Int J Life Cycle Assess

DOI 10.1007/s11367-013-0590-4

PACKAGING SYSTEMS INCLUDING RECYCLING

An extended life cycle analysis of packaging systems

for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe
Stefan Albrecht & Peter Brandstetter & Tabea Beck &
Pere Fullana-i-Palmer & Kaisa Grönman & Martin Baitz &
Sabine Deimling & Julie Sandilands & Matthias Fischer

Received: 27 July 2012 / Accepted: 25 April 2013

# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Abstract different scenarios, and their impacts are quantified. The

Purpose The year-round supply of fresh fruit and vegetables underlying environmental analysis is an ISO 14040 and
in Europe requires a complex logistics system. In this study, the 14044 comparative Life Cycle Assessment that was critical-
most common European fruit and vegetable transport packag- ly reviewed by an independent expert panel.
ing systems, namely single-use wooden and cardboard boxes Results and discussion The results show that wooden boxes
and re-useable plastic crates, are analyzed and compared con- and plastic crates perform very similarly in the Global
sidering environmental, economic, and social impacts. Warming Potential, Acidification Potential, and Photochemical
Methods The environmental, economic, and social poten- Ozone Creation Potential categories; while plastic crates have a
tials of the three transport packaging systems are examined lower impact in the Eutrophication Potential and Abiotic Re-
and compared from a life cycle perspective using Life Cycle source Depletion Potential categories. Cardboard boxes show
Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Life the highest impacts in all assessed categories. The analysis of
Cycle Working Environment (LCWE) methodologies. Rel- the life cycle costs show that the re-usable system is the most
evant parameters influencing the results are analyzed in cost effective over its entire life cycle. For the production of a
single crate, the plastic crates require the most human labor.
Responsible editor: Hans-Jürgen Garvens The share of female employment for the cardboard boxes is the
S. Albrecht (*) : P. Brandstetter : T. Beck
lowest. All three systems require a relatively large share of
Department of Life Cycle Engineering (GaBi), low-qualified employees. The plastic crate system shows a
University of Stuttgart, LBP, much lower lethal accident rate. The higher rate for the wooden
Wankelstr. 5, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany and cardboard boxes arises mainly from wood logging. In
e-mail: [email protected]
addition, the sustainability consequences due to the influence
P. Fullana-i-Palmer of packaging in preventing food losses are discussed, and
UNESCO Chair in Life Cycle and Climate Change, future research combining aspects both from food LCAs and
Escola Superior de Comerc Internacional (UPF), transport packing/packaging LCAs is recommended.
Passeig Pujades 1, 08003 Barcelona, Spain Conclusions For all three systems, optimization potentials
K. Grönman regarding their environmental life cycle performance were
Lappeenranta University of Technology, LUT Energy, identified. Wooden boxes (single use) and plastic crates (re-
P.O. Box 20, 53851 Lappeenranta, Finland usable) show preferable environmental performance. The
M. Baitz : S. Deimling : J. Sandilands
calibration of the system parameters, such as end-of-life
PE International AG, treatment, showed environmental optimization potentials in
Hauptstr. 113, 70771 Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Germany all transport packaging systems. The assessment of the
economic and the social dimensions in parallel is important
M. Fischer in order to avoid trade-offs between the three sustainability
Department of Life Cycle Engineering (GaBi),
Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics, dimensions. Merging economic and social aspects into a
Wankelstr. 5, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany Life Cycle Assessment is becoming more and more
 Int J Life Cycle Assess

important, and their integration into one model ensures a recycling options, etc.) than the scope of this current study.
consistent modeling approach for a manageable effort. Differences in methodology between the existing studies
include the choice of goal and scope; the inclusion of
Keywords Fruit and vegetables . LCA . LCC . Packaging . different scenarios; the selection of different data sources;
Social LCA . Transport the assumptions regarding key parameters (such as the num-
ber of circulations of re-usable plastic crates, ranging from
10 to 100); the degree of complexity in modeling the logis-
1 Introduction tics; how open-loop recycling was addressed; the treatment
of biogenic CO2; the extent of the sensitivity analysis, how
Every day, thousands of goods make their way from pro- the interpretation phase of LCA was addressed; who
ducers to consumers. According to the press release of the performed the critical review and how it was performed;
fruit logistica trade fair 2005, more than 22 million tonnes and, finally, how sustainability was addressed (which pillars
of fresh fruit and vegetables is traded in Europe every year of sustainability were taken into account).
and is transported in a comparable way to that considered in The results of the studies also differ; it is well known that
this study. Transport packaging systems play an essential system analysis and comparison from a life cycle perspective
part in the logistic chain, and wooden boxes, cardboard do not give a unique and static answer. While one study
boxes, and plastic crates are most commonly used for the (ADEME 2000) showed that the multiple-use option was
packaging of fruit or vegetables. According to the vice environmentally preferable to the cardboard boxes and quite
director of Stiftung Initiative Mehrweg, a German associa- similar to the wooden boxes for most of the environmental
tion promoting re-usable packaging, the re-usable transport impact categories assessed, another study (Capuz et al. 2005)
packaging has an estimated market share of about 40 % in showed the opposite, i.e., that the environmental impact of
Europe, for single-use packaging cardboard boxes have the single-use cardboard boxes was lower than that of re-usable
largest market shares. Wooden boxes have the lowest mar- plastic crates in six of the ten categories analyzed.
ket share due to their technical limitations like poor This paper presents the main results and findings of an
stackability. extensive LCA study that was first finalized in 2007 and then
Besides bananas, in principle, all kinds of fruit and veg- updated and extended in 2009 (Barthel et al. 2007; Albrecht et
etables are transported in these kinds of transport packaging; al. 2009). This study analyzed and compared the most com-
thus, the findings of this article are applicable to a huge mon transport packaging systems for fruit and vegetables in
range of fruit and vegetables. Depending on the size, con- Europe with respect to the environmental impacts and social
sistency, humidity, etc. of the fruit and vegetables, specific and economic aspects related to their use. Given such range of
primary packaging could be necessary for protection and to studies that cover the whole life cycle of fruit and vegetable
enable the use of the chosen transport packaging option. The packaging options, including environmental, economic, and
primary packaging is both used in single-use and re-usable social aspects, the study presented here aimed to reproduce an
packaging, appearing with an enormous diversity. The in- average situation of fruit and vegetable transport for Europe.
fluence of primary packaging is not covered in this study. This average situation is complemented by an extensive pa-
While wooden and cardboard boxes are single-use trans- rameter analysis. The analysis of the environmental, econom-
port packaging systems and are normally disposed of, in- ic, and social impacts of packaging arguably provides a more
cinerated, or partly recycled after single use, plastic crates objective basis for discussion on sustainable packaging in the
are generally returnable and are washed and reused multiple fruit and vegetable sector, than the analysis of environmental
times. Wooden and cardboard boxes are based on renewable impacts alone. The results are intended to be used to identify
feedstock while plastic crates use oil-based fossil feedstock. favorable boundary conditions of transport packaging systems
Assessing the sustainability of these widely used transport for fruit and vegetable distribution throughout Europe (in a
packaging options in a realistic manner is important to gain representative average situation). The results can be further
knowledge to be able to choose the most preferable pack- used for the identification of optimization potentials of a given
aging option for specific situations. transport packaging option from a system point of view.
The sustainability of transport packaging for fruit and
vegetables has previously been studied (ADEME 2000;
Cagnot et al. 2000; Chonhenchob and Singh 2003; Wagner 2 The analysis
and Partner SA 2003; RPCC 2004; Capuz et al. 2005;
Chonhenchob and Singh 2005; Singh et al. 2006; Barthel 2.1 Scope of the study
et al. 2007; Albrecht et al. 2009; Levi et al. 2011). These
studies were generally found to be more specific in scope The study analyses and compares transport packaging sys-
(with reference to geographical coverage, country-specific tems for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe. The
Int J Life Cycle Assess

