6. Life Cycle Impact Assessment Results

By using the base case models for all systems, impact results are provided, and main contributors to the results are presented per each impact category. The relevant comparative assertion is shown as “aggregated total” values in the respective figures, thus accounting for all positive and negative impact contributions within a system.

The baseline impact assessment results are presented for both the takeaway container and e-commerce bags, including the results for each impact category of the baseline systems and a contribution analysis for each life cycle stage for each system.

The analysis and interpretation of results is done following a consistent terminology, as presented in Table 12.

Note that the definition of the terminology to describe the relative difference between the compared systems is used consistently between all impact categories. This notation does not incorporate the uncertainty behind the results that could vary greatly between the different indicators, induced for example through methodological choices within the study, but also by the applied impact calculation methodology which have different levels of certainty, cf. the discussion on the robustness of the used impact categories in section 4.2.4.

Relative difference in %	Terminologies in comparative assertion and interpretation of results
<5%	marginal difference
5-10%	minor difference
10-20%	noticeable difference
20-30%	moderate difference
30-50%	significant difference
>50%	very significant difference

Table 12 Terminology for results interpretation.

The results of the comparison between the case studies are classified in the following three robustness categories.

Note that this is the definition of this study to describe the findings of the base case and sensitivity analyses. This notation does not incorporate the uncertainty induced through methodological choices within the study.

Impact categories that show high robustness of results, where the comparison between the two systems is not dependent on underlying assumptions;
Impact categories that show medium robustness of results, where the comparison between the two systems slightly depend on underlying assumptions;
Impact categories that show low robustness of results, where the comparison between the two systems strongly depend on underlying assumptions.
This assessment is done depending on the respective sensitivity analyses, however as a rule of thumb the results have low robustness if less than 2/3 of all tested sensitivity setups show the same results as the base case comparison.

6.1 Takeaway containers base case comparison results

The following sections present the potential impacts per category and allow for a comparison between the two systems. Moreover, a contribution analysis is facilitated by presenting contributions from certain life cycle stages within the respective systems. For each impact category, the most important emissions are reported, as well as the most relevant sources of impacts on LCI level.

6.1.1 Takeaway containers overall results

The results of the base case are provided in Table 13 for all impact categories, excluding the three categories that constitute the Climate change total (Climate change, biogenic, Climate change, fossil; Climate change, land use and land use change) as climate change, biogenic and climate change, land use and land use change represent less than 5% of the climate change total impacts, and therefore most of the impacts from Climate change total are attributed to Climate change, fossil.

Table 13 Results from base case (Takeaway) The results are compared by the difference between base case re-sults (subtracting the results of the Reusable system from the results of the Single use system) as percentage of the reusable system. The beneficial system per impact category is shaded in light green.

EF Impact category	Single-use system Base case	Reusable system Base case	Comparison and difference between base case results as percentage of the reusable
EF-Acidification [mol H+ equivalents]	6.19E-04	3.77E-04	The reusable system shows significant benefits (- 39%)
EF-Climate change, total [kg CO2-Equivalents]	2.63E-01	1.47E-01	The reusable system shows significant benefits (- 44%)
EF-Eutrophication, freshwater [kg N equivalents]	4.04E-05	2.14E-05	The reusable system shows very significant benefits (- 47%)
EF-Eutrophication, marine [kg P equivalents]	1.37E-04	8.13E-05	The reusable system shows significant benefits (- 41%)
EF-Eutrophication, terrestrial [mol N equivalents]	1.32E-03	8.09E-04	The reusable system shows significant benefits (- 39%)
EF-Ionising radiation, human health [kBq U235 equivalents]	2.27E-02	1.89E-02	The reusable system shows noticeable benefits (- 17%)
EF-Land use [pt]	2.75E-01	3.49E-01	The single use system shows moderate benefits (+ 27%)
EF-Ozone depletion [kg CFC11 equivalents]	1.63E-09	1.58E-09	The reusable system shows marginal benefits (+ 3%)
EF-Particulate matter [disease incidence]	7.12E-09	4.52E-09	The reusable system shows significant benefits (- 37%)
EF-Photochemical ozone formation - human health [kg NMVOC equivalents]	5.75E-04	3.57E-04	The reusable system shows significant benefits (- 38%)
EF-Resource use, fossils [MJ]	5.04E+00	2.73E+00	The reusable system shows significant benefits (- 46%)
EF-Resource use, minerals and metals [kg Sb equivalents]	6.87E-07	4.30E-07	The reusable system shows significant benefits (- 37%)
EF-Water scarcity [m3 world-Eq deprived]	5.42E-02	5.73E-02	The single use system shows minor benefits (+6%)

The reusable system shows lower impacts than the single-use takeaway container in all the reported impact categories, besides Land use and Water scarcity where the single-use takeaway container shows lower impact.

