生物碳计算

ifeu  Analysis of combibloc ECOPLUS & SIGNATURE 100 and SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER for combiblocSlimline and 1
combiblocMidi on the European market
SIGNATURE portfolio
Analysis of combibloc ECOPLUS & SIGNATURE 100
and SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER for combiblocSlim-
line and combiblocMidi on the European market
Comparative life cycle assessment of beverage cartons containing polymers
based on the mass-balanced renewable material approach
Final report
CB-100734
commissioned by SIG Combibloc
Heidelberg, May 2022

SIGNATURE portfolio
Analysis of combibloc ECOPLUS & SIGNATURE 100
and SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER for combiblocSlim-
line and combiblocMidi on the European market
Comparative life cycle assessment of beverage cartons containing poly-
mers based on the mass-balanced renewable material approach
Final report
CB-100734
Saskia Grünwasser
Sophia Fehrenbach
Samuel Mahami
Frank Wellenreuther

Table of contents
Table of contents 3
List of abbreviations 6
1 Goal and Scope 8

1.1 Background and Objectives 8
1.2 Organisation of the study 9
1.3 Use of the study, target audience and critical review 9
1.4 Functional unit 9
1.5 System boundaries 11
1.6 Data gathering and data quality 14
1.7 Methodological aspects 17
1.7.1 Mass-balanced renewable material approach applied for the production
of polymers in the combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8)
SIGNATURE PACK 17
1.7.2 Allocation 18
1.7.3 Biogenic carbon 25
1.8 Environmental Impact Assessment 28
1.8.1 Impact categories related to emissions 28
1.8.2 Impact categories related to the use/consumption of resources 33
1.8.3 Additional categories at the inventory level 34
2 Packaging systems and scenarios 37

2.1 Selection of packaging systems 37
2.2 Description of packaging systems 40
2.3 Packaging specifications 41
2.4 End-of-life 46
2.5 Distribution of filled packages from filler to point of sale 47
2.6 Scenario modelling: End-of-life allocation 48
2.6.1 Scenario I (50 % allocation) and II (100 % allocation) 48
3 Life Cycle Inventory 49

3.1 Manufacture of plastic raw materials 51
3.1.1 Polypropylene (PP) 51
3.1.2 Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) 51
3.1.3 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 51

3.1.4 Polystyrene (PS) 51
3.1.5 Polyamide (PA 6) 51
3.1.6 Mass-balanced PE, mass-balanced PA 6 and mass-balanced-PP dataset
based on tall oil pitch 52
3.2 Production of liquid packaging board (LPB) 54
3.3 Production of primary material for aluminium bars and foils 55
3.4 Corrugated board and manufacture of cardboard trays 55
3.5 Converting 55
3.6 Filling 56
3.7 Transport settings 57
3.8 Recovery and recycling 58
3.9 Background data 58
3.9.1 Transport processes 58
3.9.2 Electricity generation 59
3.9.3 Municipal waste incineration 60
3.9.4 Landfill 60
3.9.5 Thermal recovery in cement kilns 61
4 Results and discussion 62

4.1 Presentation of results 62
4.1.1 Numerical values and figures 62
4.1.2 Comparison between systems 63
4.2 Europe combiblocSlimline (cb3) beverage cartons 1000 mL 64
4.2.1 Scenario I (50 % allocation): numerical values and graphs 64
4.2.2 Scenario II (100 % allocation): numerical values and graphs 69
4.2.3 Description and interpretation 74
4.3 Europe combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons 1000 mL 80
4.3.1 Scenario I (50 % allocation): Numerical values and graphs 80
4.3.2 Scenario II (100 % allocation): Numerical values and graphs 85
4.4 Europe combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons 500 mL 95
4.4.1 Scenario I (50% allocation): Numerical values and graphs 95
4.4.2 Scenario II (100 % allocation): Numerical values and graphs 100
5 Data quality evaluation and limitations 109

5.1 Data quality evaluation 109

5.2 Limitations 110
6 Conclusions and Recommendations 112

6.1 Significant parameters 112
6.2 Comparison between beverage cartons 114
6.2.1 Comparisons of combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) 1000
mL beverage cartons with the corresponding formats 114
6.2.2 Comparisons of combiblocMidi (cb8) 500 mL beverage cartons with the
corresponding formats 115
6.3 Comparison between beverage cartons (cradle to gate) 115
6.3.1 Comparisons of combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) 1000
mL beverage cartons with the corresponding formats (cradle to gate) 115
6.3.2 Comparisons of combiblocMidi (cb8) 500 mL beverage cartons with the
corresponding formats (cradle to gate) 116
6.4 Recommendations 117
References 118
Appendix 1: Analysis of combiblocMidi SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER 9µ on the European

market 121
Appendix 2a: Analysis of combismile SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER for combismileSmall and
combismileBig on the European market 122
Appendix 2b: Analysis of combismileBig SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER on the Dutch market123
Appendix A: Renewable polymers sustainability statement 124
Appendix B: Critical review statement 125

List of abbreviations
ACE Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment
BC Beverage carton
BLS Black Liquor Soap
cb3 combiblocSlimline
cb8 combiblocMidi
ci17 combismileSmall
ci18 combismileBig
cMaxx combiMaxx
cSwift combiSwift
CML Centrum voor Milieukunde (Center of Environmental Science), Leiden University,

Netherlands
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
EAA European Aluminium Association
EU27+2 European Union + Switzerland and Norway
EU27+3 European Union + Switzerland, Norway and UK
FB Full barrier
FEFCO Fédération Européenne des Fabricants de Carton Ondulé (Brussels)
FU Functional unit
GWP Global Warming Potential
HBEFA Handbook emission factors for road transport
ifeu Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH (Institute for Energy
and Environmental Research)
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCI Life Cycle Inventory
LDPE Low density polyethylene
LPB Liquid packaging board

MSWI Municipal solid waste incineration
NMVOC Non-methane volatile organic compounds
NOX Nitrogen oxides
pc packs
PET Polyethylene terephthalate
PM 2.5 Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 µm or smaller
PP Polypropylene
rPET recycled PET
RS Robust structure
UBA Umweltbundesamt (German Federal Environmental Agency)
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

1 Goal and Scope
1.1 Background and Objectives

The combibloc (cb) beverage cartons are aseptic beverage cartons produced by SIG Combibloc which
include the variants of packaging systems combibloc standard RS (robust structure), combibloc EcoPlus,
combibloc SIGNATURE PACK 100 and combibloc SIGNATURE PACK FB (full barrier).
In March 2018 ifeu did a life-cycle assessment study for two different SIGNATURE PACK combiblocSlim-
line (cb3) cartons from SIG Combibloc. LCA results were compared with those of a standard
combiblocSlimline (cb3) carton as well as those from a combiblocSlimline (cb3) EcoPlus beverage car-
ton. The study covers the European market situation for the EU countries & Switzerland & Norway as
well as the German market situation in 2018.
This study is to examine the combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE PACK and combiblocMidi (cb8)
SIGNATURE PACK on the European market (EU27+3) in 2021 with additional extensions for the
combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) formats.
Furthermore, in two separate extensions
(1) combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons regarding the markets
Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland and UK
(2) combismileSmall (ci17) and combismileBig (ci18) beverage cartons regarding the markets
EU27+3 and Netherlands
are examined.
The beverage cartons combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE PACK 100 and combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE
PACK FB contain polymers that originate from renewable European wood sources via a mass balance
approach. These replace conventional fossil-based polymers, which usually are contained in most asep-
tic beverage cartons.
The ifeu (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, ifeu) was commissioned by SIG Combibloc
to conduct the current LCA study with the following goals:
 To provide knowledge about the environmental strengths and weaknesses of the combiblocSlimline
(cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons in the sizes 1000 mL and 500 mL for the packaging
at European market conditions and
 To examine two different combibloc SIGNATURE PACK cartons per format (combiblocSlimline (cb3)
and combiblocMidi (cb8))
 To compare their environmental impact results with those of the respective standard RS variants
and in case of the SIGNATURE PACK 100 also with the respective EcoPlus carton.
As the results of this study shall be used for internal and external communication, the study is also
critically reviewed by an independent expert.
1.2 Organisation of the study

This study was commissioned by SIG Combibloc in 2021. It is being conducted by ifeu.
The members of the project panel are:
 Udo Felten (SIG Combibloc)
 Frank Wellenreuther (ifeu)
 Samuel Mahami (ifeu)
 Saskia Grünwasser (ifeu)
 Sophia Fehrenbach (ifeu)
1.3 Use of the study, target audience and critical review

The comparative results of this study are intended to be used by the commissioner (SIG Combibloc).
Further they shall serve for information purposes of SIG Combibloc’s customers, e.g. fillers and retail
customers. The results are not intended to be considered for other geographical regions than Europe,
not even for the same packaging systems. Nor are the results be considered valid for (the same)
packaging systems at any other time. Since only variants of packaging systems of SIG Combiblock are
compared in the present study and no comparison with third-party products is made, the critical review
by an external expert is applied in accordance with specifications in DIN EN ISO 14040, section 7.3.2.
The study and/or its results are intended to be disclosed and therefore critically reviewed by Dr. Florian
Antony.
1.4 Functional unit

The function examined in this LCA study is the packaging for retail sale. The functional unit for this study
is the provision of 1000 L at the point of sale. The packaging of the beverages or liquid food is provided
for the required shelf life of the product.
For all packaging systems no packaging type specific differences in shelf life can be observed.
A relevant parameter that makes a difference in the examined beverage cartons is the barrier material.
Aluminium is an important barrier material of the beverage cartons, which can be replaced by PA. PA
and aluminium do not show exactly the same barrier functions, but in regard to the standards required
to ensure the necessary shelf-life, they can be equally suited. Nevertheless, it is assumed that the pri-
mary packaging examined is technically equivalent in terms of mechanical protection of the packaged
beverage during transport, storage at the point-of-sale and the use phase. CombiblocSlimline
ifeu  Analysis of combibloc ECOPLUS & SIGNATURE 100 and SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER for combiblocSlimline and  10
(cb3)/combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cartons and combiblocSlimline (cb3)/combiblocMidi (cb8)

SIGNATURE PACK FB cartons contain aluminium as barrier material, while combiblocSlimline
(cb3)/combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus contain fossil-based PA and combiblocSlimline (cb3)/combiblocMidi
(cb8) SIGNATURE PACK 100 contain mass-balanced PA as barrier material.
The reference flow of the product system regarded here refers to the actually filled volume of the con-
tainers and includes all packaging systems, i.e. beverage carton and closures as well as the transport
packaging (corrugated cardboard trays and shrink foil, pallets), which are necessary for the packaging,
filling and delivery of 1000 L.
1.5 System boundaries

The study is designed as a ‘cradle-to-grave’ LCA without the use phase, in other words it includes the
extraction and production of raw materials, converting processes, all transports and the final disposal
or recycling of the packaging system.
In general, the study covers the following steps:
 Production of the primary base materials used in the primary packaging systems from the studied
systems (incl. closures)
 Converting, recycling and final disposal of primary packaging systems and related transports
 Production, recycling and final disposal of transport packaging (stretch foil, pallets, cardboard trays)
 Production and disposal of process chemicals, as far as not excluded by the cut-off criteria (see be-
low)
 Transports of packaging material from producers to fillers
 Filling processes, which are fully assigned to the packaging system.
 Transport from fillers to potential central warehouses and final distribution to the point of sale
 In all manufacturing and filling processes for the primary and secondary packaging losses are in-
cluded
Not included are:
 The production and disposal of the infrastructure (machines, transport media, roads, etc.) and their
maintenance (spare parts, heating of production halls) as no significant impact is expected. To de-
termine if infrastructure can be excluded the authors apply two criteria by Reinout Heijungs
(Heijungs 1992) and Rolf Frischknecht (Frischknecht et al. 2007): Capital goods should be included if
the costs of maintenance and depreciation are a substantial part of the product and if environmental
hot spots within the supply chain can be identified. Considering relevant information about the sup-
ply chain from producers and retailers both criteria are considered to remain unfulfilled. An inclusion
of capital goods might also lead to data asymmetries as data on infrastructure is not available for
many production data sets
 Production of beverage, and their transport to fillers as no relevant differences between the systems
under examination are to be expected.
 Distribution of beverage from the filler to the point-of-sale (distribution of packages is included) as
the same amount of beverage is transported for all regarded packaging systems (see transport allo-
cation in section 1.7.2).
 Environmental effects from accidents like breakages during transportation, as there is no evidence
and no reason to assume differences of the packaging systems.
 Losses of beverage at different points in the supply and consumption chain which might occur for
instance in the filling process, during handling and storage, etc. as they are considered to be roughly
the same for all examined packaging systems. Significant differences in the amount of lost beverage
between the regarded packaging systems might be conceivable only if non-intended uses or product
treatments are considered as for example in regard to different breakability of packages or poten-
tially different amount of residues left in an emptied package due to the design of the package/clo-
sure.
Further possible losses are directly related to the handling of the consumer in the use phase, which
is not part of this study as handling behaviours are very different and difficult to assess. Therefore
these possible beverage loss differences are not quantifiable as almost no data is available regarding
these issues. In consequence a sensitivity analysis regarding beverage losses would be highly specu-
lative and is not part of this study. This is indeed not only true for the availability of reliable data, but
also uncertainties in inventory modelling methodology of regular and accidental processes and the
allocation of potential beverage waste treatment aspects.
 Transport of filled packages from the point of sale to the consumer as no relevant differences be-
tween the systems under examination are to be expected and the implementation would be highly
speculative as no reliable data is available.
 Use phase of packages at the consumers as no relevant differences between the systems under ex-
amination are to be expected (for example in regard to cleaning before disposal) and the implemen-
tation would be highly speculative as no reliable data is available.
For recycling and recovery routes the system boundary is set at the point where a secondary product
(energy or recycled material) is obtained. The secondary products can replace primary energy genera-
tion processes and virgin materials, respectively. This effect is accounted for in the life cycle assessment
by attributing credits for secondary products. These credits are calculated based on the environmental
loads of the corresponding primary energy generation process or material.
The following simplified flow charts shall illustrate the system boundaries considered for the
combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons (Figure 1-1).
Figure 1-1: System boundaries of the combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons for all consid-
ered formats
Cut-off criteria
In order to ensure the symmetry of the packaging systems to be examined and in order to maintain the
study within a feasible scope, a limitation on the detail in system modelling is necessary. So-called cut-
off criteria are used for that purpose. According to ISO standard (ISO 14044: 2006), cut-off criteria shall
consider mass, energy or environmental significance. Regarding mass-related cut-off, pre-chains from
preceding systems with an input material share of less than 1% of the total mass input of a considered
process were excluded from the present study. However, total cut-off is not to surpass 5% of input
materials as referred to the functional unit. All energy inputs are considered, except the energy related
to the material inputs from pre-chains which are cut off according to the mass related rule. Pre-chains
with low input material shares, which would be excluded by the mass criterion, are nevertheless in-
cluded if they are of environmental relevance, e.g. flows that include known toxic substances. The en-
vironmental relevance (significant impact on any impact category) of material input flows was deter-
mined based on ifeu’s expert judgement based on previous studies.
Excluded material flows according to this cut-off rule in this study are:
 Printing ink used for sleeves of beverage carton as part of the converting process: 0.11 g per sleeve
for 1 L beverage carton (30.38 g sleeve weight)
 Lubricants used for all industrial processes including machinery: in all cases < 0.1 kg per 1000 kg
intermediate good per process (e.g. filling, converting)
The potential effect of these excluded material flows on the results of this study is evaluated as almost
nought.
1.6 Data gathering and data quality

The datasets used in this study are described in section 3 (Life Cycle Inventory). All data shall meet the
general requirements and characteristics regarding data gathering and data quality as summarised in
the following paragraphs.
Time scope
The reference time period for the comparison of packaging systems is 2021, as the packaging specifi-
cations listed in section 2.3 (Packaging specifications) refer to 2021. Where no figures are available for
these years, the used data shall be as up-to-date as possible. Particularly with regard to data on end-
of-life processes of the examined packages, the most current information available is used to correctly
represent the recent changes in this area. As some of these data are not yet publicly available, expert
judgements are applied in some cases, for example based on confidential exchanges with representa-
tives from the logistics sector and retailers regarding distribution distances.
Most of the applied data refer to the period between 2005 and 2021. Parameters with an essential
influence on the result, such as the electricity mix, are continuously updated. Older data have only been
deemed acceptable for processes which do not show a high share on the overall impacts.
Geographic scope
In terms of the geographic scope, the LCA study focuses on the production, distribution and disposal of
beverage carton packages in Europe (EU27+3), respectively. A certain share of the raw material pro-
duction as well as converting processes for packaging systems take place in specific European countries.
For these, country-specific data is used as well as European averages depending on the availability of
datasets. Examples are the liquid packaging board (LPB) production process (country-specific) and the
production of plastics (available only as a European average, see Table 3-1).
Technical reference
The process technology underlying the datasets used in the study reflects process configurations as
well as technical and environmental levels which are typical for process operations in the reference
period. The technical reference is intended to represent the average presently applied technology or
presently applied technology.
Representativeness
Representativeness is addressed by looking at three indicators: temporal, geographical, and technolog-

ical correlation. This evaluation aims to reflect how well the used inventory data represent the tech-
nology, geography and time scopes of this study. These three indicators meet the (ISO 14044: 2006)
standards and is carried out based on several guidelines for data quality assessment (Edelen /
Ingwersen 2016; JRC 2010; Weidema et al. 2013; Zampori et al. 2016).
The representativity evaluation regarding the time scope indicates the correlation between the refer-
ence year of the used data and the time scope of this study. The qualitative evaluation shows, that the
reference year of the used data meet the time scope of this study, is close or close enough to the time
scope of this study. It has to be noted, that a lower temporal correlation does not mean the data is not
representative. “A more important reflection of correlation would be the technological correlation”.

(Edelen / Ingwersen 2016)
The geographical representativeness of the used data identifies how well these inventory data repre-
sent the geographic scope of this study. The result of the evaluation is, that the used data meet the
geographic scope of this study.
The evaluation of the technological correlation shows differences that may be present between used
data and the technology scope of this study. The used data covers either average of presently used
technology or presently used technology.
The overall representative evaluation shows, that the used data can be regarded as representative for
the intended purpose of this study.
Completeness
In general, the data collection and data implementation for the ifeu internal database takes place in
four phases: In phase one, to understand the processes like filling, converting or plastics production,
they are analysed based on available literature, discussions with the respective stakeholders or the
production sites are directly visited. In this phase, the relevant flows of following flow types are identi-
fied: reference product, co-products, intermediate inputs, land occupied/transformed, raw inputs,
(material, energy and water), waste to treatment (solid and hazardous and liquid), emissions to air
(GHGs, Criteria Air Pollutants, Toxics + Other and Water), emissions to water (Nutrients and Toxics +
Other), and emissions to soil (Nutrients and Toxics + Other). In phase 2, the respective companies pro-
vide data on the identified inputs (e.g. amount of raw materials, energy, or water) and main output
products (e.g. emissions to air and water). In phase 3, a completeness check regarding all possible used
impact and inventory categories are carried out based on information from phase 1. Based on this,
additional relevant data are collected, concerning emissions to air and water, amounts of waste, and
transport information. In phase 4, an additional completeness check is carried out, where the LCIA
results of the implemented data are cross checked with available LCIA results (e.g. previous data, data
from other geographic regions, similar processes).
This procedure applies also for datasets implemented from industries except for the data collection
phase.
Missing information on land-use, water use, and toxicity are discussed in section 1.8 (Environmental
Impact Assessment) in the respective sections.
Consistency
To ensure consistency only data of the same level of detail were used. While building up the model,
crosschecks concerning the plausibility of mass and energy flows were continuously conducted. The
methodological framework is consistent throughout the whole model as the same methodological prin-
ciples are used both in foreground and background system. An exception may be infrastructure which
is generally excluded in this study. In case of some aggregated datasets taken from public databases it
may be included without being probably documented. If these cases exist at all, then a slight incon-
sistency in regard to the exclusion of infrastructure may exist.
Reproducibility
All data and information used either are documented in this report or are available from the mathe-
matical model of the processes and process plans designed within the Umberto 5.5 software. The re-
producibility is given for internal use since the owners of the technology provided the data and the
models are stored and available in a database. It is worth noting that for external audiences, it may be
the case that full reproducibility in any degree of detail will not be available for confidentiality reasons.
However, experienced experts would easily be able to recalculate and reproduce the product system
models.
Sources of data
Process data for base material production and converting were either collected in cooperation with the
industry or taken from literature and the ifeu database. Ifeu’s internal database includes data either
collected in cooperation with industry or is based on literature. The database is continuously updated.
Background processes such as energy generation, transportation, MSWI and landfill were taken from
the most recent version of it. All data sources are summarised in Table 3-1 and described in section 3.
Precision and uncertainty
For studies to be used in comparative assertions and intended to be disclosed to the public, ISO 14044
asks for an analysis of results for sensitivity and uncertainty. Uncertainties of datasets and chosen pa-
rameters are often difficult to determine by mathematically sound statistical methods. Hence, for the
calculation of probability distributions of LCA results, statistical methods are usually not applicable or
of limited validity. For example, uncertainty measures like variances for elementary flows are not in-
cluded in industry data sets as “the relevant foreground data is primary data or modelled based on
primary information sources of the owner of the technology” (PlasticsEurope 2014a).
However, to address potential uncertainties between the compared product systems, an estimated
significance threshold of 10% is chosen as pragmatic approach. This means that differences in the re-
sults of the impact category indicators between the comparative systems of ≤ 10% are considered in-
significant. Based on the data used for the impact categories considered in this study, the authors’ point
of view is that the significance threshold of 10% is an appropriate size and guarantees consistency for
all impact categories examined.
Modelling and calculation of inventories
For the implementation of the system models the computer tool Umberto ® (version 5.5) is used. Um-
berto® is a standard software for mass flow modelling and LCA. It has been developed by the institute
for environmental informatics (ifu) in Hamburg, Germany in collaboration with ifeu, Heidelberg.
1.7 Methodological aspects
1.7.1 Mass-balanced renewable material approach applied for the production of polymers
in the combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE PACK
Mass balance based polymers are polymers that are produced by using both, fossil and biogenic re-
sources as input materials for the same production process. In practice the input of biogenic materials
(in this case tall-oil, a by-product of the paper production processes) to the polymerisation process is
done at the same production process where mainly fossil-based ethylene and naphtha is used. This
leads to only one final product per production process which is neither 100% fossil-based nor 100%
bio-based material. To allocate the specific characteristics of fossil-based or bio-based input materials
to the final product the producers declare a certain share of their production as linked to renewable
resources. That share, of course is dependent on the share of biogenic input material.
It is important to understand that in reality (in a physical sense) the (C 2H4) n and (C3H6) n molecules of
the tall oil based polymers are in fact mainly non bio-based, as the share of bio-based ethylene is below
1% of the total production. But as the polymers in the combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8)
SIGNATURE PACK are the ones to which the tall-oil input is allocated to, they are modelled as if they
would be 100% tall-oil based for the purpose of this study. The allocation of inputs is certified by ISCC
PLUS (International Sustainability & Carbon Certification) (ISCC 2019) (please see Appendix A). The
properties of the final mass-balanced material (beyond the nature of the molecules) are completely
identical to those of a fossil-based material.
The LCA results for the combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE PACK will there-
fore not be directly connected to the physical products examined, but to the products of the production
technology concept that lies behind it. In the authors’ view the application of the mass balance ap-
proach in the production of polymers is an important driver to facilitate an increasing substitution of
fossil resources by biogenic resources for the production of polymers. To model the examined products
strictly on their physical properties would mean to not acknowledge this function of the mass balance
approach.
Jeswani et al. published in 2019 a study investigating the methodology for integrating the biomass
balance approach into life cycle assessment with an application in the chemicals sector. This study con-
cludes that “a mass balance approach can be used in life cycle assessment while following the require-
ments set out in the ISO 14040 and 14044 standards” (Jeswani et al. 2019). Furthermore, this study
highlights also that the mass balance approach is an applicable way to evaluate life cycle environmental
impacts of bio-based products “without the need for building up the whole value chains separately
from the fossil-based routes” (Jeswani et al. 2019).
1.7.2 Allocation
“Allocation refers to partitioning of input or output flows of a process or a product system between the
product system under study and one or more other product systems” (ISO 14044: 2006 definition 3.17).
This definition comprises the partitioning of flows regarding re-use and recycling, particularly open loop
recycling.
In the present study, a distinction is made between process-related and system-related allocation, the
former referring to allocation procedures in the context of multi-input and multi-output processes and
the latter referring to allocation procedures in the context of open loop recycling.
Both approaches are further explained in the subsequent sections.
Process-related allocation
For process-related allocations, a distinction is made between multi-input and multi-output processes.
Multi-input processes
Multi-input processes occur especially in the area of waste treatment. Relevant processes are modelled
in such a way that the partial material and energy flows due to waste treatment of the used packaging
materials can be apportioned in a causal way. The modelling of packaging materials that have become
waste after use and are disposed in a waste incineration plant is a typical example of multi-input allo-
cation. The allocation for e.g. emissions arising from such multi-input processes has been carried out
according to physical and/or chemical cause-relationships (e.g. mass, heating value (for example in
MSWI), stoichiometry, etc.).
Multi-output processes
For data sets prepared by the authors of this study, the allocation of the outputs from coupled processes
is generally carried out via the mass as this is usual practice. If different allocation criteria are used,
they are documented in the description of the data in case they are of special importance for the
individual data sets. For literature data, the source is generally referred to.
Transport processes
An allocation between the packaging and contents was carried out for the transportation of the filled
packages to the point-of-sale. Only the share in environmental burdens related to transport, which
is assigned to the package, has been accounted for in this study. That means the burdens related
directly to the beverage is excluded. The allocation between package and filling goods is based on
mass criterion. This allocation is applied as the functional unit of the study defines a fixed amount of
beverage through all scenarios. Impacts related to transporting the beverage itself would be the
same in all scenarios. There they don’t need to be included in this comparative study of beverage
packaging systems.
System-related allocation
System-related allocation is applied in this study regarding open loop recycling and recovery processes.
Recycling refers to material recycling, whereas recovery refers to energy recovery for example in MSWI
with energy recovery or cement kilns. System-related allocation is applied to both, recycling and recov-
ery in the end of life of the regarded system and processes regarding the use of recycled materials by
the regarded system. System-related allocation is not applied regarding disposal processes like landfills
with minor energy recovery possibilities. Figure 1-2 illustrates the general allocation approach used for
uncoupled systems and systems which are coupled through recycling. In Figure 1-2 (upper graph) in
both, ‘system A’ and ‘system B’, a virgin material (e.g. polymer) is produced, converted into a product
which is used and finally disposed. A virgin material in this case is to be understood as a material with-
out recycled content. A different situation is shown in the lower graph of Figure 1-2. Here product A is
recovered after use and supplied as a raw material to ‘system B’ avoiding thus the environmental bur-
dens related to the production (‘MP-B’) of the virgin materials, e.g. polymer and the disposal of product
A (‘Dis-A’). In order to do the allocation consistently, besides the virgin material production (‘MP-A’)
already mentioned above and the disposal of product B (’Dis-B’), also the recovery process ‘Rec’ has to
be taken into consideration.
Figure 1-2: Additional system benefit/burden through recycling (schematic flow chart)1
If the system boundaries of the LCA are such that only one product system is examined it is necessary
to decide how the possible environmental benefits and burdens of the polymer material recovery and
recycling and the benefits and burdens of the use of recycled materials shall be allocated (i.e. ac-
counted) to the regarded system. In LCA practice, several allocation methods are found. There is one
important premise to be complied with by any allocation method chosen: the mass balance of all inputs
and outputs of ‘system A’ and ‘system B’ after allocation must be the same as the inputs and outputs
calculated for the sum of ‘systems A and B’ before allocation is performed.
System allocation approaches used in this study
The approach chosen for system-related allocation is illustrated in Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4. Both
graphs show two example product systems, referred to as product ‘system A’ and ‘product system B’.
‘System A’ shall represent systems under study in this LCA in the case if material is provided for recy-
cling or recovery. ‘System B’ shall represent systems under study in this LCA in the case recycled mate-
rials are used.
Figure 1-3: Scenario I: Principles of 50% allocation (schematic flow chart)2
Scenario I: allocation with the 50% method (Figure 1-3)
––––––––––––––––
2 shaded boxes are avoided processes

