Annex 2: assumptions for environmental assessment

Kleen Hub

The primary purpose of the Kleen Hub pilot was to assess the environmental impacts and potential savings of using reusable cups through PSS. To achieve this, a quantitative assessment of their system and environmental impacts, compared to a single-use scenario, and a qualitative analysis of customer interaction with the system were conducted. A functional unit was created to encompass the function that needed to be provided based on the consumption of reusable cups in a selected case café, which was then aggregated to reflect the annual cup usage.

The functional unit (FU) was 13,036 servings of hot beverages in to-go cups, corresponding to 36 servings a day for one year (365 days).

Based on data and assumptions from Kleen Hub, the cup has a technical lifespan of 200–300 uses and a return rate of 98%, corresponding to a loss rate of 2%. As these parameters are estimated to be relatively high for such a system, the assumptions have been tested through sensitivity analysis to investigate their overall impact on the results.

The reference flow to estimate the number of cups, service and operation needed to fulfil the functional unit, is estimated based on the formula for estimating reference flow in PSS (RF=(FU/NU) + (FU/NU) * LR * (NU-1)), the Kleen Hub reference flow was:

RF = (13,036/250) + (13,036/250) * (0.02) * (250-1) = 312 Kleen Hub cups.

The included processes are:

312 cups and lids produced (49g)
Washing per number of needed servings per year minus cups lost in the system = 13,036 servings – 261 lost cups = 12,775 washing
Operation per year
Waste management according to the cups returned and used 250 times, and cups disposed at the customer.
a. Recycling: 51 cups
b. Incinerated: 261 cups
All transportation is measured in kgkm

As the single-use cup cannot be reused, the total number of cups needed was the total number of servings to fulfil the FU: 13,036 single-use cups. The included process are:

One cup and lid (24 g) multiplied by the number of cups needed in reference flow 2
Transportation in kgkm
Incineration for all cups in the reference flow

The system boundary for the Kleen Hub reference flow included all lifecycle phases, including operation, capital goods and washing, excluding important parameters regarding user behaviour. Parameters such as user transportation, whether users washed the cups before returning them, or any potential rebound effects were not included. However, these parameters were explored in a user survey, where users were questioned about their behaviour based on questionnaires and on-site interviews. Some critical assumptions and system boundaries were considered, and some of these were included in the results:

Transportation: The cups are washed in the cafés as part of the existing facilities, meaning they are not transported to an external washing service. Furthermore, a key finding from the survey was that many users were first-time users, and the Kleen Hub service had not existed long enough to make general assumptions about user behaviour. Some users, however, expected to return the cups as part of their existing biking routes or by walking as they lived nearby. Therefore, added transportation during the use phase was not included, even though this is often considered a major negative impact of PSS. However, the system does not include additional transportation to and from cleaning and maintenance, as the cups are washed at the café. This is often seen as a major induced impact for PSS, but as Kleen Hub chose to use decentralised washing, their system does not include additional emissions from transportation.
Rebound effects (economy): Rebound effects from the implementation of the PSS were not included. However, two important parameters, economy and substitution rate, could influence the possibility of rebound effects. As part of a campaign to raise awareness about the reusable cup system, the café offered a 10% discount on beverages when choosing a reusable cup. The potential rebound effects of this discount were not further investigated, even though the user survey showed that the discount was a great driver for choosing the reusable cup.
Rebound effect (substitution): It was assumed that a reusable to-go cup would have a 1:1 replacement of another to-go cup, which, in this case, was considered a single-use cup. However, a possible consequence of the system is that the PPS might replace other reusable cups. This could either increase or reduce emissions: 1) if customers already own a cup but choose to use the Kleen Hub system, this will increase emissions, as the Kleen Hub cup would be an additional production of cups, or 2) reduce the need for producing other reusable cups, if the costumers would have bought a reusable cup, but now use the Kleen Hub system as an alternative to owning their own. In the user survey, 30% said they would prefer to use their own cup (to avoid returning the cup). However, they did not specify whether this would replace another reusable cup.
Return rate: The return rate was estimated based on Kleen Hub's previous system and aggregated data from four weeks of system piloting at a case café. However, asking the users to return the cup was a major barrier to using the system as they either were aware they wouldn't return it in time or already had multiple cups "stacking up" at home. A 98% return rate is considered high and might be unrealistic. Even though the rate is based on historical data, the importance of the return rate was still investigated during the pilot.
Technical lifespan/number of uses: The technical lifespan/number of uses in this assessment is based on how many times the cups can technically be used before they are worn out and need to be replaced. However, it must be assumed that with such frequent use, some cups may be lost from the system, not only because they can no longer be used technically but also for other reasons. As the technical lifespan of the products are high, this assumption is also tested to investigate the importance of this parameter.
Operation and capital goods: Operation of the system and the additional capital goods/equipment needed to operate the system is included in the assessment. This includes a tablet needed to use the system at the café and energy useage from the tablet and Kleen Hub server. As the investigation is done for one year, these emissions are added as a constant factor for one year, regardless of the number of cups.
Single use scenario: The data for the single-use scenario is based on generic data, which may contribute to uncertain results. The lid was a significant contributor to the total emissions of the reference scenario, a sensitivity analysis of the lid's weight was conducted. This is done because the weight can vary and/or because customers sometimes choose not to have a lid on their cup. These results are not included in this report.