The relative results are also presented in Figure 10 to facilitate the interpretation of the results. The results are normalised based on the system with the highest impact for each impact category.

Figure 10 Results of both systems, single use and reusable, normalised to the highest impact for each impact cate-gory (Takeaway).

6.1.2 Takeaway containers contribution analysis

An environmental hotspot analysis was conducted for the single use and reusable systems in order to understand which life cycle stages contribute the most for each impact category.

Single-use takeaway container system

Figure 11 Single-use system contribution analysis by life cycle stage (Takeaway).

The Raw Materials life cycle stage contributes from 10% (Land use) to 69% (Resource use, fossils) to the environmental impacts, being one of the most impacting impact categories, specifically from the polypropylene granulate.

The Manufacturing life cycle stage contributes from 8% (Particulate matter) to 60% (Ionising radiation) to the environmental impacts, mainly due to electricity used during production.

The Distribution life cycle stage contributes from 1% (Ionising radiation) to 34% (Land use) to the environmental impacts.

The Use phase life cycle stage contributes from close to no contribution, 0% (Ionising radiation) to 8% (Resource use, minerals) to the environmental impacts.

The Incineration life cycle stage contributes from 0% (Ionising radiation) to 33% (Climate change, total) to the environmental impacts.

The Recycling life cycle stage contributes from 1% (Resource use, fossils) to 4% (Land use) to the environmental impacts.

Additional to the environmental burden the credits from material recycling and recovery of energy from incineration at end of life decrease the total environmental burden.

The Material credits life cycle stage contributes from 1% (Land use) to 8% (Resource use, fossils) to the environmental impacts.

The Energy credits life cycle stage contributes from 2% (Resource use, minerals) to 34% (Land use) to the environmental impacts.

Reusable takeaway container.

The results of the reusable packaging baseline can be seen in Figure 12.

Figure 12 Reusable system contribution analysis by life cycle stage (Takeaway).

The Raw Materials life cycle stage contributes from 6% (Land use) to 59% (Resource use, fossils) to the environmental impacts.

The Manufacturing life cycle stage contributes from 9% (Particulate matter) to 50% (Eutrophication, freshwater) to the environmental impacts.

The Distribution life cycle stage contributes from 1% (Ionising radiation) to 22% (Land use) to the environmental impacts.

The Use phase life cycle stage contributes from 9% (Climate change, total) to 39% (Ionising radiation) to the environmental impacts. The use stage has a higher contribution to the life cycle compared to the single use system, mainly due to the take back logistics and electricity required for washing.

The Incineration life cycle stage contributes from 0% (Ionising radiation) to 27% (Climate change, total) to the environmental impacts.

The Recycling life cycle stage contributes from 1% (Resource use, fossils) to 3% (Eutrophication, freshwater) to the environmental impacts.

Additional to the environmental burden the credits from material recycling and recovery of energy from incineration at end of life decrease the total environmental burden.

The Material credits life cycle stage contributes from 1% (Land use) to 7% (Resource use, fossils) to the environmental impacts.

The Energy credits life cycle stage contributes from 2% (Resource use, minerals) to 22% (Land use) to the environmental impacts.

It is observed that even though the reusable container is heavier and therefore uses a higher quantity of raw material and processing than the single-use, all life cycle stages of the reusable container (except the use phase) contribute less to the whole life cycle than the single-use. This is due to the number of uses, since it is reused the impacts of these stages are divided into the number of cycles.

6.2 E-commerce base case comparison results

The following sections present the potential impacts per category and allow for a comparison between the systems. Moreover, a contribution analysis is facilitated by presenting contributions from certain life cycle stages within the respective systems. For each impact category, the most important emissions are reported, as well as the most relevant sources of impacts on LCI level.

6.2.1 E-commerce overall results

Overall results and comparison for the E-commerce base cases (single use plastic bag and reusable bag) are given in Table 14.