functional unit on which the comparison is based is defined for the fruit and vegetable market in Continental Europe. The
as the distribution of 15 kg of fruits/vegetables in 3,333,350 damaged crates are identified and removed before cleaning,
filled boxes/crates. The fruit/vegetables are transported in resulting in around 3.32 million washings and dryings of the
either wooden or cardboard boxes, which are both single- plastic crates that are reused. The technical specifications of
use systems, or in re-usable plastic crates. The functional the systems analyzed are presented in Table 1.
unit reflects the number of boxes/crates necessary to transport
1,000 t of goods five times p.a. accounting for the baseline 2.2 Product system boundaries
assumption of five annual circulations per re-usable crate for a
time span of 10 years using the most common transport The analysis covers the whole life cycle of the three trans-
packaging size (600 mm×400 mm×240 mm) and comparable port packaging systems, from raw material extraction via
capacity (15 kg fruits or vegetables per box). To fulfill the production, distribution, and use through to the end of life
functional unit for the single-use systems, 3,333,350 boxes (recycling and/or disposal or incineration). This includes the
have to be produced, used, and brought to the end of life. As extraction of raw materials and fossil fuels, the forestry, the
the plastic crates can be used multiple times, the average supply of energy and utilities, all transports of primary
lifetime and the number of fillings during the lifetime have materials and resources, and the long distance transports of
to be considered. Primary data give 4.8 fillings per year and an the fruit and vegetable crates and boxes throughout Europe
average lifetime of up to 20 years (Albrecht et al. 2009); thus, over their lifetime, as shown in Fig. 2.
five fillings per year and a lifetime of 10 years have been This study considers fruit and vegetable production and
chosen as a conservative baseline scenario for comparison. consumption from six countries. Spain, Italy, France, the
This results in an initial production of 66,667 plastic crates to Netherlands, and Germany represent five of Europe’s largest
fulfill the distribution of 3,333,350 filled crates as illustrated in fruit and vegetable producers. France, Germany, the Nether-
Fig. 1. Prior to washing, the plastic crates are inspected for lands, and Great Britain represent a large proportion of
breakage and replaced if necessary. The average breakage rate Europe’s consumed fruit and vegetables. The transportation
during the lifetime of plastic crates is set to 0.47 % as an services are calculated using a transportation matrix, consid-
industry average given by Euro Pool System (2008) and IFCO ering the freight transport volume from each producer country
SYSTEMS (2008), two of the leading logistics service pro- to each consumer country combined with the respective trans-
viders of returnable packaging solutions for fresh produce, port kilometers driven within the European distribution net.
holding together about 80 % share of the returnable packaging Table 2 provides the determined result of an average European

Fig. 1 Overview of the system

characteristics over the life
cycle of the systems (baseline
scenario)
 Int J Life Cycle Assess

Table 1 Technical specifications of the transport packaging systems analyzed

Wooden boxes Cardboard boxes Plastic crates

Production (material) Wood Cardboard Polypropylene and polyethylene

Service life Single use Single use Re-usable
Re-use – – Cleaning distribution
End of life Energy recovery Energy recovery Material recycling
Material recycling Material recycling Energy recovery
Weight per box [kg] 0.9 0.823 2
Dimensions (exterior) [mm] 600×400×240 600×400×240 600×400×240
Load weight (max.) [kg] 15 15 15
Boxes per pallet filled 36 36 36
Layers of boxes per pallet 9 9 9
Pallets per truck (average) 33 33 33
Crates per pallet folded – – 213
Crates per truck folded – – 7,029
Producer countries (fruit and vegetables) France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands
Consumer countries (fruit and vegetables) France, Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands

transportation performance [in billion (bn) crates × km and m transport packaging systems. The end-of-life options for
tonnes × km, resp.] and the mean transportation distance [in single-use wooden boxes are incineration with energy recov-
kilometer]. The empty re-usable crates have to be additionally ery and recycling into particleboard. As through composting
transported about 700 km due to the supply to the fruit and no high-value industrial products are gained, composting is
vegetable grower. Further system-specific transports occur neglected in this study. The baseline assumptions are a 100 %
within the three transport packaging systems, like the transport incineration with respective electricity grid mix credits. No
of new boxes and crates to the growing area or used re-usable credit was given to steam, as steam from waste incineration is
crates going into the washing and cleaning centers. not saleable in some regions in Europe.
The end-of-life considerations take into account the differ- To fulfill the high requirements of fruit and vegetable
ent opportunities of the specific waste treatment of the three transport, the production of the single-use cardboard boxes

Fig. 2 System boundary Wooden boxes Cardboard boxes Plastic crates

overview
boundary for the systems under study
wood production in forest oil exploration

Production
timber production waste paper processing monomer production

pulp and paper production polymer production

box production box production crate production

distribution to grower
Service-life

long distance fruit and vegetable transports in Europe

take back from retailers

washing and reuse

regranulation
End-of-life

incineration

electricity and steam secondary granulate

boundary for the comparison of systems

Legend: Thermal recycling Material recycling Reuse
Int J Life Cycle Assess

Table 2 Transportation performance and respective mean transporta- have been updated, mainly new energy and water consump-
tion distance
tion data as well as emission data from the washing pro-
Average European transport performance Calculated average cesses and updated breakage rates (IFCO 2008; EURO
and distance Full boxes and crates POOL SYSTEM 2008). Further, some data on wooden
box production have been adopted according to GROW
Transportation performance [bn crates × km] 3.34
(2008).
Transportation performance [m tonnes × km] 50
Mean transportation distance [km] 1,003
2.4 Methods applied

In this study, environmental, economic, and social aspects

requires a high-quality paper with 82.4 % primary source are considered, giving an approach to an overall sustainabil-
material, the rest being recycled material (FEFCO 2006). ity assessment in its broader sense. Environmental effects
Hence, in the baseline scenario, it is assumed 17.6 % of the are evaluated using the Life Cycle Assessment method
cardboard boxes are looped back into pulp and paper pro- according to the ISO standards ISO 14040 (ISO 2006) and
duction after use to meet the needed input on recycled ISO 14044 (ISO 2006). The following environmental in-
material. The rest of the cardboard is considered to be dicators and impact categories using Centrum voor
incinerated in the waste incineration with energy recovery. Milieukunde Leiden (CML) indicators (Guinée et al. 2002)
In the case of the re-usable plastic crates, the material is are assessed:
assumed to be recycled. As the plastic crates stay in the
possession of the logistics service provider, at the end of & The Primary Energy Demand (PED)—demand of fossil
life, the respective secondary granulates are identical to the and renewable energetic resources
chemical composition, additives content, color, etc. of the & The GWP—“anthropogenic greenhouse effect”
primary material. Thus, a high-level recycling within the & The Acidification Potential (AP)—contribution to “acid
same or similar application is a standard procedure. The rain”
secondary granulate is mainly used to produce new plastic & The Eutrophication Potential (EP)—contribution to
crates, either for re-usable plastic crates for fruit and vege- “over fertilization”
table transport or for other applications like beer or water & The Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)—
crates. Therefore, in the baseline scenario, an open-loop contribution to “summer smog”
recycling is assumed, and the value of the secondary gran- & The Abiotic Resource Depletion Potential (ADP)—
ulate is set to 70 % of the virgin material with respect to depletion of non-renewable non-organic materials
some potential degradation of the recycled material. The traditional one-point study, which considers a fixed
The carbon incorporated during the growth of wood is set of boundary conditions and situations, is not performed
considered as a net Global Warming Potential (GWP) intake here. Instead, a representative baseline scenario is chosen
in the production phase. Combined with the CO2 emissions and assessed. The relevant parameters influencing the life
from the end-of-life phase, the balance for biogenic carbon cycle are then identified and varied, and the resulting
is closed. changes in the environmental impacts are discussed.
Economic aspects are considered by performing a Life
2.3 Data Cycle Costing (LCC) analysis within the same system
boundaries as the environmental baseline scenario. The
Primary data (Albrecht et al. 2009) were primarily gathered basis for the comparison is the same life cycle model under-
from industry, relevant associations, and published litera- lying the LCA study. All relevant cost units for production,
ture. All relevant background data such as energy, transport, transportation, and distribution of the empty boxes/crates,
and auxiliary materials were taken from the database of the applicable cleaning and washing, costs/revenues for the
software system GaBi 4. The majority of the datasets used end of life of the different materials, etc. are considered.
are publicly available, and public documentation exists The Life Cycle Working Environment (LCWE) method
(GaBi 2008a). The rationale behind, the main structure of (Barthel et al. 2005, 2007; Makishi Colodel et al. 2009), also
the models, etc. was already determined in Barthel et al. described as WE-LCA (Benoît et al. 2009), is applied for the
(2007); in 2009, an update of this study was released production and the service life in order to cover the social
(Albrecht et al. 2009). The main changes affecting this aspects of the systems. This method employs social indica-
article are an upgrade of all GaBi LCI background datasets. tors for each process in the process chain. The applied
Further foreground data have been updated, as the use of the indicators are at an inventory level; the establishment of an
updated upstream chain data of the cardboard boxes impact assessment for social indicators continues. These
(FEFCO 2006). Data on the service life of plastic crates indicators are summed up over the whole process chain to
 Int J Life Cycle Assess

