Case 1: The CO\u2082 Impact Of A Strawberry Jam Jar<\/h2>\n\n\nIn this case, we analyzed the packaging of strawberry jam.<\/p>\n
This analysis was based on the CO\u2082-impact (Global Warming Potential) of the product. So, how does the packaging compare?<\/p>\n
We analyzed the following materials:<\/p>\n
PET Jar With PP Lid<\/strong><\/h3>\nWe analyzed four different PET materials: virgin PET and PET with 30%, 75% and 100% recycled granules.<\/p>\n
The molding process for all four PET bottles is the same.<\/p>\n
For the waste (end-of-life) scenario, we assumed 50% incineration, 50% recycling; waste management of lid (PP) assumes 100% incineration.<\/p>\n
Glass Jar<\/strong><\/h3>\nWe assumed that 85% of the glass is being recycled at the end of its life. The molding process of the glass was incorporated into the environmental footprint of the material.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n![\"Strawberry](\"https:\/\/ecochain.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/strawberry-849x1024-1.jpg\")
Strawberry Jam Packaging<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Winner: Plastic bottle<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\nThe graphic shows the impact of the raw material (green) vs. the impact of the molding process (blue) in CO\u2082-impact. It looks like the environmental impact of the glass is lower, correct?<\/p>\n
Well, yes and no.<\/em><\/p>\nThe overall environmental impact per kg is indeed lower for the glass packaging. However, the weight<\/em> of the glass makes a big difference. Transportation is a big factor of this: from the raw material to the bottle, to the finished product\u2013each step of the supply chain includes significantly higher weights for transportation. In fact, the weight of a glass bottle can be up to 40x the weight of a comparable PET bottle.<\/strong><\/p>\nWhen you apply the 40x higher weight for the packaging material, this is what you end up with. Note: in our case, the weight was only 7-8 times as high. Still a significant difference, but not quite as extreme as in the graphic below.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ecochain.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/plasticx40-479x1024-1.jpg\")
<\/figure>\nThis leads to PET scoring lower overall life cycle impacts compared to glass.<\/p>\n
While the depicted comparison is based on CO\u2082 impacts, the environmental cost indicator (that contains more than just CO\u2082 impact), shows an even bigger difference. Here, PET is an improvement of up to 80% towards the glass. Again, the significantly higher weight of the glass jar leads to a much higher impact.<\/p>\n
The impact of waste management is higher for PET compared to glass, but compensated by lower impacts of the raw material.<\/p>\n
So before we jump into the second case, let\u2019s quickly explain how we actually measure environmental impact.<\/p>\n
How Do We Measure Environmental Impact?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\nEnvironmental impact can be measured in a variety of impact categories<\/a>. A commonly used one is Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is indicated in kg of CO\u2082 (As CO\u2082-equivalent).<\/p>\nHowever, CO\u2082 does not take plastic waste or toxicity into account. And of course, plastic waste can not be measured solely in CO\u2082, as recyclability is one of the main concerns.<\/p>\n
For the next analysis, we will, therefore, rely on the Environmental Cost Indicator (ECI),<\/a> a Dutch environmental indicator, that combines all environmental indicators into one monetary value. This monetary value takes into account CO\u2082 as well as toxicity and many other environmental effects.<\/p>\nThe analysis is based on a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)<\/a>, the standard calculation method for environmental impacts across the life cycle of a product or service.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/ecochain.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/eci_process.png\")
<\/a>Environmental Cost Indicator (ECI) Calculation<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nDo you measure per bottle or per kilogram?<\/strong><\/h3>\nOne of the core issues of measuring the environmental impact of packaging materials lies in the fact that they are rarely a standalone product.<\/p>\n
If we take the environmental impact of the product itself into account, the packaging drives a relatively small amount of the total impact.<\/p>\n
For this analysis, we only took the packaging into account. However, it is interesting to note that fewer products with plastic packaging fail at the supermarket. We did not take this into account for our calculations, but it is an overall advantage of plastic over glass.<\/p>\n
But what about plastic waste?<\/h3>\n