Table 14 Results from base cases “Single use plastic bag system” and “Reusable bag system”. The results are compared by the difference between base case results (subtracting the results of the Reusable system from the results of the Single use system) as percentage of the reusable system. The beneficial system per impact category is shaded in light green.

EF Impact category	Single use plastic bag system - Base case	Reusable bag system – Base case	Comparison and difference between base case results as percentage of the reusable
EF-Acidification [mol H+ equivalents]	1.48E-04	3.63E-04	The single use system shows very significant benefits. (-59%)
EF-Climate change, total [kg CO2-Equivalents]	6.18E-02	1.34E-01	The single use system shows very significant benefits. (-54%)
EF-Eutrophication, freshwater [kg N equivalents]	6.90E-06	2.11E-05	The single use system shows very significant benefits. (-67%)
EF-Eutrophication, marine [kg P equivalents]	3.52E-05	8.39E-05	The single use system shows very significant benefits. (-58%)
EF-Eutrophication, terrestrial [mol N equivalents]	3.45E-04	8.42E-04	The single use system shows very significant benefits. (-59%)
EF-Ionising radiation, human health [kBq U235 equivalents]	3.39E-03	1.04E-02	The single use system shows very significant benefits. (-68%)
EF-Land use [pt]	1.01E-01	3.91E-01	The single use system shows very significant benefits. (-74%)
EF-Ozone depletion [kg CFC11 equivalents]	2.08E-10	1.08E-09	The single use system shows very significant benefits. (-81%)
EF-Particulate matter [disease incidence]	1.79E-09	4.55E-09	The single use system shows very significant benefits. (-61%)
EF-Photochemical ozone formation - human health [kg NMVOC equivalents]	1.65E-04	3.76E-04	The single use system shows very significant benefits. (-56%)
EF-Resource use, fossils [MJ]	1.03E+00	2.57E+00	The single use system shows very significant benefits. (-60%)
EF-Resource use, minerals and metals [kg Sb equivalents]	1.89E-07	6.19E-07	The single use system shows very significant benefits. (-69%)
EF-Water scarcity [m3 world-Eq deprived]	2.42E-02	4.65E-02	The single use system shows significant benefits. (-48%)

Table 14 shows that the single use system (plastic) presents lower environmental impacts in all impact categories compared to the reusable bag system.

Overall results and comparison for the E-commerce base cases (single use paper bag and reusable bag) are given in Table 15.

Table 15 Results from base cases “Single use paper bag system” and “Reusable bag system”. The results are com-pared by the difference between base case results (subtracting the results of the Reusable system from the results of the Single use system) as percentage of the reusable system. The beneficial system per impact category is shaded in light green.

EF Impact category	Single use paper bag system - Base case	Reusable bag system – Base case	Comparison and difference between base case results as percentage of the reusable
EF-Acidification [mol H+ equivalents]	4.42E-04	3.63E-04	The reusable system shows moderate benefits. (22%)
EF-Climate change, total [kg CO2-Equivalents]	1.00E-01	1.34E-01	The single use system shows moderate benefits. (-25%)
EF-Eutrophication, freshwater [kg N equivalents]	1.09E-04	2.11E-05	The reusable system shows very significant benefits. (417%)
EF-Eutrophication, marine [kg P equivalents]	5.58E-04	8.39E-05	The reusable system shows very significant benefits. (566%)
EF-Eutrophication, terrestrial [mol N equivalents]	1.61E-03	8.42E-04	The reusable system shows very significant benefits. (91%)
EF-Ionising radiation, human health [kBq U235 equivalents]	-1.86E-03	1.04E-02	The single use system shows very significant benefits. (-118%)
EF-Land use [pt]	1.12E+01	3.91E-01	The reusable system shows very significant benefits. (2756%)
EF-Ozone depletion [kg CFC11 equivalents]	2.86E-09	1.08E-09	The reusable system shows very significant benefits. (165%)
EF-Particulate matter [disease incidence]	6.56E-09	4.55E-09	The reusable system shows significant benefits. (44%)
EF-Photochemical ozone formation - human health [kg NMVOC equivalents]	5.39E-04	3.76E-04	The reusable system shows significant benefits. (43%)
EF-Resource use, fossils [MJ]	1.16E+00	2.57E+00	The single use system shows very significant benefits. (-55%)
EF-Resource use, minerals and metals [kg Sb equivalents]	4.12E-07	6.19E-07	The single use system shows significant benefits. (-33%)
EF-Water scarcity [m3 world-Eq deprived]	4.18E-02	4.65E-02	The single use system shows noticable benefits. (-10%)

Table 15 shows that the single use system (paper) presents lower environmental impacts in the categories Climate change total, Ionising radiation, Resource use fossils, and Resource use minerals and metals. In all other categories the reuse system presents lower environmental impacts than the single use system (paper).

