GG360

GUIDE

PACKAGING DESIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT:

REDUCING COSTS AND QUANTITIES
PACKAGING DESIGN FOR
THE ENVIRONMENT:
REDUCING COSTS AND
QUANTITIES

This Good Practice Guide was produced by Envirowise

Prepared with assistance from:

ECOTEC Research & Consulting Limited

Giraffe Innovation Consultants
Barry Overton
Enviros
SUMMARY
Good design has a vital role to play in producing packaging that is both
fit for purpose and less environmentally damaging. Many companies
have redesigned their packaging in recent years and have usually
achieved significant cost savings. In addition, they have found it easier
to comply with the packaging waste regulations. This Guide is intended
to help both management and designers/specifiers to take a fresh and
systematic look at packaging design with a view to reducing its cost
and its impact on the environment.

From a management perspective, there are numerous factors encouraging an

improvement in packaging. These range from Government legislation and consumer
pressure on the one hand, to the benefits associated with a more environmental
approach on the other. However, a reassessment of packaging can only be
successful if managers are prepared to commit both staff and resources to the
process.

The packaging designer can draw on a range of tools and techniques to assist the
packaging design process. The Guide examines these, highlighting their advantages
and any problems associated with their use. It also leads the reader through the
main approaches to packaging design, from resource minimisation and recycling/re-
use, and reducing the use of hazardous substances, through to design for final
disposal.

The Guide also contains more detailed information about packaging legislation (see
Part 4) and the raw materials used in packaging - from paperboard and plastics to
adhesives and inks. This will help designers to identify the most appropriate
materials for any particular packaging purpose.
CONTENTS
Section Page

PART ONE BACKGROUND

1 Introduction 1
2 The importance of fitness for purpose 3
3 Packaging design for the environment: development and benefits 5
3.1 The environmental impact of packaging 5
3.2 Eco-design and its development 5
3.3 Drivers for improvement 6
3.4 The benefits of packaging eco-design 7

PART TWO THE MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE

4 Overview of the packaging eco-design process 9
5 Some important management issues 11
5.1 Commitment and strategy 11
5.2 Design briefs and specifications 11
5.3 Teams and ‘champions’ 11
5.4 Education, training and tools 12
5.5 The supply chain 13
5.6 Environmental assessment and decision-making 14
5.7 Life-cycle assessment 15
5.8 Maintaining fitness for purpose 16

PART THREE ECO-DESIGN FOR PACKAGING DESIGNERS

6 Eco-design tools and methods 17
6.1 Generating and selecting ideas 17
6.2 Simple comparison methods 18
6.3 Life-cycle assessment tools 20
6.4 Detailed engineering designs 22
7 Packaging design to reduce the use of hazardous substances 23

8 Packaging design for resource minimisation 25

8.1 Reducing production losses 25
8.2 Packaging elimination 26
8.3 Reducing voidspace and fillers 26
8.4 Lightweighting and downsizing 27
8.5 Reducing energy use 29
8.6 Improving transport efficiency 29
9 Packaging design using recycled and renewable materials 32
9.1 General principles 32
9.2 Paper and board 32
9.3 Plastic 33
9.4 Glass: using the ‘right’ colour 33
10 Packaging design for re-use 36
10.1 Types of re-use 36
10.2 Durability and weight 37
10.3 Use and handling 37
10.4 Cleaning and refurbishment 37
11 Packaging design for eventual recycling and composting 39
11.1 Single materials and compatible polymers 39
11.2 Minimising contamination 41
11.3 Making contamination easier to remove 41
11.4 Improving biodegradability 42
12 Packaging design for final disposal 44
13 Six industry studies 45
13.1 A workshop approach to packaging redesign 45
13.2 Lightweighting a glass beer bottle 46
13.3 Eco-design and the use of recycled material 47
13.4 Using post-consumer high-density polyethylene (HDPE) waste and 48
new technologies without increasing costs
13.5 One container for a range of vehicle wings 49
13.6 Cleaner packaging design at every level 50
14 Action plan 53

PART FOUR SUPPORTING INFORMATION

15 The packaging regulations and performance context 54
15.1 Packaging waste regulations 54
15.2 The control of hazardous substances 56
15.3 Standards and specifications 56
16 The materials used for packaging 58
16.1 Paper 58
16.2 Plastics 60
16.3 Glass 63
16.4 Steel and aluminium 63
16.5 Renewable and biodegradable materials 64
16.6 Laminates and coatings 65
16.7 Composite materials 66
16.8 Adhesives and mechanical linkages 67
16.9 Inks 68
17 Plastic properties and container design 70
17.1 Density ranges of common plastics 70
17.2 Recommended materials for the components of rigid plastic 71
containers
18 Sources of further information 75
19 Glossary 76
20 Checklist 78
INTRODUCTION

SECTION 1
Work completed recently for a major supermarket chain showed 63% of
consumers believe that packaging affects their choice of product and
66% believe that products are often over-packaged.

Packaging, however, has to protect and preserve1 goods, facilitate handling and
distribution, present information and act as a marketing tool for the product.
Inadequate packaging can result in product damage, customer returns and wastage
- not just of the product but also of the energy and materials used in its

PART ONE BACKGROUND

manufacture2. Poor packaging design can even result in injury. In 2000, packaging-
related accidents (eg cuts to hands) accounted for more than 67,000 recorded
hospital casualties and cost the National Health Service more than £12 million.

It is clear from the above that packaging must be ‘fit for purpose’. Equally important,
today, is the environmental impact of packaging over its life-cycle. Current
legislation is seeking to minimise this impact by placing specific obligations on
packaging producers and users.

Good design has a vital role to play in producing packaging that is both effective
and environmentally appropriate. The significance of the design element is
highlighted in a 1998 Design Council statement that more than 80% of the costs
and environmental impacts of any product are determined at the design stage.

Many companies have reassessed their packaging in recent years, usually achieving
significant cost savings. They have also found it easier to comply with the recent
packaging regulations. This Guide contains information that will help your company,
and particularly its packaging designers, technologists and specifiers to take a fresh
and systematic look at packaging design. The resulting packaging systems should
be both cheaper and less damaging to the environment.

The main purpose of the Guide is to provide clear, concise and practical advice. It is
divided into four parts:

• The remainder of Part One considers the importance of fitness for purpose and
examines the development and benefits of packaging design for the environment.

• Part Two is directed specifically at management. It gives an overview of the

packaging eco-design process and addresses some important management
issues. Some of the information in Part Two is also likely to be of interest to
designers, as it explains the environmental impact.

• Part Three is designed specifically for packaging designers, technologists and

specifiers in both the manufacturing and retail sectors. It examines the various
tools and techniques that designers can use in packaging eco-design. It then
considers the options for packaging design and summarises the actions that
need to be taken in a checklist at the end of each section. The structure of Part
Three is based on the waste hierarchy (see Section 3.4).

1 Particularly since the development of resistance to the use of preservatives in food.

2 According to a recent INCPEN study, the energy used in the production of food and goods is about 15
times that used to make the packaging that protects them. 1
SECTION 1

• Part Four provides more detailed information on the background legislation and
on the materials used for packaging. It also contains sources of further
information and a glossary.

There are numerous industry case studies throughout.

The Guide focuses mainly on primary product packaging, although it also covers
secondary (collation) and tertiary (transit) packaging.

Although designed essentially for designers, technologists and specifiers, it should

be of value to local authority Trading Standards Officers who enforce the Packaging
(Essential Requirements) Regulations 1998, and to those running industrial design
courses.

The Guide complements other Envirowise publications that deal with packaging,
eco-design and life-cycle assessment (LCA):

• Cutting costs and waste by reducing packaging use (GG140).

• Choosing and managing re-usable transit packaging (GG141).

• Reducing the cost of packaging in the food and drink industry (GG157).

• 120 tips on reducing packaging use and costs (EN250).

• Life-cycle assessment: an introduction for industry (ET257).

• Cleaner product design: an introduction for industry (GG294).

• Cleaner product design: examples from industry (GG295).

• Cleaner product design: a practical approach (GG296).

Other useful Case Studies on packaging and eco-design are available from the
Envirowise Advice Line on 0800 585794 or via the website (www.envirowise.gov.uk).

2
THE IMPORTANCE OF FITNESS FOR PURPOSE

SECTION 2
Packaging must be fit for purpose - in other words it must be able to
fulfil the functions required of it. It is also a legal requirement that the
minimum amount of packaging must be used to meet these functions.
These functions are to:
• protect, contain and preserve the product while at the same time allowing
efficient manufacturing, handling and distribution methods;

• provide commercial and consumer information;

• present and market the product;

• ensure tamper evidence and to facilitate product use (ergonomics);

• ensure safe use and handling by consumers.

All packaging must be able to protect its contents from damage during manufacture
(ie on the packing line), and during transit and storage. This means that, in most
cases, it must have the rigidity and strength to resist:

• various loads, eg compression loads when stacked (bursting loads in the case of
drums);

• being dropped from various heights onto faces, edges and corners;

• low- and high-frequency vibration cycles;

• being punctured by sharp objects;

• the ingress of water and spilled chemicals;

• temperature and humidity variations.

Product manufacture often involves automated packing lines, with product collation,
bagging, wrapping etc taking place at high speeds. In the case of breakfast cereal,
for example, a packing rate of 200 cartons per minute is common. The packaging,
therefore, has to be designed for quick and easy manipulation - folding, filling and
closure - and adhesives have to provide a rapid bond.

Handling and distribution considerations are also very important, and answers are
needed, at an early stage in the design process, to several questions. Examples
include:

• How will the product or its primary packaging fit with or into the distribution
packaging? Will it add to the overall strength and rigidity of the load? Could it
damage the outer packaging?

• Will the load be palletised? If so, what size of pallet will be used?

• Will the product be stacked? If so, will layer pads be used?

• Will stretch/shrink wrap be used?

• Will the customer break the pack into smaller units for onward distribution?

• Will the packaging be re-used?

• Is it compatible with customer handling systems?

3
SECTION 2

In terms of product preservation and stability (eg food and pharmaceuticals),

packaging generally has to act as a barrier to:

• moisture and gas;

• microbial infection and insect infestation;

• other chemical and biological contamination;

• light - where this can cause product degradation3.

The structures and materials used vary with each application. For example,
polyethylene (PE) provides a good barrier against moisture and bacteria: it also
allows the packaging to be heat-sealed (eg when used in cartons). Section 16
provides more information about materials.

The clear and concise presentation of information (bar codes, instructions,

ingredients, health and nutritional information etc) is critical, while the inclusion of
photographs and drawings may be an essential part of product presentation and
marketing. The quality of printing, finishes and the overall appearance of the pack
are therefore very important.

Packaging for food and pharmaceutical products must be tamper-evident, ie the

consumer must be able to detect any tampering. It may also need to be ‘child-safe’.

Packaging also has to be designed with consumer use/acceptance in mind. Typical

considerations include ease of opening and dispensing, resealing and storage. The
importance of these issues is reflected in the considerable effort that has recently
been put into new closures for milk and juice cartons.

Overall, while packaging aesthetics and differentiation are clearly important, it is the
functionality of the pack that is most critical from the consumer perspective.

3 Protection against photodegradation (affecting taste, odour, colour and nutritional value) is important for
certain foods, medicines, cosmetics etc, although some, including most wines and beers, have natural
4 and added antioxidants that help to limit such degradation.
PACKAGING DESIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT:

SECTION 3
DEVELOPMENT AND BENEFITS
3.1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PACKAGING
Packaging, like any other product, can have numerous environmental impacts.
These mainly relate to the use of resources, the emission of pollutants and the
impact on amenity. They can affect human health, plants, animals, buildings and
even climate.

Packaging actions with a potentially adverse effect on the environment

• Use of non-renewable and polluting energy resources (oil, gas, coal).

• Use of non-renewable materials (eg non-recycled plastics, steel).

• Unsustainable use of renewable resources (water, trees etc).

• Emissions to water (eg hazardous substances, suspended solids, oxygen-

reducing materials with a high chemical or biochemical oxygen demand
(COD/BOD)).

• Emissions to air (eg particulates, acid gases, ozone depleters, global

warming gases).

• Emissions to land (eg solid waste and hazardous substances that

contaminate land).

The resulting deterioration in amenity can be reflected in, for example,

landscapes, access, habitats, noise, vibration, odour, traffic congestion and litter.

Eco-design aims to minimise such impacts.