This analysis incorporates end-of-life scenarios\u2013that means that the recycling or re-using of the materials was also calculated. We\u2019ve received many questions about this\u2013how can it be that glass scores lower than plastic? Simply put, also glass cannot be re-used forever. Glass also gets recycled at some point. This was incorporated into these calculations.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBeginners Guide:<\/h1>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\nLearn to create products fit to fight climate change. In this guide we share tips from product designers. And the 3 steps to creating environmentally sustainable products, guided by environmental data.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n![\"Ecochain](\"https:\/\/ecochain.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/Ecochain-Beginners-Guide-Product-Design-with-Environment-in-Mind-2-q1v3wotgbb3fjnirrormk54g9nelm2134mj7tujrf4.png\" "\\"Ecochain")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
In this case, we analyzed the packaging of strawberry jam.<\/p>\n
This analysis was based on the CO\u2082-impact (Global Warming Potential) of the product. So, how does the packaging compare?<\/p>\n
We analyzed the following materials:<\/p>\n
PET Jar With PP Lid<\/strong><\/h3>\nWe analyzed four different PET materials: virgin PET and PET with 30%, 75% and 100% recycled granules.<\/p>\n
The molding process for all four PET bottles is the same.<\/p>\n
For the waste (end-of-life) scenario, we assumed 50% incineration, 50% recycling; waste management of lid (PP) assumes 100% incineration.<\/p>\n
Glass Jar<\/strong><\/h3>\nWe assumed that 85% of the glass is being recycled at the end of its life. The molding process of the glass was incorporated into the environmental footprint of the material.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nStrawberry Jam Packaging<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Winner: Plastic bottle<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\nThe graphic shows the impact of the raw material (green) vs. the impact of the molding process (blue) in CO\u2082-impact. It looks like the environmental impact of the glass is lower, correct?<\/p>\n
Well, yes and no.<\/em><\/p>\nThe overall environmental impact per kg is indeed lower for the glass packaging. However, the weight<\/em> of the glass makes a big difference. Transportation is a big factor of this: from the raw material to the bottle, to the finished product\u2013each step of the supply chain includes significantly higher weights for transportation. In fact, the weight of a glass bottle can be up to 40x the weight of a comparable PET bottle.<\/strong><\/p>\nWhen you apply the 40x higher weight for the packaging material, this is what you end up with. Note: in our case, the weight was only 7-8 times as high. Still a significant difference, but not quite as extreme as in the graphic below.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\nThis leads to PET scoring lower overall life cycle impacts compared to glass.<\/p>\n
While the depicted comparison is based on CO\u2082 impacts, the environmental cost indicator (that contains more than just CO\u2082 impact), shows an even bigger difference. Here, PET is an improvement of up to 80% towards the glass. Again, the significantly higher weight of the glass jar leads to a much higher impact.<\/p>\n
The impact of waste management is higher for PET compared to glass, but compensated by lower impacts of the raw material.<\/p>\n
So before we jump into the second case, let\u2019s quickly explain how we actually measure environmental impact.<\/p>\n
How Do We Measure Environmental Impact?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\nEnvironmental impact can be measured in a variety of impact categories<\/a>. A commonly used one is Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is indicated in kg of CO\u2082 (As CO\u2082-equivalent).<\/p>\nHowever, CO\u2082 does not take plastic waste or toxicity into account. And of course, plastic waste can not be measured solely in CO\u2082, as recyclability is one of the main concerns.<\/p>\n
For the next analysis, we will, therefore, rely on the Environmental Cost Indicator (ECI),<\/a> a Dutch environmental indicator, that combines all environmental indicators into one monetary value. This monetary value takes into account CO\u2082 as well as toxicity and many other environmental effects.<\/p>\nThe analysis is based on a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)<\/a>, the standard calculation method for environmental impacts across the life cycle of a product or service.<\/p>\n<\/a>Environmental Cost Indicator (ECI) Calculation<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nDo you measure per bottle or per kilogram?<\/strong><\/h3>\nOne of the core issues of measuring the environmental impact of packaging materials lies in the fact that they are rarely a standalone product.<\/p>\n
