Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules 1 (PEFCRs) 2 3 Packed water 4 5 6 7 Draft version for submission to the final public consultation 8 July 28 th , 2016. 9 10 11 Prepared by the Technical Secretariat: 12 The European Federation of Bottled Waters (EFBW), The European Container Glass 13 Federation (FEVE), PETCORE Europe, Union Européenne des Transporteurs Routiers 14 (UETR), Danone Waters, Ferrarelle, Nestlé Waters, San Benedetto, Spadel 15 and Quantis. 16 17
Transcript
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules 1
(PEFCRs) 2
3
Packed water 4
5
6
7
Draft version for submission to the final public consultation 8
July 28th, 2016. 9
10
11
Prepared by the Technical Secretariat: 12
The European Federation of Bottled Waters (EFBW), The European Container Glass 13
Federation (FEVE), PETCORE Europe, Union Européenne des Transporteurs Routiers 14
(UETR), Danone Waters, Ferrarelle, Nestlé Waters, San Benedetto, Spadel 15
and Quantis. 16
17
2
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs): Packed water
Contracting organisation
The European Federation of Bottled Waters (EFBW)
Liability Statement
Information contained in this report has been compiled from and/or computed from sources believed to be credible. Application of the data is strictly at the discretion and the responsibility of the reader. Quantis is not liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of the information in this document.
Quantis Project team
Simone Pedrazzini, Project Manager and Product Environmental Footprint/Organisation Environmental Footprint (PEF/OEF) scientific support (simone.pedrazzini@quantis-‐intl.com), main contact Violaine Magaud, Life Cycle Analyst (violaine.magaud@quantis-‐intl.com) Carole Dubois, Business Leader Single Market for Green Products (SMGP) (carole.dubois@quantis-‐intl.com) Sebastien Humbert, Life Cycle Assessment Expert, Quality Control (sebastien.humbert@quantis-‐intl.com)
Client/Partner Contacts
EFBW: Patricia Fosselard FEVE: Fabrice Rivet PETCORE Europe: Patrick Peuch; the representative in the Technical Secretariat is Casper Van Den Hungen (Plastic Recyclers Europe), and Antonio Furfari his deputy UETR: Lode Verkinderen Danone Waters: Philippe Diercxsens Ferrarelle: Giuseppe Dadà Nestlé Waters: Bernard Pruvost San Benedetto: Davide Manzato, Tullio Versace (since July 2015) Spadel: An de Schryver (left on June 2015), Patrick Jobé (since June 2015)
11 Reference literature .......................................................................................................... 62 116
12 Supporting information for the PEFCR .............................................................................. 64 117
13 List of annexes ................................................................................................................... 65 118
13.1 Annex I – Representative product .............................................................................................. 65 119
13.2 Annex II – Supporting studies ..................................................................................................... 69 120
13.3 Annex III – Benchmark and classes of environmental performance .......................................... 70 121
13.4 Annex IV – Upstream scenarios (optional) ................................................................................. 70 122
13.5 Annex V – Downstream scenarios (optional) ............................................................................. 70 123
13.6 Annex VI – Normalisation factors ............................................................................................... 70 124
13.7 Annex VII – Weighting factors .................................................................................................... 70 125
13.8 Annex VIII – Foreground data ..................................................................................................... 70 126
13.9 Annex IX – Background data ....................................................................................................... 70 127
13.10 Annex X – EOL formulas ......................................................................................................... 70 128
6
13.11 Annex XI – Background information on methodological choices taken during the 129
development of the PEFCR ..................................................................................................................... 70 130
13.12 Appendix A -‐ Compiled overview of existing PCRs and overview report highlighting possible 131
core conflicts between existing PCRs and PEF guides ............................................................................ 71 132
13.13 Appendix B -‐ IRI, Infoscan and Beverage Wholesalers .......................................................... 75 133
134
135
7
Abbreviations and acronyms 136
BOM Bill Of Material CPA Classification of Products by Activity EF Environmental Footprint EOL End Of Life g gram HDPE High Density PolyEthylene HOD Home Office Delivery horeca hotel, restaurant and café ISO International Organization for Standardization JRC Joint Research Centre kg kilogram km kilometre kWh kilowatt hour L Litre LCA Life Cycle Assessment LCI Life Cycle Inventory LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment LDPE Low Density PolyEthylene m metre MJ Mega Joules mL milliLitre NACE Nomenclature Générale des Activités Economiques dans les Communautés
Européennes o-‐PP oriented PolyPropylene OEF Organisation Environmental Footprint OEFSR Organisation Environmental Footprint Sector Rule PC PolyCarbonate PCR Product Category Rule PE PolyEthylene PEF Product Environmental Footprint PEFCR Product Environmental Footprint Category Rule PET PolyEthylene Terephthalate SMGP Single Market for Green Products TS Technical Secretariat 137
8
Glossary 138
This glossary defines key terms used in this PEFCR. Many of the terms are based on the PEF Guide 139
(European Commission 2013) unless otherwise noted. For further clarifications, please refer to the PEF 140
Guide. 141
142
Activity data This term refers to information which is associated with input or output processes while modelling Life Cycle Inventories. In the PEF guidelines, it is also called “non-‐elementary flows”. Activity data1 is multiplied by an LCI to derive the environmental footprint associated with a process or an operation. Examples of activity data include kilowatt-‐hours of electricity used, quantity of fuel used, output of a process, hours equipment is operated, distance travelled, floor area of a building, etc. (Data requirements in Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs) Author: Michele Galatola (EC, DG ENV), Keith James (UK DEFRA), EF Helpdesk, Version 1.0, 12 May 2015)
Bottled drinking water Bottled drinking water, also known as table water, may originate from various sources, including groundwater, surface water and municipal supply. It must comply with national and EU drinking water regulations, which are different to the rules governing natural mineral water and spring waters. It is commonly treated and disinfected for taste. Purification by chemical and physical treatment, such as chlorination and reverse osmosis, is common practice. Minerals may be restored to this water.
Cradle to grave An assessment, including raw material extraction, processing, distribution, storage, use, and disposal or recycling stages. All relevant inputs and outputs are considered for all of the stages of the life cycle.
Downstream Occurring along a product supply chain after the point of referral. Input Product, material or energy flow that enters a unit process. Products and
materials include raw materials, intermediate products and co-‐products. (International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) 14040:2006)
Life cycle Consecutive and interlinked stages of a product system, from raw material acquisition or generation from natural resources to final disposal. (ISO 14040:2006)
1 Based on GHG protocol scope 3 definition.
9
Life cycle approach Takes into consideration the spectrum of resource flows and environmental interventions associated with a product or organisation from a supply chain perspective, including all stages from raw material acquisition through processing, distribution, use, and end-‐of-‐life processes, and all relevant related environmental impacts (instead of focusing on a single issue).
Life cycle assessment Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle. (ISO 14040:2006)
Natural mineral water Natural mineral water originates from protected underground water sources and must be safe to drink at source, in its natural state, without disinfection or chemical treatment. Natural mineral water can only come from specific designated groundwater sources, such as natural exists or boreholes. It has a distinctive mineral composition, which always remains stable and which may give properties favourable to health to the water; the constituents must remain unaltered from the point of origin at source right to the final consumer, and must be stated on the label. According to Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (European Union 2009), there are 3 categories of effervescent natural mineral waters: (i) naturally carbonated natural mineral waters, (ii) natural mineral water fortified with gas from the spring and (iii) carbonated natural mineral water (the added carbon dioxide has an origin other than the water table or deposit from which the water comes).
Output Product, material or energy flow that leaves a unit process. Products and materials include raw materials, intermediate products, co-‐products and releases. (ISO 14040:2006)
Primary/site-‐specific data
Data that shall be collected specifically by each company. Primary/site-‐specific data are significant regarding each environmental indicator and accessible for companies. (European Commission, 2014)
Are product-‐type-‐specific, life-‐cycle-‐based rules that complement general methodological guidance for PEF studies by providing further specification at the level of a specific product category. PEFCRs can help to shift the focus of the PEF study towards those aspects and parameters that matter the most, and hence contribute to increased relevance, reproducibility and consistency.
Secondary/generic data Data for which sources shall be defined or default data provided. (European Commission, 2014)
10
Semi-‐specific data Data for which default values are proposed but company can replace it by better ones if they have it. Semi-‐specific data are significant regarding each environmental indicator but not easily accessible for companies. Semi-‐specific data can be replaced by specific data when available. Semi-‐specific data should be based on a worst case scenario*. (European Commission, 2014) * According the TAB/SC discussions, semi-‐specific data should not be based on a worst case scenario anymore.
Spring water Spring water comes from a named and recognised underground source. It must be microbiologically safe and wholesome to drink and where it must be bottled directly at source without disinfection or any chemical treatment. The main differences between spring water and natural mineral water are that a stable mineral balance is not a requirement for spring waters (though this is often the case) and mineral composition need not be stated on the label (though many producers nevertheless choose to do so). Also, for chemical parameters, spring water must only meet conventional drinking water standards (as for tap water). There is no formal recognition process for spring waters (as there is for natural mineral water) but quality monitoring and protection of the source must be maintained.
System boundary Definition of aspects included or excluded from the study. For example, for a “cradle-‐to-‐grave” EF analysis, the system boundary should include all activities from the extraction of raw materials through the processing, distribution, storage, use, and disposal or recycling stages.
System boundary diagram
Graphic representation of the system boundary defined for the PEF study.
Unit of analysis The unit of analysis defines the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the function(s) and/or service(s) provided by the product being evaluated; the unit of analysis definition answers the questions “what?”, “how much?”, “how well?”, and “for how long?”
Upstream Occurring along the supply chain of purchased goods/services prior to entering the system boundary.
143
144
145
11
1 Introduction 146
The Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide provides detailed and comprehensive technical 147
guidance on how to conduct a PEF study. PEF studies may be used for a variety of purposes, including in-‐148
house management and participation in voluntary or mandatory programmes. 149
This PEFCR shall be used in parallel with the PEF Guide. Where the requirements in this PEFCR are in line 150
with but at the same time more specific than those of the PEF Guide, such specific requirements shall be 151
fulfilled. 152
The use of the present PEFCR is optional for PEF guide in-‐house applications, it is recommended for 153
external applications without comparison/comparative assertions, while it is mandatory for external 154
applications with comparisons/comparative assertions. 155
156
12
2 General information about the PEFCR 157
2.1 Technical Secretariat 158
The technical secretariat responsible for the development of the PEFCRs for packed water is composed 159
of the following organisations: 160
1. EFBW (Coordinator): Patricia Fosselard 161
2. FEVE: Fabrice Rivet, Romeo Pavanello 162
3. PETCORE Europe: Patrick Peuch; the representative in the Technical Secretariat is Casper Van 163
Den Hungen (Plastic Recyclers Europe), and Antonio Furfari his deputy 164
4. UETR: Lode Verkinderen 165
5. Danone Waters*: Philippe Diercxsens 166
6. Ferrarelle*: Giuseppe Dadà 167
7. Nestlé Waters*: Bernard Pruvost 168
8. San Benedetto: Davide Manzato, Tullio Versace (since July 2015)2 169
9. Spadel: An de Schryver (left on June 2015), Patrick Jobé (since June 2015) 170
where * indicates that the organisation is a company that performed a supporting study. 172
2.2 Consultation and stakeholders 173
The procedure for the development of a PEFCR according to the “Guidance for the implementation of 174
the EU PEF during the EF pilot phase” (European Commission, 2014) considers a number of steps that 175
have been followed by this Technical Secretariat, namely: 176
• Definition of PEF product category and scope of the PEFCR 177
• Definition of the product “model” based on representative product(s) 178
• PEF Screening 179
• Draft PEFCR 180
• PEFCR supporting studies 181
• Confirmation of the benchmark(s) and determination of performance classes 182
• Final PEFCR 183
2 With the support of the Italian Environment Ministry (Pieter Ravaglia) and the University of Padova (Alessandro Manzardo).
