AN EXPLORATION OF CHANGES IN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY OF
PACKAGING, 1971 TO 2011
By
JONGHUN PARK

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Packaging
2011

ABSTRACT
AN EXPLORATION OF CHANGE IN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY OF
PACKAGING, 1971 TO 2011
By
JONGHUN PARK
This study investigated trends in environmental sustainability of US consumer packaging
from 1971 to 2011, comparing twenty-three “current” packages to twenty-three “old” packages.
A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, using COMPASS® software was
employed. The scope of the LCA in this study includes the manufacturing, the conversion, and
the end-of-life phases of the primary packaging. Five life cycle impact indicators were selected
in this study: fossil fuel consumption, water consumption, biotic resource consumption, mineral
resource consumption, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The results show that packages produced by companies in the U.S have become more
environmentally sustainable over time. If the old and new packages are made from the newer,
same materials, the lighter, package had less environmental impacts. When a glass jar was
changed to a steel can, PET, and paperboard carton, the alternatives have less environmental
impacts than the glass jar. However, when an EPS clamshell and a steel can were changed to a
paperboard clamshell and a rigid plastic container each, the old package had less environmental
impact than the current alternatives.
The main contributor to the impact indicators for most packages was the manufacturing
phase, because of the extraction of raw material and production of resins. The exceptions to this
were the GHG emissions for paperboard cartons and the water, biotic, and mineral consumption
for rigid plastic containers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to thank my committee members at Michigan State University (MSU). I would
like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Diana Twede, my major professor, for her wise
guidance, for her endless patience, and for being the best mentor I will never forget her support. I
want to express my gratitude to Dr. Susan Selke for her intellectual comments and great
suggestions. I would also like to thank Mr. Val Berryman, Curator of History for the MSU
Museum, for his considerable help and support.
I also want to thank to Ms. Susan Wineberg from Ann Arbor. This research would not be
possible had she not donated her packages to the MSU Museum.
I am thankful to Dr. Myunghoon Lee, Chairman of the Korea Society of Packaging
Science & Technology, for his years of support and encouragement.
Thanks to all graduate students in the School of Packaging, all friends in Korea and my
new friends in the United States. Their support encouraged and motivated me to focus on this
research.
Finally, words are just not enough, but I would like to thank my parents, Jungshin Park
and Yukyung Kang, and my sister Sungeun, for their lifelong support and love. I am also grateful
to my parents-in-law, Jaeyoung Hyun and Kyungmoon Kim, and my brother-in-law Kyungjoon,
for their support. I would like to especially give special thanks to my wife, Jiyoung, whose
patient love enabled me to complete this research.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ VI	
  
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... IX	
  
LIST OF SYMBOLS OR ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................XVIII	
  
CHAPTER 1:	
  INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................. 1	
  
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................. 4	
  
2.1 Packaging sustainability............................................................................................................ 4	
  
2.1.1 Definition of sustainability ................................................................................................ 7	
  
2.1.2 Principles and functions of sustainable packaging ............................................................ 8	
  
2.1.3 Increasing business markets for sustainable packaging ................................................... 11	
  
2.1.4 Measurement and design tools for packaging sustainability ........................................... 12	
  
2.2 Life cycle assessment .............................................................................................................. 14	
  
2.2.1 History of life cycle assessment (LCA) ........................................................................... 14	
  
2.2.2 Framework of LCA .......................................................................................................... 16	
  
2.2.2.1 Goal definition and scope ......................................................................................... 17	
  
2.2.2.2 Life cycle inventory analysis .................................................................................... 18	
  
2.2.2.3 Life cycle impact analysis ......................................................................................... 20	
  
2.2.2.4 Interpretation of LCA ............................................................................................... 21	
  
2.2.3 LCA application in packaging ......................................................................................... 24	
  
2.2.4 LCA software tool COMPASS® ..................................................................................... 26	
  
CHAPTER 3:	
  MATERIALS AND METHODS .......................................................................... 27	
  
3.1 Dating the packages ................................................................................................................ 27	
  
3.2 Goal and scope ........................................................................................................................ 28	
  
3.3 Description of evaluated samples ........................................................................................... 30	
  
3.3.1 Category 1: Paperboard cartons ....................................................................................... 30	
  
3.3.2 Category 2: Glass bottles and jars .................................................................................... 36	
  
3.3.3 Category 3: Metal cans .................................................................................................... 47	
  
3.3.4 Category 4: Rigid plastic ................................................................................................. 51	
  
3.3.5 Category 5: McDonald’s .................................................................................................. 62	
  
3.4 Inventory assessment .............................................................................................................. 67	
  
3.5 Life cycle impact assessment .................................................................................................. 71	
  
3.6 Interpretation ........................................................................................................................... 74	
  
CHAPTER 4:	
  RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ......................................................................... 76	
  
4.1 Category 1: Paperboard cartons .............................................................................................. 77	
  
4.1.1 Contribution for Sample Group 1 .................................................................................... 81	
  
4.1.2 Contribution for Sample Group 2 .................................................................................... 83	
  
4.1.3 Contribution for Sample Group 3 .................................................................................... 83	
  
4.1.4 Contribution for Sample Group 4 .................................................................................... 85	
  
4.2 Category 2: Glass bottles and jars ........................................................................................... 85	
  
iv

4.2.1 Contribution for Sample Group 5 .................................................................................... 90	
  
4.2.2 Contribution for Sample Group 6 .................................................................................... 91	
  
4.2.3 Contribution for Sample Group 7 .................................................................................... 92	
  
4.2.4 Contribution for Sample Group 8 .................................................................................... 93	
  
4.2.5 Contribution for Sample Group 9 .................................................................................... 94	
  
4.2.6 Contribution for Sample Group 10 .................................................................................. 95	
  
4.3 Category 3: Metal cans ........................................................................................................... 95	
  
4.3.1 Contribution for Sample Group 11 ................................................................................ 100	
  
4.3.2 Contribution for Sample Group 12 ................................................................................ 101	
  
4.3.3 Contribution for Sample Group 13 ................................................................................ 102	
  
4.4 Category 4: Rigid plastic ...................................................................................................... 102	
  
4.4.1 Contribution for Sample Group 14 ................................................................................ 107	
  
4.4.2 Contribution for Sample Group 15 ................................................................................ 108	
  
4.4.3 Contribution for Sample Group 16 ................................................................................ 109	
  
4.4.4 Contribution for Sample Group 17 ................................................................................ 110	
  
4.4.5 Contribution for Sample Group 18 ................................................................................ 111	
  
4.4.6 Contribution for Sample Group 19 ................................................................................ 112	
  
4.4.7 Contribution for Sample Group 20 ................................................................................ 113	
  
4.5 Category 5: McDonald’s ....................................................................................................... 113	
  
4.5.1 Contribution for Sample Group 21 ................................................................................ 118	
  
4.5.2 Contribution for Sample Group 22 ................................................................................ 119	
  
4.5.3 Contribution for Sample Group 23 ................................................................................ 120	
  
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 121	
  
5.1 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 125	
  
5.2 Recommendations for future study ....................................................................................... 127	
  
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 129	
  
APPENDIX A: Figures of the LCA results for each Sample Group .......................................... 130	
  
APPENDIX B: End-of-life percentages in COMPASS.............................................................. 188	
  
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 192	
  

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Principles of sustainable packaging by SPA.................................................................... 10	
  
Table 2 Sample of tools for sustainable packaging ...................................................................... 13	
  
Table 3 Sample of System Boundaries ......................................................................................... 18	
  
Table 4 Sample inputs and outputs of LCI ................................................................................... 20	
  
Table 5 Overview of five numerical approaches towards life cycle interpretation ...................... 23
Table 6 Description of Sample Group 1. ...................................................................................... 32	
  
Table 7 Description of Sample Group 2. ...................................................................................... 33	
  
Table 8 Description of Sample Group 3. ...................................................................................... 35	
  
Table 9 Description of Sample Group 4. ...................................................................................... 36	
  
Table 10 Description of Sample Group 5. .................................................................................... 38	
  
Table 11 Description of Sample Group 6. .................................................................................... 40	
  
Table 12 Description of Sample Group 7. .................................................................................... 42	
  
Table 13 Description of Sample Group 8. .................................................................................... 43	
  
Table 14 Description of Sample Group 9. .................................................................................... 45	
  
Table 15 Description of Sample Group 10. .................................................................................. 47	
  
Table 16 Description of Sample Group 11. .................................................................................. 48	
  
Table 17 Description of Sample Group 12. .................................................................................. 50	
  
Table 18 Description of Sample Group 13. .................................................................................. 51	
  
Table 19 Description of Sample Group 14. .................................................................................. 53	
  
Table 20 Description of Sample Group 15. .................................................................................. 54	
  
Table 21 Description of Sample Group 16. .................................................................................. 56	
  

vi

Table 22 Description of Sample Group 17. .................................................................................. 57	
  
Table 23 Description of Sample Group 18. .................................................................................. 59	
  
Table 24 Description of Sample Group 19. .................................................................................. 60	
  
Table 25 Description of Sample Group 20. .................................................................................. 62	
  
Table 26 Description of Sample Group 21. .................................................................................. 64	
  
Table 27 Description of Sample Group 22. .................................................................................. 65	
  
Table 28 Description of Sample Group 23. .................................................................................. 67	
  
Table 29 Weights and types of packaging components input to COMPASS based on the
functional units...................................................................................................................... 68
Table 30 Five life cycle impact metrics used in this study. .......................................................... 71	
  
Table 31 COMPASS algorithm of fossil fuel consumption metric. ............................................. 72	
  
Table 32 COMPASS algorithm of water consumption metric. .................................................... 73	
  
Table 33 COMPASS algorithm of biotic resources consumption metric ..................................... 73	
  
Table 34 COMPASS algorithm of mineral resources consumption metric .................................. 74
Table 35 COMPASS algorithm of greenhouse gas emission metric ............................................ 74	
  
Table 36 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 1. ................................ 82	
  
Table 37 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 2. ................................ 83	
  
Table 38 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 3. ................................ 84	
  
Table 39 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 4. ................................ 85	
  
Table 40 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 5. ................................ 90	
  
Table 41 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 6. ................................ 91	
  
Table 42 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 7. ................................ 92	
  
Table 43 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 8. ................................ 93	
  
Table 44 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 9. ................................ 94	
  

vii

Table 45 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 10. .............................. 95	
  
Table 46 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 11. ............................ 100	
  
Table 47 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 12. ............................ 101	
  
Table 48 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 13. ............................ 102	
  
Table 49 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 14. ............................ 107	
  
Table 50 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 15. ............................ 108	
  
Table 51 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 16. ............................ 109	
  
Table 52 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 17. ............................ 110	
  
Table 53 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 18. ............................ 111	
  
Table 54 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 19. ............................ 112	
  
Table 55 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 20. ............................ 113	
  
Table 56 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 21. ............................ 118	
  
Table 57 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 22. ............................ 119	
  
Table 58 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 23. ............................ 120	
  
Table A 1 End-of-life conditions for packages in COMPASS ................................................... 188	
  

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Products Generated in MSW, 1970 .................................................................................. 4	
  
Figure 2 Products Generated in MSW, 1980 .................................................................................. 5	
  
Figure 3 Products Generated in MSW, 1994 .................................................................................. 5	
  
Figure 4 Products Generated in MSW, 2000 .................................................................................. 6	
  
Figure 5 Products Generated in MSW, 2009 .................................................................................. 6	
  
Figure 6 Three Functional Elements of Sustainability ................................................................... 9	
  
Figure 7 Phases of LCA (ISO 1997) ............................................................................................. 17	
  
Figure 8 Sample flow chart and required data in the LCI phase .................................................. 19	
  
Figure 9 Old package sample in Sample Group 1 ........................................................................ 31
Figure 10 Current package sample in Sample Group 1 ................................................................ 31	
  
Figure 11 Old package sample in Sample Group 2 ...................................................................... 32	
  
Figure 12 Current package sample in Sample Group 2 ................................................................ 33	
  
Figure 13 Old package sample in Sample Group 3 ...................................................................... 34	
  
Figure 14 Current package sample in Sample Group 3 ................................................................ 34	
  
Figure 15 Old package sample in Sample Group 4 ...................................................................... 35	
  
Figure 16 Current package sample in Sample Group 4 ................................................................ 36	
  
Figure 17 Old package sample in Sample Group 5 ...................................................................... 37	
  
Figure 18 Current package sample in Sample Group 5 ................................................................ 37	
  
Figure 19 Old package sample in Sample Group 6 ...................................................................... 39	
  
Figure 20 Current package sample in Sample Group 6 ................................................................ 39	
  
Figure 21 Old package sample in Sample Group 7 ...................................................................... 41	
  

ix

Figure 22 Current package sample in Sample Group 7 ................................................................ 41	
  
Figure 23 Old package sample in Sample Group 8 ...................................................................... 42	
  
Figure 24 Current package sample in Sample Group 8 ................................................................ 43	
  
Figure 25 Old package sample in Sample Group 9 ...................................................................... 44	
  
Figure 26 Current package sample in Sample Group 9 ................................................................ 44	
  
Figure 27 Old package sample in Sample Group 10 .................................................................... 46	
  
Figure 28 Current package sample in Sample Group 10 .............................................................. 46	
  
Figure 29 Old package sample in Sample Group 11 .................................................................... 47	
  
Figure 30 Current package sample in Sample Group 11 .............................................................. 48	
  
Figure 31 Old package sample in Sample Group 12 .................................................................... 49	
  
Figure 32 Current package sample in Sample Group 12 .............................................................. 49	
  
Figure 33 Old package sample in Sample Group 13 .................................................................... 50	
  
Figure 34 Current package sample in Sample Group 13 .............................................................. 51	
  
Figure 35 Old package sample in Sample Group 14 .................................................................... 52	
  
Figure 36 Current package sample in Sample Group 14 .............................................................. 52	
  
Figure 37 Old package sample in Sample Group 15 .................................................................... 53	
  
Figure 38 Current package sample in Sample Group 15 .............................................................. 54	
  
Figure 39 Old package sample in Sample Group 16 .................................................................... 55	
  
Figure 40 Current package sample in Sample Group 16 .............................................................. 55	
  
Figure 41 Old package sample in Sample Group 17 .................................................................... 56	
  
Figure 42 Current package sample in Sample Group 17 .............................................................. 57	
  
Figure 43 Old package sample in Sample Group 18 .................................................................... 58	
  
Figure 44 Current package sample in Sample Group 18 .............................................................. 58	
  

x

Figure 45 Old package sample in Sample Group 19 .................................................................... 59	
  
Figure 46 Current package sample in Sample Group 19 .............................................................. 60	
  
Figure 47 Old package sample in Sample Group 20 .................................................................... 61	
  
Figure 48 Current package sample in Sample Group 20 .............................................................. 61	
  
Figure 49 Old package sample in Sample Group 21 .................................................................... 63	
  
Figure 50 Current package sample in Sample Group 21 .............................................................. 63	
  
Figure 51 Old package sample in Sample Group 22 .................................................................... 64	
  
Figure 52 Current package sample in Sample Group 22 .............................................................. 65	
  
Figure 53 Old package sample in Sample Group 23 .................................................................... 66	
  
Figure 54 Current package sample in Sample Group 23 .............................................................. 66	
  
Figure 55 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Groups in Category 1 ........................................... 78	
  
Figure 56 Water consumption of Sample Groups in Category 1 .................................................. 78	
  
Figure 57 Biotic resources consumption of Sample Groups in Category 1 .................................. 79	
  
Figure 58 Mineral resources consumption of Sample Groups in Category 1 ............................... 79	
  
Figure 59 Greenhouse gas emissions of Sample Groups in Category 1 ....................................... 80	
  
Figure 60 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Groups in Category 2 ........................................... 87	
  
Figure 61 Water consumption of Sample Groups in Category 2 .................................................. 87	
  
Figure 62 Biotic resources consumption of Sample Groups in Category 2 .................................. 88	
  
Figure 63 Mineral resources consumption of Sample Groups in Category 2 ............................... 88	
  
Figure 64 Greenhouse gas emissions of Sample Groups in Category 2 ....................................... 89	
  
Figure 65 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Groups in Category 3 ........................................... 96	
  
Figure 66 Water consumption of Sample Groups in Category 3 .................................................. 97	
  
Figure 67 Biotic resources consumption of Sample Groups in Category 3 .................................. 97	
  

xi

Figure 68 Mineral resources consumption of Sample Groups in Category 3 ............................... 98	
  
Figure 69 Greenhouse gas emissions of Sample Groups in Category 3 ....................................... 98	
  
Figure 70 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Groups in Category 4 ......................................... 103	
  
Figure 71 Water consumption of Sample Groups in Category 4 ................................................ 104	
  
Figure 72 Biotic resources consumption of Sample Groups in Category 4 ................................ 104	
  
Figure 73 Mineral resources consumption of Sample Groups in Category 4 ............................. 105	
  
Figure 74 Greenhouse gas emissions of Sample Groups in Category 4 ..................................... 105	
  
Figure 75 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Groups in Category 5 ......................................... 115	
  
Figure 76 Water consumption of Sample Groups in Category 5 ................................................ 115	
  
Figure 77 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Groups in Category 5 ................................. 116	
  
Figure 78 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Groups in Category 5 .............................. 116	
  
Figure 79 Greenhouse gas emissions of Sample Groups in Category 5 ..................................... 117	
  
Figure A 1 Global warming potential of Sample Group 1.......................................................... 130	
  
Figure A 2 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 1 ............................................................ 131	
  
Figure A 3 Water consumption of Sample Group 1 ................................................................... 131	
  
Figure A 4 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 1 ..................................................... 132	
  
Figure A 5 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 1 .................................................. 132	
  
Figure A 6 Global warming potential of Sample Group 2.......................................................... 133	
  
Figure A 7 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 2 ............................................................ 133	
  
Figure A 8 Water consumption of Sample Group 2 ................................................................... 134	
  
Figure A 9 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 2 ..................................................... 134	
  
Figure A 10 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 2 ................................................ 135	
  
Figure A 11 Global warming potential of Sample Group 3........................................................ 135	
  

xii

Figure A 12 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 3 .......................................................... 136	
  
Figure A 13 Water consumption of Sample Group 3 ................................................................. 136	
  
Figure A 14 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 3 ................................................... 137	
  
Figure A 15 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 3 ................................................ 137	
  
Figure A 16 Global warming potential of Sample Group 4........................................................ 138	
  
Figure A 17 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 4 .......................................................... 138	
  
Figure A 18 Water consumption of Sample Group 4 ................................................................. 139	
  
Figure A 19 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 4 ................................................... 139	
  
Figure A 20 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 4 ................................................ 140	
  
Figure A 21 Global warming potential of Sample Group 5........................................................ 140	
  
Figure A 22 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 5 .......................................................... 141	
  
Figure A 23 Water consumption of Sample Group 5 ................................................................. 141	
  
Figure A 24 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 5 ................................................... 142	
  
Figure A 25 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 5 ................................................ 142	
  
Figure A 26 Global warming potential of Sample Group 6........................................................ 143	
  
Figure A 27 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 6 .......................................................... 143	
  
Figure A 28 Water consumption of Sample Group 6 ................................................................. 144	
  
Figure A 29 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 6 ................................................... 144	
  
Figure A 30 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 6 ................................................ 145	
  
Figure A 31 Global warming potential of Sample Group 7........................................................ 145	
  
Figure A 32 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 7 .......................................................... 146	
  
Figure A 33 Water consumption of Sample Group 7 ................................................................. 146	
  
Figure A 34 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 7 ................................................... 147	
  

xiii

Figure A 35 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 7 ................................................ 147	
  