3.2 ECO-DESIGN AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

Design for the environment, or eco-design, can be defined as:

‘The incorporation of environmental considerations into product and

packaging design so as to reduce overall life-cycle impacts whilst
maintaining or improving performance and value for money.’

A lot of packaging eco-design work has been undertaken in the last 20 years, mainly
motivated by the need to reduce the cost of packaging. Much of this work has
focused on ‘lightweighting’ and its success is reflected in the following statistics:

• the average weight of glass containers has been reduced by about 30% since 1980;

• the thickness of supermarket carrier bags has been reduced by, on average,
about 45% during the last 15 years;

5
SECTION 3

• during the 1990s, juice cartons were made about 15% lighter and the aluminium
foil layer 30% thinner; at the same time the rigidity of the overall package was
improved;

• it now takes only 1.5 g of plastic film to contain, protect and preserve 150 g of
biscuits.

Despite these real improvements, some of the packaging used today in the UK is not
designed for economy, often wasting finite resources and very large sums of money.

3.3 DRIVERS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Several factors are driving companies towards continuing improvement in packaging
eco-design:

• Technological and economic developments provide opportunities for continuous

improvement.

• Customers (particularly large retailers) and consumers, while demanding high-

quality packaging, are becoming increasingly interested in its environmental profile.

• Retailers and product manufacturers are specifying packaging that meets certain
national or international standards.

• Current legislation (see section 15) places considerable responsibility on

producers to meet certain packaging design conditions and to manage
packaging - throughout its life-cycle - in an environmentally acceptable way:

- The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997

(as amended) (separate regulations apply in Northern Ireland) place a recovery
and recycling obligation on all parts of the packaging chain.

- The Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 1998 now legally require

certain packaging design conditions to be met.

- The Food Safety Act 1990 and associated regulations govern the use of
packaging for food-contact applications.

- Most hazardous substances are governed in the industrial workplace context

by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) regime, while
hazardous wastes are controlled by the Special Waste Regulations. These
have implications for the packaging sector. There are also regulations
concerning the packaging and carriage of dangerous goods.

• Companies are becoming increasingly aware of the waste hierarchy concept with
its focus on eliminating or minimising waste. Many companies have benefited in
recent years from waste minimisation initiatives, some of them saving hundreds
of thousands of pounds per year. Now, others are being encouraged to adopt a
similar approach4.

• Help with competitive advantage.

4 Many of the companies that have benefited from waste minimisation initiatives belong to one of the many
waste minimisation clubs that have been set up across the country. Information on these clubs is available on
6 the Envirowise website (www.envirowise.gov.uk) or from the Envirowise Advice Line (0800 585794).
3.4 THE BENEFITS OF PACKAGING ECO-DESIGN

SECTION 3
Many of the companies that have reassessed their packaging as a result of the
drivers listed above have saved money, enhanced their business profitability and
competitiveness, and improved their environmental performance. This is
demonstrated in many of the examples contained within this Guide.

Design for waste minimisation and recycling

A Fox, a small manufacturer of domestic and industrial water conservation
valves in Barnsley, originally packaged its product in a cardboard carton and
used a moulded plastic insert to hold the various components. The packaging
proved both large and expensive, and the plastic tray was difficult to recycle.
Holmes Mann, a Bradford packaging manufacturer, designed a new and much
smaller box made entirely from corrugated board but still containing
appropriate partitions. No adhesives are used in the new box and the inks are
water-based. This design change achieved a cost saving per pack of 70%,
saving the company around £3,000/year.

The waste hierarchy

The waste hierarchy provides a broad framework for dealing with waste. Its top
priority is to eliminate waste at source and, where this is not an option, to
minimise the amount of waste generated.

Start here

Material Product

1
Eliminate
Avoid producing
waste in the
2
Reduce
WASTE
ONLY
first place
Minimise
the amount
3 4
of waste you
do produce
Re-use
Use items as
many times as
possible
Recycle
Recycle what
5
Dispose
you can only
after you Dispose of
have re-used it what’s left in a
responsible way

In some circumstances, packaging re-use - and even recycling - can be a

better environmental option than packaging reduction. It all depends on the
circumstances.

7
SECTION 3

The specific benefits of eco-design, which far outweigh the costs, can include:

• a reduction in direct packaging and material costs;

• reduced supplier and customer costs;

• a reduction in the cost of compliance with the Producer Responsibility Obligations

(Packaging Waste) Regulations - a cost that is related to packaging weight;

• company compliance with the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations;

• an improvement in company reputation and brand image, particularly in the eyes

of ‘green’ customers;

• an improvement in market share, especially in ‘greener’ overseas markets;

• a reduction in the cost of meeting packaging legislation in other countries;

• a reduction in product damage and costly customer returns.

Studies have shown that eco-designs can occupy new niches while eco-redesigns
are generally more successful than the products they replace. However, it almost
goes without saying that all the products of the design/redesign process have first
to be competitive in terms of performance and cost.

Why reassessing packaging for the export markets makes financial sense
Packaging recovery schemes often make different charges for certain types
and materials. To those selling packaged products into the German market, the
financial implications can be significant. For instance, under the German DSD
system, different packaging materials attract specific basic fees5:

• plain cardboard: £0.1/kg;

• beverage cartons: £0.5/kg;

• other composites: £0.7/kg;

• plastics: £0.9/kg.

There are also volume- and surface-area-based charges.

NB: costs should be compared per kg of product packaged rather than per kg
of packaging itself.

5 See www.gruener-punkt.de for further information (fees as of 2001).

8
OVERVIEW OF THE PACKAGING ECO-DESIGN

SECTION 4
PROCESS
Packaging specification, design and development may be carried out at
the retail, converter (packaging manufacturer) or packer/filler (eg food
processor) stages of the packaging chain. It may be handled in-house
or it may be fully or partly contracted out to design consultancies that
can carry out both the structural and the graphic design elements of
the process.

PART TWO THE MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE

Packaging eco-design involves numerous considerations, wherever in the packaging
chain it is carried out. These considerations are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Key considerations for packaging eco-design

Consideration/attribute Key environmental issue(s)

Main material type(s) Resource efficiency, emissions, recyclability

Main material colour(s) Re-usability, recyclability

Size/shape of container Resource/transport efficiency

Grade/thickness of material(s) Resource/transport efficiency, re-usability

Structural design of container Resource/transport efficiency, re-usability

Type/material of closures/ Re-usability, recyclability

fixings/labels

Type/material of adhesives/inks/ Emissions, recyclability

coatings/laminates

Graphic design and labelling Re-usability

It is not easy to consider every aspect of a package’s design while also taking
environmental impacts into account, and many decisions have to be made. Ideally,
packaging eco-design and development should be a step-by-step process that
takes place alongside, and interacts with, product design. Fig 1 overleaf summarises
the main steps in a typical product/packaging design process. It is important to note
that checks are made at several stages in the process to ensure that environmental
goals are being met.

It is also essential to recognise that there is no one ‘best’ packaging material or

design. Choice will always depend on the particular circumstances, on the
environmental impact across the packaging life-cycle and on the firm’s priorities and
strategic objectives.

9
SECTION 4

Figure 1 Typical product/packaging design process

Strategic and operational objectives

Understand market trends (identify potential market for eco-designs)
Estimate potential direct and indirect costs and benefits of design concepts
Make the business case and gain management commitment
Define overall strategy plus short-, medium- and long-term objectives

Base-line assessment and priority setting

Gather data on base-line design - own or competitor’s
Assess fitness for purpose (FFP) of base-line design
Assess environmental effects of base-line design
Identify priorities for improvement (including environmental priorities)
Establish constraints and design envelopes
Define project brief/specification (with built-in environmental priorities/objectives)

Concept development and assessment

Generate concepts/options for new design/redesign
within new design envelope
Discuss options with customers/suppliers - assess
potential market response
Assess performance of design options against FFP and
other business criteria Review
Assess environmental effects of design options Monitor performance
Identify ‘best’ option(s) given defined priorities (including
environmental
performance) in the
marketplace
and review design
Detailed design
Develop detailed specifications
Discuss specifications with customers/suppliers and refine
Check that environmental goals are still met
Carry out detailed design/engineering work

Testing and refinement

Develop prototypes
Test/trial prototypes
Get customer/supplier feedback and refine design
Check that environmental goals are still met

Production
Engineer and manufacture final design

10
SOME IMPORTANT MANAGEMENT ISSUES

SECTION 5
5.1 COMMITMENT AND STRATEGY
Eco-design programmes will only work if they have the full backing of senior
management. It is therefore essential to make an effective business case. This
should give:

• estimated net cost savings - usually arising from reduced material use, greater
transport efficiency and improvements in productivity;

• the likely improvement in market share.

Initial work should also consider market trends and the place for ‘greener’ products.
Initial discussions with customers/suppliers will be needed in both cases.

Once the benefits are clear, and management commitment has been obtained, it will
be possible to identify and set strategic and operational objectives, including
environmental goals. This approach will ensure that environmental issues are
considered from the outset and integrated into the development process.

See also Waste minimisation pays: five business reasons for reducing waste
(GG125).

5.2 DESIGN BRIEFS AND SPECIFICATIONS

Project scope and parameters should be based on business objectives, including
environmental and even social objectives, and should be clearly defined at an early
stage. Design briefs and product design specifications (PDSs) set out the broad
parameters to which the product must conform. Ideally, they should set out
constraints and the overall design envelope. They are also the basis for evaluating
design concepts, and their development must involve consultation with all the
relevant parties (stakeholders).

A well-researched and ‘inclusive’ brief/PDS reduces the risk of potentially

costly late changes in the design process. Around 80% of costs are committed
at the concept development stage. Detailed engineering specifications come at
a later stage, once the design concept has been selected.

5.3 TEAMS AND ‘CHAMPIONS’

It is essential to set up and properly resource an appropriate multifunctional team.
The eco-design of packaging, and hence the team, should cover all the relevant
functions within the business:

• product design and development;

• packaging technology, design and development;

11
SECTION 5

• sales and marketing;

• trading/procurement;

• manufacturing;

• warehousing/distribution;

• environment, health and safety.

Ideally, this integrated team should be led by a ‘champion’ or co-ordinator. The team
should have a very clear customer focus plus strong links with suppliers, and should
share relevant information and experience. This integrated approach is sometimes
referred to as ‘concurrent engineering’.

See also Saving money through waste minimisation: teams and champions
(GG27).

5.4 EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TOOLS

Key staff in the team should be given appropriate education, training and tools. This
does not apply only to packaging developers: buyers and procurement staff, too,
will need clear guidance and will find it useful to understand the key issues. It may
also be appropriate to actively educate customers and suppliers in eco-design
matters. Industry case study material can be invaluable in getting the key messages
across, and this is available from Envirowise6.

Where in-house expertise/resources are lacking, it will be worth obtaining help from
consultants and other (eg university) experts. In some cases, such help can be
obtained at low cost, through Envirowise or through subsidised local schemes.

Packaging design information systems at Boots

To develop optimum packaging levels it is necessary to balance the commercial,

technical, regulatory and environmental needs of each product. The product
development teams need a detailed knowledge of both technical information and
international regulatory requirements to achieve this balance. To help meet this
need, the Boots Strategic Marketing Unit has developed a technical information
system based on the company’s intranet. Known as Technopedia, the system
provides essential information and tools to help optimise packaging. These
include eco-design guides and checklists, calculation tools for Green Dot fees,
and pack design/labelling matrices for the global market.

The company has also been working with its trade association, the Cosmetic,
Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA), using the knowledge available to
help develop industry compliance guides for the Packaging (Essential
Requirements) Regulations.

6 Available through the Envirowise Advice Line on 0800 585794 or via the website (www.envirowise.gov.uk).
12
5.5 THE SUPPLY CHAIN

SECTION 5
Supply chain management, working with customers and suppliers, is particularly
important. However, a balance needs to be achieved between two key points:

• influencing suppliers and customers, which is desirable;

• wasting too much time on aspects that are beyond the company’s sphere of
influence.

For example, where mineral extraction is involved, the company may feel that the
associated green issues are outside its control. However, it can send strong signals
to the marketplace by requiring environmental data from suppliers and by switching
materials. Obtaining certain packaging data from suppliers is crucial, both to the
design process and to meeting obligations under the packaging waste regulations.

It is important to consider the practical effects of design changes on other parts of

the packaging chain. For example, a change to the ink or varnish specification could
significantly affect the converter’s production process, while a change in adhesive
could affect a packer/filler’s production line. Where use is made of recycled
materials, it is particularly important to have good links with the reprocessor in
question to ensure that the materials are of a consistently high (ie suitable) quality.