13
184
A first public consultation was performed from September 24th, 2014 to October 22nd, 2014. A first 185
physical consultation has been held in Brussels on October 08th, 2014 where the definition of PEF 186
product category, the scope of PEFCR and the definition of the representative product were presented 187
and commented. A first draft PEFCR has been carried out and provided as the deliverable required after 188
the completion of the PEF Screening step (including the critical review of the PEF screening report and 189
model by the European Commission and a third party review panel). The first draft PEFCR has been 190
submitted to virtual consultation in June 2015 and the comments have been implemented. On October 191
1st, 2015, the Environmental Footprint Steering Committee approved the draft, thus resulting in 192
launching the PEF supporting studies. Three supporting studies have been finalized in May 2016 and the 193
key learnings have been considered in this new draft PEFCR version. 194
The development of this PEFCR can be followed on the dedicated page for the PEFCR for packed water 195
through this main page: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/ 196
197
1st consultation 2nd consultation 3rd consultation Type Online and physical Online Online Start 24.09.2014 26.06.2015 29.07.2016
End 22.10.2014 26.07.2015 To be completed
Duration 4 weeks 4 weeks 6 weeks Number of participating stakeholders (online) 3 8 To be completed
Number of participating stakeholders (physical) 10 Not applicable Not applicable
Number of comments 27 102 To be completed 198
After each consultation, comments were analysed and answers were provided on the EF wiki space. 199
When relevant, the PEFCR was adapted accordingly. 200
201
2.3 Date of publication and expiration 202
Version number: 3rd draft version for submission to the final public consultation 203
Date of publication/revision: July 28th, 2016 204
Date of expiration: N/A 205
14
2.4 Geographic region 206
This PEFCR was developed in a European context and it is valid for all products in scope produced and 207
sold in Europe. 208
2.5 Language(s) of PEFCR 209
The language of this PEFCR is English. The original in English supersedes translated versions in case of 210
conflicts. 211
212
15
3 Methodological inputs and compliance 213
The PEFCR has been prepared in conformance with the following documents: 214
• European Commission (2013). 2013/179/EU: Commission Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on 215
the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental 216
performance of products and organisations. Also called as “Product Environmental Footprint 217
(PEF) Guide”; 218
• European Commission (2014). Environmental Footprint Pilot Guidance document. Guidance for 219
the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental 220
Footprint (EF) Pilot Phase, v. 4.0, May 2014. Also called as “PEF Guidance (2014)”. The last 221
version available has been considered in this update, i.e., “Guidance for the implementation of 222
the EU PEF during the EF Pilot Phase” (version 5.2). 223
224
16
4 PEFCR review and background information 225
4.1 PEFCR review panel 226
[Provide the name, contact information and affiliation of the chair and the other members of the review 227
panel] 228
Note This section will be completed at a later date. The members of the review panel will
be confirmed by end of August 2016.
4.2 Review requirements for the PEFCR document 229
The reviewers shall investigate whether the PEFCR has been developed in accordance with the 230
requirement provided in this Guidance and supports creation of credible and consistent PEF profiles. In 231
addition, the following criteria shall also apply: 232
• The PEFCR is consistent with the guidelines provided in the PEF Guide and the latest version 233
available of this Guidance and deviations are justified, 234
• Functional unit, allocation and calculation rules are adequate for the product category under 235
consideration, 236
• Primary and secondary datasets used in the screening and the supporting studies are relevant, 237
representative, and reliable, 238
• Selected LCIA indicators and additional environmental information are appropriate for the 239
product category under consideration and the selection is done in accordance with the 240
guidelines stated in this Guidance and the PEF Guide, 241
• The benchmark and performance classes are correctly defined or the lack of performance 242
classes is appropriately justified, and 243
• Both LCA-‐based data and the additional environmental information prescribed by the PEFCR 244
give a description of the significant environmental aspects associated with the product. 245
246
4.3 Reasoning for development of PEFCR 247
The current PEFCR aims to provide means to evaluate the environmental footprint of packed water 248
products produced and sold in Europe, applying a harmonised approach, in order to have comparable 249
results. 250
251
17
Note
According to some PEFCR applications, it seems relevant to present separately the
use stage contribution. This point will be investigated during the next steps of the
project.
252
4.4 Conformance with the PEFCR Guidance 253
This document has been prepared in conformance with the “Guidance for the Implementation of the EU 254
PEF during the Environmental Footprint (EF) pilot phase -‐ Version 5.2”. 255
This final draft of the PEFCR will be submitted to the critical review. A summary of the assessment will 256
be provided here. 257
258
18
5 PEFCR scope 259
The product category for this PEFCR includes packed water not sweetened nor flavoured. 260
According to EFBW’s website (EFBW 2014), water includes 3 varieties: i) natural mineral water, ii) 261
spring water and iii) bottled drinking water, and can be still or carbonated3 (also known as effervescent 262
or sparkling water).4 All these varieties are in the scope of this document. 263
The entire life cycle (cradle to grave) of packed water shall be assessed. 264
5.1 Unit of analysis 265
Key aspects regarding “What?”, “How much?”, “How long?”, and “How well?” are used to define the 266
function provided by packed water and thus to determine the unit of analysis are summarized in Table 1 267
below. 268
3 It contains carbon dioxide gas which may be naturally occurring or may be added. 4 Natural mineral water originates from protected underground water sources and must be safe to drink at source, in its natural state, without disinfection or chemical treatment. Natural mineral water can only come from specific designated groundwater sources, such as natural exists or boreholes. It has a distinctive mineral composition, which always remains stable and which may give properties favourable to health to the water; the constituents must remain unaltered from the point of origin at source right to the final consumer, and must be stated on the label. According to Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (European Union 2009), there are 3 categories of effervescent natural mineral waters: (i) naturally carbonated natural mineral waters, (ii) natural mineral water fortified with gas from the spring and (iii) carbonated natural mineral water (the added carbon dioxide has an origin other than the water table or deposit from which the water comes). Spring water comes from a named and recognised underground source. It must be microbiologically safe and wholesome to drink and where it must be bottled directly at source without disinfection or any chemical treatment. The main differences between spring water and natural mineral water are that a stable mineral balance is not a requirement for spring waters (though this is often the case) and mineral composition need not be stated on the label (though many producers nevertheless choose to do so). Also, for chemical parameters, spring water must only meet conventional drinking water standards (as for tap water). There is no formal recognition process for spring waters (as there is for natural mineral water) but quality monitoring and protection of the source must be maintained. Bottled drinking water, also known as table water, may originate from various sources, including groundwater, surface water and municipal supply. It must comply with national and EU drinking water regulations, which are different to the rules governing natural mineral water and spring waters. It is commonly treated and disinfected for taste. Purification by chemical and physical treatment, such as chlorination and reverse osmosis, is common practice. Minerals may be restored to this water. According to Canadean (2013), natural mineral water represents 83% of the European packed water market, spring water represents 14% and bottled drinking water represents 3%. In the Europe, 51.6 billion litres of bottled water were consumed in 2012.
19
Table 1 Key aspects to determine the unit of analysis 269
Product Aspect detail Packed Water PEFCR
What? Function provided To provide water from sealed containers ready to be drunk at the mouth contributing to hydration
How much? Magnitude of the function 100 ml How long? Duration of the product provided Once How well? Expected level of quality To satisfy the quality requirements set at National and /
or at EU level for the following varieties: i) natural mineral water, ii) spring water and iii) bottled drinking water, and can be still or carbonated (also known as effervescent or sparkling water)
270
The following unit of analysis shall be considered by default for this PEFCR: 271
• To provide 100 ml of water from sealed containers ready to be drunk at the mouth 272
contributing to hydration. 273
274
The reference flows are the fraction of the product system studied to fulfil the chosen unit of analysis. 275
276
Water can always be drunk even long time after the end of the “Best before date”. The “Best before 277
date” is specific to each company. For still waters, the “Best before date” is rather homogenous for all 278
brands with a majority of 2 years whatever the packaging material used. For carbonated waters, the 279
“Best before date” must be appropriate to the permeability of the packaging materials (bottle and cap). 280
The majority of PET containers has a “Best before date” of 9 to 12 months, while glass containers has a 281
“Best before date” of 24 months. The choice of the “Best before date” by a company may imply changes 282
of packaging type and specific storage conditions. 283
In this PEFCR, the “Best before date” is not taken into account in accordance with the definition of the 284
functional unit, therefore it has no direct consequence to the PEF results. 285
Note Some discussions are still on-‐going within the TS regarding "Best before date" and
"shelf life". This section could be updated after the public consultation taking into
account inputs provided by stakeholders.
286
287
288
289
20
5.2 Representative product(s) 290
The main function of the product is to provide water from sealed containers ready to be drunk at the 291
mouth contributing to hydration. Some alternative applications are present on the market which 292
correspond to the main three sub-‐categories listed here: 293
• “other channels” applications which include the “on the go” application (characterized by an 294
easily transportable and useable format, easy opening and with a rather small format adapted 295
to one single drinker) and the “at home” application (characterized by formats mainly used 296
within a domestic context); 297
• “at horeca” application considers formats mainly used at a hotel, restaurant or café; and 298
• “at the office” application considers formats mainly used within a professional context. 299
300
Three different representative products are considered in this PEFCR, one for each of the following 301
product sub-‐categories: “other channels”, “at horeca” and “at the office”. The key information for each 302
representative product is presented in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 1. 303
21
Table 2 The three representative products considered in this PEFCR 304
Sub-‐categories: unit “other channels” “at horeca” “at the office”
Primary packaging (main body)
Material n/a PET Glass PC
Volume L 1.5 1.0 18.9
System n/a one-‐way refillable refillable (HOD)
Name of the representative product
PET one-‐way
1.5L
Glass refillable
1.0L 5
HOD PC refillable
5 gallons
Note: 5 gallons = 18.9 liters
Note: the PET considered in these representative products does not include recycled PET
305 Figure 1 Illustration of the sub-‐categories (blue) and the representative products (green) 306
307
A representative bill of material (mainly focused on packaging) for each representative product was 308
determined based on inputs of the Technical Secretariat (TS), public studies or category guidance 309
already existing. All representative products are based on real products and regarding the primary 310
packaging assumptions, the data refer mainly to still water. 311
5 This most dominant representative product is especially relevant for restaurants, cafés and hotels. Regarding fast-‐food and snack entities (i.e., "small restaurants"), PET-‐based packed water products could be a significant part of this sub-‐category. Please see "PEFCR_PackedWater_DrafPEFCR_2014-‐11-‐17_Quantis.pdf" available on the dedicated webpage (https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/) for a more detailed discussion on this point."