Figure A 36 Global warming potential of Sample Group 8........................................................ 148	
  
Figure A 37 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 8 .......................................................... 148	
  
Figure A 38 Water consumption of Sample Group 8 ................................................................. 149	
  
Figure A 39 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 8 ................................................... 149	
  
Figure A 40 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 8 ................................................ 150	
  
Figure A 41 Global warming potential of Sample Group 9........................................................ 150	
  
Figure A 42 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 9 .......................................................... 151	
  
Figure A 43 Water consumption of Sample Group 9 ................................................................. 151	
  
Figure A 44 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 9 ................................................... 152	
  
Figure A 45 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 9 ................................................ 152	
  
Figure A 46 Global warming potential of Sample Group 10...................................................... 153	
  
Figure A 47 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 10 ........................................................ 153	
  
Figure A 48 Water consumption of Sample Group 10 ............................................................... 154	
  
Figure A 49 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 10 ................................................. 154	
  
Figure A 50 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 10 .............................................. 155	
  
Figure A 51 Global warming potential of Sample Group 11...................................................... 155	
  
Figure A 52 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 11 ........................................................ 156	
  
Figure A 53 Water consumption of Sample Group 11 ............................................................... 156	
  
Figure A 54 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 11 ................................................. 157	
  
Figure A 55 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 11 .............................................. 157	
  
Figure A 56 Global warming potential of Sample Group 12...................................................... 158	
  
Figure A 57 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 12 ........................................................ 158	
  

xiv

Figure A 58 Water consumption of Sample Group 12 ............................................................... 159	
  
Figure A 59 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 12 ................................................. 159	
  
Figure A 60 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 12 .............................................. 160	
  
Figure A 61 Global warming potential of Sample Group 13...................................................... 160	
  
Figure A 62 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 13 ........................................................ 161	
  
Figure A 63 Water consumption of Sample Group 13 ............................................................... 161	
  
Figure A 64 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 13 ................................................. 162	
  
Figure A 65 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 13 .............................................. 162	
  
Figure A 66 Global warming potential of Sample Group 14...................................................... 163	
  
Figure A 67 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 14 ........................................................ 163	
  
Figure A 68 Water consumption of Sample Group 14 ............................................................... 164	
  
Figure A 69 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 14 ................................................. 164	
  
Figure A 70 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 14 .............................................. 165	
  
Figure A 71 Global warming potential of Sample Group 15...................................................... 165	
  
Figure A 72 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 15 ........................................................ 166	
  
Figure A 73 Water consumption of Sample Group 15 ............................................................... 166	
  
Figure A 74 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 15 ................................................. 167	
  
Figure A 75 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 15 .............................................. 167	
  
Figure A 76 Global warming potential of Sample Group 16...................................................... 168	
  
Figure A 77 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 16 ........................................................ 168	
  
Figure A 78 Water consumption of Sample Group 16 ............................................................... 169	
  
Figure A 79 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 16 ................................................. 169	
  
Figure A 80 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 16 .............................................. 170	
  

xv

Figure A 81 Global warming potential of Sample Group 17...................................................... 170	
  
Figure A 82 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 17 ........................................................ 171	
  
Figure A 83 Water consumption of Sample Group 17 ............................................................... 171	
  
Figure A 84 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 17 ................................................. 172	
  
Figure A 85 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 17 .............................................. 172	
  
Figure A 86 Global warming potential of Sample Group 18...................................................... 173	
  
Figure A 87 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 18 ........................................................ 173	
  
Figure A 88 Water consumption of Sample Group 18 ............................................................... 174	
  
Figure A 89 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 18 ................................................. 174	
  
Figure A 90 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 18 .............................................. 175	
  
Figure A 91 Global warming potential of Sample Group 19...................................................... 175	
  
Figure A 92 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 19 ........................................................ 176	
  
Figure A 93 Water consumption of Sample Group 19 ............................................................... 176	
  
Figure A 94 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 19 ................................................. 177	
  
Figure A 95 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 19 .............................................. 177	
  
Figure A 96 Global warming potential of Sample Group 20...................................................... 178	
  
Figure A 97 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 20 ........................................................ 178	
  
Figure A 98 Water consumption of Sample Group 20 ............................................................... 179	
  
Figure A 99 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 20 ................................................. 179	
  
Figure A 100 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 20 ............................................ 180	
  
Figure A 101 Global warming potential of Sample Group 21.................................................... 180	
  
Figure A 102 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 21 ...................................................... 181	
  
Figure A 103 Water consumption of Sample Group 21 ............................................................. 181	
  

xvi

Figure A 104 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 22 ............................................... 182	
  
Figure A 105 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 21 ............................................ 182	
  
Figure A 106 Global warming potential of Sample Group 22.................................................... 183	
  
Figure A 107 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 22 ...................................................... 183	
  
Figure A 108 Water consumption of Sample Group 22 ............................................................. 184	
  
Figure A 109 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 22 ............................................... 184	
  
Figure A 110 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 22 ............................................ 185	
  
Figure A 111 Global warming potential of Sample Group 23.................................................... 185	
  
Figure A 112 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Group 23 ...................................................... 186	
  
Figure A 113 Water consumption of Sample Group 23 ............................................................. 186	
  
Figure A 114 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Group 23 ............................................... 187	
  
Figure A 115 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Group 23 ............................................ 187	
  

xvii

LIST OF SYMBOLS or ABBREVIATIONS

LCA: Life cycle assessment
LCI: Life cycle inventory
LCIA: Life cycle impact analysis
MSW: Municipal solid waste
EOL: End of life
GHG: Greenhouse gas
GWP: Global warming potential
CO2 equi: Carbon dioxide equivalents
PCR: Post-consumer recycled
CRB: Clay-coated Recycled Board
BP: Bleached paper
EPS: Expanded polystyrene
LDPE: Low density polyethylene
HDPE: High density polyethylene
PP: Polypropylene
PET: Polyethylene terephthalate
PLA: Polylactide resin
PS: Polystyrene
PVC: Polyvinyl chloride

xviii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
Packaging is an absolute necessity around the world. Most industries need it because of
safety, convenience, efficiency, and marketing reasons. At the same time, however, packaging is
targeted as one of the largest burdens to the environment. That is to say, packaging is a necessary
evil in production-oriented economies since packaging waste is a large proportion of solid waste,
while it prevents loss, damage and deterioration and encourages the marketing value of products
(Lee et al. 2005). Therefore, many governments and communities have concerns about the
packaging industry and have legislated various restrictions and voluntary agreements to
minimize packaging waste.
In the past, measuring methods of these restrictions and agreements had a tendency to be
developed only around the traditional waste management methods such as reduction, reuse,
recycling, and recovery (Sonneveld et al. 2005).
Now, however, the packaging landscape is being driven more by concerns of Carbon
Foot Printing and Life Cycle Green House Gas (GHG) emission analysis due to the Kyoto
Protocol of 1997, which is an international agreement aimed at reducing global emissions of
greenhouse gases. Packaging measurement has changed to more holistic concepts including the
entire product lifecycle (Sonneveld et al. 2005). This integrated concept is regarded as
sustainability. Following this trend, the measuring methods for environmental impacts of
packaging in most policies now focus on packaging material resource consumption per unit of
product.
Over the past few decades, many companies have conducted studies to measure and
improve the sustainability of their own packaging (Corti et al. 2007). Many major corporations
have published reports of sustainability. For example, since the mid-1990s, McDonalds, 3M,
1

UPS, Ball Corporation, Unilever, and Procter & Gamble have annually announced their
sustainability reports, to introduce their efforts to make their packaging more environmentally
sustainable. Sustainable packaging claims have been adopted as an efficient marketing tool by
several companies, because it may reduce the consumer’s guilt about environmental pollution as
well as help to make a brand’s image more responsible and clean. In a Forrester Research survey,
2010, Eighty-five percent of responding corporate technology leaders said they considered
environmental concerns “very important” or “important” when they set their company’s
technology strategy (Mckay 2010).
Therefore, at this point in time, understanding and evaluating packaging sustainability
shifts with time can show whether the efforts of society, including governments and industries,
have had an impact on increasing packaging sustainability.
Objectives:
This research seeks to understand whether increasing concerns for the environment and
awareness of the need for packaging sustainability during the past few decades has affected
consumer packaging trends. This information can help to forecast future shifts.
The objective of this study is to investigate the hypothesis that current packaging in 2011
tends to be more environmentally sustainable than past packaging from the 1970s to 2000.
Packages investigated in this study were forty-six samples produced from the 1970s to
2011. Four different material types of packages were selected: paperboard, glass, metal and rigid
plastic.
The scope of this study includes the manufacturing phase, the conversion phase, and the
end-of-life phase of primary packaging.

2

The methodology used for investigating environmentally sustainability of packaging in
this study is life cycle assessment (LCA), and the software program used for the LCA
simulations is COMPASS® (SPC 2010).
It should be noted that packaging sustainability is not necessarily only evaluated by an
environmental assessment, and can also involve economic assessment and social assessment.
However, in this study, the scope of investigation for sustainability is limited to only
environmental life cycle assessment. Therefore, evaluations of economic and social aspects are
not dealt with in this study.

3

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review first covers definitions of sustainability, principles of sustainable
packaging and the ways sustainability is measured, including LCA. The second half of the
literature review explores the history and application of LCA to packaging and introduces the
LCA tool, COMPASS, used for this research.
2.1 Packaging sustainability
The activities within a life cycle of a package impact factors related to the environment.
One of the greatest impacts is on solid waste. Packaging waste comprised 29.5% of municipal
solid waste (MSW) in 2009, down from 36% in 1978. However, over the course of these four
decades, the total amount of MSW in the US has doubled, as shown in Figures 1 to 5.

Products Generated in MSW, 1970
121.1 Million Tons (before recycling)
Food
11%
Packaging &
Containers
37%

Durable Goods
12%

Yard Trimmings
19%

Nondurable
Goods
21%

Figure 1 Products Generated in MSW, 1970 (EPA 2002, pg. 81)

4

Products Generated in MSW, 1980
151.6 Million Tons (before recycling)
Food
9%
Packaging &
Containers
35%

Durable Goods
15%

Yard Trimmings
18%

Nondurable
Goods
23%

Figure 2 Products Generated in MSW, 1980 (EPA 2002, pg. 81)

Food,
Others
8%

Products Generated in MSW, 1994
209.1 Million Tons (before recycling)

Durable Goods
14%

Packaging &
Containers
36%

Yard Trimmings
15%

Nondurable
Goods
27%

Figure 3 Products Generated in MSW, 1994 (EPA 2002, pg. 81)

5

Other
Wastes
2%

Products Generated in MSW, 2000
232 Million Tons (before recycling)

Yard Trimmings
12%

Packaging &
Containers
32%

Food Scraps
11%

Durable Goods
16%

Nondurable
Goods
27%

Figure 4 Products Generated in MSW, 2000 (EPA 2002, pg. 8)

Other
Wastes
2%

Products Generated in MSW, 2009
243 Million Tons (before recycling)
Yard Trimmings
14%

Packaging &
Containers
30%

Food Scraps
14%

Nondurable
Goods
22%

Durable Goods
19%

Figure 5 Products Generated in MSW, 2009 (EPA 2010, pg. 72)
Due to concerns about the increasing amount of waste, the packaging industry has been
encouraged to minimize packaging waste as well as improve recyclability (Lewis et al. 2007).

6

Political activities increasingly aim at packaging as a means to cut the amount of waste
(Thogersen 1996). The earliest legislation was in Europe.
Today, the concerns about environmental hazards regarding packaging wastes and
government initiatives/regulations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are increasing
(GIA 2010). Companies around the world have been charged to identify the major environmental
impacts of their activities, and change these impacts in their manufacturing system, design,
logistics, marketing and business models (Lewis et al. 2007).
2.1.1 Definition of sustainability
“Sustainability” is a term originating from silviculture and adopted by the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP) as a primary political goal for the future development of
humankind and product development (Klopffer 2003). The most popular definition of
sustainability can be traced to the 1987 UN Conference of Environment and Development as
“meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
needs” (WCED 1987, pg. 43).
From an environmental point of view, “sustainable” or “sustainability” is a complex, not
precisely defined term, since it is difficult to certainly interpret the environmental damage caused
by human activities at personal, corporate and government levels (Lewis et al. 2007). It is also
difficult to establish a solid definition of “sustainable packaging” because of the speed with
which technology is evolving (Fontaine 2008).
In the past, the term sustainability was often just associated with recycling or recycled
material (Brown 2004). So, when asked what makes a packaging system more sustainable, most
people continuously offered a one-word answer, ‘recycling’ (Young 2008). This answer is
insufficient since it tends to be pursued without considering the complex roles of packaging and

7

the packaging systems closely related with supply chains (Lewis et al. 2007). In fact, most
recycling is actually “down-cycling”, as materials are reused in less valuable applications in each
cycle (Brown 2004). Down-cycling means that materials are recycled into a lower value material
that will later be thrown away, and does not meet the standard for “highest and best use”
(CIWMB 2008). Furthermore, recycling may not cause the most environmentally superior result
from a whole lifecycle perspective since pollution, energy and water consumption may also be
critical factors (Unilever 2009).
The choice of a sustainable solution needs to consider specific conditions of each case
such as manufacturing, supply chains, regulations, and regions. Isolated environmental
objectives or methods without considering these conditions limit companies and governments
from enhancing their overall environmental performance including economic and social
performance. Due to the drawback of the isolated environmental concept, corporations have
struggled to integrate their environmental objectives with other business drivers regarding cost,
market share and customer expectations, considering their supply chains (Lewis et al. 2007).
Beyond just reducing and recycling, the outcome from this holistic concept is called
“packaging sustainability”. Recycling is just one aspect of packaging sustainability (Kralj et al.
2008). The Packaging Council of Australia (PCA) promotes the concept that “a sustainable
packaging and product supply chain is a system that enables products to be produced, distributed,
used and recovered with minimum environmental impact at lowest social and economic cost”.
This might be the ideal definition (Lewis et al. 2007, p. 9).
2.1.2 Principles and functions of sustainable packaging
Organizations for sustainable packaging such as the Sustainable Packaging Coalition
(SPC) in the United States and the Sustainable Packaging Alliance (SPA) in Australia have made

8

their efforts to define sustainable packaging by setting up the concepts or principles to help
decision-making (Lewis et al. 2007).
The economic, social and environmental functions of packaging are considered in the
context of the triple bottom line, which originated by John Elkington, as shown in Figure 6
(Elkington 2004). The economic/commercial functions mean packaging fulfills such demands as
transport, protection, and shelf life. The social functions mean packaging for social benefit such
as safety and convenience. The environmental functions mean minimizing environmental
impacts of packaging such as global warming impacts and solid wastes (Lewis et al. 2005).
Among them, the social function is the most difficult to quantify in a meaningful way. Examples
of social issues are protection of workers and their families’ health, the right to collective
bargaining, and avoiding the use of forced or child labor (Svanes et al. 2010).

Environmental
Function

Sustainability
Economic
Function

Social
Function

Figure 6 Three Functional Elements of Sustainability

9

Packaging sustainability can be distinguished between different levels of concern. These
different levels of concern are the macro levels of society such as prosperity and well-being, the
intermediate levels of the packaging system such as efficiency and effectiveness including
product waste prevention, and the micro levels of packaging materials such as closed cycle reuse,
zero waste and the safety or non-toxicity of packaging components (Lewis 2005).
There are four principles of sustainable packaging identified by SPA, which consist of
effective, efficient, cyclic and clean (Lewis et al. 2007). These four principles are explained in
Table 1.
Table 1 Principles of sustainable packaging by SPA (Lewis et al. 2007, p. 4)
Principles of Sustainable Packaging
Effective: The packaging system contributes
to society by effectively containing and
protecting products in supply chains and by
supporting informed and responsible
consumption.
Efficient: The packaging system is planned
to use materials and energy efficiently
throughout the product life cycle, interacting
with associated support systems such as
storage, transport and handling.

Cyclic: Packaging materials used in the
system are constantly cycled through the
natural or industrial system, minimizing
material degradation.
Clean: Packaging components used in the
system, such as materials, pigments and
other additives, do not contain any risks to
humans or ecosystems.

Indicators
Reduces product waste
Improves functionality
Prevents over-packaging
Reduces business costs
Achieves satisfactory return on investment
Improves product / packaging ratio
Improves efficiency of logistics
Improves energy efficiency
Improves materials efficiency
Improves water efficiency
Increases recycled content
Reduces waste to landfill
Returnable
Reusable
Recyclable
Biodegradable
Reduces airborne emissions
Reduces waterborne emissions
Reduces greenhouse gas emissions
Reduces toxicity
Reduces litter impacts

The SPC defined the functions of sustainable packaging (SPC 2009) as follows:
10

“ • beneficial, safe & healthy for individuals and communities throughout its life cycle;
• meets market criteria for performance and cost;
• sourced, manufactured, transported, and recycled using renewable energy;
• optimizes the use of renewable or recycled source materials;
• manufactured using clean production technologies and best practices;
• made from materials healthy in all probable end-of-life scenarios;
• physically designed to optimize materials and energy;
• effectively recovered and utilized in biological and/or industrial closed loop cycles.”
2.1.3 Increasing business markets for sustainable packaging
The integration of economic, social and environmental performance to achieve
sustainable packaging is recognized as a major business challenge for the 21st century (Verghese
2007). Pressure from individuals, governments and social organizations has led to an expectation
that manufacturers and retailers need to reduce their packaging. There is also pressure from
consumers who are increasingly demanding products with reduced packaging (Unilever 2009).
Following this trend, many companies have chosen to use claims of sustainable packaging to
stand out in a competitive retail environment.
Sustainability efforts have been used to cut costs and reduce packaging waste for several
years. The sustainable packaging industry grew between 2008 and 2009, which differs from
other sectors of the packaging industries, and it is expected that the global market of the industry
will reach $142.42 billion by 2015 (GIA 2010).
According to a recent report from Pike Research, global packaging industry revenues are
expected to increase to $530 billion by 2014, with the sustainable packaging sector comprising
$170 billion of that total revenue (Pike Research 2010).

11

2.1.4 Measurement and design tools for packaging sustainability
There are various methods and tools to consider elements of packaging sustainability and
to evaluate their performance, such as the Wal-Mart Packaging Scorecard, PIQUET, and the
Olsmats & Dominic Scorecard, as shown in Table 2. Each methodology has its own
characteristic and focus, and none covers all environmental impacts of packaging. Therefore, the
user of a certain methodology might need further research if important issues or purposes are not
covered in the method (Svanes et al. 2010).
Most of the scorecards consider environmental resource indicators. Along with GHG, the
Wal-Mart Scorecard emphasizes cube utilization and transport efficiency, which is no surprise
since improvements on this score reduce transport cost. The Olsmats & Dominic Scorecard adds
measure of resources. PIQUET emphasizes global warming potential and the use of water, land
and other resources. Table 2 shows that it is not simple to evaluate sustainability to cover all
concerns. Especially, the social aspect of sustainability is hard to quantitatively measure.

12

Table 2 Sample of tools for sustainable packaging (Svanes et al. 2010, p. 173)
Methodology
Characterization
Environmental
and resource
indicators

Economy
Social elements
Combined
system
packaging and
product
Whole life cycle
considered

Wal-Mart Packaging
Scorecard
GHG emissions
Ratio of product /
package
Cube utilization
Transportation
efficiency
Recycled content
Recovery value
Use of renewable
energy
N.m.
N.m.
N.m.

Olsmats & Dominic
scorecard model
(2002)
Volume and weight
efficiency
Reduced use of
resources
Minimal use of
hazardous substance
Minimal amount of
waste and packaging

PIQET

Global warming /
climate change
Cumulative energy
demand
Photochemical
oxidation
Water use
Solid waste
Land use.