RE-ZIP

The primary purpose of the RE-ZIP pilot was to develop a calculation tool based on LCA, making it possible for RE-ZIP to calculate its actual environmental footprint for the metrics of kg CO₂e, m³ water, and kg waste. The pilot wished to investigate the total amount of reusable e-commerce packaging produced and used at RE-ZIP and assess whether this is less impactful than single-use packaging. The tool was based on ‘live data’ from RE-ZIP, making investigating the amount of new and reclaimed packaging possible. The data provided by RE-ZIP distinguished whether the products were new or reused. However, the data could not indicate the number of reuses, only if the products had been scanned before.

The functional unit was 1 m² of packaging to contain and protect dry goods during transportation and storage for one delivery.

As RE-ZIP rents out two different types of e-commerce packaging with different sizes, two functional units have been used in the assessment:

1 m² of hard case packaging to contain and protect dry goods during transportation and storage for one delivery
1 m² of soft case packaging to contain and protect dry goods during transportation and storage for one delivery

Different scenarios for assessing the functional unit were conducted to assess the impact of RE-ZIP packaging compared to single-use packaging. An average density (g/m²) was applied for the single-use scenarios (cardboard, paper and plastic), and the g/m² for all RE-ZIP packaging was calculated. This was done to compare the different reference flows by multiplying the average g/m² with the total m² used for each packaging. For example, one RE-ZIP hard case's cardboard packaging has a surface area of 0.3 m² and weighs 181 g (603.3 g/m². Based on web scraping, to estimate the g/m² for the single-use reference flow, an average card box weighs 894 g/m². Therefore, a box with the same surface area as the RE-ZIP box weighs 256.8 g.

No customer or user surveys were made, making the use phase primarily based on assumptions.

Transportation: As RE-ZIP packaging is used in multiple countries, the tool allows you to change the transport distance during the use phase, corrugating the distances based on actual transport data. Default distances are applied if no data is available. Transport during the packaging's use (at the end-user) is not included, even though this could be a possible rebound effect.
Return rate and allocation of emissions: Input data is based on ‘live’ RE-ZIP data from the packaging scanning. The RE-ZIP scanner identifies whether the packaging is new or reclaimed. But not how many times the packaging are reclaim. It was therefore not possible to estimate the return rate, and an allocation of production and end-of-life emissions was therefore made. As the registration of packaging only told if the packaging was reclaimed, emissions from production and end-oflife was therefore all allocated to new packaging. The allocation was therefore made based on the assumption that emissions from production and EOL was allocated to new products (products that have not been reused yet). Reused products, therefore, have no emissions regarding production and EOL but only the use phase (sorting, transportation, etc.).
Functional unit and reference flow: To ensure a functional unit that could be aggregated to a large amount of packaging and still be comparable, this was based on the amount of packaging in m². Therefore, the reference flow for the single-use alternative became an average of multiple packaging to make it possible to aggregate and compare with various RE-ZIP packaging. Thus, this also impacted the accuracy of the specific packaging. An alternative method would be to define FU and reference flows for each RE-ZIP packaging, ensuring 1:1 comparability.

NetHire

The purpose of the first phase of the NetHire pilot was to assess the environmental impact of NetHire's rental of tools and machinery. To investigate potential environmental benefits and any hotspots associated with NetHire's tool rental services, the rental of rolling scaffolds was chosen as an example. This was done to examine the hypotheses regarding the environmental advantages of craft companies renting tools rather than owning them. The two fundamental hypotheses were that NetHire, through their sharing model and decentralised storage, 1) increases the utility and 2) reduces transportation distances for rolling scaffolds used on construction sites. The study aimed to identify the conditions and thresholds at which NetHire's business model becomes more environmentally sustainable than individual ownership.

This pilot examined the total float of rolling scaffoldings and total days of renting per year at NetHire, and the functional unit was therefore determined based on this, making it: Use of rolling scaffolds 8406 times per year, in 15 years in Denmark. The Nethire reference flow was the production and distribution of 50.2 rolling scaffolds for rental, utilised 66% of the time, each with an expected lifespan of 15 years. This was compared with individual ownership with the assumption that these scaffolding were used 20% of the time: Production and distribution of 100.4 rolling scaffolds for private use, utilised 20% of the time, each with an expected lifespan of 15 years. Both estimations a based on previous studies of NetHires costumers

Internal investigation. Can be explained upon request.

and an investigation of the lifespan of rollings scaffoldings.