account for all social effects caused by the product. The unit both the production of the materials used and for the energy
“seconds of work” is used as a weighting factor for the needed to run the service-life processes. PED total substitu-
different processes. The indicators used for the study are: tion (end of life) is a sum of PED substitution non-
renewable and PED substitution renewable, and accounts
& The total time of work [second/package]
for credits from the end-of-life treatment—for example from
& The total time of women's work [second/package]
energy recovery. The non-renewable component of the pri-
& The differentiation of the working time into qualification
mary energy consumption is by definition a depletion (of
levels [second/package]
fossil energy resources), whereas the renewable component
& The number of lethal and non-lethal accidents [cases/
is not depleted in this sense.
package].
The cardboard boxes and the plastic crates show almost the
The indicator data used are provided at the industry level same level of PED non-renewable consumption. The wooden
by national databases and are broken down to processes using boxes and the cardboard boxes have a high consumption in
“value added” as an allocation key (Barthel et al. 2005, 2007). terms of primary energy from renewable resources (PED
renewable consumption). The use of non-renewable resources
2.5 Critical review is avoided as a result of the energy produced from incineration
and energy recovery of the wooden and cardboard boxes after
LCA studies that include a publically disclosed comparative use. This results in a reduction in the PED non-renewable total
assertion affect the interests of competitors and other stake- for the cardboard boxes. The wooden boxes generate more
holders, especially when the results are controversial or show non-renewable primary energy (PED substitution non-
high economic implications such as in the logistics market. renewable) at end of life than is necessary for their production,
The overarching aim of any critical review is to contribute to resulting in a net negative contribution.
the quality assurance of LCA studies and to protect interested The PED of wooden boxes is mainly based on solar
parties on the marketplace from unsubstantiated claims. energy captured via photosynthesis. The wooden box sys-
The main results presented were derived from an extensive tem recovers the highest amount of the used embodied
study completed in 2007, which was then updated and ex- energy and therefore substitutes more non-renewable prima-
tended in 2009 (Barthel et al. 2007; Albrecht et al. 2009). The ry energy than what is used.
environmental impact assessment is a comparative Life Cycle The cardboard boxes have the highest PED total. The
Assessment according to ISO standards 14040 (ISO 2006) relation of PED non-renewable total to PED renewable total
and 14044 (ISO 2006), and the findings are intended to be for the cardboard boxes is one to four. The cardboard system
disclosed to the public. Therefore, in line with these standards, recovers about one third of the total primary energy.
the LCA components of the underlying studies were critically The plastic crates show almost the same level of PED
reviewed by international external review panels. non-renewable total, but due to a lower amount of PED
The critical review process ascertained the transparent doc- renewable total, the overall PED total is lower than both
umentation of the purpose and use of the studies as well as the single-use systems.
consistent life cycle models and the data categories. Accord- When analyzing and discussing the depletion of energy
ingly, the data, models, and methods employed are deemed resources from a present view, the PED non-renewable can
appropriate, in relation to the goal and scope of the study. be seen to be the more important indicator. From a life cycle
perspective and from the calculation of end-of-life credits
with respect to a potential substitution of non-renewable
3 Results and discussion resources by renewables, the information gained by PED
renewable deepens the outcomes from the analysis of non-
3.1 Life cycle indicator results renewable resource depletion. The PED indicators include
the particular embodied energy. This is caused by two
PED is used as a measure of the cumulative primary energy related aspects. At first, savings in the consumption of
resources that are used directly and indirectly over the life PED non-renewable in production are caused by the use of
cycle of the system. The calculated results for the PED are renewable waste products as an energy source in production
shown in Table 3. The total PED results are split into and due the renewable embodied energy with the wooden
primary energy expenditure (PED total consumption (pro- and cardboard boxes. These savings mainly result from the
duction + service life)) and end-of-life credits (PED total less energy intensive wooden boxes and to a minor extent
substitution (end of life)). The PED total consumption (pro- from cardboard boxes due to a more complex and energy
duction + service life) is a sum of PED non-renewable demanding processing. Secondly, at the end of life, this
consumption and PED renewable consumption, and primar- renewable embodied energy gains credits in PED non-
ily reflects the consumption of primary energy resources for renewable when, for example, wooden boxes are incinerated
Int J Life Cycle Assess

Table 3 PED of the baseline scenario

Life cycle PED [MJ per functional unit] Wooden boxes (single use) Cardboard boxes (single use) Plastic crates (re-usable)

PED non-renewable consumption 19,050,000 49,150,000 19,670,000

PED renewable consumption 77,980,000 77,590,000 310,000
PED total consumption (production + service life) 97,030,000 126,740,000 19,980,000
PED substitution non-renewable −37,030,000 −31,280,000 −3,240,000
PED substitution renewable −16,380,000 −6,000,000 −60,000
PED total substitution (end of life) −53,410,000 −37,280,000 −3,300,000
PED non-renewable total −17,980,000 17,870,000 16,430,000
PED renewable total 61,600,000 71,590,000 250,000
PED total 43,610,000 89,460,000 16,680,000

in a Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator (MSWI) and electricity production. Cardboard boxes emit more CO2
substituting potentially fossil-based power grid mixes. The during production than wooden boxes and have less CO2
depletion of non-renewable energy carriers is further incorporation as only a portion of the input materials and
addressed by the calculation of ADP (see Section 3.2). chemicals are wood based. The combined effects of the
larger number of boxes produced and the smaller quantity
3.2 Life cycle impact assessment results of incorporated CO2 result in higher net CO2 emissions,
despite the fact that the cardboard boxes are by far the
A representative baseline scenario with the corresponding lightest boxes and therefore emit less CO2 during road
parameter settings (baseline scenario (representative mean transport than wooden boxes and plastic crates. Eighty-two
value)) was calculated, in order to estimate the influence of percent of the cardboard boxes are incinerated, and the
technical and organizational parameters on the system. The- incorporated CO2 is released. The remaining 18 % are used
se parameters included aspects such as lifetime, efficiencies, to satisfy a secondary pulp demand in the production of the
and the number of fillings; see Table 4. The results of these fruit and vegetable boxes. Plastic crates emit significantly
calculations reflect an average situation for each transport less carbon dioxide in the production phase than the other
packaging system in a European-wide context. The results options due to the characteristics of a re-usable system,
have to be interpreted carefully, knowing that a model is a where fewer crates need to be produced. However, plastic
mirror of a variable reality. A single truth rarely exists in crates do not benefit from uptake of carbon dioxide prior to
reality, and this should be reflected by LCA as well. production. The end of life of the plastic crates show a
The results are first presented as a range relative to the benefit over the life cycle, due to the recycling of the crates
baseline scenario. The results of the environmental impact with substitution of primary material and the incineration
categories are shown in Table 4 as absolute values and in and energy recovery of production residues.
Fig. 3 as normalized to the annual European emissions Under the given boundaries, the eutrophication impact,
according to Guinée et al. (2002), which were updated in 2007. caused by emissions to water and air, is lowest for the plastic
The overall results for five environmental impacts are crate system, followed by wood and cardboard. For card-
presented below. Table 4 provides the absolute results for board, this is mainly due to the production of Kraftliner and
the baseline scenario split into three parts: emitted, avoided, Fluting (86 % of total over the life cycle). The cardboard for
or incorporated, and total impacts. fruit and vegetable boxes completely consists of the high-
The figures under emitted correspond to the total releases quality pulp systems Kraftliner and Semi-Chemical Fluting
over the life cycle; the figures for avoided or incorporated (FEFCO 2006) as these systems are suitable for a humid
reflect the effects due to incorporation of CO2 during the atmosphere. The EP impacts of the wooden boxes are main-
growth of renewable resources and the effects of avoiding or ly due to the box production stage and to the distribution of
substituting primary production through the use of used by- new boxes to growers (both approx. 25 %); approx. 20 % of
products, energy, and secondary materials. The total impact the impact is from the supply of wood, 15 % is due to the
figures represent the balance of both (emitted minus service life stage and transports, and 15 % due to the end-of-
avoided/incorporated). life stage. The EP of the plastic crates is driven by their
The trees from which the wooden boxes are made incor- service life. About 70 % of the emissions are caused by
porate carbon dioxide during growth. This carbon dioxide is transports. The washing and the production of the crates also
released when the boxes are incinerated. Electricity is pro- contribute significantly to this impact, with about 25 % of
duced during incineration and substitutes/avoids average emissions coming from these sources.
Table 4 Life cycle impacts per functional unit (baseline scenario) divided into most important life cycle steps