Costs
N.m.
N.m.

N.m.
N.m.
N.m.

N.m.

N.m.

N.m.

Product loss
considered
Product
protection

No

No

Uncertain

N.m.

Considered

User
Friendliness
Market
acceptance

N.m.

N.m.

Product protection
and shelf-life
N.m.

N.m.

Right amount and size
Product information
Selling capability

Consumer
knowledge/ labeling.

N.m. = Not mentioned in description of the methodology.
A complete measure of packaging sustainability would need to consider the environment,
economy and social elements, as well as considering the whole life cycle of the product and
packaging system including product loss, protection, user friendliness, market acceptance, and

13

disposability. In this way reasonable decisions about sustainability may be made when experts
from different areas evaluate together a sustainability issue.
2.2 Life cycle assessment
Life cycle assessment, LCA, is defined by ISO 14040 as “compilation and evaluation of
the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its
life cycle” including the continuous and successive stages of an entire product system (ISO 1997,
pg. 2). Therefore, the LCA is a method for organized assessment of flows connected with all life
cycle stages of a product, technology and system (CPA 2010).
An LCA study investigates the potential environmental burdens generated from a
product’s entire life cycle, including material acquisition, production, physical distribution, and
recycling or waste disposal (Manuilova 2003). ISO 14040 guides general principles of LCA (ISO
1997). ISO 14041 guides the development of a life cycle inventory of LCA (ISO 1998), ISO
14042 shows how to evaluate the life cycle impact assessment of LCA (ISO 2000a) and ISO
14043 (ISO 2000b) and 14044 guide interpretation of LCA (ISO 2006).
However, the scope of an LCA does not always have to cover the full scale of life cycle
stages since LCA practitioners sometimes need to focus their own scope. Actually, it is common
to limit the scope of an LCA to target specific life cycle stages, such as conversion, end of life, or
specific environmental indexes, such as energy or resource consumption and global warming
(Woolridge et al. 2006).
2.2.1 History of life cycle assessment (LCA)
LCA has its historical roots in pathology, which investigates the life cycle of the
pathogen stream at every stage, including monitoring strategies to control it (Mcleod 1999).

14

In the 1960s, scientists started to use the concept of LCA as an approach to measure the
impact of energy consumption since concern was raised about the depletion of fossil fuels. In
1969, the Mid west Research Institute initiated a study of the Coca-Cola Company to investigate
which kind of bottle had the lower impact to the environment and required fewer raw materials
and energy (Svoboda 1995b). This study might be the first LCA to analyze packaging.
After the Coca-Cola study, the concept of product-related LCA including an emphasis on
energy, resources, and waste developed in the early 1970s (Klopffer 2003). Some researchers
tried to use computer modeling to forecast the result of interactions between the environment and
human systems (Morris 1972). The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) clarified the
methodology formulating Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis (REPA) and conducted
approximately fifteen REPAs between 1970 and 1975, prompted by the oil crisis of 1973
(Svoboda 1995b). However, from 1975 to 1988, LCA was not a primary concern of the public
since government activity and public attention related to environmental activity was more
focused on toxic waste issues such as hazardous waste (Hunt et al. 1996). In 1988, there was an
increase of environmental consciousness in the United States, due to national debates and media
attention (Hunt et al. 1996).
In May 1990, an international forum by The Conservation Foundation in Washington,
D.C. raised awareness to REPA in the United States, followed by the first workshop by the
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) held in August 1990 (Hunt et al.
1996). The terminology, Life Cycle Assessment or Analysis (LCA), was officially adopted to
designate the REPA at that time. Two years later, Franklin Associates published an article about
the first complete presentation of LCA methodology in a journal in the United States (Hunt et al.
1996). However, LCA was the widely accepted term for only environmental assessments of

15

products on a cradle-to-grave basis (Heijungs et al. 1995). The cradle means the creation and the
grave means the final disposal back into the environment (Koneczny et al. 2008).
In the mid 1990s, SETAC Europe, the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO), and LCA practitioners worldwide began to develop a specific framework and
methodologies (Roy et al. 2009). As a result, LCA was standardized and established officially by
the ISO 14040 (ISO 1997).
At the same time, environmental groups around the world began to adopt life cycle
analysis. Organizations such as Blue Angel, Green Cross, and Green Seal used and continued to
improve LCA for the purpose of product labeling and evaluation (Svoboda 1995b). While
initially limited to the public sector, LCA has been adopted by increasing numbers of
corporations and nonprofit organizations as an aid to understanding the environmental impacts of
their actions. And as demand for “green” products and pressures for environmental quality
continued to mount, industrial life cycle analysis became in the 1990s what risk assessment was
in the 1980s (Svoboda 1995b).
Today, LCA is increasingly being used to create design of products and systems as well
as public policy, to assist decisions in relation to environmentally sustainability (CPA 2010).
2.2.2 Framework of LCA
Within the framework of the ISO standard, an LCA has four phases: scope, life cycle
inventory analysis (LCI), life cycle impact analysis, and interpretation of the results (ISO 1997).
Figure 7 shows the phases of LCA. Following the phases in the framework, an LCA study is
generally performed by developing an inventory of relevant data, evaluating the potential
impacts of the inventory, and interpreting the results in relation to the purpose of the study
(Finnveden 1999).

16

Goal and
Scope
Definition

Inventory
Analysis

Impact
Assessment

Interpretation

Direct applications:

- Product development and improvement
- Strategic planning
- Public policy making
- Marketing
- Other

Figure 7 Phases of LCA (ISO 1997)
2.2.2.1 Goal definition and scope
The first step includes clarifying the goal and scope of the LCA. This step is the
fundamental element of an LCA. The statements established in this step define the objective, the
expected product, system boundaries, functional unit, and assumptions (Roy et al. 2009).

17

The system boundary is the interface between the environment, other product systems
and the product of interest (Woolridge et al. 2006). Table 3 shows examples of system
boundaries for LCA.
Table 3 Sample of System Boundaries (Woolridge et al. 2006)
Within system boundary
Extraction of resources
Manufacture of materials including fuel consumed
Electricity generation
Packaging processing
Packaging distribution
Disposal of wastes

Outside system boundary
Capital equipment
All post resale life cycle stages
Maintenance of buildings or equipment

The functional unit is the critical basis that enables alternative products or services to be
compared and analyzed (Rebitzera 2004). This is required to certify comparability of LCA
results, which is especially significant when different systems are assessed, to confirm that such
comparisons are performed on a universal basis (ISO 1997). Even though nutritional and
economic values of products and land area may also be used, the weight of the product or
package under study is generally the basis of the functional unit (Cederberg 2000).
2.2.2.2 Life cycle inventory analysis
The life cycle inventory (LCI) is a list of input flows such as materials and energy used
and output flows such as emissions of products to the environment and wastes to be treated. It
qualitatively and quantitatively documents them for the product system (CPA 2010).
An LCI is composed of three major elements: planning a process flowchart, collecting
data, and calculating the amounts of each data related to the functional unit (Ruggles et al. 2010).
The process flowchart involves raw materials, manufacturing processes, transportation, uses, and
waste management. The required data are material inputs, products and byproducts, solid waste,
air and water emissions, as shown in Figure 8 (Ruggles et al. 2010).

18

Raw Material Extraction
Transportation
Resources

Transportation

Byproducts
Production

Byproducts
Production

Transportation
Electric
Energy

Air
Emissions

Water
Emission

Product Manufacturing,
Assembly
Transportation

Thermal
Energy

Waste

Installation/Use/Operation/
Maintenance
Transportation
Byproducts

Land Use

Disposal:
- Reuse
- Recycling
- Landfill
- Incineration

Figure 8 Sample flow chart and required data in the LCI phase (Battisti et al. 2005)
In the life cycle inventory step, the specific data of inputs and outputs for a LCA study
are collected throughout all stages of a product’s life cycle and calculated for the functional unit
(Battisti et al. 2005). Table 4 shows examples of inputs and outputs for the life cycle inventory
(LCI).

19

Table 4 Sample inputs and outputs of LCI
Inputs
Coal
Oil
Natural Gas
Water
Energy

Outputs
Water Effluents
Chlorides
Phosphates
Suspended Matter

Air Emission
Carbon dioxide
Hydrocarbons
Methane
Particulates

Solid Waste
Industrial Waste
Municipal Waste

2.2.2.3 Life cycle impact analysis
A life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is performed to evaluate environmental impacts,
analyzing the data from the inventory analysis. LCIA is a tool to broaden the information and
context of LCI data, which is largely mass and energy, and to help determine to what extent a
particular environmental factor may be connected with a particular impact category (Saouter et al.
2002). The impact assessment indicates what factors are most important. It becomes a
meaningful baseline for improvement (CPA 2010).
Generally, an LCIA consists of four components: classification, characterization,
normalization (optional), and valuation (optional). Classification is the process of assigning LCI
data into common impact groups. Characterization is the assessment of the magnitude of
potential impacts of each inventory flow on its corresponding environmental impact.
Normalization is the potential impact, expressed in ways that can be compared. Valuation is the
assessment of the relative importance of environmental burdens identified in the classification,
characterization, and normalization stages by assigning them weights which allows them to be
compared or aggregated (Roy et al. 2009).
The process of selecting or modeling the impact categories is primarily related to the
specific concerns of the practitioner (Corti et al. 2007). The inventory results are assigned to
different impact categories. Next, contributors to the selected impact assessment categories are
20

identified at a life cycle impact assessment stage. These include global warming, fossil fuel
consumption, water consumption, biotic resource consumption, mineral resource consumption,
acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity, etc. (Saouter et al. 2002), depending on the
requirements of the investigation.
2.2.2.4 Interpretation of LCA
The degree of completeness and consistency of life cycle assessment is evaluated in the
interpretation phase (Corti et al. 2007). If one option indicates higher consumption of each
material and of each resource when two options are compared, an interpretation absolutely based
on the LCI can be conclusive (Rebitzera 2004). However, practitioners may compare values
across impact categories, especially if prioritizing within a single life cycle study is required
(Rebitzera 2004).
Interpretation occurs at every stage in an LCA, including the ongoing process of
clarifying, checking, and evaluating the information from the results of the life cycle inventory
and impact assessment phases (Ruggles et al. 2010). Interpretation also communicates the results
of the life cycle inventory and impact assessment as the last phase of the LCA process (EPA
2006).
According to ISO 14044, the interpretation phase needs to have several checking points
such as checking for completeness, sensitivity, and consistency (ISO 2006). The completeness
check is required to confirm that all information and data are available and complete. The
sensitivity check is needed to assess the reliability of the final results and conclusions. The
consistency check is to determine whether the assumptions, methods, and data are consistent
with the goal and scope. Those evaluations are required for reducing uncertainty and unreliability
(EPA 2006).

21

However, there is no solid answer about specific procedures of interpretation in ISO
14044 (Ruggles et al. 2010). The interpretation phase needs more transparent numerical methods
for judgment about different cases and purposes. An LCA has many kinds of uncertainty, which
may add complexity and unclear results to the interpretation. Therefore, it is significant to
discuss and reduce all types of uncertainty in decision-making on the basis of LCA.
There are two basic ways to deal with uncertainties. Procedural approaches rely on
discussion of data and results in relation to other sources of information, such as consensus,
expert judgment and reputation of the data supplier. Numerical approaches analyze data and
results without reference to other sources of information, such as contribution analysis,
sensitivity analysis, and uncertainty analysis. The numerical approaches incorporate uncertainties
by clearly addressing the consequences of uncertain data for the result, while the procedural
approaches focus on reducing uncertainty (Heijungs et al. 2001).
There are five approaches to interpret the data that is produced by an LCA: contribution
analysis, perturbation analysis, uncertainty analysis, comparative analysis, and discernibility
analysis (Heijungs et al. 2001).
Contribution analysis measures the contribution of the life cycle stages or groups of
processes, compared to the total result, and identifies the data that has the greatest contribution to
the impact indicator results (EPA 2006).
Perturbation analysis is a form of sensitivity analysis. It refers to slightly changing a
coefficient of the model, then observing the changes in the results. Unlike contribution analysis,
it covers both economic and environmental flows (Heijungs et al. 2008).
Uncertainty analysis is based on parameter variations and Monte Carlo simulations which
are implemented in many LCA software programs. These need information on the uncertainty,

22

such as ranges, distributions, and standard deviations (Heijungs et al. 2008). Simulation,
especially Monte Carlo simulation, is very time-consuming because as many as 1,000 runs are
generally required to yield reliable results (Morgan et al. 1990). For example, if an LCA
calculation of one large system needs 10 seconds, 10,000 Monte Carlo runs consume 100,000
seconds (Heijungs et al. 2001). Moreover, it requires quantitative uncertainty information. In
many cases, this is not available, therefore one must make crude assumptions on the data
uncertainty.
A comparative analysis is not related to uncertainty, but is only a simultaneous analysis
of the product alternatives (Heijungs et al. 2008). Comparative analysis is useful, but it also has
some limitations. It is simple but may easily induce claims without a proper analysis of
robustness of these claims with respect to the influence of uncertainties.
Discernibility analysis has combined characteristics from both comparative analysis and
uncertainty analysis (Heijungs et al. 2008). This method focuses on the number of Monte Carlo
runs, as it indicates if a product option is significantly better than another product option
(Heijungs et al. 2001). Discernibility analysis may be most closely connected to decision-making
procedures.
Table 5 shows how various approaches can be organized, depending on the number of
products assessed and whether uncertainty is considered.
Table 5 Overview of five numerical approaches towards life cycle interpretation (Heijungs et al.
2001)
Without uncertainty data
With uncertainty data

One product alternative
Contribution analysis
Perturbation analysis
Uncertainty analysis
Key issue analysis

23

Several product alternatives
Comparative analysis
Discernibility analysis

LCA is a holistic analysis to evaluate the environmental impacts throughout the entire life
cycle of a product, process, or activity. Therefore, it may include both quantitative and
qualitative measures of improvement, such as changes in product design, raw material usage,
industrial processes, consumer use, and waste management (Svoboda 1995b).
2.2.3 LCA application in packaging
Packaging was the industry for which a full LCA study was first applied. In 1969, Harry
E. Teasley, Jr. performed the first formal analytical LCA for the Coca-Cola Company,
quantifying material and energy consumption and evaluating the environmental burden of its
packaging (Hunt et al. 1996). Thereafter, LCA has been continuously applied to various
circumstances in relation to packaging industries such as manufacturers, policymakers and waste
management companies (Martino 2003).
Manufacturers generally use LCA when they develop or design packaging, as a tool to
measure its environmental burden. They use it to compare alternatives before they commence
production of the packages. Many companies have proven that LCA can be an efficient tool to
check and reduce environmental impacts when it is used for packaging development and
improvement (Levy 2000). LCA is able to support business managers when they want to set up
their business strategy or marketing plan based on environmental concepts.
However, LCA only indicates the environmental implications of different options and the
trade offs that need to be made, instead of giving a clear answer whether the selected option is
the winner or loser in the market from the business point of view (Europen 1999). LCA does not
evaluate the quality or cost performance of packaging. Therefore, the results developed in an
LCA study need to be limited as an element of an integrated decision process, balancing quality
and cost performance (Martino 2003).

24

LCA has been applied in policy making. Governments around the world have utilized the
LCA method to evaluate their policies with respect to waste management and packaging. They
have developed and promoted its methodological performance by sponsoring research programs
and workshops, developing supporting tools, and databases (Rebitzera 2004). They have also
used it to help decide the optimal treatment system for packaging waste at an administrative level.
In the United States, several governmental bodies, such as the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Department of Defense (DOD), are
taking part in assisting methodological LCA development, upgrading data availability, and
managing research projects (Rebitzera 2004). The LCA tool used by these governmental
agencies is the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other Environmental
Impacts (TRACI) (Bare et al. 2003).
In Japan, beginning in the 1990s, a joint committee composed of LCA experts has
organized and conducted LCA activities sponsored by the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry
of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Ministry
of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
Technology (Rebitzera 2004).
In the European Union, LCA is used to provide a badge of acceptance, called an EcoLabel, to packaging that is made using sound environmentally-conscious systems, to enable
consumers to make better purchase decisions (Martino 2003). LCA provides the criteria for
deciding whether a packaging or product can receive the label (RSC 2005). Policymakers have
used it to create regulations for restricting environmentally harmful packaging and to check for
fulfillment of the regulations as an objective measure.

25

However, decisions need to be made on a case-by-case basis, since considerable gaps are
detected when LCA is used for policy making at regional levels regarding waste systems
(Martino 2003). Corporations and trade organizations argue that the optimal waste management
system in one area may not also be the recommended one for other areas, since the extent of
diversity between countries, or between regions within the same country, is large (Europen 1999).
2.2.4 LCA software tool COMPASS®
A full LCA requires a lengthy procedure, if it is to be used officially. However, once the
inventory is developed, the actual calculation process is fast. As a result, many kinds of LCA
software have been developed with built-in inventory data, such as SimaPro, Gabi, Umberto, and
COMPASS (Klopffer 2003).
The Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) has developed the Comparative Packaging
Assessment, COMPASS, an on-line LCA tool, as a project of the nonprofit institute GreenBlue.
It allows packaging designers to model the impacts of their choices while still in the design phase,
drawing upon life cycle impact data from the U.S. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database, the
European LCI Database and the Canadian LCI Database. It can quantify the life cycle impacts of
packaging in various categories such as consumption metrics, emission metrics and packaging
attributes. The consumption metrics include fossil fuel, water, biotic resources, and mineral
resources. The emission metrics involve greenhouse gases, human impacts, aquatic toxicity, and
eutrophication. The packaging attributes category covers material content (virgin or recycled),
sourcing, solid waste, and material health (Ruggles et al. 2010).

26

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS
In order to evaluate changes in packaging sustainability over time, forty-six packages
were investigated in this study. Half of the sample is from a collection of “old” packages that
were donated to MSU by Ms. Susan Wineberg of Ann Arbor, Michigan. She has collected
diverse consumer packages, such as cartons, glass jars, metal cans, and plastic containers,
produced from the 1970s to the 2000s. The other half of the sample was current packages that
correspond to the old packages. In March 2011, the current packages were purchased to compare
to the old packages.
In order to compare current packages to the old packages, the basis for comparison needs
to be accurate and reasonable. Therefore, the criteria for purchasing the current packages were to
acquire the same brand names, net weights, packaging materials and company names, compared
to the old packages. However, some packages have changed their packaging materials and net
weights, and some brands are now sold by different companies. In cases where the current
packages did not match the old packages, the packages that were most similar were purchased.
3.1 Dating the packages
Labels and code dates from the old packages were used to investigate the age of the old
packages.
However, some of the old packages have no imprinted information about their production
or “use by” years. In these cases, the information was found in magazines, comparing the old
samples to descriptions in the articles and advertisements.
If there were no information about their production years, Internet webpages of the
companies and personal contacts with the companies were used to determine the years.