The relative results are also presented in Figure 13 to facilitate the interpretation of the results. In the figure the results are normalised based on the system with the highest impact for each impact category.

Figure 13 Results of the three studied systems, single use paper and plastic and reusable, normalised to the high-est impact for each impact category.

6.2.2 E-commerce contribution analysis

The contribution of each life cycle stage is reviewed for all assessed impact categories in Figure 14 (single use plastic bag) Figure 15 (single use paper bag) Figure 16 (reusable bag). Please refer to Appendix J for the result table and the contribution figures excluding credits.

Single use plastic system

Figure 14 Single-use plastic system contribution analysis by life cycle stage (E-commerce) (total environmental impact).

The figure shows the total environmental impact including credits. When looking at just the total environmental impact the following can be observed per life cycle stage

The Raw Materials has on average the highest impact on the life cycle emissions. The life cycle stage contributes from 9% (Land use) to 73% (Resource use, fossils) to the total environmental impact.

The Manufacture life cycle stage contributes from 5% (Resource use, minerals) to 32% (Water scarcity) to the environmental impact. On average the manufacturing has the second highest impacts among the impact categories.

The Distribution life cycle stage has the third largest contribution on the life cycle impact. It contributes from 1% (Water scarcity) to 25% (Land use) to the total environmental impact. Distribution is modelled with the same LCI for all case studies.

The Use Phase life cycle stage has comparably little impact on the environmental profile, from less than 1% (Water scarcity) to 4% (Ozone depletion) to the total environmental impact.

The Recycling life cycle stage contributes from 1% (Water scarcity) to 4% (Eutrophication, freshwater) to the total environmental impact.

The Incineration life cycle stage contributes from less than 1% (Ionising radiation) to 33% (Climate change, total) to the total environmental impact, whereby climate change is sticking out from otherwise maximal 6% (Eutrophication, terrestrial).

Additional to the environmental burden the credits from waste treatment at end of life decrease the total environmental burden.

The Material credits decrease the environmental impact by 1% (Land use) to 8% (Resource use, minerals) compared to the total environmental impact.

The Energy credits decrease the environmental impact by 2% (Resource use, minerals) to 31% (Land use) compared to the total environmental impact.

Single use paper system

Figure 15 Single-use paper system contribution analysis by life cycle stage (E-commerce) (total environmental impact).

The figure shows the total environmental impact including credits. When looking at the environmental burden the following can be observed per life cycle stage

The Raw Materials has on average the highest impact on the life cycle emissions. The life cycle stage contributes from 23% (Eutrophication, marine) to 87% (Land use) to the total environmental impact.

The Manufacturing life cycle stage contributes from 1% (Land use) to 30% (Ozone depletion) to the total environmental impact. In most impact categories it has the third largest contribution.

The Distribution life cycle stage contributes from 1% (Eutrophication, freshwater) to 25% (Particulate matter) to the total environmental impact, constituting the second largest impact in most categories. Distribution is modelled with the same LCI for all case studies.

The Use Phase life cycle stage contributes has comparably little impact on the environmental profile from less than 1% (Land use) to 4% (Resource use, minerals) to the total environmental impact.

The Recycling life cycle stage contributes from 1% (Land use) to 60% (Eutrophication, marine) to the total environmental impact, whereby Eutrophication, marine is sticking out from otherwise maximal 14% (Climate change, total).

The Incineration life cycle stage contributes relatively little, from less than 1% (Land use) to 1% (Eutrophication, terrestrial) to the total environmental impact.

Additional to the environmental burden the credits from waste treatment at end of life decrease the total environmental impact.

The Material credits dominate the credits, decreasing the environmental burden by 7% (Eutrophication, marine) to 51% (Ionising radiation) compared to the total environmental impact.

The Energy credits decrease the environmental burden from less than 1% (Eutrophication, marine) to 2% (Ionising radiation) compared to the total environmental impact.

Reusable plastic system

Figure 16 Reusable system contribution analysis by life cycle stage (total environmental impact).