This functional unit makes it difficult to include other alternatives and possible rebound effects, but the aim was to investigate the importance of the product utility of tools in B2B. Three important assumptions were made:

Transportation: It was assumed that rental reduces transport distances as these can use decentralised storage. The distances were 80 km for NetHire, and 113.1 for individual ownership. The importance of this assumption was tested.
Utility: Rental models are assumed to have a higher utility than individual ownership, as multiple users can use the products. The utility rate for individual ownership is assumed to be 20%, and for Nethire, 66%. The importance of this assumption was tested for Nethire but not for individual ownership, even though this is seen as a critical assumption.
Substitution: It was assumed that renting a rolling scaffolding would substitute 1:1 owning a rolling scaffolding. Therefore, other products that the scaffolding could substitute, such as ladders or lifts or the substitution of other rental systems, are not included. The importance of this assumption was not tested, as the system is based on the use of a rolling scaffold in a professional context (B2B), and it is assumed that the customers would use a rolling scaffolding in both scenarios.

Looping

The Looping pilot aimed to develop a GHG calculation tool. The tool calculates the emissions from the whole lifecycle of Looping’s system, including production, transportation, and maintenance. This allows Looping to estimate its system's impact and compare this with single-use packaging.

The functional unit of the calculation to be used in the calculation tool is one m² covered module for transportation or storage in Norway and Sweden for one year. This was aggregated for two years of use of packaging, corresponding to covering 16000 modules (846,800m²) for storage or transportation for two years in Sweden and Norway. The Looping reference flow was calculated based on the formula ((RF=(FU/NU) + (FU/NU)*LR*(NU-1)):

The Looping scenario involved 4240 reusable covers used twice yearly, including maintenance, repair, discharging, and lost covers. This was calculated based on a 2% loss rate per year and two uses of the covers per year. Using the formula for calculating the reference flow:

16,000*((0.02)+0.98*(1/20)) = 240 covers lost a year = total of 4240 covers

The compared reference single-use reference scenario:

16,000 times, covering the modules in single-use packaging.

The development of the calculation tool is primarily based on EPDs from Looping and single-use materials. The calculations to assess the maintenance and repair of the covers are based on additional data collected onsite at Looping. The most critical assumptions are:

Production and end-of-life data: Emission factors for the production and waste management of Looping and single-use covers are based on data from selected EPDs. Looping has an EPD for its material. The EPDs for single-use materials have been selected based on Looping's knowledge of which materials and quantities are used in the industry.
Average data for m²: The average m² per cover is calculated by calculating the average m² of all Looping covers. This is used to estimate the default values, the average maintenance emissions, and the number of covers lost in the system.
Maintenance data: A weighted average emission factor has been determined to calculate the emissions associated with maintenance. This is based on historical data regarding the amount of cleaning and repairs performed. The calculation is based on the percentage share of each activity performed when a cover is returned. The maintenance data includes washing and different types of repair (small and large).
Transportation: Transport is an adjustable factor, and Looping can choose between three different transport types. Transport is calculated in kgkm to calculate the proportion of total transport attributed to each product. This approach is used because Looping typically uses groupage transport (medium and large trucks) or assumes that more than one product is being transported (electric van). In this report, the distance is 200 km. Transportation from production to distribution is a part of the EPDs.
Single-use scenario: The EPDs utilised in the single-use scenario are based on assumptions of the materials used in a realistic module covering. An average of several EPDs was calculated to represent a plausible scenario to address this limitation. The average values for the single-use scenario are calculated based on Looping's customer's previous solution. Here, the average amount of each material per m²is determined by dividing the total material used for each cover type by the total m²of the covering.

CoHabit

CoHabit's environmental assessment aimed to investigate the number of cycles needed for their furniture and the impact of longer transport distances. The assessment is based on quantitative primary and secondary data to evaluate the CoHabit system and three pieces of furniture. Qualitative data through an on-site user survey was also collected to investigate different reference flows and user behaviour. This resulted in three different reference scenarios to show the different behaviour scenarios.

The functional unit was a bundle of clean, fully functional, neutral-looking furniture consisting of a place to sleep, sit and eat for 100 people during six months in Malmø and Lund. The reference flows needed to fulfil 100 people’s need for the functional unit were calculated for three scenarios based on findings from on-site interviews with Swedish exchange students:

Worst case scenario: To buy new furniture and throw these out after use. Reference flow: production and disposal of 100 bundles
Baseline scenario: Based on on-site interviews, a baseline scenario representing the ‘real’ use of furniture was created and divided into the number of students who buy reused furniture and reuse them afterwards (83%), buy new furniture but reuse them afterwards (7%), or buy new furniture and throw it out (10%).
CoHabit scenario: CoHabit buy reused furniture and reuses it at least seven times.