27

Some of these kinds of packages are listed as having only approximate production years,
such as ‘before 1991’ and ‘1986-1990’. The uncertain manufacturing years are not critical
problems in this study, since they do not affect the purpose of this study, which is comparing old
packages to the current ones.
Among the twenty-three old packages, three packages were produced in the 1970s, ten
packages were produced in the 1980s, four packages were produced in the 1990s, three packages
were produced in the 2000s, and three could only be identified as produced before 1991.
Most of the current packages were produced in 2011, except one package that was
produced in 2007. The reason why this package was selected is explained in the description of
Sample Group 9 in Chapter 3.3.2.
3.2 Goal and scope
The goal of the LCA in this study is to investigate the environmental sustainability
performance of diverse packages, which were produced from the 1970s to 2011, in order to
evaluate trends in packaging sustainability.
The LCA model of this study was created using the COMPASS software system for life
cycle assessment developed by SPC. The data bases contained in the COMPASS provide the
LCI data for raw materials used in the background system (Mistry 2010b).
In COMPASS, there are four stages of a package’s life cycle: manufacturing, conversion,
distribution, and end of life. The distribution stage was not investigated in this study, since it is
difficult to get information about the specific supply chains of the past from each manufacturing
company, and there are no shipping containers in the study. Therefore, the scope of the LCA in
this study includes:

28

•

Production of raw materials, energy consumption and electricity needed for the
manufacture of the packages,

•

Conversion of materials to a final product involving manufacturing processes,

•

End of life including disposal such as landfill and incineration, and recovery such as
recycling and waste to energy.
COMPASS affords three levels of packaging analysis: primary packaging, secondary

packaging and packaging system. The primary packaging means ‘the customer facing packaging
which may be a single material package or multi-material composite and/or multi-component
package assembly’. The secondary package is generally ‘used to transport or to store the primary
customer facing package’. The packaging system means that ‘combination of some unit count of
a primary package inside a secondary package’ (Mistry 2010a).
However, only primary packaging was investigated in this study. The secondary
packaging and packaging system were not included in this study, since there was no access to
specific data from the past.
The functional unit used in this study was generally 1000 kilograms or 1000 liters of the
product. For beverages, which are usually sold by fluid ounces or milliliters, 1000 liters was used
as the functional unit. The rest of the products, sold by weight, were analyzed on the basis of
1000 kilograms.
The functional unit of Sample Group 9 is 500 kilograms, different from the others. This is
because COMPASS cannot accommodate any data that exceeds 1,000,000. The weight of glass
jars in Group 9 is 1,370,000, which exceeds 1,000,000, when the functional unit is set to 1000 kg,
so the functional unit size had to be reduced.

29

3.3 Description of evaluated samples
There were twenty-three sample groups and forty-six packaging samples in this study.
The sample groups were divided into four categories based on materials in the old packaging
samples: paperboard, glass, metal and rigid plastics. Each category had three to eight sample
groups. A fifth category was assigned for hamburger packages from McDonald’s, because
various kinds of McDonald’s packages were donated. Each sample group consisted of an old
package sample and a current one for comparison. Some of the old samples had different
materials from the current samples, and others had the same materials as the current ones.
3.3.1 Category 1: Paperboard cartons
The product in Sample Group 1 was Kellogg’s Corn Flakes cereal, manufactured by the
Kellogg Company. The old package was manufactured in 1973, and the current package was
produced in 2011. Both are Partial-Overlap Seal End (POSE) cartons, which are made from clay
coated recycled board (CRB). The inner packages were not included because the old sample was
missing the inner package. Figure 9 shows the old package in Sample Group 1, and Figure 10
shows the current package in Sample Group 1.

30

Figure 9 Old package sample in Sample Group 1. For interpretation of the references to color in
this and all other figures, the reader is referred to the electronic version of this thesis.

Figure 10 Current package sample in Sample Group 1
Table 6 shows specific descriptions of Sample Group 1. The weights of packaging
components are inputs to COMPASS based on the functional units.

31

Table 6 Description of Sample Group 1.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

1.1
Kellogg’s Corn Flakes Cereal
Kellogg Company
1973
24 OZ
1000 kg
Partial-Overlap Seal End
(POSE) Carton: Clay Coated
Recycled Board (CRB):
202500.0 g

1.2
Kellogg’s Corn Flakes Cereal
Kellogg Company
2011
24 OZ
1000 kg
POSE Carton: CRB: 203970.6 g

The product in Sample Group 2 was Ritz-Crackers, manufactured by the Nabisco
Company. The old package was manufactured in 1983, and the current package was produced in
2011. Both are POSE cartons, which were made from clay coated recycled board. The inner
packages are not included because the old one was missing the inner package. Figure 11 shows
the old package in Sample Group 2, and Figure 12 shows the current package in Sample Group 2.

Figure 11 Old package sample in Sample Group 2

32

Figure 12 Current package sample in Sample Group 2
Table 7 shows specific descriptions of Sample Group 2. The weights of packaging
components are inputs to COMPASS based on the functional units.
Table 7 Description of Sample Group 2.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

2.1
Ritz-Crackers
Nabisco, Kraft Foods
1983
16 OZ
1000 kg
POSE: CRB: 153964.8 g

2.2
Ritz-Crackers
Nabisco, Kraft Foods
2011
16 OZ
1000 kg
POSE: CRB: 145033.1 g

The product in Sample Group 3 was Post Grape-Nuts, manufactured by Post Foods, LLC.
The old package was manufactured in 1989, and the current package was produced in 2011. Both
are POSE cartons, made from CRB. The inner packages were not included because the old one
was missing the inner package. This sample has a weight difference; the net weight of the old
one was 1800 g, but that of the current one was 680 g. Figure 13 shows the old package in
Sample Group 3, and Figure 14 shows the current package in Sample Group 3.

33

Figure 13 Old package sample in Sample Group 3

Figure 14 Current package sample in Sample Group 3
Table 8 shows specific descriptions of Sample Group 3. The weights of packaging
components are inputs to COMPASS based on the functional units.

34

Table 8 Description of Sample Group 3.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

3.1
Post Grape-Nuts
Post Foods, LLC
1989
63 OZ
1000 kg
POSE Carton: CRB: 88000.0 g

3.2
Post Grape-Nuts
Post Foods, LLC
2011
24 OZ
1000 kg
POSE Carton: CRB: 67205.9 g

The product in Sample Group 4 was Quaker Oats, manufactured by the Quaker Oats
Company. The old package was manufactured in 2001, and the current package was produced in
2011. Both have a spiral-wound tube style carton made from coated recycled board with a white,
clay coated top sheet and a cap made from clay coated recycled board with a low-density
polyethylene edge. The old one used polyvinyl chloride film induction-sealed for tamper
evidence, but the current one has corn-based polylactide (PLA) film. Figure 15 shows the old
package in Sample Group 4, and Figure 16 shows the current package in Sample Group 4.

Figure 15 Old package sample in Sample Group 4

35

Figure 16 Current package sample in Sample Group 4
Table 9 describes Sample Group 4. The weights of packaging components are inputs to
COMPASS based on the functional units.
Table 9 Description of Sample Group 4.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

4.1
Quaker Oats
Quaker Oats Company
2001
18 OZ
1000 kg
Tube Style Carton: CRB:
93333.3 g
Cap: LDPE: 13725.5 g +
CRB: 4313.7 g
Tamper Evidence: PVC:
2745.1 g

4.2
Quaker Oats
Quaker Oats Company
2011
18 OZ
1000 kg
Tube Style Carton: CRB:
75294.1 g
Cap: LDPE 14117.6 g +
CRB: 4117.6 g
Tamper Evidence: Corn Based
PLA: 1568.6 g

3.3.2 Category 2: Glass bottles and jars
The product in Sample Group 5 is Coca-Cola, manufactured by the Coca-Cola Company.
The old package was manufactured in 1971, and the current package was produced in 2011. Both
are glass bottles without caps. The net volume of the old one is 476 ml, while that of the current

36

one is 237 ml. Figure 17 shows the old package in Sample Group 5, and Figure 18 shows the
current package in Sample Group 5.

Figure 17 Old package sample in Sample Group 5

Figure 18 Current package sample in Sample Group 5
The specific description of Sample Group 5 is shown in Table 10. The weights of
packaging components are inputs to COMPASS based on the functional units.

37

Table 10 Description of Sample Group 5.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

5.1
Coca-Cola Coke
Coca-Cola Company
1971
16 FL OZ
1000L
Glass Bottle: 898949.6 g

5.2
Coca-Cola Coke
Coca-Cola Company
2011
8 FL OZ
1000L
Glass Bottle: 724050.6 g

The product in Sample Group 6 is Campbell’s Minestrone Condensed Soup,
manufactured by the Campbell Soup Company. The old package was manufactured in 1997, and
the current package was produced in 2011. These two packages have different net weights and
materials. The old package is a glass jar, which has an aluminum cap and a paper label, while the
current package is a steel can, which has steel ends, a steel ring-pull, and a paper label. Moreover,
the net weight of the old package is 680g and that of the current one is 305g. The reason why
these packages are totally different from each other is that the company does not produce the
product in the glass jar anymore, but does produce it packaged in a steel can. Figure 19 shows
the old package in Sample Group 6, and Figure 20 shows the current package in Sample Group 6.

38

Figure 19 Old package sample in Sample Group 6

Figure 20 Current package sample in Sample Group 6
Table 11 describes Sample Group 6. The weights of packaging components are inputs to
COMPASS based on the functional units.

39

Table 11 Description of Sample Group 6.
Sample Number
Name of Product

6.1
Campbell’s Minestrone
Condensed Soup
Name of Company
Campbell Soup Company
Manufacturing Year 1997
Net Contents
24 OZ
Functional Unit
1000 kg
Description & Data Glass Jar: 538823.5 g
inputs based on the
Cap: Steel: 26176.5 g
functional units
Label: Bleached Paper:
882.4 g

6.2
Campbell’s Minestrone
Condensed Soup
Campbell Soup Company
2011
10 ¾ OZ
1000 kg
Steel Can: 120221.3 g
Lid: Steel lid with a steel ringpull: 20000.0 g
Label: Bleached Paper: 4918.0 g

The product in Sample Group 7 is Heinz Tomato Ketchup, manufactured by the Heinz
Company. The old package was manufactured in 1992, and the current package was produced in
2011. These two packages have the same net weight, but they have different packaging materials,
since the company no longer packs ketchup in glass bottles. The old package is a glass bottle,
which has a steel cap and a paper label. The current package is a top-down polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) bottle with a polypropylene (PP) cap, aluminum foil induction seal, and
paper label. According to the website of the Heinz Company, the glass bottle is still made and
only sold to restaurants these days (Heinz 2011). The corresponding current package to the old
one is not the glass container for restaurants but the PET container for family use. Figure 21
shows the old package in Sample Group 7, and Figure 22 shows the current package in Sample
Group 7.

40

Figure 21 Old package sample in Sample Group 7

Figure 22 Current package sample in Sample Group 7
The specific description of Sample Group 7 is explained in Table 12. The weights of
packaging components are inputs to COMPASS based on the functional units.

41

Table 12 Description of Sample Group 7.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

7.1
Heinz Tomato Ketchup
Heinz Company
1992
14 OZ
1000 kg
Glass Container:
531989.9 g
Cap: Steel: 8816.1 g
Label: Bleached Paper:
755.7 g

7.2
Heinz Tomato Ketchup
Heinz Company
2011
14 OZ
1000 kg
Top-down PET bottle: 78085.6 g
Cap: Polypropylene (PP): 36272.0 g
Pull Tab Opening: Aluminum Foil:
503.8 g
Label: Bleached Paper: 1007.6 g

The product in Sample Group 8 is Heinz Apple Cider Vinegar, manufactured by the
Heinz Company. The old package was manufactured in 1995, and the current package was
produced in 2011. They are glass bottles with a paper label. However, the old one has a steel cap,
while the current one has a PP cap. Figure 23 shows the old package in Sample Group 8, and
Figure 24 shows the current package in Sample Group 8.

Figure 23 Old package sample in Sample Group 8

42

Figure 24 Current package sample in Sample Group 8
Table 13 shows the characteristics of Sample Group 8. The weights of packaging
components are inputs to COMPASS based on the functional units.
Table 13 Description of Sample Group 8.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

8.1
Heinz Apple Cider Vinegar
Heinz Company
1995
16 FL OZ
1000L
Glass Container: 533826.6 g
Cap: Aluminum: 3171.2 g
Label: Bleached Paper:
3382.7 g

8.2
Heinz Apple Cider Vinegar
Heinz Company
2011
16 FL OZ
1000L
Glass Container: 509302.3 g
Cap: PP: 5074.0 g
Label: Bleached Paper: 2959.8 g

The product in Sample Group 9 is Kraft Grated Romano Cheese, manufactured by Kraft
Foods. The old package was manufactured in 1980. This product is not currently sold in any
stores, because the company stopped production in 2007. Therefore, a newer package produced
in 2007 was purchased via an online website. The old one is a glass jar with an aluminum cap, a
paper lid between the cap and the glass, and paper label, while the new one is a PET container

43

with a PP cap, aluminum tab, and PP label. The net weight of the old product is 170g, and that of
the new one is 227g. Figure 25 shows the old package in Sample Group 9, and Figure 26 shows
the current package in Sample Group 9.

Figure 25 Old package sample in Sample Group 9

Figure 26 Current package sample in Sample Group 9

44

Sample Group 9 is shown in Table 14. The weights of packaging components are inputs
to COMPASS based on the functional units.
Table 14 Description of Sample Group 9.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

9.1
Kraft Romano Cheese
Kraft Foods
1980
6 OZ
500 kg
Glass Jar: 684117.6 g
Cap: Steel: 25588.2 g
Lid: Liquid Packaging Board
(LPB): 5588.2 g
Label: Bleached Paper:
882.4 g

9.2
Kraft Romano Cheese
Kraft Foods
2007
8 OZ
500 kg
PET Container: 61894.3 g
Cap: PP: 29074.9 g
Pull Tab Opening: Aluminum:
1321.6 g
Label: PP: 1982.4 g

The product in Sample Group 10 is Tropicana Orange Juice, manufactured by the
Tropicana Company. The old package was manufactured in 1975, and the current package was
produced in 2011. The old package is a glass jar with a steel cap. The current one is a composite
gable-top paperboard carton, which is made of solid bleached sulfate (SBS) paperboard coated
with low-density polyethylene (LDPE). It has a PP cap, a pour spout made of low-density
polyethylene (LDPE), and a pull opening tab made of LDPE. Figure 27 shows the old package in
Sample Group 10, and Figure 28 shows the current package in Sample Group 10.

45

Figure 27 Old package sample in Sample Group 10

Figure 28 Current package sample in Sample Group 10
Table 15 shows the properties of packages in Sample Group 10. The weights of
packaging components are inputs to COMPASS based on the functional units.

46

Table 15 Description of Sample Group 10.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

10.1
Tropicana Orange Juice
Tropicana Company
1975
32 FL OZ
1000L
Glass Jar: 454334.0 g

Cap: PP: 8773.8 g

10.2
Tropicana Orange Juice
Tropicana
2011
59 FL OZ
1000L
Solid Bleached Sulfate (SBS)
Paperboard: 36349.8 g + LDPE gabletop carton: 1135.9 g
Cap: PP: 914.3 g
Pour Spout: Low-Density
Polyethylene (LDPE): 685.7 g
Tab: LDPE: 342.9 g

3.3.3 Category 3: Metal cans
The product in Sample Group 11 is Coca-Cola, manufactured by the Coca-Cola
Company. The old package was manufactured in 1984, and the current package was produced in
2011. Both packages are two-piece aluminum cans. Figure 29 shows the old package in Sample
Group 11, and Figure 30 shows the current package in Sample Group 11.

Figure 29 Old package sample in Sample Group 11

47

Figure 30 Current package sample in Sample Group 11
Table 16 describes the packages in Sample Group 11. The weights of packaging
components are inputs to COMPASS based on the functional units.
Table 16 Description of Sample Group 11.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

11.1
Coca-Cola Coke
Coca-Cola Company
1984
12 OZ
1000L
Two-Piece Aluminum Can:
52542.4 g

11.2
Coca-Cola Coke
Coca-Cola Company
2011
12 OZ
1000L
Two-Piece Aluminum Can:
39154.9 g

The product in Sample Group 12 is Diet Coke, manufactured by the Coca-Cola Company.
The old package was manufactured in 1980, and the current package was produced in 2011. Both
packages are two-piece aluminum cans. Figure 31 shows the old package in Sample Group 12,
and Figure 32 shows the current package in Sample Group 12.

48

Figure 31 Old package sample in Sample Group 12

Figure 32 Current package sample in Sample Group 12
Sample Group 12 is described in Table 17. The weights of packaging components are
inputs to COMPASS based on the functional units.

49

Table 17 Description of Sample Group 12.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Weight
Functional Unit
Description

12.1
Coca-Cola Diet Coke
Coca-Cola Company
1980
12 FL OZ
1000L
Two-Piece Aluminum Can:
53107.3 g

12.2
Coca-Cola Diet Coke
Coca-Cola Company
2011
12 FL OZ
1000L
Two-Piece Aluminum Can:
37464.8 g

The product in Sample Group 13 is Maxwell House Coffee, manufactured by Kraft Foods.
The old package was manufactured in 1987, and the current package was produced in 2011. The
old package is a large steel can with a low-density polyethylene (LDPE) snap cap. The company
still sells coffee in the steel can package, but only uses the can for small capacity products, while
a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) container is used for large capacity products. Therefore, the
high-density polyethylene container with a polypropylene lid and an aluminum seal cover is
selected as the current package in this study. Figure 33 shows the old package in Sample Group
13, and Figure 34 shows the current package in Sample Group 13.

Figure 33 Old package sample in Sample Group 13

50

Figure 34 Current package sample in Sample Group 13
Table 18 describes the packages in Sample Group 13. The weights of packaging
components are inputs to COMPASS based on the functional units.
Table 18 Description of Sample Group 13.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

13.1
Maxwell House Coffee
Kraft Foods
1987
32 OZ
1000 kg
Steel Can: 189305.4 g
Lid: LDPE: 14994.5 g

13.2
Maxwell House Coffee
Kraft Foods
2011
34.5 OZ
1000 kg
HDPE Jar: 142842.5 g
Lid: PP: 22903.9 g
Induction Seal Cover: Aluminum:
2965.2 g

3.3.4 Category 4: Rigid plastic
The product in Sample Group 14 is Coca-Cola, manufactured by the Coca-Cola
Company. The old package was manufactured in 1986, and the current package was produced in
2011. The old package is a PET bottle with an aluminum cap and a PP label. It also has a PP cup,
which covers the bottom of the bottle. The current one is a PET bottle with a PP cap and label.

51

Figure 35 shows the old package in Sample Group 14, and Figure 36 shows the current package
in Sample Group 14.

Figure 35 Old package sample in Sample Group 14

Figure 36 Current package sample in Sample Group 14
Table 19 describes Sample Group 14. The weights of packaging components are inputs to
COMPASS based on the functional units.

52

Table 19 Description of Sample Group 14.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

14.1
Coca-Cola Coke
Coca-Cola Company
1986
16 FL OZ
1000L
PET: 49471.5 g
Base Cup: PP: 13530.7 g
Cap: Aluminum: 3382.7 g
Label: PP: 634.2 g

14.2
Coca-Cola Coke
Coca-Cola Company
2011
16 FL OZ
1000L
PET: 51923.7 g
Cap: PP: 4651.2 g
Label: PP: 507.6 g

The product in Sample Group 15 is Kraft Grated Parmesan Cheese, manufactured by
Kraft Foods. The old package was manufactured in 1986, and the current package was produced
in 2011. The net content of the old package is 227 g, while that of the current one is 249 g. Both
packages are a PET container with a PP cap, an aluminum seal opening, and PP label. Figure 37
shows the old package in Sample Group 15, and Figure 38 shows the current package in Sample
Group 15.

