LCA for Packaging

The packaging industry is one of the most active sectors for Life Cycle Assessment, driven by intense public scrutiny, regulatory pressure, and the complex trade-offs between material choices. Understanding packaging LCA equips you to navigate debates about paper vs. plastic, recyclability vs. carbon footprint, and design for circularity.

Why LCA in Packaging?

Packaging touches nearly every consumer product and faces unique pressures:

Public visibility: Packaging waste is highly visible—think ocean plastic imagery and overflowing bins. This drives consumer and regulatory attention.

Material debates: The "paper or plastic?" question exemplifies how intuitive choices may not align with LCA findings.

Rapid innovation: New materials (bioplastics, compostables) and formats require evidence-based evaluation.

Extended Producer Responsibility: EPR schemes require LCA to justify fee modulation.

Circular economy policies: EU and other jurisdictions mandate recyclability and recycled content, requiring LCA to track progress.

Key Methodological Considerations

Functional Unit Definition

Packaging's function is protecting and delivering a product. The functional unit must capture this:

Poor functional unit: "1 kg of packaging material"

• Ignores that different materials protect differently
• Lightweight plastic and heavy glass aren't comparable per kg

Better functional unit: "Packaging sufficient to protect and deliver 1 liter of beverage to the consumer"

• Accounts for material efficiency
• Enables meaningful comparison

Considerations for functional unit:

• Product protection requirements
• Shelf life maintenance
• Transport efficiency
• Consumer convenience

System Boundary Choices

Packaging LCA boundaries typically include:

Critical decision: Include the packaged product or not?

• Packaging only: Simpler, but misses product-packaging interactions
• Including product: More complex, but captures trade-offs (e.g., longer shelf life reducing food waste)

End-of-Life Modeling

Packaging end-of-life is complex:

Collection rates vary: Glass has ~75% recycling in EU; flexible plastics <20%

Actual recycling differs from theoretical: Not all collected material is actually recycled

System boundary choice: Cut-off vs. substitution significantly affects results

Multi-material packaging: Laminates and composites are difficult to recycle

Material-Specific Insights

Plastics

LCA strengths:

• Lightweight (transport efficiency)
• Excellent barrier properties
• Low manufacturing energy
• High product protection

LCA challenges:

• Fossil resource origin
• Low recycling rates for many formats
• Marine litter concerns (not captured in standard LCIA)
• Microplastics (emerging impact category)

Key data sources:

• Plastics Europe Eco-profiles (free, industry data)
• ecoinvent (comprehensive process data)

Paper and Cardboard

LCA strengths:

• Renewable resource base
• High recycling rates
• Biodegradable

LCA challenges:

• Heavier than plastic alternatives
• Moisture sensitivity (may need coatings)
• Land use and forestry impacts
• Water and energy in production

Key data sources:

• FEFCO/CEPI databases (European corrugated/paper)
• ecoinvent forestry and pulp processes

Glass

LCA strengths:

• Inert and safe
• Infinitely recyclable without quality loss
• High consumer perception

LCA challenges:

• Heavy (high transport impacts)
• High melting energy
• Breakage losses

Key data sources:

• FEVE (European container glass federation)
• ecoinvent glass processes

Metals (Aluminum, Steel)

LCA strengths:

• High recycling rates
• Infinite recyclability
• Excellent barrier

LCA challenges:

• High primary production impacts (especially aluminum)
• Energy-intensive

Key data sources:

• International Aluminium Institute
• worldsteel LCI data
• ecoinvent

Bioplastics

LCA considerations:

• Biobased ≠ biodegradable ≠ compostable
• Land use and agricultural impacts
• End-of-life pathway availability
• Often more complex than fossil alternatives

Case Study: Beverage Containers

Numerous LCAs have compared beverage containers. Key findings typically include:

Common Findings

Aluminum cans perform well when recycled content is high and recycling rates are good. Primary aluminum production is energy-intensive, but recycling saves ~95% of that energy.

PET bottles have low production impacts but end-of-life challenges. Recycling rates vary dramatically by region.

Glass bottles have high impacts from weight unless reuse systems exist. Refillable glass bottles in well-established systems can outperform single-use options.

Cartons (Tetra Pak style) balance lightweighting with renewable content but face recyclability challenges.

Key Variables

Results are highly sensitive to:

• Recycled content assumptions
• Regional electricity grid
• Recycling rates (actual, not theoretical)
• Transport distances
• Whether reuse is included

Example Findings Table

Note: Ranges reflect different study assumptions and regions. Not directly comparable without harmonized methodology.

Regulatory Drivers

EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR)

The updated EU regulation includes:

• Mandatory recycled content targets
• Recyclability requirements
• EPR fee modulation based on environmental criteria
• Reuse targets for certain formats

LCA supports:

• Demonstrating compliance
• Justifying design choices
• EPR fee calculations

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

EPR schemes worldwide use LCA principles:

• Fee modulation based on recyclability
• Eco-design requirements
• Recycled content verification

Buy Clean and Procurement

Government procurement considers packaging impacts:

• Low-carbon packaging preferences
• Recyclability requirements
• Environmental claims verification

Product Category Rules for Packaging

Several PCRs cover packaging:

EPD International:

• PCR 2019:14 Packaging (UN CPC 32)
• Covers all packaging types
• Modular approach for different materials

EN 15804+A2 (for construction-related packaging):

• Applies to packaging EPDs in construction context

Plastics Europe ECO-profiles:

• Industry methodology for plastic packaging

Common LCA Findings and Trade-offs

Weight vs. End-of-Life

Lightweight plastics have lower production and transport impacts but may have poor end-of-life outcomes. Heavier materials may recycle better but cost more to transport.

Protection vs. Material Use

Over-packaging wastes material; under-packaging increases product damage. Optimal packaging minimizes total system impacts (packaging + damaged product).

Recyclability vs. Performance

Single-material packaging recycles better but may not perform as well as multi-layer structures. LCA quantifies this trade-off.

Biobased vs. Fossil

Biobased materials shift impacts from fossil resources to land use and agriculture. Net benefit depends on specific material, feedstock, and impact categories prioritized.

Getting Started with Packaging LCA

Recommended Approach

1. Define function clearly: What must the packaging do?
2. Establish fair comparison: Ensure alternatives provide equivalent protection
3. Use appropriate data: Plastics Europe, FEFCO, industry sources for primary materials
4. Model realistic end-of-life: Use actual regional collection and recycling rates
5. Test sensitivity: Results often flip based on key assumptions
6. Consider multiple impacts: Don't focus only on carbon

Data Sources

Key Takeaways

1. Packaging LCA requires careful functional unit definition—protect the same product equally
2. Material choice involves trade-offs; no material is universally "best"
3. End-of-life assumptions dramatically affect results
4. Consider the packaged product—reduced food waste may outweigh packaging impacts
5. Regulatory pressure is increasing demand for packaging LCA
6. Use industry-specific data sources for credible assessments

Resource List

Industry Associations

• Plastics Europe
• FEFCO (European Corrugated)
• FEVE (Glass Packaging)
• Metal Packaging Europe

PCRs and Standards

• EPD International Packaging PCR
• EUROPEN (European Packaging Association)

Key Publications

• European Commission: Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO)
• WRAP: Life Cycle Assessment of Packaging Options
• Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Global Plastics Economy reports

---

Case studies and data in this lesson are illustrative. Always use current, region-appropriate data for actual assessments.