22
According to Canadean (2013), in 2013 the still water represents about 60% of the European market. 312
The following fractions of carbonated water are considered for each representative product: 40% for the 313
“PET one-‐way 1.5L” and “Glass refillable 1.0L”, and 0% (i.e., still water) for “HOD PC refillable 5 gallons”. 314
Additional information is detailed in “Annex I – Representative product”. 315
5.3 Product classification (NACE/CPA) 316
The corresponding Classification of Products by Activity (CPA) for packed water is C 11.07.11, under the 317
classification: “Manufactured products” à “Beverage” à “Soft drinks, mineral waters and other bottled 318
waters” à “Mineral waters and soft drinks”; (soft drinks are excluded from the scope). 319
5.4 System boundaries -‐ life-‐cycle stages and processes 320
The entire life cycle (from cradle to grave) of packed water shall be included in the system boundaries. 321
The following life cycle stages shall be included: 322
• Packaging material, 323
• Manufacturing, 324
• Distribution, 325
• Use, and 326
• Packaging end-‐of-‐life. 327
328
The life cycle stage “Packaging materials” includes the packaging raw materials production, the forming 329
processes of packaging, and the transport of materials to water factory. The life cycle stage 330
“Manufacturing” includes the steps of water extraction, containers filling and grouping, gas production 331
for carbonated water and washing and sterilization of refillable containers. The life cycle stage 332
“Manufacturing” includes the energy and water consumption of the entire water factory, i.e. it includes 333
the energy and water consumption of the different facilities and activities on water factory site (e.g. air 334
conditioning, heating, washing of the lines, loss rates). Those additional consumptions can be added in 335
the sub-‐stage “Water extraction, filling and grouping”. Transportation of empty refillable containers 336
back to water factory is included in the stage “Packaging materials”. The life cycle stage “Distribution” 337
includes the different transport steps for distribution, as well as storage in warehouses and retailer (only 338
for “Other channels” subcategory). The life cycle stage “Use” includes the chilling operations at final 339
user, the gas emissions of carbonated water, but also glass and plastic cup (if any) production and 340
23
dishwashing. The life cycle stage “Packaging end-‐of-‐life” includes the transport and treatment of the 341
different packaging waste (primary, secondary and tertiary packaging). 342
343
The Figure 2 presents the system boundary diagram that shall be applied. 344
345 Figure 2 System boundaries and details on each life cycle stage considered. Processes forming the foreground 346 system are underlined. 347
* Production steps in “01. Packaging materials” shall include: i) production of raw materials and ii) 348
processing (e.g., PET injection in order to make preforms, blow moulding of the PET preforms, heating 349
and moulding for the glass making, PC extrusion into a hollow tube, PC blow moulding of the desired 350
container). 351
Note: The life cycle stage “Manufacturing” includes the energy and water consumption of the entire 352
water factory, i.e. it includes the energy and water consumption of the different facilities and activities 353
on water factory site (e.g. air conditioning, heating, washing of the lines, loss rates). Those additional 354
consumptions can be added in the sub-‐stage “Water extraction, filling and grouping”. 355
24
Note: Gas production for carbonated water includes all the operations necessary to carbonation of 356
water, i.e. gas production or gas extraction, gas transportation, gas storage and gas injection. 357
-‐ 358
Within each of these stages, the PEF analysis shall consider all identifiable “upstream” inputs to provide 359
a comprehensive view of the product system. For example, transportation does not only include the 360
operation (fuel consumption and tail pipe emissions), but also upstream processes such as fuel 361
production, truck production as well as maintenance and road construction. In this way, the production 362
chains of all inputs are traced back to the original extraction of raw materials. 363
Note that infrastructure (e.g., building, factory, engine, etc. according to infrastructures usually included 364
in datasets provided by LCI databases) shall be included in all stages. 365
The Figure 3 presents the diagram of the potential control of the organization, i.e., packed water 366
producing organization, over the value chain operations (the grey scale indicates the level of control). 367
The level operational control can differ from one company to another. 368
369
25
Figure 3 Value chain control diagram. The level of control from the organisation is represented by a grey scale 370 (black for high level of control, grey for medium level of control and white for no control) 371
372
System boundaries -‐ upstream processes/scenarios 373
The upstream processes are mainly related to the “01. Packaging materials” life cycle stage. 374
Nevertheless, some specificities have to be considered for the main raw materials considered in the 375
primary packaging as presented in Table 3. Some of these production steps could be not considered as 376
upstream processes. 377
378
Table 3 Production steps included in “01. Packaging materials” for the main raw materials considered in the 379 primary packaging of representative products 380
“Other channels”
PET one-way 1.5L
“At horeca”
Glass refillable 1.0L
“At the office”
HOD PC refillable 5 gallons
Production of raw materials
Production of raw materials
Production of raw materials
PET injection in order to make
preforms
Heating and moulding for the glass
making
PC extrusion into a hollow tube
Blow moulding of the preforms
Blow moulding of the desired
container
381
System boundaries -‐ downstream processes/scenarios 382
The downstream processes are mainly related to the following life cycle stages: “03. Distribution”, “04. 383
Use” and “05. Packaging end-‐of-‐life”. Some activities in the distribution to consumers could be also part 384
of the core activities. 385
386
5.5 Selection of the EF impact categories indicators 387
The PEF shall be performed for the full list of required impact categories in the PEF Guide (European 388
Commission 2013), using the suggested indicators. 389
Table 4 provides the list of 15 Environmental Footprint (EF) impact categories related to the assessment 390
methods that shall be used (European Commission, 2013). For each impact category, the following 391
information are provided: 392
-‐ Impact categories 393
-‐ Impact assessment model 394
26
-‐ Impact category indicator/unit 395
-‐ Source 396
-‐ Classification of the methods performed in the ILCD Handbook “Recommendations for Life Cycle 397
Impact Assessment in the European context”, JRC, 2011. The recommended characterisation 398
models and associated characterisation factors are classified into three levels according to their 399
quality: 400
o Level I: recommended and satisfactory 401
o Level II: recommended, but in need of some improvements 402
o Level III: recommended, but to be applied with caution 403
404
Table 4 List of impact categories and related assessment methods used 405
Impact category Model Unit Source Classi-‐fication
Climate change Bern model – Global Warming potentials (GWP) over a 100 year time horizon
kg CO2 eq Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007
I
Ozone depletion EDIP model based on the ODPs of the WMO over an infinite time horizon
kg CFC-‐11 eq WMO, 1999 I
Freshwater ecotoxicity USETox model CTUe Rosenbaum et al., 2008
II/III
Human toxicity – cancer effects
USETox model CTUh Rosenbaum et al., 2008
II/III
Human toxicity – non-‐cancer effects
USETox model CTUh Rosenbaum et al., 2008
II/III
Particulate matter RiskPoll model kg PM2.5 eq Humbert, 2009 I Ionising radiation Human Health effect model kg U235 eq Dreicer et al., 1995 II Photochemical ozone formation
LOTOS-‐EUROS model kg NMVOC eq van Zelm et al., 2008 II
Acidification Accumulated Exceedance model mol H+ eq Seppälä et al.,2006; Posch et al., 2008
II
Terrestrial eutrophication
Accumulated Exceedance model mol N eq Seppälä et al.,2006; Posch et al., 2008
II
Freshwater eutrophication
EUTREND model kg P eq Struijs et al., 2009 II
Marine eutrophication EUTREND model kg N eq Struijs et al., 2009 II Land use Soil Organic matter (SOM) model kg C deficit Milà i Canals et al.,
2007 III
Water resource depletion
Swiss Ecoscarcity model m3 water eq Frischknecht et al., 2008
III
Mineral, fossil, & renewable resource depletion
CML 2002 model kg Sb eq van Oers et al., 2002 II
406
27
The most relevant impact categories for communication purposes identified are presented in Table 5. 407
According to European Commission (2014), for B2C communication at least the 3 most relevant impact 408
categories shall be included. For B2B communication the minimum number of relevant impact 409
categories shall be decided based on the outcomes of the PEFCR supporting studies and any additional 410
environmental information available. 411
Table 5 Rationale for selecting most relevant impact categories 412
Impact category Rationale
Climate change GHG emissions are a recognised environmental issue worldwide. The screening study showed that this is among the best known and most reliable impact category, for which key elementary flows are commonly measured or documented.
Water resource depletion Use of water resources is a key topic for the stakeholders of the packed water sector. The Technical Secretariat (TS) strongly support the method recommended in the ENVIFOOD Protocol (European Food SCP Round Table (2013)) instead of the method recommended by the PEF Guide which is based on the ILCD Handbook. A life cycle approach shall be considered in order to assess a water scarcity footprint.
Resource Depletion – mineral, fossil6,7
Use of mineral and fossil resources is a well-‐know environmental issue in the packaging sector (among others), which has a key role in the value chain of the packed water industry.
413
Regarding the water resource depletion, the Technical Secretariat (TS) strongly support the method 414
recommended in the ENVIFOOD Protocol (European Food SCP Round Table (2013)) instead of the 415
method recommended by the PEF Guide which is based on the ILCD Handbook. 416
According to the ENVIFOOD Protocol: 417
“While the ISO standardisation process for water footprint is on-‐going [*], impacts related to water use 418
shall be assessed according to the method by Ridoutt and Pfister (2010). According to that method, 419
6 The PEF Guide (European Commission, 2013) uses the wording “Resource Depletion – mineral, fossil” (Table 2) whereas the Guidance for the implementation of the EU PEF during the EF Pilot Phase (European Commission, 2014) uses the wording “Mineral fossil & renewable resource depletion” (Table A.2). 7 Some limitations have to be taken into account considering the “Resource Depletion – mineral, fossil”. For instance the screening study highlighted the following limitation: “The impact on «Mineral, fossil & ren resource depletion» is mainly due to the extraction of Indium. This elementary flow comes from the rubber used for the maintenance of truck. Those results are related to the use of ecoinvent dataset for infrastructure (maintenance of truck). According to e-‐mail sent by Tereza Levova (ecoinvent) on 2014/08/25, there was an error in ecoinvent V2.2 in the concentrations and amounts of products related to indium production. This error refers to the amount of indium extracted from the ground in order to produce 1kg of indium at the end of the supply chain. The whole issue is quite complex. This issue should be solved at the TAB level, since it is a transversal topic.”