Single-use Life cycle impacts per Production Service life End of life
wooden functional unit (FU)
boxes Emitted Wooden Forestry + Prod. of Distribution Delivery and Long-distance Transports Incineration Energy
boxes timber boxes to grower take-back transport incinerat. recovery
prod.
GWP [kg CO2-Eq./FU] 9,740,000 320,000 3,200,000 370,000 90,000 150,000 10,000 5,600,000 –
AP [kg SO2-Eq./FU] 10,200 2,000 3,100 2,200 580 880 40 1,400 –
EP [kg PO43−-Eq./FU] 1,670 300 400 400 100 160 10 300 –
POCP [kg C2H4-Eq./FU] 1,660 400 370 460 120 180 10 120 –
ADP [kg Sb-Eq./FU] 1,000 – – – – – – – 1,000
Avoided or incorporated
GWP [kg CO2-Eq./FU] 8,500,000 8,000,000 300,000 – – – – – 200,000
AP [kg SO2-Eq./FU] 1,600 – – – – – – – 1,600
EP [kg PO43−-Eq./FU] 100 – 0 – – – – – 100
POCP [kg C2H4-Eq./FU] 100 – – – – – – – 100
ADP [kg Sb-Eq./FU] 9,750 2,000 2,500 2,500 600 1,000 50 1,100 –
Total
GWP [kg CO2-Eq./FU] 1,240,000 −7,680,000 2,900,000 370,000 90,000 150,000 10,000 5,600,000 −200,000
AP [kg SO2-Eq./FU] 8,600 2,000 3,100 2,200 580 880 40 1,400 −1,600
EP [kg PO43−-Eq./FU] 1,570 300 400 400 100 160 10 300 −100
POCP [kg C2H4-Eq./FU] 1,560 400 370 460 120 180 10 120 −100
ADP [kg Sb-Eq./FU] 8,750 2,000 2,500 2,500 600 1,000 50 1,100 −1,000
Single-use Production Service life End of life
cardboard EMITTED Cardboard Forestry + Pulp and Cardboard prod. + Delivery and Long distance Transports + Mill Incineration Energy Recovered
boxes boxes wood paper distrib. to grower take back transport recovery pulp
prod. prod.
GWP [kg CO2-Eq./FU] 10,820,000 48,000 6,100,000 580,000 86,000 140,000 12,000 3,800,000 – 54,000
AP [kg SO2-Eq./FU] 22,550 400 18,200 2,200 500 800 150 300 – –
EP [kg PO43−-Eq./FU] 4,570 60 3,900 270 100 140 20 80 – –
POCP [kg C2H4-Eq./FU] 2,390 220 1,600 230 110 160 20 50 – –
ADP [kg Sb-Eq./FU] 3,500 – 1,300 – – – – – 200 2,000
Avoided or incorporated
GWP [kg CO2-Eq./FU] 8,460,000 7,000,000 860,000 300,000 – – – – 30,000 270,000
AP [kg SO2-Eq./FU] 1,400 – 400 – – – – – 300 700
EP [kg PO43−-Eq./FU] 190 – 50 0 – – – – 10 130
POCP [kg C2H4-Eq./FU] 170 – 80 – – – – – 20 70
ADP [kg Sb-Eq./FU] 21,520 200 15,000 3,800 600 1,000 120 800 – –
Total
GWP [kg CO2-Eq./FU] 2,360,000 −6,952,000 5,240,000 280,000 86,000 140,000 12,000 3,800,000 −30,000 −216,000
AP [kg SO2-Eq./FU] 21,150 400 17,800 2,200 500 800 150 300 −300 −700
EP [kg PO43−-Eq./FU] 4,380 60 3,850 270 100 140 20 80 −10 −130
POCP [kg C2H4-Eq./FU] 2,220 220 1,520 230 110 160 20 50 −20 −70
ADP [kg Sb-Eq./FU] 18,020 200 13,700 3,800 600 1,000 120 800 −200 −2,000
Int J Life Cycle Assess
Table 4 (continued)

Re-usable Production Service life End of life

plastic crates EMITTED Plastic Prod. plastic Prod. of Distribution Delivery and Long distance Backhaul Inspection and Transports + Mill Incineration Energy Recovered
crates granulate crates to grower take-back transport washing + Regranul. of residues recovery granulate
GWP [kg CO2-Eq./FU] 1,426,000 300,000 30,000 70,000 210,000 450,000 67,000 290,000 6,000 3,000 – –
AP [kg SO2-Eq./FU] 6,442 740 190 40 1,300 2,000 360 1,550 260 2 – –
Int J Life Cycle Assess

EP [kg PO43−-Eq./FU] 911 90 10 10 230 360 70 130 10 1 – –

POCP [kg C2H4-Eq./FU] 1,591 600 30 10 270 460 20 180 20 1 – –
ADP [kg Sb-Eq./FU] 3,780 – – – – – – – – – 12 3,768
Avoided or incorporated
GWP [kg CO2-Eq./FU] 197,760 0 350 – – – – 10 – – 2,400 195,000
AP [kg SO2-Eq./FU] 540 – – – – – – – – – 20 520
EP [kg PO43−-Eq./FU] 61 – – – – – – 0 – – 1 60
POCP [kg C2H4-Eq./FU] 501 – – – – – – – – – 1 500
ADP [kg Sb-Eq./FU] 12,190 5,600 170 50 1,400 2,800 – 2,000 160 10 – –
Total
GWP [kg CO2-Eq./FU] 1,228,240 300,000 29,650 70,000 210,000 450,000 67,000 289,990 6,000 3,000 −2,400 −195,000
AP [kg SO2-Eq./FU] 5,902 740 190 40 1,300 2,000 360 1,550 260 2 −20 −520
EP [kg PO43−-Eq./FU] 850 90 10 10 230 360 70 130 10 1 −1 −60
POCP [kg C2H4-Eq./FU] 1,089 600 30 10 270 460 20 180 20 1 −1 −500
ADP [kg Sb-Eq./FU] 8,410 5,600 170 50 1,400 2,800 – 2,000 160 10 −12 −3,768
 Int J Life Cycle Assess

Fig. 3 Environmental impacts

of the baseline scenario
normalized to the total annual
European emissions using CML
indicators (Guinée et al. 2002)

The analysis of the results for EP is valid for AP as well. The different parameters are numbered (no. 1–23). A
The same contributors play the most important roles and the variation in the value of these parameters is shown within
results are similar. For the POCP impact, the largest impacts a meaningful range. Some of the parameter variations can be
arise from the supply of the energy carriers electricity and seen as a sensitivity analysis showing the extent to which
fossil-based fuels. The use of energy therefore has a major the system is sensitive to variability (no. 7–12). In these
influence on the POCP impact. The ADP impacts follow the cases, a minor sensitivity outcome attests to the stability of
consumption of non-renewable primary energy as shown in the system and shows that possible uncertainties in these
Table 3, which corroborates the overall findings of the values do not have a notable influence on the results. The
environmental impact assessment. Overall, the advantage remaining parameters (no. 1–6 and 13–23) should be
of the re-usable crate system lies in the ability of the crates interpreted as a parameter variation showing the results of
to be reused, which therefore reduces the need for plastic different assumptions in order to highlight key drivers and
crate production. optimization potentials. The parameters that result in large
The “avoided impacts” of all three systems reflect the changes to the overall results are discussed below.
positive effects of recovering energy in thermal treatment
units such as incineration plants and of recovering secondary Production The production of the wooden boxes is mainly
materials in recycling. The electricity is sold and substitutes influenced by the share of ligneous crops, the presence or
average electricity production in the EU25, while the second- absence of technical wood drying, and the application of
ary materials substitute a part of primary material production. steaming prior to peeling of poplar wood (no. 1–4). Only the
The absolute results shown in Fig. 3 are related to Europe's application of steaming of poplar prior to peeling (no
total emissions for the relevant impact category in the year steaming is assumed in the baseline scenario) shows signif-
2007 (Guinée et al. 2002). The main contributors to these icant environmental relevance; it worsens the environmental
impacts are discussed above. The contribution of the transport profile of the production of wooden boxes by up to 12 % in
packaging systems to the annual European total is most sig- GWP due to the additional thermal energy required for
nificant in AP, ADP, and GWP, followed by POCP and EP. biomass heating.
Table 5 gives an overview of the main parameter settings The parameter with the highest impact within the pro-
for the baseline scenario, which were chosen as a reference duction phase of the cardboard boxes is the specific share of
for the discussion of results. Alternative parameter values different pulps and papers (no. 5). According to FEFCO
and the resulting life cycle impacts are shown relative to the (2006), the composition of fruit and vegetable boxes is
baseline scenario. characterized by high shares of Fluting and Kraftliner,
The parameters in Table 5 are shown per life cycle phase, which are two high-quality, demanding paper types, which
as well as by the respective transport packaging system. The are able to withstand the humid atmosphere present during
results in the section Changes in environmental impacts the transport of fruit and vegetables. The variation of this
relative to the baseline scenario are to be understood as parameter is therefore not a technical option for the defined
follows: negative relative numbers improve the Life Cycle functional unit, as this specific paper quality is required.
Impact Assessment (LCIA) results while positive numbers Nevertheless, a variation indicates the importance of this
represent a deterioration of the environmental profiles. parameter and its relevance. The variation in the factors
Table 5 Parameter settings and subsequent variation in the life cycle impact assessment results