The figure shows the total environmental impact including credits. When looking at the environmental burden the following can be observed per life cycle stage

The Raw Materials life cycle stage contributes most in most impact categories, impacting from 6% (Land use) to 62% (Resource use, fossils) to the total environmental impact.

The Manufacture life cycle stage contributes second most in the impact categories from 11% (Photochemical ozone formation) to 57% (Ionising radiation) to the total environmental impact. Compared to the single use system the manufacturing of the reusable system has higher impacts due to a more complex manufacturing processes, i.e., first extrusion and then weaving.

The Distribution life cycle stage contributes from 1% (Ionising radiation) to 21% (Land use) to the total environmental impact. The Use Phase life cycle stage contributes from 3% (Water scarcity) to 29% (Ozone depletion) to the total environmental impact. Both life cycle stages have similar impact, both dominated by transports.

The Recycling life cycle stage contributes from 1% (Resource use, fossils) to 4% (Eutrophication, freshwater) to the environmental impact.

The Incineration life cycle stage contributes from less than 1% (Ionising radiation) to 29% (Climate change, total) to the total environmental impact.

Additional to the environmental burden the credits from waste treatment at end of life decrease the total environmental impact.

The Energy credits decrease the total environmental impact by 1% (Land use) to 8% (Resource use, fossils) compared to the total environmental impact. The Material credits decrease the environmental burden by 1% (Resource use, minerals) to 21% (Land use) compared to the environmental burden. Both credits have similar importance to the total environmental impact.

6.3 Sensitivity analysis

The following sections present the performed sensitivity analyses, investigating the influence of critical parameters on the results and the comparative analyses. In this regard, only one parameter (or assumption) is changed per system. This is aimed at keeping transparency and ensure traceability of results. Critical assumptions and their potential effect on the base case comparison are evaluated, and detailed results are presented per sensitivity analysis and compared to the relevant related counterpart. The performed sensitivity analyses are based on both the contribution analysis of the base case comparison and the identified variability regarding critical parameters.

6.3.1 Visualisation of the sensitivity analysis results

Results of the sensitivity analysis is shown in the following charts. The charts have two parts:

if the impacts of the reusable system are lower than of the single use system in a selected impact category, the bars are shown in the upper part of the chart
if the impacts of the single use system are lower than of the reusable system in a selected impact category, the bars are shown in the lower part of the chart.

For each impact category the results of related sensitivity analyses for both product systems are compared. In the comparison the results of the reusable system are related to the single use system relevant for the sensitivity case.

The results are compared by the difference between the two results, i.e., subtracting the results of the Reusable system from the results of the Single use system, and then related as percentage of the Reusable systems result.

The bars in the charts effectively show the percentual difference of the two systems, e.g., single use base case results are compared to reusable base case results, and the single use system and reusable system results with the same A factor (CFF), or recycling rate are compared. The following denomination in the figure’s legend is used to identify which cases are compared:

The base case results of both cases are compared to each other.
The results of the sensitivity analysis of the single use system is compared to the base case of the reusable system.
The results of the sensitivity analysis of the reusable system is compared to the base case of the single use system.
The respective same sensitivity settings of both systems are compared to each other.

With this type of visualisation, robustness can be visualised as follows:

When a parameter is not crucial and does not change the results of the analysis, the bar of the correspondent product is visualised in the same side of the chart than the base case comparison (either upper or lower part). This means that, to some extent and depending on the percentage variation of the results, the results due to the variation of the selected parameter could be considered robust.

When a parameter is crucial and changes the results of the analysis, the bar of the correspondent sensitivity result is visualised in the opposite side of the chart than the base case comparison (either upper or lower part). This means that the results due to the variation of the selected parameter could be considered not robust.

The charts only show the smaller differences between the two systems to ensure readability of the robustness. Thus, the charts might cut off bars if they exceed a certain difference. All nominal results are given in Appendix K (takeaway) and Appendix L (E-commerce) in table form.

6.3.2 Takeaway container’s sensitivity analysis

A summary of the sensitivity analysis performed for the production of the takeaway containers can be found in Table 16, Table 17 and Table 18.

Table 16 Summary of production related sensitivity analyses for the takeaway container case.

Sensitivity group	Domain of parameter change	Base cases	Sensitivity analysis
TA1	Packaging net weight	Single use: 59 grams Reusable: 267 grams	Net weight decrease by 10%
TA2	Packaging net weight	Single use: 59 grams Reusable: 267 grams	Net weight increase by 10%

Table 17 Summary of use phase related sensitivity analyses for the takeaway container case.

