevance of the category indicators used in the study;
the results of the uncertainty and sensitivity analyses;
evaluation of the significance of the differences found.

4.2.11 Critical review needs

A critical review is recommended to increase the quality and credibility of the LCA study, and according to ISO requirements, a critical review is required in case of publishing comparative assertions disclosed to the public.

Following the ISO 14044 guidelines (2006b), a critical review is conducted by LCA-expert Tomas Ekvall, Adjunct Professor in Environmental Systems Analysis at Department of Technology Management and Economics at Chalmers University, Sweden. The review is performed continuously throughout the study to ensure an iterative process. The review is not a panel review and does hereby not adhere to the standard. The final review report is included as Annex N in this the report.