In this method, benefits and burdens of ‘MP-A’, ‘Rec-A’ and ‘Dis-B’ are equally shared between ‘system
A’ and ‘system B’ (50% method). Thus, ‘system A’, from its viewpoint, receives a 50% credit for avoided
primary material production and is assigned with 50% of the burden or benefit from waste treatment
(Dis-B). If recycled material is used in the regarded system, the perspective of ‘system B’ applies. Also
in this case benefits and burdens of ‘MP-A’, ‘Rec-A’ and ‘Dis-B’ are equally shared between ‘system A’
and ‘system B’.
Example 1 (‘system A’), virgin beverage carton, which is recycled or thermally recovered after its use:
All burdens from recycling and recovery processes are shared between the regarded beverage carton
system and the following system (use of secondary material or energy production). Also the benefits
from replacing virgin materials or grid energy are shared between the regarded system and the follow-
ing systems.
Example 2 (‘system B’), PET bottle containing recycled PET (rPET): All burdens from recycling of the
used rPET are shared between the regarded rPET bottle system and the preceding system. Also the
benefits from replacing virgin materials are shared between the regarded system and the preceding
system.
The 50% method has often been discussed in the context of open loop recycling, see the following
references (Fava et al. 1991; Frischknecht 1998; Kim et al. 1997; Klöpffer 1996). According to Klöpffer
(2007), this rule is furthermore commonly accepted as a “fair” split between two coupled systems.
The approach of sharing the burdens and benefit from both, providing material for recycling and re-
covery, as well as using recycled material, follows the goal of encouraging the increase in recyclability
as well as the use of recycled material. These goals are also in line with those of several packaging waste
directives and laws as for example the European Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (EU 2018)
or the German packaging law (Verpackungsgesetz - VerpackG 2021).
The 50% method has been used in numerous LCAs carried out by ifeu and also is the standard approach
applied in the packaging LCAs commissioned by the German Environment Agency (UBA). Additional
background information on this allocation approach can be found in (UBA 2000, 2016).
Figure 1-4: Scenario II: Principles of 100% allocation (schematic flow chart) 3
Scenario II: Allocation with the 100% method (Figure 1-4)
In this method, the principal rule is applied that ‘system A’ gets all benefits for displacing the virgin
material and the involved production process ‘MP-B’. At the same time, all burdens for producing the
secondary raw material via ‘Rec-A’ are assigned to ‘system A’. The same is valid for energy recovery. All
benefits and burdens for displacing energy production are allocated to ‘system A’. In addition, also the
burdens that are generated by waste treatment of ‘product B’ in ‘Dis-B’ is charged to ‘system A’,
whereas the waste treatment of ‘product A’ is avoided and thus charged neither to ‘system A’ nor to
‘system B’.
If recycled material is used in the regarded system, the perspective of ‘system B’ applies. The burdens
associated with the production process ‘MP-A’ are then allocated to ‘System B’ (otherwise the mass
balance rule would be violated). However, ‘system B’ is not charged with burdens related to ‘Rec’ as
the burdens are already accounted for in ‘system A’. At the same time, ‘Dis-B’ is not charged to ‘system
B’ (again a requirement of the mass balance rule), as it is already assigned to ‘system A’.
––––––––––––––––
3 shaded boxes are avoided processes

Example 1 (‘system A’), virgin beverage carton which is recycled or thermally recovered after its use:
All burdens from recycling and recovery processes are allocated to the regarded beverage carton sys-
tem. Also the benefits from replacing virgin materials or grid energy are fully allocated to the regarded
system.
Example 2 (‘system B’), PET bottle containing recycled PET (rPET): All burdens from recycling of the
used rPET are allocated to the preceding system. Also the benefits from replacing virgin materials are
allocated to the preceding system.
The application of the allocation 100% is considered as a conservative approach from the view of the
beverage carton. It means that a comparatively unfavourable case for the beverage cartons is chosen.
The plastic and glass bottles benefit more from accounting of 100 % material credits due to the much
higher burdens of their avoided primary material production, compared to the production of LPB. The
allocation factor of 100 % is expected to lead to higher benefits for plastic and glass bottles.
Following the ISO standard’s recommendation on subjective choices, the 50% and 100% allocation
methods are applied equally in this study. Conclusions in terms of comparing results between packag-
ing systems are only drawn if they apply to both allocation methods.
General notes regarding Figure 1-2 to Figure 1-4
The diagrams are intended to support a general understanding of the allocation process and for that rea-
son they are strongly simplified. The diagrams serve
 To illustrate the difference between the 50% allocation method and the 100% allocation method
 To show which processes are allocated:
- Primary material production

- Recycling and recovery processes
- Waste treatment of final residues
However, within the study the actual situation is modelled based on certain key parameters, for example
the actual recycling flow and the actual recycling efficiency as well as the actual substituted material in-
cluding different substitution factors.
The allocation of final waste treatment is consistent with UBA LCA methodology (UBA 2000, 2016) and
additionally this approach – beyond the UBA methodology – is also in accordance with (ISO 14044:
2006).
For simplification some aspects are not explicitly documented in the mentioned graphs, among them the
following:
 Material losses occur in both ‘systems A and B’, but are not shown in the graphs. These losses are of
course taken into account in the calculations, their disposal is included within the respective systems.
 Hence, not all material flows from system A are passed on to ‘system B’, as the simplified material
flow graphs may imply. Consequently only the effectively recycled and recovered material’s life cycle
steps are allocated between ‘systems A and B’.
 The graphs do not show the individual process steps relevant for the waste material flow out of
‘packaging system A’, which is sorted as residual waste, including the respective final waste
treatment.
 For simplification, a substitution factor of 1 underlies the graphs. However, in the real calculations
smaller values are used where appropriate. For example if a material’s properties after recycling are
different from those of the primary material it replaces, this translates to a loss in material quality.
A substitution factor < 1 accounts for such effects.
Application of allocation rules

The allocation factors have been applied on a mass basis (i.e. the environmental burdens of the recy-
cling process are charged with the total burdens multiplied by the allocation factor) and where appro-
priate have been combined with substitution factors. The substitution factor indicates what amount of
the secondary material substitutes for a certain amount of primary material. For example, a substitu-
tion factor of 0.8 means that 1 kg of recycled (secondary) material replaces 0.8 kg of primary material
and receives a corresponding credit. With this, a substitution factor < 1 also accounts for so-called
‘down-cycling’ effects, which describe a recycling process in which waste materials are converted into
new materials of lesser quality.
The substitution factors used in the current LCA study to calculate the credits for recycled materials
provided for consecutive (down-stream) uses are based on author assessment and expert judgments
from German waste sorting operator “Der Grüne Punkt – Duales System Deutschland GmbH” from the
year 2003 (DSD 2003). The substitution factors apply to the secondary materials after the recycling
processes with their production losses (see section 3.8 (Recovery and recycling)).
 Paper fibres
- from LPB (carton-based primary packaging): 0.9

- in cardboard trays (secondary packaging): 0.9
 LDPE from foils: 0.94
 HDPE: 0.8
1.7.3 Biogenic carbon
Renewable materials like paper fibres or mass-balanced plastics originate from renewable biomass that
absorbs carbon from the air. The growth of biomass reduces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In
this study, the binding of CO2 by plants is referred as CO2 uptake and the (re-)emission of CO2 at the
material’s end of life is referred as CO2 regenerative (reg.).
Application and allocation
At the impact assessment level, it must be decided how to model and calculate the uptake and emis-
sions of biogenic CO2. In the present study, the non-fossil CO2 has been included at two points in the
model, its uptake during the plant growth phase attributed with negative Global Warming Potential
(GWP) values and the corresponding re-emissions at end of life with positive ones. In this study biogenic
CO2 is treated in the same way as other resources and emissions and is therefore subject to the same
allocation rules as other resources and emissions.
According to packaging waste directives and laws as for example the European Packaging and Packaging
Waste Directive (EU 2018) or the German packaging law (Verpackungsgesetz - VerpackG 2021) the fol-
lowing practices in packaging production shall be promoted:
 Use of recycled content in packaging systems
 Recyclability of packaging systems
 Use of renewable resources in packaging systems
In the view of the authors it is important that the environmental benefits of all of these practices are
made visible in the results of LCA.
The first two practices are considered by the choice of the allocation factor 50% for system-related
allocation as one of the two allocation approaches equally applied in this study. As described in section
1.7.1 the application of the allocation 50% shows benefits for the use of recycled content in packaging
systems as well as their recycling. In order to not restrain the recyclability of packaging systems and in
order to also promote the use of renewable resources a convention in this study is made, that implies
that the CO2 uptake is not considered in credited materials or energy.
The application of the CO2 uptake in credits would reduce the CO2 uptake of regarded packaging sys-
tems containing regenerative materials by the amount of CO2 which has been absorbed from the at-
mosphere by the substituted processes. The selection of substituted processes is based on the current
market situation within the addressed geographic scope. Regarding energy credits from the incinera-
tion of renewable materials, the substituted processes are the production of electrical and thermal en-
ergy. These to a high extent fossil-based processes do absorb negligibly small amounts of biogenic CO2.
Therefore almost no CO2 uptake would be attributed to the substituted processes. The benefit of the
CO2 uptake of the regarded packaging systems containing regenerative materials would not be reduced.
On the other hand, if packaging systems containing renewable materials are materially recycled, and if
the substituted processes for the material credits are the production of other primary renewable ma-
terials, the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere would be substituted. Therefore the benefits of the
CO2 uptake of regarded packaging systems would be reduced by the CO2 uptake of the substituted
processes.
Using the example of mainly renewable materials like LPB, the application of the CO2 uptake in credits
would deter from recycling efforts of packaging containing renewable materials as incineration instead
of recycling would lead to lower LCA results for ‘Climate Change’.
The authors of this study acknowledge that with the application of this convention only the producers
of products containing primary renewable materials benefit. This is considered appropriate as these
producers are responsible for sourcing renewable materials in the first place. Producers of products
which merely contain renewable materials sourced from recycling processes would not be benefited.
As no packaging systems which contain recycled renewable materials are analysed in this study, this
approach of not considering CO2 uptake in credits is seen suitable within this study. This convention
does also comply with ISO 14040/14044 as the mass balance of all inputs and outputs regarding bio-
genic CO2 of ‘system A’ (combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE PACK 100) and ‘system B’ (subsequent
system) together stays the same.
The carbon balance is shown exemplarily for the combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE PACK 100, 1000
mL on the European market in the following Table 1-1.
Table 1-1: Carbon balance for combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE PACK 100 Europe (per 1000 litres packed)
Carbon
Carbon in CO2 Carbon emissions
Biogenic carbon balance CO2 uptake Carbon in biog. CO2 and CH4 emissions sequestration in
uptake and sequestration
landfills
cb3 SIGNATURE
cb3 SIGNATURE cb3 SIGNATURE cb3 SIGNATURE cb3 SIGNATURE 100
100 100 100 100 cSwift LP TC
Product systems Subsequent system
cSwift LP TC cSwift LP TC cSwift LP TC cSwift LP TC 1000 mL
1000 mL 1000 mL 1000 mL 1000 mL +
Subsequent system
Allocation factor 50 65.27 kg CO2 17.80 kg C 6.84 kg C 5.83 kg C 5.13 kg C 17.80 kg C

Allocation factor 100 65.27 kg CO2 17.80 kg C 12.67 kg C 0.00 kg C 5.13 kg C 17.80 kg C
The difference between the emissions of combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE PACK 100, 1000 mL and
those of the following system when applying an allocation factor of 50% can be explained by the emis-
sions from landfills as these are not affected by system allocation.
As described in section 1.7.1 system-related allocation is applied in this study for energy recovery pro-
cesses like MSWI with energy recovery and incineration in cement kilns. Therefore system-related allo-
cation applies for the emissions of biogenic CO2 from energy recovery of renewable materials. In case
of allocation 50%, half of the biogenic CO2 emissions are attributed to the examined system and half of
the biogenic CO2 emissions are attributed to the following system, for example the MSWI plants with
energy recovery.
Together with the full CO2 uptake for the regarded system and the non-consideration of the CO2 uptake
in credits the mass balance of all biogenic carbon is the same after and before allocation following ISO
14040 and 14044. Regarding the LCA results for ‘Climate Change’, packaging systems containing renew-
able materials benefit if the system-related allocation 50% is applied for recovery processes. When ap-
plying the allocation 50% approach the benefit regarding the LCA results for ‘Climate Change’ of pack-
aging systems containing renewable materials can promote the increase of use of renewable materials
in packaging system.
In case of applying allocation 100% for recovery processes all of the CO 2 reg. emissions are attributed
to the regarded system. Therefore in this case the extra benefit for ‘Climate Change’ results, packaging
systems with primary renewable materials receive by only getting allocated 50% of the biogenic CO 2
emissions, is gone.
As these decisions and conventions applied in this study are partly based on political reasons, it is es-
pecially important to consider the results of the 100% allocation approach equally alongside those of
the 50% allocation approach. All conclusions in this study will always be based on the outcomes of both
assessments, the 50% allocation and 100% allocation approach.
1.8 Environmental Impact Assessment

The environmental impact assessment phase is intended to increase the understanding and evaluating
of the potential environmental impacts for a product system throughout the whole life cycle (ISO
14040: 2006; ISO 14044: 2006).
To assess the environmental performance of the examined packaging systems, a set of environmental
impact categories is used. Related information as well as references of applied models is provided be-
low. In the present study, midpoint categories are applied. Midpoint indicators represent potential pri-
mary environmental impacts and are located between emission and potential harmful effect. This
means that the potential damage caused by the substances is not taken into account.
The selection of the impact categories is based both on the current practice in LCA and the applicability
of as less as uncertain characterisation models also with regard to the completeness and availability of
the inventory data. This choice is similar to that of the UBA approach (UBA 2016), which is fully con-
sistent with the requirements of (ISO 14040: 2006; ISO 14044: 2006). However, it is nearly impossible
to carry out an assessment in such a high level of detail, that all environmental issues are covered. A
broad examination of as many environmental issues as possible is highly dependent on the quality of
the available inventory datasets and of the scientific acceptance of the certain assessment methods.
ISO 14044: 2006 recommends that: “the impact categories, category indicators and characterisation
models should be internationally accepted, i.e. based on an international agreement or approved by a
competent international body”. As there are almost no truly international (i.e. global) agreements or
bodies beyond ISO or IPCC that endorse specific environmental impact categories, in LCA practice cat-
egories, indicators and characterisation models which are widely used are considered to fulfil this rec-
ommendation. All the impact categories, category indicators and characterisation models used in this
study are widely used internationally and are endorsed by internationally accepted bodies like EPA,
IPCC, CML or UBA.
The LCA framework in this study addresses potential environmental impacts calculated based on ge-
neric spatial independent inventory data with global supply chains. Therefore, the characterisation
models and associated factors are intended to support Life Cycle Impact Assessment on a global level
for each impact category.
The description of the different impact categories and their indicators is based on the terminology by
(ISO 14044: 2006). It has to be noted; that the LCIA results are relative expressions and do not predict
impacts on category endpoints, the exceeding of thresholds, safety margins or risks. All the applied
methodologies for impact assessment can be considered to be internationally accepted.
The selected impact categories and additional inventory categories to be assessed and presented in
this study are listed and briefly addressed below.
1.8.1 Impact categories related to emissions
Climate Change
Climate Change addresses the impact of anthropogenic emissions on the radiative forcing of the at-
mosphere. Greenhouse gas emissions enhance the radiative forcing, resulting in an increase of the
earth’s temperature. The characterisation factors applied here are based on the category indicator
Global Warming Potential (GWP) for a 100-year time horizon (Stocker et al. 2013).
In reference to the functional unit (FU), the category indicator results, GWP results, are expressed as
kg CO2-e/FU.
Ozone Depletion
This impact category addresses the anthropogenic impact on the earth’s atmosphere, which leads to
the decomposition of naturally present ozone molecules, thus disturbing the molecular equilibrium in
the stratosphere. The underlying chemical reactions are very slow processes and the actual impact,
often referred to in a simplified way as the ‘ozone hole’, takes place only with considerable delay of
several years after emission. The consequence of this disequilibrium is that an increased amount of UV-
B radiation reaches the earth’s surface, where it can cause damage to certain natural resources or hu-
man health. In this study, the Ozone Depletion compiled by the World Meteorological Organisation
(WMO 2011) is used as category indicator.
In reference to the functional unit, the unit for Ozone Depletion is kg R-11-e/FU.
Summer Smog
Summer Smog (Photo-oxidant formation) is the photochemical creation of reactive substances (mainly
ozone), which affect human health and ecosystems. This ground-level ozone is formed in the atmos-
phere by nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight.
In this study, ‘Maximum Incremental Reactivity‘ (MIR) developed in the US by William P. L. Carter is
applied as category indicator for the impact category Summer Smog. MIRs expressed as [kg O3-e/emis-
sion i are used in several reactivity-based VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) regulations by the Cali-
fornia Air Resources Board (Air Resources Board 2000). The approach of William P. L. Carter includes
characterisation factors for individual VOC, unspecified VOC and Nitrogen oxides (NOx). The ‘Nitrogen-
Maximum Incremental Reactivity‘ (NMIR) for NOx is introduced for the first time in 2008 (Carter 2008).
The MIRs and NMIRs are calculated based on scenarios where ozone formation has maximum sensitiv-
ities either to VOC or NOx inputs. The factors applied in this study were published by Carter (2010).
According to Carter (2008), “MIR values may also be appropriate to quantify relative ozone impacts of
VOCs for life cycle assessment analyses as well, particularly if the objective is to assess the maximum
adverse impacts of the emissions of the compounds involved.” The results reflect the potential where
VOC or NOx reductions are the most effective for reducing ozone.
The MIR concept seems to be the most appropriate characterisation model for LCIA based on generic
spatial independent global inventory data and combines following needs:
 Provision of characterisation factors for more than 1100 individual VOC, VOC mixtures, nitrogen ox-
ides and nitrogen dioxides
 Consistent modelling of potential impacts for VOC and NOx

 Considering of the maximum formation potential by inclusion of most supporting background con-
centrations of the gas mixture and climatic conditions. This is in accordance with the precautionary
principle.
To provide as wide as possible knowledge of the environmental strengths and weaknesses of SIGs car-
ton systems, the ‘Summer Smog’ results are displayed without NMIRs as additional information. These
results show the potential impacts of VOCs on photo-oxidant formation. This additional information is
not used for the final conclusions and recommendations of the study. Only the complete Summer Smog
results incl. NMIR are considered.
The unit for Summer Smog is kg O3-e/FU.
Acidification
Acidification affects aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems by changing the acid-basic-equilibrium through
the input of acidifying substances. The acidification potential expressed as SO2-equivalents according
to (Heijungs 1992) is applied here as category indicator.
The characterisation model by (Heijungs 1992) is chosen as the LCA framework addresses potential
environmental impacts calculated based on generic spatial independent global inventory data. The
method is based on the potential capacity of the pollutant to form hydrogen ions. The results of this
indicator, therefore, represent the maximum acidification potential per substance without an under-
valuation of potential impacts.
The method by (Heijungs 1992) is, in contrast to methods using European dispersion models, applicable
for emissions outside Europe. Even though this study focusses on the European market on the product
level, many processes especially the sourcing of resources (f.e. oil and coal) take place outside Europe
and therefore need a global scope. The authors of the method using accumulated exceedance note
that “the current situation does not allow one to use these advanced characterisation methods, such
as the AE method, outside of Europe due to a lack of suitable atmospheric dispersion models and/or
measures of ecosystem sensitivity” (Posch et al. 2008).
The unit for the Acidification potential is kg SO2-e/FU.
Eutrophication
Eutrophication means the excessive supply of nutrients and can apply to both surface waters and soils.
As these two different media are affected in very different ways, a distinction is made between water-
eutrophication and soil-eutrophication:
1. Terrestrial Eutrophication (i.e., eutrophication of soils by atmospheric emissions)
2. Aquatic Eutrophication (i.e., eutrophication of water bodies by effluent releases)
Nitrogen- and phosphorus-containing compounds are among the most eutrophying elements. The eu-
trophication of surface waters also causes oxygen-depletion. A measure of the possible perturbation
of the oxygen levels is given by the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). In order to quantify the magnitude
of this undesired supply of nutrients and oxygen depletion substances, the eutrophication potential
according to (Guinée 2002; Heijungs 1992) was chosen as an impact indicator.
The unit for both types of Eutrophication is kg PO4-e/FU.
Particulate Matter
The category covers effects of fine particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 µm (PM
2.5) emitted directly (primary particles) or formed from precursors as NOx and SO 2 (secondary parti-
cles). Epidemiological studies have shown a correlation between the exposure to particulate matter
and the mortality from respiratory diseases as well as a weakening of the immune system. Following
an approach of (de Leeuw 2002), the category indicator aerosol formation potential (AFP) is applied.
Within the characterisation model, secondary fine particulates are quantified and aggregated with pri-
mary fine particulates as PM2.5 equivalents4. This approach addresses the potential impacts on human
health and nature independent of the population density.
The characterisation models suggested by Goedkoop et al. (2013) and (JRC 2011) calculate intake frac-
tions based on population densities. This means that emissions transported to rural areas are weighted
lower than transported to urban areas. These approaches contradict the idea that all humans inde-
pendent of their residence should be protected against potential impacts. Therefore, not the intake
potential, but the formation potential is applied for the impact category particulate matter.
In reference to the functional unit, the unit for Particulate Matter is kg PM 2.5-e/FU.
––––––––––––––––
4 In previous LCA studies commissioned by SIG and conducted by ifeu the contribution to the ‘fine Particulate Matter
Potential’ was calculated by summing the products of the amounts of the individual harmful substances and the respec-
tive PM10 equivalent. According to Detzel et al. (2016) the characterisation factors of de Leeuw (2002) shall now be
related to PM2.5 equivalent. This recommendation is based on the respective guidelines of WHO (2021) WHO: It states
that the fraction PM2.5 is mainly responsible for toxic effects.
Table 1-2: Examples of elementary flows and their classification to emission related impact categories
Human and Eco Toxicity (excl. Particulate Matter)
LCA results on toxicity are often unreliable, mainly due to incomplete inventories, and also due to in-
complete impact assessment methods and uncertainties in the characterisation factors. None of the
available methods is clearly better than the others, although there is a slight preference for the con-
sensus model USEtox. Based on comparisons among the different methods, the USEtox authors employ
following residual errors (RE) related to the square geometric standard deviation (GSD²):
Table 1-3: Model uncertainty estimates for USEtox characterisation factors (reference: (Rosenbaum et al. 2008))
Characterisation factor GSD²
Human health, emission to rural air 77
Human health, emission to freshwater 215
Human health, emission to agricultural soil 2.189
Freshwater ecotoxicity, emission to rural air 176
Freshwater ecotoxicity, emission to freshwater 18
Freshwater ecotoxicity, emission to agricultural soil 103
To capture the 95% confidence interval, the mean value of each substance would have to be divided
and multiplied by the GSD². (Sala et al. 2018) also concludes that the results for the impact categories
human and eco toxicity are “not sufficiently robust to be included in external communications” before
the robustness of the impact category was improved. Therefore, no assessment of human and eco
toxicity is included in this study.
1.8.2 Impact categories related to the use/consumption of resources
Abiotic resource depletion
The consumption of resources is deemed adverse for human society. In all considerations regarding
sustainable, environmentally-compatible commerce, the conservation of resources plays a key role.
The safeguard subject of this category is the reduction of depletion and dissemination of abiotic re-
sources (fossil fuels and minerals) that can be extracted from the lithosphere.
For this study the approach of (Guinée 2002) based on parameters on ultimate reserves and extraction
rates by (Guinée 2002; Heijungs 1992) are applied. This model considers the scarcity of materials as a
function of the natural reserve of the resource in connection with the annual extraction rate. The nat-
ural reserve of raw materials is based on ultimate reserves, i.e. on concentrations of elements and fossil
carbon in the Earth's crust. The quotients of extraction and ultimate reserve of a resource are related
to the corresponding quotient of the reference antimony to express the Abiotic Resource Depletion
(ADP) as antimony equivalents (Sb-e/kg resource). With the approach of (Guinée 2002) both, the fossil
and mineral/metal resources are addressed together in one impact category.
The characterisation factors for Abiotic Resource Depletion elements (minerals and metals) are taken
from (CML 2016). The annual extraction rate of the elements is based on USGS (U.S. Geological Survey)
with the reference year 2011. Mineral and metals that consist of more than one element like barium
sulphate, characterisation factors have been recalculated based on the factors from (CML 2016).
The method by CML (2016) separates Abiotic Resource Depletion into two single impact categories.
Nevertheless, the authors of this study are not going along with this change as the assessment of abiotic
resources is only complete when all abiotic resources are included. Therefore, the approach of (Guinée
2002) without separating Abiotic Resource Depletion in two categories is applied. The characterisation
factors for the fossil Abiotic Resource Depletion have been updated to the same reference year as for
element resources (2011) based on the calculation method described in (Guinée 2002). The quotients
of extraction and ultimate reserve of the fossil resources are related to the corresponding quotient of
the reference antimony. This calculation results in the following characterisation factor: 0.000093 kg
Sb-e/MJ fossil fuel.
Nevertheless, the Abiotic Resource Depletion of mineral and metal resources (Abiotic Resource Deple-
tion elements) is presented as additional information at the end of each set of results.
In reference to the functional unit, the unit for Abiotic Resource Depletion is kg Sb-e/FU.
Table 1-4: Examples of elementary flows and their classification to resource related impact category
1.8.3 Additional categories at the inventory level
Inventory level categories differ from impact categories to the extent that no characterisation step
using characterisation factors is used for assessment. The results of the categories at inventory level
are presented and discussed in section 4 (Results and discussion) but are not intended to be used for
comparison between systems and drawing of recommendations.
Primary Energy
The Total Primary Energy and the Non-renewable Primary Energy serve primarily as a source of infor-
mation regarding the energy intensity of a system.
Total Primary Energy (Cumulative Energy Demand, total)
The Total Primary Energy is a parameter to quantify the primary energy consumption of a system. It is
calculated by adding the energy content of all used fossil fuels, nuclear and renewable energy (including
biomass). This category is described in (VDI 1997) and has not been changed considerably since then.
It is a measure for the overall energy efficiency of a system, regardless the type of energy resource
which is used.
The unit for Total Primary Energy is MJ/FU.
Non-renewable Primary Energy (Cumulative Energy Demand, non-renewable)
The category Non-renewable Primary Energy considers the primary energy consumption based on non-
renewable, i.e. fossil and nuclear energy sources.
The unit for Non-renewable Primary Energy is MJ/FU.
Table 1-5: Examples of elementary flows and their classification to inventory level categories
Categories at
Elementary flow examples Unit
inventory level
hard brown crude natural uranium

Non-renewable primary energy
Total Primary coal coal oil gas ore
MJ
Energy hydro solar en- hydro wind
Renewable primary energy biomass
energy ergy energy energy
Use of nature
Land use could have large impacts on the natural environment, such as decrease in biodiversity due to
direct loss of natural area or indirect impacts like area fragmentation, and impacts on the life support
function of the biosphere, such as raw materials providing or climate regulation. It can be especially
relevant when examining products based on agriculture or forestry compared to products with other
base and/or main materials.
The currently available methodology by (Beck et al. 2010; Chaudhary / Brooks 2018; Fehrenbach et al.
2015) on land use especially on different forest management types and ecoregions are only well appli-
cable in geographical context of Europe, but with regard to the supply chains under study, global re-
source chains are relevant. Therefore no assessment of the use of nature is included in this study.
Water scarcity footprint
Due to the growing water demand, increased water scarcity in many areas and degradation of water
quality, water as a scarce natural resource has become increasingly central to the global debate on
sustainable development.
Due to the lack of mandatory information, for example regarding the region of water use in the applied
data sets, water scarcity footprint cannot be examined on an LCIA level within this study. Some of the
qualitative aspects are considered in this report in the impact category "Aquatic Eutrophication".
2 Packaging systems and scenarios
2.1 Selection of packaging systems

The focus of this study lies on the beverage cartons combibloc SIGNATURE PACK developed by SIG
Combibloc, for which this study aims to provide knowledge of its strengths and weaknesses regarding
environmental aspects. In this context, they are also compared with other SIG beverage cartons se-
lected by SIG for this study.
The packaging systems examined in this study are summarised in the following table:
Table 2-1: List of combinations of beverage cartons which are compared to each other in Europe
Classification
and volume of
Beverage carton systems overview Compared beverage carton systems overview
beverage car-
ton system
Standard RS with
EcoPlus with  Fossil-based PE
 Fossil-based PE  Aluminium foil as barrier material
 Fossil-based PA foil as barrier material cSwift closure made of
cSwift LP closure made of  Fossil-based PP & PE
 Fossil-based PP & PE cMaxx closure made of
 Fossil-based PP & PE & PS
combiblocSlimline (cb3) 1000
Standard RS with
 Fossil-based PE
 Aluminium foil as barrier material
cSwift closure made of
SIGNATURE PACK 100 with
 Fossil-based PP & PE
 Mass-balanced PE
cMaxx closure made of
 Mass-balanced PA as barrier material
cSwift LP closure made of
EcoPlus with
 Mass-balanced PP & PE
 Fossil-based PE
 Fossil-based PA foil as barrier material
SIGNATURE PACK FB with Standard RS with

 Mass-balanced PE  Fossil PE
 Aluminium foil as barrier material  Aluminium foil as barrier material
cSwift closure made of cSwift closure made of
 Mass-balanced PP & PE  Fossil-based PP & PE
cMaxx closure made of cMaxx closure made of
 Mass-balanced PP & PE and fossil PS
EcoPlus with Standard RS with
 Fossil-based PE  Fossil-based PE
 Fossil-based PA foil as barrier material  Aluminium foil as barrier material
cSwift LP closure made of cSwift closure made of
 Fossil-based PP & PE  Fossil-based PP & PE