No. Main production parameters Baseline scenario Varied to Changes in environmental impacts relative to the baseline scenario
(representative value
mean value) GWP AP EP POCP ADP Remarks

Wooden box production

Int J Life Cycle Assess

1 Share of poplar in box production 80 % 0 % 7.9 % 4.4 % 1.3 % 5.1 % 3.3 % Only poplar or no poplar used for
Share of pine in box production 11.3 % 57 % wooden boxes
2 Share of spruce in box production 8.7 % 44 % −2.0 % −1.1 % −0.3 % −1.3 % −0.8 %
Share of poplar in box production 80 % 100 %
Share of pine in box production 11.3 % 0 %
Share of spruce in box production 8.7 % 0 %
3 Share of wood dried during box 20 % 50 % 2.3 % 0.9 % 0.2 % 0.3 % 0.6 % 20 % drying reported. 50 % assumed
production as higher value for regions with
higher humidity or lower
temperatures
4 Share of poplar wood steamed prior 0% 100 % 11.9 % 9.6 % 5.0 % 5.2 % 0.0 % Check of influence of steaming
to peeling
Cardboard box production
5 Share of Semi-Chemical Fluting 63 % 10 % 18.4 % −49.1 % −50.5 % −45.0 % −3.1 % Average cardboard boxes assumed
in cardboard box (not suitable for fruit and vegetable
Share of Kraftliner in cardboard box 37 % 21 % boxes due to humidity and rigidity
Share of Testliner in cardboard box 0% 33 % requirements, just for verification
purposes)
Share of Wellenstoff in cardboard box 0% 33 %
Plastic crate production
6 Share of primary plastic material 100 % 70 % −2.9 % −1.1 % −1.0 % −2.5 % −6.4 % 30 % secondary granulate considered
in production of crates as realistic for possible secondary
granulate use (even more possible)
7 Share of primary polyethylene material 58 % 100 % 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.4 % −2.6 % −0.1 %
in production of crates
8 Share of primary polypropylene 42 % 100 % −0.3 % −0.2 % −0.3 % 1.9 % 0.2 % Only PP crates used or only PE crates
material in production of crates used respectively
9 Granulate losses during production 2.75 % 1.50 % −0.1 % −0.1 % 0.0 % −0.1 % −0.1 % Range of collected data
of crates
10 Granulate losses during production 2.75 % 6% 0.2 % 0.3 % 0.1 % 0.3 % 0.3 % Range of collected data
of crates
11 Damaged crates prior to washing in 0.47 % 0.17 % −2.2 % −1.4 % −0.8 % −1.7 % −8.8 % Range of collected data
relation to total crates inspected
12 Damaged crates prior to washing 0.47 % 0.71 % 1.7 % 1.1 % 0.6 % 1.3 % 2.5 % Range of collected data
in relation to total crates inspected
No. Main service-life parameters Representative Varied to Changes in environmental impacts relative to the baseline scenario
mean value value GWP AP EP POCP ADP Remarks
(benchmark
basis)
Table 5 (continued)

No. Main production parameters Baseline scenario Varied to Changes in environmental impacts relative to the baseline scenario
(representative value
mean value) GWP AP EP POCP ADP Remarks

Plastic crates service life

13 Lifetime 10 years 20 years −7.3 % −4.7 % −2.6 % −5.7 % −10.4 % This represents an average technical
Rotations 5 per year lifetime of the plastic crates
assuming 5 rotations per year
14 Lifetime 10 years 6 years 9.8 % 6.3 % 3.5 % 7.6 % 13.9 % This represents a low lifetime of the
Rotations 5 per year plastic crates assuming 5 rotations
per year not fulfilling the technical
possibilities
No. Main end-of-life parameters Representative Varied to Changes in environmental impacts relative to the baseline scenario
mean value value GWP AP EP POCP ADP Remarks
(benchmark
basis)
Wooden boxes end of life
15 Share of wood to incineration 100 % 0% 29.3 % 19.8 % 2.1 % 17.6 % 17.3 % No incineration of wooden boxes
(rest to particle board industry) or 50 % incineration of wood
Products from incineration of wood Electricity crates considered
16 Share of wood to incineration 100 % 50 % 10.2 % 9.9 % −3.0 % 8.8 % 8.6 %
(rest to particle board industry)
Products from incineration of wood Electricity
17 Sold steam products from incineration 0% 100 % −104.5 % −20.9 % −12.0 % −16.3 % −120.2 % Steam from waste incinerators is
in MSWI not saleable in some regions
Cardboard boxes end of life
18 Value of fibers in relation to Wellenstoff 90 %
19 Fiber allocation according to ISO/TR −11.5 % −26.1 % −27.5 % −25.6 % −22.1 % System approach according ISO/TR
14049:2000 (ISO 2000) (open loop 14049:2000 (ISO 2000
recycling)
20 Sold steam products from incineration 0% 100 % −26.4 % −4.2 % −2.1 % −5.6 % −29.3 % Steam from waste incinerators is
in MSWI not saleable in some regions
Plastic crates end of life
21 Share of plastic to secondary granulate 100 % 50 % 24.0 % 0.1 % 2.9 % 22.4 % 21.0 % 50 % incineration of polymer
crates considered
22 Value of secondary granulate in relation 70 % 100 % −7.5 % −3.8 % −3.2 % −20.5 % −19.3 % 100 % value means that the secondary
to primary granulate would be used in vegetable
crates again
23 Sold steam products from incineration 0% 100 % −1.1 % −0.3 % −0.2 % −0.2 % −1.2 % Steam from waste incinerators is
in MSWI not saleable in some regions
Int J Life Cycle Assess
Int J Life Cycle Assess

influencing the production of plastic crates results in only vegetable transportation over significant longer transport
minor changes to their environmental profile. distances tend to favor single-use packaging as the backhaul
is not necessary. This is, for example, also true for overseas
Service life Re-usable systems are mainly characterized by transports. The transportation over shorter distances tends to
the number of fillings per crate within their service life. As the favor re-usable packaging, as the service-life system and the
plastic crates can be used multiple times, the average lifetime connection to the washing centers are optimal.
and the number of fillings during the lifetime have to be
considered. Primary data give 4.8 fillings per year and an End of life In contrast to the production and service life,
average life time of up to 20 years (Albrecht et al. 2009); thus, where the number of parameters is relatively well deter-
in the conservative baseline scenario, a 10-year lifetime per mined, the consideration of the end-of-life phase offers a
plastic crate is assumed, resulting in 50 fillings per crate. The wide range of values within the given scenarios.
parameter nos. 13 and 14 take into account the influence of the Regarding the wooden boxes, two potential end-of-life
plastic crates' lifetime within the re-usable system, which treatment options are considered. The first option is the recov-
affects the total number of fillings per crate. Parameter no.13 ery of the embodied energy through incineration and the
considers an average lifetime of 6 years per crate, showing the production of electricity. The second option is the material
influence of a fairly short lifetime. Parameter no. 14 assumes a recycling of wood waste as raw material into the particleboard
20-year lifetime of the re-usable crates, as a close-to-reality industry (no. 15 and 16). This second option is mainly relevant
scenario. The number of fillings per crate within its lifetime in Southern Europe, and therefore, only the additional fuel
has a main influence on the performance of a re-usable sys- consumption of transports to Southern Europe caused by the
tem. Compared to the single-use wooden boxes, 40 to 60 weight of the wood is included, to make the figures indepen-
fillings, depending on the respective impact category, need dent from a transport demand discussion.
to be reached within a re-usable crate's lifetime to be environ- The recycling of cardboard includes the impacts from
mentally preferable. This is in average reflected by the con- material recycling and the energetic recovery of the embod-
sidered baseline scenario. Compared to the single-use ied energy. The variation of parameter no. 19 assumes a
cardboard boxes, the breakeven is reached already between higher share of cardboard returning to the pulp and paper
5 and 15 fillings, which represent lifetimes between 1 and industry as a secondary resource. Within the representative
3 years. As a re-usable system is intended to run as long as baseline scenario, only 17.6 % of secondary material is
possible, this is seen just as a theoretical number, as reality is returned (FEFCO 2006), as a higher share of primary fibers
somewhere between 10 and 20 years lifetime with about 5 to is needed to ensure a sufficient level of paper quality for the
10 fillings per year, resulting in a realistic number of fillings fruit and vegetables boxes. On average, within the European
between 50 and 200 fillings per crate during its lifetime. An cardboard sector, around 55 % of cardboard is recycled into
increase in the number of fillings per crate in the re-usable secondary material (FEFCO 2006). Parameter no. 19 corre-
system results in an improved environmental performance sponds to this higher cardboard recycling rate. A corre-
over the whole packaging system related to the functional sponding approach is developed in ISO/TR 14049 (ISO
unit. Thus, the re-usable option shows always environmental 2000). There, open loop recycling is considered, meaning
advantages under an intended use of the multi-way system. that the material is not necessarily recycled into the same
With an increasing number of fillings accompanied with an material or application. In this approach, allocation factors
increasing number of trips made by the re-usable packaging in for the emissions released in the different steps were calcu-
its lifetime, proportion of service-life emissions gains in im- lated based on the recycling rates and times of reuse. Ap-
portance within the re-usable system in comparison to the plying this approach here does not change the overall
decreasing proportion of production and the end-of-life phase. findings of the study, although the results for the cardboard
Compared to the single-use systems the overall environmental boxes improve between 11 % for GWP and 28 % for EP.
impacts per functional unit decrease as per filling the service- The amount of broken plastic crates proceeding to re-
life emissions are lower than the single-use box impacts. granulation is considered to be 100 % in the baseline sce-
However, the additional advantage in environmental impacts nario, but with a potential quality loss resulting in a residual
caused by an increasing number of fillings per crate aspired value of 70 % compared to primary plastics. According to
slows down with a rising number of loops. the data collected, this is the case for the investigated plastic
Although the variation of transportation distances is not a crate system. Nevertheless, it is of interest to see the influ-
dedicated object of investigation and an average European ence of a changing end-of-life option for plastic crates (no.
transport distance could be calculated, some qualitative con- 21 and 22). The overall results show up to 24 % higher
clusions can be drawn. The backhaul trips for the re-usable impacts for plastic crates in ozone depletion, summer smog,
system become more significant when significantly longer and global warming, if 50 % of the crates go to incineration
transport distances are considered. This means, fruit and and only 50 % are re-granulated.
 Int J Life Cycle Assess