28
water use (in terms of blue water only [**]) is to be assessed using the regionalised water stress indexes 420
developed by Pfister et al. (Pfister et al. 2009) as characterisation factors. 421
Note: The method by Pfister et al. (2009) is preferred to the Swiss Ecological Scarcity Method by 422
Frischknecht et al. (2008), which was recommended by the ILCD Handbook (European Commission's 423
Joint Research Centre 2011), because the first method produces more geographically-‐representative 424
and accurate results than the latter.” 425
[*] ISO 14046 has been published in August 2014. 426
[**] Ideally water consumption consistency through the whole life cycle instead of water withdrawal. 427
428
In addition to the baseline impact assessment method required by the PEF Guide, supporting studies 429
applied the method Pfister et al. (2009). 430
Note The outputs of the WULCA project will be investigated in the future
(http://www.wulca-‐waterlca.org/), e.g. AWARE.
431
5.6 Additional environmental information 432
Producers who apply this PEFCR shall indicate if the company follows a specific program in terms of 433
protecting and monitoring the catchment areas. Key information regarding the program shall be 434
described, e.g., protection efforts put in place include limiting human activity with a relevant impact to 435
the environment, banning the use of pesticides and replacing them with natural farmer practices, 436
limiting the usage of underground water as irrigation water and improved farming techniques and 437
organic agriculture. 438
439
For instance, if the requirements and guidelines outlined in “Guide to good hygienic practices for 440
packaged water in Europe” (EFBW 2012) are followed, they should be reported. The most relevant 441
sections of this reference document are reported here below. 442
“Technical analysis to fully understand the nature and origin of the water resource shall be conducted. A 443
hydrogeological study (by qualified experts) shall be carried out to identify and describe the recharge 444
zone and groundwater catchment(s). This hydrogeological study shall include: location of the 445
abstraction points, the geological unit(s) (the aquifer) containing the groundwater resource, location 446
and extent of the groundwater catchment, degree and nature of natural protection against pollution, 447
surface water features, identifying those interacting with the groundwater reservoir, other water 448
29
abstractors, identifying those exploiting the same groundwater reservoir, chemistry and quality of the 449
groundwater reservoir, water balance and capacity, travel times for groundwater between recharge 450
zone and abstraction point(s), studies to justify the abstraction licence and to demonstrate the 451
sustainability of the groundwater yield. In addition, an environmental impact assessment should be 452
completed in order to define: water balance and capacity of the aquifer, land uses and evolution of 453
anthropogenic (human) activities, safe abstraction limits to preserve long-‐term exploitation of the 454
aquifer and associated ecosystems, a monitoring and management plan to protect the water resources 455
and ecosystems.” 456
In addition, if a specific standard is followed, the key information should be reported. For instance, the 457
European Centre for Mineral Water Research (CERAM), an organization specializing in the research and 458
study of water resources of high environmental value and their exploitation and correct utilization, 459
developed a Standard. The Standard appeals to mineral water bottling companies that acknowledge the 460
imperative of assigning a high value to the profound effort invested in the hydrological, environmental, 461
and technological research that guarantees the quality of the final product and the conservation of 462
water resources for future generations. The Standard provides for the prudent and conservative 463
management of water resources and their renewable use. The Standard endeavors to assess the entire 464
system of water extraction, the management and conservation of the water resources and the 465
protection of their natural context, and the original purity of the mineral water that finishes in the 466
packaged product. 467
 468
Additionally, practitioners should report additional environmental information as described in European 469
Commission (2013) (PEF Guide). Additional environmental information should include (non-‐exhaustive 470
reviewers, supporting studies verifiers, and EF pilot phase independent reviewers. It is up to the 496
Technical Secretariat of the EF pilot to decide to grant access to information contained in the 497
confidential annex also to other stakeholders. 498
499
Limitation valid for any PEF/OEF results 500
The results are relative expressions and do not predict impacts on category endpoints, the exceeding of 501
thresholds, safety margins or risks. This disclaimer shall to be put in any PEF/OEF assessment report. 502
503
Limitation related to the multi-‐functionality of the packaging 504
Packaging is included in the scope of the PEFCR as it is an integral part of the final packed water 505
products. In accordance with the PEF Pilot Guidance v.5.2, paragraph 2.3, “Meaningful comparisons can 506
only be made when products are capable of fulfilling the same function (as expressed in the functional 507
unit)”and “an equally important objective [of a PEFCR] is to enable comparisons and comparative 508
assertions in all cases when this is considered feasible, relevant and appropriate”. 509
510
31
Packaging is a multi-‐functional product: according to a report of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, 511
“the most important role of packaging is to protect and contain the product during distribution and 512
storage. When designed intelligently, it can ensure product safety—particularly important for food and 513
beverages—and minimize losses. In the food and beverage industry, packaging also serves to preserve 514
the product and prevent spoilage, provide information, provide convenience and portion control, and 515
market to the consumer”8. 516
However, it is recognized that the multi-‐functionality of packaging is not fully captured by the current 517
LCA and PEF methodology9,10 with particular relevance in the context of comparison or comparative 518
assertions. In the PEFCR of packed waters, the description of the functional unit does not capture 519
adequately the function(s) of packaging: e.g., the duration (“how long”) and the level of quality (“how 520
well”) are not specific to the function provided by the packaging. As a result, there is a limitation on the 521
application of comparison or comparative assertion between different packaging materials of packed 522
waters. 523
524
Note Some discussions are still on-‐going within the TS regarding the limitation related to
the multi-‐functionality of the packaging. This section could be updated after the
public consultation taking into account inputs provided by stakeholders.
In addition, the TS highlights the need to address this topic at a transversal level
(e.g., TAB or SC level).
525
526
527
8 UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, 2013: An Analysis of Life Cycle Assessment in Packaging for Food & Beverage Applications 9 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN, Prof. Dr. Matthias Finkbeiner, 2016: HIGH-‐LEVEL-‐ANALYSIS OF GAPS FOR COMPARABILITY OF PACKAGING MATERIALS IN THE EU PRODUCT ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT (PEF) 10 Outcomes of the EF TAB meeting, 31st May 2016
32
6 Resource use and emission profile 528
6.1 Screening step 529
The main outcomes of the screening study are presented in the document 530
“PEFCR_PackedWater_Screening_2015-‐08-‐13_Final.pdf” which is available on the dedicated page for 531
the PEFCR for packed water through this main page: 532
This semi-‐quantitative assessment shall be done at least for the datasets related to the most relevant 585
processes identified by the analysis. 586
Table 7 presents the criteria that shall be used to perform the Data Quality Assessment. 587
36
Table 7 Criteria that shall be used to perform the Data Quality Assessment. For more information regarding the 588 definition of these criteria, please refer to the PEF Guide (2013). 589
Quality level
Quality rating
Technological represent. (TeR)
Geographical represent. (GR)
Time represent. (TiR)
Completeness (C)
Parameter uncertainty (P)
Methodological compliance and consistency (M)
Very good
1 The specific technology considered
Specific to the region considered in the scope of the analysis
≤ 3 year old data
≥90% of a full LCI
Very low uncertainty (≤ 10%)
Full compliance with all requirements of the PEF guide
Good 2 Average in Europe for the specific technology based on the consumption
Average of several countries in the geographical scope of the analysis
3-‐5 years old data
80%-‐90% of a full LCI
Low uncertainty (10% to 20%)
Attributional Process based approach AND: Following three method requirements of the PEF Guide (2013) met: — Dealing with multi-‐functionality — End of life modelling — System boundary
Fair 3 Average in Europe for the specific technology based on the production
Referred to a different country in the same geographical scope of the analysis
5-‐10 years old data
70-‐80% of a full LCI
Fair uncertainty (20% to 30%)
Attributional process-‐based 1999-‐2005 approach AND: The following two method requirements of the PEF Guide (2013) are met: — Dealing with multi-‐functionality — End of life modelling However, the following method requirement of the PEF Guide (2013) is not met: — System boundary
Poor 4 Average in Europe for a similar technology based on the consumption
Referred to a different region, out from the geographical scope but with similar characteristic
10-‐15 years old data
50-‐70% of a full LCI
High uncertainty (30% to 50%)
Attributional process-‐based approach AND: The following method requirement of the PEF Guide (2013) met: — Dealing with multi-‐functionality However, the following two method requirements of the PEF Guide (2013) are not met: — End-‐of-‐life modelling — System boundary
Very poor
5 Other process or unknown
Global or unknown
≥ 15 years old data
<50% of a full LCI
Very high uncertainty (> 50%)
Attributional process-‐based approach BUT: None of the following three method requirements of the PEF Guide (2013) are met: — Dealing with multi-‐functionality — End-‐of-‐life modelling — System boundary
590
Guidance to assess the data quality of the most relevant processes is provided in the tables below. 591
592
37
Table 8 Data Quality Rating (DQR) guidance for “Packaging materials” 593
Quality rating
Time representativeness Technological representativeness Geographical representativeness
1 0-‐1.9 years with respect to 2015 The specific technology considered The data are fully representative for the geography covered
2 2-‐4.9 years with respect to 2015 Average in Europe for the specific technology based on the consumption
The data are well representative for the geography covered (<5% not covered)
3 5-‐9.9 years with respect to 2015 Average in Europe for the specific technology based on the production
The data are sufficiently representative for the geography covered (5-‐20% not covered)
4 10-‐20 years with respect to 2015
Average in Europe for a similar technology based on the consumption
The data are partially representative for the geography covered (21-‐30% not covered)
5 >20 years with respect to 2015 Other process or unknown Unknown or proxy
594
Table 9 Data Quality Rating (DQR) guidance for “Manufacturing “ 595
Quality rating
Time representativeness Technological representativeness Geographical representativeness
1 0-‐1.9 years with respect to 2015 The specific technology considered The data are fully representative for the geography covered
2 2-‐4.9 years with respect to 2015 Average in Europe for the specific technology based on the consumption
The data are well representative for the geography covered (<5% not covered)
3 5-‐9.9 years with respect to 2015 Average in Europe for the specific technology based on the production
The data are sufficiently representative for the geography covered (5-‐20% not covered)
4 10-‐20 years with respect to 2015
Average in Europe for a similar technology based on the consumption
The data are partially representative for the geography covered (21-‐30% not covered)
5 >20 years with respect to 2015 Other process or unknown Unknown or proxy
596
597
598
38
Table 10 Data Quality Rating (DQR) guidance for “Distribution “ 599
Quality rating
Time representativeness Technological representativeness Geographical representativeness
1 0-‐1.9 years with respect to 2015 The specific technology considered The data are fully representative for the geography covered.
2 2-‐4.9 years with respect to 2015 Average in Europe for the specific technology based on the consumption
The data are well representative for the geography covered (<5% not covered).
3 5-‐9.9 years with respect to 2015 Average in Europe for the specific technology based on the production
The data are sufficiently representative for the geography covered (5-‐20% not covered).
4 10-‐20 years with respect to 2015
Average in Europe for a similar technology based on the consumption
The data are partially representative for the geography covered (21-‐30% not covered).