Standard RS with
 Fossil-based PE
 Aluminium foil as barrier material
CombiblocMidi (cb8) 1000
cSwift closure made of

SIGNATURE PACK 100 with
 Mass-balanced PE
 Mass-balanced PA as barrier material
EcoPlus with
 Mass-balanced PP & PE
 Fossil-based PE
 Fossil-based PA foil as barrier material
SIGNATURE PACK FB with Standard RS with

 Mass-balanced PE  Fossil-based PE
 Aluminium foil as barrier material  Aluminium foil as barrier material
cSwift closure made of cSwift closure made of
 Mass-balanced PP & PE  Fossil-based PP & PE
 Mass-balanced PP & PE and fossil PS
EcoPlus with Standard RS with

combiblocMidi
 Fossil-based PE  Fossil-based PE
(cb8) 500
 Fossil-based PA foil as barrier material  Aluminium foil as barrier material

cSwift LP closure made of cSwift closure made of
 Fossil-based PP & PE  Fossil-based PP & PE
In 2024, the Directive (EU) 2019/904 Single-use plastic articles on tethered caps will come into force:
from then on, closures and lids may be placed on the market only if the closures and lids remain at-
tached to the one-way beverage packaging during the period of intended use of the articles with a
volume of up to three litres. The aim is to recycle the caps together with the containers and to avoid
littering of the environment by discarded caps.
Currently, there are no tethered caps (TC) on the market, but they have been developed for each type
of closure. Therefore, 2 variants are available for each type of closure (standard and TC (new). Only 1
scenario (the heavier closure) was calculated in each case to ensure the validity of both variants.
Table 2-2Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. shows matching closures of the ex-
amined beverage cartons. The coloured values of closures were chosen for the examination.
The maximum difference of the closure weights can be found regarding the cMaxx closure (0.4 g). The
chosen values are the heaviest ones of each type of closure to take a conservative approach, as the
heavier closures cause higher burdens. Since the regulation of the TC as described applies in 2024, and
the new TC are heavier (except the cSwift LP, which was therefore based on the heavier standard
weight), the results of the closures can also be considered valid in the future, when the regulation of
the TC comes into force.
Table 2-2: Selection of closures for SIG cartons and closures selected for the study (marked)
cSwift cSwift LP cMaxx

TC (new) standard TC (new) standard TC (new) standard
Weight of
2.75 2.74 2.81 2.85 3.00 2.60
closure (g)
2.2 Description of packaging systems

All the packaging systems examined in this study are beverage cartons with refastenable closures.
The sleeve of the standard RS (robust structure) carton is a standard carton consisting of about 76%
LPB, 19% PE and 5% aluminium foil. Closures consist of about 42%-52% PP, 41%-48% PE and the cMaxx
closure also consists of about 17% PS.
The EcoPlus carton differs from the Standard RS in the barrier material: The barrier material aluminium
is replaced by PA in the EcoPlus carton. Furthermore, the SIGNATURE PACK FB carton differs from the
SIGNATURE PACK 100 in the barrier material: In this case also, the barrier material aluminium is re-
placed by PA in the SIGNATURE PACK 100.
In all SIGNATURE cartons considered, all fossil-based plastic components (PE, PP) in the sleeves and
closures are replaced by mass-balanced plastic components (mass-balanced PE, mass-balanced PP).
The following abbreviations, which are included in the packaging names are applied in this study:
 standard RS (robust structure, structure with aluminium foil barrier)
 cSwift (combiSwift, closure)
 cMaxx (combiMaxx, closure)
 SIGNATURE PACK FB (full barrier, containing aluminium)
 SIGNATURE PACK 100 (100% mass-balanced PE, PP, PA)
Table 2-3: Overview of beverage cartons and their short names used in the figures of the results
combiblocSlimline (cb3) 1000 mL combiblocMidi (cb8) 1000 mL, 500 mL
beverage carton short name beverage carton short name
combiblocSlimline (cb3) combiblocMidi (cb8) stand-

cb3 standard RS cb8 standard RS
standard RS ard RS
combiblocSlimline (cb3) combiblocMidi (cb8)

cb3 EcoPlus cb8 EcoPlus
EcoPlus EcoPlus

cb3 SIGNATURE PACK 100 cb8 SIGNATURE PACK 100
SIGNATURE PACK 100 SIGNATURE PACK 100

cb3 SIGNATURE PACK FB cb8 SIGNATURE PACK FB
SIGNATURE PACK FB SIGNATURE PACK FB
The cartons examined differ in their materials, but are essentially identical in their shape and function-
ality. The requirements for the filling machines are also the same, so that no different filling machines
are needed for the different packaging systems.
As the SIG packaging combifitMidi (cf8) is identical to the combiblocMidi (cb8) with regard to all pack-
aging specifications (including secondary and tertiary packaging), the results of the combiblocMidi (cb8)
1000 mL also apply to the combifitMidi (cf8) 1000 mL and, correspondingly, the results of the
combiblocMidi (cb8) 500 mL also apply to the combifitMidi (cf8) 500 mL.
2.3 Packaging specifications

The packaging systems examined in the LCA study are specified in Table 2-4 to Table 2-6.
Table 2-4: Packaging specifications of the beverage cartons in EU: combiblocSlimline (cb3) 1000 mL
combiblocSlimline (cb3) 1000

Specification Unit Packaging system
cb3 cb3 cb3 SIGNATURE cb3 SIGNATURE

standard RS EcoPlus PACK 100 PACK FB
cSwift cSwift
closure - cSwift cMaxx cSwift cMaxx
LP LP
volume mL 1000 1000 1000 1000
geographic scope - EU EU EU EU
chilled
-
ambient
primary packaging (sum)1 g 29.05 29.30 30.50 30.50 29.05 29.30
primary packaging (per FU) g/FU 29050 29300 30500 30500 29050 29300
composite material (sleeve) g 26.30 27.65 27.65 26.30
- liquid packaging board g 20.00 22.90 22.90 20.00
- fossil PE g 4.90 4.24 - -

- mass-balanced PE g - - 4.24 4.90
- aluminium foil g 1.40 - - 1.40
- fossil PA g - 0.51 - -
- mass-balanced PA g - - 0.51 -
closure g 2.75 3.00 2.85 2.85 2.75 3.00
- fossil PP g 1.47 1.25 1.48 - -
- mass-balanced PP g - - - 1.48 1.47 1.25
- fossil PE g 1.28 1.23 1.37 - -
- mass-balanced PE g - - - 1.37 1.28 1.23
- fossil PS g - 0.52 - - - 0.52
secondary packaging
g 134 134 134 134
(sum)2
- tray/box
g 134 134 134 134
(corr.cardboard)
tertiary packaging (sum)3 g 20350 20350 20350 20350
- pallet g 20000 20000 20000 20000

- type of pallet - EURO EURO EURO EURO
number of use cycles - 25 25 25 25
- stretch foil (per pallet) g 350 350 350 350
pallet configuration
cartons per tray pc 12 12 12 12
trays / packs per layer pc 12 12 12 12
layers per pallet pc 5 5 5 5
cartons per pallet pc 720 720 720 720
1 per primary packaging unit; 2 per secondary packaging unit; 3 per tertiary packaging unit (pallet)
Table 2-5: Packaging specifications of the beverage cartons in EU: combiblocMidi (cb8) 1000 mL
combiblocMidi (cb8) 1000

cb8 cb8 cb8 SIGNATURE cb8 SIGNATURE

standard RS EcoPlus PACK 100 PACK FB
cSwift cSwift
LP LP
volume mL 1000 1000 1000 1000
geographic scope - EU EU EU EU
chilled
ambient
primary packaging (sum)1 g 29.45 29.70 32.24 32.24 29.45 29.70
primary packaging (per FU) g/FU 29450 29700 32240 32240 29450 29700
composite material (sleeve) g 26.70 29.39 29.39 26.70
- liquid packaging board g 20.30 24.40 24.40 20.30
- fossil PE g 5.00 4.30 - -

- aluminium foil g 1.40 - - 1.4
- fossil PA g - 0.69 - -
- mass-balanced PA g - - 0.69 -
closure g 2.75 3.00 2.85 2.85 2.75 3.00
- fossil PP g 1.47 1.25 1.48 - -
- mass-balanced PP g - - - 1.48 1.47 1.25
- fossil PE g 1.28 1.23 1.37 - -
- mass-balanced PE g - - - 1.37 1.28 1.23
- fossil PS g - 0.52 - - - 0.52
secondary packaging
g 204 204 204 204
(sum)2
- tray/box
g 204 204 204 204
(corr.cardboard)
tertiary packaging (sum)3 g 20350 20350 20350 20350
- pallet g 20000 20000 20000 20000

- type of pallet - EURO EURO EURO EURO
number of use cycles - 25 25 25 25
- stretch foil (per pallet) g 350 350 350 350
cartons per tray pc 12 12 12 12
trays / packs per layer pc 13 13 13 13
layers per pallet pc 5 5 5 5
cartons per pallet pc 780 780 780 780
Table 2-6: Packaging specifications of the beverage cartons in EU: combiblocMidi (cb8) 500 mL
combiblocMidi (cb8) 500

cb8 cb8
standard RS EcoPlus
cSwift
closure - cSwift
LP
volume mL 500 500
geographic scope - EU EU
chilled
ambient
primary packaging (sum)1 g 20.25 23.05
primary packaging (per FU) g/FU 40500 46100
composite material (sleeve) g 17.50 20.20
- liquid packaging board g 13.30 16.7
- fossil PE g 3.30 3.00

- mass-balanced PE g - -
- aluminium foil g 0.9 -
- fossil PA g - 0.5
- mass-balanced PA g - -
closure g 2.75 2.85
- fossil PP g 1.47 1.48
- mass-balanced PP g - -
- fossil PE g 1.28 1.37
- mass-balanced PE g - -
- fossil PS g - -
secondary packaging
g 60 60
(sum)2
- tray/box
g 60 60
(corr.cardboard)
tertiary packaging (sum)3 g 20350 20350

- pallet g 20000 20000
- type of pallet - EURO EURO
number of use cycles - 25 25
- stretch foil (per pallet) g 350 350
cartons per tray pc 12 12
trays / packs per layer pc 13 13
layers per pallet pc 8 8
cartons per pallet pc 1248 1248
In general terms, packaging systems can be defined based on the primary, secondary and tertiary pack-
aging elements they are made up of. The composition of each of these individual packaging systems
and their components’ masses depend strongly on the function they are designed to fulfil, i.e. on re-
quirements of the filler and retailer as well as the distribution of the packaged product to the point-of-
sale. The main function of the examined primary packaging is the packaging and protection of bever-
ages and liquid food. The packaging protects the filled products’ freshness, flavours and nutritional
qualities during transportation, whilst on sale and at home. All examined packaging systems are con-
sidered to achieve this.
Table 2-4 shows the packaging specifications of the four combiblocSlimline (cb3) beverage cartons for
1000 mL. For two packaging systems, there are two different variants of closures (combiblocSlimline
(cb3) standard RS and combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE PACK FB).
Table 2-5 shows the packaging specifications of the four combiblocMidi (cb8) packaging systems for
1000 mL. For two packaging systems, there are two different variants of closures (combiblocMidi (cb8)
standard RS and combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE PACK FB).
Table 2-6 shows the packaging specifications of the two combiblocMidi (cb8) packaging systems for
500 mL.
It is conspicuous that the sleeve weight of the combiblocMidi (cb8) packaging systems changes accord-
ing to the packaging size, but the different closure variants show the same mass, independent of the
volumes of the packaging (500 mL, 1000 mL).
The polymers LDPE, PP and HDPE of the beverage cartons are linked to renewable resources via the
mass-balance approach while the polymer PS is based entirely on fossil resources.
These polymers linked to renewable resources are produced by using both, fossil and biogenic re-
sources as input materials for the same production process. In practice the input of biogenic materials
(in this case tall-oil, a by-product of paper production processes) to the polymerisation process is done
at the same production process where mainly fossil-based ethylene and naphtha is used. This leads to
only one final product per production process which is neither 100% fossil-based nor 100% bio-based
material. To allocate the specific characteristics of fossil-based or bio-based input materials to the final
product the producers declare a certain share of their production as linked to renewable resources.
That share, of course is dependent on the share of biogenic input material.
It is important to understand that in reality (in a physical sense) the (C 2H4)n and (C3H6)n molecules of
the tall oil based polymers are in fact mainly non bio-based, as the share of bio-based ethylene is below
1% of the total production. But as the polymers in the SIGNATURE PACK are the ones to which the tall-
oil input is allocated to, they are modelled as if they would be 100% tall-oil based for the purpose of
this study. The allocation of inputs is certified by ISCC PLUS (International Sustainability & Carbon Cer-
tification) (ISCC 2019).
2.4 End-of-life
To model the end-of-life of the examined beverage cartons one needs to know their fate after their use
by the consumers. It is aimed to apply the recycling rate and disposal split for the beverage cartons of
the EU market. These data has been collected from different waste management reports and statistics.
For beverage cartons the specific recycling rate is publicly available for the market examined. The as-
sumption of sorting losses is 10%, therefore, with a recycling rate of 51%, the collection rate is 57%.
The recycling rate represents the actual amount of material undergoing a material recycling process
after sorting took place. The collection rate represents the amount of material before sorting.
The remaining part of the post-consumer packaging waste is modelled and calculated according to the
average rates for landfilling and incineration (MSWI) in Europe. The disposal split (100%) is divided into
landfilling, 44.7% and incineration, 55.3%.
The applied recycling rate and the disposal split for Europe are listed in Table 2-7.
Table 2-7: End-of-life split of beverage cartons examined
Europe Source
Recycling rate
Beverage
51.0 % (EXTR:ACT 2020), data for 2019
cartons
Disposal split
Landfill 44.7 % (Eurostat 2021) municipal waste statistic, data for

Incineration 55.3 % 2019
2.5 Distribution of filled packages from filler to point of sale

Table 2-8 shows the applied distribution distances in this study. The distribution distances for the Eu-
ropean market from filling to point of sale were provided by SIG Combibloc. The distances have been
cross-checked by ifeu based on internal and confidential studies on distribution.
For the distribution in Europe, a total distribution distance of 530 km has been assumed. In addition to
regional and nationwide filling and distribution in Europe also cross-national distribution is considered
which leads to a longer average distance.
The transport distance is implemented in the model as a two-stage delivery to retailers, where the first
step indicates the transport to a central warehouse, and the second represents the delivery from a
central warehouse to the supermarket (point-of-sale). For distribution step 2 as an expert estimate
based on the same data mentioned above, a minimum empty transport distance of 30 km is assumed
for the European market. The distance for distribution step 1 is obtained by subtracting the 30 km from
the total distribution distance.
As no first-hand information was available on average empty return distances of lorries for the respec-
tive markets, it was assumed that lorries have an empty return trip with 30% of the distance of the fully
loaded trip. However, internally available (confidential) distribution data for other beverage markets
indicate that for short-distance transports, the 30% rule typically underestimates the empty return trip
of the lorry. Therefore, as an expert estimate, a minimum empty transport distance of 30 km is applied
for distribution step 2.
In the life cycle model, environmental loads related to distribution have been allocated between bev-
erage and packaging based on respective masses and on the degree of utilisation of the lorry. The dis-
tribution distances for the European market are summarised in Table 2-8.
Table 2-8: Distribution distances in Europe for the examined beverage cartons
Distribution distance
Distribution Step 1 Distribution step 2
Filler  distribu- Distribution centre Distribution centre POS  distribution

tion centre  filler  POS centre
Market
(delivery) (return trip) (delivery) (return trip)
EU 500 km 150 km 30 km 30 km
2.6 Scenario modelling: End-of-life allocation

For each of the studied beverage cartons a scenario for the European market is defined, which is in-
tended to reflect the most realistic situation under the described scope. These scenarios are clustered
into groups within the same volume group. Following the ISO standard’s recommendation, a variation
of the allocation procedure shall be conducted. Therefore, the allocation factor for system allocation is
set at 50% and 100% for the scenario models l and ll. For further details on allocation factors and system
allocation see section 1.7.2. An overview of the modelled baseline scenarios in this study is provided
in Table 2-9.
Table 2-9: Modelled baseline scenarios for the European market
Scenario I: Scenario II:
Examined volumes 500 mL, 1000 mL
Geographic scope EU EU
Allocation factor AF: 50 % AF: 100 %
BC recycling rate average average

(EU: 51 %) (EU: 51 %)
Total amount of
14 14
beverage cartons
In the following, these scenarios are described.
2.6.1 Scenario I (50 % allocation) and II (100 % allocation)
Following the ISO standard’s recommendation, a variation of the allocation procedure shall be con-
ducted. Therefore, two equal scenarios regarding the open-loop allocation are defined for the Euro-
pean market:
‒ Scenario I with a system allocation factor of 50 %
‒ Scenario II with a system allocation factor of 100 %

3 Life Cycle Inventory
Data on processes for packaging material production and converting were either collected in coopera-
tion with the industry or taken from literature and the ifeu database. Concerning background processes
(energy generation, transportation as well as waste treatment and recycling), the most recent version
of ifeu’s internal, continuously updated database was used. The use of different sources of the data
sets can be justified methodologically by the fact that there is a conflict - the choice of consistently the
same source often does not mean high quality. Therefore, the choice was made to always use the data
sets with comparable background systems or system assumptions in combination with the best availa-
ble data quality. Table 3-1 gives an overview of important datasets applied in the current study.
Table 3-1: Overview on inventory/process datasets used in the current study
Material / Reference Geographic

Source
process year/ period scope
Intermediate goods
Fossil PP (PlasticsEurope 2014a) 2011 Europe
Fossil HDPE (PlasticsEurope 2014a) 2011 Europe
Fossil LDPE (PlasticsEurope 2014a) 2011 Europe
Fossil PS (PlasticsEurope 2012) 2010 Europe
Fossil PA From producer, confidential 2015 Europe
Based on information provided by SIG Combibloc, literature 2016 Finland/Europe

Mass-balanced- PE
and ifeu database
Based on information provided by SIG Combibloc, literature 2016 Finland/Europe

Mass-balanced PP
and ifeu database
Mass-balanced PA From producer, confidential and literature 2015 Europe
Aluminium (primary) (EAA 2018) 2015 Europe
Aluminium foil (EAA 2013) 2010 Europe
Corrugated cardboard (FEFCO / Cepi Container Board 2018) 2017 Europe
Liquid packaging board ifeu data, obtained from ACE (ACE / ifeu 2020) 2018 Finland/Sweden
Production
BC converting data SIG Combibloc 2019 Europe
- Sleeve production cb3 Germany
- Sleeve production cb8 Austria
Injection moulding of caps SIG Combibloc 2019 Europe

Material / Reference Geographic

Source
process year/ period scope
- Cap production cb3
- cSwift LP Europe
- cSwift Europe
- cMaxx Switzerland
- Cap production cb8
- cSwift LP Europe
- cSwift Europe
- cMaxx Switzerland
Filling
Filling of beverage cartons SIG Combibloc 2019 Europe
Recovery
ifeu database, based on data from various European recycling

Beverage carton recycling 2004 Europe
plants
Background data
Electricity production ifeu database, based on statistics and power plant models 2018 Europe
Municipal waste incineration ifeu database, based on statistics and incineration plant models 2016-2020 Europe
Landfill ifeu database, based on statistics and landfill models 2019 Europe
Thermal recovery in cement

ifeu database, German cement industry association (VDZ) 2006 Europe
kilns
ifeu database, based on statistics and transport models, emis-

Lorry transport 2017 Europe
sion factors based on HBEFA 4.1 (INFRAS 2019).
Rail transport (EcoTransIT World 2016) 2016 Europe
Sea ship transport (EcoTransIT World 2016) 2016 Europe

3.1 Manufacture of plastic raw materials

The following plastics are used within the beverage cartons under study:
3.1.1 Polypropylene (PP)
PP is produced by catalytic polymerisation of propylene into long-chained polypropylene. The two im-
portant processing methods are low pressure precipitation polymerisation and gas phase polymerisa-
tion. In a subsequent processing stage the polymer powder is converted to granulate using an extruder.
The present LCA study utilises data published by Plastics Europe (PlasticsEurope 2014a). The dataset
covers the production of PP from cradle to the polymer factory gate. The polymerisation data refer to
the 2011 time period and were acquired from a total of 35 polymerisation plants producing. The total
PP production in Europe (EU27+2) in 2011/2012 was 8,500,000 tonnes. The Plastics Europe data set
hence represents 77% of PP production in Europe.
3.1.2 Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE)
LDPE is manufactured in a high pressure process and contains a high number of long side chains. The
present LCA study uses the ecoprofile published on the website of Plastics Europe (PlasticsEurope
2014b).
The data set covers the production of LDPE granulates from the extraction of the raw materials from
the natural environment, including processes associated with this. The data refer to the year 2011.
Data from a total of 22 participating polymerisation units were collected. The data set represents 72%
of LDPE production in Europe (EU27+2).
3.1.3 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
HDPE is produced by a variety of low pressure methods and has fewer side-chains than LDPE. The pre-
sent LCA study uses the eco-profile published on the website of Plastics Europe (PlasticsEurope 2014b).
The dataset covers the production of HDPE-granulate from the extraction of the raw materials from
the natural environment, including processes associated with this. The data refer to the year 2011 and
were acquired from a total of 21 participating polymerisation units. The data set represents 68% of
HDPE production in Europe (EU27+2).
3.1.4 Polystyrene (PS)
PS is produced by polymerisation of styrene monomer, a chain-growth reaction which is induced by

any known initiation techniques such as heat, free radical organic initiator, anionic or cationic initiating
systems, or coordination-insertion organo-metallic initiating complexes. The present LCA study uses
the ecoprofile published on the website of Plastics Europe (PlasticsEurope 2012). The dataset covers
95% of the European production capacity (EU-27) and refers to the year 2010.
3.1.5 Polyamide (PA 6)
PA 6 is manufactured from the precursors benzene and hydroxylamine. The present LCA study uses the
ecoprofile provided by a specific supplier within Europe. The applied dataset covers the production of
Polyamide granulates right from the extraction of the raw materials from the natural environment,
including processes associated with this. The data refer to the year 2015 and is specific for the supplier
of SIG Combibloc. Due to confidentiality reason the data cannot disclosed within this study.
3.1.6 Mass-balanced PE, mass-balanced PA 6 and mass-balanced-PP dataset based on tall oil
pitch
The production processes of mass-balanced PE, mass-balanced PA 6 and mass-balanced PP are based
on tall oil pitch. Tall oil pitch is a wood-based by-product from pulp production. Carbon stored in wood,
the base input material for the production processes of the mass-balanced plastics, has been absorbed
from the atmosphere during plant growth and is referred as biogenic carbon. As there is no additional
carbon added in the production processes of mass-balanced plastics the carbon stored mass-balanced
HDPE, LDPE, PP and PA is biogenic. In order to derive the biogenic carbon content of the mass-balanced
plastics, the carbon content is calculated with the corresponding chemical formulas of HDPE, LDPE, PP
and PA6. The total balance of biogenic carbon of the regarded packaging systems in the LCA is shown
exemplarily in Table 1-1 in section 1.7.3.
The production of tall oil pitch is modelled as described in (Cashman et al. 2016) covering the produc-
tion steps kraft pulping, acidulation and distillation and their related transportation. Allocation was
necessary in the main processes of pulping and distillation. This is done on mass basis. Because crude
tall oil produced from Black Liquor Soap (BLS) is a useful output a share of the pulping burdens is as-
signed to the tall oil.
For kraft pulping a kraftliner pulp process based on (FEFCO 2012) is used. The share of BLS in kraft pulp
production is 4% (Cashman et al. 2016). By applying mass allocation 4% of pulp production’s burdens
are taken for BLS.
The acidulation step to produce crude tall oil from BLS is modelled with the in- and outputs of Table 2
in (Cashman et al. 2016) (see Table 3-2)
Table 3-2: In- and outputs Acidulation. Table 2 in (Cashman et al. 2016)
Inputs Outputs
Black Liquor Soap (BLS) 2,000.00 kg Crude tall oil 1,000.00 kg
electric energy 110,000.00 kJ
heat energy from oil* 50,164.92 kJ
heat energy from natural gas** 8,114.40 kJ
steam (process) 1,623.000.00 kJ
sodium hydroxide, 50% in H2O,

25.00 kg
production mix, at plant [RER]
sulphuric acid, liquid, at plant [RER] 200.00 kg
*converted from kg to kJ with calorific value: 11.91kWh/kg

** converted from m³ to kJ with calorific value: 46MJ/kg and density of natural gas: 0.84 kg/m
Tall oil pitch is only one output of the tall oil distillation process. 27% of the total output mass of all
distillation products is tall oil pitch. The distillation process is modelled with the in-and outputs of Table
1b in (Cashman et al. 2016).
Table 3-3: In- and outputs Distillation. Table 1b in (Cashman et al. 2016)
Inputs Outputs
Crude Tall Oil 299.70 kg Tall Oil Pitch 1,000.00 kg
sewage (process) Sweden, Fin-

electric energy 168,210.00 kJ 5.67 kg
land
heat energy from oil* 49,200.21 kJ
heat energy from natural gas** 68,543.50 kJ
steam (process) 157,680.00 kJ
nitrogen 2.27 kg
Applied allocation factor 0.27 for tall oil pitch based on Table 1a in (Cashman et al. 2016)
*converted from kg to kJ with calorific value: 11.91kWh/kg
** converted from m³ to kJ with calorific value: 46MJ/kg and density of natural gas: 0.84 kg/m³ (ifeu)
Mass-balanced PA 6 is based on the same data set as fossil-based PA 6 (see section 3.1.5). Naphta is
substituted by tall oil pitch. The amount of naphtha needed for 1 kg of PA6 was calculated based on
the used oil feedstock in MJ for the production of 1kg of fossil-based PA6 and the used oil feedstock in
MJ for the production of 1 kg of naphtha.
The corresponding amount of tall oil pitch was calculated by equating the input of naphtha with the
replacing tall oil pitch based on their energy values. For this purpose the following lower heating values
were used:
Table 3-4: Lower heating values of naphtha and tall oil pitch
lower heating value

Naphtha 41.8 kg/MJ
Tall oil pitch 38 kg/MJ
Mass-balanced PE and PP are produced by cracking and polymerization of bio-diesel. The bio-diesel is
based on tall oil pitch. It is a distillation product of crude tall oil, gained through acidulation of BLS which
is a by-product of paper pulp production (as described above).
Bio-diesel is produced from tall oil pitch by hydrotreatment. The confidential dataset of this process is
based on the studies (Reinhardt et al. 2006) and (Nikander 2008). Both studies provide process data of
the so-called NExBTL process of Neste Oil. According to several press releases5 of Neste Oil bio-diesel
based on tall oil pitch is produced in its plant in Finland. The location of the plant was therefore set
accordingly. The co-products fuel gas and bio-gasoline are produced as well. Bio-gasoline is internally
used as thermal energy. Allocation was done by mass and calorific value of bio-diesel and fuel gas. Bio-
diesel accounts for 93.5% of the processes in- and outputs.
The cracking and polymerization processes for PE and PP are taken from the ifeu database. They are
based on data representing the average from several polymerisation units in Europe.
3.2 Production of liquid packaging board (LPB)

LPB production dataset represents the LPB production in Europe and is produced by ifeu. The produc-
tion of LPB was modelled using data gathered from board producers in Sweden and Finland. It covers
data from four different production sites where more than 95% of European LPB is produced. The ref-
erence year of these data is 2018. It is the most recent available and also published in the ELCD data-
base.
The four datasets based on similar productions volumes were combined to one average. They cover all
process steps including pulping, bleaching and board manufacture. They were combined with data sets
––––––––––––––––
5 https://www.neste.com/en/neste-oil-uses-tall-oil-pitch-produce-traffic-fuel
for the process chemicals used from ifeu´s database and Ecoinvent 3.6 including a forestry model to
calculate inventories for this sub-system. Energy required is supplied by electricity as well as by renew-
able on-site energy production by incineration of wood and bark. The specific energy sources were
taken into account.
3.3 Production of primary material for aluminium bars and foils

The data set for primary aluminium covers the manufacture of aluminium ingots starting from bauxite
extraction, via aluminium oxide manufacture and on to the manufacture of the final aluminium bars.
This includes the manufacture of the anodes and the electrolysis. The data set is based on information
acquired by the European Aluminium Association (EAA) covering the year 2015. The data are covering
primary aluminium used in Europe consisting of 51% European aluminium data and 49% IAI data de-
veloped by the International Aluminium Institute (IAI) for imported aluminium (EAA 2018).
The data set for aluminium foil (5-200 µm) is based on data acquired by the EAA together with EAFA
covering the year 2010 for the manufacture of semi-finished products made of aluminium. For alumin-
ium foils, this represents 51% of the total production in Europe (EU27 + EFTA countries). Aluminium
foil for the packages examined in this study are assumed to be sourced in Europe. According to EAA
(2013), the foil production is modelled with 57% of the production done through strip casting technol-
ogy and 43% through classical production route. The dataset includes the electricity upstream chains
which are specific for the actual practice and are not an European average electricity mix.
3.4 Corrugated board and manufacture of cardboard trays