Sensitivity group	Domain of parameter change	Base cases	Sensitivity analysis
TA3	Reuse rate	RR=90%	Break-even analysis
TA4	Retail to final client, transport	62%: 5 km, car 5%: 5 km, van 33%: 5 km, no impact, i.e., walking or biking.	100%: 5 km, car
TA5			100%: 5 km, van
TA6			100%: 5 km, no impact
TA7	Pre-wash	33%: Dishwasher 33%: Handwash 33%: No wash	100%: Dishwash
TA8			100%: Handwash
TA9			100%: No wash

Table 18 Summary of sensitivity analyses related to CFF for the takeaway container case.

Sensitivity group	Domain of parameter change	Base cases	Sensitivity analysis
TA10	Recycling allocation in CFF	A = 0.5	A = 0
TA11	Recycling allocation in CFF	A = 0.5	A = 1
TA12	EoL statistics	End-of-life plastic packaging: R2 = 30.93% R3 = 69.07%	R2 = 0; R3 = 1
TA13	EoL statistics	End-of-life plastic packaging: R2 = 30.93% R3 = 69.07%	R2 = 1; R3=0
TA14	Energy recovery allocation in CFF	B=0	B = 1

6.3.3 Takeaway breakeven reuse rate

Impacts associated to the reusable system depend on the number of uses. The break-even points and number of uses at which point the environmental burdens of the reusable system are lower than the single use system were calculated in parallel. The number of uses was rounded up to the next integer.

Break-even points are calculated by determining the reuse rate at which point the environmental burdens of the two system are equal. The results for each impact category are presented in Table 19.

The following situations are possible:

For a number of uses lower than break-event points given in the table, the single use system presents lower impacts than the reusable system.
For a number of uses higher than break-event points given in the table, the single use system presents higher impacts than the reusable system.

Impact category	Break even point
Impact category	Reuse rate	Number of uses
EF-Acidification [mol H+ eq]	82%	6
EF-Climate change, total [kg CO2-eq]	81%	6
EF-Eutrophication, freshwater [kg N eq]	80%	5
EF-Eutrophication, marine [kg P eq]	81%	6
EF-Eutrophication, terrestrial [mol N eq]	82%	6
EF-Ionising radiation, human health [kBq U235 eq]	86%	8
EF-Land use [pt]	93%	14
EF-Ozone depletion [kg CFC11 eq]	89%	10
EF-Particulate matter [disease incidence]	83%	6
EF-Photochemical ozone formation - human health [kg NMVOC eq]	82%	6
EF-Resource use, fossils [MJ]	80%	6
EF-Resource use, minerals and metals [kg Sb eq]	80%	6
EF-Water scarcity [m3 world-eq deprived]	91%	11

Table 19 Break-even point for number of uses required for the system to have lower environmental impacts than a single-use takeaway container for all impact categories.

6.3.4 Results of the Takeaway containers sensitivity analysis

Figure 17 Production related sensitivity analyses for the Takeaway comparison, refer to section 6.3.1 on how to read this figure.

Figure 18 Use phase (transport) related sensitivity analyses for the Takeaway comparison, refer to section 6.3.1 on how to read this figure.

Figure 19 Use phase (pre-washing method for the reusable contaner) related sensitivity analyses for the Takea-way comparison, refer to section 6.3.1 on how to read this figure.

Figure 20 CFF implementation related sensitivity analyses for the Takeaway comparison, refer to section 6.3.1 on how to read this figure.

6.3.5 E-commerce sensitivity analysis

Table 20 gives an overview of all production and product related sensitivity analyses performed for e-commerce.

Table 20 Summary of production related sensitivity analyses for the e-commerce case.

Sensitivity group	Domain of parameter change	Base cases	Sensitivity analysis
EC1	Packaging net weight	SUPL (LDPE): 12g SUPA (Paper): 65g Reusable: 118g	Net weight increase by +10%
EC2	Packaging net weight	SUPL (LDPE): 12g SUPA (Paper): 65g Reusable: 118g	Net weight decrease by -10%
EC3.1	Packaging raw material	SUPL and Reusable: 100% virgin granulate (R1=0)	100% recycled material (R1=1)
EC3.2	Packaging raw material	Paper sack with plastic liners	100% kraft paper

Table 21 gives an overview of all use phase related sensitivity analyses performed for e-commerce.