5 >20 years with respect to 2015 Other process or unknown Unknown or proxy
600
Table 11 Data Quality Rating (DQR) guidance for “Use “ 601
Quality rating
Time representativeness Technological representativeness Geographical representativeness
1
Applicable only for HOD system, if relevant, for all amounts and types of inputs and outputs related to specific end-‐of-‐life of plastic cup and electricity for cooling: 0-‐1.9 years with respect to 2015
Applicable only for HOD system, if relevant, for all amounts and types of inputs and outputs related to specific end-‐of-‐life of plastic cup and electricity for cooling: The specific technology considered
The data are fully representative for the geography covered.
For others: 0-‐3.9 years with respect to 2015
For others: Average in Europe for the specific technology based on the consumption
2
Applicable only for HOD system, if relevant, for all amounts and types of inputs and outputs related to specific end-‐of-‐life of plastic cup and electricity for cooling: 2-‐4.9 years with respect to 2015
Applicable only for HOD system, if relevant, for all amounts and types of inputs and outputs related to specific end-‐of-‐life of plastic cup and electricity for cooling: Average in Europe for the specific technology based on the consumption
The data are well representative for the geography covered (<5% not covered).
For others: 4-‐9.9 years with respect to 2015
For others: Average in Europe for the specific technology based on the production
39
Quality rating
Time representativeness Technological representativeness Geographical representativeness
3
Applicable only for HOD system, if relevant, for all amounts and types of inputs and outputs related to specific end-‐of-‐life of plastic cup and electricity for cooling: 5-‐9.9 years with respect to 2015
Applicable only for HOD system, if relevant, for all amounts and types of inputs and outputs related to specific end-‐of-‐life of plastic cup and electricity for cooling: Average in Europe for the specific technology based on the production
The data are sufficiently representative for the geography covered (5-‐20% not covered).
For others: 10-‐15 years with respect to 2015
For others: Average in Europe for the specific technology based on proxies
4 Applicable only for HOD system, if relevant, for all amounts and types of inputs and outputs related to specific end-‐of-‐life of plastic cup and electricity for cooling: 10-‐20 years with respect to 2015
Average in Europe for a similar technology based on the consumption
The data are partially representative for the geography covered (21-‐30% not covered).
For others: 15-‐20 years with respect to 2015
5 >20 years with respect to 2015 Other process or unknown Unknown or proxy
602
Table 12 Data Quality Rating (DQR) guidance for “Packaging end-‐of-‐life “ 603
Quality rating
Time representativeness Technological representativeness Geographical representativeness
1 0-‐3.9 years with respect to 2015 The specific technology considered The data are fully representative for the geography covered.
2 4-‐9.9 years with respect to 2015 Average in Europe for the specific technology based on the consumption
The data are well representative for the geography covered (<5% not covered).
3 10-‐15 years with respect to 2015
Average in Europe for the specific technology based on the production
The data are sufficiently representative for the geography covered (5-‐20% not covered).
4 15-‐20 years with respect to 2015
Average in Europe for a similar technology based on the consumption
The data are partially representative for the geography covered (21-‐30% not covered).
5 >20 years with respect to 2015 Other process or unknown Unknown or proxy
604
40
6.3 Requirements regarding foreground specific data collection 605
This section describes in detail the requirements regarding the collection of primary/site-‐specific data. 606
Primary/site-‐specific data shall be collected by the companies as specified in Table 13. 607
Most of primary/site-‐specific data are related to the description of the packed water product (i.e., 608
mainly water and packaging specificities) and to the transport processes. In addition, in some cases, 609
some use and packaging end-‐of-‐life specificities are known by the companies. 610
41
Table 13 Requirements for collection of primary/site-‐specific data 611
Life cycle stage Processes What shall be collected (activity data)
Packaging materials
Primary packaging production
Amount of packaging: mass (kg) and volume (l) of packaging Type of material (-‐) and recycled content (%) If done on water factory site: energy (kWh) and water (l) consumptions for forming processes13,14
Secondary packaging production
Amount of packaging: mass (kg) and capacity15 (unit/unit) of packaging Type of material (-‐) and recycled content (%)
Tertiary packaging production
Amount of packaging: mass (kg) and capacity15 (unit/unit) of packaging Type of material (-‐) and recycled content (%)
Packaging transport to water factory
Packaging mass (kg) Distance (km) Mode of transport (-‐)
Manufacturing Water extraction,
container filling and grouping
Amount of total water extracted (l): packed water and net water consumption (total water withdrawal – return water)
Gas production for carbonated process
Amount of water of higher CO2 concentration used to adjust the amount of gas per liter (l)
Container washing operations
Fraction of container washed after used (-‐) Water used (l) Natural gas consumption (MJ) NaOH (g) HCl (g)
Distribution Transport from water
factory to distribution center
Packaging mass (kg) Distance (km) Actual payload (t) Mode of transport (-‐)
13 Regarding PET injection moulding and stretch blow moulding, if no data is available at a process level, it is possible to differentiate the repartition of energy consumption and water use between injection moulding and stretch blow moulding processes by using the same repartition as ecoinvent processes (v2.2), i.e. 37% of the electricity consumption of forming processes is related to injection moulding, and 63% to stretch blow moulding, 100% of the natural gas consumption is related to injection moulding, and 9% of water use for cooling is related to injection moulding and 91% to stretch blow moulding 14 Regarding PET, to differentiate the energy and water consumption for PET bottle forming processes and the energy and water consumption for other manufacturing processes, it can be assumed that electricity and natural gas consumption are the same as for the screening study for manufacturing processes (i.e., water withdrawal (not including packed water) = 0.63 l/l; electricity consumption = 0.01 kWh/l; natural gas consumption = 0.013 MJ/l), and the left over energy consumption of the water factory can be allocated to PET bottle forming processes. 15 The term « capacity » refers to the number of primary packaging per secondary or tertiary packaging.
42
Transport from distribution center to point of sale
Packaging mass (kg) Mode of transport (-‐)
Use Glass or plastic cup
production and end-‐of-‐life
Specific end-‐of-‐life of plastic cup (if any, for HOD system) (%)
Chilling operations (at final user)
Electricity for cooling (for HOD system) (kWh)
Packaging end-‐of-‐life N/A 612
6.4 Requirements regarding background generic data and data gaps 613
Data that have less influence on the results and/or are less accessible to the companies are classified as 614
semi-‐specific data. Semi-‐specific data shall be replaced by specific data when available. 615
The default data are provided for the most dominant product for each sub-‐category (i.e., the three 616
representative products considered in the screening) and shall be used in case no specific data are 617
available. When other packed water products are assessed (e.g., the products listed in Appendix B -‐ IRI, 618
Infoscan and Beverage Wholesalers), the relevance of these default data shall be investigated before 619
apply them. Regarding the distribution life cycle stage, please see detailed information provided in 620
section “6.7 Logistics”. 621
43
Table 14 List of semi-‐specific data 622
Life cycle stage Processes Default data Packaging materials
Primary packaging production
Amount of packaging: number of rotations (unit) e.g.,:
• Glass refillable: 20 (source: Expert judgment). This value could be between 10 and 50.
• HOD: 36 (source: Expert judgment). This value is relevant for polycarbonate in EU and US markets. If PET, the value should be lower.
Energy consumption (kWh) and type of energy for forming processes (-‐) e.g.,:
• Injection moulding: electricity consumption medium voltage: 1.48 kWh/kg of input, heat natural gas: 4.21 MJ/kg of input, heat heavy fuel oil: 0.229 MJ/kg of input (source: ecoinvent V2.2).
• Stretch blow moulding: electricity consumption medium voltage: 2.25 kWh/kg of input (source: ecoinvent V2.2)
• Extrusion, plastic pipe: electricity consumption medium voltage: 0.508 kWh/kg of input, heat natural gas: 0.121 MJ/kg of input, heat heavy fuel oil: 0.683 MJ/kg of input (source: ecoinvent V2.2).
Secondary packaging production
Amount of packaging: number of rotations (unit) e.g.,:
• Crate for glass refillable: 135 (source: Expert judgment based on communications with Genossenschaft Deutscher Brunnen (June 2015)). This value could be between 120 to 150; it fits to the average lifetime of up to 30 years.
Tertiary packaging production
Amount of packaging: number of rotations (unit)16 e.g.,:
• Rack for HOD: 250 (source: Expert judgment). It fits to the average lifetime of 10 to 20 years.
Actual payload for transport by truck: 21t (source: Expert judgment).
Manufacturing
16 Note: the pallet mass and number of rotations should be defined at a transversal level (TAB level). 17 Some investigations are on-‐going to confirm this number of rotations for pallet. 18 Note: the pallet mass can vary depending on the water content of the pallet.
44
Container washing operations19
Number of rotations (number of washings) (unit) e.g.,:
• Glass refillable: 20 (source: Expert judgment). This value could be between 10 and 50.
• HOD: 36 (source: Expert judgment). This value is relevant for polycarbonate in EU and US markets. If PET, the value should be lower.
Energy (kWh) and water (l) consumption for washing e.g.,:
• Type of energy and energy consumption20: electricity consumption: 0.010 kWh/l of container washed (source: Expert judgment); natural gas consumption: 0.260 MJ/l of container (source: Expert judgment).
• Water used: 0.3 l/l of container washed (source: Expert judgment).
Distribution Transport from water
factory to distribution center
Empty return ratio (-‐) e.g.,:
• PET one-‐way 1.5L: 0.2 for Truck 40t (source: UETR). • Glass refillable 1.0L: 1.2 for Truck 40t (source: UETR). • HOD PC 5 Gallons: 1.2 for Truck 40t (source: UETR).
Transport from distribution center to point of sale
Distance (km) e.g.,:
• PET one-‐way 1.5L: 100 km for Truck 40t (source: UETR). • Glass refillable 1.0L: 100 km (delivery round) Truck 3.5-‐
20t (source: UETR). • HOD PC 5 Gallons: 100 km (delivery round) Truck 3.5-‐20t
(source: UETR). Actual payload (t) e.g.,:
• PET one-‐way 1.5L: 18t for Truck 40t (source: UETR). • Glass refillable 1.0L: 4.3t for Truck 3.5-‐20t (source:
UETR). • HOD PC 5 Gallons: 4.3t for Truck 3.5-‐20t (source: UETR).
Empty return ratio (-‐) e.g.,:
• PET one-‐way 1.5L: 0.5 for Truck 40t (source: UETR). • Glass refillable 1.0L: 1.5 for Truck 3.5-‐20t (source:
UETR). • HOD PC 5 Gallons: 1.2 for Truck 3.5-‐20t (source: UETR).
Transport from retailer to final user
Definition of purchased item (-‐) e.g.,:
• PET one-‐way 1.5L: one pack of 6 bottles of water (source: Expert judgment).
19 Directly linked to the number of rotations considered for the primary packaging. 20 Type of energy and energy consumption are dependent, so if default data are used, this specific energy mix shall be considered.
45
Distance (km)* e.g.,:
• PET one-‐way 1.5L: 4 km in average (using 4.8 km car roundtrip for grocery shopping with 83.8% of the consumers going to shop by car)
Allocation type (-‐)* e.g.,:
• PET one-‐way 1.5L: 5% per purchased unit (source: Expert judgment).