For the manufacture of corrugated cardboard and corrugated cardboard packaging the data sets pub-
lished by FEFCO (FEFCO / Cepi Container Board 2018) were used. More specifically, the data sets for
the manufacture of ‘Kraftliners’ (predominantly based on primary fibres), ‘Testliners’ and ‘Wellenstoff’
(both based on recycled fibres) as well as for corrugated cardboard packaging were used. The data sets
represent weighted average values from European locations recorded in the FEFCO data set. They refer
to the year 2017. All corrugated board and cardboard trays are assumed to be sourced from European
production.
In order to ensure stability, a fraction of fresh fibres is often used for the corrugated card-board trays.
According to FEFCO / Cepi Container Board (2018), this fraction on average is 12% in Europe. Due to a
lack of more specific information this split was also used for this study.
3.5 Converting
Converting of beverage cartons
The manufacture of composite board was modelled using data provided by the commissioner of the
current study, SIG Combibloc, and refers to the year 2019. Process data has been collected from the
converting site in Linnich, Germany. Due to very similar technology at other (and smaller) converting
sites the collected data is considered as representative for all European converting sites by SIG
Combibloc. The converting process covers the lamination of LPB, LDPE and aluminium or PA respec-
tively, printing, cutting and packing of the composite material. The examined combibloc beverage car-
tons are produced at an Austrian and German converting site of SIG Combibloc and printed with a
rotogravure process. The packaging materials used for shipping of combiblocSlimline (cb3) and
combiblocMidi (cb8) sleeves to fillers are included in the model as well as the transportation of the
package material.
Process data provided by SIG Combibloc was then coupled with required upstream chains, such as pro-
cess heat, grid electricity, and inventory data for transport packaging used for shipping the coated com-
posite board to the filler (Table 3-5).
Closure production
The closures made of fossil and mass-balanced PP and HDPE are produced by injection moulding. The
data for the production were provided by SIG Combibloc and are based on values measured in SIG’s
plant in Switzerland and Europe. The process data were coupled with required upstream chains such
as the production of PE and grid electricity Table 3-5.
3.6 Filling
Filling processes for the examined combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons
are very similar in regard to material and energy flows. The respective data for this study was provided
by SIG Combibloc, distinguishing between the consumption of electric and thermal energy as well as of
water and air demand. A cross-check has been conducted with filling data from ifeu’s internal database,
which relies on information from different fillers and filling machine manufacturers. Data provided by
SIG Combibloc are similar and therefore considered plausible.
3.7 Transport settings

The following Table 3.2 provides an overview of the transport settings (distances and modes) applied
for packaging materials. Data were obtained from SIG Combibloc and several producers of raw mate-
rials. Where no such data were available expert judgements were made, e.g. exchanges with repre-
sentatives from the logistic sector and supplier.
Table 3-5: Transport distances and means: Transport defined by distance and mode (km/mode)
Packaging element
Distance of material pro- Distance of converter to
Geographic scope
ducer to converter (km) filler (km)
(Reference)
Fossil PE, PP, PA
500 / road1
Europe
Mass-balanced PE, PP
700 / road1
Europe
Mass-balanced PA
500 / road1
Europe
Aluminium
EU27 + Norway, Switzerland, Iceland 460 / road1
(EAA 2013), (EAA 2018)
300 / road2
Paper board for composite board
950 / sea2
Sweden, Finland
800 / rail2
primary fibres:
Cardboard for trays 500 / sea, 400 / rail,
EU 27 + Norway, Switzerland 250 / road2
(FEFCO / Cepi Container Board 2018) secondary fibres:
300/road2
Wood for pallets
100 / road3
Northern Europe
LDPE stretch foil
based on several plants in Europe (Plas-
500/road (material production site = converter)3
ticsEurope 2005), (PlasticsEurope 2014a),
(PlasticsEurope 2014b), (PlasticsEurope 2017)
Trays
500 / road3
EU28
Pallets
100 / road3
EU28
Converted carton rolls
500 / road4
EU28
1calculation
2taken from published LCI reports
3assumption
4SIG data
3.8 Recovery and recycling

Beverage cartons are typically positively sorted into a beverage carton fraction, which subsequently is
sent to a paper recycling facility for fibre recovery. The secondary fibre material is used e.g. as a raw
material for cardboard. The rejects (plastics and aluminium compounds) are assumed to undergo either
a thermal treatment in cement kilns or are finally disposed in a MSWI plant or on landfill (see Table
2-7). Related process data used are taken from ifeu’s internal database, referring to the year 2004 and
are based on data from various European recycling plants collected by ifeu.
3.9 Background data
3.9.1 Transport processes
Lorry transport
The dataset used is based on standard emission data that were collated, validated, extrapolated and
evaluated for the Austrian, German, French, Norwegian, Swedish and Swiss Environment Agencies in
the ‘Handbook of emission factors’ (Notter et al. 2019). The ‘Handbook’ is a database application re-
ferring to the year 2017 and giving as a result the transport distance related fuel consumption and
the emissions differentiated into lorry size classes and road categories. Data are based on average fleet
compositions within several lorry size classes. The emission factors used in this study refer to the year
2017.
Based on the above-mentioned parameters – lorry size class and road category – the fuel consumption
and emissions as a function of the transport load and distance were determined. The average capacity
utilization of 50% combines load factors and empty trip factors based on (EcoTransIT World 2016) and
communication with the logistics sector.
Ship transport
The data used for the present study represent freight transport with an overseas container ship (10.5
t/TEU6) and an utilisation capacity of 70%. Energy use is based on an average fleet composition of this
ship category with data taken from (EcoTransIT World 2016). The Ecological Transport Information Tool
(EcoTransIT) calculates environmental impacts of any freight transport. Emission factors and fuel con-
sumption have been applied for direct emissions (tank-to-wheel) based on (EcoTransIT World 2016).
For the consideration of well-to-tank emissions data were taken from ifeu’s internal database.
Rail transport
––––––––––––––––
6 Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit

The data used for rail transport for the present study also is based on data from (EcoTransIT World
2016). Emission factors and fuel consumption have been applied for direct emissions based on (Eco-
TransIT World 2016). The needed electricity is modelled with the electricity mix of the country the train
is operating (see also section 3.9.2).
3.9.2 Electricity generation
Modelling of electricity generation is particularly relevant for the production of base materials as well
as for converting, filling processes and recycling processes. Electric power supply is modelled using
country specific grid electricity mixes, since the environmental burdens of power production varies
strongly depending on the electricity generation technology. The country-specific electricity mixes are
obtained from a base network for grid power modelling maintained and annually updated at ifeu as
described in (Fehrenbach et al. 2016). It is based on national electricity mix data by the International
Energy Agency (IEA)7. Electricity generation is considered using Swedish and Finnish mix of energy sup-
pliers in the year 2018 for the production of LPB and the European mix of energy suppliers in the year
2018 for all other processes. The applied shares of energy sources to the related market are given in
Table 3-6: .
Table 3-6: Share of energy source to specific energy mix, reference year 2018.
Geographic scope
EU 28 Sweden Finland
Hard coal 9.59% 0.20% 8.11%
Brown coal 9.45% 0.18% 4.86%
Fuel oil 1.47% 0.18% 0.32%
Natural gas 20.05%
Energy source
0.56% 6.98%
Nuclear energy 25.36% 41.00% 32.26%
Hydropower, wind, solar &
27.48% 49.90% 28.66%
geothermal
Hydropower 41.18% 78.53% 69.18%
Wind power 44.36% 20.98% 30.37%
Solar energy 13.72% 0.49% 0.45%
Geothermal en-
0.74% 0.00% 0.00%
ergy
Biomass energy 5.10% 6.07% 17.15%
Waste 1.50% 1.91% 1.66%
––––––––––––––––
7 http://www.iea.org/statistics/
3.9.3 Municipal waste incineration
The electrical and thermal efficiencies of the municipal solid waste incineration plants (MSWI) are
shown in table Table 3-7.
Table 3-7: Electrical and thermal efficiencies of the incineration plants for Europe
Electrical effi-
Geographic Scope Thermal efficiency Reference period Source
ciency
EU 14.9% 34.6% 2010 (CEWEP 2012)
The efficiencies are used as parameters for the incineration model, which assumes a technical standard
(especially regarding flue gas cleaning) that complies with the requirements given by the EU incinera-
tion directive (EU 2018).
It is assumed that the electrical energy generated in MSWI plants substitute the market specific grid
electricity and that the thermal energy recovered in MSWI plants serves as process heat. The model
takes into account that there are MSWI plants which do not provide thermal energy. However, if ther-
mal energy is provided, it is used 100%.
3.9.4 Landfill
The landfill model accounts for the emissions and the consumption of resources for the deposition of
domestic wastes on a sanitary landfill site. Besides electric and mechanical energy for maintenance and
operation of the landfill, burdens from treatment of short-term leakage (0-100a) in a waste treatment
plant are included in the model. As information regarding an average landfill standard in Europe is
currently not available, assumptions regarding the equipment with and the efficiency of the landfill gas
capture system (the two parameters which determine the net methane recovery rate) had to be made.
Besides the parameters determining the landfill standard, another relevant system parameter is the
degree of degradation of the beverage carton material on a landfill. Empirical data regarding degrada-
tion rates of laminated beverage cartons are not known to be available by the authors of the present
study.
The following assumptions, especially relevant for the degradable board material, underlay the landfill
model applied in this LCA study:
Regarding the degradation of the beverage carton board under landfill conditions, it is assumed that it
behaves like coated paper-based material in general. According to (Micales / Skog 1997), 30% of paper
is decomposed anaerobically on landfills. 70% remain in the landfill and maintenance and operation
emissions are still allocated them as well. Potential long-term emissions (i.e. >100a) are not considered
anymore.
It is assumed that the degraded carbon is converted into landfill gas with 50% methane content by
volume (IPCC 2006) Emissions of methane from biogenic materials (e.g. during landfill) are always ac-
counted at the inventory level and in form of GWP.
3.9.5 Thermal recovery in cement kilns

The process data for thermal recovery in cement kilns refer to the year 2006 and are taken from ifeu’s
database based on information provided by the German Cement Works Association (VDZ). The applied
process data cover emissions from the treatment in the clinker burning process. Parameters are re-
stricted to those which change compared to the use of primary fuels. The output cement clinker is a
function of the energy potential of the fuel and considers the demand of base material. The primarily
substitution of hard coal in cement kilns was confirmed by the economic, technical and scientific asso-
ciation for the German cement industry (VDZ e.V.) (VDZ 2019). As no further information regarding the
substituted fuel is available for the European scope, hard coal substitution based on the information
for Germany is applied.
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Presentation of results
4.1.1 Numerical values and figures
In this section the results of the examined beverage cartons are presented separately for the different
categories in graphic form.
The following individual life cycle elements are shown in sectoral (stacked) bar charts. Life cycle steps
which include only the production of primary packaging are referred as cradle to gate. As SIG Combibloc
as the producer of the analyzed packaging systems has direct influence on these cradle to gate life
cycle steps, these are separately shown in the numerical result tables. The remaining life cycle steps
which also include transport packaging, filling, distribution and the end of life as well as the connected
credits and the CO2 uptake are referred as gate to grave. Net results are referred to cradle to grave.
Cradle to gate:
 Production and transport of liquid packaging board (‘LPB’)
 Production and transport of plastics and additives for combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi
(cb8) beverage cartons
(‘plastics for sleeve’)
 Production and transport of aluminium & converting to foil (‘aluminium foil’)
 Converting processes of cartons (‘converting’)
 Production and transport of base materials for closure and related converting (‘closure’)
Gate to grave:
 Production of secondary and tertiary packaging: wooden pallets, LDPE shrink foil
and corrugated cardboard trays (‘transport packaging’)
 Filling process including packaging handling (‘filling’)
 Retail of the packages from filler to the point-of-sale (‘distribution’)
 Collection, sorting, recycling and disposal processes (‘recycling/disposal’)
 Biogenic (regenerative) CO2 emissions from incineration and landfilling of biobased materials (‘CO2
reg (EOL)’)
Secondary products (recycled materials and recovered energy) are obtained through recovery pro-
cesses of used packaging materials, e.g. recycled fibres from cartons may replace primary fibres. It is
assumed, that those secondary materials are used by a subsequent system. In order to consider this
effect in the LCA, the environmental impacts of the packaging system under investigation are reduced
by means of credits based on the environmental loads of the substituted material.
The credits are shown in form of separate bars in the LCA results graphs. They are broken down into:
 Credits for energy recovery (replacing e.g. grid electricity) (‘credits energy’)
 Credits for material recycling (‘credits material’)
 Uptake of atmospheric CO2 during the plant growth phase (‘CO2 uptake’)
The LCA results are relative expressions and do not predict impacts on category endpoints, the exceed-
ing of thresholds, safety margins or risks. Therefore, the category indicator results represent potential
environmental impacts per functional unit.
Each impact category graph includes three bars per packaging system under investigation, which illus-
trate (from left to right):
 Sectoral results of the packaging system itself (stacked bar ‘environmental burdens’)
 Credits given for secondary products leaving the system (negative stacked bar ‘credits’)
Cradle to grave:
 Net results as a result of the subtraction of credits from overall environmental loads (grey bar ‘net
results’)
All category results refer to the primary and transport packaging systems flows required for the delivery
of 1000 L beverage to the point of sale including the end-of-life of the packaging systems.
4.1.2 Comparison between systems
The net result comparison of the combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons is
illustrated by tables that include the comparison between the beverage cartons for both scenarios:
scenario I (allocation factor 50) and scenario II (allocation factor 100) along all impact categories.
The colors green and red illustrate the distinction between more (green) and less (red) favorable net
results in the respective categories. Percentages lower than 10% are considered as insignificant differ-
ences and therefore marked by a grey shading of the respective fields.
4.2 Europe combiblocSlimline (cb3) beverage cartons 1000 mL
4.2.1 Scenario I (50 % allocation): numerical values and graphs
Figure 4-1: Indicator results for scenario l Europe, combiblocSlimline (cb3) beverage cartons with allocation factor 50 %
(Part 1)
(Part 2)
(Part 3)
(Part 4)
Table 4-1: Category indicator results for scenario l Europe, combiblocSlimline (cb3) beverage cartons with allocation
factor 50 %: burdens, credits and net results per functional unit of 1000 L beverage
cb3
cb3 standard cb3 standard cb3 cb3
cb3 EcoPlus SIGNATURE
Scenario l Europe, RS RS SIGNATURE FB SIGNATURE FB
cSwift LP 100
allocation factor 50 % cSwift cMaxx cSwift cMaxx
1000 mL cSwift LP
1000 mL 1000 mL 1000 mL 1000 mL
1000 mL
cradle to gate Burdens 47.07 45.16 35.46 36.97 48.76 46.78
Burdens 47.88 48.19 49.79 42.65 40.14 40.71
Climate change CO2 (reg) 14.01 14.01 15.71 22.85 21.74 21.49
gate to grave
[kg CO 2-equivalents] Credits -17.04 -17.22 -17.07 -17.07 -17.04 -17.23
CO2 uptake* -37.19 -37.20 -41.87 -65.27 -61.13 -60.32
cradle to grave Net results (∑) 54.71 52.94 42.02 20.12 32.46 31.43
Acidification Burdens 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
gate to grave
[g SO 2-equivalents] Credits -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04
Summer smog Burdens 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.00
gate to grave
[g O 3-equivalents] Credits -0.43 -0.44 -0.46 -0.46 -0.43 -0.44
Ozone Depletion Burdens 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
gate to grave
[g R-11-equivalents] Credits -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
Terrestrial cradle to gate Burdens 14.48 14.48 11.71 11.33 14.08 14.08
Burdens 10.08 9.64 10.29 10.04 9.83 9.41
eutrophication gate to grave
Credits -3.58 -3.60 -3.81 -3.81 -3.58 -3.60
[g PO 4-equivalents]
Aquatic eutrophication Burdens 4.84 4.85 4.93 4.93 4.84 4.85
gate to grave
[g PO 4-equivalents] Credits -2.41 -2.41 -2.73 -2.73 -2.41 -2.41
Particulate matter Burdens 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
gate to grave
[g PM 2,5- equivalents] Credits -0.03 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.03
Abiotic resource
Burdens 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
depletion gate to grave
Credits -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
[kg sb-equivalents]
Non-renewable primary
Burdens 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37
energy gate to grave
Credits -0.25 -0.26 -0.26 -0.26 -0.25 -0.26
[GJ]
Total Primary Energy Burdens 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46
gate to grave
[GJ] Credits -0.43 -0.43 -0.46 -0.46 -0.43 -0.43
*CO2 uptake is part of the production, but cannot be included in cradle to gate without the consideration of the end of life (grave).
4.2.2 Scenario II (100 % allocation): numerical values and graphs
Figure 4-5: Indicator results for scenario ll Europe, combiblocSlimline (cb3) beverage cartons with allocation factor 100
% (Part 1)
% (Part 2)
% (Part 3)
% (Part 4)
Table 4-2: Category indicator results for scenario ll Europe, combiblocSlimline (cb3) beverage cartons with allocation
factor 100 %: burdens, credits and net results per functional unit of 1000 L beverage
cb3
cb3 standard cb3 standard cb3
Scenario ll Europe, RS RS SIGNATURE FB
cSwift LP 100
allocation factor 100 % cSwift cMaxx cSwift
1000 mL cSwift LP
1000 mL 1000 mL 1000 mL
1000 mL
cradle to gate Burdens 47.07 45.16 35.46 36.97 48.76
Burdens 66.44 67.05 69.23 54.95 50.96
Climate change CO2 (reg) 26.18 26.19 29.39 43.66 41.64
gate to grave
[kg CO 2-equivalents] Credits -33.82 -34.19 -33.84 -33.84 -33.82
CO2 uptake* -37.19 -37.20 -41.87 -65.27 -61.13
cradle to grave Net results (∑) 68.67 67.01 58.36 36.46 46.41
Acidification Burdens 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
gate to grave
[g SO 2-equivalents] Credits -0.07 -0.07 -0.08 -0.08 -0.07
Summer smog Burdens 1.21 1.22 1.24 1.24 1.21
gate to grave
[g O 3-equivalents] Credits -0.86 -0.87 -0.91 -0.91 -0.86
Ozone Depletion Burdens 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
gate to grave
[g R-11-equivalents] Credits -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03
Terrestrial cradle to gate Burdens 14.47 14.47 11.70 11.32 14.07
eutrophication Burdens 11.81 11.39 12.13 11.87 11.56
gate to grave
Credits -7.11 -7.15 -7.56 -7.56 -7.11
Aquatic eutrophication Burdens 5.34 5.36 5.48 5.48 5.34
gate to grave
[g PO 4-equivalents] Credits -4.81 -4.82 -5.45 -5.45 -4.81
Particulate matter Burdens 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
gate to grave
[g PM 2,5- equivalents] Credits -0.07 -0.07 -0.07 -0.07 -0.07
Abiotic resource
Burdens 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Credits -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04
[kg sb-equivalents]
Burdens 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39
Credits -0.50 -0.51 -0.51 -0.51 -0.50
[GJ]
Total Primary Energy Burdens 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48
gate to grave
[GJ] Credits -0.85 -0.86 -0.91 -0.91 -0.85
4.2.3 Description and interpretation
combiblocSlimline (cb3) beverage cartons 1000 mL

The LPB shows the largest contribution in the results of ‘Summer Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Terres-
trial Eutrophication’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’.
The production of the paper based materials generates emissions that cause contributions to both
‘Aquatic Eutrophication’ and ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’, the latter to a lesser extent. Approximately
half of the aquatic Eutrophication potential is caused by the high COD. As the production of LPB causes
high contributions of organic compounds into the surface water an overabundance of oxygen-consum-
ing reactions takes place which therefore may lead to oxygen shortage in the water. In the terrestrial
Eutrophication potential nitrogen oxides are determined as main contributor. For the separation of the
cellulose needed for paper production from the ligneous wood fibres, the so called ‘Kraft process’ is
applied, in which sodium hydroxide and sodium sulphide are used. This leads to additional emissions
of SO2, thus contributing significantly to the acidifying potential. The required energy for paper produc-
tion mainly originates from recovered process internal residues (hemicellulose and lignin dissolved in
black liquor). Therefore, the required process energy is mainly generated from renewable sources. That
explains its relatively small influence on ‘Climate Change’.
For the plastic for sleeve and the closure the highest share on the environmental loads can be observed
in ‘Climate Change’, ‘Summer Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidification’, ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’,
‘Aquatic Eutrophication’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’ as well as in the inventory categories ‘Non-re-
newable Primary Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’. The main material for the plastic for sleeve and
closure of combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE PACK 100 and combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE
PACK FB is allocated to bio-based feedstock via applying the mass balance principle. Nevertheless, the
same cracking and polymerisation process is needed as for fossil plastics. These production steps play
a major role in all impact categories. In addition, energy and hydrogen used by the hydrotreatment
process for the production of bio-diesel lead to major contributions to the results of ‘Climate Change’
‘Summer Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidification’, ‘Terrestrial and Aquatic Eutrophication’, ‘Abiotic
Resource Depletion’, ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’. Nitrogen dioxide and
sulphur dioxide emissions related to the acidulation process to produce crude tall oil from BLS play a
dominant role in the category ‘Acidification’. The additional information on the impacts of ‘Summer
Smog’ related to VOCs show, that VOC emissions from plastic for sleeve contribute to approximately
one third to the net results. These results from ethylene and Non-methane volatile organic compounds
(NMVOC) emissions released during cracking of the bio-diesel and the polymerization of the plant-
based ethylene or propylene to PE or PP.
The production of aluminium foil for the sleeves of the ambient beverage cartons containing alumin-
ium foil show burdens in most impact categories. High shares of burdens are shown in the impact cat-
egories ‘Acidification’, ‘Particulate Matter’ and ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’. These result from SO2 and
NOx emissions from the aluminium production. The beverage cartons EcoPlus cSwift LP and
SIGNATURE PACK 100 cSwift LP do not contain aluminium foil and therefore have no burdens in this
process of production.
The largest contribution by the filling and converting process is observed in ‘Climate Change’, ‘Summer
Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidification’, ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’,
‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’. This results from the thermal energy and
electricity input.
The transport packaging contributes to all examined categories. The results are dominated by the pro-
duction of corrugated cardboard boxes. The paper production plays a major role in the most impact/in-
ventory categories. The pallet and the stretch foil production play a minor role.
The life cycle step distribution shows similar burdens in all impact categories for all beverage carton
systems.
The end-of-life phase (recycling/disposal) of the considered combiblocSlimline (cb3) beverage carton
formats is clearly most relevant in the impact category ‘Climate change’, however the emissions also
visibly contribute to ‘Summer Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidification', ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’
and ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’ . A share of the greenhouse gases is related to energy generation required
in the respective processes. Material recycling processes are commonly run on electricity, thus this
end-of-life treatment contributes directly to the result values for the impact on ‘Climate Change’. When
the packaging materials are used as fuel in cement kilns or incinerated in MSWI facilities, this also leads
to GHG emissions. The contributions to the impact categories ‘Acidification’ and ‘Terrestrial eutrophi-
cation’ are mainly caused by NO2 emissions from incineration plants.
The energy credits arise from incineration plants, where energy recovery takes place and from the use
of the rejects as fuel in cement kilns.
Material credits are only given for material that is effectively recycled. The majority is received by the
recycling of paper. The paper production causes high waterborne emissions, especially due to the trans-
formation of raw wood to paper fibres. Therefore, the post-consumer recycling of paper fibres from
LPB avoids this determining process step (as secondary paper fibres substitute for primary fibres),
which leads to material credits.
The uptake of CO2 by the trees harvested for the production of paperboard and the mass-balanced
plastic plays a significant role in the impact category ‘Climate Change’. The carbon uptake refers to the
conversion process of carbon dioxide to organic compounds by trees. The assimilated carbon is then
used to produce energy and to build body structures. However, the carbon uptake in this context de-
scribes only the amount of carbon which is stored in the product under study. This amount of carbon
can be re-emitted in the end-of-life either by landfilling or incineration or be forwarded to the next
product system in a recycled product.
If an allocation factor of 100 % is applied, all burdens from the end-of-life processes (i.e. emissions from
incineration, emissions from the production of electricity for recycling processes) and all credits from
recovery processes (i.e. avoided electricity generation due to energy recovery at MSWIs, avoided pri-
mary material production due to recycling) are allocated to the examined systems. In the European
market, the benefits from the additional allocation of credits are higher than the additional burdens.
That means the net results are slightly lower with an applied allocation factor of 100 % (scenario ll)
compared to scenario l (allocation factor 50%) apart from 'Climate Change'. For 'Climate Change' the
benefit from receiving more credits does not outweigh the extra burdens obtained. The main reasons
for this are the emissions of the waste incineration plants which are now fully allocated to the examined
system. Regenerative CO2 emissions are accounted for 'Climate Change' in the same way as fossil CO2
emissions.
For the European scope, the credits for energy recovery have the same importance than the material
credits in categories that are driven by thermal energy and electricity generation: ‘Climate Change’,
‘Ozone Depletion’, ‘Summer Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidification’, ‘Terrestrial and Aquatic Eu-
trophication’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’ and ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy. This results from the
relative high electrical and thermal efficiencies of the MWSI plants.
The percentages in the Table 4-3 show the difference of net results between all considered formats of
combiblocSlimline (cb3) beverage cartons in the same volume segment. The percentage is based on
the net results of each compared packaging system. Both scenarios, scenario I (AF 50) and scenario II
(AF 100), are equally used for the comparison between the systems. Differences of 10% or less are
considered to be insignificant.
Table 4-3: Comparison of net results combiblocSlimline (cb3) beverage cartons (Europe)
The net results of

