Go to content

5. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis

In this section, the data used as an input for performing the LCA is described, including relevant processes, assumptions and identified gaps.

5.1 Data Collection

The required data was collected from different sources. Primary data was gathered, whenever possible directly from companies, or from collected samples, to attempt to approximate reality on parameters such as raw materials, energy, waste, return rates, means of transport and distances, among others.
In case primary data was not available, secondary data was retrieved from literature, statistics and LCI databases.

5.1.1 Data from companies

Primary data was collected from companies operating in the Nordic countries offering reusable packaging systems within e-commerce and takeaway containers, with the support from the New European Reuse Alliance. Companies included are: kleenhub, reCIRCLE, Re-zip, Repack, Kamupak, among others (see Appendix E). The data collection was carried out via a questionnaire to assess the different types of systems in the market at the moment the study was performed. The data gathered was then reviewed to assess completeness and cohesion. It was found that the reviewed systems are very different from each other, therefore showing there is not a standard way a reusable system operates within this region. However, the collected data was used to find similarities and create a hypothetical setup, i.e., no specific product is modelled, but the information is used to inform the generic model. The data was then connected with its appropriate LCI datasets on the LCA model.

5.1.2 Secondary data collection

Whenever there were data gaps, secondary data was retrieved from statistics, literature, and LCI datasets, specifically for the end-of-life processes.

5.1.3 Cut-off criteria

The cut-off criteria applied in this Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for generic product systems take into consideration the limited availability and intended generic representability of foreground data.
Given the constraints, we employed the following cut-off rules:
  1. Equipment and infrastructure employed during use phase, such as washing machines, and end of life, such as waste collection containers.

Despite these limitations, it should be explicitly noted that no flows were intentionally excluded from the analysis for reasons beyond these cut-off rules.
These cut-off criteria, although necessary due to data constraints, may affect the precision of the analysis and this limitation should be acknowledged when interpreting the results of this study. Notably, the cut-off criteria in the background data represent a significant impact on the excluded flows.

5.2 System Modelling Per Life Cycle Stage

In this section, the inventory data for each life cycle stage is described for both of the takeaway containers and e-commerce bags.

5.2.1 Takeaway containers

The life cycle stages of the systems are described below. For more details on the LCI, such as specific values and dataset collection please refer to Appendix G.
Raw material extraction and manufacturing
  • The production is assumed to take place in Europe.
  • The manufacturing stage was modelled similarly for both takeaway systems (single-use and reuse). As previously mentioned, both containers are assumed to be made from polypropylene. The lid of the multiuse container is made from polypropylene and thermoplastic elastomer (TPE).
  • Different manufacturing processes are employed depending on the material, shape and size of the container. According to Gallego et al. (2019), the method used for manufacturing a single-use polypropylene container, consists of extrusion and thermoforming. The multiuse polypropylene container was assumed to be produced by injection molding, according to questionnaire from the reusable takeaway containers operators (see Appendix E).


Distribution

  • For both systems, the product is transported from the production plant to the location of use, which in this case is assumed to be in the Nordics. A distance of 3,500 km by truck is used following the Plastic LCA method, assuming it is an intracontinental supply chain (Nessi, et al., 2021).