Use Glass or plastic cup
production and end-‐of-‐life
Number of glasses per liter (glass/l) * e.g.,:
• PET one-‐way 1.5L: 2.7 glass/liter (source: Expert judgment).
• HOD PC 5 Gallons: 2.7 glass/liter (source: Expert judgment).
Note: these default data are not relevant for some easily transportable and useable formats (mainly for a “on the go” application) which are characterized by an easy opening and with a rather small format adapted to one single drinker. Type of glass or plastic cup (-‐) * e.g.,:
• PET one-‐way 1.5L: washable glass (source: Expert judgment).
• HOD PC 5 Gallons: 2.7 glass/liter (source: Expert judgment).
Note: these default data are not relevant for some easily transportable and useable formats (mainly for a “on the go” application) which are characterized by an easy opening and with a rather small format adapted to one single drinker.
46
Type of glass washing* e.g.,:
• PET one-‐way 1.5L: dishwasher (source: Expert judgment).
• PET one-‐way 1.5L: one cycle: 1.2 kWh, 15 L water and 10 g detergent (Kaenzig and Jolliet, 2006). 40 items washed per cycle (as per Humbert et al. (2009)).
• Glass refillable 1.0L: one cycle: 1.2 kWh, 15 L water and 10 g detergent (Kaenzig and Jolliet, 2006). 40 items washed per cycle (as per Humbert et al. (2009)).
Chilling operations (at final user)
Electricity for cooling (home storage or at horeca)* e.g.,:
• PET one-‐way 1.5L: 0.0119 kWh/l.day of chilled product, storage duration: 1.0 day, 30% product chilled (source: Expert judgment based on www.topten.ch21)
• Glass refillable 1.0L: 0.0119 kWh/l.day of chilled product, storage duration: 1.0 day, 100% product chilled (source: Expert judgment based on www.topten.ch22)
Packaging end-‐of-‐life House-‐hold waste:
primary and secondary packaging transport and treatment
Rate and type of end-‐of-‐life treatment* e.g.,:
• PET : 55.6% recycling (source: PCI PET Packaging, Resin & Recycling Ltd (2014).23
Committee) * these default values should be addressed at an horizontal level (e.g., TAB or with other relevant pilots) 623
624
Note The end-‐of-‐life default values provided by the European Commission shall be used
if no specific data can be found. More specific data or primary data can be used to
21 1 L of packed water occupies 3.99 of L of fridge.; 1.09 kWh/L of fridge.y à Average European fridge electricity consumption: 1090 kWh/m3.year=2.986 kWh/m3.day (Expert judgement, based on www.topten.ch, for fridge with bottom freezer; total available volume: 312 L; and yearly consumption: 341 kWh/y). 22 1 L of packed water occupies 3.99 of L of fridge.; 1.09 kWh/L of fridge.y à Average European fridge electricity consumption: 1090 kWh/m3.year=2.986 kWh/m3.day (Expert judgement, based on www.topten.ch, for fridge with bottom freezer; total available volume: 312 L; and yearly consumption: 341 kWh/y). 23 Reminder: Default data shall be used in case no specific data are available. Regarding the recycling rate considered for PET in the "other channels" sub-‐category, it is important to note that % could be different between "on-‐the-‐go" compared to "at home".
47
replace the data presented here, as long as sources are quoted (see “Packaging
end-‐of-‐life" in Table 14).
625
Secondary/generic data are data for which sources are defined together with default data and shall be 626
used by companies. 627
The list of secondary datasets to be used corresponds to the datasets presented in Annex IX – 628
Background data. 629
6.5 Data gaps 630
In this PEFCR, the recommendations regarding default data to be used when no primary data are 631
available are provided. Therefore, no data gaps are foreseen. According to European Commission 632
(2013), “data gaps exist when there is no specific or generic data available that is sufficiently 633
representative of the given process in the product’s life cycle”. 634
6.6 Use stage 635
The life cycle stage “Use” includes the chilling operations at final user, the gas emissions of carbonated 636
water, but also glass and plastic cup (if any) production and end-‐of-‐life and dishwashing. 637
638
Note
According to some PEFCR applications, it seems relevant to present separately the
use stage contribution. This point will be investigated during the next steps of the
project.
-‐ 639
6.7 Logistics 640
Regarding the distribution life cycle stage and transportation of raw materials to water factory 641
(packaging materials stage)”life cycle stage, the following comments should be considered: 642
• With regards to the transportation from the water factory to the distribution center, this will at 643
all times occur on 40 ton trucks. Since transportation is regard to be a cost than should be cut to 644
the minimum, and since competition is very transparent, trucks are always fully loaded on these 645
legs. 646
• The same distribution centers would very likely be used for all types of packed water products, 647
hence also the distance would not differ. The payload is hence only influenced by the length of 648
48
the truck and the height at which bottles can be stapled without risking tipping over of the load, 649
damage and loss of goods during transportation. 650
• Furthermore also the transportation leg from the distribution center to the point of 651
consumption will not be fundamentally different. Most kinds of volumes (i.e., formats) will go to 652
sales points like 1,5 litre one-‐way PET bottles. Some other volumes are likely to be consumed 653
just like 1 litre glass bottles (especially all other glass bottles) meaning they follow the same 654
supply chain schemes, and finally it is fair to say that all HOD recipients follow the same path. 655
656
According to the PEF Guide (European Commission, 2013), the modelling of logistic transport shall take 657
into account the following parameters: transport type, vehicle type and fuel consumption, loading rate, 658
number of empty returns (when relevant), transport distance, allocation for goods transport based on 659
load-‐limiting factor (i.e. mass for high-‐density products and volume for low-‐density products) and fuel 660
production. 661
Figure 4 represents the approach used to model the impacts from transport. This approach allows the 662
allocation of (i.e., distribution of) the impacts of transport to different items, for example to distribute 663
the impacts related to the collection of empty used containers simultaneously to the delivery of filled 664
containers. 665
The impacts of the truck itself (baseline fuel consumption and emissions as well as infrastructures) are 666
attributable to the product. In addition to the impacts of the truck itself, it is possible to calculate the 667
impacts related to the additional load of the product (marginal fuel consumption), attributable to the 668
product, and the impacts related to the additional load of the used refillable containers transported 669
simultaneously to the packed water delivery (marginal fuel consumption), attributable to the used 670
refillable containers. 671
49
672 Figure 4 Transport modelling framework 673
674
Regarding vehicle type and fuel consumption, the key information presented in Table 15 shall be used 675
for modelling trucks operations (i.e., impact related to the operations of the truck itself and impact 676
related to additional load (marginal consumption)). Fuel consumption and maximum load are 677
considered as representative for the European context; especially the data for the 40 tonnes are directly 678
provided by UETR. 679
The key information presented in Table 16 shall be used for modelling infrastructures (i.e., truck 680
production, maintenance and end-‐of-‐life and road construction, maintenance and end-‐of-‐life). The 681
infrastructures shall be based on the dataset listed in Table 17, excluding the operations. 682
Dataset for direct emissions related to the combustion of 1 kg of diesel 688
According to Table 15, ELCD database (instead of ecoinvent considered previously for the screening 689
studies) shall be used to model the direct emissions related to the combustion of 1 kg of diesel. 690
Nevertheless, some important limitations have been identified in the ELCD datasets, especially in terms 691
of : i) mix of Euro-‐type considered, ii) amount of sulphur considered for the diesel (which is not aligned 692
with EN 590 (Directive 98/70/EG)) and iii) emissions of particulates. If more updated and reliable data 693
will be available, they should be investigated and used when relevant. 694
695
Impact related to the operations of the truck itself 696
The impact related to the operations of the truck itself (i.e., to move the empty truck), due to its own 697
weight and rolling resistance, shall be attributed to the product (i.e., to raw materials for the delivery of 698
packaging materials to water factory, or to packed water for distribution transports). 699
The impact related to the operations of the truck itself linked to the collection of used refillable 700
containers shall be entirely allocated to the packed water products (filled containers). The rationale 701
51
behind is that the collect of used refillable containers is simultaneous to the distribution of filled 702
containers and that the first aim of the transport is to deliver the filled containers rather than collecting 703
the empty ones. 704
705
Impact related to the infrastructures 706
The impact related to the infrastructures (i.e., truck production, maintenance and end-‐of-‐life and road 707
construction, maintenance and end-‐of-‐life), shall be attributed to the product (i.e., to raw materials for 708
the delivery of packaging materials to water factory, or to packed water for distribution transports). It 709
shall be allocated (distributed) following the same approach described for the operations of the truck 710
itself. 711
The impact related to the infrastructure linked to the collection of used refillable containers shall be 712
entirely allocated to the packed water products (filled containers). 713
714
Impact related to additional load 715
The impact related to additional load (marginal consumption) shall be attribute to the product (i.e., to 716
raw materials for the delivery of packaging materials to water factory, or to packed water for 717
distribution transports) or to the used refillable containers when applicable. This impact is proportional 718
to the additional load transported, and is calculated subtracting the impact of an empty truck from the 719
impact of a full loaded truck. This difference is then divided by the total load (mass) being transported 720
when the truck is full, in order to obtain the impact per kg of additional load transported. 721
722
Impact related to the empty returns 723
The impact related to the empty returns shall be attribute to the product (i.e., to raw materials for the 724
delivery of packaging materials to water factory, or to packed water for distribution transports), both in 725
terms of operations of the empty truck and infrastructures. 726
727
6.8 End-‐of-‐life stage 728
The life cycle stage “Packaging end-‐of-‐life” includes the transport and treatment of the different 729
packaging waste (primary, secondary and tertiary packaging). 730
Waste treatment at the end-‐of-‐life of the pallet is considered to be negligible and it is excluded from the 731
system. 732
52
All packaging waste not recycled can be assumed incinerated or landfilled according to the municipal 733
solid waste treatment rates of the corresponding market. Heat recovery is assumed for incineration 734
(considering substituted energies). 735
The end-‐of-‐life default values provided by the European Commission shall be used if no specific data can 736
be found. More specific data or primary data can be used to replace the data presented here, as long as 737
sources are quoted (see “Packaging end-‐of-‐life” in Table 14). 738
Potential recycling issues related to the presence of colouring agents, additives and barrier components 739
shall be taken into account as they can indirectly influence the end-‐of-‐life parameters. 740
Regarding the quality of the secondary material (Qs), i.e. the quality of the recycled (or re-‐used) material 741
and the quality of the primary material (Qp), i.e. the quality of the virgin material, the ratio Qs/Qp shall 742
follow the indications of the document “PEF-‐OEF_EOL DefaultData_V1.1_uploaded.xlsx”. 743
744
Note
Other information regarding the end-‐of-‐life stage is provided in previous sections
“6.3 Requirements regarding foreground specific data collection” and “6.4
Requirements regarding background generic data and data gaps”.