combiblocSlim- combiblocSlim-
combiblocSlim- combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE
line (cb3) line (cb3)
line (cb3) EcoPlus 100
SIGNATURE FB SIGNATURE FB
cSwift LP cSwift LP
cSwift cMaxx
1000 mL 1000 mL
1000 mL 1000 mL
are lower (green)/higher (red) than those of
combiblocSlimline combiblocSlimline combiblocSlimline combiblocSlimline combiblocSlimline
(cb3) standard RS (cb3) standard RS (cb3) EcoPlus (cb3) standard RS (cb3) standard RS
cSwift cSwift cSwift LP cSwift cMaxx
1000 mL 1000 mL 1000 mL 1000 mL 1000 mL
AF 50 AF 100 AF 50 AF 100 AF 50 AF 100 AF 50 AF 100 AF 50 AF 100
Impact categories
Climate Change -23% -15% -63% -47% -52% -38% -41% -32% -41% -32%
Ozone Depletion -1% -5% -1% -4% +0% +0% +0% +0% +0% +0%
Summer Smog -14% -15% -21% -24% -9% -10% -4% -5% -4% -5%
Particulate Matter -22% -25% -25% -28% -4% -5% -3% -3% -3% -3%
Acidification -26% -31% -29% -33% -3% -4% -2% -2% -2% -2%
Terrestrial
-13% -15% -16% -18% -3% -4% -3% -3% -3% -3%
Eutrophication
Aquatic
+8% +7% -17% -21% -23% -26% -27% -30% -27% -29%
Eutrophication
Abiotic Resource
-12% -15% -54% -67% -48% -61% -45% -55% -44% -54%
Depletion
Non-renewable
-11% -14% -47% -58% -40% -51% -37% -46% -36% -44%
Primary Energy
Total Primary Energy -7% -10% -29% -38% -23% -30% -23% -29% -22% -28%
Description and discussion
In both scenarios, the combiblocSlimline (cb3) EcoPlus cSwift LP shows lower net results than the
combiblocSlimline (cb3) standard RS cSwift in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Summer Smog’,
‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidification’, ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’ and ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’ and in
the inventory category ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’.
Due to the higher ‘LPB’, ‘closure’ and ‘plastics for sleeve’ material share, which also includes the mate-
rial share of the barrier material fossil PA, the combiblocSlimline (cb3) EcoPlus cSwift LP carton shows
minimally higher burdens in these packaging components as well as in the ‘converting’. The decisive
factor that causes the overall higher burdens of the combiblocSlimline (cb3) standard RS cSwift in the
above-mentioned categories is the ‘aluminium foil’ (barrier material), which is also the only part of the
packaging system that shows higher burdens compared to the combiblocSlimline (cb3) EcoPlus cSwift
LP carton.
In both scenarios, the combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE 100 cSwift LP shows lower net results than
the combiblocSlimline (cb3) standard RS cSwift in all impact and inventory categories except in the
category ‘Ozone Depletion’.
The comparison of the combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE 100 cSwift LP with the combiblocSlimline
(cb3) standard RS cSwift shows most considerable differences in net results in the categories consid-
ered. The mass-balanced PA, PE and PP in the sleeve and closure of the combiblocSlimline (cb3)
SIGNATURE 100 cSwift LP lead to additional significantly lower net results in the categories of ‘Aquatic
Eutrophication’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’ compared to the combiblocSlimline (cb3) standard RS cSwift
than in the comparison of combiblocSlimline (cb3) EcoPlus cSwift LP vs. combiblocSlimline (cb3) stand-
ard RS cSwift.
In both scenarios, the combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE 100 cSwift LP shows lower net results than
the combiblocSlimline (cb3) EcoPlus cSwift LP in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eu-
trophication’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’ and in the inventory categories ‘Non-renewable Primary
Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’.
The mass-balanced PA, PE and PP in the sleeve and closure of the combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE
100 cSwift LP is the only difference to the combiblocSlimline (cb3) EcoPlus cSwift LP, that leads to sig-
nificantly lower net results in the categories mentioned.
In both scenarios, the combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE FB cSwift shows lower net results than the
combiblocSlimline (cb3) standard cSwift in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophi-
cation’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’ and in the inventory categories ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’
and ‘Total Primary Energy’.
The mass-balanced PE and PP in the sleeve and closure of the combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE FB
cSwift is the only difference to the combiblocSlimline (cb3) EcoPlus cSwift LP, that leads to significantly
lower net results in the categories mentioned.
In both scenarios, the combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE FB cMaxx shows lower net results than the
combiblocSlimline (cb3) standard RS cMaxx in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eu-
trophication’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’ and in the inventory categories ‘Non-renewable Primary
Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’.
The mass-balanced PE and PP in the sleeve and closure of the combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE FB
cMaxx is the only difference to the combiblocSlimline (cb3) standard RS cMaxx, that leads to signifi-
cantly lower net results in the categories mentioned.
Summary
To summarise, the LCIA categories showing advantages for mass-balanced plastics are ‘Climate
Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’, ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ and
‘Total Primary Energy’. LCIA categories showing advantages for beverage cartons with PA-based bar-
rier, instead of aluminium, material are ‘Summer Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidification’ and ‘Ter-
restrial Eutrophication’. The category ‘Ozone Depletion’ shows similar results for all examined carton
packaging systems.
A higher allocation factor implies the allocation of more burdens from the end-of-life processes (for
example emissions from incineration, emissions from the production of electricity for recycling pro-
cesses). It also implies the allocation of more credits for the substitution of other processes (for exam-
ple energy credits for avoided electricity generation due to energy recovery at MSWIs or material cred-
its for avoided production of new materials). When applying an allocation factor of 100%, all burdens
and all credits are allocated to the regarded system.
Since the compared cartons only differ in material composition and/or material share and the material
credits are more significant in scenario ll (AF 100) than in scenario l (AF 50), the differences between
the developed carton packaging systems (EcoPlus, SIGNATURE PACKS) and the comparison cartons in
scenario ll are larger in all impact categories except ‘Climate Change’.
In case of ‘Climate Change’, applying the allocation factor 100% instead of 50% leads to higher net
results. This is because in this case the absolute value of the credits is lower than that of the burdens
from recycling and disposal regardless of the allocation factor. Also the allocation factor does not affect
the CO2 uptake, therefore the values for the CO2 uptake don’t increase when applying the 100% allo-
cation factor.
4.3 Europe combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons 1000 mL
4.3.1 Scenario I (50 % allocation): Numerical values and graphs
Figure 4-9: Indicator results for scenario l Europe, combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons with allocation factor 50 %
(Part 1)
(Part 2)
(Part 3)
(Part 4)
Table 4-4: Category indicator results for scenario l Europe, combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons with allocation factor
50 %: burdens, credits and net results per functional unit of 1000 L beverage
cb8
Scenario l Europe, RS RS SIGNATURE FB SIGNATURE FB
cSwift LP 100
1000 mL cSwift LP
1000 mL 1000 mL 1000 mL 1000 mL
1000 mL
Burdens 54.18 54.50 57.15 49.95 46.34 46.91
gate to grave
CO2 uptake* -38.68 -38.69 -45.29 -69.32 -62.93 -62.12
gate to grave
gate to grave
gate to grave
eutrophication Burdens 11.74 11.30 12.05 11.80 11.49 11.08
gate to grave
Credits -3.71 -3.73 -4.09 -4.09 -3.71 -3.73
gate to grave
gate to grave
Abiotic resource
Burdens 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Credits -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
[kg sb-equivalents]
Burdens 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43
Credits -0.26 -0.27 -0.27 -0.27 -0.26 -0.27
[GJ]
gate to grave
[GJ] Credits -0.44 -0.44 -0.49 -0.49 -0.44 -0.44
4.3.2 Scenario II (100 % allocation): Numerical values and graphs
Figure 4-13: Indicator results for scenario ll Europe, combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons with allocation factor 100 %
(Part 1)
(Part 2)
Figure 4-15: Indicator results for scenario ll Europe, combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons with allocation factor 100%
(Part 3)
Figure 4-16: Indicator results for scenario ll Europe, combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons with allocation factor 100%
(Part 4)
Table 4-5: Category indicator results for scenario ll Europe, combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons with allocation factor
100%: burdens, credits and net results per functional unit of 1000 L beverage
cb8
Scenario ll Europe, RS RS SIGNATURE FB SIGNATURE FB
cSwift LP 100
1000 mL cSwift LP
1000 mL 1000 mL 1000 mL 1000 mL
1000 mL
Burdens 73.71 74.32 78.15 63.75 58.03 59.14
gate to grave
CO2 uptake* -38.68 -38.69 -45.29 -69.32 -62.93 -62.12
gate to grave
gate to grave
gate to grave
eutrophication Burdens 13.57 13.15 14.04 13.79 13.32 12.92
gate to grave
Credits -7.36 -7.40 -8.10 -8.10 -7.36 -7.40
gate to grave
gate to grave
Abiotic resource
Burdens 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Credits -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04
[kg sb-equivalents]
Burdens 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
Credits -0.52 -0.53 -0.54 -0.54 -0.52 -0.53
[GJ]
gate to grave
[GJ] Credits -0.88 -0.88 -0.97 -0.97 -0.88 -0.88
combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons 1000 mL

trial Eutrophication’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’ and ‘Ozone Depletion’.
half of the Aquatic Eutrophication potential is caused by the high COD. As the production of LPB causes
newable Primary Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’. The main material for the plastic for sleeve and
closure of combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE PACK 100 and combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE PACK FB is
allocated to bio-based feedstock via applying the mass balance principle. Nevertheless, the same crack-
ing and polymerisation process is needed as for fossil plastics. These production steps play a major role
in all impact categories. In addition, energy and hydrogen used by the hydrotreatment process for the
production of bio-diesel lead to major contributions to the results of ‘Climate Change’ ‘Summer Smog’,
‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidification’, ‘Terrestrial and Aquatic Eutrophication’, ‘Abiotic Resource Deple-
tion’, ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’. Nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide
emissions related to the acidulation process to produce crude tall oil from BLS play a dominant role in
the category ‘Acidification’. The additional information on the impacts of ‘Summer Smog’ related to
VOCs show, that VOC emissions from plastic for sleeve contribute to approximately one third to the
net results. These results from ethylene and NMVOC emissions released during cracking of the bio-
diesel and the polymerization of the plant-based ethylene or propylene to PE or PP.
The production of aluminium foil for the sleeves of the ambient beverage cartons containing alumin-
ium foil show burdens in most impact categories. High shares of burdens are shown in the impact cat-
egories ‘Acidification’, ‘Particulate Matter’ and ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’. These result from SO2 and
NOx emissions from the aluminium production. The beverage cartons EcoPlus cSwift LP and
SIGNATURE PACK 100 cSwift LP do not contain aluminium foil and therefore have no burdens in this
process of production.
electricity input.
systems.
The end-of-life phase (recycling/disposal) of the considered combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage carton for-
mats is clearly most relevant in the impact category ‘Climate change’, however the emissions also visi-
bly contribute to ‘Summer Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidification', ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’ and
‘Aquatic Eutrophication’ . A share of the greenhouse gases is related to energy generation required in
the respective processes. Material recycling processes are commonly run on electricity, thus this end-
of-life treatment contributes directly to the result values for the impact on ‘Climate Change’. When the
packaging materials are used as fuel in cement kilns or incinerated in MSWI facilities, this also leads to
GHG emissions. The contributions to the impact categories ‘Acidification’ and ‘Terrestrial eutrophica-
tion’ are mainly caused by NO2 emissions from incineration plants.
If an allocation factor of 100% is applied, all burdens from the end-of-life processes (i.e. emissions from
That means the net results are slightly lower with an applied allocation factor of 100% (scenario ll)
compared to allocation factor 50% (scenario l) apart from 'Climate Change'. For 'Climate Change' the
emissions.
The percentages in Table 4-6 show the difference of net results between all considered formats of
combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons in the same volume segment. The percentage is based on the
net results of each compared packaging system. Both scenarios, scenario I (AF 50) and scenario II (AF
100), are equally used for the comparison between the systems. Differences of 10% or less are consid-
ered to be insignificant.
Table 4-6: Comparison of net results combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons (Europe)
The net results of

combiblocMidi combiblocMidi
combiblocMidi
combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE 100 (cb8) SIGNATURE (cb8) SIGNATURE
(cb8) EcoPlus
cSwift LP FB FB
cSwift LP
1000 mL cSwift cMaxx
1000 mL
1000 mL 1000 mL
combiblocMidi combiblocMidi combiblocMidi combiblocMidi combiblocMidi
(cb8) standard RS (cb8) standard RS (cb8) EcoPlus (cb8) standard RS (cb8) standard RS
cSwift cSwift cSwift LP cSwift cMaxx
1000 mL 1000 mL 1000 mL 1000 mL 1000 mL
Impact categories
Climate Change -21% -12% -60% -43% -50% -36% -39% -31% -39% -31%
Ozone Depletion +1% -2% +2% -2% +0% +0% +0% +0% +0% +0%
Summer Smog -10% -12% -19% -21% -10% -10% -4% -4% -4% -4%
Acidification -23% -28% -26% -30% -3% -3% -2% -2% -2% -2%
Terrestrial -10% -12% -13% -15% -3% -4% -3% -3% -3% -3%
Eutrophication
Aquatic +11% +10% -12% -15% -21% -23% -26% -28% -25% -27%
Eutrophication
Abiotic Resource -9% -12% -51% -64% -46% -59% -44% -54% -43% -53%
Depletion
Non-renewable -9% -12% -44% -55% -39% -49% -37% -45% -36% -44%
Primary Energy
Total Primary Energy -4% -7% -25% -34% -22% -29% -22% -28% -21% -27%

In both scenarios, the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP shows lower net results than the
combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Particulate Matter’
and ‘Acidification. In scenario l (AF 50), the impact category ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’ of the assessed
beverage carton shows higher net results than the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift. Further-
more in scenario ll (AF 100), in the impact categories ‘Summer Smog’, ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’, ‘Abi-
otic Resource Depletion’ and in the inventory category ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ the
combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP shows lower net results than the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard
RS cSwift.
rial share of the barrier material fossil PA, the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP carton shows
factor that causes the overall higher burdens of the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift in the
packaging system that shows higher burdens compared to the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP
carton. The impact of aluminium foil in the category ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’ is limited, though because
the high impacts of aluminium foil production originates from its high energy demand. In the category
‘Aquatic Eutrophication’, the production of LPB and plastics for sleeve show the highest share of the
net results. This has a negative effect for the heavier EcoPlus cSwift LP carton. As the material credits
in scenario ll (AF 100) are higher than in scenario l (AF 50), only significant differences are observed in
scenario l.
In both scenarios, the combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE 100 cSwift LP shows lower net results than the
combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift in all impact and inventory categories except in the category
‘Ozone Depletion’.
The comparison of the combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE 100 cSwift LP with the combiblocMidi (cb8)
standard RS cSwift shows most considerable differences in net results in the categories considered. The
mass-balanced PA, PE and PP in the sleeve and closure of the combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE 100
cSwift LP lead to additional significantly lower net results in the categories of ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’
and ‘Total Primary Energy’ compared to the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift than in the com-
parison of combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP vs. combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift.
In both scenarios, the combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE 100 cSwift LP shows lower net results than the
combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophica-
tion’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’ and in the inventory categories ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ and
‘Total Primary Energy’.
The mass-balanced PA, PE and PP in the sleeve and closure of the combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE 100
cSwift LP is the only difference to the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP, that leads to significantly
In both scenarios, the combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE FB cSwift shows lower net results than the
combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophi-
The mass-balanced PE and PP in the sleeve and closure of the combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE FB
cSwift is the only difference to the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift, that leads to significantly
In both scenarios, the combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE FB cMaxx shows lower net results than the
combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cMaxx in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophi-
The mass-balanced PE and PP in the sleeve and closure of the combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE FB
cMaxx is the only difference to the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cMaxx, that leads to significantly
Summary
To summarise, the LCIA categories showing advantages for mass-balanced plastics are ‘Climate
Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’, ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ and
‘Total Primary Energy’. LCIA categories showing advantages for beverage cartons with PA-based barrier
material, instead of aluminium, are ‘Summer Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidification’ and ‘Terrestrial
Eutrophication’. The category ‘Ozone Depletion’ shows similar results for all examined carton packag-
ing systems.
the developed carton packaging systems (EcoPlus, SIGNATURE PACKS) and the comparison cartons in
scenario ll are larger in all impact categories except ‘Climate Change’.
cation factor.
4.4 Europe combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons 500 mL
4.4.1 Scenario I (50% allocation): Numerical values and graphs
Figure 4-17: Indicator results for scenario l Europe, combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons with allocation factor 50%
(Part 1)
(Part 2)
(Part 3)
(Part 4)
Table 4-7: Category indicator results for scenario l Europe, combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons with allocation factor
50%: burdens, credits and net results per functional unit of 1000 L beverage
cb8 standard
cb8 EcoPlus
Scenario l Europe, RS
cSwift LP
allocation factor 50 % cSwift
500 mL
500 mL
cradle to gate Burdens 66.28 55.41
Burdens 63.31 69.03
Climate change CO2 (reg) 18.08 22.09
gate to grave
[kg CO 2-equivalents] Credits -23.78 -25.41
CO2 uptake* -48.24 -59.21
cradle to grave Net results (∑) 75.66 61.90
Acidification Burdens 0.09 0.09
gate to grave
[g SO 2-equivalents] Credits -0.05 -0.06
Summer smog Burdens 1.26 1.32
gate to grave
[g O 3-equivalents] Credits -0.59 -0.67
Ozone Depletion Burdens 0.02 0.02
gate to grave
[g R-11-equivalents] Credits -0.02 -0.02
Terrestrial
Burdens 14.07 14.68
Credits -4.85 -5.55
Aquatic eutrophication Burdens 5.32 5.64
gate to grave
[g PO 4-equivalents] Credits -3.19 -3.94
Particulate matter Burdens 0.09 0.09
gate to grave
[g PM 2,5- equivalents] Credits -0.05 -0.05
Abiotic resource
Burdens 0.04 0.04
Credits -0.03 -0.03
[kg sb-equivalents]
Burdens 0.48 0.49
Credits -0.35 -0.38
[GJ]
Total Primary Energy Burdens 0.58 0.59
gate to grave
[GJ] Credits -0.58 -0.67
*CO2 uptake is part of the production, but cannot be included in cradle to gate without the
consideration of the end of life (grave).
4.4.2 Scenario II (100 % allocation): Numerical values and graphs
(Part 1)
(Part 2)
(Part 3)
(Part 4)
Table 4-8: Category indicator results for scenario ll Europe, combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons with allocation factor
100 %: burdens, credits and net results per functional unit of 1000 L beverage
cb8 standard
cb8 EcoPlus
Scenario ll Europe, RS
cSwift LP
allocation factor 100 % cSwift
500 mL
500 mL
Burdens 89.35 97.91
Climate change CO2 (reg) 33.86 41.39
gate to grave
[kg CO 2-equivalents] Credits -47.22 -50.41
CO2 uptake* -48.24 -59.21
Acidification Burdens 0.10 0.11
gate to grave
[g SO 2-equivalents] Credits -0.10 -0.11
Summer smog Burdens 1.55 1.64
gate to grave
[g O 3-equivalents] Credits -1.17 -1.33
Ozone Depletion Burdens 0.03 0.03
gate to grave
[g R-11-equivalents] Credits -0.03 -0.04
Terrestrial
Burdens 16.43 17.34
Credits -9.63 -11.02
Aquatic eutrophication Burdens 6.01 6.44
gate to grave
[g PO 4-equivalents] Credits -6.38 -7.88
Particulate matter Burdens 0.10 0.11
gate to grave
[g PM 2,5- equivalents] Credits -0.09 -0.10
Abiotic resource
Burdens 0.04 0.04
Credits -0.06 -0.06
[kg sb-equivalents]
Burdens 0.51 0.52
Credits -0.69 -0.75
[GJ]
Total Primary Energy Burdens 0.61 0.63
gate to grave
[GJ] Credits -1.16 -1.33
*CO2 uptake is part of the production, but cannot be included in cradle to gate without the
consideration of the end of life (grave).
combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons 500 mL

trial Eutrophication’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’, ‘Ozone Depletion’ and ‘Abiotic Depletion Potential’.
half of the aquatic Eutrophication potential is caused by the high COD. As the production of LPB causes
newable Primary Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’. The main material for the fossil plastic for the
sleeve and closure requires the cracking and polymerisation process. These production steps play a
major role in all impact categories. In addition, energy and hydrogen used by the hydrotreatment pro-
cess for the production of bio-diesel lead to major contributions to the results of ‘Climate Change’
‘Summer Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidification’, ‘Terrestrial and Aquatic Eutrophication’, ‘Abiotic
Resource Depletion’, ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’. Nitrogen dioxide and
sulphur dioxide emissions related to the acidulation process to produce crude tall oil from BLS play a
dominant role in the category ‘Acidification’. The additional information on the impacts of ‘Summer
Smog’ related to VOCs show, that VOC emissions from plastic for sleeve contribute to approximately
one third to the net results. These results from ethylene and NMVOC emissions released during crack-
ing of the bio-diesel and the polymerization of the plant-based ethylene or propylene to PE or PP. For
the combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage carton formats with the volume of 500 mL, which have a smaller
size, the burdens for the closure are higher. This results from the same closure weight for all filling in
connection with the functional unit. For example, the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP 500 mL
needs twice as much closure compared to the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP 1000 mL.
The production of aluminium foil for the sleeves of the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift con-
taining aluminium foil shows burdens in most impact categories. High shares of burdens are shown in
the impact categories ‘Acidification’, ‘Particulate Matter’ and ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’. These result
from SO2 and NOx emissions from the aluminium production. The beverage carton EcoPlus cSwift LP
does not contain aluminium foil and therefore has no burdens in this process of production.
electricity input.
systems.
The end-of-life phase (recycling/disposal) of the considered combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage carton for-
mats is clearly most relevant in the impact category ‘Climate change’, however the emissions also visi-
bly contribute to ‘Summer Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidification', ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’ and
‘Aquatic Eutrophication’. A share of the greenhouse gases is related to energy generation required in
the respective processes. Material recycling processes are commonly run on electricity, thus this end-
of-life treatment contributes directly to the result values for the impact on ‘Climate Change’. When the
packaging materials are used as fuel in cement kilns or incinerated in MSWI facilities, this also leads to
GHG emissions. The contributions to the impact categories ‘Acidification’ and ‘Terrestrial eutrophica-
tion’ are mainly caused by NO2 emissions from incineration plants.
If an allocation factor of 100 % is applied, all burdens from the end-of-life processes (i.e. emissions from
That means the net results are slightly lower with an applied allocation factor of 100 % (scenario ll)
compared to allocation factor 50% (scenario l) apart from 'Climate Change'. For 'Climate Change' the
emissions.
combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons in the same volume segment. The percentage is based on the
net results of each compared packaging system. Both scenarios, scenario I (AF 50) and scenario II (AF
100), are equally used for the comparison between the systems. Differences of 10% or less are consid-
ered to be insignificant.
Table 4-9: Comparison of net results combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons (Europe)
The net results of
combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus

cSwift LP 500 mL
are lower (green)/higher (red) than those

of
combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS
cSwift 500 mL
AF 50 AF 100
Impact categories
Climate Change -18% -10%
Ozone Depletion +5% +0%
Summer Smog -7% -9%
Particulate Matter -16% -19%
Acidification -21% -25%
Terrestrial -7% -9%

Eutrophication
Aquatic +16% +15%
Eutrophication
Abiotic Resource -6% -8%
Depletion
Non-renewable -5% -8%
Primary Energy
Total Primary Energy +0% -4%

In both scenarios, the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP shows lower net results than the
combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift in the impact categories ‘Particulate Matter’ and ‘Acidification.
In the impact category ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’ the assessed beverage carton shows higher net results
than the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift due to a higher share of LPB. Furthermore in scenario
l (AF 50), in the impact category ‘Climate Change’, the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP shows
lower net results than the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift. No significant differences were
found in the other impact and inventory categories.
rial share of the barrier material fossil PA, the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP carton shows
factor that causes the overall higher burdens of the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift in the
packaging system that shows higher burdens compared to the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP
carton. The impact of aluminium foil in the category ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’ is limited, though because
the high impacts of aluminium foil production originates from its high energy demand. In the category
‘Aquatic Eutrophication’, the production of LPB and plastics for sleeve show the highest share of the
net results. This has a negative effect for the heavier EcoPlus cSwift LP carton.
Summary
the developed carton packaging systems (EcoPlus) and the comparison cartons in scenario ll are larger
in all impact categories except ‘Climate Change’.
cation factor.
5 Data quality evaluation and limitations
5.1 Data quality evaluation

The relevant information and data used for evaluating the examined packaging systems in this study
were available. In the authors’ opinion no errors affecting the results were found.
The complete life cycle was considered (except the use phase), including the extraction and production
of raw materials, converting processes, all transports and the final disposal or recycling of the packaging
system, in each case in modeling for the examined packaging systems. Data was acquired along the
entire supply chain of packaging production.
Allocation rules, system boundaries and calculations as to impact assessment were applied uniformly
and consistently to all examined packaging systems and the scenarios based on them. An exception
may be infrastructure which is generally excluded in this study. In case of some aggregated datasets
taken from public databases it may be included without being probably documented.
Following the ISO standard’s recommendation on subjective choices, the 50% and 100% allocation fac-
tors for system allocation are applied equally in this study.
Section 1.6 (Data gathering and data quality) gives an overview of
 The overall completeness check: The relevant information from all life cycle phases are available and
complete.
 The consistency evaluation: Data of the same level of detail were used for all considered beverage
carton formats.
 The overall representative evaluation: The used data can be regarded as representative for the in-
tended purpose of this study.
 Consistency is considered to be sufficient even if data from different data sources are used. There-
fore no serious data asymmetries are to be expected.
However, for potentially occurring uncertainties between the considered beverage carton formats, an
estimated significance threshold of 10% is chosen as approach as it is aimed to apply a consistent ap-
proach for all impact categories examined. This means differences in the impact category indicator
results between the comparative systems ≤ 10% are considered as insignificant.
The quality of the data on beverage distribution in the present study is limited due to a lack of data
availability. The distribution model is based on assumptions, whereby the same distribution distances
were assumed for all systems in order to avoid asymmetries.
In summary, in the author’s view the quality and symmetry of the data in this LCA is good or very good
and is appropriate to the study’s objectives.
5.2 Limitations
The results of the scenarios and analysed packaging systems and the respective comparisons between
beverage cartons are valid within the framework conditions described in section 1 (Goal and Scope)
and section 2 (Packaging systems and scenarios). The following limitations must be taken into account
however.
Limitations concerning selection of packaging systems
The results are valid only for the exact packaging systems of SIG Combibloc. It has to be noted, that this
study puts the focus on single-use packaging for packed beverages. Refillable packaging systems are
not included in this study. Therefore, it is not possible to transfer the results of this study to refillable
packages.
Limitations concerning packaging system specifications
The results are valid only for the examined packaging systems as defined by the specific system param-
eters, since any alternation of the latter may potentially change the overall environmental profile. All
packaging specifications were provided by SIG Combibloc. Packaging specifications different from the
ones used in this study cannot be compared directly with the results of this study.
The filling volume and weight of a certain type of packaging can vary considerably for all packaging
types that were studied. It is not possible to transfer the results of this study to packages with other
filling volumes or weight specifications.
Limitations concerning distribution data
The quality of the data on beverage distribution in the present study is limited due to a lack of data
availability. The distribution model is based on assumptions, whereby the same distribution distances
were assumed for all systems in order to avoid asymmetries. The results of the study apply only to the
distribution model used in this study, and are not easily transferable to other distribution models
Limitations concerning the chosen environmental impact potentials and applied assessment method
The selection of the environmental categories applied in this study covers impact categories and as-
sessment methods considered by the authors to be the most appropriate to assess the potential envi-
ronmental impact. It should be noted that the use of different impact assessment methods could lead
to other results concerning the environmental ranking of packaging systems. The results are valid only
for the specific characterisation model used for the step from inventory data to impact assessment.
Limitations concerning the analysed categories
The results are valid only for the environmental impact categories, which were examined. The category
indicator results represent potential environmental impacts per functional unit. They are relative ex-
pressions and do not predict impacts on category endpoints, the exceeding of thresholds, safety mar-
gins or risks.
Limitations concerning the significance of the differences
In evaluating the results of the present study, a significance threshold of 10% was applied for compar-
ative results. The application of other significance thresholds could possibly lead to a different assess-
ment of the systems' comparison.
Limitations concerning geographic boundaries
The results are valid only for the indicated geographic scope and cannot be assumed to be valid in
geographic regions other than Europe, even for the same packaging systems.
Further results of combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons regarding the
markets Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland and UK are assessed in separate exten-
sions.
This applies particularly for the end-of-life settings as the mix of waste treatment routes (recycling and
incineration) and specific technologies used within these routes may differ, e.g. in other countries.
Regarding the production of tall oil based polymers the results are only valid as long as the tall oil orig-
inates from Finland as the tall oil related processes are modelled with Finnish electricity for this study.
Limitations concerning the reference period
The results are valid only for the indicated time scope and cannot be assumed to be valid for (the same)
packaging systems at a different point in time.
Limitations concerning system boundaries
The results are valid only for described system boundaries. The listed exclusions are not considered
relevant for the comparison, though.
Limitations concerning data quality
The results are valid only for the data used and described in this report: To the knowledge of the au-
thors, the data mentioned in section 3 represents the best available and most appropriate data for the
purpose of this study. It is based on figures provided by the commissioner, data from ifeu’s internal
database and industry data.
There are potential limitations on used data, e.g. regarding inclusion of infrastructure, but they are
considered as not sufficient to cast doubt on the results.
The data quality evaluation shows, that no major data asymmetries are to be expected that would
influence the overall conclusions and recommendations of this study.
6 Conclusions and Recommendations
The present report provides environmental profiles of the combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi
(cb8) beverage cartons on the European market (EU27+3).
In the following section, the most important significant parameters of combiblocSlimline (cb3) and
combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons is summarised and conclusions and recommendations are
drawn from the results presented and discussed in the previous sections
The comparison of the combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage carton’s environ-
mental performance with its competing formats is carried out verbal argumentatively and takes into
account all the impact categories examined in the life cycle assessment. If the comparison result pat-
tern is quite differentiated, no clear statements can be made about ecological advantages or disad-
vantages for the respective comparison.
6.1 Significant parameters