Use

  • The use phase considers the transportation from the restaurant to the user for both systems. The transportation from restaurant to final user is defined to be 5 km (62% by car; 5% by van; and 33% no impact modelled), following the Plastic LCA method (Nessi, et al., 2021).
  • The cleaning of the reusable containers is modelled in two phases: a pre-washing by the user and a second wash using professional dishwashers once the box is back in a service centre.
  • Cleaning the takeaway box before returning it can vary a lot since it is on the consumer side. Several methods could be utilised: handwashing, dishwashing machine, or none. As no specific data was obtained regarding the share of each of the methods from a user behaviour perspective, an equal share is assumed for each method. For each method there are also several factors that can differ, e.g., model/​year of dishwasher (which will impact the efficiency of water and energy consumption), use of soap and water while handwashing. Therefore, the following assumptions were made:
    • Handwashing and dishwashing energy, water, and washing-up liquid values were obtained from Porras et al. (2020) and were allocated based on the total number of dishes loaded, to obtain a value per item. For the manual hand washing a combination for running tap water and water bath was assumed, while for the dishwashing machine a normal stainless-steel machine was used. Table 11 summarised the values used.
    • The electricity required is modelled with the Nordic mix.
    • The washing up liquid used for the dishwashers was modelled assuming the same chemical composition from a datasheet of capsules for dishwashers (Procter & Gamble, 2016).
    • The dishwasher or the sink used to wash the takeaway container is not consider in the system boundaries and is therefore not accounted on this study.
  • The same distance and transportation methods as the transportation from restaurant to the user is assumed for returning the container back to the restaurant, since according to interviewed companies providing reusable packaging services in the Nordic countries, usually the cleaning service is carried out by the restaurants.
  • Additionally, once the container is returned back to a restaurant, it is assumed that it is required to be cleaned in a professional dishwasher to ensure meeting hygiene requirements. Average values for water, energy and soap were extracted from literature/energy labels to model this process, as seen in Table 11.
Table 11 Inventory data for modelling washing services.
Para­meter
Energy (kWh)
Water (L)
Soap (g)
Source
Pre-washing
Manual
0.03
0.62
0.34
Porras et al. (2020)
Dish­washer
0.02
0.17
0.19
Porras et al. (2020)
Washing service
Profes­sional dish­washer
0.077
0.038
0.08
(de Jong, 2023)
  • The reuse rate was established to be 10 times according to the 90% return rate established for the base case.


End-of-life

  • At the end of its lifetime, the containers are assumed to be transported to a waste management facility where recycling or incineration is assumed to occur.

5.2.2 E-commerce bag

The life cycle stages of the systems are described below. For more details on the LCI, such as specific values and dataset collection please refer to Appendix H.

Raw material extraction and manufacturing

  • The production is assumed to take place in Europe.
  • For the Single Use Plastic (SUPL) system the sole Raw material is the LDPE resin (virgin), which is then extruded to a foil and formed into a bag
  • For the Single Use Paper (PUPA) system the raw material consists of kraft paper (virgin), which is then converted into the paper bag is included
  • For the reusable System the main raw material is Polypropylene (virgin) which is extruded and then woven into the woven bag. Further a Velcro-like closure system is included assuming the same production steps.


Distribution

  • For the three systems, the product is transported from the production plant to the location of use, which in this case is assumed to be in the Nordics. A distance of 3,500 km by truck is used following the Plastic LCA method, assuming it is an intracontinental supply chain (Nessi, et al., 2021).


Use

  • Shipping
    • The packaging is sent from a distribution centre to the final consumer. This transport is assumed to be 250 km, followed by the local distribution to the consumer. The transportation is defined to be 5 km (62% by car; 5% by van; and 33% no impact modelled), following the Plastic LCA method (Nessi, et al., 2021).
  • Reverse logistics (reusable packaging)
    • Once used, the bag can be returned to a local mailbox or parcel shop. The same distances as for the previous shipping are assumed.
  • Service center (reusable packaging)
    • The cleaning process includes the bags are inspected and possibly cleaned with a cleaning agent if needed, then transported back to the retailer, where they are reused. Some bags might not pass inspection and will be discarded e.g., if they are damaged or somehow not fit for being send back out.
  • The baseline number of uses was established to be 4 times, i.e., 75% return rate for the base case.


End-of-life

  • At the end of its lifetime, the bags are assumed to be transported to a waste management facility where recycling or incineration occur. The distribution between these options was adjusted according to Nordic statistics.
  • Any repurposing or upcycling of the bags is excluded as part of this study.

5.3 Nordic statistics used in the study

The use phase and End-of-life treatment of the product systems is modelled for the Nordic countries. The foreground system was informed by the most recent statistics. Please prefer to Appendix D for more details.

5.4 Software and database for background data

The LCA model for this study is developed with iPoint-systems Umberto 11.10.1, using background data from Ecoinvent (version 3.9.1) system model “Allocation, cut-off by classification”.