For all three transport packaging systems, parts of the waste increase at a slower rate than the decrease in energy demand
flows are fed to the recovery of embodied energy in MSWI and emissions of plastic crate production through a lower need
plants (no. 17, 20, 23). The use of the steam produced in these for plastic crate production.
plants is viable and state of the art in several countries in the Overall, plastic crates and wooden boxes have a lower
EU. However, in the European average, it plays a minor role, impact in the chosen impact categories in comparison to
due to the unavailability of steam consumers or steam grids at cardboard boxes, for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe.
the solid waste incineration plants. Steam recovery and sale was The plastic crates system has the most favorable environmen-
therefore not considered in the baseline scenario. The influence tal impact compared to the other systems. For GWP and ADP,
of the option to sell the steam as a valuable product is assessed the results are similar for the wood and the plastic systems.
as a parameter variation. In the case where the steam can be The high impacts for the cardboard boxes are mainly due to
used and therefore sold, the life cycle impacts for all three the need for high-quality cardboard and therefore an intensive
systems decrease. The environmental impacts of the wooden production process. The cardboard boxes may be further
boxes decrease most significantly, followed by cardboard and optimized from a design and shape which could lead to less
plastics. For the wooden boxes, a large decrease of the global material demand for the same capacity.
warming potential occurs, because the incinerator emissions are
counteracted by the production of both electricity and steam. 3.3 Economic evaluation of the transport packaging systems
In summary, the environmental comparison shows that
the differences in the three transport packaging systems Figure 4 below shows the results of the life cycle costing
analyzed reflect the system characteristics; two are single- analysis of the three fruit and vegetable transport packaging
use systems and one is a re-usable system. The two single- systems. The analysis shows that the re-usable system is the
use systems are both based on the renewable feedstock most cost effective over its life cycle. Strictly speaking, these
wood and wood fibers whilst the re-usable system is fossil prices do not only include costs, but also revenue for the
based. The life cycle performance of the single-use systems packaging producer. However, as this price occurs as a cost
is mainly characterized by the choice of feedstock and the for the customers, it is considered as such. The transport of the
related manufacturing processes as well as the end-of-life new boxes/crates to the growers incurs transport costs. For the
option taken. Wooden boxes are easy to produce and show a plastic crates, additional costs for the washing, sorting, and
good life cycle performance although they are not compa- crate replacement after they have been used are considered.
rable to the high-tech cardboard and plastic products which Transports during the service life take into account the cost for
exhibit more homogeneous material characteristics. transporting empty boxes back to the growers and other
The high-quality requirements of transport packaging transport costs related to the logistical tasks of a re-usable
lead to high material requirements, in the case of cardboard transport packaging pool provider. Edge protection is the cost
to the necessity of Kraftliner and Semi-Chemical Fluting as for the protection of cardboard edge of the full pallets if they
main materials. The production of cardboard is therefore are loaded with wooden or cardboard boxes to enhance sta-
very intensive in terms of energy and chemical use. Al- bility and protection of the freight. The Bonner Notiz is a
though the cardboard industry has a high recycling rate, charge for non-reusable transport packaging, which is 0.6 %
the considered high-quality boxes consist of more than of the value of the transported goods. The end of life cost
80 % primary material. The benefits at the end of life denotes the cost for removing the wood waste in the case of
therefore do not completely counteract the impacts of the the wooden boxes, while the revenue end of life denotes the
production phase. For both single-use systems, the service revenue for cardboard waste and used plastic crates. The
life plays a minor role in the life cycle. transportation cost of the full crates from producer countries
The main environmental impacts for the re-usable system (growing areas) to consumer countries is not considered in the
arise from the service life. There are two reasons for this: cost analysis. The only difference between the crate systems
Firstly, the plastic crates have twice the weight compared to originates from the different weight of the boxes/crates. This
the other boxes and therefore resulted in higher fuel consump- could lead to additional diesel consumption by the trucks
tion and related emissions in transports. Secondly, the wash- loaded with plastic crates in comparison to trucks loaded with
ing process requires additional energy and causes wastewater wooden or cardboard boxes; however, the effect is estimated
emissions. The material recycling at the end-of-life phase to be of minor relevance.
results in environmental credits from the recovery of second- The LCC covers all necessary costs to run the respective
ary granulate to be used again in a similar application. With an transport packaging service system according the functional
increasing number of fillings, the re-usable system becomes unit. This includes the most important steps in the value chain.
more favorable compared to the single-use systems. This is Neglected aspects are negotiable matters of expense like the
because the energy demand and emissions of the washing costs for the fruit and vegetable transportation itself and rev-
process and the related logistics of the re-usable systems enues from the rental of boxes and crates. The dominating cost
Int J Life Cycle Assess

Fig. 4 Life cycle costs of the

three systems over the entire
life cycle (production of boxes/
crates, transportation, washing
(where present), and end of life)

drivers for both single-use systems are the boxes themselves, for the production step, mainly in forestry and logging. As a
while for the re-usable system, the additional costs are also long-term result, low-qualification jobs are ensured.
relevant. Overall, the service of one functional unit of the re- In comparison to the single-use box systems, the re-
usable plastic crate system costs around half that of the single- usable plastic crate system shows a very low lethal accident
use systems. The cost data are mainly derived from industry rate (Fig. 5). For the wooden boxes, the high lethal accident
(Euro Pool System 2008, IFCO Systems 2008) and market rate results from the logging of wood.
experts (Fraunhofer IML 2008). A considerable achievement is obtained using the LCWE
method, in that the social indicators can be quantified along the
3.4 Social indicators life cycle of a product. This approach is based on the same
product life cycle model as LCA; as background, it uses statis-
The social effects show a differentiated picture for the different tical data concerning social issues which are available for most
indicators. As mentioned in Section 2.4, the applied indicators of the highly developed countries. LCWE data sets are inte-
are at an inventory level. The production phase of the cardboard grated in the GaBi software and database with a respective
boxes shows the highest working time (150 s/box), followed by documentation of the employed data sources (GaBi 2008b).
the plastic crates (120 s/box) and wooden boxes (85 s/box) LCWE data is gathered on the level of industry branches and
related to the entire value chain. This is mainly caused by the broken down onto the level of production processes. Hence,
highly processed and work-intensive upstream products. The mean LCWE profiles are dedicated to the specific production
working time's share of women employment is highest for processes, which is desired to minor the influence of spikes.
plastic crates with approx. 28 %, followed by wooden boxes The dedication of mean LCWE profiles is important to not
with approx. 18 % and cardboard boxes with approx. 5 %. This overstate indicators which describe events with a very low
is mainly driven by the high share of employment in the probability of occurrence, like accidents. The statistical signif-
wooden and cardboard box systems that is in forestry and icance increases through the extension of the control sample.
logging, which is male dominated due to its physical labor. This leads to an increase of the underlying reference on the one
Within the chemical and plastics industry, the share of female hand and therefore to a de-specification of the determined
work is higher. LCWE profile on the other hand. Process specificity and sta-
When considering production and operation, all three tistical significance act antagonistically. This correlation and
systems require a relatively large share of low-qualified the possible deduction of a rule to apply a sufficient aggregation
employees. The description of qualification levels addresses level of particular data collections is an important but pending
the qualification required for a job position rather than the question for (some) social indicators. Challenges remain re-
actual qualification of the employees; it ranges from level A garding the interpretation of the results for some indicators; for
(master degree and above) to level E (untrained or short- example: is a high working time to be assessed as a positive or
term trained workers). For the re-usable system, the low- negative impact? Furthermore, the development of additional
qualified ones are mostly employed for washing and sorting; social indicators to be used within the LCWE method would
for wooden boxes and cardboard boxes, they are employed clearly increase its significance.
 Int J Life Cycle Assess