The study shows that the production of base materials for the combiblocSlimline (cb3) and
combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons is a main contributor to most of the examined environmental
impact indicators. Particularly in the impact categories ‘Summer Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidifica-
tion’, ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’ and ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’, the raw
materials dominate the results.
The production of LPB for combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons plays a
somewhat less important role in many impact categories though it still is a main contributor to the net
results in the impact categories ‘Summer Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’,
‘Aquatic Eutrophication’, ‘Acidification’ and ‘Ozone Depletion’.
The production of plastics for sleeve is one of the two main contributors to the category ‘Summer Smog’
due to NMVOC and Ethylene emissions from polymerisation. Furthermore, the plastic production for
sleeve plays a considerable role in almost all other impact categories.
The production of aluminium foil has considerable impacts in most categories. The largest contributors
are ‘Climate Change’, ‘Summer Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidification’, ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’,
‘Abiotic resource depletion’, ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’. The manu-
facturing of the aluminium foil is energy intensive and is therefore connected to high environmental
impacts. Nearly 60 % of the consumed energy comes from fossil fuels. For this reason, the impact/in-
ventory categories are affected, in which energy plays a major role.
The production and converting of closures is the other main contributor to the category ‘Summer
Smog’. The closure plays also an important role in most of the other impact categories. Especially for
the 500 mL cartons, the closure plays a predominant role compared to the other life cycle steps. This
results from the same closure weight for all filling volumes.
Contributions to the net results in the impact categories ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’ and to a lesser extent
to ‘Acidification’ as well as ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’ and ‘Particulate Matter’ arise from the produc-
tion of corrugated cardboard for secondary packaging.
The life cycle steps converting and filling contribute visibly to all impact categories that are driven by
energy generation.
The end-of-life phase of the regarded combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage car-
tons is relevant in the impact category ‘Climate Change’, however the emissions also visibly contribute
to ‘Summer Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidification' and ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’. A share of the
greenhouse gases is related to energy generation required in the respective processes. Material recy-
cling processes are commonly run on electricity, thus this end-of-life treatment contributes directly to
the result values for the impact on ‘Climate Change’. When the packaging materials are used as fuel in
cement kilns or incinerated in MSWI facilities, this also leads to GHG emissions.
6.2 Comparison between beverage cartons
6.2.1 Comparisons of combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) 1000 mL beverage

cartons with the corresponding formats
Compared to the combiblocSlimline (cb3) standard RS cSwift, the combiblocSlimline (cb3) EcoPlus
cSwift LP show more favourable results in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Summer Smog’,
‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidification’, ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’ and ‘Abiotic resource depletion’ and in
the inventory category ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ in the European market.
Compared to the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift, the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP
show more favourable results in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Particulate Matter’, and
‘Acidification’ in the European market.
In all comparisons the SIGNATURE 100 cSwift LP formats show in all scenarios for combiblocSlimline
(cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) cartons lower net results than the compared standard RS cSwift formats
in all impact and inventory categories except in the category ‘Ozone Depletion’.
The SIGNATURE 100 cSwift LP formats show in all scenarios for combiblocSlimline (cb3) and
combiblocMidi (cb8) cartons lower net results than the compared EcoPlus cSwift LP formats in the im-
pact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’ and in the in-
ventory categories ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’.
The SIGNATURE FB cSwift formats show in all scenarios for combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi
(cb8) cartons lower net results than the compared standard RS cSwift formats in the impact categories
‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’ and in the inventory catego-
ries ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’.
Furthermore, the SIGNATURE FB cMaxx formats show in all scenarios for combiblocSlimline (cb3) and
combiblocMidi (cb8) cartons lower net results than the compared standard RS cMaxx formats in the
impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’ and in the
inventory categories ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’.
In the impact category ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’, the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP shows
higher results in both scenarios (AF50, AF100) on the European market compared to the combiblocMidi
(cb8) standard RS cSwift due to a higher share of LPB.
The beverage carton combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE 100 has the lowest net results in the corre-
sponding format in most impact categories and all inventory categories examined. These are ‘Climate
Change’, ‘Summer Smog’, ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Abiotic Resource Deple-
tion’, ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’.
The beverage carton combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE 100 cSwift LP has the lowest net results in the
corresponding format in most impact categories and all inventory categories examined. These are ‘Cli-
mate Change’, ‘Summer Smog’, ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’, ‘Non-renew-
able Primary Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’.
6.2.2 Comparisons of combiblocMidi (cb8) 500 mL beverage cartons with the correspond-
ing formats
In both scenarios (AF 50, AF 100) the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP beverage carton shows
lower net results than the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift in the impact categories ‘Particulate
Matter’ and ‘Acidification. In the impact category ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’ the assessed beverage car-
ton shows higher net results than the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift due to a higher share of
LPB. Furthermore in scenario l, in the impact category ‘Climate Change’, the combiblocMidi (cb8)
EcoPlus cSwift LP shows lower net results than the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift. No signifi-
cant differences were found in the other impact and inventory categories.
With the volume of 1000 mL, the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP benefits more from the mate-
rial composition compared to the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift than with the packaging size
of 500 mL, as the closures carry weight. For this reason, more significant differences in other impact
categories in the comparisons of 1000 mL can be observed.
6.3 Comparison between beverage cartons (cradle to gate)

As the producer of the analysed packaging systems, SIG Combibloc has the strongest influence on the
life cycle steps related to the production of primary packaging components. Therefore additionally to
the cradle to grave results in this study, this section provides the comparison between beverage cartons
based on cradle to gate results. The numerical cradle to gate results are shown separately in the nu-
merical result tables in section 4. As the life cycle steps included in the cradle to gate results are only
connected with the regarded system, there is no difference between 50 % and 100 % allocation factor.
6.3.1 Comparisons of combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) 1000 mL beverage

cartons with the corresponding formats (cradle to gate)
The comparison of the cradle to gate results show differences which are directly connected to the ma-
terial type and material weights of the primary packaging components.
Compared to the combiblocSlimline (cb3) standard RS cSwift, the combiblocSlimline (cb3) EcoPlus
cSwift LP show more favourable cradle to gate results in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Sum-
mer Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidification’, ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’ and ‘Abiotic resource de-
pletion’ and in the inventory category ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ in the European market mainly
due to the usage of PA instead of aluminium in beverage cartons sleeves.
Compared to the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift, the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP
show more favourable cradle to gate results in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Summer Smog’,
‘Particulate Matter’, and ‘Acidification’ and ‘Terrestrial Eutrophication’ in the European market mainly
due to the usage of PA instead of aluminium in beverage cartons sleeves. In the impact category
‘Aquatic Eutrophication’, the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP shows higher cradle to gate results
on the European market compared to the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift due to a higher share
of LPB.
The SIGNATURE 100 cSwift LP formats show for combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) car-
tons lower cradle to gate results than the compared standard RS cSwift formats in all impact and in-
ventory categories except in the category ‘Ozone Depletion’ mainly due to the usage of PA instead of
aluminium in beverage cartons sleeves.
The cb SIGNATURE 100 cSwift LP show for combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) cartons
lower cradle to gate results than the compared cb EcoPlus cSwift LP format in the impact categories
’Summer Smog’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’ and in the inventory categories
‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’ mainly due to the usage of mass-balanced
plastics instead of fossil plastics.
The SIGNATURE FB cSwift formats show for combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) cartons
lower cradle to gate results than the compared standard RS cSwift formats in the impact categories
‘Aquatic Eutrophication’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’ and in the inventory categories ‘Non-renewable
Primary Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’ mainly due to the usage of mass-balanced plastics instead
of fossil plastics.
The SIGNATURE FB cMaxx formats show for combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) cartons
lower cradle to gate results than the compared standard RS cMaxx formats in the impact categories
‘Aquatic Eutrophication’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’ and in the inventory categories ‘Non-renewable
Primary Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’ mainly due to the usage of mass-balanced plastics instead
of fossil plastics.
Benefits of SIGNATURE cartons in ‘Climate Change’ due to the CO2 uptake of mass-balanced plastics
are technically part of the material production life cycle step. In order to have a biogenic carbon bal-
ance, the CO2 uptake can only be shown together with the corresponding biogenic CO2 emissions in the
end of life. Therefore these benefits can only be seen in cradle to grave cradle to gate results.
6.3.2 Comparisons of combiblocMidi (cb8) 500 mL beverage cartons with the correspond-
ing formats (cradle to gate)
The combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP beverage carton shows lower cradle to gate results than the
combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Particulate Matter’
and ‘Acidification’ mainly due to the usage of PA instead of aluminium in beverage cartons sleeves. In
the impact category ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’ the assessed beverage carton shows higher cradle to gate
results than the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift due to a higher share of LPB. No significant
differences were found in the other impact and inventory categories.
With the volume of 1000 mL, the combiblocMidi (cb8) EcoPlus cSwift LP benefits more from the mate-
rial composition compared to the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift than with the packaging size
of 500 mL, as the closures carry weight. For this reason, more significant differences in other impact
categories in the comparisons of 1000 mL can be observed.
6.4 Recommendations
Based on the findings summarised in the previous sections and the limitations listed in section 5.2 the
authors developed the following recommendations:
 Since the environmental result of the combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage
carton format is significantly influenced by the production of its main components, the sleeve and
closure, measures to ensure the same functionality by the use of less material are recommended.
 It is shown in this study that the closures play a crucial role in the life cycle of the combiblocSlimline
(cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage carton formats, especially for smaller volumes. However,
to improve the overall environmental performance, it is recommended to assess the possibilities of
using smaller and lighter closures for all combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage
carton formats.
 The comparative results do not show that any beverage carton system has lower results in all impact
and inventory categories compared to another beverage carton. However, the beverage cartons
combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE 100 with the closure cSwift LP (1000
mL) show lower environmental impacts in several impact categories and no higher impacts in any
other category. Therefore, from an environmental viewpoint it is recommended to prefer the
combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE 100 cSwift LP (1000 mL) over the other
beverage carton formats examined in this study on the European market.
 Based on the comparison of the closure results of the examined combiblocSlimline (cb3) and
combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE FB cSwift (1000 mL) and combiblocSlimline (cb3) and
combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift beverage cartons on the European market, it can be con-
cluded, that the substitution of fossil polymers by mass-balanced polymers based on tall oil leads to
lower net results in some environmental impact categories including ‘Climate Change’ and no higher
impacts in any of the other categories. The implementation of polymers based on tall oil via a mass-
balance approach is therefore recommended.
 It is also recommended to actually achieve a more significant physical share of tall oil based input
materials for the production of polymers, as the by-product of the pulp industry is currently mainly
dedicated to direct thermal use. The utilisation and demand of mass-balanced polymers by SIG
Combibloc might be a driver to do so.
References
ACE; ifeu (2020): LCI dataset for Liquid Packaging Board (LPB) production - Reference year 2018. created
by ifeu (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research).
Air Resources Board (2000): Final Program Environmental Impact Report Suggested Control Measure
for Architectural Coatings. California Environmental Protection Agency.
Beck, T.; Bos, U.; Wittstock, B.; Baitz, M.; Fischer, M.; Sedlbauer, K. (2010): LANCA: Land Use Indicator
Value Calculation in Life Cycle Assessment - Method Report. Fraunhofer Institute for Building
Physics, University of Stuttgart, Echterdingen, Stuttgart. http://publica.fraunhofer.de/doku-
mente/N-143541.html.
Carter, W. P. L. (2008): Estimation of the Maximum Ozone Impacts of Oxides of Nitrogen. S. 7.
Carter, W. P. L. (2010): Development of the SAPRC-07 chemical mechanism and updated ozone reac-
tivity scales. Contracts No. 03-318, 06-408, and 07-730. Report to the California Air Resources
Board, Center for Environmental Research and Technology College of Engineering University
of California Riverside, California. S. 396. https://in-
tra.engr.ucr.edu/~carter/SAPRC/saprc07.pdf (11.03.2020).
Cashman, S. A.; Moran, K. M.; Gaglione, A. G. (2016): Greenhouse Gas and Energy Life Cycle Assessment
of Pine Chemicals Derived from Crude Tall Oil and Their Substitutes: LCA of Crude Tall Oil-de-
rived Chemicals and Their Substitutes. In: Journal of Industrial Ecology. Vol. 20, No.5, S. 1108–
1121.
CEWEP (2012): CEWEP Energy Report IIl (Status 2007-2010) Results of Specific Data for Energy, R1 Plant
Efficiency Factor and NCV of 314 European Waste-to-Energy (WtE) Plants. CEWEP. S. 35.
Chaudhary, A.; Brooks, T. M. (2018): Land Use Intensity-Specific Global Characterization Factors to As-
sess Product Biodiversity Footprints. In: Environmental Science & Technology. Vol. 52, No.9, S.
5094–5104.
CML (2016): CML-IA Characterisation Factors. Database CML-IA, Institute of Environmental Sciences.
In: Leiden University. https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/research/research-output/sci-
ence/cml-ia-characterisation-factors. (08.03.2022).
Detzel, A.; Kauertz, B.; Grahl, D. B.; Heinisch, J. (2016): Prüfung und Aktualisierung der Ökobilanzen für
Getränkeverpackungen. Forschungskennzahl 3711 92 315. Institut für Energie- und Umwelt-
forschung, INTEGRAHL Industrielle Ökologie, Gesellschaft für Verpackungsmarktfoschung, Hei-
delberg, Heidekamp, Mainz. S. 492.
Directive (EU) 2019/904 (2019): DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/904 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF
THE COUNCIL of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the
environment. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/oj. (15.03.2022).
DSD (2003): Produktspezifikationen Grüner Punkt. Der Grüne Punkt: Duales System Deutschland
GmbH.
EAA (2013): Environmental Profile Report for the European Aluminium Industry - Life-Cycle inventory
data for aluminium production and transformation processes in Europe. European Aluminium
Association.
EAA (2018): Environmental Profile Report for the European Aluminium Industry - Life-Cycle inventory
data for aluminium production and transformation processes in Europe. European Aluminium
Association.
EcoTransIT World (2016): Ecological Transport Information Tool for Worldwide Transports- Methodol-
ogy and Data Update. EcoTransIT World Initiative (EWI), Bern, Hannover, Heidelberg.
Edelen, A.; Ingwersen, W. (2016): Guidance on Data Quality Assessment for Life Cycle Inventory Data.
Life Cycle Assessment Research Center Systems Analysis Branch/ Sustainable Technology Divi-
sion National Risk Management Research Laboratory U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Cincinnati, Ohio. S. 37.
EU (2018): Directive (EU) 2018/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018
amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste. https://eur-lex.eu-
ropa.eu/eli/dir/2018/852/oj. (08.03.2022).
Eurostat (2021): Municipal waste by waste management operations. https://appsso.eurostat.ec.eu-
ropa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do. (18.05.2021).
EXTR:ACT (2020): Recycling rates EU. Personal communication with Raymond De Schrevel, November
2021.
Fava, J. A.; SETAC (Society); SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education (1991): A Technical Frame-
work for Life-cycle Assessments. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vermont.
FEFCO (2012): European Database for Corrugated Board Life Cycle Studies 2012. FEFCO, Brussels.
FEFCO; Cepi Container Board (2018): European Database for Corrugated Board Life Cycle Studies 2018.
Fédération Européenne des Fabricantes de Papiers pour Ondulé (FEFCO) and Cepi Container
Board, Brussels.
Fehrenbach, H.; Grahl, B.; Giegrich, J.; Busch, M. (2015): Hemeroby as an impact category indicator for
the integration of land use into life cycle (impact) assessment. In: The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment. Vol. 20, No.11, S. 1511–1527.
Fehrenbach, H.; Lauwigi, C.; Liebich, A.; Ludmann, S. (2016): Documentation for the UMBERTO based
ifeu electricity model. ifeu gGmbH, Heidelberg. S. 31.
Frischknecht, R. (1998): Life cycle inventory analysis for decision-making: Scope-Dependent Inventory
System Models and Context-Specific Joint Product Allocation. In: The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment. Vol. 3, No.2, S. 67–67.
Frischknecht, R.; Althaus, H.-J.; Bauer, C.; Doka, G.; Heck, T.; Jungbluth, N.; Kellenberger, D.; Nemecek,
T. (2007): The Environmental Relevance of Capital Goods in Life Cycle Assessments of Products
and Services. S. 11.
Goedkoop, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M. (2013): ReCiPE 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method
which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Char-
acterisation. No.First edition, S. 134.
Guinée, J. B. (2002): Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment. Operational Guide to the ISO Standards.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
Heijungs, R. (Ed.) (1992): Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Centre of Environmental
Science, Leiden.
I Boustead (2005): Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry - NAPHTA. PlasticsEurope, Brussels.
INFRAS (2019): HBEFA. Handbuch Emissionsfaktoren des Straßenverkehrs.
IPCC (2006): IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories –Volume 5. https://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol5.html (23.06.2021).
ISCC (2019): Renewable Polymers Sustainability Statement: LDPE 2005ECB 00900 161.
ISO 14040: (2006): International Standard ISO 14040 Environmental management — Life cycle assess-
ment — Principles and framework.
ISO 14044: (2006): International Standard ISO 14044 Environmental management — Life cycle assess-
ment — Requirements and guidelines.
Jeswani, H. K.; Krüger, C.; Kicherer, A.; Antony, F.; Azapagic, A. (2019): A methodology for integrating
the biomass balance approach into life cycle assessment with an application in the chemicals
sector. In: Science of The Total Environment. Vol. 687, S. 380–391.
JRC (2010): International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook :general guide for life cycle
assessment : detailed guidance. Publications Office, LU.
JRC (2011): International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook :general guide for life cycle
assessment: provisions and action steps. Publications Office, LU.
Kim, S.; Hwang, T.; Lee, K. M. (1997): Allocation for cascade recycling system. In: The International Jour-
nal of Life Cycle Assessment. Vol. 2, No.4, S. 217.
Klöpffer, W. (1996): Allocation rule for open-loop recycling in life cycle assessment. In: The International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. Vol. 1, No.1, S. 27–31.
Klöpffer, W. (2007): Personal communication.
de Leeuw, F. A. A. M. (2002): A set of emission indicators for long-range transboundary air pollution.
In: Environmental Science & Policy. Vol. 5, No.2, S. 135–145.
Micales, J. A.; Skog, K. E. (1997): The decomposition of forest products in landfills. In: International
Biodeterioration & Biodegradation. Vol. 39, No.2–3, S. 145–158.
Nikander, S. (2008): Greenhouse gas and energy intensity of product chain: case transport biofuel. S.
112.
Notter, B.; Keller, M.; Althaus, H.-J.; Cox, B.; Knörr, W.; Heidt, C.; Biemann, K.; Räder, D.; Jamet, M.
(2019): HBEFA 4.1 Development Report. INFRAS, Bern.
PlasticsEurope (2005): Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry – Nylon6 (PA6). PlasticsEurope,
Brussels.
PlasticsEurope (2012): Ethylene, Propylene, Butadiene, Pyrolysis Gasoline, Ethylene Oxide (EO), Eth-
ylene Glycols (MEG, DEG, TEG). Eco-profiles and Environmental Product Declarations of the
European Plastics Manufacturers. PlasticsEurope.
PlasticsEurope (2014a): Eco-profiles and Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastic
Manufactures – Polyamide 6 (PA6). PlasticsEurope.
PlasticsEurope (2014b): Eco-profiles and Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastic
Manufactures – Polypropylene (PP). PlasticsEurope.
PlasticsEurope (2017): Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) (Bottle Grade) CPME. Eco-profiles and Envi-
ronmental Product Declarations of the European Plastics Manufacturers. PlasticsEurope.
Posch, M.; Seppälä, J.; Hettelingh, J.-P.; Johansson, M. (2008): The role of atmospheric dispersion mod-
els and ecosystem sensitivity in the determination of characterisation factors for acidifying and
eutrophying emissions in LCIA. In: ResearchGate.
Reinhardt, G.; Gärtner, S.; Helms, H.; Rettenmaier, N. (2006): “An Assessment of Energy and Green-
house Gases of NExBTL,” Final Report from Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Heidelberg GmbH (ifeu) by order of the Neste Oil Corporation (Porvoo, Finland). ifeu - Institut
für Energie - und Umweltforschung Heidelberg gGmbH, Heidelberg.
Rosenbaum, R. K.; Bachmann, T. M.; Gold, L. S.; Huijbregts, M. A. J.; Jolliet, O.; Juraske, R.; Koehler, A.;
Larsen, H. F.; MacLeod, M.; Margni, M.; McKone, T. E.; Payet, J.; Schuhmacher, M.; van de
Meent, D.; Hauschild, M. Z. (2008): USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended
characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact as-
sessment. In: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. Vol. 13, No.7, S. 532–546.
Sala, S.; Cerutti, A. K.; Pant, R. (2018): Development of a weighting approach for the Environmental
Footprint. S. 146.
Stocker, T.; Qin, D.; Plattner, G.-K.; Tignor, M. M. B.; Allen, S. K.; Boschung, J.; Nauels, A.; Xia, Y.; Bex,
V.; Midgley, P. M. (2013): IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contri-
bution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. ipcc intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. S. 1535 pp.
UBA (2000): Ökobilanz für Getränkeverpackungen II. Hauptteil. 37/00. Umweltbundesamt, Berlin.
UBA (2016): Prüfung und Aktualisierung der Ökobilanzen für Getränkeverpackungen. 19/2016. UBA. S.
492.
VDI (1997): VDI 4600: Kumulierter Energieaufwand (Cumulative Energy Demand). VDI-Gesellschaft
Energietechnik Richtlinienausschuß Kumulierter Energieaufwand, Düsseldorf.
VDZ (2019): Economic, technical and scientific association for the German cement industry.
Verpackungsgesetz - VerpackG (2021): Gesetz über das Inverkehrbringen, die Rücknahme und die hoch-
wertige Verwertung von Verpackungen (Verpackungsgesetz VerpackG). S. 39.
Weidema, B. P.; Bauer, C.; Hischier, R.; Mutel, C.; Nemecek, T.; Reinhard, J.; Vadenbo, C. O.; Wernet, G.
(2013): Overview and Methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version
3. No.ecoinvent report No. 1(v3), S. 169.
WHO (2021): WHO global air quality guidelines. Particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), ozone, nitrogen
dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide. World Health Organization, Geneva.
WMO (2011): Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring
Project–Report No. 52, 516 pp. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Zampori, L.; Saouter, E.; Cristobal Garcia, J.; Castellani, V.; Sala, S. (2016): Guide for interpreting life
cycle assessment result. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (Luxem-
bourg).
ifeu  Appendix 1: Analysis of combiblocMidi SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER 9µ on the European market 1
Appendix 1: Analysis of combiblocMidi SIGNATURE

FULL BARRIER 9µ on the European market
CB-100734

1 Introduction
The focus of the main report is to investigate combiblocSlimline (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) cartons on
the European market. In this appendix 1, additional combiblocMidi (cb8) carton formats on the European
market are assessed. The beverage cartons examined are listed in Table 1-1. The specific name 9µ stands
for the thickness (9 µm) of the aluminium layer in the sleeves of the beverage cartons. The comparisons of
the beverage cartons are structured according to the same scheme as in the main report.
As the SIG packaging combifitMidi (cf8) 9µ is identical to the combiblocMidi (cb8) 9µ with regard to all
packaging specifications (including secondary and tertiary packaging), the results of the combiblocMidi
(cb8) 9µ 1000 mL also apply to the combifitMidi (cf8) 9µ 1000 mL.
Table 1-1: List of beverage cartons examined in Europe (1000 mL)
combiblocMidi (cb8) 9µ beverage cartons and closure

cb8 standard RS 9µ (cSwift)
cb8 standard RS 9µ (cMaxx)
cb8 SIGNATURE Pack FB 9µ (cSwift)
cb8 SIGNATURE Pack FB 9µ (cMaxx)
Except for the specifications listed in section 1.1, this appendix 1 follows the same structure and
methodology as the main report.

The composition of the beverage carton sleeves differ from the main report in the share of liquid packaging
board, PE share and the aluminium share. The specifications of closures, secondary and tertiary packaging
and all background parameters remain identical. The packaging systems examined in this appendix 1 and
their corresponding specifications are listed in Table 1-2:.
Table 1-2: Packaging specifications of the beverage cartons in EU: combiblocMidi (cb8) 9µ 1000 mL
combiblocMidi (cb8) 9µ 1000

cb8 cb8
standard RS 9µ SIGNATURE PACK FB 9µ

volume mL 1000 1000
geographic Scope - EU
chilled
-
ambient
primary packaging (sum)1 g 31.15 31.4 31.15 31.4
primary packaging (per FU) g/FU 31150 31400 31150 31400
composite material (sleeve) g 28.40 28.40
- liquid packaging board g 20.20 20.20
- fossil PE g 6.10 -
- mass-balanced PE g - 6.10
- Aluminium foil g 2.10 2.10
closure g 2.75 3.00 2.75 3.00
- fossil PP g 1.47 1.25 - -
- fossil PE g 1.28 1.23 - -
- mass-balanced PP g - - 1.47 1.25
- fossil PS g - 0.52 - 0.52
1 per primary packaging unit
2.1 Europe combiblocMidi (cb8) 9µ beverage cartons 1000 mL
2.1.1 Scenario I (50% allocation): numerical values and graphs
Figure 2-1: Indicator results for scenario l Europe, combiblocMidi (cb8) 9µ beverage cartons with allocation factor
50% (Part 1)
50% (Part 2)
50% (Part 3)
50% (Part 4)
Table 2-1: Category indicator results for scenario l Europe, combiblocMidi (cb8) 9µ beverage cartons with
allocation factor 50 %: burdens, credits and net results per functional unit of 1000 L beverage
2.1.1.1 Scenario II (100% allocation): numerical values and graphs
Figure 2-5: Indicator results for scenario ll Europe, combiblocMidi (cb8) 9µ beverage cartons with allocation factor
100% (Part 1)
ifeu  Appendix 1: Analysis of combiblocMidi SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER 9µ on the European market  10
100% (Part 2)
100% (Part 3)
100% (Part 4)
Table 2-2: Category indicator results for scenario ll Europe, combiblocMidi (cb8) 9µ beverage cartons with
allocation factor 100 %: burdens, credits and net results per functional unit of 1000 L beverage
2.1.1.2 Comparison between systems
combiblocMidi (cb8) 9µ beverage cartons in the same volume segment. The percentage is based on the net
results of each compared packaging system. Both scenarios, scenario I (AF 50) and scenario II (AF 100), are
equally used for the comparison between the systems. Differences of 10% or less are considered to be
insignificant.
Table 2-3: Comparison of net results of combiblocMidi (cb8) 9µ beverage cartons (Europe)
The net results of

combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE
FB 9µ FB 9µ
cSwift cMaxx
1000 mL 1000 mL
combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS
9µ 9µ
cSwift cMaxx
1000 mL 1000 mL
AF 50 AF 100 AF 50 AF 100
Impact categories
Climate Change -40% -21% -38% -22%
Ozone Depletion 0% 0% 0% 0%
Summer Smog -4% -3% -4% -3%
Particulate Matter -3% -2% -3% -2%
Acidification -2% -1% -2% -1%
Terrestrial Eutrophication -3% -2% -3% -2%
Aquatic Eutrophication -28% -22% -27% -23%
Abiotic Resource Depletion -45% -39% -43% -41%
Non-renwable Primary Energy -38% -32% -36% -33%
Total Primary Energy -24% -20% -22% -21%
In both scenarios, the combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE FB 9µ cSwift shows lower net results than the
combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS 9µ cSwift in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophi-
cation’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’ and in the inventory categories ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ and
The mass-balanced PE and PP in the sleeve and closure of the combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE FB 9µ cSwift
is the only difference to the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cSwift, that leads to significantly lower net
results in the categories mentioned.
In both scenarios, the combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE FB 9µ cMaxx shows lower net results than the
combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS 9µ cMaxx in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophi-
cation’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’ and in the inventory categories ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ and
The mass-balanced PE and PP in the sleeve and closure of the combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE FB 9µ cMaxx
is the only difference to the combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cMaxx, that leads to significantly lower net
results in the categories mentioned.
Conclusions
 In both scenarios, the combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE FB 9µ cSwift shows lower net results than the
combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS 9µ cSwift in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophi-
 In both scenarios, the combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE FB 9µ cMaxx shows lower net results than the
combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS 9µ cMaxx in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophi-
 The comparison of combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE FB 9µ packaging systems show a similar picture as
combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE FB packaging systems (1000 mL) of the main report.
Recommendations
 Since the environmental result of the combiblocMidi (cb8) 9µ beverage carton formats are significantly
influenced by the production of its main components, the sleeve and closure, measures to ensure the
same functionality by the use of less material are recommended.
 It is shown in this study that the closures play a crucial role in the life cycle of the combiblocMidi (cb8)
9µ beverage carton formats. To improve the overall environmental performance, it is recommended to
assess the possibilities of using smaller and lighter closures for all beverage carton formats.
materials for the production of polymers, as the by-product of the pulp industry is currently only
References
EU (2018): Directive (EU) 2018/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending
Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste. https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/852/oj. (08.03.2022).
Eurostat (2021): Municipal waste by waste management operations.
https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do. (18.05.2021).
EXTR:ACT (2020): Recycling rates EU. Personal communication with Raymond De Schrevel, November 2021.
ifeu  Appendix 2a: Analysis of combismile SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER for combismileSmall and combismileBig 1
on the European market
Appendix 2a: Analysis of combismile SIGNATURE

FULL BARRIER for combismileSmall and
combismileBig on the European market
CB-100734

1 Introduction
the European market. In this appendix 2a, combismileSmall (ci17) and combismileBig (ci18) carton formats
on the European market are assessed. The beverage cartons examined are listed in Table 1-1. The
comparisons of the beverage cartons are structured according to the same scheme as in the main report.
- combismileSmall (ci17)
- combismileBig (ci18)
- standard RS/TS (robust structure, structure with aluminium foil barrier)
- cGoSmall (combiGoSmall, closure)
- cGoBig (combiGoBig, closure)
- SIGNATURE PACK FB (full barrier, containing aluminium)
Table 1-1: List of beverage cartons examined for the European market
combismileSmall (ci17) beverage cartons and closure combismileBig (ci18) beverage cartons and closure
ci17 standard TS 200 mL ci18 standard RS 200 mL
ci17 standard TS 200 mL (cGoSmall) ci18 SIGNATURE FB 200 mL
ci17 SIGNATURE FB 200 mL ci18 standard RS 250 mL
ci17 SIGNATURE FB 200 mL (cGoSmall) ci18 SIGNATURE FB 250 mL
ci17 standard TS 250 mL ci18 standard RS 300 mL (cGoBig)

ci17 standard TS 250 mL (cGoSmall) ci18 SIGNATURE FB 300 mL (cGoBig)
ci17 SIGNATURE FB 250 mL ci18 standard RS 330 mL (cGoBig)
ci17 SIGNATURE FB 250 mL (cGoSmall) ci18 SIGNATURE FB 330 mL (cGoBig)

ci18 standard RS 350 mL (cGoBig)
ci18 SIGNATURE FB 350 mL (cGoBig)
Except for the specifications listed in section 1.1, this appendix 2a follows the same structure and
methodology as the main report.