It is also important to understand the packaging’s destination, as this can influence

the design. Questions that need to be answered include:

• Will the packaging be returned or will it be re-used by the customer?

• Will the packaging always be used for the same purpose?

• Will the packaging be recycled, composted, burnt or just put in a landfill site?

While sorting and reprocessing techniques vary across the world, realistically you
can only consider the target product market on the typical circumstances covered in
this Guide (for example section 11).

Sainsbury’s best practice and supply chain initiatives

In 1995, Sainsbury’s launched a range of internal Environmental Best Practice
Guides designed to disseminate good practice within the company. A small
team of environmental specialists and packaging technologists now works
directly with buying teams for certain product ranges. This team has developed
a guide to packaging optimisation for internal use and has contributed to the
external Suppliers’ Guide to Reducing Environmental Impacts. Buyers have
received training to help them encourage better supplier practices.

13
SECTION 5

5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND

DECISION-MAKING
Essentially, there are two types of decision relating to packaging eco-design:

• Decisions designed to improve an existing system as required by the

Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations. In this instance, the
materials and system type - eg a one-trip high density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle
- stay the same. The modifications might involve eliminating extra layers of
packaging, or reducing the gauge of material used. Both approaches would be
beneficial in environmental terms, as long as the product maintains its fitness for
purpose. In such cases, decisions can be based on general principles, sound
science and simple assessment methods. The general approach to packaging
minimisation - reduce, re-use etc - is dealt with in Part Three of this Guide.

• Decisions involving the comparison of different systems/materials. Where

the comparison is, for example, between a plastic container and a cartonboard
container, each can be optimised individually using general principles. However,
it is not easy to compare one with the other without some form of life-cycle
assessment that uses a range of criteria.

Furthermore, when making comparisons, it is important to note that

environmental impacts (and financial costs) should be compared per unit of
product contained/protected by the packaging, not in terms of the unit
weight of the packaging itself. For example, a plastic film that weighs, say, 4 g,
may offer the same protection as a cartonboard pack weighing 20 g: the plastic
film impacts per kg should therefore be reduced by a factor of five relative to the
cartonboard impacts per kg.

Knowledge of the environmental impacts may not be enough to allow decisions to

be made unless one option is better across all criteria. The case may arise, for
example, where one option is better in terms of resource use, while another has a
better emissions profile.

It is clear from the above that assessing designs in terms of their environmental
impact can be a complex business. However, significant improvements can often
be achieved by making commonsense judgements based on generic
information. The key is to avoid getting into too much detail. Brainstorming in-
house using a multidisciplinary group of key staff can be of great benefit, particularly
at the early part of the design process. Brainstorming is one of several simple tools
and techniques, details of these are given in section 6.

However, judgements will probably have to be made as to which criteria are the
most important. These judgements will often have to be based primarily on
cost-benefit considerations or other clear business objectives related, eg to
stakeholder benefits. Whatever the approach taken, it is important to be clear,
transparent and consistent.

14
5.7 LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT

SECTION 5
In some cases, for instance when comparing different packaging options, it is
important to consider the whole range of impacts, direct and indirect, across the
packaging life-cycle, from the extraction/harvesting of raw materials, through
manufacture and use of the packaging, to its final disposal (see Fig 2).

Use fewer resources 3

1 Manufacture Produce less pollution
Use materials with less and waste
environmental impact 4
Use less material 2 5
Reduce impacts
of distribution

Raw materials

Use

Use fewer
Make re-use and
resources 6
recycling easier
10
Cause less
pollution 7
and waste
End-of-life
Optimise 8
Reduce the environmental functionality
impact of disposal 9 and service life

It is possible to adopt a systematic approach to this type of packaging assessment

using life-cycle assessment (LCA) in its various forms. This will involve taking into
account, for each stage in the packaging life-cycle, not only the impacts caused by
industrial processes but also those associated with the vehicles used for transport.
The fuel consumption of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), for example, is typically only
2.5-2.8 litres/km (7-8 miles/gallon), and the vehicles themselves have other adverse
environmental impacts.

Assessing packaging from a life-cycle point of view can be difficult in practice, given
the very wide range of possible impacts - positive and negative. For example, if
plastic packaging is recycled, the recycling process eliminates the negative impacts
associated with oil extraction and refining and with the manufacture of virgin
polymers. At the same time, the recycling process has its own negative impacts, in
this instance relating particularly to the collection of a bulky, low-density material,
and to polymer separation and processing.

15
SECTION 5

The benefits of recycling

Life-cycle assessment studies have shown that recycling (collection,
reprocessing and manufacture) generally offers significant environmental
benefits when compared with manufacture using virgin materials. This is
particularly true for metals, glass7 and paper and is largely the result of
substantial energy gains and the associated reduction in emissions. Recycling
aluminium, for example, uses about 5% of the energy required to produce
aluminium from bauxite.

The benefits are particularly high when collection, processing and use all take
place locally or regionally. This means that there must be local markets for the
recycled materials - and these markets can be stimulated by packaging
purchasers/designers specifying the use of locally sourced materials.

There are, however, diminishing benefits as more contaminated and remote

materials are recovered. In this case, more effort/energy is required to collect,
sort and reprocess the materials. Similarly, returnable packaging systems only
offer an eco-friendly solution if a significant number of trips can be achieved
from the packaging and returns made using vehicles that would otherwise be
travelling empty.

The key is to try and look at the overall net environmental benefit across the whole
of the life-cycle.

5.8 MAINTAINING FITNESS FOR PURPOSE

While packaging is being optimised with environmental concerns in mind, it is
essential to undertake constant checks on performance criteria. ‘Value
analysis/engineering’ is the term used for an approach that aims to achieve maximum
functionality for minimum cost - in both economic and environmental terms.

The Essential Requirements standards on source reduction (BS EN 13428:2000)

adopt this type of approach. They require a reduction in packaging weight/volume to
the point at which a particular performance criteria limit can be shown to have been
reached. Evidence of this ‘critical area’ (as it is described) has to be given - from
tests, studies or documented practical experience.

Trials and tests are obviously important as a means of proving fitness for purpose.
Organisations such as Pira International and some large companies have extensive
laboratories that can be used to simulate all the likely conditions that packaging
might encounter, including constant loads, shock loads (eg from drops), vibration,
high/low temperature, humidity etc.

Frequently, real manufacturing and distribution trials are also required. Transport impact
recorders (like simple versions of aircraft ‘black boxes’) can register all journey impacts
on a microchip and can thereby help to determine the optimum packaging level.

7 UK markets for clear and brown glass are good: they are far more limited for green glass and this, in some
16 cases, is exported.
ECO-DESIGN TOOLS AND METHODS

SECTION 6
Eco-design tools and methods can be used as aids at various stages of
the packaging design process, especially steps 2 and 3 as described in
Fig 1. Although the tools and methods appropriate to each stage will
depend on the particular circumstances involved, the simpler tools,
such as checklists and spider diagrams and generic software tools (eg
abridged life-cycle assessment - LCA), can be used by companies of all
sizes to inform most aspects of the packaging design process.

PART THREE ECO-DESIGN FOR PACKAGING DESIGNERS

6.1 GENERATING AND SELECTING IDEAS
Generating ideas and assessing them is obviously vital to the eco-design process.
Where possible, you should be working to a clear brief with defined objections and
constraints. Within this envelope you can look for ideas, some that will be low risk
(clear changes and outcomes) and some that are higher risk (uncertain changes
and/or outcomes).

One of the best approaches to idea generation is ‘brainstorming’. Basically,

brainstorming involves the development team getting together and generating and
recording ideas. Brainstorming has to be done in a relaxed and uncritical way if it is
to encourage lateral thinking and innovation, with ideas built on, and linked to, other
ideas. In an effective brainstorming session, there is no discussion or judgement
until all the ideas are recorded.

Cause and effect or fishbone diagrams can be a useful tool for organising the ideas
generated during a brainstorming session (see Fig 3). There is no limit to the number
of bones and sub-bones that can be included.

Figure 3 Fishbone diagram for organising ideas

Material Material
type(s) grade/structure Shape/volume

Improved
design

Closure Adhesives/ Inks/coatings

fixings

17
SECTION 6

Ideas can be whittled down using agreed assessment criteria (based on design
objectives and constraints) and the combined expertise of the team. If necessary,
some form of voting system can be used. Value analysis, which aims to achieve
maximum functionality for least economic and environmental cost, is also a good
basis for selection. The best approach overall is to look for key priorities - the small
number of ideas that will generate a large overall benefit.

One well-known technique for screening ideas is ‘controlled convergence’. This

technique allows participants to consider the good and bad aspects of every idea,
using a scoring and weighting selection matrix. The process can briefly be
described as follows:

• Step 1: Decide on the main selection criteria and ‘weights’ (multipliers related to
importance).

• Step 2: Define a reference benchmark for each of the selection criteria, eg a

product or state that is appropriate in each case.

• Step 3: Score the ideas numerically on a scale of, say, 1-5, with positive values
where the idea is scored as better than the benchmark, negative values where the
idea is perceived to be worse, and a zero value where there is no perceived change.

• Step 4: Calculate a weighted sum by multiplying scores by criteria weightings

and adding together the values obtained (see Table 2 overleaf for an example of
this type of scoping and weighting matrix).

A new benchmark can be chosen from the various concepts considered, and the
process can be repeated for new or hybrid ideas.

6.2 SIMPLE COMPARISON METHODS

Visual tools and simple techniques can help the decision-maker compare packaging
systems. One such aid is the eco-wheel or spider diagram. The example shown in
Fig 4 has been adapted for packaging. In this example, there are eight criteria to be
considered, each being scored on a relative scale of 0 (worst) to 10 (best). The
criteria and the importance attached to each should be relevant to
company/stakeholder priorities.

A judgement has to be made in each of the eight categories, and these may, in turn,
be based on judgements within sub-categories or checklists. Such judgements may
be based on straightforward and accessible data, eg material weight and generic
impact data taken from LCA work. Note that, in Fig 4, each category is implicitly
given an equal ‘weight’ in the process.

Fig 4 shows two plots on the diagram: one for the existing product - either an in-
house item or a competitor’s product - which is used as the base-line or
‘benchmark’, and one for the proposed new product. The diagram shows that the
new packaging is as good as, or better than, the existing packaging except for its
re-usability, where it is significantly worse, and its material weight, where it is slightly
worse. If these two factors are not critical, and if all the factors are of equal
importance, the overall conclusion to be drawn is that the new packaging product
represents an improvement as the diagrammatic area covered (the envelope) is
larger than for the original product.
18
Figure 4 The eco-impact spider diagram

SECTION 6
New concept,
New product
eg refill system
8 Existing product

Recyclability/ Renewable/
7 1
compostability recycled materials

10
8
6
4
2 Low-hazard
Re-usability 6 2
materials

5 3
Transport efficiency Low material
(shape/volume) weight
4
Low waste/emissions
in production

A similar approach can be made using a linear life-cycle abacus. The abacus criteria
can be chosen according to company stakeholder priorities.

Another simple approach involves using a Material, Energy, Toxicity (or MET) matrix as
shown in Table 2. This type of matrix allows the combined use of scoring and
weighting so that some sort of judgement can be made about the product. Each
option is given a score, out of 5, for each component of the matrix. This is based, in
each case, on a judgement of that component’s impact relative to the other options. A
weighting factor or multiplier, again between 1 and 5, is allocated to each component
in relation to its perceived importance. The two values are multiplied together (shown
in brackets), and a total score is achieved for each option. This is converted to a
percentage by comparing the total score achieved with the maximum possible.

Table 2 A simple MET matrix

Materials Energy Toxicity Total Score Relative

score (%) score

Weighting 3x 3x 5x
factor

Option 1 3 (9) 3 (9) 5 (25) 43/55 78% 100%

Option 2 4 (12) 5 (15) 2 (10) 37/55 67% 86%

Option 3 2 (6) 4 (12) 4 (20) 38/55 69% 88%

19
SECTION 6

6.3 LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT TOOLS

Life-cycle assessment is a way of identifying and taking into account the full range
of environmental impacts associated with packaging.

Ideally, LCA should follow the guidelines set out in the international standard
ISO 14040 series, the key steps being:

• defining the system boundary;

• compiling an inventory of the key inputs and outputs of a product system;

• evaluating the environmental impacts of these inputs and outputs;

• interpreting the results of the inventory and impact analysis;

• peer review of the work.