Figure 37 Old package sample in Sample Group 15

53

Figure 38 Current package sample in Sample Group 15
Table 20 describes Sample Group 15. The weights of packaging components are inputs to
COMPASS based on the functional units.
Table 20 Description of Sample Group 15.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

15.1
Kraft Grated Parmesan Cheese
Kraft Foods
1986
8 OZ
1000 kg
PET Container: 132158.6 g
Cap: PP: 65638.8 g
Pull Tap Opening: Aluminum:
2643.2 g
Label: PP: 5286.3 g

15.2
Kraft Grated Parmesan Cheese
Kraft Foods
2011
8.8 OZ
1000 kg
PET Container: 124096.4 g
Cap: PP: 58232.9 g
Pull Tap Opening: Aluminum:
2409.6 g
Label: PP: 4417.7 g

The product in Sample Group 16 is JIF Creamy Peanut Butter, manufactured by General
Mills. The old package was manufactured in 1988, and the current package was produced in
2011. Both packages are a PET jar with a polypropylene cap and paper label. However, the
induction seal of the old package is made from aluminum foil, while that of the current package

54

is made from aluminum foil laminated to bleached paper. Figure 39 shows the old package in
Sample Group 16, and Figure 40 shows the current package in Sample Group 16.

Figure 39 Old package sample in Sample Group 16

Figure 40 Current package sample in Sample Group 16
Table 21 describes packages in Sample Group 16. The weights of packaging components
are inputs to COMPASS based on the functional units.

55

Table 21 Description of Sample Group 16.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

16.1
JIF Creamy Peanut Butter
General Mills
1988
18 OZ
1000 kg
PET Container: 62549.0 g
Cap: PP: 29411.8 g
Induction seal: Aluminum:
784.3 g
Label: Bleached Paper: 3137.2
g

16.2
JIF Creamy Peanut Butter
General Mills
2011
18 OZ
1000 kg
PET Container: 51372.5 g
Cap: PP: 19215.7 g
Pull Tap Opening: Aluminum:
1372.5 g + Bleached Paper:
1176.5 g
Label: Bleached Paper: 2941.2
g

The product in Sample Group 17 is Dannon Fat Free Plain Yogurt, manufactured by the
Dannon Company. The old package was manufactured in 1990, and the current package was
produced in 2011. They are PP cups with PP caps and have the same net weight. Figure 41
shows the old package in Sample Group 17, and Figure 42 shows the current package in Sample
Group 17.

Figure 41 Old package sample in Sample Group 17

56

Figure 42 Current package sample in Sample Group 17
Table 22 describes packages in Sample Group 17. The weights of packaging components
are inputs to COMPASS based on the functional units.
Table 22 Description of Sample Group 17.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

17.1
Dannon Plain Yogurt
The Dannon Company Inc.
1986-1990
32 OZ
1000 kg
PP Cup: 41345.1 g
PP Cap: 12899.7 g

17.2
Dannon Plain Yogurt
The Dannon Company Inc.
2011
32 OZ
1000 kg
PP Cup: 31312.0 g
PP Cap: 6174.2 g

The product in Sample Group 18 is Dannon Yogurt, manufactured by the Dannon
Company. The old package was manufactured in 2000, and the current package was produced in
2011. Both are polypropylene containers with an aluminum foil induction-sealed lid. Figure 43
shows the old package in Sample Group 18, and Figure 44 shows the current package in Sample
Group 18.

57

Figure 43 Old package sample in Sample Group 18

Figure 44 Current package sample in Sample Group 18
Table 23 explains both packages in the sample group 18. The weights of packaging
components are inputs to COMPASS based on the functional units.

58

Table 23 Description of Sample Group 18.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

18.1
Dannon Yogurt
The Dannon Company Inc.
2000
6 OZ
1000 kg
PP Container: 57709.3 g
Aluminum Foil Lid: 3083.7 g

18.2
Dannon Yogurt
The Dannon Company Inc.
2011
8 OZ
1000 kg
PP Container: 41176.5 g
Aluminum Foil Lid: 3529.4 g

The product in Sample Group 19 is Absopure bottled water, manufactured by the
Absopure Water Corporation. The old package was manufactured in 2004, and the current
package was produced in 2011. Both packages are a PET bottle with a polypropylene cap and a
polypropylene label. Figure 45 shows the old package in Sample Group 19, and Figure 46 shows
the current package in Sample Group 19.

Figure 45 Old package sample in Sample Group 19

59

Figure 46 Current package sample in Sample Group 19
Table 24 describes the packages in Sample Group 19. The weights of packaging
components are inputs to COMPASS based on the functional units.
Table 24 Description of Sample Group 19.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

19.1
Absopure Water
Absopure Water Corporation
2004
25 FL OZ
1000L
PET Bottle: 31258.5 g
Cap: PP: 6224.6 g
Label: PP: 676.6 g

19.2
Absopure Water
Absopure Water Corporation
2011
25 FL OZ
1000L
PET Bottle: 30717.2 g
Cap: PP: 4465.5 g
Label: PP: 676.6 g

The product in Sample Group 20 is Hershey’s Syrup Chocolate, manufactured by the
Hershey Company. The old package was manufactured in 1999, and the current package was
produced in 2011. Both packages are a high-density polyethylene container having a PP cap.
However, the old package has a cap cover made of PP and a paper label. The new package is
directly printed. Figure 47 shows the old package in Sample Group 20, and Figure 48 shows the
current package in Sample Group 20.

60

Figure 47 Old package sample in Sample Group 20

Figure 48 Current package sample in Sample Group 20
Table 25 describes packages in Sample Group 20. The weights of packaging components
are inputs to COMPASS based on the functional units.

61

Table 25 Description of Sample Group 20.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description & Data
inputs based on the
functional units

20.1
Hershey’s Syrup Chocolate
The Hershey Company
1999
26 OZ
1000 kg
HDPE Container: 63365.0 g
Cap: PP: 7327.0 g
Cover: PP: 1899.6 g
Label: Bleached Paper: 542.7 g

20.2
Hershey’s Syrup Chocolate
The Hershey Company
2011
24 OZ
1000 kg
HDPE Container: 60000.0 g
Cap: PP: 7647.1 g

3.3.5 Category 5: McDonald’s
The product in Sample Group 21 is a Big Mac hamburger sandwich, sold by McDonald’s
Corporation. The old package was manufactured before 1991, and the current package was
produced in 2011. The old package did not have a printed manufacturing year. However, the
company announced that the package for this product was switched from expanded polystyrene
(EPS) clamshell to waxed paper in 1991 (Svoboda 1995a). They switched the package from
standard paperboard clamshell to a lightweight paperboard clamshell in 2003. According to the
corporate communications department of McDonald’s Corporation, “The packaging is very
lightweight compared to standard paperboard clamshell packaging, incorporates unbleached
fibers, and contains 46 percent postconsumer content” (Why Did McDonald's Switch? 2005).
The old package is an EPS clamshell, while the current one is an F-flute corrugated
clamshell made from unbleached paper liners and recycled medium. The paperboard clamshell
for the current package contains 37 percent post-consumer recycled (PCR) fiber. Figure 49
shows the old package in Sample Group 21, and Figure 50 shows the current package in Sample
Group 21.

62

Figure 49 Old package sample in Sample Group 21

Figure 50 Current package sample in Sample Group 21

63

Table 26 describes the packages in Sample Group 21.
Table 26 Description of Sample Group 21.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description

21.1
Big Mac
McDonald’s Corporation
Before 1991
7.5 OZ
1000 kg
EPS Clamshell: 25233.6 g

21.2
Big Mac
McDonald’s Corporation
2011
7.5 OZ
1000 kg
F-flute Corrugated Clamshell:
Unbleached Liners + Recycled
medium, 37% PCR: 53738.3 g

The product in Sample Group 22 is a Quarter Pounder with Cheese hamburger sandwich,
sold by McDonald’s Corporation. The old package was manufactured before 1991, and the
current package was produced in 2011. The materials of both packages are same as those of
samples in Group 21. Figure 51 shows the old package in Sample Group 22, and Figure 52
shows the current package in Sample Group 22.

Figure 51 Old package sample in Sample Group 22

64

Figure 52 Current package sample in Sample Group 22
Table 27 shows the packages in Sample Group 22.
Table 27 Description of Sample Group 22.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description

22.1
Quarter Pounder with Cheese
McDonald’s Corporation
Before 1991
7 OZ
1000 kg
EPS Clamshell: 24242.4 g

22.2
Quarter Pounder with Cheese
McDonald’s Corporation
2011
7 OZ
1000 kg
F-flute Corrugated Clamshell:
Unbleached Liner + Recycled
Paper, 37% PCR: 57070.7 g

The product in Sample Group 23 is a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, sold by McDonald’s
Corporation. The old package was manufactured before 1991, and the current package was
produced in 2011. The materials of both packages are same as those of samples in Groups 21 and
22. Figure 53 shows the old package in Sample Group 23, and Figure 54 shows the current
package in Sample Group 23.

65

Figure 53 Old package sample in Sample Group 23

Figure 54 Current package sample in Sample Group 23

66

Table 28 describes the packages in Sample Group 23.
Table 28 Description of Sample Group 23.
Sample Number
Name of Product
Name of Company
Manufacturing Year
Net Contents
Functional Unit
Description

23.1
Filet-O-Fish
McDonald’s Corporation
Before 1991
5 OZ
1000 kg
EPS Clamshell: 35915.5 g

23.2
Filet-O-Fish
McDonald’s Corporation
2011
5 OZ
1000 kg
F-flute Corrugated Clamshell:
Unbleached Liners + Recycled
Medium, 37% PCR: 78873.2 g

3.4 Inventory assessment
In this study, the data inputs are weights of the packaging components, and the input
values are normalized according to the functional unit, 1000 kg or 1000 L. This allows
comparisons even when the net contents vary.

67

Table 29 Weights and types of packaging components input to COMPASS based on the
functional units. C1, C2, C3, C4, and C5 in the first row means component 1, component 2,
component 3, component 4, and component 5. Weight unit is grams. CRB: Clay-coated recycled
board, EPS: Expanded polystyrene, BP: Bleached paper
Sample
1
1.1
1.2
2
2.1
2.2
3
3.1
3.2
4
4.1
4.2
5
5.1
5.2
6
6.1
6.2
7
7.1
7.2
8
8.1
8.2
9
9.1
9.2
10
10.1
10.2

C1
CRB
202500.0
203970.6
CRB
153964.8
145033.1
CRB
88000.0
67205.9
CRB
93333.3
75294.1
Glass
898949.6
724050.6
Glass/Steel
538823.5
120221.3
Glass/PETE
531989.9
78085.6
Glass
533826.6
509302.3
Glass/PETE
684117.6
61894.3
Glass/SBS
454334.0
36349.8

C2

C3

CRB
4313.7
4117.6

PVC/PLA
2745.1
1568.6

Steel
26176.5
20000.0
Steel/PP
8816.1
36272.0
Aluminum/PP
3171.2
5074.0
Steel/PP
25588.2
29074.9
LDPE

BP
882.4
4918.0
Aluminum

1135.9

68

503.8
BP
3382.7
2959.8
LPB/Aluminum
5588.2
1321.6
PP
8773.8
914.3

C4

C5

LDPE
13725.5
14117.6

BP
755.7
1007.6

BP/PP
882.4
1982.4
LDPE

LDPE

685.7

342.9

Table 29 (Cont’d)
Sample
11
11.1
11.2
12
12.1
12.2
13
13.1
13.2
14
14.1
14.2
15
15.1
15.2
16
16.1
16.2
17
17.1
17.2
18
18.1
18.2
19
19.1
19.2
20
20.1
20.2

C1
Aluminum
52542.4
39154.9
Aluminum
53107.3
37464.8
Steel/HDPE
189305.4
142842.5
PETE
49471.5
51923.7
PETE
132158.6
124096.4
PETE
62549.0
51372.5
PP
30650.5
31753.0
PP
57709.3
41176.5
PETE
31258.5
30717.2
HDPE
63365.0
60000.0

C2

C3

LDPE/PP
14994.5
22903.9
PP/Aluminum
3382.7
4651.2
PP
65638.8
58232.9
PP
29411.8
19215.7

Aluminum
3083.7
3529.4
PP
6224.6
4465.5
HDPE
7327.0
7647.1

C5

Aluminum
2965.2
PP
13530.7
Aluminum
2643.2
2409.6
Aluminum
784.3
1372.5

PP
676.6
676.6
HDPE
1899.6

69

C4

PP
634.2
507.6
PP
5286.3
4417.7
BP
1176.5

BP
542.7

BP
3137.2
2941.2

Table 29 (Cont’d)
Sample
21
21.1
21.2
22
22.1
22.2
23
23.1
23.2

C1
EPS/Corrugated Board
25233.6
53738.3
EPS/Corrugated Board
24242.4
57070.7
EPS/Corrugated Board
35915.5
78873.2

C2

C3

C4

C5

Based on the data inputs shown in Tables 6 to 28, the process data were assessed by life
cycle phase such as manufacture, conversion, distribution, and end-of-life. Process data, such as
the production of chemicals, fuels, energy and power, is industry-average data. Data in
COMPASS were obtained from all major industry associations working in the packaging supply
chain (Mistry 2010a).
COMPASS has three database sets based on geographic regions, the U.S., Canada and
Europe. The inventory database used for this study is the U.S dataset, since all packaging
samples investigated in this study were produced and distributed in the United States. End-of-life
of different materials and packaging types are based on the U.S. EPA MSW Facts and Figures
report (Mistry 2010a).
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the Department of Energy controls the
U.S. LCI (USLCI) database. Average data in industry submitted by industry associations are
validated before they are included in the USLCI. However, the USLCI is incomplete, and
processes of collection or verification are still ongoing (Mistry 2010a).
Due to this incompleteness, the U.S dataset in COMPASS uses a hybrid approach that is
composed of process-level data from the USLCI combined with substitute data from Ecoinvent,

70

which is the Swiss life cycle inventory database. Specifically, COMPASS uses data from
Ecoinvent for the conversion and end-of-life phases (Mistry 2010a).
In Compass, the end-of-life phase of packages composed of recycling, waste to energy,
landfill, composting, incineration, and litter and the end-of-life percentage is different as the type
of packages, as shown in Table A1 in Appendix B.
3.5 Life cycle impact assessment
Even though COMPASS has a total of eight metrics, only five metrics were used in this
study to focus on the energy and resource consumption and global warming gas emissions,
because of their growing importance to the global environment, politics, and economy. The five
life cycle impact metrics used were fossil fuel consumption, water consumption, biotic and
mineral resources consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. The impact category is a class
representing environmental issues of concern into which life cycle inventory results may be
assigned. Table 30 shows a brief explanation of the five impact indicators used in this study.
Table 30 Five life cycle impact metrics used in this study.
Impact Category
Fossil Fuel Consumption
Water Consumption
Biotic Resource Consumption
Mineral Consumption
Greenhouse Gas Emission

Description
A measure of the quantity of fossil fuel
consumed.
A measure of the quantity of surface
water and groundwater required.
A measure of the quantity of biotic
resources required.
A measure of the quantity of mineral
resources required.
A measure of greenhouse gas
emissions, such as CO2 and methane.

Unit
MJ
L
3

m

kg
kg CO2
Equivalent

The metrics used by COMPASS were established in a stakeholder process including
participation from across the packaging supply chain. The basis comes from MERGE™,

71

originally developed by the Environmental Defense Fund. ISO 14044 sections 4.4.2.2.1 through
4.4.2.2.4 were used to guide the metrics development process (Mistry 2010a).
The fossil fuel consumption indicator is “a measure of the quantity of fossil fuel
consumed to produce packaging, reported in mega joules per kilogram (MJ/kg) of packaging
material” (Mistry 2010b, p. 12). This indicator focuses on the fossil fuel resources consumed for
the production of the material. It provides an incentive for efficient use of fossil fuel-based
resources and an incentive to use renewable or alternative sources of energy and resources. The
consumption of 1 MJ of coal is considered to be the same as 1 MJ of crude oil or 1 MJ of natural
gas. The algorithm of this metric used in COMPASS is shown in Table 31.
Table 31 COMPASS algorithm of fossil fuel consumption metric (Mistry 2010b, p. 12).
Algorithm

! = !! !!
i = 1…m

Description
F = the fossil fuel resources consumed in MJ per gram of packaging
material
x = the life cycle inventory flows of fossil fuel resource types in
kilograms per kilogram of packaging material
m = the number of different flows of fossil fuel resource types

e = a vector of heating values in MJ/kg, for fossil fuels
Data sources are from life cycle inventory data.
The water consumption indicator is “a measure of the quantity of surface water and
groundwater required to produce packaging, reported in liters per kilogram (l/kg) of packaging
material” (Mistry 2010b, p. 13). This indicator does not involve non-consumptive sources of
water such as water used for navigation. Table 32 shows the algorithm for the water consumption
metric in COMPASS.

72

Table 32 COMPASS algorithm of water consumption metric (Mistry 2010b, p. 13).
Algorithm

! = !!
i = 1…m

Description
W = the surface water and groundwater consumed in liters per kilogram
of packaging material
x = the life cycle inventory flows of surface water and groundwater in
liters per kilogram of packaging material
m = the number of different flows of surface water and groundwater
Data sources are from life cycle inventory data.

The biotic resource consumption indicator is “a measure of the quantity of biotic
3

resources required to produce the packaging, reported in cubic meters per kilogram (m /kg) of
packaging material” (Mistry 2010b, p. 13). Table 33 indicates the algorithm of biotic resource
consumption in COMPASS.
Table 33 COMPASS algorithm of biotic resources consumption metric (Mistry 2010b, p. 13).
Algorithm

! = !!
i = 1…m

Description
B = the biotic resources consumed in cubic meters per kilogram of
packaging material
x = the life cycle inventory flows of biotic resources in cubic meters per
kilogram of packaging material
m = the number of different flows of biotic resources
Data sources are from life cycle inventory data.

The mineral consumption indicator is “a measure of the quantity of mineral resources
required to produce the packaging, reported in kilogram per kilogram (kg/kg) of packaging
material” (Mistry 2010b, p. 14). This indicator includes all non-fuel mineral “raw material” input
flows in the life cycle inventory, and applicable nuclear fuel sources such as uranium. The
algorithm of this metric is shown in Table 34.

73

Table 34 COMPASS algorithm of mineral resources consumption metric (Mistry 2010b, p. 14).
Algorithm

! = !!
i = 1…m

Description
M = the mineral resources consumed in kilogram per kilogram of
packaging material
x = the life cycle inventory flows of mineral resources in kilogram per
kilogram of packaging material
m = the number of different flows of mineral resources
Data sources are from life cycle inventory data.

The greenhouse gas emission indicator is “a measure of the quantity of green house gases
(GHG) emitted during the production of the materials used in the packaging, reported in carbon
dioxide equivalents/kilogram (kg CO2 eq./kg) of packaging material” (Mistry 2010b, p. 14).
These emissions are causing an increase in the absorption of radiation emitted by the earth,
magnifying the natural greenhouse effect. Table 35 shows a brief algorithm of how the GHG
impact category is measured in the COMPASS LCA.
Table 35 COMPASS algorithm of greenhouse gas emission metric (Mistry 2010b, p. 14).
Algorithm

! = !"#! !!
i = 1…m

Description
G = the greenhouse gas emissions generated per kilogram of
packaging material
x = the life cycle inventory flows of greenhouse gas emissions in
kilogram per kilogram of packaging material
m = the number of different flows of greenhouse gas emissions

gwp = a vector of global warming potentials in CO2
equivalents/kilogram of GHG emission to air
Data sources are from life cycle inventory data.
3.6 Interpretation
There are various interpretation methods for LCA, such as contribution analysis,
comparative analysis, perturbation analysis, uncertainty analysis, and discernibility analysis.