The packaging systems examined in this appendix 2a and their corresponding specifications are listed in
Table 1-2:, Table 1-3 and Table 1-4.
Table 1-2: Packaging specifications of the beverage cartons in EU: combismileBig (ci18) and combismileSmall (ci17)
SIGNATURE PACK 200-350 mL
combismileBig (ci18) and combismileSmall (ci17) SIGNATURE Pack 200-350 mL

ci18 ci18 ci18 ci18 ci18 ci17 ci17

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE
PACK FB PACK FB PACK FB PACK FB PACK FB PACK FB PACK FB
volume mL 200 250 300 330 350 200 250
chilled
-
ambient
primary packaging
g 9.30 10.40 13.50 14.21 14.75 10.00 11.30
(sum)1
primary packaging
g/FU 46500 41600 45000 43061 42143 50000 45200
(per FU)
composite material
g 9.30 10.40 11.30 12.01 12.55 8.40 9.70
(sleeve)
- liquid packaging
g 7.00 7.80 8.50 9.04 9.45 6.10 70
board
- fossil PE g - - - - - - -
- mass-balanced PE g 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.30 2.40 1.80 2.10
- Aluminium foil g 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.67 0.70 0.50 0.60

closure g - - 2.20 2.20 2.20 1.60 1.60
- mass-balanced PP g - - 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.90 0.90
- mass-balanced PE g - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70
- fossil PS g - - - - - - -
Table 1-3: Packaging specifications of the beverage cartons in EU: combismileBig (ci18) standard RS and
combismileSmall (ci17) standard TS 200-350 mL
combismileBig (ci18) and combismileSmall (ci17) standard RS 200-350 mL

ci18 ci18 ci18 ci18 ci18 ci17 ci17

standard standard standard standard standard standard standard
RS RS RS RS RS TS TS
volume mL 200 250 300 330 350 200 250

chilled
-
ambient
primary packaging
g 9.30 10.40 13.50 14.21 14.75 10 11.3
(sum)1
primary packaging
g/FU 46500 41600 45000 43061 42143 50000 45200
(per FU)
composite material
g 9.30 10.40 11.30 12.01 12.55 8.40 9.70
(sleeve)
- liquid packaging
g 7.00 7.80 8.50 9.04 9.45 6.10 7.00
board
- fossil PE g 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.30 2.40 1.80 2.10
- mass-balanced PE g - - - - - - -
- Aluminium foil g 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.67 0.70 0.50 0.60

closure g - - 2.20 2.20 2.20 1.60 1.60
- fossil PP g - - 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.90 0.90
- fossil PE g - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70
- fossil PS g - - - - - - -
Table 1-4: Secondary packaging, tertiary packaging and pallet configuration of the beverage cartons in EU:
combismileBig (ci18) and combismileSmall (ci17) 200-350 mL
ci18 200 ci18 250 ci18 300 ci18 330 ci18 350 ci17 200 ci17 250
Specification Unit
EU
secondary packaging
g 150 155 169 181 140 170 224
(sum)2
- tray/box (corrugated
g 150 155 169 181 140 170 224
cardboard)
Tertiary packaging
g 25350 25350 25350 25350 26430 25350 25350
(sum)3
- pallet g 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000
Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry Industry
type of pallet -
pallet pallet pallet pallet pallet pallet pallet
number of use cycles - 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
- stretch foil (per
g 350 350 350 350 350 350 350
pallet) (LDPE)
Cardboard layers g - - - - 1080
cartons per tray pcs 24 24 24 24 24 32 32
trays / packs per layer pcs 15 15 15 15 15 20 20
layers per pallet pcs 11 10 9 8 7 10 8
cartons per pallet pcs 3960 3600 3240 2880 2520 6400 5120
2 per secondary packaging unit; 3 per tertiary packaging unit (pallet)

2.1 Europe combismileSmall (ci17) beverage cartons 200 – 250 mL
Figure 2-1: Indicator results for scenario l Europe, combismileSmall (ci17) beverage cartons with allocation factor 50
% (Part 1)
% (Part 2)
% (Part 3)
% (Part 4)
ifeu  Appendix 2a: Analysis of combismile SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER for combismileSmall and combismileBig  10
Table 2-1: Category indicator results for scenario l Europe, combismileSmall (ci17) beverage cartons with allocation factor 50 %: burdens, credits and net results per functional unit
of 1000 L beverage
ci17 ci17
ci17 ci17 ci17
ci17 ci17 SIGNATURE ci17 SIGNATURE
Scenario l Europe, TS TS SIGNATURE
TS SIGNATURE FB FB TS FB
allocation factor 50 % cGo Small cGo Small FB
200 mL 200 mL cGo Small 250 mL cGo Small
200 mL 250 mL 250 mL
200 mL 250 mL
Burdens 184.43 213.30 176.94 199.98 171.11 194.21 164.12 182.55
CO2 (reg) 21.11 21.26 30.54 38.20 19.73 19.85 28.54 34.66
Climate change
Credits -26.37 -33.45 -26.37 -33.45 -24.46 -30.12 -24.46 -30.12
[kg CO 2-equivalents]
CO2 uptake -56.31 -56.65 -84.95 -109.41 -52.49 -52.76 -79.23 -98.79
Net results (∑) 122.86 144.47 96.16 95.32 113.89 131.17 88.97 88.30
Acidification Burdens 0.78 0.83 0.78 0.82 0.72 0.77 0.72 0.76
Credits -0.06 -0.07 -0.06 -0.07 -0.05 -0.06 -0.05 -0.06
[g SO2-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 0.72 0.76 0.72 0.76 0.67 0.70 0.66 0.69
Summer smog Burdens 9.67 10.45 9.53 10.15 8.95 9.58 8.82 9.32
Credits -0.70 -0.81 -0.70 -0.81 -0.65 -0.73 -0.65 -0.73
[g O3-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 8.96 9.64 8.82 9.34 8.30 8.85 8.17 8.59
Burdens 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.11
Ozone Depletion
Credits -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
[g R-11-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09
Terrestrial eutrophication Burdens 73.96 79.34 73.22 77.85 68.58 72.88 67.89 71.59
Credits -5.69 -6.50 -5.69 -6.49 -5.25 -5.90 -5.25 -5.89
[g PO4-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 68.27 72.84 67.53 71.36 63.33 66.98 62.64 65.70
Burdens 36.04 43.70 29.49 31.44 33.83 39.96 27.72 29.28
Aquatic eutrophication
Credits -4.17 -4.22 -4.17 -4.22 -3.76 -3.79 -3.76 -3.79
[g PO4-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 31.87 39.48 25.31 27.23 30.08 36.17 23.96 25.49
Burdens 0.73 0.78 0.72 0.77 0.68 0.72 0.67 0.71
Particulate matter
Credits -0.05 -0.06 -0.05 -0.06 -0.05 -0.06 -0.05 -0.06
[g PM 2,5- equivalents]
Net results (∑) 0.68 0.72 0.67 0.71 0.63 0.66 0.62 0.65
Burdens 0.22 0.28 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.25 0.15 0.17
Credits -0.03 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04
[kg sb-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 0.19 0.24 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.21 0.12 0.13
Non-renewable primary Burdens 2.75 3.44 2.20 2.42 2.52 3.07 2.01 2.18
energy Credits -0.42 -0.52 -0.42 -0.52 -0.39 -0.46 -0.39 -0.46
[GJ] Net results (∑) 2.33 2.92 1.78 1.90 2.13 2.61 1.62 1.72
Burdens 4.22 4.99 3.68 3.99 3.88 4.50 3.38 3.63
Total Primary Energy
Credits -0.69 -0.79 -0.69 -0.79 -0.63 -0.72 -0.63 -0.71
[GJ]
Net results (∑) 3.53 4.20 2.99 3.20 3.25 3.79 2.75 2.92
2.1.2 Scenario II (100% allocation): numerical values and graphs
% (Part 1)
% (Part 2)
% (Part 3)
% (Part 4)
Table 2-2: Category indicator results for scenario ll Europe, combismileSmall (ci17) beverage cartons with allocation factor 50 %: burdens, credits and net results per functional unit
of 1000 L beverage
ci17 ci17
ci17 ci17 ci17
ci17 ci17 SIGNATURE ci17 SIGNATURE
Scenario ll Europe, TS TS SIGNATURE
TS SIGNATURE FB FB TS FB
allocation factor 100 % cGo Small cGo Small FB
200 mL 200 mL cGo Small 250 mL cGo Small
200 mL 250 mL 250 mL
200 mL 250 mL
Burdens 212.52 249.81 195.59 219.46 197.34 227.17 181.53 200.63
CO2 (reg) 39.15 39.41 58.03 73.29 36.54 36.74 54.15 66.36
Climate change
Credits -52.32 -66.47 -52.32 -66.47 -48.51 -59.84 -48.51 -59.84
CO2 uptake -56.31 -56.65 -84.95 -109.41 -52.49 -52.76 -79.23 -98.79
Net results (∑) 143.05 166.10 116.35 116.87 132.87 151.31 107.94 108.35
Acidification Burdens 0.80 0.86 0.79 0.85 0.74 0.78 0.74 0.78
Credits -0.12 -0.14 -0.12 -0.14 -0.11 -0.12 -0.11 -0.12
[g SO2-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 0.68 0.72 0.68 0.71 0.63 0.66 0.63 0.65
Summer smog Burdens 10.00 10.85 9.86 10.54 9.26 9.94 9.13 9.68
Credits -1.40 -1.61 -1.40 -1.60 -1.28 -1.45 -1.28 -1.45
[g O3-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 8.60 9.24 8.46 8.94 7.97 8.49 7.84 8.23
Burdens 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.11
Ozone Depletion
Credits -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04
Net results (∑) 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
Terrestrial eutrophication Burdens 76.62 82.54 75.88 81.05 71.07 75.80 70.37 74.51
Credits -11.29 -12.91 -11.29 -12.89 -10.41 -11.70 -10.41 -11.69
[g PO4-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 65.33 69.64 64.59 68.16 60.66 64.10 59.96 62.82
Burdens 36.84 44.56 30.28 32.30 34.56 40.74 28.45 30.06
Credits -8.35 -8.43 -8.35 -8.43 -7.51 -7.58 -7.51 -7.58
[g PO4-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 28.49 36.13 21.94 23.87 27.05 33.16 20.94 22.48
Burdens 0.75 0.81 0.74 0.79 0.69 0.74 0.69 0.73
Particulate matter
Credits -0.11 -0.13 -0.11 -0.13 -0.10 -0.11 -0.10 -0.11
Net results (∑) 0.64 0.68 0.64 0.67 0.59 0.62 0.59 0.61
Burdens 0.22 0.28 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.25 0.15 0.17
Credits -0.07 -0.08 -0.07 -0.08 -0.06 -0.07 -0.06 -0.07
[kg sb-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 0.15 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.09 0.10
Non-renewable primary Burdens 2.78 3.47 2.23 2.45 2.55 3.10 2.04 2.22
energy Credits -0.84 -1.03 -0.84 -1.03 -0.77 -0.92 -0.77 -0.92
[GJ] Net results (∑) 1.94 2.44 1.39 1.42 1.78 2.18 1.27 1.30
Burdens 4.25 5.03 3.72 4.03 3.92 4.54 3.42 3.67
Credits -1.37 -1.58 -1.37 -1.57 -1.26 -1.42 -1.26 -1.42
[GJ]
Net results (∑) 2.88 3.45 2.34 2.46 2.66 3.12 2.15 2.25
combismileSmall (ci17) beverage cartons in the same volume segment. The percentage is based on the net
insignificant.
Table 2-3: Comparison of net results combismileSmall (ci17) beverage cartons (Europe)
The net results of

combismileSmall combismileSmall
(ci17) SIGNATURE FB (ci17) SIGNATURE FB
(ci17) SIGNATURE FB (ci17) SIGNATURE FB
cGoSmall cGoSmall
200 mL 250 mL
200 mL 250 mL
combismileSmall (ci17) standard TS combismileSmall (ci17) standard TS
(ci17) standard TS cGoSmall (ci17) standard TS cGoSmall
200 mL 250 mL
200 mL 250 mL
AF 50 AF 100 AF 50 AF 100 AF 50 AF 100 AF 50 AF 100
Impact category
Climate Change -22% -19% -34% -30% -22% -19% -33% -28%
Ozone Depletion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Summer Smog -2% -2% -3% -3% -2% -2% -3% -3%
Particulate Matter -1% -1% -2% -2% -1% -1% -2% -2%
Acidification 0% 0% -1% -1% 0% 0% -1% -1%
Terrestrial -1% -1% -2% -2% -1% -1% -2% -2%

Eutrophication
Aquatic -21% -23% -31% -34% -20% -23% -30% -32%
Eutrophication
Abiotic Resource -29% -34% -41% -48% -29% -35% -40% -47%
Depletion
Non-renwable -24% -28% -35% -42% -24% -29% -34% -41%
Energy
Total Primary -15% -19% -24% -29% -15% -19% -23% -28%
Energy
In both scenarios, all the combismileSmall (ci17) SIGNATURE FB show lower net results than the
combismileSmall (ci17) standard TS in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’,
‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’ and in the inventory categories ‘Non-renewable Primary Energy’ and ‘Total
Primary Energy’.
The mass-balanced PE and PP in the sleeve and closure of the combismileSmall (ci17) SIGNATURE FB is the
only difference to the combismileSmall (ci17) standard TS, that leads to significantly lower net results in the
categories mentioned.
2.2 Europe combismile big (ci18) beverage cartons 200 – 350 mL
2.2.1 Scenario I (50% allocation): Numerical values and graphs
Figure 2-9: Indicator results for scenario l Europe, combismileBig (ci18) beverage cartons with allocation factor 50 %
(Part 1)
(Part 2)
(Part 3)
(Part 4)
Table 2-4: Category indicator results for scenario l Europe, combismileBig (ci18) beverage cartons with allocation factor 50 %: burdens, credits and net results per functional unit of
1000 L beverage
ci18 ci18 ci18 ci18 ci18 ci18

ci18 ci18 ci18 ci18
Scenario l Europe, standard RS SIGNATURE FB standard RS SIGNATURE FB standard RS SIGNATURE FB
standard RS SIGNATURE FB standard RS SIGNATURE FB
allocation factor 50 % cGoBig cGoBig cGoBig cGoBig cGoBig cGoBig
200 mL 200 mL 250 mL 250 mL
300 mL 300 mL 330 mL 330 mL 350 mL 350 mL
Burdens 175.43 167.93 153.41 146.75 162.48 151.06 155.42 144.78 146.42 136.16
Climate change CO2 (reg) 24.73 34.17 21.82 30.21 19.95 34.47 19.33 32.84 18.71 31.75
Credits -26.57 -26.57 -23.50 -23.50 -27.73 -27.73 -26.41 -26.41 -25.40 -25.40
CO2 uptake -65.75 -94.39 -58.10 -83.57 -53.06 -98.35 -51.39 -93.52 -49.84 -90.48
Net results (∑) 107.83 81.13 93.63 69.90 101.64 72.47 96.95 67.41 89.89 63.22
Burdens 0.47 0.46 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.38 0.37
Acidification
Credits -0.06 -0.06 -0.05 -0.05 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.05 -0.05
[g SO2-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 0.41 0.40 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.32
Summer smog Burdens 5.94 5.80 5.23 5.10 5.36 5.10 5.15 4.91 4.86 4.63
Credits -0.71 -0.71 -0.63 -0.63 -0.67 -0.67 -0.64 -0.64 -0.62 -0.62
[g O3-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 5.23 5.09 4.60 4.47 4.69 4.43 4.51 4.27 4.24 4.01
Burdens 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09
Ozone Depletion
Credits -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
Net results (∑) 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07
Terrestrial eutrophication Burdens 46.11 45.36 40.44 39.78 40.78 39.50 39.22 38.03 36.88 35.74
Credits -5.92 -5.92 -5.24 -5.24 -5.49 -5.49 -5.26 -5.26 -5.09 -5.09
[g PO4-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 40.19 39.44 35.20 34.54 35.30 34.02 33.96 32.77 31.79 30.65
Burdens 38.96 32.41 34.08 28.26 37.86 27.33 36.10 26.31 34.14 24.70
Credits -4.10 -4.10 -3.64 -3.64 -3.34 -3.34 -3.24 -3.24 -3.20 -3.20
[g PO4-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 34.86 28.31 30.44 24.61 34.52 23.99 32.87 23.08 30.94 21.51
Burdens 0.44 0.43 0.39 0.38 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.35
Particulate matter
Credits -0.06 -0.06 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05
Net results (∑) 0.38 0.38 0.34 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.30
Burdens 0.20 0.15 0.17 0.13 0.21 0.13 0.20 0.12 0.19 0.11
Credits -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03
[kg sb-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 0.17 0.11 0.15 0.10 0.18 0.10 0.17 0.09 0.16 0.09
Non-renewable primary Burdens 2.55 2.00 2.23 1.74 2.61 1.73 2.47 1.66 2.35 1.56
energy Credits -0.40 -0.40 -0.35 -0.35 -0.40 -0.40 -0.38 -0.38 -0.37 -0.37
[GJ] Net results (∑) 2.16 1.61 1.88 1.39 2.20 1.33 2.09 1.28 1.98 1.20
Burdens 4.22 3.68 3.71 3.23 4.01 3.16 3.83 3.03 3.66 2.89
Credits -0.70 -0.70 -0.62 -0.62 -0.65 -0.65 -0.63 -0.63 -0.61 -0.61
[GJ]
Net results (∑) 3.52 2.98 3.09 2.61 3.36 2.50 3.20 2.41 3.05 2.28
2.2.2 Scenario II (100% allocation): Numerical values and graphs
Figure 2-13: Indicator results for scenario l Europe, combismileBig (ci18) beverage cartons with allocation factor 100
% (Part 1)
% (Part 2)
% (Part 3)
% (Part 4)
Table 2-5: Category indicator results for scenario ll Europe, combismileBig (ci18) beverage cartons with allocation factor 50 %: burdens, credits and net results per functional unit
of 1000 L beverage

ci18 ci18 ci18 ci18
Scenario ll Europe, standard RS SIGNATURE FB standard RS SIGNATURE FB standard RS SIGNATURE FB
200 mL 200 mL 250 mL 250 mL
300 mL 300 mL 330 mL 330 mL 350 mL 350 mL
Burdens 204.85 187.91 179.28 164.23 193.66 167.65 185.01 160.80 174.68 151.31
Climate change CO2 (reg) 45.85 64.73 40.51 57.29 37.02 66.05 35.87 62.90 34.82 60.90
Credits -52.62 -52.62 -46.54 -46.54 -55.04 -55.04 -52.42 -52.42 -50.42 -50.42
CO2 uptake -65.75 -94.39 -58.10 -83.57 -53.06 -98.35 -51.39 -93.52 -49.84 -90.48
Net results (∑) 132.34 105.63 115.15 91.41 122.57 92.76 117.08 86.89 109.23 81.92
Burdens 0.49 0.48 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.39 0.39
Acidification
Credits -0.12 -0.12 -0.11 -0.11 -0.12 -0.12 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11
[g SO2-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 0.36 0.36 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.29 0.28
Summer smog Burdens 6.30 6.15 5.54 5.41 5.70 5.44 5.47 5.23 5.17 4.94
Credits -1.41 -1.41 -1.25 -1.25 -1.32 -1.32 -1.27 -1.27 -1.23 -1.23
[g O3-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 4.88 4.74 4.29 4.16 4.38 4.12 4.21 3.96 3.95 4.18
Burdens 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Ozone Depletion
Credits -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04
Net results (∑) 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Terrestrial eutrophication Burdens 48.95 48.20 42.93 42.27 43.55 42.26 41.86 40.66 39.40 38.25
Credits -11.73 -11.73 -10.38 -10.38 -10.88 -10.88 -10.44 -10.44 -10.10 -10.10
[g PO4-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 37.22 36.47 32.55 31.89 32.67 35.55 31.42 33.35 29.30 28.17
Burdens 39.80 33.25 34.83 29.01 38.59 28.07 36.81 27.02 34.84 25.40
Credits -8.19 -8.19 -7.28 -7.28 -6.69 -6.69 -6.47 -6.47 -6.39 -6.39
[g PO4-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 31.61 25.06 27.55 21.72 31.91 21.38 30.34 20.55 28.44 19.01
Burdens 0.46 0.46 0.41 0.40 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.37 0.36
Particulate matter
Credits -0.11 -0.11 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10
Net results (∑) 0.35 0.34 0.31 0.30 0.31 0.29 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.27
Burdens 0.20 0.15 0.18 0.13 0.21 0.13 0.20 0.12 0.19 0.12
Credits -0.06 -0.06 -0.05 -0.05 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06
[kg sb-equivalents]
Net results (∑) 0.14 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.15 0.07 0.14 0.06 0.13 0.06
Non-renewable primary Burdens 2.58 2.03 2.26 1.77 2.64 1.76 2.50 1.69 2.38 1.59
energy Credits -0.78 -0.78 -0.69 -0.69 -0.80 -0.80 -0.76 -0.79 -0.73 -0.73
[GJ] Net results (∑) 1.80 1.25 1.57 1.08 1.84 0.97 1.74 0.93 1.64 0.86
Burdens 4.25 3.71 3.74 3.26 4.04 3.19 3.86 3.07 3.69 2.92
Credits -1.39 -1.39 -1.23 -1.23 -1.30 -1.30 -1.24 -1.24 -1.21 -1.21
[GJ]
Net results (∑) 2.87 2.33 2.51 2.03 2.74 1.89 2.62 1.82 2.48 1.72
combismile big (ci18) beverage cartons in different volume segments. The percentage is based on the net
insignificant.
Table 2-6: Comparison of net results combismileBig (ci18) beverage cartons (Europe)
The net results of

combismileBig combismileBig combismileBig
combismileBig combismileBig
(ci18) SIGNATURE (ci18) SIGNATURE (ci18) SIGNATURE
(ci18) SIGNATURE (ci18) SIGNATURE
FB FB FB
FB FB
cGoBig cGoBig cGoBig
200 mL 250 mL
300 mL 330 mL 350 mL
combismileBig combismileBig combismileBig
combismileBig combismileBig
(ci18) standard RS (ci18) standard RS (ci18) standard RS
(ci18) standard RS (ci18) standard RS
200 mL 250 mL
300 mL 330 mL 350 mL
Impact category
Climate Change -25% -20% -25% -21% -29% -24% -30% -26% -30% -25%
Ozone Depletion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Summer Smog -3% -3% -3% -3% -6% -6% -5% -6% -5% 6%
Acidification -1% -1% -1% -1% -2% -3% -2% -3% -2% -3%
Terrestrial
-2% -2% -2% -2% -4% 9% -3% 6% -4% -4%
Eutrophication
Aquatic
-19% -21% -19% -21% -30% -33% -30% -32% -31% -33%
Eutrophication
Abiotic Resource
-32% -38% -32% -39% -47% -56% -46% -55% -47% -56%
Depletion
Non-renwable -26% -31% -26% -31% -40% -47% -39% -47% -40% -48%
Energy
Total Primary -15% -19% -15% -19% -25% -31% -25% -30% -30% -25%
Energy
In both scenarios, all the combismileBig (ci18) SIGNATURE FB show lower net results than the
combismileBig (ci18) standard RS in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’,
Primary Energy’.
The mass-balanced PE and PP in the sleeve and closure of the combismileBig (ci18) SIGNATURE FB is the
only difference to the combismileBig (ci18) standard RS, that leads to significantly lower net results in the
categories mentioned.
Conclusions
 In both scenarios, all the combismileSmall (ci17) SIGNATURE FB show lower net results than the
combismileSmall (ci17) standard TS in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’,
Primary Energy’.
 In both scenarios, all the combismileBig (ci18) SIGNATURE FB show lower net results than the
combismileBig (ci18) standard RS in the impact categories ‘Climate Change’, ‘Aquatic Eutrophication’,
Primary Energy’.
Recommendations
 Since the environmental result of the combismileSmall (ci17) and combismileBig (ci18) beverage carton
formats are significantly influenced by the production of its main components, the sleeve and closure,
measures to ensure the same functionality by the use of less material are recommended.
 It is shown in this study that the closures play a crucial role in the life cycle of the combismileSmall (ci17)
and combismileBig (ci18) beverage carton formats. To improve the overall environmental performance,
it is recommended to assess the possibilities of using smaller and lighter closures for all beverage carton
formats containing closures.
 By comparing the combiGo big (cGo big) standard closure results of the examined beverage cartons with
the SIGNATURE closure formats, it can be concluded, that the substitution of fossil polymers by mass-
balanced polymers based on tall oil leads to lower net results in ‘Climate Change’. The implementation
of polymers based on tall oil via a mass-balance approach is therefore recommended.
dedicated to direct thermal use. The utilization and demand of mass-balanced polymers by SIG
References
ifeu  Appendix 2b: Analysis of combismileBig SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER on the Dutch market 1
Appendix 2b: Analysis of combismileBig

SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER on the Dutch market
CB-100734

1 Introduction
the European market. In this appendix 2b, combismileBig (ci18) carton formats on the Dutch market are
assessed. The beverage cartons examined are listed in Table 1-1. The comparisons of the beverage cartons
are structured according to the same scheme as in the main report.
- combismileBig (ci18)
- standard RS (robust structure, structure with aluminium foil barrier)
- cGoBig (combiGoBig, closure)
- SIGNATURE PACK FB (full barrier, containing aluminium)
Table 1-1: List of beverage cartons examined for the Dutch market
combismileBig (ci18) beverage cartons and closure

ci18 standard RS 200 mL
ci18 SIGNATURE FB 200 mL
ci18 standard RS 250 mL
ci18 SIGNATURE FB 250 mL
This appendix 2b focusses only on one environmental impact category, ‘Climate Change’. Impacts on
‘Climate Change’ depend strongly on local settings like end-of-life processes or the local electricity mix. For
other environmental impact categories, please refer to the results regarding the European market that are
presented in the appendix 2a of the main report.
The following parameters correspond to the parameters of the main report on the European market:
- Functional unit
- System boundaries
- Data gathering and data quality

- Methodological aspects (mass-balanced renewable material approach, allocation, biogenic carbon)
- Manufacture of raw materials
- Process data for converting and filling
- Electricity mix for converting processes
Adjusted parameters for the geographic scope of the extension are:
- Distribution
- End-of-life
- Electricity mix for filling processes, recycling processes and credits
- Electrical and thermal efficiencies of the municipal waste incineration
- Landfill gas recovery rates
2 Adjusted parameters
2.1 Distribution
Table 2-1 shows the applied distribution distances in this extension. The distribution distances for the Dutch
market from filling to POS were provided by SIG Combibloc.
Table 2-1: Distribution distances in Netherlands for the examined packaging systems
Distribution distance
Distribution Step 1 Distribution step 2
Filler  Distribution centre Distribution centre POS  distribution

distribution centre  filler  POS centre
Market
(delivery) (return trip) (delivery) (return trip)
Netherlands 200 km 60 km 30 km 30 km
2.2 End-of-life
To model the end-of-life of the examined beverage cartons one needs to know their fate after their use by
the consumers. It is aimed to apply the recycling rate and disposal split for the beverage cartons of the
Dutch market. These data has been collected from different waste management reports and statistics. For
beverage cartons specific recycling rates are publicly available for the market examined.
The applied recycling rate and the disposal split for Netherlands are listed in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2: End-of-life split of beverage cartons examined
Netherlands Source
Recycling rate
Beverage
confidential (EXTR:ACT 2020)
cartons
Disposal split
Landfill 3.3%
(Eurostat 2021) municipal waste statistic, data for 2019
Incineration 96.7%
2.3 Electricity mix

Modelling of electricity generation is particularly relevant for the production of base materials as well as
for filling processes, recycling processes and credits. Electric power supply is modelled using country specific
grid electricity mixes, since the environmental burdens of power production varies strongly depending on
the electricity generation technology. A more detailed description is given in section 3.9.2 of the main
report.
The emission factor (Climate Change) for Netherlands is 510 g/kWh for the electricity mix used (reference
year 2018) (Fehrenbach et al. 2016; IEA 2018), while the average EU electricity mix is 416 g/kWh. This means
that the Dutch electricity mix is responsible for around 18% higher greenhouse gas emissions than the
European one.
2.4 Municipal waste incineration

The electrical and thermal efficiencies of the municipal solid waste incineration plants (MSWI) are shown
in table Table 2-3.
Table 2-3: Electrical and thermal efficiencies of the incineration plants for Netherlands
Electrical
Geographic Scope Thermal efficiency Reference period Source
efficiency
Netherlands 16.0% 8.0% 2010 (CEWEP 2012)
The efficiencies are used as parameters for the incineration model, which assumes a technical standard
(especially regarding flue gas cleaning) that complies with the requirements given by the EU incineration
directive (EU 2018). It is assumed that the electric energy generated in MSWI plants substitutes market
specific grid electricity. Furthermore, it is assumed that the thermal energy recovered in MSWI plants is
used as process heat.
3.1 Netherlands combismileBig (ci18) beverage cartons 200-