-‐ 745
6.9 Requirements for multifunctional products and multiproduct processes 746
allocation 747
Packaging end-‐of-‐life is modelled according to recommendations provided by the European Commission 748
to deal with multi-‐functionality in end-‐of-‐life situations (European Commission, 2013). The excel file 749
named “RecyclingFormula-‐v1-‐EFPilot-‐ems24Jan2014.xls” (sent by e-‐mail on 29th January 2014) is 750
considered, which describes the 50:50 end-‐of-‐life formula. Figure 5 illustrates which elements of the 751
formula are to be considered within the life cycle stages “Packaging materials” and “Packaging end-‐of-‐752
life”. 753
53
754 Figure 5 PEF Guide end-‐of-‐life formula with the terms grouped by life cycle stage (see PEF Guide for detailed 755
descriptions of each term used in the equation) 756
757
The following sources shall be considered for the recycling rate of main materials considered for primary 758
packaging: 759
• PET: "PCI PET Packaging, Resin & Recycling Ltd (2014). A PCI Report for PETCORE and Plastic 760
Recyclers Europe (PRE). Post consumer PET recycling in Europe and prospects to 2018. July 761
2014." or more updated when available. 762
• Glass: Eurostat. 763
764
54
7 Benchmark and classes of environmental performance 765
766
As a matter of principle, our pilot does not question the merits of a benchmark approach as a tool 767
among others to enable final consumers to assess the Environmental Footprint (EF) of products placed 768
on the market. We, however, consider that, at this stage of development of the PEF methodology, a 769
mandatory and stringent benchmark approach would be premature. For the reasons further explained 770
below, the implementation of the benchmark might give an inaccurate perception to consumers and a 771
wrong incentive to the industry. 772
773
In fact, a number of hurdles and uncertainties related to the PEF methodology have been identified by 774
the TS which can be summarized as follows: 775
• Scope and representative products: The consumer may be tended to compare the 776
environmental performance of different drink categories in real purchase situations. In addition, 777
our reference products rely on distribution channels and one product is likely to be subject to 778
various benchmarks if distributed through more than one channel. 779
• Choice of methodological options: Certain modalities of the methodology are not yet sufficiently 780
robust and/or still under development. This is particularly the case for the use phase (electricity 781
mix), the packaging and the end of life formula. 782
• Secondary data: Sets of secondary data are far from being finalized and vary from country to 783
country. The use of European average impacts is likely to unfavourably influence the 784
environmental performance of many products. 785
786
The results of the supporting studies tend to confirm these gaps and discrepancies which is fully 787
understandable in a pilot phase. This is why, the TS has decided to address the benchmark issue in the 788
frame of the upcoming communication vehicle tests. 789
The TS will finally explore possible alternatives to a pure benchmark approach that would enable to fulfil 790
the primary objective laid down in the PEF guidance. 791
792
793
55
8 Interpretation 794
795
According to the PEF Guidance (European Commission, 2014), the interpretation phase shall include the 796
following steps: 797
• Assessment of the robustness of the Product Environmental Footprint model (e.g. completeness 798
and consistency check); 799
• Identification of Hotspots; 800
• Estimation of uncertainty; 801
• Conclusions, recommendations and limitations. 802
All impact categories having a visible impact at one or the other level shall be considered for the 803
assessment. 804
The limitations of the PEF shall be clearly stated and described. 805
Main conclusions together with the hotspots analysis can be found in the PEF screening report in the 806
associated files. 807
808
56
9 Reporting, Disclosure and Communication 809
This section aims to provide a description of the current status (as per July 2016) of the communication 810
activities carried out by the TS. An ad-‐hoc communication group has been established including 811
communication people of TS members. 812
The key information related to the communication phase is summarized in the table below for the three 813
CVs selected for the test. More details are provided in the following sections. 814 815
Table 17 Key information related to the communication phase 816
Category CV1 CV2 CV3
CVs descriptions Performance tracking report
Company's integrated report
Website
Benchmark Performance over time. Performance over time. Simulated benchmarks for each sub-‐category, depending on the location/geography of the purchasing place. In addition, a European benchmark will be simulated and tested.
Impact categories All impact categories indicators with a focus on the three most relevant ones: "Climate change", "Water resource depletion" and "Resource depletion -‐ Mineral, fossil".
Target groups Selected B2B customers
Representative sample including employees, consumers or consumer associations, corporate customers, NGOs and investors
i) Consumers, with a strong environmental awareness and purchasing responsibility ii) retailers; mineral water category buyers, and horeca stakeholders
France France Italy Methods Lab-‐based Lab-‐based Lab-‐based
Qualitative test based on a pre-‐defined set of questions.
Qualitative test in its digital environment with in-‐depth individual face-‐to-‐face interviews (around 10 people). There will be no control cell.
i) Qualitative test: 2 focus groups (8 individuals per group), following a structured scheme of interview. Quantitative test: on line survey (80-‐100 interviews), open and closed questions based on the qualitative test findings. The participants will receive a code in order to access the CV and to test it. ii) Qualitative test: individual interviews (6 individuals), following a structured scheme of interview.
57
Category CV1 CV2 CV3
Measured effects Understanding the PEF and the environmental performance of the product Impact on the customers' decision to purchase the product and their perception of the company (i.e. reputation) Recommendations for improvement will also be requested
Interest Understanding of CV Relevance of the CV Effect of CV on attitude towards the product Effect of CV on reputation of the company Effect of CV on awareness of environmental issues Interviewees will also be invited to give advice/recommendations to improve it
Awareness of environmental issues concerning bottled waters Understanding of the website lab developed (CV) Interest of users about the content of information Potential effect on buying/using behaviour Potential effect on brand image The test will also allow to evaluate the specific information needs of the target groups regarding the environmental impact of packed water
817
9.1 Communication vehicles descriptions 818
The following communication vehicles (CVs) are considered in the pilot phase period. 819
820
CV1 -‐ Performance tracking report 821
This CV will focus on B2B communications by testing the performance tracking report. It is an effective 822
vehicle because it allows the product to benchmark its current performance versus its performance in 823
previous years. This type of benchmark is an advantage in terms of negotiations and discussions with 824
customers and/or purchasing teams, who may view this as a critical factor in selecting their suppliers. 825
The company will develop a specific document that will present the PEF pilot and demonstrate the 826
continuous / year-‐on-‐year improvement of one product of the sub-‐category "At the office". 827
828
CV2 -‐ Company's integrated report 829
The integrated report is the main support tool of the concerned company to communicate on its 830
sustainability performances to all its stakeholders. The tool is integrated in the company’s corporate 831
website (a sub-‐webpage) and a specific section of the report will be dedicated to the PEF. The company 832
will explain the context with reference to the EU pilot, and communicate on the PEF performance of one 833
58
product of a specific sub-‐category, including all impact categories but with a specific focus on the three 834
most relevant ones. Absolute performance and performance over time will be communicated. The 835
communication will be as concrete as possible (with specific examples on climate change, water 836
resource depletion and resource depletion) and as simple as possible in order to be easily understood by 837
non-‐experts. 838
839
CV3 -‐ Website 840
The company will develop a website which will enable website visitors to learn about the environmental 841
impact of the products from the three sub-‐categories. It will be possible to compare the impact of any 842
products for each sub-‐category versus simulated benchmarks, depending on the location/geography of 843
the purchasing place. In addition, a European benchmark will be simulated and tested. The source for 844
measuring the impact of the company products is the PEF supporting study. Benchmarks will be defined 845
on purely theoretical basis, representing both a better and a worse performer than the company 846
products. 847
848
The three CVs will communicate on all impact categories indicators with a focus on the three most 849
relevant ones as selected in section 5.5. As reminder the most relevant impact categories are: "Climate 850
Different target groups will be addressed testing the three CVs covering both B2B and B2C stakeholders 854
coming from different countries (i.e., France and Italy). 855
856
CV1 -‐ Performance tracking report 857
Selected B2B customers of the company based in France. 858
859
CV2 -‐ Company's integrated report 860
The company will expose a representative sample of all the stakeholders that are targeted by the 861
company’s Integrated Report to the CV test. The target groups include employees, consumers or 862
consumer associations, corporate customers, NGOs and investors. The test will take place in France and 863
address French stakeholders. 864
59
CV3 -‐ Website 865
1) Italian mineral water consumers, with a strong environmental awareness and purchasing 866
responsibility. 2) Italian retailers, mineral water category buyers, horeca stakeholders (restaurants, bars, 867
hotels). 868
9.3 Methods 869
The three CVs will be tested in a lab scale environment. Qualitative tests will be considered in the three 870
CVs and, in addition, one of them will explore quantitative test. Both digital and face-‐to-‐face 871
environments will be addressed within this pilot. 872
873
CV1 -‐ Performance tracking report 874
The company will run a lab-‐based, qualitative test, based on a pre-‐defined set of questions with a 875
selected group of customers. 876
877
CV2 -‐ Company's integrated report 878
The company will realise a qualitative lab based test. This communication will be tested in its digital 879
environment (integrated report section of the web site). The test will consist of in-‐depth individual 880
interviews (around 10 people interviewed face to face). There will be no control cell. 881
882
CV3 -‐ Website 883
1) Consumer 884
i. Qualitative test: 2 focus groups (8 individuals per group), following a structured scheme of interview. 885
ii.. Quantitative test: on line survey (80-‐100 interviews), open and closed questions based on the 886
qualitative test findings. The participants will receive a code in order to access the CV and to test it. 887
2) Retailers 888
Qualitative test: individual interviews (6 individuals), following a structured scheme of interview. 889
890
9.4 Measured effects 891
CV1 -‐ Performance tracking report 892
The company will test to what extent the CV is effective in driving the customers' understanding of the 893
PEF and the environmental performance of its product. The company also wants to assess whether the 894
60
CV has an impact on the customers' decision to purchase the product and their perception of the 895
company (i.e. reputation). Recommendations for improvement will also be requested. 896
897
CV2 -‐ Company's integrated report 898
The company will present the PEF section of the integrated report to the above mentioned stakeholders 899
and will assess through interviews the following effects: Interest, Understanding of CV, Relevance of the 900
CV, Effect of CV on attitude towards the product, Effect of CV on reputation of the company, Effect of CV 901
on awareness of environmental issues, Interviewees will also be invited to give advice 902
/recommendations to improve it. 903
904
CV3 -‐ Website 905
The objective is to measure the CV understanding in terms of: awareness of environmental issues 906
concerning bottled waters; understanding of the website lab developed (CV); interest of users about the 907
content of information; potential effect on buying/using behaviour; potential effect on brand image. The 908
test will also allow to evaluate the specific information needs of the target groups regarding the 909
environmental impact of packed water. 910
911
9.5 Additional information 912
In terms of durations, the CVs will be tested starting from August 2016, and all the communication pilot 913
phase will be concluded by end of November 2016. 914
Some challenges are foreseen as time, costs, visibility and clarity. In addition, expected biases may be 915
campaigns that can affect the category (i.e., against bottled water) and/or the companies involved. 916
917
61
10 Verification 918
Note This section will be completed at a later date.