74

However, only the contribution analysis and the comparative analysis were performed in this
study, since the purpose of this study was to compare the old packages to the current ones and by
investigating the environmental impact factors of each system.
Contribution analysis is performed at the level of characterization. In this study, the
model consisted of three phases: manufacturing, conversion, and end-of-life. Contribution
analysis is applied to find how those phases contribute the environmental burden for each LCA
scenario. The share of all life cycle phases in the total impacts is calculated and contributions of
life cycle phases are identified.
After the contribution analysis, a comparative analysis was performed to determine which
package type had more environmental burdens, compared to the alternative. Thus, comparative
analysis indicates numerically which packaging is environmentally superior in order to clearly
compare the results of the LCA. Comparative analysis is performed for each impact indicator
metric, and the final evaluation considered comparative results of all indicators.

75

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Life cycle metrics, which are provided in impact categories, are estimated measures of
the environmental impacts resulting from all of the industrial activity connected to the
production of a package. Life cycle metrics of the COMPASS software analyzes the results of
the LCA in four phases: manufacture, conversion, distribution and end of life. These metrics
indicate the environmental burdens in total and for each phase. A positive calculated number
means that the phase causes a net environmental impact, while a negative value expresses a net
environmental benefit which is interpreted as a credit. This study covered three phases of life
cycle: manufacture, conversion, and end-of-life.
Based on materials of the old packages, there are five packaging categories: cartons, glass,
metal, plastics, and McDonalds (as a separate category). Each category has several Sample
Groups that include an old package and a current package.
The LCA are based on two analysis methods: comparative analysis and contribution
analysis. The results are organized by each packaging category.
Comparative analysis was performed to determine the more environmentally sustainable
package between the old one and the current one. Each comparative analysis was presented using
five life cycle impact indicators: greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel consumption, water
consumption, biotic resources consumption, and mineral resources consumption. Five figures in
Appendix A for each category show the comparisons.
Contribution analysis was performed to investigate which phase is the main factor in the
life cycle impacts of each package. A table for each Sample Group shows the contribution
factors of each impact life cycle impact. Figures that show the contribution to life cycle phases
for all Sample Groups are in the Appendix A.

76

Appendix B shows the end-of-life percentage of packages such as recycling, waste to
energy, landfill, composting, incineration and litter.
4.1 Category 1: Paperboard cartons
Figures 55 to 59 show the comparisons of the LCA results between the old package and
the current package for the Sample Groups in Category 1. Figure 55 is for fossil fuel
consumption, Figure 56 is for water consumption, Figure 57 is for biotic resource consumption,
Figure 58 is for mineral resource consumption, and Figure 59 is for greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.
In Sample Group 1 for Kellogg’s Corn Flakes cereal cartons, the current package
demanded more fossil fuel, water, biotic resources, and mineral resources and generates more
GHG than the old package. This is not surprising since it was the only Sample Group in the
carton category where the current carton was heavier than the old one.
The old packages of Sample Groups 2 for Ritz-Crackers, 3 for Post Grape-Nuts, and 4 for
Quaker Oats demand more fossil fuel, water, biotic resources, and mineral resources and
generate more GHG than the current packages. The primary reason for these results is the lighter
weight (in general) of the current packages’ paperboard, since the materials of both packages
were almost the same. The heavier paperboard cartons consume more resources and generate
more GHG.

77

Figure 55 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Groups in Category 1

Figure 56 Water consumption of Sample Groups in Category 1

78

Figure 57 Biotic resources consumption of Sample Groups in Category 1

Figure 58 Mineral resources consumption of Sample Groups in Category 1

79

Figure 59 Greenhouse gas emissions of Sample Groups in Category 1
As shown in the following sections, which detail the results from each sample group,
manufacturing of the paperboard was found to be the primary contributor to the consumption of
fossil fuel, water, mineral and biotic resources. This is because of the trees harvested to make
paperboard, the clay coating, and the high energy and water usage in the pulping process,
including the repulping process for recycled paperboard. The conversion process is a secondary
contributor to resource consumption because the scoring, cutting and gluing are more mechanical
than resource-intensive.
The primary GHG contributor is the end-of-life phase, because paperboard generates
GHG as it decomposes. End-of-life results for paperboard products vary considerably depending
on assumptions about decomposition. At maximum experimental decomposition levels, the
overall effect of the estimated GHG additions and credits from end-of-life management is a large
net increase in GHG for paperboard products. At lower decomposition rates, the net end-of-life
GHG for paperboard products is much smaller, since less methane is released and more carbon is
sequestered in undecomposed material. If the paperboard does not decompose, no methane is

80

produced and all the biomass carbon in the paperboard product is sequestered, resulting in a large
carbon sequestration credit (Franklin 2011). The carbon sequestration is the process through
which carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is absorbed by trees and plants through
photosynthesis, and stored as carbon in biomass: tree trunks, branches, foliage and roots, and
soils (EPA 2008). It also affected by whether methane is collected and provides a fuel credit.
The manufacturing phase has a negative GHG value, which means the phase has a net
CO2 sink, which occurs when carbon sequestration is greater than carbon releases over the
manufacturing period. The negative value is interpreted as a credit or avoidance of GHG
emissions or resource consumption in LCA and it is primarily related to growing trees. Net GHG
emissions are calculated taking into account the CO2 equivalent sequestered by trees during their
growth and they can be counted by means of the CO2 equivalent credit which is a negative value.
The end-of-life phase is also a negative source of fossil fuel consumption for both
packages since the material can be recycled or recovered from waste to energy, representing a
credit of fossil fuel that can be avoidance of fuel use. As Table A1 in Appendix B indicates, by
using COMPASS, the end-of-life phase of folding cartons made of recycled folding boxboard
composed of 27.3% recycling, 12.6% waste to energy, and 60.1% landfill.
The end-of-life phase for paperboard cartons has the lowest impact on water, biotic, and
mineral resource consumption.
4.1.1 Contribution for Sample Group 1
Table 36 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 1 for Kellogg’s Corn Flakes cereal
cartons based on each phase. Figures A.1 to A.5 in the Appendix A show contribution of each
phase to each of each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 1.

81

Table 36 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 1.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption (kg)

GHG Emission
(kg C02-Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

82

1973
4,611.00
1,758.80
-84.60
6,413.30
932.26
6.75
345.86
20.40

2011
4,644.50
1,771.60
-85.21
6,459.90
939.03
6.80
348.37
20.55

-0.06
117.78
10.47
0.23
-76.31
95.97
241.69

-0.06
118.63
10.55
0.23
-76.86
96.66
243.44

4.1.2 Contribution for Sample Group 2
Table 37 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 2 for Ritz-Crackers cartons based on
each phase. Figures A.6 to A.10 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each phase to each
life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 2.
Table 37 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 2.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission
(kg CO2-Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

1983
3,505.90
1,337.30
-64.32
4,876.20
708.81
5.14
262.96
15.51

2011
3,302.50
1,259.70
-60.59
4,593.30
667.70
4.84
247.71
14.61

-0.05
89.55
7.96
0.17
-58.02
72.97
183.76

-0.04
84.36
7.50
0.16
-54.65
68.73
173.10

4.1.3 Contribution for Sample Group 3
Table 38 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 3 for Post Grape-Nuts cereal cartons
based on each phase. Figures A.11 to A.15 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each
phase to each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 3.

83

Table 38 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 3.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission
(kg CO2-Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

84

1989
2,003.80
764.34
-36.76
2,787.00
405.13
2.94
150.30
8.87

2011
1,530.30
583.73
-28.08
2,128.40
309.40
2.24
114.78
6.77

-0.03
51.18
4.55
0.10
-33.16
41.70
105.03

-0.02
39.09
3.48
0.08
-25.33
31.85
80.21

4.1.4 Contribution for Sample Group 4
Table 39 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 4 for Quaker Oats cartons based on
each phase. Figures A.16 to A.20 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each phase to each
life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 4.
Table 39 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 4.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission
(kg CO2-Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

2001
3,554.40
1,170.10
-49.47
3,342.40
491.52
3.91
166.87
10.19

2011
3,027.70
1,013.30
-45.06
2,569.10
407.89
1.71
137.61
8.31

-0.04
57.69
5.40
0.31
-2.03
68.41
168.57

-0.03
46.29
4.46
0.10
-3.67
59.78
138.04

4.2 Category 2: Glass bottles and jars
Figures 60 to 64 show the comparisons of the LCA results between the old package and
the current package for the Sample Groups in Category 2. Figure 60 is for the fossil fuel
consumption, Figure 61 is for the water consumption, Figure 62 is for the biotic resource
consumption, Figure 63 is for the mineral resource consumption, and Figure 64 is for the
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The conversion phases of the glass packages have no data,
since COMPASS includes the conversion phase in manufacturing for glass materials.

85

This category has glass bottles, but four of the samples represent a transition from glass
to PET, aluminum and paperboard. In the strictly glass to glass samples, there was not much
change in the results of every indicator. If the package changed from glass to PET, fossil fuel
consumption and GHG emissions increased. If the glass jar was changed from glass to a
paperboard carton, only the biotic resource consumption increased. Paperboard’s lower energy
requirements during production affect these results. This is because the paperboard consumes
trees, which need biotic resources, whereas the glass is almost abiotic material. If the glass jar
was changed from glass to a steel can, all resource consumption and GHG emissions decreased.
The lower resource consumption of steel production and high recycling rate of the steel can
affect this result.
In cases of Sample Group 5 for Coca-Cola bottles, Sample Group 6 for Campbell’s Soup
packages, and Sample Group 8 for Heinz Apple cider bottles, the old package demanded more
fossil fuel, water, biotic resources, and mineral resources and generated more GHG than the
current package.
In case of Sample Group 7 for Heinz Ketchup bottles, the old package demanded more
water, biotic resources, and mineral resources and generated more GHG than the current package.
The current package demanded more fossil fuel consumption than the old package.
In case of Sample Group 9 for Kraft Romano Cheese packages, the old package
demanded more water, biotic resources, and mineral resources, while the current package
demanded more fossil fuel and generated more GHG than the old package.
In case of Sample Group 10 for Tropicana Orange Juice packages, the old package
demanded more fossil fuel, water, and mineral resources and generated more GHG than the
current package, while it demanded less biotic resources than the current one.

86

The main reasons for the results for Sample Group 5 and Sample Group 8 are the weights
of the glass jars or bottles, since both packages are both glass.

Figure 60 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Groups in Category 2

Figure 61 Water consumption of Sample Groups in Category 2

87

Figure 62 Biotic resources consumption of Sample Groups in Category 2

Figure 63 Mineral resources consumption of Sample Groups in Category 2

88

Figure 64 Greenhouse gas emissions of Sample Groups in Category 2
As shown in the following sections, which show details of the results from each sample
group, manufacturing of the glass bottles was found to be the primary contributor to the
consumption of fossil fuel, water, mineral and biotic resources and GHG emissions. This is
because the silica production consumes these resources. The end-of-life phase for glass bottles
has considerably less impact, because glass is highly recycled and does not biodegrade. The
conversion phase of glass is included in the manufacturing phase.

89

4.2.1 Contribution for Sample Group 5
Table 40 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 5 for Coca-Cola Coke bottles based on
each phase. Figures A.21 to A.25 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each phase to each
life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 5.
Table 40 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 5.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)
Biotic Resource
3

Consumption (m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission

Phases
Manufacture
End of Life
Manufacture
End of Life
Manufacture
End of Life
Manufacture
End of Life
Manufacture
End of Life

(kg CO2-Equiv)
Conversion of glass is included in manufacture.

90

1971
13,053.00
162.77
9,907.30
145.43
57.28

2011
10,513.00
131.10
7,979.70
117.14
46.13

0.07
1,028.20
0.06
813.60

0.06
828.16
0.05
655.30

12.85

10.35

4.2.2 Contribution for Sample Group 6
Table 41 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 6 for Campbell’s Soup packages based
on each phase. Figures A.25 to A.30 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each phase to
each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 6.
Table 41 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 6.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
GHG Emission
Manufacture
Conversion
(kg CO2-Equiv)
End of Life
Conversion of glass is included in manufacture.

91

1997
8,529.70
152.58
105.61
6,553.10
56.13
88.15
39.64
0.06

2011
3,691.00
1,170.30
3.68
2,971.30
340.37
1.48
13.98
0.50

0.04
647.97
3.80
0.04
536.39
11.07
11.25

0.00
171.34
25.72
0.02
266.61
80.82
7.76

4.2.3 Contribution for Sample Group 7
Table 42 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 7 for Heinz Tomato Ketchup bottles
based on each phase. Figures A.31 to A.35 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each
phase to each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 7.
Table 42 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 7.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
GHG Emission
Manufacture
Conversion
(kg CO2-Equiv)
End of Life
Conversion of glass is included in manufacture.

92

1992
7,969.10
51.40
104.29
6,075.80
18.91
87.02
35.74
0.02

2011
8,742.20
2,385.50
-118.80
493.74
1,158.10
-12.98
3.28
20.72

0.04
619.67
1.28
0.04
498.29
3.73
9.20

-0.08
2.36
8.25
-0.01
300.59
160.32
29.07

4.2.4 Contribution for Sample Group 8
Table 43 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 8 for Heinz Apple Cider bottles based
on each phase. Figures A.36 to A.40 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each phase to
each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 8.
Table 43 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 8.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
GHG Emission
Manufacture
Conversion
(kg CO2-Equiv)
End of Life
Conversion of glass is included in manufacture.

93

1992
8,251.10
33.20
104.93
6,233.70
6.41
88.24
42.16
0.01

2011
7,875.10
125.92
93.75
5,810.90
21.30
82.82
39.54
0.23

0.04
618.54
0.08
0.05
516.26
2.68
12.78

0.04
585.21
0.20
0.04
468.90
8.52
13.29

4.2.5 Contribution for Sample Group 9
Table 44 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 9 for Kraft Romano Cheese packages
based on each phase. Figures A.41 to A.45 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each
phase to each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 9.
Table 44 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 9.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
GHG Emission
Manufacture
Conversion
(kg CO2-Equiv)
End of Life
Conversion of glass is included in manufacture.

94

1980
10,681.00
152.11
132.59
8,405.40
55.59
112.25
54.25
0.07

2011
14,429.00
3,781.30
-192.03
771.20
1,785.10
-20.77
1.40
32.10

0.05
818.52
3.71
0.06
661.83
11.24
21.06

-0.13
5.14
12.79
-0.01
495.28
254.47
45.93

4.2.6 Contribution for Sample Group 10
Table 45 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 10 for Tropicana Orange Juice
packages based on each phase. Figures A.46 to A.50 in the Appendix A show the contribution of
each phase to each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 10.
Table 45 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 10.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
GHG Emission
Manufacture
Conversion
(kg CO2-Equiv)
End of Life
Conversion of glass is included in manufacture.

1980
7,281.70
213.33
79.89
5,031.50
35.77
73.21
28.97
0.39

2011
840.97
372.05
-16.43
3,545.90
177.33
1.24
85.68
3.82

0.03
519.68
0.34
0.03
425.31
14.10
9.64

-0.01
29.39
1.97
0.04
-16.70
21.01
61.66

4.3 Category 3: Metal cans
Figures 65 to 69 show the comparisons of the LCA results between the old package and
the current package of the Sample Groups in Category 3. Figure 65 is for fossil fuel consumption,
Figure 66 is for water consumption, Figure 67 is for biotic resource consumption, Figure 68 is
for mineral resource consumption, and Figure 69 is for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
In cases of Sample Group 11 for Coca-Cola Coke cans and Sample Group 12 for CocaCola Diet Coke cans, the old aluminum cans demanded more fossil fuel, water, biotic resources,

95

and mineral resources and generated more GHG than the current package. The primary reason
for this is the lighter weight of the new packages.
In case of Sample Group 13, Maxwell House Coffee packages, the current HDPE jar
demanded more water, biotic resources and generates less GHG than the old steel can, whereas
the steel can demanded more mineral resource consumption. This is because the HDPE jar
consumed a relatively large amount of energy resources and generates GHG during its
manufacturing and conversion stage, such as production of resins/pellets, and the molding
process.

Figure 65 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Groups in Category 3

96

Figure 66 Water consumption of Sample Groups in Category 3

Figure 67 Biotic resources consumption of Sample Groups in Category 3

97

Figure 68 Mineral resources consumption of Sample Groups in Category 3

Figure 69 Greenhouse gas emissions of Sample Groups in Category 3
As shown in the following sections, which show details the results from each sample
group, manufacturing of the steel can was found to be the primary contributor to the
consumption of fossil fuel, water, biotic resource, and mineral resource and GHG emissions.
This is because extracting bauxite and producing alumina powder mostly demand them and
generate it.

98

The manufacturing phase of the HDPE jar for the current package is also highest
contributor to the consumption of fossil fuel and GHG emissions. This means that production of
resins/pellets demanded more fossil fuel consumption and generated more GHG emissions than
the conversion process such as injection molding.
The end-of-life phase is a negative source of fossil fuel consumption, water consumption,
biotic resource consumption, and mineral resource consumption for both packages since the
material can be recycled or recovered from waste to energy, representing a credit of fossil
fuel/other resources that can be avoided of use. As Table A1 in Appendix B indicates, by using
COMPASS, the end-of-life phase of glass bottles for beverages composed of 34.5% recycling,
12.6% waste to energy, and 52.9% landfill. The end-of-life of glass jars composed of 14.8%
recycling, 12.6% waste to energy, and 72.6% landfill.

99

4.3.1 Contribution for Sample Group 11
Table 46 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 11 for Coca-Cola Coke cans based on
each phase. Figures A.51 to A.55 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each phase to each
life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 11.
Table 46 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 11.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission
(kg CO2-Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

100

1984
6,692.20
501.71
7.28
2,324.40
94.48
2.95
1.09
0.20

2011
4,987.00
373.88
5.43
1,732.20
70.41
2.19
0.81
0.15

0.00
81.28
1.21
0.10
552.54
37.51
0.58

0.00
60.57
0.90
0.07
411.76
27.95
0.43

4.3.2 Contribution for Sample Group 12
Table 47 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 12 for Coca-Cola Diet Coke Cans
based on each phase. Figures A.56 to A.60 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each
phase to each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 12.
Table 47 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 12.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission
(kg CO2-Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

101

1980
6,764.10
507.10
7.36
2,349.40
95.50
2.98
1.10
0.20

2011
4,771.80
357.74
5.19
1,657.40
67.37
2.10
0.78
0.14

0.00
82.15
1.22
0.10
558.48
37.91
0.58

0.00
57.95
0.86
0.07
393.98
26.74
0.41

4.3.3 Contribution for Sample Group 13
Table 48 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 13 for Maxwell House Coffee
packages based on each phase. Figures A.61 to A.65 in the Appendix A show the contribution of
each phase to each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 13.
Table 48 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 13.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission
2

(kg CO -Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

1987
1,695.40
530.88
-14.81
391.62
108.09
-1.56
0.13
0.73

2011
13,556.00
4,058.30
-172.18
527.43
680.97
-18.40
0.45
7.35

-0.01
22.59
4.19
0.00
61.68
35.48
5.68

-0.12
4.91
6.42
0.02
305.67
268.46
58.04

4.4 Category 4: Rigid plastic
Figures 70 to 74 show the comparisons of the LCA results between the old package and
the current package of the sample groups in Category 4. Figure 70 is for fossil fuel consumption,
Figure 71 is for water consumption, Figure 72 is for biotic resource consumption, Figure 73 is
for mineral resource consumption, and Figure 74 is for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
For these rigid plastic packages, there is not much difference between the old and current
LCA values. This is because in all samples they are the same plastic (PET or PP), and in most
cases they are almost the same weight. In cases of Sample Group 14 for Coca-Cola bottles,

102

Sample Group 15 for Kraft Parmesan Cheese bottles, Sample Group 17 for Dannon Plain Yogurt
cups, Sample Group 18 for Dannon Yogurt small size cups, Sample Group 19 for Absopure
Water bottles, and Sample Group 20 for Hershey’s Chocolate Syrup containers, the old packages
demand slightly more fossil fuel, water, biotic resources, and mineral resources and generate
more GHG than the current packages.
In case of Sample Group 16 for JIF Peanut Butter containers, the old package demanded
slightly more fossil fuel, water, and biotic resources and generated more GHG than the current
package. The current package demanded slightly more mineral resource than the old package
because of bleached paper.