Table 21 Summary of use phase related sensitivity analyses for the e-commerce case.

Sensitivity group	Domain of parameter change	Base cases	Sensitivity analysis
EC4 & EC5	Reuse rate	Reusable: 25% (4 uses)	Break-even analysis
EC10	Retail to final client, transport	62%: 5 km, car 5%: 5 km, van 33%: 5 km, no impact i.e., walking or biking.	100%: 5 km, car
EC11			100%: 5 km, van
EC12			100%: 5 km, no impact

Table 22 gives an overview of all CFF related sensitivity analyses performed for e-commerce.

Table 22 Summary of sensitivity analyses with regard to CFF implementation for the e-commerce case.

Sensitivity group	Domain of parameter change	Default parameters for CFF application in the base cases	Sensitivity analysis
EC6	Allocation in CFF	Plastics: A = 0.5 Paper: A = 0.2	A = 1
EC7	Allocation in CFF	Plastics: A = 0.5 Paper: A = 0.2	A = 0
EC8	EoL statistics	End-of-life plastic packaging: R2 = 30.93% R3 = 69.07% End-of-life paper packaging: R2 = 80.77% R3 = 19.23%	R2 = 0 R3 = 1
EC9	EoL statistics		R2 = 1 R3 = 0
EC13	Allocation in CFF	B = 0	B = 1

6.3.6 E-commerce break-even point

Impacts associated to the reusable system depend on the number of uses. The break-even points and number of uses at which point the environmental burdens of the usable system are lower than the single use system were calculated in parallel. The number of uses was rounded up to the next integer.

Table 23 gives break-even points for the reusable system per each impact category for both single use systems. The following situations are possible:

For a number of uses lower than break-event points given in the table, the single use system presents lower impacts than the reusable system
For a number of uses higher than break-event points given in the table, the single use system presents higher impacts than the reusable system

Table 23 Break-even point (number of uses) for e-commerce (base case assumption is 4 uses). Single use paper and single use plastic respectively compared to the reusable packaging.

Impact category	Break-even point
	Single use paper		Single use plastic
	number of uses	reuse rate	number of uses	reuse rate
EF-Acidification [mol H+ eq]	4	69%	14	93%
EF-Climate change, total [kg CO2-eq]	6	82%	11	90%
EF-Eutrophication, freshwater [kg N eq]	the reusable system always shows benefits		16	93%
EF-Eutrophication, marine [kg P eq]	the reusable system always shows benefits		15	93%
EF-Eutrophication, terrestrial [mol N eq]	2	46%	16	94%
EF-Ionising radiation, human health [kBq U235 eq]	the single use system always shows benefits		14	93%
EF-Land use [pt]	the reusable system always shows benefits		140	99%
EF-Ozone depletion [kg CFC11 eq]	2	2%	the single use system always shows benefits
EF-Particulate matter [disease incidence]	3	61%	17	94%
EF-Photochemical ozone formation - human health [kg NMVOC eq]	3	60%	18	94%
EF-Resource use, fossils [MJ]	11	90%	13	92%
EF-Resource use, minerals and metals [kg Sb eq]	7	85%	28	96%
EF-Water scarcity [m3 world-eq deprived]	5	78%	8	87%

6.3.7 Results of the E-commerce sensitivity analysis (Single use plastic and reusable system)

Figure 21 Production related sensitivity analyses for the e-commerce comparison (Single use plastic), (refer to section 6.3.1 on how to read this figure).

Figure 22 Use phase related sensitivity analyses for the e-commerce comparison (Single use plastic), refer to sec-tion 6.3.1 on how to read this figure.

Figure 23 CFF implementation related sensitivity analyses for the e-commerce comparison (Single use plastic), refer to section 6.3.1 on how to read this figure.

6.3.8 Results of the E-commerce sensitivity analysis (Single use paper and reusable system)

Figure 24 Production related sensitivity analyses for the e-commerce comparison (Single use paper), refer to sec-tion 6.3.1 on how to read this figure.

Figure 25 Use phase related sensitivity analyses for the e-commerce case (Single use paper), refer to section 6.3.1 on how to read this figure.

Figure 26 CFF implementation related sensitivity analyses for the e-commerce case (Single use paper), refer to section 6.3.1 on how to read this figure.