A full LCA uses detailed data that are relevant to the processes in question. As even
relatively simple packaging can involve several materials and numerous processes
during its full life-cycle, the analysis will involve dozens of parameters across,
typically, 5-10 categories. This presents problems for a full LCA:

• a full LCA can only be used when specific details are known - usually later in the
project design process;

• representative, accurate and comprehensive inventory and impact data are often
difficult and time-consuming to obtain;

• the results can be difficult to interpret as many of the parameters are often not
directly comparable.

Fortunately, LCA software tools exist that can be used in an abridged or simplified
mode which considers a reduced range of impacts and makes use of generic data
rather than data derived from the specific process/packaging under consideration.
These tools also allow impacts to be aggregated and made more meaningful to
allow comparisons. For example, hazardous substance emissions may be converted
into premature human deaths or damage to the eco-system. The importance of
different issues may also be weighted.

Abridged LCA tools are useful at a number of different stages in the packaging
design process. However, careful consideration needs to be given to the assumptions
made, and it is usually best to do some ‘sensitivity’ analysis, varying the assumptions
within reasonable limits, to check how robust any comparison is. In some cases,
LCAs can give conflicting results for the same item, often because the analysis is
incomplete (for example, it does not cover all the impacts) or the assumptions used
were inappropriate. LCA tools have to be applied carefully and used as an aid to
decision-making rather than as decision-makers in their own right8.

8 Further information on LCA is given in Envirowise publication ET257 Life-cycle assessment - an

20 introduction for industry.
 SECTION 6
Common LCA software tools

Environmental impact assessment databases/tools:

• EcoIndicator 99.

• IdeMat (materials database).

• PEMS (inventory analysis and impact assessment).

• EcoPackager (comparison of life-cycle impacts of alternative packaging

designs).

Packages for impact assessment and interpretation:

• SimaPro5.

• EcoScan.

• Eco-IT.

The eco-design process at Unilever

Unilever is implementing eco-design in various ways during its product and

process development and review activities:

• Eco-design principles are being applied at progressively early stages in the

development of packaging formats, to ensure that the right questions are
asked.

• Best Practice, Essential Requirements Guidelines (for Europe) and LCA are
available as tools for packaging developers.

• LCAs on significant new products can be conducted using either expert

assessments or an ‘Intranet’ LCA tool.

• Country-specific scenarios can be modelled, and ‘what-ifs’ can be assessed

to judge sensitivity.

The company always assesses the product and its packaging together. This is
important as the biggest impacts generally relate to the product. For example,
the move from washing powder to tablets, while having some negative
packaging implications, has proved beneficial overall because it has
significantly reduced product use per wash, ie it has eliminated wastage
through over-dosing.

21
SECTION 6

6.4 DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGNS

Detailed engineering designs will generally be based on the detailed specifications
that follow initial concept development. The complexity of the considerations
involved often requires the use of computerised aids, the most common being
computer-aided design/manufacture (CAD/CAM) software packages. These
packages allow 3D visualisation of packaging concepts, even showing wrap-around
graphics etc. In some cases, CAD tools can be integrated with LCA software to give
a quick analysis of detailed design changes (eg a change in a component material).

Computerised stress analysis (often using finite element analysis (FEA) methods) can
be used to optimise the packaging structure. For example, a pack may have an
even wall thickness throughout, although this thickness is only required at a point of
stress concentration, perhaps around the handle or closure. Localised thickening or
ribbing can be combined with a lower overall wall thickness and, hence, a lower
material weight. It is also possible to optimise structures by integrating FEA software
with CAD systems.

In the case of plastic and glass packaging, mould flow analysis (MFA) can be used
to gain a better understanding of how the material will move in the mould and hence
where thicker and thinner wall thickness and stress concentrations will occur. It can
also be used to improve the flow and reduce the moulding time, thereby reducing
energy use.

Finally, it is worth noting the role of rapid prototyping. Real packaging prototypes
can be made very quickly using stereo lithography/laser techniques to produce a
layered resin model from a CAD design.

The use of advanced design tools at Unilever

Advanced technology, including CAD, FEA, MFA and rapid prototyping, are
used at Unilever to design highly functional and attractive packaging with the
minimum use of materials. By using these techniques, the company has
reduced the weight of the cap on the Dove Body Wash pack by 20%, while
overall pack weight has been reduced by 9%. In the Netherlands, the weight of
the Calvé peanut butter jar has been reduced by 23%.

22
PACKAGING DESIGN TO REDUCE THE USE OF

SECTION 7
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
There are four key areas of concern regarding hazardous substances
and packaging:
• heavy metals (lead, cadmium, hexavalent chrome, mercury);

• industrial solvents in inks;

• coatings and adhesives;

• paper-bleaching chemicals.

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) can also be regarded with some concern when considered
from a life-cycle perspective (see section 16.2).

The main sources of heavy metals in packaging are colour pigments and recycled
materials. In general, European manufacturers of inks and coatings no longer use
heavy metals, however, you should check that they are not present in supplies from
other countries. They can be introduced in very small amounts through the recycling
of plastic (where heavy metal-based pigment has been used in the past), glass (lead
in particular) and paperboard. In these instances, they have been introduced through
the recycling route rather than as an intentional addition.

Key points to note when designing packaging to minimise the use of hazardous
substances are as follows:

• Ensure that the packaging meets the 100 ppm Essential Requirements limit for
combined heavy metals, including those in inks and coatings (or the derogation
limit in the case of glass containers and recycled plastic containers).

• Use paperboard that is unbleached or that uses a totally chlorine-free (TCF) or

elemental chlorine-free (ECF) bleaching process.

• Try to use inks that have the least overall environmental impact. Possible
alternatives to organic solvent-borne inks (which have related VOC issues) include
water-borne, ultraviolet (UV) curable and litho inks. However, do take into account
the environmental pros and cons of each alternative (eg the associated requirements
for higher energy use) and also the application limitations (see section 16.9).

• Consider using water-based adhesives and hot-melts instead of solvent-based

products. Be aware, however, that water-based adhesives can have longer drying
times/higher energy use, and can be problematic for paper mills (see section 16.8).

• As with other materials, think carefully about the benefits and disbenefits of PVC
before using/specifying it.

• Use the information in material safety data sheets (MSDS) that suppliers are
obliged to provide (under the Chemicals (Hazard) Information and Packaging for
Supply) Regulations (CHIP3) for any dangerous substance or preparation. Carry
out risk assessments, as required under COSHH, and identify and implement
appropriate risk management measures. If in doubt about a material, ring the
Envirowise Advice Line on 0800 585794.

• Use abridged LCA software tools. These should take into account the impacts of
hazardous substances typically used in generic processes.
23
SECTION 7

Checklist: packaging design to reduce the use of hazardous substances

Investigate Implement
further now

Is the Essential Requirements 100 ppm limit for heavy

metals being complied with?

Can unbleached paper, or paper bleached with a TCF

or ECF process, be used?

Can low-VOC content inks (eg water-borne, UV-cured or litho

inks) be used to reduce the overall environmental impact?

Can water-based adhesives and hot-melts be used instead

of solvent-based ones?

Consider the benefits and disbenefits of using PVC.

Have the material safety data sheets (MSDS) been obtained

from the suppliers of the materials being used?

Have risk assessments been carried out and risk

management measures introduced?

Can abridged LCA techniques be used to identify/take

account of hazardous substances?

24
PACKAGING DESIGN FOR RESOURCE

SECTION 8
MINIMISATION
If packaging re-use is not appropriate, true one-trip packaging should
be used, ie packaging that is designed to meet the needs of a single
journey. This approach to packaging design will involve resource
minimisation, for example, in relation to materials, energy and
transport impacts.

As discussed in section 5.8, care must be taken to ensure continued fitness for
purpose, both on-site and downstream. Resource minimisation at one point can
have implications elsewhere in the system, so it is important to consider the impact
that a reduction in primary packaging will have on the secondary and tertiary (transit)
packaging. Will an increase be needed further down the line to ensure product
protection? If so, is there a net gain?

BS EN 13428:2000 is the Essential Requirements standard relating to packaging-

source reduction.

8.1 REDUCING PRODUCTION LOSSES

• Choose a shape that minimises material wastage in pack production.

Minimising production losses

A well-known drinks company has saved around £2.3 million/year since 1995
by redesigning its standard soft-drinks can. The redesign involved reducing the
end diameter of the can. This has reduced both the amount of material used in
the top disc and, because there is now less scrap metal between adjacent
disks, the level of sheet wastage during production9.

• Maximise material yield by using a CAD/CAM system to plan pack/component

layout, eg in corrugated board manufacture. This will allow more to be cut from
each sheet of material.

• Use larger pack sizes - where consumer demands permit - to reduce the amount
of packaging per unit of product.

9 For more information, see GG295 Cleaner product design: examples from industry, available through the
Envirowise Advice Line on 0800 585794 or via the website (www.envirowise.gov.uk).
25
SECTION 8

Redesign of camera packaging

During the 1990s, a camera manufacturer redesigned its camera packaging to
eliminate expanded polystyrene (EPS) and reduce transport costs. The result
was a micro-flute corrugated box that was 33% smaller than the original
cartonboard box. Furthermore, where the retailer did not sell the product from
the shelf in boxes, the company developed a one-piece, multi-pack transit box
for four cameras with virtually no printing on it. This box was 67% smaller per
camera than the original box. Neither of the new boxes used any adhesive.

Both boxes were tested by Pira International and found to give at least the
same level of protection as the former system. Material and transport savings
amounted to around £2.2 million/year in 1998.

8.2 PACKAGING ELIMINATION

• Eliminate packaging altogether.

Packaging elimination
The household products company, SVM.PACT, has
adapted its packaging for a range of products. In the case
of the cheese slicer, a cardboard sleeve was replaced
with a small self-adhesive label. As a result, the cheese
slicer packaging is now 150 g lighter than before.
Furthermore, the company has reduced its overall
packaging weight by 97%.

• Eliminate unnecessary layers, eg box plus bag/tube, collation trays plus shrink
wrap. Given appropriate laminates, cartonboard boxes can be used without an
inner bag and still give good product preservation.

• Eliminate the use of adhesives and tapes by using only interlocking tabs. Good
examples include the multi-packs used for underwear and the board multi-packs
used for bottles and cans. A similar approach can be adopted for other food
products where tamper evidence is provided in some other way.

• Eliminate the need for labels by using in-mould embossing or direct printing
wherever possible, eg on paper, polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS). Note,
however, that direct printing can be a disadvantage if the packaging is recycled,
as the associated colour cannot be excluded.

• Avoid having a leaflet in a cartonboard pack by printing the detailed information

on the inside of the box or sleeve examples of this include certain 405 g yoghurt
pot sleeves.

26
8.3 REDUCING VOIDSPACE AND FILLERS

SECTION 8
• Reduce unnecessary voidspace in containers, eg where there is a cartonboard
pack around plastic inner packaging.

A major supermarket chain reduces pack volume

Sainsbury’s has reduced the volume of one
of its own-brand cereal packs by 24%, while
maintaining the product weight. This allows
more units per case and more cases per
pallet. This has achieved a 2% reduction in
material costs and an annual saving of
7.2 tonnes of cardboard, with associated
reductions in the company’s obligations
under the packaging waste regulations.

• Avoid using fillers (eg EPS blocks) and padding (eg bubble-wrap) in containers by
creating a better designed, smaller container wherever possible.

• Consider using air as the packing medium where the product is fragile. Crisp
packets are a good example of where air pressure protects the product.

Flagpoles protected by tubes instead of bubble-wrap

A flagpole manufacturer in Leeds used to bubble-wrap its flagpoles, securing the
wrap with adhesive tape. This exercise was both time-consuming and expensive.
Bradford packaging manufacturer, Holmes Mann, has developed a thin-walled
tube that slides on to the flagpole like a glove, providing the appropriate scratch
resistance. The tube, which is much quicker and easier to apply than the bubble-
wrap, is made from recycled paper and is itself both re-usable and readily
recyclable. Different flagpole styles are identified by colour-coding the tubes. The
company’s estimated packaging cost saving is around 20%.

8.4 LIGHTWEIGHTING AND DOWNSIZING

• Eliminate one or more packaging layers to reduce the weight of packaging used.

Lightweighting at a major
supermarket
A major supermarket has now eliminated
one packaging layer from its own-brand
garlic bread by replacing the original
cardboard carton and inner plastic sleeve
with a polypropylene film pack. This
change has reduced the weight of the
packaging by 70% and improved transit
pack efficiency by 20%. Product
protection has been maintained.
27
SECTION 8

• Replace large blister packs with smaller cardboard packs, using a photograph to
illustrate the product.