Figure 70 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Groups in Category 4

103

Figure 71 Water consumption of Sample Groups in Category 4

Figure 72 Biotic resources consumption of Sample Groups in Category 4

104

Figure 73 Mineral resources consumption of Sample Groups in Category 4

Figure 74 Greenhouse gas emissions of Sample Groups in Category 4
As shown in the following sections, which detail the results from each sample group,
manufacturing of the rigid plastic packages was found to be the primary contributor to the
consumption of fossil fuel and GHG emissions. This is because of the energy assigned to make,
extract and process raw materials and fuel resources such as crude oil and natural gas. The
105

conversion process is a secondary contributor for fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions,
because of the production process of the rigid plastic packages using the resins such as blow
molding of bottles and injection molding of caps. Fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions
are closely related in this category, since the majority of the GHG emissions is fossil fuel-related
for the flake production and energy used to convert the flake to pellet.
The primary contributor to the water consumption, biotic resource consumption, and
mineral resource consumption is the conversion phase for most plastic packages in this study, but
the consumption of these resources is small.
The end-of-life phase is a negative source of fossil fuel consumption, water consumption,
biotic resource consumption, and mineral resource consumption for both packages since the
material can be recycled or recovered from waste to energy, representing a credit of fossil
fuel/other resources that can be avoided of resource use. As Table A1 in Appendix B indicates,
by using COMPASS, the end-of-life phase of PET beverage bottles composed of 36.6%
recycling, 12.6% waste to energy, and 50.8% landfill. The end-of-life of the other PET
containers composed of 15.6% recycling, 12.6% waste to energy, and 71.8% landfill.

106

4.4.1 Contribution for Sample Group 14
Table 49 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 14 for Coca-Cola bottles based on each
phase. Figures A.66 to A.70 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each phase to each life
cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 14.
Table 49 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 14.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission
(kg CO2-Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

107

1986
5,222.80
1,315.40
-65.75
384.24
701.72
-6.62
0.60
12.76

2011
4,271.80
1,113.20
-60.24
219.28
690.90
-6.70
0.53
12.95

-0.04
5.64
4.94
0.00
208.52
88.86
14.22

-0.04
0.41
4.74
-0.01
165.90
75.29
11.88

4.4.2 Contribution for Sample Group 15
Table 50 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 15 for Kraft Parmesan Cheese bottles
based on each phase. Figures A.71 to A.75 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each
phase to each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 15.
Table 50 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 15.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission
(kg CO2-Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

108

1986
15,729.00
4,169.10
-209.87
832.30
1,960.50
-22.75
1.52
35.12

2011
14,453.00
3,823.30
-193.00
766.99
1,822.20
-20.92
1.42
32.73

-0.14
5.24
14.06
-0.02
539.26
280.38
50.12

-0.13
4.79
13.03
-0.02
498.78
257.20
45.89

4.4.3 Contribution for Sample Group 16
Table 51 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 16 for JIF Peanut butter containers
based on each phase. Figures A.76 to A.80 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each
phase to each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 16.
Table 51 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 16.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission
(kg CO2-Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

109

1988
7,145.30
1,925.20
-95.97
558.04
930.29
-10.19
8.21
16.61

2011
5,619.50
1,469.30
-73.79
572.55
745.56
-7.51
10.43
13.43

-0.07
4.58
6.63
-0.01
245.20
129.55
26.49

-0.05
6.27
5.27
0.00
200.99
99.17
22.33

4.4.4 Contribution for Sample Group 17
Table 52 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 52 for Dannon Plain Yogurt cups
based on each phase. Figures A.81 to A.85 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each
phase to each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 17.
Table 52 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 17.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission
(kg CO2-Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

110

1986-1990
4,233.30
1,318.90
-56.23
150.49
221.12
-6.22
0.13
2.40

2011
2,925.40
911.45
-38.87
104.00
152.81
-4.30
0.09
1.66

-0.04
0.11
2.08
0.00
87.26
87.17
16.36

-0.03
0.08
1.44
0.00
60.30
60.24
11.30

4.4.5 Contribution for Sample Group 18
Table 53 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 18 for Dannon Yogurt small size cups
based on each phase. Figures A.86 to A.90 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each
phase to each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 18.
Table 53 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 18.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission
(kg CO2-Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

111

2000
4,896.40
1,432.60
-58.74
296.52
240.79
-5.87
0.20
2.57

2011
3,662.90
1,034.90
-41.43
270.37
174.20
-3.87
0.17
1.84

-0.04
4.89
2.28
0.01
125.26
94.94
17.46

-0.03
5.55
1.66
0.01
103.35
68.69
12.50

4.4.6 Contribution for Sample Group 19
Table 54 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 19 for Absopure Water bottles based
on each phase. Figures A.91 to A.95 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each phase to
each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 19.
Table 54 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 19.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission
(kg CO2-Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

112

2004
2,867.90
756.38
-40.19
142.54
430.56
-4.47
0.33
7.97

2011
2,690.30
703.22
-37.80
135.52
416.40
-4.20
0.32
7.76

-0.03
0.25
2.99
-0.01
105.98
51.04
8.30

-0.03
0.25
2.87
-0.01
101.51
47.51
7.66

4.4.7 Contribution for Sample Group 20
Table 55 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 20 for Hershey’s Chocolate Syrup
containers based on each phase. Figures A.96 to A.100 in the Appendix A show the contribution
of each phase to each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 20.
Table 55 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 20.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission
(kg CO2-Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

1999
5,804.10
1,765.50
-76.02
202.79
296.02
-8.34
1.47
3.22

2011
5,394.40
1,644.80
-70.73
157.57
275.75
-7.80
0.16
3.00

-0.05
0.63
2.78
0.01
120.73
116.72
26.79

-0.05
0.13
2.59
0.01
112.54
108.70
24.28

4.5 Category 5: McDonald’s
Figures 75 to 79 show the comparisons of the LCA results between the old package and
the current package of the Sample Groups in Category 4. Figure 75 is for fossil fuel consumption,
Figure 76 is for water consumption, Figure 77 is for biotic resource consumption, Figure 78 is
for mineral resource consumption, and Figure 79 is for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
In cases of all Sample Groups for McDonald’s packages in Category 5, the corrugated
paperboard clamshell for the current package demanded more water, biotic resources, and
mineral resources and generated slightly more GHG than the EPS clamshell for the old package.

113

This is because the EPS merely needs resources while the paperboard needs trees harvested to
make paperboard, the clay coating, and has high energy and water usage in the pulping process.
However, if paperboard packages do not degrade after disposal, they store carbon and
generate less greenhouse gas emissions than EPS packages. They generate higher greenhouse gas
emissions than EPS packages, if paperboard packages degrade to the maximum extent (Franklin
2011).
Another important factor for this result is post-consumer recycled (PCR) content of the
corrugated paperboard clamshell for the current package. The paperboard clamshell is made of
paperboards with 37% PCR. In COMPASS, the higher PCR rate increases the GHG emissions
for the manufacturing phase of the corrugated paperboard clamshell.
The higher PCR rate generally reduces GHG emissions for some materials such as
polymers, but for paper that is not always the case. According to Minal Mistry of SPC, who is
the author of the COMPASS guide manual, it depends very much on how the specific paper is
made. For example, in North America integrated mills use waste wood and fibers as a source of
fuel to generate the steam used for heating the pulp and drying the paper, thus they have low
purchased fuels and electricity from the grid. On the other hand, most recycled paper mills
operate using direct grid energy or purchased fuels such as gas and oil for heating. This raises
their GHG profile. In Europe, where trees aren't as abundant as in North America, they tend to
purchase what is called market pulp, or dried pulp made in the U.S or Canada, which is
rehydrated and made into paper using electricity. Each of these processes has a different fuel
profile and consequently their GHG burdens vary widely. This is why in the US some virgin
papers have a better profile than their PCR counterpart.

114

Therefore, which product was better when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions depends
on the disposal method and condition at the end-of-life stage because of uncertainties over
whether paper-based products degrade after disposal.
The EPS clamshell demanded more fossil fuel consumption than the corrugated
paperboard clamshell.

Figure 75 Fossil fuel consumption of Sample Groups in Category 5

Figure 76 Water consumption of Sample Groups in Category 5

115

Figure 77 Biotic resource consumption of Sample Groups in Category 5

Figure 78 Mineral resource consumption of Sample Groups in Category 5

116

Figure 79 Greenhouse gas emissions of Sample Groups in Category 5
As shown in the following sections, which detail the results from each sample group,
manufacturing of the EPS clamshells was found to be the primary contributor to the consumption
of fossil fuel, water, mineral and biotic resources, and GHG emissions. This is because there are
manufacturing-related GHG emissions from resin production processes such as raw material
extraction. The conversion phase is the second highest contributor for EPS clamshells, since it
generates GHG from the production and destruction of the blowing agent used in foam product
conversion. The end-of-life phase for EPS clamshells has relatively less impact, because they
have a high carbon content and do not decompose to produce methane in landfills (Franklin
2011).
The end-of-life phase of the corrugated paperboard clamshells was found to be the main
contributor to GHG emissions, since paperboard generates GHG as it decomposes. End-of-life
results for paperboard products vary considerably depending on assumptions about
decomposition, as discussed at Category 1 of this Chapter. The manufacturing phase of the
corrugated paperboard clamshells is the second highest contributor to the GHG emissions.

117

The manufacturing phase of the paperboard was found to be the primary contributor to
the consumption of fossil fuel, water, mineral and biotic resources. This is because of the trees
harvested to make paperboard, the clay coating, and the high energy and water usage in the
pulping process, including the repulping process for recycled paperboard. The conversion
process is a secondary contributor to resource consumption because the scoring, cutting and
corrugating are more mechanical than resource-intensive.
4.5.1 Contribution for Sample Group 21
Table 56 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 21 for McDonald’s Big Mac packages
based on each phase. Figures A.101 to A.105 in the Appendix A show the contribution of each
phase to each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 21.
Table 56 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 21.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission
(kg CO2-Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

118

Before 1991
2,486.00
276.52
-26.04
134.12
64.84
-2.86
0.08
0.12

2011
784.61
165.47
-19.58
1,539.10
116.92
2.35
52.63
3.19

-0.02
0.07
0.09
0.01
74.16
22.15
10.07

-0.01
20.27
1.27
0.06
17.68
10.04
89.54

4.5.2 Contribution for Sample Group 22
Table 57 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 22 for McDonald’s Quarter Pounder
packages based on each phase. Figures A.106 to A.110 in the Appendix A show the contribution
of each phase to each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 22.
Table 57 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 22.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission
(kg CO2-Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

119

Before 1991
2,388.30
265.66
-25.01
128.85
62.30
-2.75
0.08
0.11

2011
833.26
175.73
-20.79
1,634.50
124.17
2.49
55.89
3.39

-0.02
0.07
0.09
0.01
71.25
21.28
9.68

-0.02
21.53
1.34
0.07
18.78
10.66
95.09

4.5.3 Contribution for Sample Group 23
Table 58 shows the LCA results of Sample Group 23 for McDonald’s Filet-O-Fish
packages based on each phase. Figures A.110 to A.115 in the Appendix A show the contribution
of each phase to each life cycle impact indicator for Sample Group 23.
Table 58 Total life cycle impacts in impact categories of Sample Group 23.
Impact Indicators
Fossil Fuel Consumption
(MJ-equiv)
Water Consumption (l)

Biotic Resource
Consumption
3

(m )
Mineral Consumption
(kg)
GHG Emission
(kg CO2-Equiv)

Phases
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life
Manufacture
Conversion
End of Life

120

Before 1991
3,538.30
393.58
-37.06
190.90
92.29
-4.07
0.12
0.17

2011
1,151.60
242.87
-28.74
2,258.90
171.61
3.45
77.25
4.68

-0.03
0.10
0.13
0.02
105.55
31.53
14.34

-0.02
29.75
1.86
0.09
25.95
14.74
131.42

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The evaluation of environmentally sustainable packaging allows several conclusions to
be made when LCA is performed. This is because LCA practitioners set or weight certain impact
indicators for their own purposes. For example, if someone wants a packaging design that
generates less greenhouse gas, other indicators may not be considered significant even if an
alternative packaging demanded much less water and mineral resource consumption.
In this study, the main standard of judgment for whether the current package is more
environmentally sustainable than the old package is based on the results of five life cycle impact
indicators. Since there was no particular indicator given a higher weight in these five life cycle
impact indicators, the final decision which package is more environmentally sustainable in a
sample group is made considering all impact indicators. For example, when an old package
demands more water resources, biotic resources, and mineral resources than a current package,
and the current package generates more GHG emissions and demands more fossil fuel than the
old package, the current package is regarded as the more environmentally sustainable than the
old package. This is because the current package has less environmental impacts than the old
package in three of the five impact indicators.
For paperboard cartons in this study, the manufacturing phase was generally the main
contributor for the fossil fuel consumption, water consumption, biotic resource consumption, and
mineral consumption.
For glass bottles and jars in this study, the manufacturing phase was the primary
contributor for all impact indicators.

121

For aluminum cans and steel cans, the manufacturing phase was the highest contributor
for all impact indicators. The main contributor to the biotic resource consumption for the steel
can was the conversion phase, but it was negligible.
For rigid plastic containers, such as PET, PP, HDPE and EPS, the manufacturing phase
was generally the highest contributor for fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions. The main
contributor to water consumption, biotic resource consumption, and mineral consumption for the
rigid plastic containers was generally the conversion phase.
In case of Category 1 for the four paperboard carton sample groups, the old packages of
three sample groups demanded more fossil fuel, water, biotic resources, and mineral resources
and generated more GHG than the current packages. The primary reason for these results is the
lighter weight of the current packages’ paperboard, since the materials of both packages were
almost the same. The results mean that the current package has less environmental impacts than
the old package for four groups of the five based on the five impact indicators.
Among the six groups of glass bottles and jars for Category 2, two sample groups,
Sample Groups 5 and 8, had the same materials between the old package and the current package.
Because of their heavier weights, the old packages of these two groups demanded more fossil
fuel, water, biotic resources, and mineral resources and generated more GHG emissions. This
means that the current package has less environmental impacts than the old package for the two
sample groups, since all impact indicators show that result.
In the case of the other four groups for Category 2, the old glass bottles and jars were
changed to other materials: a steel can, a PET container, and a paperboard carton.
When the glass jar was changed to a steel can like Sample Group 6, the old glass jar
demanded more fossil fuel, water, biotic resources, and mineral resources and generated more

122

GHG emissions than the current steel can. This means that the can has less environmental
impacts, since all impact indicators show this result.
When the glass jar was changed to a PET container, as in Sample Groups 7 and 9, the old
glass jars demanded more water, biotic resources, and mineral resources and more or almost
same GHG emissions than the current PET containers. This means that the current package has
less environmental impacts, since three to four of the five impact indicators show this result.
If the glass jar was changed to a paperboard carton like Sample Group 10, the old glass
jar demanded more fossil fuel, water, and mineral resources and generated more GHG than the
current paperboard carton. This means that the current package has less environmental impacts
than the old package since four of the five impact indicators show this result.
Among three groups of the metal can for Category 3, Sample Group 11 and Sample
Group 12, had the same materials between the old package and the current package. The old
packages of the sample groups consumed more fossil fuel, water, biotic resources, and mineral
resources and generated more GHG than the current packages of the sample groups, because of
the lighter weights of the aluminum cans. This means that the current package has less
environmental impacts than the old package, since all impact indicators show this result.
Like Sample Group 13, when the steel can for the old package was changed to the HDPE
jar for the current package, the current HDPE jar consumed more fossil fuel, water, and biotic
resources and generated more GHG emissions than the old steel can. This means that the old
package had less environmental impact than the current package, since four of the five impact
indicators show this result.
In cases of the seven sample groups in Category 4, the old rigid plastic package
consumed more fossil fuel, water, biotic resources, and mineral resources and generated more

123

GHG than the current rigid plastic package for all sample groups. The main reason for these
results is the lighter weight of the current packages’ plastic material, since the materials of both
packages were not largely changed over time. This means that the current package has less
environmental impact than the old package, since all impact indicators show this result.
In case of the three sample groups in Category 5, the EPS clamshell for the old package
had less environmental impact than the corrugated paperboard clamshell, because four of the five
impact indicators, water consumption, biotic resource consumption, mineral resource
consumption, and GHG emissions, increased.
Of the twenty-three comparison sample groups, eighteen groups, 78.3% of the total
groups, show that currently produced packages in 2011 had less environmental impact than the
old packages from the 1970s to 2000s, through their entire life cycle.
With these results, the hypothesis of this study that most companies in the U.S. have
made efforts to design more environmentally sustainably packaging is supported. The reasons for
this change include increasing social concerns, such as consumers’ needs and government
policies. Another reason is the packaging industry’s natural tendency to lightweight and to
switch to lower cost packaging substitutes (for example from glass) when new technology
becomes available. Since the concerns are still increasing around the world, it is expected that
this trend will continue in the future.
Due to the limited variety of manufacturing years and sample types in this study, the
comparison results between old and current package design may not perfectly represent the
absolute trend in all decades. Despite this limitation, the results of LCA using randomly selected
samples in this study show a clear trend over time.

124

5.1 Limitations
A number of assumptions and limitations apply to this study, because life cycle inventory
data for some processes in the life cycle of package were simulated, instead of acquiring the
actual data. Furthermore, comparative LCA analysis has limitations. It is simple but may easily
induce claims without a proper analysis of the robustness of the claims with respect to
uncertainties (Heijungs et al. 2008). A number of limitations and uncertainties can be listed:
•

The life cycle assessment was performed with the U.S inventory dataset of
COMPASS software developed by SPC. Since the database was established by using
average values in industry, the inventory data used in this study could be different
with actual data values of each company or process.

•

This study only used the five impact indicators: GHG emissions, fossil fuel
consumption, water consumption, biotic resource consumption, and mineral resource
consumption. If other impact indicators are added, the decision of which one has less
environmental impacts may change.

•

This study considered the results of the five impact indicators equally. If particular
impact indicators were weighted as more important factors, the final decision of
which one was more environmentally sustainable could change.

•

Secondary packaging and packaging systems were excluded from the scope and
boundaries of this study. But, it would not be surprising to find that the shipping
containers are much more sustainable now that there is more recycled content and
lower basis weight board, compared to the 1970s.

•

Simple weight measurements do not reflect technology changes over time which may
have increased sustainability, as cleaner production.

125

•

For plastic packaging, the difference between conversion and manufacturing phases is
not always clear; for example thermoforming may include sheet production as part of
manufacturing or conversion.

•

The transportation stage was not included in this study.

•

Printing processes were excluded because there is no printing section in COMPASS.

•

Because the source of old packaging samples was the Museum of Michigan State
University, and there were limited numbers of old packaging samples, only one
sample could be investigated for each package.

•

The packaging samples were manually weighed which could be a source of error.

•

Because of the limited number of the old packages, statistical analysis was not
performed. For example, t-tests and ANOVA require at least three samples for each
product.