If we take the environmental impact of the product itself into account, the packaging drives a relatively small amount of the total impact.<\/p>\n
For this analysis, we only took the packaging into account. However, it is interesting to note that fewer products with plastic packaging fail at the supermarket. We did not take this into account for our calculations, but it is an overall advantage of plastic over glass.<\/p>\n
But what about plastic waste?<\/h3>\n
This analysis incorporates end-of-life scenarios\u2013that means that the recycling or re-using of the materials was also calculated. We\u2019ve received many questions about this\u2013how can it be that glass scores lower than plastic? Simply put, also glass cannot be re-used forever. Glass also gets recycled at some point. This was incorporated into these calculations.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBeginners Guide:<\/h1>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\nLearn to create products fit to fight climate change. In this guide we share tips from product designers. And the 3 steps to creating environmentally sustainable products, guided by environmental data.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
We assumed that 85% of the glass is being recycled at the end of its life. The molding process of the glass was incorporated into the environmental footprint of the material.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Winner: Plastic bottle<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\nThe graphic shows the impact of the raw material (green) vs. the impact of the molding process (blue) in CO\u2082-impact. It looks like the environmental impact of the glass is lower, correct?<\/p>\n
Well, yes and no.<\/em><\/p>\nThe overall environmental impact per kg is indeed lower for the glass packaging. However, the weight<\/em> of the glass makes a big difference. Transportation is a big factor of this: from the raw material to the bottle, to the finished product\u2013each step of the supply chain includes significantly higher weights for transportation. In fact, the weight of a glass bottle can be up to 40x the weight of a comparable PET bottle.<\/strong><\/p>\nWhen you apply the 40x higher weight for the packaging material, this is what you end up with. Note: in our case, the weight was only 7-8 times as high. Still a significant difference, but not quite as extreme as in the graphic below.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\nThis leads to PET scoring lower overall life cycle impacts compared to glass.<\/p>\n
While the depicted comparison is based on CO\u2082 impacts, the environmental cost indicator (that contains more than just CO\u2082 impact), shows an even bigger difference. Here, PET is an improvement of up to 80% towards the glass. Again, the significantly higher weight of the glass jar leads to a much higher impact.<\/p>\n
The impact of waste management is higher for PET compared to glass, but compensated by lower impacts of the raw material.<\/p>\n
So before we jump into the second case, let\u2019s quickly explain how we actually measure environmental impact.<\/p>\n
How Do We Measure Environmental Impact?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\nEnvironmental impact can be measured in a variety of impact categories<\/a>. A commonly used one is Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is indicated in kg of CO\u2082 (As CO\u2082-equivalent).<\/p>\nHowever, CO\u2082 does not take plastic waste or toxicity into account. And of course, plastic waste can not be measured solely in CO\u2082, as recyclability is one of the main concerns.<\/p>\n
For the next analysis, we will, therefore, rely on the Environmental Cost Indicator (ECI),<\/a> a Dutch environmental indicator, that combines all environmental indicators into one monetary value. This monetary value takes into account CO\u2082 as well as toxicity and many other environmental effects.<\/p>\nThe analysis is based on a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)<\/a>, the standard calculation method for environmental impacts across the life cycle of a product or service.<\/p>\n<\/a>Environmental Cost Indicator (ECI) Calculation<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nDo you measure per bottle or per kilogram?<\/strong><\/h3>\nOne of the core issues of measuring the environmental impact of packaging materials lies in the fact that they are rarely a standalone product.<\/p>\n
If we take the environmental impact of the product itself into account, the packaging drives a relatively small amount of the total impact.<\/p>\n
For this analysis, we only took the packaging into account. However, it is interesting to note that fewer products with plastic packaging fail at the supermarket. We did not take this into account for our calculations, but it is an overall advantage of plastic over glass.<\/p>\n