• Eliminate plastic film ‘windows’ in packaging. Instead use a cut-out or a scaled

product photograph on a smaller pack.

• Do not use hollow, double-walled containers (eg plastic tubs) unless these are
specifically needed for strength/insulation.

• Use double-walled rather than triple-walled corrugated board where the extra
strength given by the latter is not necessary.

• Strengthen materials locally to allow an overall reduction in material use. For

example, use corrugated flutes (in compression), paper honeycomb, biaxial
plastics, localised ribbing/thickening etc.

• Reduce the average thickness of the material used wherever possible, ie down-
gauge.

Down-gauging plastic bags and pallet wrap at Safeway

Safeway is one of several companies that have reduced the gauge of their
plastic bags and pallet wrap. Reducing the pallet wrap from 14 to 12 microns
gave a 15% saving in annual use. Reducing the thickness of the plastic bags
from 18 to 16 microns saved 494 tonnes/year of plastic.

• Use CAD/CAM and associated tools such as finite element analysis (FEA) (for
stress analysis) and mould flow analysis (MFA) to help reduce/optimise
packaging weight.

• Avoid putting strength into secondary/transit packaging if the primary/secondary

packaging already provides that strength. Remember that the product itself can
add to the strength/rigidity of the pack, eg frozen food.

• Where clothes packaging requires the use of cartonboard to maintain a shape

and provide some stiffness, use cut-outs to reduce material use and
folds/interlocking tabs to provide extra strength/stiffness.

• Consider reducing the main packaging material and using adhesive to glue it to
the product. One company manufacturing a yoghurt multi-pack uses printed
cartonboard to cover the top and part of the sides of the four-pot pack. The
cartonboard is glued to the sides of the pots to provide rigidity. The amount of
cartonboard used is about half that used in a full sleeve.

• Reduce the use of adhesives and tapes by targeting their application. Use, for
example, ‘spot weld’ blobs of adhesive rather than a continuous strip.

• Minimise the size of labels. Don’t let information requirements dictate an over-
large pack. Consider printing on the inside of the pack or using a fold-out
label/leaflet rather than a fixed label.

28
8.5 REDUCING ENERGY USE

SECTION 8
• Use adhesives with a low melting point where possible. Less energy will then be
needed to maintain the adhesive in the liquid state within the applicator.

• When considering a change to alternative inks, coatings or adhesives, determine

what opportunities there are for energy savings per unit of production (through
the use of more energy efficient processes or materials).

• Consider the sealing temperature (and hence energy use) needed for films.
Ionomers, for example, can initiate sealing at temperatures as low as 75°C, while
linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) requires a temperature of around 100°C.
Lower sealing temperatures also mean there is less chance of damage to heat-
sensitive products and, in some cases, better machine operation.

8.6 IMPROVING TRANSPORT EFFICIENCY

• Choose packaging shapes that will maximise case and pallet utilisation and
transport efficiency, eg rectangular sections and flat tops. In some cases it is
worth considering stacking and nesting possibilities and shaping the pack
accordingly. For example, one manufacturer uses L-shaped corrugated
packaging for its child car seat products.

• Choose distribution pack sizes that maximise palletisation/transport efficiency.

Ideally, the footprint of the distribution pack should be compatible with the ISO
module of 600 x 400 mm. The packaging will then exactly fit standard pallet
sizes. For example, you can get exactly two boxes with a footprint of
400 x 300 mm on the ISO module, and eight on the 1,200 x 800 mm euro-pallet.

• If the pallet dimensions are not exact multiples of the pack dimension it is
usually better to slightly underhang rather than overhang to avoid product
damage. However, excessive underhang can result in damage from too much
product movement.

• Consider producing a concentrated product and/or lightweight refill packs. For

example, these are now relatively common for clothes washing liquids and
powders.

29
SECTION 8

Checklist: packaging design for resource minimisation Checkl

Investigate Implement
further now

Reducing production losses Lightwe

Has the pack shape been designed to minimise wastage in Would a

production? of a tripl

Can CAD/CAM be used to increase the number of packs cut Could lo

from one sheet of material? reductio

Does the customer/consumer allow more products to be Can the

packed in a single container? reduced

Elimination of packaging Can CA

help red
Does the product need any packaging (eg would a simple
label suffice)?
Can prod
seconda
Can some layers of packaging be removed (eg remove inner
bag from cardboard box)? For card
folds/tab

Can adhesives or tapes be replaced with interlocking tabs?

Can adh
main pa
Can separate labels be avoided by using direct printing
or embossing? Can the
targeted
Can information be printed on the pack (eg inside carton)
rather than on a separate leaflet? Has labe
Would a
Reducing voidspace and fillers
Reducin
Can voidspace be reduced (eg between cartonboard and
plastic inner packaging)?
Can low
Could the use of fillers and padding be reduced in a smaller,
better-designed container?
Does the
any impa
Can air pressure be used to protect the product
(as in a crisp packet)?
Can a pl
Lightweighting and downsizing
Improvi
Can a blister pack be replaced by a smaller cardboard
container with a product picture or a cut-out window?
Can the
palletisa
Could the use of a scaled product photo replace plastic film
'windows' in a package or a cut-out window?
Can the
hence, im
Is a double or hollow-walled container specifically needed for
strength/insulation?
Can the
form, po
30
 SECTION 8
Checklist: packaging design for resource minimisation (continued)

lement Investigate Implement

now further now

Lightweighting and downsizing (continued)

Would a double-walled corrugated container suffice in place

of a triple-walled container?

Could localised strengthening of a container lead to an overall

reduction in material use?

Can the gauge thickness of any part of the packaging be

reduced?

Can CAD, CAM, stress analysis or mould flow analysis tools

help reduce packaging weight?

Can product/primary packaging strength be used to reduce

secondary packaging weight or vice versa?

For card packaging, can cut-outs reduce material use and

folds/tabs provide stiffness?

Can adhesives be used to allow reduction in the use of the

main packaging material?

Can the use of adhesives and tapes be reduced through more

targeted application?

Has label size been minimised?

Would a fold-out leaflet/label reduce the size of the pack?

Reducing energy use

Can low-melting-point adhesives be used?

Does the use of alternative inks, coatings or adhesives have

any impact on energy utilisation or drying times?

Can a plastic film with a lower sealing temperature be used?

Improving transport efficiency

Can the shape of the package be altered to improve case/

palletisation/transport efficiency?

Can the pack dimensions be made to fit the ISO module and,
hence, improve pallet use?

Can the product be made and sold in a more concentrated

form, possibly as refills?
31
SECTION 9

PACKAGING DESIGN USING RECYCLED AND

RENEWABLE MATERIALS
Packaging materials that include a recycled component, particularly
plastics and certain cartonboard packs, help to create markets for
waste and hence reduce disposal costs. However, recycled materials
are often regarded with suspicion, perhaps because companies have
experienced poor or inconsistent quality in these products in the past. It
is worth bearing in mind the following key points:
• Glass, metal and most corrugated board packaging has contained a significant
proportion of post-consumer recycled material for decades.

• Standards for recycled paperboard and plastics have improved significantly

during the last ten years, with better control over supply and improved
manufacturing techniques. In the case of plastics, for example, the consensus
today is that recycled materials are only a few percentage points behind virgin
polymers over a wide range of physical performance parameters. This makes
them acceptable for many applications.

• One unsuccessful trial does not mean that recycled material is not for you. The
problem could have been with the supplier or the particular grade of material
used. Alternatively, perhaps your equipment just needs to be fine-tuned.

9.1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES

• Specify in terms of technical performance rather than material origin - although it
is worth knowing that the source of waste material is consistent.

• Try to ensure that recycled material includes some post-consumer waste as well
as post-industrial (off-cut) material. It is only the recycling of post-consumer
waste that counts towards packaging waste regulation recovery targets.

• Do not automatically exclude the use of recycled materials from food product
applications, but do take steps to ensure protection against possible
contaminant migration (microbial or chemical), (see section 15).

• Follow the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Green
Claims Code and make it clear where recycled materials (as opposed to
recyclable materials) are being used. Research has shown that consumers are
often confused and misled in this respect.

9.2 PAPER AND BOARD

• Make sure that all the corrugated board and industrial packaging (tubes, cores
and drums) used contains a high percentage of recycled material. Some virgin
material may be required to meet performance specifications.

• Remember that corrugated board can be obtained in a small (eg E-flute) or

micro-flute form, which provides a smooth printing surface (see section 16).

• Use a high percentage of recycled material in cartonboard, especially in non-food

applications. Use layers of virgin product where necessary.

32
 SECTION 9
• Consider using a laminated cartonboard with some recycled content for
packaging food products. If minimisation opportunities have already been
exhausted, use a plastic inner packaging with a recycled cartonboard outer.
Kellogg’s cereal cartons, for example, have a recycled material content of more
than 90%.

• Ensure that food product cartonboard is tested for metal contamination.

Recycled foils can end up as tiny particles but can be detected by the metal
detection equipment in use by packers/fillers. While there is no actual threat to
health from recycled foils, metal contamination can be a nuisance to
packers/fillers.

Using recycled paper to make pallets

A Northern Ireland company makes a 100% recycled fibreboard pallet called
Hy Cube, using a honeycomb structure between two corrugated sheets. The
pallet, which is only 25 mm thick, takes up less space than a conventional
wooden pallet and is significantly lighter and cheaper than its wooden
counterpart. Cardboard pallets are also available from other UK board
manufacturers.

9.3 PLASTIC
• Consider using at least a small percentage of recycled plastic unless the
application requires a product with a very high performance specification. There
is considerable potential for using recyclate in low- and medium-performance
applications.

• Consider using co-extruded plastic bags and containers, thereby allowing post-
consumer plastic to be used in new packaging. If necessary, establish a closed
loop to ensure that only waste from your own or a similar product is
reintroduced. Coca-Cola does this with some of its PET bottles in the EU (see
section 16).

• Remember that production wastes (sprues) can be, and are, used in prime
single-layer materials.

Using recycled plastic in co-extruded film

A plastics company in Northern Ireland uses waste PE in 100% recycled film
and, where customer specifications permit, in co-extruded film. About 40% of
the waste is the company’s own production waste: the rest is bought in. This
not only saves the company large sums of money, it also helps to create a
market for clean plastic waste.

33
SECTION 9

9.4 GLASS: USING THE ‘RIGHT’ COLOUR

• If you are an importer of products in glass (eg wine or beer), specify clear glass
where possible and brown glass as a second option. UK glass container
manufacturers need these types of waste more than green glass waste.

• If you are a specifier of UK-made products in glass containers, consider using

green or brown glass as this will help to use the abundant and relatively cheap
supply of glass waste.

• Consider using plastic shrink sleeves or organic coatings to provide the required
product colour/image, thus allowing the use of bottles made from any colour of
recycled glass. Most sleeves can be easily removed during recycling while
organic coatings will burn off.

Specification of clear glass at Safeway

To address the imbalance that exists between the quantities of green glass
imported into the UK and the high proportion of clear glass that is
manufactured in the country, Safeway has looked at the possibility of importing
wines in clear rather than green bottles. Of 660 wines stocked by the
supermarket, 52 are now in clear glass bottles, compared with 17 before the
initiative. In the last 12 months it has converted wines such as the El Velero
range (around 1 million bottles) and Under The Table range (around 50,000
bottles) to clear glass as well as more recently, Clearly Organic.

34
 SECTION 9
Checklist: packaging design using recycled and renewable materials

Investigate Implement
further now

General

Could the use of recycled material be considered/

reconsidered?

Can materials be specified in terms of technical performance

rather than material origin?

Can recycled material containing post-consumer waste as

well as recycled off-cuts be specified?

Has the use of recycled material for packaging food products

been unnecessarily ruled out?

Are the Defra Green Claims Code guidelines being followed?

Use of recycled paper and board

Does the corrugated board used contain a high percentage of

recycled material?

Where a smooth printing surface is required can a recycled

micro-flute board be used?

Would the use of some virgin material allow the use of more
recycled material overall?

Does the cartonboard used contain a high percentage

of recycled material?

Would a virgin layer allow the use of cartonboard with a high

percentage of recycled material?

For food products, would a laminated cartonboard allow the

use of recycled board?

For food products, would the use of a plastic inner bag allow
the use of recycled board?

Use of recycled plastic

Can at least some recyclate be used without compromising

the performance specification?