•

The post-consumer recycling (PCR) rates of packaging materials were entered
following the scope of COMPASS software in this study. However, “Due to
technology limitations some materials have a cap on the amount of PCR they contain,
for example, steel at 35% PCR” (Mistry 2010b, p. 5). If the PCR rate of a material
was out of the scope, PCR rates of the materials of the package and alternative were
excluded. Since COMPASS could not deal the PCR rate for some of packaging
materials, especially plastics, the LCA result for the packages is possible to be
changed when the post-consumer recycling (PCR) rate is included into COMPASS.

•

There was no historical progression of packages, simply “old” and “new”.

•

A sensitivity and uncertainty analysis were not included in this study.

126

•

If a component of an old packaging sample was missed, the corresponding
component of a current packaging sample was not investigated.

The assumptions in this study include:
•

Paper labels of packages were made of bleached paper (BP).

•

Plastic labels of packages were made of polypropylene (PP).

•

“Because composite components are presumed to require disassembly or processing
in order to recover the original materials in the component, composite components
are assumed to be non-recyclable in the current recycling system” (Mistry 2010b, p.
5).

5.2 Recommendations for future study
The following elements are recommended:
1. Inventory of LCA extracted from actual processing data will allow for more realistic
results.
2. Supply chains and transportation phases need to be included in an LCA.
3. Secondary packaging, cube efficiency, and packaging systems need to be considered
in an LCA in order to achieve more holistic results.
4. Investigation of the end-of-life phase for composite components needs to be
performed by specific disposal methods. In this study, COMPASS assumed
composite components to be non-recyclable.
5. Uncertainty analysis or sensitivity analysis may help with the accuracy of LCA
results.
6. Weights of packaging need to be measured more times with more samples for more
accurate results.

127

7. The post-consumer recycling rate of packages should be specifically considered in the
LCA software.
8. If an LCA considers specific geographical factors for each product, more accurate
results can be obtained. This study used only the U.S average dataset provided by
COMPASS.
9. A greater variety of old packaging samples needs to be considered for evaluation so
that the conclusions of this study can be validated with more accurate results.
10. Further study of environmental sustainability of packaging connected to economic
feasibility of the packaging system is needed.

128

APPENDICES

129

APPENDIX A

Figures of the LCA results for each Sample Group

Figure A 1 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 1

130

Figure A 2 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 1

Figure A 3 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 1

131

3

Figure A 4 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 1

Figure A 5 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 1

132

Figure A 6 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 2

Figure A 7 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 2

133

Figure A 8 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 2

3

Figure A 9 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 2

134

Figure A 10 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 2

Figure A 11 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 3

135

Figure A 12 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 3

Figure A 13 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 3

136

3

Figure A 14 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 3

Figure A 15 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 3

137

Figure A 16 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 4

Figure A 17 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 4

138

Figure A 18 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 4

3

Figure A 19 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 4

139

Figure A 20 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 4

Figure A 21 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 5

140

Figure A 22 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 5

Figure A 23 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 5

141

3

Figure A 24 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 5

Figure A 25 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 5

142

Figure A 26 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 6

Figure A 27 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 6

143

Figure A 28 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 6

3

Figure A 29 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 6

144

Figure A 30 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 6

Figure A 31 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 7

145

Figure A 32 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 7

Figure A 33 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 7

146

3

Figure A 34 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 7

Figure A 35 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 7

147

Figure A 36 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 8

Figure A 37 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 8

148

Figure A 38 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 8

3

Figure A 39 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 8

149

Figure A 40 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 8

Figure A 41 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 9

150

Figure A 42 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 9

Figure A 43 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 9

151

3

Figure A 44 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 9

Figure A 45 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 9

152

Figure A 46 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 10

Figure A 47 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 10

153

Figure A 48 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 10

3

Figure A 49 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 10

154

Figure A 50 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 10

Figure A 51 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 11

155

Figure A 52 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 11

Figure A 53 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 11

156

3

Figure A 54 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 11

Figure A 55 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 11

157

Figure A 56 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 12

Figure A 57 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 12

158

Figure A 58 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 12

3

Figure A 59 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 12

159

Figure A 60 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 12

Figure A 61 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 13

160

Figure A 62 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 13

Figure A 63 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 13

161

3

Figure A 64 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 13

Figure A 65 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 13

162

Figure A 66 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 14

Figure A 67 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 14

163

Figure A 68 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 14

3

Figure A 69 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 14

164

Figure A 70 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 14

Figure A 71 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 15

165

Figure A 72 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 15

Figure A 73 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 15

166

3

Figure A 74 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 15

Figure A 75 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 15

167

Figure A 76 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 16

Figure A 77 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 16

168

Figure A 78 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 16

3

Figure A 79 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 16

169

Figure A 80 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 16

Figure A 81 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 17

170

Figure A 82 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 17

Figure A 83 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 17

171

3

Figure A 84 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 17

Figure A 85 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 17

172

Figure A 86 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 18

Figure A 87 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 18

173

Figure A 88 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 18

3

Figure A 89 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 18

174

Figure A 90 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 18

Figure A 91 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 19

175

Figure A 92 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 19

Figure A 93 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 19

176

3

Figure A 94 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 19

Figure A 95 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 19

177

Figure A 96 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 20

Figure A 97 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 20

178

Figure A 98 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 20

3

Figure A 99 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 20

179

Figure A 100 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 20

Figure A 101 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 21

180

Figure A 102 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 21

Figure A 103 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 21

181

3

Figure A 104 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 22

Figure A 105 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 21

182

Figure A 106 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 22

Figure A 107 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 22

183

Figure A 108 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 22

3

Figure A 109 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 22

184

Figure A 110 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 22

Figure A 111 Global warming potential (in kg CO2-equiv) of Sample Group 23

185

Figure A 112 Fossil fuel consumption (in MJ-equiv) of Sample Group 23

Figure A 113 Water consumption (in liter) of Sample Group 23

186

3

Figure A 114 Biotic resource consumption (in m ) of Sample Group 23

Figure A 115 Mineral resource consumption (in kg) of Sample Group 23

187

APPENDIX B

End-of-life percentages in COMPASS

Table A 1 End-of-life conditions for packages in COMPASS (SPC 2008).
R: Recycling, C: Composting, W: Waste to Energy, I: Incineration, L1: Landfill, L2: Litter
Material

Types

R

C

W

I

L1

L2

Solid Bleached

Folding Carton

0.273

0

0.126

0

0.601

0

Sulfate (SBS)

Milk Carton

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Board

Other Paperboard

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Solid Unbleached

Folding Carton

0.273

0

0.126

0

0.601

0

Sulfate (SUS)

Milk Carton

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Board

Other Paperboard

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Recycled Folding

Folding Carton

0.273

0

0.126

0

0.601

0

Boxboard

Milk Carton

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Other Paperboard

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Corrugated Boxes

0.736

0

0.126

0

0.138

0

Other Paperboard

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Supercalendered

Bags & Sacks

0.368

0

0.126

0

0.506

0

Paper

Other Paper Packaging

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Packaging

Packaging

Packaging

Corrugated

Packaging

188

Table A 1 (Cont’d).
Material

Types

R

C

W

I

L1

L2

Unbleached Kraft

Bags & Sacks

0.368

0

0.126

0

0.506

0

Paper

Other Paper Packaging

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Bleached Kraft

Bags & Sacks

0.368

0

0.126

0

0.506

0

Paper

Other Paper Packaging

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

n/a

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

n/a

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Beer and Soft Drink Bottles

0.345

0

0.126

0

0.529

0

Wine and Liquor Bottles

0.15

0

0.126

0

0.724

0

Food and Other Bottles &

0.148

0

0.126

0

0.726

0

Other Glass Packaging

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Beer and Soft Drink Cans

0.486

0

0

0

0.514

0

Other Cans

0

0

0

0

1

0

Foil and Closures

0.098

0

0.126

0

0.776

0

Other Aluminum Packaging

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Beer and Soft Drink Cans

0

0

0

0

1

0

Food and Other Cans

0.643

0

0

0

0.357

0

Other Steel Packaging

0.667

0

0

0

0.333

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Liquid Packaging
Board
Modified Starch Mater-bi
Container Glass

Jars

Aluminum

Steel

189

Table A 1 (Cont’d).
Material

Types

R

C

W

I

L1

L2

High-Density

Milk & Water Bottles

0.28

0

0.126

0

0.594

0

Polyethylene

Other Plastic Containers

0.17

0

0.126

0

0.704

0

(HDPE)

Bags, Sacks & Wraps

0.119

0

0.126

0

0.755

0

Other Plastic Packaging

0.023

0

0.126

0

0.851

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Low-Density

Other Plastic Containers

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Polyethylene

Bags, Sacks & Wraps

0.124

0

0.126

0

0.75

0

(LDPE)

Other Plastic Packaging

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Linear Low-

Other Plastic Containers

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Density

Bags, Sacks & Wraps

0.124

0

0.126

0

0.75

0

Polyethylene

Other Plastic Packaging

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

(LLDPE)

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Polyethylene

Soft Drink Bottles

0.366

0

0.126

0

0.508

0

Terephthalate

Other Plastic Containers

0.156

0

0.126

0

0.718

0

(PET)

Bags, Sacks & Wraps

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Other Plastic Packaging

0.182

0

0.126

0

0.692

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Polypropylene

Other Plastic Containers

0.024

0

0.126

0

0.85

0

(PP)

Bags, Sacks & Wraps

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Other Plastic Packaging

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Other Plastic Containers

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Bags, Sacks & Wraps

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Other Plastic Packaging

0.067

0

0.126

0

0.807

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Polystyrene (PS)

190

Table A 1 (Cont’d).
Material
Expanded

Types

R

C

W

I

L1

L2

n/a

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Polyvinyl Chloride

Other Plastic Containers

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

(PVC)

Bags, Sacks & Wraps

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Other Plastic Packaging

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

n/a

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Polylactic Acid

Bottles

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Pellet (PLA)

Other Plastic Containers

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Bags, Sacks & Wraps

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Other Plastic Packaging

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Composite

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

n/a

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Nylon 6

n/a

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Polycarbonate

n/a

0

0

0.126

0

0.874

0

Polystyrene (EPS)

Polyvinylidene
Chloride (PVDC)

Ethyl Vinyl
Acetate (EVA)

191

BIBLIOGRAPHY

192

BIBILIOGRAPHY

Bare, J. and Norris, G., et al. 2003. "TRACI—the tool for the reduction and assessment of
chemical and other environmental impacts." Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 6, iss. 3,
pg. 49-78.
Battisti, R. and Corrado, A. 2005. "Evaluation of technical improvements of photovoltaic
systems through life cycle assessment methodology." Science Direct Energy, vol. 30, iss.
7, pg. 952-967.
Brown, M. 2004. Meeting sustainability goals and environmental mandates using thermoformed
packaging. Available from
www.packaging2.com/PDF/Meeting_Sustainability_Goals.pdf
Cederberg, C. 2000. "Life cycle assessment of milk production — a comparison of conventional
and organic farming." Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 8, iss. 1, pg. 49-60.
CIWMB. 2008. Improving used oil recycling in California. Sacramento: California Integrated
Waste Management Board (CIWMB).
Corti, M. and Early, C., et al. 2007. Informing packaging design decisions at Toyota Motor sales
using life cycle assessment, Santa Barbara: Donald Bren School of Environmental
Science and Management, University of California-Santa Barbara.
CPA. 2010. Corrugated packaging life-cycle assessment summary report. Elk Grove Village:
Corrugated Packaging Alliance (CPA).
Elkington, J. 2004. "Enter the Triple Bottom Line". In Henriques, A., et al, The Triple Bottom
Line: does it all add up. London UK: EarthScan.
EPA. 2002. Municipal solid waste in the United States: 2000 facts and figures, the U.S
Environmental Protection Agency.
———. 2006. Life cycle assessment: principles and practices, the U.S Environmental Protection
Agency.
———. 2010. Municipal solid waste in the United States: 2009 facts and figures, the U.S
Environmental Protection Agency.
———. 2008. Carbon sequestration in agricultural and forestry. U.S. Envrionmental Protection
Agency. Available from http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/index.html.
Europen. 1999. Use of life cycle assessment (LCA) as a policy tool in the field of sustainable
packaging waste management. Brussels, Belgium: Europen.

193

Finnveden, G. 1999. "Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of integrated solid waste
management systems." Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 26, iss. 3, pg. 173–
187.
Fontaine, K. 2008. A practical approach to sustainability for flexible packaging buyers.
Versailles, CT: AMGRAPH Packaging Incorporation.
Franklin Associates. 2011. Life cycle inventory of foam polystyrene, paper-based, and PLA
foodservice products. Prairie Village, Kansas: Franklin Associates.
GIA. 2010. Sustainable (green) packaging: A global strategic business report. San Jose: Global
Industry Analyst Incorporation (GIA).
Heijungs, R. and Guinee, J. 1995. "On the usefulness of life cycle assessment of packaging."
Environmental Management, vol. 19, iss. 5, pg. 665-668.
Heijungs, R. and Haes, H. U. D. 2008. Life cycle assessment
-A product-oriented method for sustainability analysis-Training manual. Paris: The UNEP
SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Available from
http://www.estis.net/includes/file.asp?site=lcm-train&file=20126F13-C112-442C-A95FDE0AC66EF3DA.
Heijungs, R. and Kleijn, R. 2001. "Numerical approaches towards life cycle interpretation five
examples." International Journal of LCA, vol. 6, iss. 3, pg. 141-148.
Heinz. "Heinz Ketchup Frequently Asked Questions". H.J Heinz Company 2011. Available from
http://www.heinzketchup.com/FAQ.aspx.
Hunt, R. and Franklin, W. 1996. "LCA - How it came about - Personal reflections on the origin
and the development of LCA in the USA." International Journal of LCA, vol. 1, iss. 1, pg.
4-7.
ISO. 1997. ISO 14040:1997. Environmental Management -- Life Cycle Assessment -- Principles
and Framework. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
———. 1998. ISO 14041:1998 Environmental Management -- Life Cycle Assessment -- Goal
and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis. Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization (ISO).
———. 2000a. ISO 14042:2000. Environmental Management -- Life Cycle Assessment -- Life
Cycle Impact Assessment. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
———. 2000b. ISO 14043:2000 Environmental Management -- Life Cycle Assessment -- Life
Cycle Interpretation. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
———. 2006. ISO 14044:2006. Environmental Management -- Life Cycle Assessment -Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization
(ISO).

194

Jolliet, O. 2003a. Life cycle impact assessment programme of the life cycle initiative - Final
report of the LCIA definition study. Lausanne: Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.
Jolliet, O. 2003b. "IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology."
International Journal of LCA, vol. 8, iss. 6, pg. 324-330.
Klopffer, W. 2003. "Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development."
International Journal of LCA, vol. 8, iss. 3, pg. 157-159.
Koneczny, K. and Dragusanu, V., et al. 2008. "Environmental assessment of municipal waste
management scenarios: Part I – Data collection and preliminary assessments for life cycle
thinking pilot studies". Luxembourg: Official Publications of the European Communities,
Available from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/111111111/8477
Kralj, D. and Markic, M. 2008. "Sustainable development strategy and product responsibility."
WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development, vol. 4, iss. 1, pg. 1-12.
Lee, S. and Xu, X. 2005. "Design for the environment: life cycle assessment and sustainable
packaging issues." International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management,
vol. 5, iss. 1, pg. 14-40.
Levy, G. 2000. Packaging policy and the environment. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers
Incorporation.
Lewis, H. 2005. Draft definition - sustainable packaging. Melbourne: Sustainable Packaging
Alliance (SPA).
Lewis, H. and Fitzpatrick, L., et al. 2007. Sustainable packaging redefined draft. Melbourne:
Sustainable Packaging Alliance (SPA).
Manuilova, A. 2003. Life cycle assessment of industrial packaging for chemicals,
Environmentally sustainable process technology, Chalmers University of Technology:
Sweden.
Martino, D. 2003. Life Cycle Assessment – a tool for reducing the environmental impact of
packaging, MS thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Mckay, L. 2010. "Going green, Saving green." CRM Magazine.
Mcleod, C. 1999. "Making sense out of LCA." Strategic Environmental Management, vol. 1, iss.
3, pg. 207-226.
Mistry, M. 2010a. COMPASS manual – Part 1 Background and technical guide. Charlottesville,
VA: Sustainable Packaging Coaliation (SPC).
———. 2010b. COMPASS manual – Part 3 Glossary and reference materials. Charlottesville,
VA: Sustainable Packaging Coaliation (SPC).

195

Morgan, M. and Henrion, M. 1990. A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and
policy analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Morris, S. 1972. "The new village green.", In The limits to growth, Edited by Morris, S. British
Columbia: New Society Publishers.
Pike Research. Sustainable packaging market to reach $170 billion worldwide by 2014 2010.
Available from http://www.pikeresearch.com/newsroom/sustainable-packaging-marketto-reach-170-billion-worldwide-by-2014.
Rebitzera, G. 2004. "Life cycle assessment Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition,
inventory analysis, and applications." Environment International, vol. 30, iss. 5, pg. 701720.
Roy, P. and Nei, D., et al. 2009. "A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food
products." Journal of Food Engineering, vol. 90, iss. 1, pg. 1-10.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.06.016.
RSC. 2005. Life cycle assessment. London: Environment, Health and Safety Committee(EHSC)
of the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC).
Ruggles, R. and Phansey, A., et al. 2010. Guide to Sustainable Design: Chapter 4 Putting It All
Together. edited by Corporation, S.
Saouter, E. and Hoof, G. V. 2002. "A database for the life-cycle assessment of Procter & Gamble
laundry detergents." International Journal of LCA, vol. 7, iss. 2, pg. 103-114.
Sonneveld, K., and James, K., et al. 2005. "Sustainable packaging: How do we define and
measure it?" In 22nd IAPRI Symposium proceedings. Sao Paulo, Brazil: IAPRI.
SPC. 2008. U.S. Life cycle impact assessment data tables. Charlottesville: Sustainable Packaging
Coalition (SPC). Available from https://www.design-compass.org/info/downloads.
SPC. 2009. Definition of sustainable packaging version 2.0. Charlottesville: Sustainable
Packaging Coalition (SPC).
SPC. 2010. COMPASS® version 2.0. Charlottesville: Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC).
Svanes, E. and Vold, M., et al. 2010. "Sustainable packaging design: A holistic methodology for
packaging design." Packaging Technology and Science, vol. 23, iss. 3, pg. 161–175.
Svoboda, S. 1995a. Case B2: McDonald’s decision. Ann Arbor, MI: National Pollution
Prevention Center, University of Michigan.
———. 1995b. Pollution prevention in corporate strategy; Note on life cycle analysis. Ann
Arbor, MI: National Pollution Prevention Center (NPCC).

196

Thogersen, J. 1996. "Wasteful food consumption: Trends in food and packaging waste."
Scandinavian Journal of Management, vol. 12, iss. 3, pg. 291-304.
Unilever. 2009. Unilever sustainable development overview. Rotterdam: Unilever.
Verghese, K. 2007. "Environmental innovation in industrial packaging: a supply chain
approach." International Journal of Production Research, vol. 45, iss. 18, pg. 4381-4401.
WCED. 1987. Brundtland report: Our common future. World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED). London: Oxford University Press.
Why Did McDonald's Switch?. 2005. Questex Media Group LLC. Available from
http://www.packaging-online.com/paperboard-packaging-content/why-did-mcdonaldsswitch-0.
Woolridge, A. and Ward, G., et al. 2006. "Life cycle assessment for reuse/recycling of donated
waste textiles compared to use of virgin material: An UK energy saving perspective."
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 46, iss. 1, pg. 94-103.
Young, S. 2008. "Packaging and the environment: A cross-cultural perspective." Design
Management Review, vol. 19, iss. 4, pg. 42-48.

197