Fig. 5 Lethal and non-lethal accidents per produced package

4 Sustainability consequences of the influence food losses (up to more than 50 %) in the USA take place
of the packaging on the product between the producer and the retailer, which underlines the
important role of transport packaging to prevent fruits and
In this study, the environmental impacts of fruit and vegetable vegetables from spoiling and other losses. Different
transport systems are analyzed in different technical situations packaging-related aspects contribute to the prevention of
and with different boundary conditions. The environmental losses that occur during transport of fruits and vegetables.
impact results are complemented with life cycle cost and life For example, the fruits and vegetables might have been
cycle working environment results, in order to obtain a more packed only in transport packages, as was the assumption
encompassing sustainability assessment. However, it must be in this study. However, in some cases, primary packaging,
acknowledged that in specific boundary conditions, some such as dividers and trays, can be used to further protect the
packaging systems show additional and/or intangible benefits products. Different packaging material properties may give
such as: flexibility of design (shapes, appearance, printings, preference to some materials over others in terms of
labeling); free choice of supplier; suitability for bar codes or protecting the fruit and vegetables. These properties include
RFID tags and other logistic systems; low weight, ease of respiratory and barrier properties, the ability to maintain
handling and stacking; hygiene, occupational health and safe- optimal humidity conditions, and the adaptability of the
ty aspects; and prevention of food losses. These properties packaging to any specific treatment the product may require
play an important role in the decision-making process of a (Chonhenchob and Singh 2003; Remón et al. 2003; López
packaging system and should not be neglected. Camelo 2004). In addition, it has been stated that the place-
Recent LCA studies of food items and their packaging ment of the products in the transport package, whether
(e.g., Büsser and Jungbluth 2009; Silvenius et al. 2011) packed in single or multiple layers or in horizontal or
indicate that the transport of goods and their primary pack- vertical placement, may impact the condition of some fruits
aging cause only a minor share of the total environmental and vegetables (Chonhenchob and Singh 2003, 2005). Fur-
impacts of the studied system. However, in the specific case thermore, the conditions during transport and storage may
of fruits and vegetables, the study by Cellura et al. (2012) be optimized through packaging. Different packaging mate-
indicates that a more relevant share of total environmental rials have different responsiveness to the vibration caused
impacts is caused by packaging and transport. Nevertheless, by transportation (Chonhenchob and Singh 2003). Corre-
from an environmental perspective, the package's role to spondingly, packaging materials have different heat transfer
protect the product and distribute it undamaged to the final characteristics, which affect the ability of the package to
consumer must be considered when comparing different adjust to the optimal storage temperature for the specific
packaging solutions, especially for easily deteriorating fresh fruit or vegetable in question (Singh 1992).
products with short shelf life, such as fruits and vegetables. According to Aworh (2010), plastic crates perform well
According to Buzby et al. (2009), a significant share of the in prevention of food losses because the crates are strong,
Int J Life Cycle Assess

impermeable to moisture, possible to clean and sanitize, & Energy recovery at end of life: Due to the fact that fruit
and have smooth surfaces and good stack stability. The and vegetable cardboard boxes are not recycled into fruit
smooth surfaces, which reduce the damages in the skins and vegetable cardboard boxes again, different options
of fruits and vegetables, have also assisted the shift for end-of-life apply. The energy recovery of cardboard
from wooden boxes to cardboard boxes and plastic boxes seems to be an appropriate end-of-life option as
crates (Aworh 2010). On the other hand, some vegeta- electricity and steam products are resulting.
bles such as radish and green onions have been found
For re-usable plastic crates, system optimization of the
to stay fresh longer in wooden boxes because of the
environmental profile could be gained due to:
more suitable humidity conditions.
& An increasing number of filling per lifetime. Thereby the
overall results are optimized as the most important life
cycle phase is the use phase. If the lifetime is reduced,
5 Conclusions and recommendations
the use phase becomes relatively more important. There-
fore a conservative number of fillings were chosen as
The environmental results show that the re-usable plas-
baseline scenario.
tic crates and single-use wooden boxes display almost
& The increase of amount of secondary granulates in the
similar results in GWP, AP, and POCP. For the other
production of the crates.
impact categories considered (EP, ADP), the re-usable
& The application of recycling. If closed loop recycling is
plastic crates show the lowest impacts whereas the
not possible open loop recycling into high value appli-
single-use cardboard boxes have the highest ones. These
cations should be applied. In this case most of the
results are in accordance with the results of the study
secondary granulates is used in crate production for
by ADEME (2000).
other applications, reflecting about 70% of the primary
The further optimization potential for each transport
granulates value in fruit and vegetable crate production.
packaging option could be identified. For single-use wood-
& The improved washing and cleaning process being of
en boxes, system optimization of the environmental profile
relevance within the life cycle of re-usable crates. There-
could be gained due to:
fore, any effective reduction in energy consumption and
& The reduction of wood transports, especially long- related emissions, emissions from washing water as well
distance transports of wood imports. as improvement of efficiencies lead to an overall opti-
& The reduction of weight of wooden boxes (weight varies mization, especially with respect to a high number of
partly almost factor two for same capacity depending on fillings per lifetime.
design and the moisture of the wood).
& The kind of used wood. As poplar seems to be less Regarding economic aspects, the re-usable system also
intensive in forestry and box production, the broader shows advantages over the single-use systems. The highest
use of poplar seems to be favorable. share of the life cycle costs for wooden boxes and cardboard
& The energy recovery in end of life. Due to the fact that boxes occurs in the production phase, while for plastic crates,
wooden boxes are not recycled into particleboard in the service life is the main cost driver. The re-usable crates
central Europe, certain transport distances to southern show a decrease in life cycle costs when increasing the num-
European sites apply. Energy recovery of wooden boxes ber of fillings. The number of circulations per re-usable crate
in central Europe therefore seems to be the most appro- should therefore be as high as possible.
priate end-of-life option. When assessing social impacts, plastic crates are the most
preferable option in terms of the number of lethal accidents,
For single-use cardboard boxes, system optimization of
and wooden boxes the worst. LCWE results should always
the environmental profile could be gained due to:
be interpreted in the context of the societal boundaries and
& The box dimensions and, therefore, the amount of re- conditions, as the direction of the indicator scales is not as
quired material is a possible aspect of further optimiza- clear as in LCIA (e.g., not every context is a high share of
tion as this appears to have a relevant influence on the highly qualified workers more preferable than a high share
environmental impacts. of lowly qualified workers). In this respect, a higher share of
& The composition of papers concerning the primary and jobs by women and their qualification profiles might be
secondary fiber content playing a relevant role. Rela- assessed differently by the different interested parties: em-
tively less secondary fiber is used in the production of ployers, employees of different qualification levels, and
fruit and vegetable cardboard boxes with the required politicians. For example, female workers and politicians
quality. If the share of secondary fiber could be in- might welcome and therefore assess positively a high share
creased, environmental impacts could be reduced. of women workers, whereas employers may not due to a
 Int J Life Cycle Assess