Can the container or film be co-extruded to use some

recycled post-consumer plastic in the inner layer?

Are production wastes (sprues) re-used as prime production

materials?

Use of recycled glass

Can clear glass be specified for imported containers, instead

of brown or green?

In the UK, can glass containers be specified/manufactured

from green or brown glass waste?

Can plastic shrink sleeves or organic coatings be used to provide

colour, thereby allowing the re-use of green/brown glass?
35
SECTION 10

PACKAGING DESIGN FOR RE-USE

Packaging designed for re-use as part of a closed-loop system (eg
plastic totes) can last for at least 30 trips and often 100 or more.
However, in many instances, so-called ‘one-trip’ packaging is, in
practice, re-used several times. Where this is the case, the best
environmental option may be to encourage greater re-use by, for
example, increasing material thickness slightly, rather than opting for an
ultra-lightweight one-trip design.

In some cases, one-trip packaging has some level of ‘redundancy’ built in so that it
meets other performance criteria. This can allow it to be re-used several times.
Chemical drums, for example, have to have additional strength to provide a safety
margin and, where appropriate, to meet the requirements of legislation relating to
the carriage of dangerous goods. However, in all cases it is essential to be aware of
the way in which the packaging will be re-used.

BS EN 13429: 2000 on packaging re-use is the European standard, in relation to the

Essential Requirements for design and claims for re-usable packaging.

10.1 TYPES OF RE-USE

• With conventional re-use systems, understand how the packaging will be re-used
and design accordingly.

• Consider second/multi-purpose use rather than conventional re-use. Some

transit cases and secondary packaging can be used directly as point-of-sale
display cases or shelf-ready packaging. Several supermarkets now use
secondary packaging in this way10.

Transit display case for garden hoses

SCA Packaging has developed new packaging
for the storage and transportation, to garden
centres and DIY outlets, of a range of hoses and
components. The design displays the products
attractively in a module and makes efficient use
of space within both the pack and the retail area.
The packaging is tough, durable and
accommodates six varieties of hose and three
varieties of component.

• Consider novel re-use systems. Re-usable air bags can be used, for example, in
electronics packaging.

• Whatever the type of re-use, make sure the appropriate arrangements are in
place and available to make re-use possible in practice.

10
36 Note that re-use of this kind is not regarded as re-use under the terms of the packaging waste regulations.
10.2 DURABILITY AND WEIGHT

SECTION 10
• Consider reinforcing existing designs. Material changes (eg the use of kraft fibres
in corrugated cases), ribs, internal separators, edge strengthening, lamination etc
can help to turn a one-trip box into a re-usable system.

• Consider ‘finish’ and other factors as well as strength. Will the packaging
maintain all aspects of its performance or will one aspect make it unusable after
a few trips?

• Make the packaging lightweight as well as durable. Corrugated plastic (eg

Correx) and double/tri-wall coated board offer possible alternatives to solid
plastic or even steel crates and offer the added advantage of being collapsible
and hence easy to transport.

Designing lightweight packaging for heavy-duty use

A company needing to ship engines redesigned its transit packaging,
abandoning the steel crate for a pallet/corrugated board combination. The
change allowed the company to load 44 engines, rather than the original 30, on
to a vehicle, saving around £60,000 in transport costs each year.

10.3 USE AND HANDLING

• Design the package so that the product can be discharged/unloaded without any
significant damage to the packaging.

• Make the packaging readily collapsible or design it for easy stacking/nesting to

minimise the impact of storage and transportation. Provide clear markings to
indicate how the packaging should be collapsed/stacked/nested.

• Ensure easy opening and secure closure to facilitate handling and use. For
example, overlapping/interlocking box lids are useful.

• Ensure easy label removal/attachment. Using label pouches on returnable boxes,

for example, will ensure that the boxes do not become covered in unsightly sticky
labels that make recycling more difficult once the box has ended its useful life.

10.4 CLEANING AND REFURBISHMENT

• Design the packaging so that it is easy to clean/wash where this is likely to be
necessary, eg for food safety/hygiene reasons.

• Make the packaging modular and repairable. If sections of a plastic box, for
example, can be replaced when damaged, the overall life of the packaging will
be significantly extended. Wooden pallets and crates are, of course, quite easy
to repair.

• Make sure that any cleaning/reconditioning process has minimum impact on the
environment. Using excessive amounts of water and detergent after each use, for
example, will reduce the benefits of re-use.

37
SECTION 10

Checklist: packaging design for re-use

Investigate Implement
further now

Type of re-use

Are arrangements in place that make container re-use

possible?

Has the type of re-use been considered?

Can transit/secondary packaging be 're-used' as a

point-of-sale display?

Have novel re-use systems been considered (eg air bags)?

Durability and weight

Would reinforcing an existing design turn a one-trip box into a

re-usable system?

Are all aspects of the design, including finishing, durable

enough to last for multiple trips?

Is the package lightweight as well as durable?

Use and handling

Does the design allow the product to be removed without

destroying the package?

Is the package easy to collapse/stack when empty and

before re-use?

Are instructions on how to collapse/stack the container

needed/provided?

Is the closure secure yet easy to open, thereby promoting

easy handling and re-use?

Is it easy to remove and re-attach labels?

Cleaning and refurbishment

Is the packaging easy to clean/wash if this is likely to be

required?

Do cleaning requirements have negative environmental

impacts that need consideration?

Could the package be made modular and therefore easy

to repair?

38
PACKAGING DESIGN FOR EVENTUAL

SECTION 11
RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING
Packaging design for recycling and composting should take into
account how the packaging will be handled after use. In other words,
designers need to consider the ways in which:
• segregation, collection and sorting will take place;

• reprocessing will take place.

Plastics, for example, will usually be sorted by colour and generally by polymer.
They are then chopped/flaked and washed to separate labels and adhesives.
Flotation tanks can be used to separate lighter polymers (such as PP, LDPE and
HDPE) from heavier polymers (such as PET and PVC) and heavy contaminants. A
counter-current airstream is used to separate labels and films from plastic flake. The
clean, separated polymers are then generally heated, extruded and chopped to
make new granulate.

Paper mills that take waste paper use various combinations of mechanical agitation,
screening, flotation and centrifuging in the pulp preparation process. By this means,
contamination, in the form of metal and plastic (films, closures) can be segregated,
and applied adhesives and print or coatings can be removed or dispersed. Attention
should be paid to the recyclability characteristics of all components in the design
and production of packaging. Mills vary and each has its own specification based
on the UK or EU waste paper grading system (see box on waste paper
contamination under section 11.2).

In practice, the recycling of used products is determined not only by the collection,
sorting and recycling process, but also by the expected use to which the recycled
material will be put.

BS EN 13430:2000 is the UK standard relating to the design for recycling of

packaging under the Essential Requirements. A CEN standard is also currently
under development for material recycling. This covers:

• substances or materials that are likely to create problems in the recycling process;

• materials, combinations of materials or packaging designs that are likely to create

problems during the collecting and sorting process prior to material recycling;

• substances or materials that are likely to have a negative influence on the quality
of the recycled material.

11.1 SINGLE MATERIALS AND COMPATIBLE

POLYMERS
• Where cardboard has previously been combined with EPS or plastic, consider
using corrugated board on its own.

39
SECTION 11

A redesign for the IBM keyboard box

IBM originally packed its keyboards using EPS end-caps and a large box. Two
redesigns have resulted in a much smaller corrugated board box that uses a
folded board insert to support and protect the keyboard. The company reduced
its costs for materials and transport by £2.2 million.

• Pay particular attention to eliminating blister packs. In some instances, these can
readily be replaced with a cardboard box that uses a photograph to illustrate the
product. Alternatively, the packaging can be entirely redesigned using different
materials and with the product still visible.

Single-material battery packs

Some years ago the battery maker, Duracell, replaced most of its battery
blister packs with cartonboard packs that use a cut-out to give a partial view
of the product.

• Design plastic packaging for single polymer use wherever possible. Alternatively,
use compatible polymers that are easy to deal with during sorting and
reprocessing. For example, avoid using PVC labels on HDPE containers as the
automatic recognition or density separation systems used for HDPE/PET mixed
streams may not separate out the PVC. As a result, PVC would be incorporated
in the PET stream (see section 16.2).

• Identify polymers clearly using the Association of Plastic Manufacturers in Europe

(APME) system (based on the European Commission Decision) shown in Fig 5.

Figure 5 Identification codes for plastic recycling

Code Description Code Description

Polyethylene Polypropylene (PP)

1 terephthalate 5
(PETE in the USA)
PET PP

High-density Polystyrene (PS)

2 polyethylene 6
(or PE-HD)
HDPE PS

Polyvinyl chloride Other:

3 (V in the USA) 7 Use of this code indicates
that the package in
PVC OTR
HE question is made with a
(7 – 19) resin other than the six
listed above, or is made of
Low-density more than one resin used
4 polyethylene in combination.
(or PE-LD)
LDPE

40
11.2 MINIMISING CONTAMINATION

SECTION 11
• Avoid using colourants in plastic packaging wherever possible. Where they are
necessary, use them sparingly to minimise colour contamination. Avoid mixing
coloured and clear plastics in the same design, even when the polymer is the
same, as this can limit potential uses for the recycled material.

• Minimise the use of inks, adhesives and other coatings as these will usually need
to be removed or dispersed during recycling.

• Minimise the use of labels as these will usually need to be removed or dispersed
during recycling. If possible, mould/emboss (eg as often done for polymer ID
codes on plastic bottles) or print information directly onto the packaging.

• Consider making greater use of interlocking tabs on paper packaging and integrally
moulded press-studs on plastic packaging, hence avoiding the need for adhesives.

• Use easy-to-remove fasteners rather than tape. Staples can be used where it is
appropriate, although not in packaging for food and toys because of the safety
considerations.

• Avoid using pressure-sensitive adhesives (PSA) and cold-seal adhesives on

paper and board packaging as these are difficult to deal with in paper mills.

• Avoid plastic and foil laminates and UV varnishes on paper packaging (eg
cartons) unless these are absolutely necessary, as they can inhibit recycling in
certain paper mills.

Waste paper contamination

The EU recovered paper grading standard (EN643) defines unusable materials
as ‘non-paper components and paper and board detrimental to production’.
Non-paper components (in the context of paper-based packaging design)
include metal, plastic and synthetic materials and papers.

The standard describes five groups of paper waste, with various sub-grades,
some of the grades being defined in relation to the use of glue (adhesives),
coatings, laminates, wet strength and kraft (strong brown) fibres.

Group 5 (Special Grades) includes liquid board packaging (PE-coated board with
or without aluminium foil) and certain wet strength papers and laminated/coated
kraft fibres. These materials can be recycled at only a few mills in the EU.

For more information see: www.erpa.info

11.3 MAKING CONTAMINATION EASIER TO REMOVE

• Use recycle-friendly adhesives on paper packaging, particularly tough and low-
or high-density hot melts and polyurethane rubber (PUR) adhesives that are
easier to remove at the paper mill. Remember that water-based adhesives can
cause problems for paper mills: they are difficult to remove and can build up on
equipment.

41
SECTION 11

• Use individual blobs of hot melt adhesive on paper packaging rather than thin
strips that can break up in the pulping process.

• Consider using water/acrylic-based emulsions and starch-based coatings on

paperboard instead of PE and wax laminates. Such coatings can be used in food
contact applications and are biodegradable and/or recyclable.

• Consider using inorganic vapour-deposition coatings (for example, those based

on silicon dioxide or aluminium oxide) that can also be readily recycled. Such
films can provide a good moisture/gas barrier and an appropriate surface for
direct printing and lamination.

• With plastic packaging, water-based adhesives (eg for labels and bottle bases)
are usually preferable to hot melts and solvent-based adhesives (see section 17).

11.4 IMPROVING BIODEGRADABILITY

• Use biodegradable materials if the pack is likely to be composted in the waste
management system. Pure paper packaging, with no laminates/coatings or other
contamination, is readily biodegradable in the right conditions and can improve
the composting of food and garden wastes. BS EN 13432:2000 is the standard
relating to design for packaging compostability under the Essential
Requirements.

42
 SECTION 11
Checklist: packaging design for eventual recycling and composting

Investigate Implement
further now
General
Has the segregation, collection and sorting regime for
recycling been considered?

Have the end markets for the materials been considered?