350 mL
Figure 3-1: Climate Change results of scenario l Netherlands, combismileBig (ci18) beverage cartons with allocation
factor 50%
Table 3-1: Climate Change results of scenario l Netherlands, combismileBig (ci18) beverage cartons with allocation
factor 50%: burdens, credits and net results per functional unit of 1000 L beverage
ci18 ci18 ci18 ci18

Scenario l Netherlands,
allocation factor 50 %
200 mL 200 mL 250 mL 250 mL
Burdens 155.66 143.80 135.80 125.25
Climate change CO2 (reg) 32.07 45.87 28.33 40.61
Credits -28.80 -28.80 -25.56 -25.56
[kg CO2-equivalents]
CO2 uptake -65.75 -94.39 -58.10 -83.57
Net results (∑) 93.18 66.48 80.46 56.73
Scenario l Netherlands, standard RS SIGNATURE FB standard RS SIGNATURE FB standard RS SIGNATURE FB
300 mL 300 mL 330 mL 330 mL 350 mL 350 mL
Burdens 149.95 131.50 142.87 125.70 134.49 117.92
Credits -32.37 -32.37 -30.76 -30.76 -29.71 -29.71
CO2 uptake -53.06 -98.35 -51.39 -93.52 -49.84 -90.48
Net results (∑) 90.38 48.15 85.77 46.49 79.23 41.33
3.1.2 Scenario II (100% allocation): numerical values and graphs
Figure 3-2: Climate Change results of scenario ll Netherlands, combismileBig (ci18) beverage cartons with allocation
factor 100%
Table 3-2: Climate Change results of scenario ll Netherlands, combismileBig (ci18) beverage cartons with allocation
factor 100%: burdens, credits and net results per functional unit of 1000 L beverage
ci18 ci18 ci18 ci18

Scenario ll Netherlands,
allocation factor 100 %
200 mL 200 mL 250 mL 250 mL
Burdens 178.26 152.58 155.55 132.73
Climate change CO2 (reg) 63.85 91.47 56.42 80.97
Credits -57.56 -57.56 -51.10 -51.10
CO2 uptake -65.75 -94.39 -58.10 -83.57
Net results (∑) 118.80 92.09 102.78 79.04
Scenario ll Netherlands, standard RS SIGNATURE FB standard RS SIGNATURE FB standard RS SIGNATURE FB
300 mL 300 mL 330 mL 330 mL 350 mL 350 mL
Burdens 179.52 139.44 170.64 133.35 160.81 124.83
Credits -64.71 -64.71 -61.49 -61.49 -59.40 -59.40
CO2 uptake -53.06 -98.35 -51.39 -93.52 -49.84 -90.48
Net results (∑) 113.26 70.92 107.66 68.27 99.96 61.97
The percentages in Table 3-3 show the difference of net results between all considered formats of cb8
beverage cartons in the same volume segment. The percentage is based on the net results of each
compared packaging system. Both scenarios, scenario I (AF 50) and scenario II (AF 100), are equally used
for the comparison between the systems. Differences of 10% or less are considered to be insignificant.
Table 3-3: Comparison of Climate Change net results of combismileBig (ci18) beverage cartons (Netherlands)
The net results of

ci18 SIGNATURE ci18 SIGNATURE ci18 SIGNATURE
ci18 SIGNATURE ci18 SIGNATURE
FB FB FB
FB FB
200 mL 250 mL
300 mL 330 mL 350 mL
ci18 standard RS ci18 standard RS ci18 standard RS
ci18 standard RS ci18 standard RS
200 mL 250 mL
300 mL 330 mL 350 mL
Impact category
Climate Change -29% -22% -29% -23% -47% -37% -46% -37% -48% -38%
All the combismileBig (ci18) SIGNATURE FB beverage cartons show lower net results in the ‘Climate Change’
category than the compared combismileBig (ci18) standard RS cartons in both scenario variants (AF 50, AF
100).
For this category and the comparison of combismileBig (ci18) packaging systems, the results for
Netherlands (appendix 2b) show a similar picture as those of the European market (appendix 2a).
ifeu  Appendix 2b: Analysis of combismileBig SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER on the Dutch market  10
Conclusions
 All the combismileBig (ci18) SIGNATURE FB beverage cartons show lower net results in the ‘Climate
Change’ category than the compared combismileBig (ci18) standard RS cartons in both scenario variants
(AF 50, AF 100).
 The net results in ‘Climate Change’ for Netherlands differ significantly from the results of the appendix
2a (Europe). They are lower for all beverage cartons examined mainly because of the lower landfill rate
in Netherlands, which leads to lower emissions of methane.
 To get an indication of how the packaging systems examined in this extension study perform in other
environmental impact categories like ‘Ozone Depletion’, ‘Summer Smog’, ‘Particulate Matter’, ‘Acidifi-
cation’, ‘Terrestrial- and Aquatic Eutrophication’, ‘Abiotic Resource Depletion’, ‘Non-renewable Primary
Energy’ and ‘Total Primary Energy’, one can also refer to the appendix 2a in the main report regarding
the European market. However, some background parameters are different due to the different
geographical scopes. For this reason, the results of the European scope can only serve as an indication
of the full set of environmental impact categories.
Recommendations
 Since the environmental result of the combismileBig (ci18) beverage carton format is significantly
influenced by the production of its main components, the sleeve and closure, measures to ensure the
same functionality by the use of less material are recommended.
 It is shown in this appendix that the closures play a crucial role in the life cycle of the combismileBig (ci18)
beverage carton formats. To improve the overall environmental performance, it is recommended to
assess the possibilities of using smaller and lighter closures for all combismileBig (ci18) beverage carton
formats containing a closure.
 The SIGNATURE PACK FB beverage cartons show the lowest environmental impacts in ‘Climate Change’.
Therefore, from an environmental viewpoint it is recommended to prefer the SIGNATURE PACK FB over
the other beverage carton formats examined in this appendix on the Dutch market.
 By comparing the combiGoBig (cGoBig) standard closure results of the examined beverage cartons with
the SIGNATURE closure formats, it can be concluded, that the substitution of fossil polymers by mass-
balanced polymers based on tall oil leads to lower net results in ‘Climate Change’. The implementation
of polymers based on tall oil via a mass-balance approach is therefore recommended.
References
Fehrenbach, H.; Lauwigi, C.; Liebich, A.; Ludmann, S. (2016): Documentation for the UMBERTO based ifeu
electricity model. ifeu gGmbH, Heidelberg. S. 31.
IEA (2018): Data overview. In: IEA. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics. (31.03.2022).
Appendix A: Renewable polymers sustaina-

bility statement
Appendix B: Critical review statement

Critical Review Statement
according to ISO 14040 and 14044 of the Study
“SIGNATURE portfolio: Analysis of combibloc ECOPLUS & SIGNATURE 100

and SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER for combiblocSlim-line and combiblocMidi
on the European market: Comparative life cycle assessment of beverage
cartons containing polymers based on the mass-balanced renewable material
approach.”
LCA study conducted by: ifeu Heidelberg gGmbh

(the “Practitioner”)
for: SIG Combibloc,

(the “Commissioner”)
Critical review statement prepared by:
Dr. Florian Antony

Bahnhofstr. 3
79199 Kirchzarten
Germany
June 2022
SIG Combibloc LCA – CR
Table of Contents
1. Procedural Aspects of the Critical Review 4
2. General Comments 5
3. Statements by the reviewer as required by ISO 14044 6

3.1. Consistency of the methods with ISO 14040 and 14044 6
3.2. Scientific and technical validity of the methods used 6
3.3. Appropriateness of data in relation to the goal of the study 8
3.4. Assessment of interpretation referring to limitations and goal of the study
9
3.5. Transparency and consistency of the study report 9
4. Conclusion 9
5. References 10
6. Reviewer’s signature 11
Critical Review by Florian Antony page 3 of 11

1. Procedural Aspects of the Critical Review

This Critical Review was commissioned by SIG Combibloc in March 2022. The LCA study was con-
ducted by the practitioner ifeu Heidelberg gGmbH. The reviewer received the first Draft Report of
the study on 8th March 2022.
In the course of the review process, the reviewer sent a list of general and detailed comments to
both the practitioner and the commissioner. This was followed by the respective Review Meetings
(initial Online Meeting held on 10th March 2022 and the detailed review meeting with the discussion
of comments held on 24th March 2022. During the conference calls, the comments were discussed
in detail with the commissioner and the practitioner.
The reviewer received the Final Report on 23rd May 2022. The statements and comments below are
based on this version.
The study “SIGNATURE portfolio: Analysis of combibloc ECOPLUS & SIGNATURE 100 and SIG-
NATURE FULL BARRIER for combiblocSlim-line and combiblocMidi on the European market: Com-
parative life cycle assessment of beverage cartons containing polymers based on the mass-bal-
anced renewable material approach.” aims to examine the environmental performance of different
beverage cartons on the European market (EU27+3) in 2021 with additional extensions on other
beverage carton formats and – via country specific extensions – selected national markets, by using
LCA.
The study aims to follow the requirements as set out in the ISO 14040 and 14040 standards. Fur-
thermore, the study includes comparative assertions of bio-based (mass balance principle) and fos-
sil-based feedstock alternatives for specific SIG Combibloc products. Formally, this critical review is
a review by an independent external reviewer according to ISO 14040 section 7.3.2 [1] and ISO
14044 section 4.2.3.7 and 6.2 [2]. Since in the present LCA study only products of SIG Combibloc
are compared, this type of review is an admissible option.
The reviewer is independent from the commissioner and practitioner of the study and declares no
commercial interest in the topic or any consequences of the study, beyond those related to the critical
review process. The reviewer had to be aware of issues relevant to other interested parties, as it
was outside the scope of the present project to invite governmental or non-governmental organiza-
tions or other interested parties, e.g. competitors, business partners or consumers and the general
public.
The reviewer would like to highlight the open and constructive working atmosphere throughout the
review process. Upon request, all necessary data were presented to the reviewer and all issues
raised by the reviewer were discussed openly. The comments of the reviewer have been addressed
by the practitioner and the commissioner adequately in the final report. In cases where different
viewpoints (e.g. with regard to modelling assumptions and choices) remained between the commis-
sioner and the reviewer, this is stated in section 3 of this Critical Review Statement.
Disclaimer: The present CR statement is delivered to SIG Combibloc. The reviewer cannot be held
responsible for the subsequent use of this statement, or the results in the report subjected to the
review, by a third party. The conclusions of the reviewer refer strictly to the full report (including the
extensions) from the study “SIGNATURE portfolio: Analysis of combibloc ECOPLUS & SIGNATURE
100 and SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER for combiblocSlim-line and combiblocMidi on the European
market: Comparative life cycle assessment of beverage cartons containing polymers based on the
mass-balanced renewable material approach” received 23rd May 2022, and no other report, extract
thereof or subsequent publication. The reviewer’s conclusions were based on the information the

reviewer received and correspond to the state-of-the-art of critical reviews. The conclusions ex-
pressed by the reviewer are specific to the context and content of the present study and shall not be
generalized beyond that.
2. General Comments
The reviewed LCA study investigates the life cycle environmental performance of different types and
formats of beverage cartons, reflecting the situation given on the European market in 2021. The
comparison includes beverage cartons containing polymers based on the so-called “mass-balanced
renewable material approach”. The study assesses the beverage cartons combiblocSlimline (cb3)
SIGNATURE PACK 100 and combiblocSlimline (cb3) SIGNATURE PACK FB as well as
combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE PACK 100 and combiblocMidi (cb8) SIGNATURE PACK FB which
contain polymers that originate from renewable European wood sources via a mass balance ap-
proach. These replace conventional fossil-based polymers, which usually are contained in most
aseptic beverage cartons.
The scope of the study is from cradle-to-grave (excluding the use phase) of the finished SIG
Combibloc products. In the goal definition, the intended application is clearly described and thus
provides an unambiguous reference framework for the interpretation:
• “To provide knowledge about the environmental strengths and weaknesses of the combiblocSlim-
line (cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8) beverage cartons in the sizes 1000 mL and 500 mL for the
packaging at European market conditions and”;
• “To examine two different combibloc SIGNATURE PACK cartons per format (combiblocSlimline
(cb3) and combiblocMidi (cb8))”;
• “To compare their environmental impact results with those of the respective standard RS variants)
and in case of the SIGNATURE PACK 100 also with the respective EcoPlus carton”
• It is stated explicitly that “the results of this study shall be used for internal and external communi-
cation”.
In order to avoid potential misinterpretation, the reviewer emphasizes particularly that the results of
the study refer exclusively to the investigated product systems and should not be used in any other
contexts or for example, in cross-comparison with other beverage packaging systems.
For the purpose of this LCA study, the socalled “mass-balanced renewable material approach” is
applied to specific SIG Combibloc products produced from tall oil, a product produced from Black
Liquor Soap (BLS) which itself is a by-product of the paper production processes. According to the
authors “the application of the mass balance approach in the production of polymers is an important
driver to enable increasing substitution of fossil resources with biogenic resources in the production
of polymers.”
The compared beverage carton product systems have been selected as they represent typical and
relevant packaging alternatives on the European market. The selection for the comparison follows
the systematic behind earlier, also externally reviewed LCA studies on beverage cartons compiled
by the practitioner and published by the commissioner on the commissioner’s website. The LCA
study at hand supplements these LCAs with new packaging systems that have been developed in
the meantime. The selection of product systems under investigation is considered plausible. Also,
the technical specifications of individual sub-processes within the system boundary of the study,
including those sourced from commercial background LCI databases are clearly defined.

The results of the study are intended “to be used by the commissioner (SIG Combibloc). Further
they shall serve for information purposes of SIG Combibloc’s customers, e.g. fillers and retail cus-
tomers. It should be noted that the subsequent conclusions by the reviewer only cover the specific
products considered in the LCA report and should therefore not be generalized further.
3. Statements by the reviewer as required by ISO 14044

According to ISO 14044, section 6.1 "The critical review process shall ensure that:
• the methods used to carry out the LCA are consistent with this International Standard,
• the methods used to carry out the LCA are scientifically and technically valid,
• the data used are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the goal of the study,
• the interpretations reflect the limitations identified and the goal of the study and
• the study report is transparent and consistent."
These items are discussed in sections 3.1 to 3.5 according to the reviewer’s best judgement and
considering the ISO standards 14040 and 14044.
3.1. Consistency of the methods with ISO 14040 and 14044

The study under review has been performed according to the general structure of LCA required in
ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. The structure of the report reflects the general structure of LCA (Goal &
Scope definition – Life cycle inventory analysis (LCI) – Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and
Interpretation). Conclusions, limitations and recommendations are clearly presented.
The definitions of functional unit and the system boundary are appropriate and discussed according
to the goal of the study. The inventory analysis is consistent with the ISO standards 14040 and
14044. The choice of impact categories and characterization models is justified and meaningful. For
specific environmental aspects not considered in the study, see the discussion in the following sec-
tion (3.2.)
The “mass-balanced renewable material approach” serves to support assertions about the biogenic
origin of feedstock attributed to specific product(s), produced within complex chemical processes
from a mix of fossil- and bio-based feedstocks and alongside a variety of other co-products. These
assertions are supported by the fact that a physical linkage (as tangible and uninterrupted mass and
energy flows) exists between the input of (bio-based) feedstock and the final output. The study builds
up an appropriate model that describes the key elements of physical product systems according to
ISO 14040:2021. The study conforms with the ISO 14040 definition of a life cycle as “consecutive
and interlinked stages of a product system, from raw material acquisition or generation from natural
resources to final disposal”.
3.2. Scientific and technical validity of the methods used

The methods used in the study are appropriate. Some specific aspects performed in the study are
highlighted below.
Basically, the review refers to the report and the information contained therein. A detailed analysis
of the LCA model was not the subject of the critical review. As part of the review, the reviewer was
introduced to the datasets used for relevant processes (e.g., from ifeu’s own, not publicly available
database). The reviewer was shown and explained selected aspects of the LCI modelling by the
practitioner in the course of the two review meetings and was therefore able to check that the raw

materials, product manufacturing steps, transport steps and EoL-treatment steps were logically con-
nected and appropriately described in the report. Following the review meeting, the LCIA results for
key process modules were provided to the reviewer by the practitioner and LCIA results were spot-
checked. No material inconsistencies were identified during the review.
In ISO 14040/14044, the choice of impact categories must be substantiated, meaningful and support
the goal and scope of the study. These have been selected appropriately in the study and the impact
categories and the characterization models chosen are state of the art. However, the selection of
LCIA categories did not take into account aspects of the use of water resources and land use related
aspects. In general this would make sense in light of the use of bio-based feedstock in product
systems and the comparison with fossil feedstock. The reviewer's recommendation to include at
least land use-related aspects in the comparison was discussed with the practitioner and the com-
missioner. However, from the author’s point of view and with regard to considerable uncertainties
and, in some cases, the lack of data, it was decided not to include a corresponding LCIA indicator.
Resulting limitations of the study with respect to the exclusion of impacts (e.g., water use, land use
related aspects) are discussed in the interpretation phase.
• “It should be noted that the use of different impact assessment methods could lead to other results
concerning the environmental ranking of packaging systems. The results are valid only for the
specific characterisation model used for the step from inventory data to impact assessment”; and
• “The results are valid only for the environmental impact categories, which were examined.”
It is important to highlight, that no conclusions can be drawn from this study regarding aspects of the
use of water resources and land use-related environmental aspects.
The results of the Life Cycle Impact Assessment are clearly presented in tables and figures and are
meaningfully discussed. In the country-specific appendices/extensions to the main report, no com-
plete life cycle assessment was carried out, but only the potential Climate Change impacts of the
beverage cartons systems were considered. From the reviewer's point of view, it is unfortunate that
the corresponding extensions are each referred to as “LCA” in the respective Appendix titles, alt-
hough only climate-relevant aspects are considered. However, a corresponding remark, drawing
attention to the resulting limitation, is included in the interpretation of each appendix.
Likewise, it is important to emphasize that this study has considered sequestration of biogenic car-
bon by the raw materials for the bio-based feedstocks, crediting the system for the uptake of CO2
from the atmosphere during plant growth. This requires to account for the release of the biogenic
carbon as a climate change burden at the end of the product’s life cycle. Given that the system
boundary in the study is from cradle to grave and given the fact that the release of the biogenic
carbon at the end of the product’s life cycle is included, this requirement is kept by the study. As part
of the revision of the study it was decided to also report "from cradle to gate" results in the respective
results tables. Here, correctly, the uptake of biogenic carbon was not included. In order to avoid
potential misinterpretations, it should be noted that it is of importance for future applications of the
study results to clearly and unambiguously describe how biogenic carbon was handled. This applies
in particular when reporting “to gate”-results.
In the present study, the modelling of biogenic carbon is of crucial importance. Especially with regard
to the results for Climate Change, the consideration of the uptake of biogenic carbon is a key driver
for the results and a major reason for the identified environmental benefit of SIGNATURE products
compared to SIG’s standard beverage cartons. The procedure the authors followed in the present
study is to be seen as common practice in LCA and corresponds to the current state of method
development. At the same time, there are demands from science that it should be taken into account
as well that the use of wood from managed forests negatively affects the forests function as carbon

sink [3]. The discussion on additionally including this aspect in greenhouse gas balances of products
has just started - in fact, the corresponding proposal hadn’t even been published at the time of the
required determination. Even though this aspect could not be taken into account in the present study,
from the reviewer’s point of view it should be kept in mind for future LCAs on wood-based products.
Overall, the results are discussed considering data and model limitations, completeness and con-
sistency. The conclusions take these limitations into account. The results are carefully analyzed and
the reasons and relevance of results are evaluated in a critical discussion. In the course of the inter-
pretation of the study results the authors identified significant differences between the compared
beverage cartons based on a heuristic approach of defining results as significantly different from
each other, when the difference is larger than 10% in total.
“…, to address potential uncertainties between the compared product systems, an estimated signif-
icance threshold of 10% is chosen as pragmatic approach. This means that differences in the re-
sults of the impact category indicators between the comparative systems of ≤ 10% are considered
insignificant. Based on the data used for the impact categories considered in this study, the authors’
point of view is that the significance threshold of 10% is an appropriate size and guarantees con-
sistency for all impact categories examined”
The reviewer pointed out that this significance criterion might be seen as rather optimistic at least for
some of the selected impact categories and that the criterion for significant differences should be set
higher, if necessary. The authors, on the other hand, argued that special emphasis has been put on
selecting only highly robust LCIA-Methods and data of high quality and decided to stay with the
original approach. The authors included a corresponding justification in the study report.
Even if significant processes and parameters were not explicitly identified as a stand-alone section
in the interpretation, the presentation of the results (especially the results of the contribution analysis)
allows to identify the main and most important influencing factors and drivers of the results.
Overall, the reviewer concludes that the methods used in the study are sufficiently scientifically and
technically valid.
3.3. Appropriateness of data in relation to the goal of the study

Following the usual practice in critical reviews, the correctness of all primary and other data could
not be checked but the type and sources of data used in the study were reviewed for appropriateness
and plausibility.
The foreground data used are documented and presented in the report (to the extent allowed due to
confidentially) and are deemed plausible and adequate for the purpose of the study. The production
processes for the product systems investigated were based on primary production data provided by
the study commissioner and these data are hence considered reliable.
The background data, especially those for the different feedstocks, are based on data from industry
(e.g. Plastics Europe), the ifeu own database (based on statistics and data from various European
recycling, incineration and landfill models) and supplemented from relevant literature (e.g. Cashman
et al [4]). Limitations, such as the modest reliability and the considerable uncertainty of the secondary
data used for the tall oil supply, are acknowledged in the data-quality assessment. Nonetheless, the
results of the present study are dependent of the approach chosen to model the production of tall
oil. The corresponding production steps are not the sphere of influence of the commissioner and no
primary data could be collected from tall oil producers. For the modeling of the necessary process
steps, the work of Cashman et al [4] was used. As a result of the discussion during the review

meeting, the authors decided to integrate the corresponding Input-Output tables into the report. From
the reviewer's point of view, this contributes to a higher transparency of the modelling. The chosen
modelling approach seems plausible, even if there are some inconsistencies with regard to missing
by-products in the original Input-Output tables of Cashman et al [4]. For the purpose of the study and
with regard to the goal and scope the chosen approach can be considered suitable. Should better
or more transparent data be available in the future, the reviewer suggests to consider updating the
present modelling, especially with regard to build up a fully transparent biogenic carbon balance (C-
balance) alongside all relevant production steps – from the forest to the final beverage carton prod-
ucts.
As mentioned above, the critical review process did not include a complete review of every single
item of data and each calculation step in the study, as this was not possible because of the amount
of data to be considered. Therefore, it was important to examine the data horizontally (general plau-
sibility, plausibility of the relevance of certain impacts to the results) as well as vertically (detailed
checks of parts of the calculation model – see section 3.2). The handling of data demonstrates suf-
ficient robustness of the calculated data. The data and calculation methods were judged to be ap-
propriate for the goal of the study. All data were available to the reviewer on request.
The reviewer concludes that the data used is appropriate and reasonable in relation to the goal of
the study. However, there is room for improvement in terms of the modelling of the C-Balance along-
side the production of tall oil-based feedstocks.
3.4. Assessment of interpretation referring to limitations and goal of the study

The interpretation is based on data analysis, discussion of underlying assumptions and limitations,
data quality assessment and the assessment of two scenarios considering different allocation meth-
ods on system level, regarding handling of burdens and benefits (50/50 vs. 100/0). The discussion
of the findings is transparent and congruent with the goal, the results and the limitations of the study.
The conclusions reflect the identified limitations and the recommendations are based on the inter-
pretation of the results.
3.5. Transparency and consistency of the study report

The final report is clearly structured and follows the specifications and the general structure of ISO
14040 and 14044.
The quite large number of analyzed beverage carton product systems, especially with regard to the
raw-material supply chains of bio-based feedstocks for SIGNATURE products, are rather complex
and at least partially confidential data had to be used. Nonetheless, the practitioner succeeded in
structuring the study as transparently as possible. Minor inconsistencies in the draft report have been
have been fixed by the practitioner. In the final report no inconsistencies could be identified.
The reviewer concludes that the report is transparent and consistent.
4. Conclusion
The reviewer concludes that the final study report contains no direct contradictions with the require-
ments as set out by the ISO standards and the study can be considered ISO 14040/44 compliant.

Nonetheless, there are some key choices and LCI modelling aspects that could affect the results,
interpretation and conclusions substantially. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that the corre-
sponding assumptions and their influence on the results and conclusions are described and com-
municated transparently, whenever the study, or parts thereof, are disclosed to any stakeholders to
avoid misinterpretation of the study. This includes:
• the decision not to consider water and land use relevant aspects in the present study;
• the fact that for the country-specific extensions only Climat Change Impacts have been consid-
ered; and
• the inclusion and approach to assessing biogenic carbon uptake in biobased feedstock supply.
With the condition that the commissioner of the study ensures that this is the case, the reviewer
considers that the study has been conducted according to and in compliance with the ISO standards
14040 and 14044.
5. References
[1] DIN EN ISO 14040:2021: Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework
[2] DIN EN ISO 14044:2021: Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines
[3] Fehrenbach, H.; Bischoff, M.; Böttcher, H.; Reise, J.; Hennenberg K. (2022): The missing limb: Including impacts of
biomass extraction on forest carbon stocks in greenhouse gas balances of wood use. Forests 2022, 13(3),
365; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13030365
[4] Cashman, S. A.; Moran, K. M.; Gaglione, A. G. (2016): Greenhouse Gas and Energy Life Cycle Assessment of Pine
Chemicals Derived from Crude Tall Oil and Their Substitutes: LCA of Crude Tall Oil-derived Chemicals and Their
Substitutes. In: Journal of Industrial Ecology. Vol. 20, No.5, S. 1108–2230 1121.

6. Reviewer’s signature
_______________________
Dr. Florian Antony Kirchzarten, den 27.06.2022

生物碳计算

Uploaded by

生物碳计算

Uploaded by

ifeu  Analysis of combibloc ECOPLUS & SIGNATURE 100 and SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER for combiblocSlimline and 1

combiblocMidi on the European market

commissioned by SIG Combibloc

Heidelberg, May 2022

Heidelberg, May 2022

1 Goal and Scope 8

2 Packaging systems and scenarios 37

3 Life Cycle Inventory 49

3.1.3 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 51

4 Results and discussion 62

5 Data quality evaluation and limitations 109

5.1 Data quality evaluation 109

6 Conclusions and Recommendations 112

Appendix 1: Analysis of combiblocMidi SIGNATURE FULL BARRIER 9µ on the European

Appendix A: Renewable polymers sustainability statement 124

Appendix B: Critical review statement 125

ACE Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment

BLS Black Liquor Soap

CML Centrum voor Milieukunde (Center of Environmental Science), Leiden University,

COD Chemical Oxygen Demand

EAA European Aluminium Association

EU27+2 European Union + Switzerland and Norway

EU27+3 European Union + Switzerland, Norway and UK

FEFCO Fédération Européenne des Fabricants de Carton Ondulé (Brussels)

GWP Global Warming Potential

HBEFA Handbook emission factors for road transport

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISO International Organization for Standardization

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

LCI Life Cycle Inventory

LDPE Low density polyethylene

LPB Liquid packaging board

MSWI Municipal solid waste incineration

NMVOC Non-methane volatile organic compounds

NOX Nitrogen oxides

PET Polyethylene terephthalate

PM 2.5 Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 µm or smaller

rPET recycled PET

UBA Umweltbundesamt (German Federal Environmental Agency)

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

1 Goal and Scope

1.1 Background and Objectives

Furthermore, in two separate extensions

1.2 Organisation of the study

The members of the project panel are:

 Udo Felten (SIG Combibloc)

 Frank Wellenreuther (ifeu)

 Samuel Mahami (ifeu)

 Saskia Grünwasser (ifeu)

 Sophia Fehrenbach (ifeu)

1.3 Use of the study, target audience and critical review

1.4 Functional unit

(cb3)/combiblocMidi (cb8) standard RS cartons and combiblocSlimline (cb3)/combiblocMidi (cb8)

1.5 System boundaries

In general, the study covers the following steps:

 Transports of packaging material from producers to fillers

 Filling processes, which are fully assigned to the packaging system.

Not included are:

1.6 Data gathering and data quality

Representativeness is addressed by looking at three indicators: temporal, geographical, and technolog-

representative. “A more important reflection of correlation would be the technological correlation”.

Precision and uncertainty

Modelling and calculation of inventories

1.7 Methodological aspects

Both approaches are further explained in the subsequent sections.

System allocation approaches used in this study

Figure 1-3: Scenario I: Principles of 50% allocation (schematic flow chart)2

Scenario I: allocation with the 50% method (Figure 1-3)

2 shaded boxes are avoided processes

Scenario II: Allocation with the 100% method (Figure 1-4)

3 shaded boxes are avoided processes

General notes regarding Figure 1-2 to Figure 1-4

 To show which processes are allocated:

- Primary material production

Application of allocation rules

- from LPB (carton-based primary packaging): 0.9