potential higher share of part-time work for example. Never- Food Science, vol 8 (Robertson, G. L. Ed.), International Union of
Food Science and Technology (IUFoST). http://www.
theless, it is highly recommendable to further explore and
worldfoodscience.org/cms/?pid=1005132&printable=1. Accessed
discuss this social assessment method, possibly by obtaining 21 March 2012
different user profiles with a predefined view on the indicators. Barthel L, Wolf MA, Eyerer P (2005) Methodology of life cycle
The current and ongoing discussion about sustainability sustainability for sustainability assessments. 11th Annual Interna-
tional Sustainable Development Research Conference (AISDRC),
highlights the necessity of assessment and quantification of
06–08 June 2005, Helsinki, Finland
a range of sustainability indicators. This study shows that a Barthel L, Albrecht S, Baitz M, Deimling S, Fullana I Palmer P,
comparative sustainability assessment is feasible in a struc- Gazulla C, Balazs, S, Des Abbayes C (2007) The sustainability
tured methodological way under similar boundary condi- of packaging systems for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe
based on life cycle-analysis. University of Stuttgart, Dept. Life
tions and from a life cycle perspective. It is clear that such
Cycle Engineering (GaBi) on behalf of Stiftung Initiative
a study will not be able to cover sustainability exhaustively, Mehrweg (SIM). www.plasticsconverters.eu/uploads/Final-
but it can be concluded that certain sustainability aspects can Report-English-070226.pdf. Accessed 05 March 2012
complement an environmental life cycle assessment and Benoît C, Andrews ES, Barthel LP, Beck T, Ciroth A, Cucuzzella C,
Gensch CO, Hébert J, Lesage P, Manhart A, Mazeau P, Mazijn B,
provide important additional information for decision
Methot AL, Moberg A, Norris G, Parent J, Prakash S, Reveret JP,
makers in policy and industry. Within this study, the under- Spillemaeckers S, Ugaya CM, Valdivia S, Weidema Bo (2009)
lying foreground life cycle inventory model was used as Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products social and
basis for the life cycle impact assessment as well as for the socio-economic LCA guidelines complementing environmental
LCA and life cycle costing, contributing to the full assessment
evaluation of economic and social aspects. Supplemented
of goods and services within the context of sustainable develop-
by the use of consistent background data, the study benefits ment provided by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. ISBN:
from conformed system boundaries and a clear reproduc- 978-92-807-3021-0, DTI/1164/PA
ibility and therefore can be easily updated in the future. An Büsser S, Jungbluth N (2009) The role of flexible packaging in the life
increased inclusion of the LCA aspects of food losses and cycle of coffee and butter. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(Suppl
1):S80–S91
the resulting benefits for the environmental performance of Buzby JC, Wells HF, Axtman B, Mickey J (2009) Supermarket loss
the respective transport packaging systems are envisaged as estimates for fresh fruit, vegetables, meat, poultry and seafood
necessary research future activities. and their use in the ERS loss-adjusted food availability data. EIB-
A comparative sustainability assessment of fruit and veg- 44, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv. March 2009
Cagnot JF, Monier V, Le Doré, A (2000) Cost efficiency of packaging
etable transport packaging options will always be partial, as recovery systems: the case of France, Germany, the Netherlands and
the packaging influences the amount and quality of the fresh the United Kingdom. Final Report, Commission of the European
food arriving to the consumer which consequently influ- Communities, ETD/98/502038, Taylor Nelson Sofres Consulting,
ences the total impact of the packaging–product system. Paris
Capuz S, Aucejo S et al. (2005) A comparative study of the environ-
However, life cycle decision making occurs based on both mental and economic characteristics of corrugated board boxes
quantitative science-based information and built-in social and reusable plastic crates in the long distance transport of fruit
and emotional rules (Fullana-i-Palmer et al. 2011). There- and vegetables, Spanish and English Version. Study performed by
fore, further research is needed to help the decision-making the Polytechnic University of Valencia in cooperation with the
Packaging, Transport and Logistics Research Centre ITENE 2005
process from a life cycle management perspective both in Cellura M, Longo S, Mistretta M (2012) Life cycle assessment (LCA)
relation to the influence of packaging in the product life of protected crops: an Italian case study. J Clean Prod 28:56–62
cycle and in relation to how the results are processed to- Chonhenchob V, Singh SP (2003) A comparison of corrugated boxes
gether with other societal and emotional factors. and reusable plastic containers for mango distribution. Packag
Technol Sci 16:231–237
Chonhenchob V, Singh SP (2005) Packaging performance comparison
for distribution and export of papaya fruit. Packag Technol Sci
References 18:125–131
Euro Pool System (2008) Primary industry data. Euro Pool System
International B.V. 2289 DJ Rijswijk, The Netherlands
ADEME (2000) Analyse du cycle de vie des caisses en bois, carton FEFCO (2006) European Database for Cardboard Life Cycle Studies 2006,
ondulé et plastic pour pommes (LCA of wooden boxes, cardboard published by FEFCO (European Federation of Cardboard Manufac-
boxes and plastic crates for apples). Agence de l'Environnement et turers), GO (Groupement Européen des Fabricants de Papiers pour
de la Maîtrise de l'Energie. Derived from: http://www.ademe.fr/ Ondulé) and ECO (European Containerboard Organisation)
htdocs/actualite/dossier/pdf/acvs.pdf. Accessed 07 March 2012 Fraunhofer IML (2008) Fraunhofer Institute for Material Flow and
Albrecht S, Beck T, Barthel LP, Fischer M, Deimling S, Baitz M Logistics. Expert data and judgement 2008
(2009) The sustainability of packaging systems for fruit and Fullana-i-Palmer P, Puig R, Bala A, Baquero G, Riba J, Raugei M
vegetable transport in Europe based on life cycle-analysis— (2011) From life cycle assessment to life cycle management: a
update 2009. University of Stuttgart, Dept. Life Cycle Engineer- case study on industrial waste management policy making. J Ind
ing (GaBi) 2009. www.stiftung-mehrweg.de. Accessed 05 March Ecol 15:458–475
2012 GaBi (2008a) PE, LBP: GaBi4 software-system and databases for life
Aworh OC (2010) Reducing postharvest losses of horticultural com- cycle engineering. Copyright, TM. Stuttgart, Echterdingen, 1992–
modities in Nigeria through improved packaging. The World of 2008
Int J Life Cycle Assess

GaBi (2008b) PE, LBP: GaBi4 LCWE Life Cycle Working Environ- López Camelo AF (2004) Manual for the preparation and sale of fruits
ment (Social database). Copyright, TM. Stuttgart, Echterdingen. and vegetables. From field to market. Rome, Food and agriculture
www.gabi-software.com/fileadmin/Documents/lcwe.pdf organization of the United Nations. ISBN 92-5-104991-2
GROW (2008) GROW Verein für umweltfreundliche Holzverpackungen Makishi Colodel C, Kupfer T, Barthel L, Albrecht S (2009) R&D
e.V., (Association for environmental friendly wooden packaging), decision support by parallel assessment of economic, ecological
67133 Maxdorf, Germany. Personal communication (e-mail) with and social impact - Adipic acid from renewable resources versus
U. Groll: 21.10.2008 adipic acid from crude oil. J Ecol Econ 68(6):1599–1604
Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, van Oers L, Remón S, Venturini ME, Lopez-Buesa P, Oria R (2003) Burlat cherry
Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn H, van quality after long range transport: optimisation of packaging
Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Life cycle assessment: an oper- conditions. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 4:425–434
ational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The RPCC (2004) Life cycle inventory of re-usable plastic containers and
Netherlands display-ready corrugated containers used for fresh produce. Ap-
IFCO SYSTEMS (2008) Primary industry data. IFCO SYSTEMS GmbH, plications Report prepared for Re-usable Plastic Container Coali-
82049 Pullach Germany tion (RPCC) by Franklin Associates. RPCC: Prairie Village,
ISO (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment— Kansas, USA
principles and framework, 2006; German and English version Silvenius F, Katajajuuri JM, Grönman K, Soukka R, Koivupuro HK,
DIN EN ISO 14040:2006 Virtanen Y (2011) Role of Packaging in LCA of Food Products.
ISO (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment— In: Finkbeiner M (ed) Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Man-
requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006); German and En- agement. Springer. ISBN 978-94-007-1898-2, pp 359–370
glish version DIN EN ISO 14044:2006 Singh SP (1992) New package system for fresh berries. Packag
ISO (2000) Environmental management—life cycle assessment— Technol Sci 5:3–10
examples of application of ISO 14041 to goal and scope definition Singh SP, Chonhenchob V, Singh J (2006) Life cycle inventory and
and inventory analysis. German and English (currently under analysis of re-usable plastic containers and display-ready corru-
revision) gated containers used for packaging fresh fruits and vegetables.
Levi M, Cortesi S, Vezzoli C, Salvia G (2011) A comparative life cycle Packag Technol Sci 19:279–293
assessment of disposable and reusable packaging for the distribu- Wagner & Partner SA (2003) Transportgebinde im ökologischen Vergleich;
tion of Italian fruit and vegetables. Packag Technol Sci 24:387– Eine Projektstudie im Auftrag der IWIS, Interessengemeinschaft der
400 Wellkartonindustrie Schweiz, www.iwis.ch