919
The verification procedure shall be transparent. The independent verifier shall generate a report 920
documenting the verification process, while adhering to the obligations covering rules for data 921
confidentiality. This report shall be available to any person upon request. 922
According to the European Commission (2013): 923
Any PEF study intended for internal communication claiming to be in line with the PEF Guide and any 924
PEF study for external communication (e.g. B2B or B2C) shall be critically reviewed in order to ensure 925
that: 926
• The methods used to carry out the PEF study are consistent with this PEF Guide; 927
• The methods used to carry out the PEF study are scientifically and technically valid; 928
• The data used are appropriate, reasonable and meet the defined data quality requirements; 929
• The interpretation of results reflects the limitations identified; 930
• The study report is transparent, accurate and consistent. 931
932
For additional information regarding verification, please refer to the PEF Guidance (European 933
Commission 2014) and PEF Guide (European Commission 2013). 934
935
62
11 Reference literature 936
BIER (2011)
Beverage industry Environmental Roundtable (BIER). A Practical Perspective on Water Accounting in the Beverage Sector. December 2011.
BIER (2013)
Beverage industry Environmental Roundtable (BIER). Beverage Industry Sector Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting. December 2013.
Canadean (2013)
Canadean (2013). Key statistics gathered by market research and available of the official website of EFBW. http://www.efbw.eu/index.php?id=128. September 2014.
CHEP (2014) CHEP (2014). Official website, http://www.chep.com/pallets/wooden-‐pallet-‐1200-‐x-‐1000-‐mm/. September 2014.
EFBW (2012) European Federation of Bottled Waters (EFBW). Guide to good hygienic practices for packaged water in Europe. May 2012.
EFBW (2013)
European Federation of Bottled Waters (EFBW). Draft Product Category Rules for type III environmental declaration; Waters not sweetened nor flavoured. December 2013.
EFBW (2014) European Federation of Bottled Water (EFBW) (2014). Official website, http://www.efbw.eu/index.php?id=40. August 2014.
European Commission (2013)
European Commission (2013). 2013/179/EU: Commission Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. Official Journal of the European Union, L 124, Volume 56, May 4th, 2013. http://eur-‐lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:124:SOM:EN:HTML
European Commission (2014)
European Commission (2014). Environmental Footprint Pilot Guidance document. Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental Footprint (EF) Pilot Phase, v. 4.0, May 2014. The last version available has been considered in this update, i.e., “Guidance for the implementation of the EU PEF during the EF Pilot Phase” (version 5.2).
European Food SCP Round Table (2013)
European Food Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) Round Table (2013). ENVIFOOD Protocol -‐ Environmental Assessment of Food and Drink Protocol, Version 1.0, November 20th, 2013.
European Union
(2009)
European Union. Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 June 2009 . Official Journal of the European Union, 26.6.2009.
63
Eurostat (2011) Eurostat (2011). Official website, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/refreshTableAction.do;jsessionid=9ea7d07d30dc7045aaa40bd645b492f3b1c17823f3c4.e34MbxeSaxaSc40LbNiMbxeNbxaQe0?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=ten00063&language=fr. August 2014.
Eurostat (2012) Eurostat (2012). Official website, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=tsdpc240&language=en. August 2014.
Humbert et al. (2009)
Humbert S, Loerincik Y, Rossi V, Margni M, Jolliet O (2009). Life cycle assessment of spray dried soluble coffee and comparison with alternatives (drip filter and capsules espresso). Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 1351-‐1358. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.04.011
IRI (2013) IRI (2013). Infoscan and Beverage Wholesalers, Italy.
Kaenzig and Jolliet (2006)
Kaenzig and Jolliet (2006). Consommation respectueuse de l’environnement: décisions et acteurs clés, modèles de consommation. Connaissance de l’environnement no 0616. Office fédéral de l’environnement (OFEV). Berne. 113 p. 2006.
Nielsen (2014) Nielsen (2014). Markets: Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece (excl. tobacconists), Hungary (excl. horeca), Italy, Poland and Spain. Period: 12 rolling months ending April 2014. Scope: still and sparkling water. April 2014.
PCI PET Packaging, Resin & Recycling Ltd (2014)
PCI PET Packaging, Resin & Recycling Ltd (2014). A PCI Report for PETCORE and Plastic Recyclers Europe (PRE). Post consumer PET recycling in Europe 203 and prospects to 2018. July 2014.
The International EPD® System, Environdec (2014)
The International EPD® System, Environdec. LCA-‐lab srl (2014). Product Category Rules. Bottled waters, not sweetened or flavoured. February 2014.
Zenith International (2014)
Zenith International (2014). European Botteld Water Market Report 2014. March 25th, 2014.
937
938
64
12 Supporting information for the PEFCR 939
Open stakeholder consultations 940
The documents for consultation are available in the stakeholder workspace dedicated to this PEFCR 941
which is accessible through this site: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/ 942
943
PEFCR Review Report 944
Additional requirements in standards not covered in PEFCR 945
N/A 946
947
Cases of deviations from the default approach 948
N/A 949
950
65
13 List of annexes 951
13.1 Annex I – Representative product 952
Three different representative products are considered in this PEFCR, one for each of the following 953
product sub-‐categories: “other channels”, “at horeca” and “at the office”. The key information for each 954
representative product is presented in Table 18. 955
Table 18 The three representative products considered in this PEFCR 956
Sub-‐categories: unit “other channels” “at horeca” “at the office”
Primary packaging (main body)
Material n/a PET Glass PC
Volume L 1.5 1.0 18.9
System n/a one-‐way refillable refillable (HOD)
Name of the representative product
PET one-‐way
1.5L
Glass refillable
1.0L 24
HOD PC refillable
5 gallons
Note: 5 gallons = 18.9 liters
Note: the PET considered in these representative products does not include recycled PET
The main function of the product is to provide water from sealed containers ready to be drunk at the 957
mouth. Some alternative applications are present on the market which correspond to the main three 958
sub-‐categories listed here: 959
• “other channels” applications which include the “on the go” application (characterized by an 960
easily transportable and useable format, easy opening and with a rather small format adapted 961
to one single drinker) and the “at home” application (characterized by formats mainly used 962
within a domestic context); 963
• “at horeca” application considers formats mainly used at a hotel, restaurant or café; and 964
• “at the office” application considers formats mainly used within a professional context. 965
24 This most dominant representative product is especially relevant for restaurants, cafés and hotels. Regarding fastfoods and snack entities (i.e., "small restaurants"), PET-‐based packed water products could be a significant part of this sub-‐category. Please see "PEFCR_PackedWater_DrafPEFCR_2014-‐11-‐17_Quantis.pdf" available on the dedicated webpage (https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/) for a more detailed discussion on this point."
66
966
The representative products have been selected based on expert judgment considering the most 967
dominant product per sub-‐category; the representative products are the clear dominant reference in all 968
countries but with significant local use for many other format/material. Unfortunately, complete market 969
information is not available and therefore the Technical Secretariat will elaborate some sensitive 970
analyses to measure impact of formats among for the same packaging material. 971
972
Note The following objectives of the screening according to the European Commission
(2014) are clearly addressed with the approach considered to select the
representative products: pre-‐identification of the most relevant life cycle stages,
pre-‐identification of the most relevant processes, preliminary indication about the
most relevant life cycle impact categories and pre-‐identification of data quality
needs.
Concerning the last objective of the screening listed according to the European
Commission (2014), i.e., the preliminary indication about the definition of the
benchmark for the product category/sub-‐categories in scope, the Technical
Secretariat has already started to discuss about the approach for benchmarks
determination. Given the complexity of the scope and market for packed water,
the discussion on benchmarks will be continued during the next months. In this
reflection, it is important to take into account the potential influence of other
packaging materials compared to those considered with the selected
representative products within a sub-‐category.
973
Complete European market data are not available25, nevertheless the following information (e.g., 974
reflecting national situation) related to the different types of packaging material can be considered to 975
justify the choices proposed in this document: 976
• “other channels”: this sub-‐category includes “on the go” and “at home”. The Technical Secretariat 977
decided to merge them into a unique “other channels” sub-‐category. At this stage (according to 978
available data) and since huge differences exist from one market to another one in Europe (with 979
25 In parallel, efforts are still taking place to find European data to further support the choices of the Technical Secretariat.
67
much bigger format in the geographies in the Southern part of Europe), the Technical Secretariat 980
did not build a virtual average product and selected as representative product the “PET one-‐way 981
1.5L” for this sub-‐category since it is by far the dominant format in all countries. The analysis about 982
the amount of packaging material used per liter shows very little changes from one format to 983
another one (e.g., from “PET one-‐way 0.5L” to “PET one-‐way 1.5L”); but to assess the potential 984
influence of this parameter, the Technical Secretariat will elaborate some sensitive analyses to 985
measure impact of formats among for the same packaging material. The detailed information is 986
presented below: 987
o “on the go”: Based on Italian data according to IRI (2013) (Italy represents one of the most 988
important market of packed water producers and consumers in Europe), the market shares in 989
terms of volumes (i.e., liters of water) are: 100% PET; other packaging materials (e.g., glass, 990
beverage carton and aluminium) represents less than 1%. According to this information, the 991
PET is the representative packaging material. The most dominant format for PET in this sub-‐992
category is the 0.5L. Note that many formats could be found in this sub-‐category; e.g., “PET 993
Gironi et al. (2010) Gironi F., Piemonte V., Life Cycle Assessment of Polylactic Acid and
Polyethylene Terephthalate Bottles for Drinking Water. Environmental Progress
& Sustainable Energy (Vol.30, No.3) DOI 10.1002/ep. 2011
Nestlé Waters,
Quantis (2009)
Nestlé Waters, Quantis (2009). Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of
Drinking Water Alternatives and Consumer Beverage Consumption in North
America. 2009
Scipioni et al. (2012) Scipioni A., Monia Niero M., Mazzi A., Manzardo A., Piubello S.. Significance of
the use of non-‐renewable fossil CED as proxy indicator for screening LCA in the
beverage packaging sector. Int J Life Cycle Assess (2013) 18:673–682. 2012.
University of
Michigan (2009)
University of Michigan (2009). Comparative Life-‐Cycle Assessment of Bottled
vs. Tap Water Systems. December 14th, 2009.
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
75
13.13 Appendix B -‐ IRI, Infoscan and Beverage Wholesalers 1112
Source: IRI, Infoscan and Beverage Wholesalers (2013). 1113
1114
Table 19 Italian market shares per type of packaging materials for the sub-‐categories “other channels” (including 1115 “on the go” and “at home”) and “at horeca” in terms of volumes sold in 2013 according to IRI (2013) 1116
1117 1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
76
Table 20 Italian market shares per packed water product for the sub-‐categories “other channels” (including “on the 1133 go” and “at home”) and “at horeca” in terms of volumes sold in 2013 according to IRI (2013) 1134
![RESEARCHARTICLE Long-TermResistanceof Drosophila … recharacterization... · 2015. 5. 18. · moreresistant toα-amanitin thanthesusceptible wildtype stock Oregon-R [22].Thesethree](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/60e7c75de73c95601f29d014/researcharticle-long-termresistanceof-drosophila-recharacterization-2015-5.jpg)