Single materials and compatible polymers

Can an all-cardboard design be used in place of a cardboard
container with EPS/plastic inserts?
Can a blister pack be replaced with an all-cardboard pack
with illustration/photo?
With plastic containers, have efforts been made to stick to a
single polymer design?
Is the APME guidance used for polymer component
compatibility in rigid containers?
Are component polymers identified using the EU/APME
system?
Minimising contamination
Has the use of colourants in plastic containers been
reduced/avoided?
Has the use of potential contaminants (inks, adhesives,
coatings and labels) been minimised?
Can labels be replaced with information that is directly
moulded/printed on the packaging?
On paper packaging, could more use be made of
interlocking tabs?
On plastic packaging, could more use be made of integrally
moulded press-studs?

Is it possible to use fasteners that are easier to remove than

tape (eg staples)?

On paper and board packaging, can pressure-sensitive and

cold seal adhesives be avoided?
Can plastic and foil laminates and UV varnishes on paper
packaging be removed?
Making contamination easier to remove
Can the use of water-based adhesives be avoided in
paper/board packaging?

Is a hot-melt adhesive being used that is tough and either

high or low density?
On paper packaging, are discrete blobs rather than thin
strips of adhesive used?
On paperboard, can water/acrylic-based emulsions and
starch-based coatings be used?
Can inorganic vapour-deposition coatings be used in
certain applications?
Biodegradability
If the pack is to be composted, are biodegradable materials
used? 43
SECTION 12

PACKAGING DESIGN FOR FINAL DISPOSAL

Post re-use, and where recycling is neither environmentally beneficial
nor cost-effective, some packaging has to be disposed of to landfill or,
more beneficially, through thermal treatment with energy recovery. The
key design points to note are as follows:
• Do not use biodegradable materials for waste management reasons if the
packaging is likely to be landfilled. The Landfill Directive requires a dramatic
reduction in the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste from 2010 onwards:
this is designed to reduce emissions of methane, which has a global warming
potential around 30 times that of carbon dioxide.

• Increase the calorific value of packaging by reducing the inorganic fraction (eg
metal, glass). Packaging that is more than 50% organic (paper, wood, plastic) is
regarded as complying with the Essential Requirements in this respect, as is
aluminium foil that is less than 50 microns thick. BS EN 13431:2000 is the
relevant standard on design for energy recovery.

• PVC and other sources of chlorine (including some bleached paper) will increase
the quantity of hydrogen chloride (an acid gas) produced during incineration. It
has also been suggested that the quantity of dioxins (including highly toxic
substances) will be increased by the combustion of PVC, although there is no
clear evidence for this. Modern UK incinerators are required to keep emissions
within set safety limits. They operate, therefore, at high temperatures (minimising
the risk of dioxin formation) and employ appropriate flue gas cleaning
technologies to capture problematic emissions.

Checklist: packaging design for final disposal

Investigate Implement
further now

Has the use of biodegradable packaging been avoided if

landfill is inevitable?

Has calorific value been considered where incineration/

energy recovery is inevitable?

Can chlorine content be reduced to minimise emissions to

air/ash during incineration?

44
SIX INDUSTRY STUDIES

SECTION 13
13.1 A WORKSHOP APPROACH TO PACKAGING
REDESIGN
KS Paul Products Ltd (now part of Figure 6 Original packaging at KS Paul
Fuchs GmbH) distributes high-
temperature lubricants and coatings
and is an established leader in the
tribology field. It supplies companies
in several sectors with a range of
professional product lubricants for
specific industrial applications.

The original packaging consisted of

large tubs and sachets (see Fig 6),
which made dosing accuracy difficult
and, hence, sub-optimal. Widespread
product waste, combined with
inefficiencies in in-house filling and
distribution performance, highlighted
the need for change. The product packaging was redesigned to improve both the
total product offering and value for money to the customer.

The design brief was to optimise the combination of product and packaging to
improve usability and functionality, while taking environmental performance and
certain other business objectives into account.

A ‘champion’ was identified right at the start - in this case the Managing Director.

The Managing Director, packaging Figure 7 The workshop session in

designers, consultants and external progress
packaging suppliers all attended a
one-day workshop (see Fig 7). The
workshop format offers several
advantages:

• it provides an appropriate social

context for sharing and developing
ideas in a way that would not be
possible within the typical working
environment;

• it allows the formation of a

consensus view about key criteria
driving the development of new ideas within the business.

The key criteria at KS Paul were identified as:

• better filling and transit to reduce residue/wastage;

• the use of recycled materials in the packaging;

45
SECTION 13

• recyclable packaging, with consistent material use/common material

components;

• modular packaging that can be extended to other products;

• a reduction in misuse through better labelling;

• improved user control and dose metering accuracy;

• consistency/repeatability of application.

More than 80 ideas were generated Figure 8 Some initial concept sketches
during the workshop, many of them
represented in simple concept
sketches (see Fig 8). Evaluation of
concept sketches against the
criteria set is a relatively cheap and
rapid way of understanding the
merits and pitfalls of any proposed
design. The KS Paul workshop
adopted a scoring and weighting or
‘controlled convergence’ approach
to this. A small number of concepts
were subsequently followed up
after the workshop, and detailed
development work was undertaken.

The Managing Director summed up his thoughts on the workshop approach as follows:

“Working with the Giraffe Innovation Consultants really helped us to consolidate

and explore new product opportunities - incorporating brand, technical and
environmental factors from the outset.”

13.2 LIGHTWEIGHTING A GLASS BEER BOTTLE

The project to reassess the Carlsberg Export bottle took account of all the
stakeholder requirements from the start, including:

• branding (as identified in the packaging brief);

• performance parameters within which the pack must be effective at the

manufacturing, distribution and retail stages;

• environmental issues;

• costs.

Process technology issues were considered from the outset, and the design agency
quickly identified narrow-neck, press-blow glass technology as the most likely
manufacturing technique. It allows the more precise use of material during
production, removing the need to overcompensate during the manufacturing
process and reducing the quantity of material used. The new bottle finally weighed
only 218 g and held 330 ml of liquid (see Fig 9).

46
Figure 9 The new bottle as shown in a surface modelling package

SECTION 13
The project succeeded for a number of reasons:

• Considering the manufacturing process at the concept generation stage ensured

that the early design ideas were driven by criteria of particular value to the user
and the business. It also reduced the need for costly and delaying design
changes at a later stage.

• Close collaboration with the packaging technologist helped to ensure production

of the most appropriate design.

• The principles of finite element analysis (FEA) were factored in at the outset. By
using rough calculations only, the designer retained the flexibility needed while
generating ideas at the concept stage but, at the same time, ensured that the
eventual design was unlikely to fail. More robust FEA calculations were made
collaboratively during the ‘industrialisation’ phase of the project, with the packaging
suppliers using more complex software tools to finalise product specifications.

13.3 ECO-DESIGN AND THE USE OF RECYCLED

MATERIAL
SC Johnson, a US family-owned company, is one of the world’s leading
manufacturers of household products. Although its primary product packaging is
mainly designed/specified in the USA, the UK company is responsible for secondary
and tertiary (transit) packaging. Since 1995, more than one third of the packaging
(by weight) has been made from recycled materials.

Packaging was a key focus for the company throughout the 1990s. There was a move
away from PVC and virgin/bleached paper packaging towards the use of other
polymers and recycled materials. In Europe, PVC was replaced by an alternative
material in the Solid Glade® range of products. In the UK, the company replaced PVC
blister material with PET blister material, the latter having a 50% recyclate component.

The company’s particular aim in the UK has been to maximise the use of recycled
materials. The HDPE plastic Shake n’ Vac® room freshener container, for example, is
now made entirely of recycled post-consumer waste, with the exception of the cap,
which is made from a virgin-grade material. The label is made from paper. The
company began the changeover by sourcing industrial (pre-consumer) waste
produced as a by-product of plastic milk bottle manufacture. The material was
purchased in pelletised form and then blow-moulded on-site - an approach that
47
SECTION 13

proved to be cheaper than contracting out container manufacture. There has since
been a switch to post-consumer plastic waste, supplied by Linpac Recycling. This
has reduced the overall cost of the containers, even though the blow-moulding is
now carried out by an external container supplier.

The company has experienced no performance problems with any of its recycled
packaging, eg in terms of strength or odour migration to the product. Success can
be attributed to:

• the care taken in relation to material supply;

• the gradual transition from pre-consumer to post-consumer waste;

• the gradual increase in recycled content.

Overall benefits to the company include:

• reduced operating costs;

• the reduced environmental impact of operations across the life-cycle;

• compatibility with legal and cultural requirements in the EU and other markets;

• continuing adherence to the company’s ethical policy;

• further improvements to the company’s ‘green’ image.

The company is now focusing on increasing the degree to which decision-making

for sustainability is integrated at every level, both within the organisation and across
the supply chain.

13.4 USING POST-CONSUMER HIGH-DENSITY

POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) WASTE AND NEW
TECHNOLOGIES WITHOUT INCREASING COSTS
Nampack Containers, a manufacturer of HDPE containers for both consumer and
industrial markets, has used its range of fabric conditioner containers to
demonstrate that post-consumer recyclate (PCR) material can be successfully
incorporated into new containers. The process uses extrusion blow-moulding and
multi-layer co-extrusion technology, and the containers have a three-layer structure:

• Outer layer (20% of total): Virgin HDPE, allowing exact matching of the colour
required so that brand image is not adversely affected.

• Centre core (70% of total): Recycled material, including a minimum of 25% post-
consumer recyclate (PCR). This percentage can be
increased to up to 35%, depending on container
design and type.

• Inner layer (10% of total): Virgin HDPE to ensure the same product/chemical
compatibility as that achieved with containers
produced entirely from virgin HDPE.

The PCR used in the centre core is taken from the household domestic waste
stream. The balance of recycled material comes from in-house process HDPE scrap.

48
Using multi-layer co-extrusion technology for manufacturing polyethylene containers

SECTION 13
for non-food applications has several advantages:

• it reduces the use of virgin HDPE by up to 50% (as it can also include off-cuts);

• it creates a commercially viable market for PCR;

• it makes a major contribution to compliance with the plastics recycling targets

laid down in the European Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC.

Using three layer co-extrusion technology will allow the manufacture of new HDPE
containers incorporating PCR, with no increase in weight against conventionally
manufactured containers. At the same time exactly the same technical performance is
achieved as containers manufactured entirely from virgin HDPE, and with no increase
in cost, an achievement which up until now had not been considered possible.

Recent improvements in the UK’s infrastructure of collecting, sorting, washing,

shredding and granulating plastics materials taken from the domestic waste stream,
have resulted in PCR now being competitive in price to virgin HDPE. The PCR/HDPE
co-extrusion approach to manufacturing new HDPE containers offers an
environmentally sound solution to using waste materials, which would have
previously ended up in a landfill.

13.5 ONE CONTAINER FOR A RANGE OF VEHICLE

WINGS
A major UK car manufacturer originally received primed car wings from Italy and
Spain in standard 0203 corrugated cases packed in shipping containers. On arrival
in the UK, the product was repackaged in die-cut, wedge-shaped packs for storage
and dispatch. Because the panels were stacked one on top of another, there was
frequently damage to the bottom panel, plus dents and scuffs in other panels.
Damage levels were often in excess of 10%.

The company asked SCA Packaging to design a new pack that would:

• hold a total of 75 different wing shapes and sizes;

• prevent the product from making metal-to-metal contact;

• locate the product securely;

• be easy to assemble;

• be easy to handle;

• maximise use of shipping container volume;

• promote customer image.

CAD/CAM techniques and solid models were used to develop the design concept.

The new die-cut pack (see Fig 10) has been designed with:

• a roll-up front end to accommodate the wide variety of wing shapes;

• three corner protectors and a central support strut to hold the product securely
in place;
49
SECTION 13

• perforated bends on the corrugated Figure 10 The new die-cut pack

wrap, allowing the pack to hold both
left- and right-hand panels;

• a die-cut locking tab closure instead

of a stapled, taped and hot melt glue
joint, which has improved the
packing process.

The new packs have been introduced in

both Spain and Italy, and the product is
now packed as it comes off the
production line. This has eliminated the
need for repacking in the UK, achieving
substantial savings in packing time and
resources. Furthermore, the labels
previously applied to the product are
now being applied to the packaging,
enhancing the company’s image and
eliminating a further opportunity for
panel damage.

There have also been benefits in terms

of UK storage and transportation. The
standard store stillage originally held either six of the 0203 style cases or ten of the
repacked wedge-shaped packs. It can now hold up to 18 of the new packs.

Cost savings to the car manufacturer total approximately £23,000/year.