But what about plastic waste?<\/h3>\n
This analysis incorporates end-of-life scenarios\u2013that means that the recycling or re-using of the materials was also calculated. We\u2019ve received many questions about this\u2013how can it be that glass scores lower than plastic? Simply put, also glass cannot be re-used forever. Glass also gets recycled at some point. This was incorporated into these calculations.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBeginners Guide:<\/h1>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\nLearn to create products fit to fight climate change. In this guide we share tips from product designers. And the 3 steps to creating environmentally sustainable products, guided by environmental data.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
The graphic shows the impact of the raw material (green) vs. the impact of the molding process (blue) in CO\u2082-impact. It looks like the environmental impact of the glass is lower, correct?<\/p>\n
Well, yes and no.<\/em><\/p>\n The overall environmental impact per kg is indeed lower for the glass packaging. However, the weight<\/em> of the glass makes a big difference. Transportation is a big factor of this: from the raw material to the bottle, to the finished product\u2013each step of the supply chain includes significantly higher weights for transportation. In fact, the weight of a glass bottle can be up to 40x the weight of a comparable PET bottle.<\/strong><\/p>\n When you apply the 40x higher weight for the packaging material, this is what you end up with. Note: in our case, the weight was only 7-8 times as high. Still a significant difference, but not quite as extreme as in the graphic below.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n This leads to PET scoring lower overall life cycle impacts compared to glass.<\/p>\n While the depicted comparison is based on CO\u2082 impacts, the environmental cost indicator (that contains more than just CO\u2082 impact), shows an even bigger difference. Here, PET is an improvement of up to 80% towards the glass. Again, the significantly higher weight of the glass jar leads to a much higher impact.<\/p>\n The impact of waste management is higher for PET compared to glass, but compensated by lower impacts of the raw material.<\/p>\n So before we jump into the second case, let\u2019s quickly explain how we actually measure environmental impact.<\/p>\n Environmental impact can be measured in a variety of impact categories<\/a>. A commonly used one is Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is indicated in kg of CO\u2082 (As CO\u2082-equivalent).<\/p>\n However, CO\u2082 does not take plastic waste or toxicity into account. And of course, plastic waste can not be measured solely in CO\u2082, as recyclability is one of the main concerns.<\/p>\n For the next analysis, we will, therefore, rely on the Environmental Cost Indicator (ECI),<\/a> a Dutch environmental indicator, that combines all environmental indicators into one monetary value. This monetary value takes into account CO\u2082 as well as toxicity and many other environmental effects.<\/p>\n The analysis is based on a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)<\/a>, the standard calculation method for environmental impacts across the life cycle of a product or service.<\/p>\n One of the core issues of measuring the environmental impact of packaging materials lies in the fact that they are rarely a standalone product.<\/p>\n If we take the environmental impact of the product itself into account, the packaging drives a relatively small amount of the total impact.<\/p>\n For this analysis, we only took the packaging into account. However, it is interesting to note that fewer products with plastic packaging fail at the supermarket. We did not take this into account for our calculations, but it is an overall advantage of plastic over glass.<\/p>\n This analysis incorporates end-of-life scenarios\u2013that means that the recycling or re-using of the materials was also calculated. We\u2019ve received many questions about this\u2013how can it be that glass scores lower than plastic? Simply put, also glass cannot be re-used forever. Glass also gets recycled at some point. This was incorporated into these calculations.<\/p>\n Learn to create products fit to fight climate change. In this guide we share tips from product designers. And the 3 steps to creating environmentally sustainable products, guided by environmental data.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\nHow Do We Measure Environmental Impact?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
<\/a>Do you measure per bottle or per kilogram?<\/strong><\/h3>\n
But what about plastic waste?<\/h3>\n
Beginners Guide:<\/h1>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n