13.6 CLEANER PACKAGING DESIGN AT EVERY LEVEL

The Boots Company develops and fills the packaging for many of its own-brand
products in the healthcare and beauty sectors. It has specialist teams that are
responsible for the design and procurement of packaging materials: the company
also manufactures plastic containers.

Consideration of the environmental issues associated with packaging has been an

integral part of company operating practices for many years. Re-usable transit
containers, for instance, have been employed since the 1950s.

In order to manage a constantly developing packaging portfolio, the company has

introduced systems to ensure that new developments meet the highest standards.
Databases have been introduced in all relevant business units to record information
at the packaging component level. As well as providing the data required if the
company is to demonstrate its compliance with the Producer Responsibility
Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations, the databases record details of specific
types of material, their recycled content and re-use rates. The information available
is now being used to benchmark packaging use and to provide data on optimum
component and pack weights across product groups.

50
Packaging for new products

SECTION 13
Part of the development of any new product includes research to assess packaging
options against various criteria. This research includes the environmental aspects of
material choice, minimising waste and materials, and compliance with international
regulations. Where a major pack-format change or a novel pack design is under
consideration, life-cycle assessment (LCA) techniques are employed.

Reviews are also carried out on existing ranges to improve performance.

Using LCA techniques to improve a new packaging design

A cardboard drum with injection-moulded end plugs was proposed for packing
tubes of skin-care products aimed at the teenage market. Because of
concerns regarding the level of packaging, LCA techniques were used to
compare the proposed design with a more conventional carton containing
vacuum-formed trays. Initial results showed the environmental impact of the
drum pack to be greater than that of the conventional pack. This prompted the
design team and the packaging supplier to revise the drum pack design, for
example, by using a reduced gauge of board. This option, too, was assessed
using LCA and found to have the least environmental impact of all.

Examples of primary packaging improvements

• A packaging rationalisation project across the Nurofen product range has yielded
annual savings of around 25 tonnes of plastic and aluminium foil.

• The Boots in-house bottle-blowing facility now uses granulated plastic bottle
waste as a sandwich layer in new co-extruded bottles for specific applications.

Examples of transit packaging improvements

• A project team was set up to develop a transit packaging portfolio for the range of
medicinal liquids produced by the company. The brief was to rationalise the
existing range of transit outers and trays and to investigate new packaging
concepts. After extensive analysis and testing, the range of corrugated packaging
was reduced by more than 50%, while two product ranges were converted to
trayless packaging using shrink film
Figure 11 The re-usable plastic pallet
only. The cost savings that accrued
system developed at Airdrie
from this exercise totalled £52,000,
and there was a reduction of
28 tonnes/year in the quantity of
packaging used. Opportunities in
other areas are being investigated.

• A team at the Boots factory in

Airdrie, Scotland, investigated
replacement of the one-trip internal
packaging used to transport bottles
from a bottle-blowing plant to the
filling lines. A specially designed re-
usable plastic pallet outer has now
51
SECTION 13

been introduced (see Fig 11). This replaces the existing system, comprising one-
trip corrugated outers and trays, shrink film and wooden pallets. Annual cost
savings are expected in excess of £20,000, with materials savings of 13 tonnes of
corrugated board and 2.5 tonnes of polythene film.

• The corrugated outers from one particular supplier are returned to the mill for
repulping into new packaging. This is a closed-loop system with the vehicles that
deliver new corrugated cases being used, on their return journey, to take
packaging back to the mill for recycling. The closed-loop system reduces the
transport impact of recycling.

52
ACTION PLAN

SECTION 14
The following points summarise the key actions that you should
consider first when improving the design of your packaging.
• Integrate environmental considerations into all aspects of the packaging/product
design process, from the initial concept onwards.

• Always consider environmental issues alongside fitness for purpose/performance

issues. Pay particular attention to product handling, protection, preservation etc.

• Bear in mind the environmental impact of the product/packaging combination

across the life-cycle, from raw material extraction to final disposal.

• Investigate the advantages and disadvantages of a range of materials, adhesives,

inks etc.

• Focus, in turn, on:

- packaging elimination;

- packaging reduction;

- opportunities for using recycled and renewable materials;

- packaging re-use;

- packaging recycling.

• Use abridged LCA and other simple tools to give a clear and scientifically
informed basis for decision-making.

• Make judgements that are based on company and/or national priorities.

Remember - you can achieve a lot with common sense and teamwork.

53
SECTION 15

THE PACKAGING REGULATIONS AND

PERFORMANCE CONTEXT
(Regulations shown in this section were correct when this Guide was
prepared. As details may change, companies should contact the
regulator for the most up-to-date position. See section 18 for contact
details.)

15.1 PACKAGING WASTE REGULATIONS

PART FOUR SUPPORTING INFORMATION

15.1.1 The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging

Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended)

The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997

(PROR) require ‘obligated’ companies to arrange for the recycling and energy
recovery from an amount of packaging waste (by weight) in proportion to the
amount of the packaging that they pass on down the supply chain. Obligated
companies are defined as those that:

• produce raw materials, convert materials into packaging, fill packaging, sell
packaging (indirectly as transit packaging or as a retailer of packaged goods) or
import packaging and/or packaging materials;

AND

• own the packaging on which these activities are carried out;

AND

• supply to another stage in the packaging chain or to the final user;

AND

• have a UK turnover of at least £2 million;

AND

• handle at least 50 tonnes of packaging per year, including packaging around

imports but excluding export packaging and packaging that has been
previously used11.

These companies are required to register with the Environment Agency in England
and Wales, or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) in Scotland, or
the Environment and Heritage Service in Northern Ireland. Alternatively, they may
register with a compliance scheme and provide evidence that they are meeting their
obligations, generally by obtaining packaging waste recovery notes (PRNs).

15.1.2 The Packaging (Essential Requirements)

Regulations 1998

The Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 1998 are, in effect, the UK’s first
eco-design regulations. Like PROR, which they complement, their basis is the EU
Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive of 1994. Their requirements are as follows:

11 Re-usable packaging is counted only on its first use/trip.

54
 SECTION 15
• ‘packaging must be so manufactured that the packaging volume and weight be
limited to the minimum adequate amount to maintain the necessary level of
safety, hygiene and acceptance for the packed product and the consumer12’;

• ‘packaging shall be designed, produced and commercialised in such a way as to

permit its re-use or recovery, including recycling, and to minimise its impact on
the environment when packaging waste or residues … are disposed’;

• ‘packaging shall be so manufactured that the presence of noxious and other

hazardous substances and materials as constituents … is minimised … in
emissions, ash or leachate when packaging or residues … are incinerated or
landfilled’;

• ‘the content of heavy metals (mercury, lead, cadmium and hexavalent chromium
combined) shall be limited to 100 parts per million from June 200113’.

The obligation to fulfil these requirements lies with the packer/filler brand owner or
the importer of the packaging, and the regulations are enforced by local authority
Trading Standards Officers. BSI/CEN standards have now been developed which
further explain the requirements.

15.1.3 Food packaging regulations

One Act and two sets of regulations govern the use of packaging for food-contact
applications:

• Food Safety Act 1990;

• Materials and Articles in Contact with Food Regulations 1987 (amended 1994);

• Plastic Materials and Articles in Contact with Food Regulations 1998 (amended
2000).

The 1987 regulations apply to all materials and articles that (in their finished state)
are intended to come into contact with food. There is a general requirement that

‘such material shall be manufactured … in such a way that in normal or

foreseeable conditions of use they do not transfer their constituents to foods …
in quantities which could endanger human health … or bring about an
unacceptable change in its nature, substance or quality.’

The materials covered by these regulations include regenerated cellulose film.

Under the plastic materials regulations, a material does not meet the standards if:

• it is manufactured using a prohibited monomer or additive;

• residual quantities or specific migration limits (SML) are breached.

For example, the SML for vinyl chloride (found in PVC) is 0.01 mg per kg of food.

There is no law in the UK that precludes the use of recycled material per se in food
contact applications. There are, in fact, several good examples of its use.

12 This does not include choices between materials and overall systems (eg one-trip versus return).
13 Certain derogations are allowed, for example, in terms of glass containers and recycled plastic crates and
pallets. 55
SECTION 15

15.2 THE CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

Hazardous substances are those that are harmful to humans and to the wider
ecosystem. They may, for example, cause eye, skin and respiratory irritation or more
serious problems such as neurological damage, cancer and birth defects. Injury
from packaging in the context of the migration of noxious substances has not, to
date, been documented. While not generally a major packaging issue, hazardous
substances do arise within packaging life-cycles, for example, in relation to material
processing, transport and waste disposal.

Most hazardous substances are of concern only in the industrial workplace context
where they are governed by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health
(COSHH) regime. Appropriate occupational exposure limits are imposed.

In the broader sense, hazardous wastes are controlled by the Special Waste
Regulations. An EU Hazardous Waste List identifies materials of concern. There is
also an EU list of dangerous substances (the Black/Grey Lists) relating to
discharges to water.

UN recommendations set standards for the packaging of hazardous materials in

what is known as the Orange Book. The UK Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road
and Rail Regulations require packaging to meet these standards. UN-certified
packaging is performance-tested in the UK by NAMAS-accredited laboratories, and
certificates are issued by Pira International. The packaging for certain chemicals
supplied in the UK also has to meet the Chemicals (Hazard Information and
Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2002 (known as CHIP 3). These cover labelling
and safety data, and require packaging to be ‘suitable’.

15.3 STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS

Packaging is made to the specifications of either the retailer or the product
manufacturer. Where appropriate, the specifications will require certain national or
international standards to be met. Standards systems typically applied in the UK
include British Standards and the German DIN/RAL, French AFNOR, European CEN
and international ISO systems. The CEN requires technical committees (of which
there are many working on various harmonised standards) to specify how
environmental aspects have been considered. ISO Guide 64 (1997), Inclusion of
Environmental Aspects in Product Standards, also deals with this issue.

It is clear from the above that packaging specifications, if they are to meet fitness
for purpose requirements, have to reflect many interests and requirements -
marketing, manufacturing etc. Where those involved are unaware of the true
technical, legislative or other restrictions, the result will generally be a non-optimum
specification - for instance, use of the wrong grade of material. Furthermore,
because specifications become obsolete as technical and economic factors change,
it is important to review them regularly. This should ensure that they reflect current:

• customer expectations;

• material standards;

• production/handling methods;
56
 SECTION 15
• economic conditions.

Particular problems are associated with the specification and use of recycled
(secondary) materials, particularly in paperboard and plastic packaging:

• there may be a prohibition or specific restriction on the use of secondary material;

• performance standards may have been set at an unnecessarily high level,

effectively restricting the use of secondary materials.

Such problems have limited the use of recycled materials, even where fitness for
purpose can be clearly demonstrated.

57
SECTION 16

THE MATERIALS USED FOR PACKAGING

(Information given in this section has been prepared in good faith but
packaging designers should check details of any materials they are
considering using. Contact details for many sources of information are
given in section 18.)

16.1 PAPER
Although paper is produced from renewable sources (eg wood), the harvesting,
transportation and preparation of the wood can use significant amounts of energy. In
the UK, a considerable proportion of paper packaging is manufactured from the
waste paper collected from all over the country. Waste paper is relatively easy to
repulp, although it does have to be cleaned and, for some applications, de-inked.
Some mills burn this process waste to generate electricity and raise steam, thereby
reducing process impact.

16.1.1 Cartonboard

Plain paperboard is used widely in packaging applications where it is often referred to

as cartonboard or folding boxboard. It usually consists or four or five layers of pulp
plus an outer coating to provide a smooth finish with a good printing surface (see
Fig 12). The surface finish may make use of clays, varnishes or polymeric materials.

Figure 12 Typical cartonboard structure

Layer 1 Surface layer - surface

coating or laminate
Layer 2 Bleached mechanical/
chemical pulp
Layer 3 Bleached or unbleached pulp -
from wood or wastepaper
Layer 4 Bleached or unbleached pulp -
from wood or wastepaper
Layer 5 Bleached or unbleached pulp -
from wood or wastepaper

Bleached pulp tends to be used throughout in the case of luxury items and where
there is direct food contact. This type of cartonboard is called solid bleached board
(SBB) or folding box board (FBB). Unbleached pulp and waste-based pulp are used
in other applications, although generally with a bleached pulp top layer and a
58
coating. White lined chipboard (WLC) is the term usually applied to waste-based

SECTION 16
boards. These can contain very high proportions (70% or more) of recycled material.

The bleaching process

Virtually all mills in Western Europe use either a combination of oxygen,
hydrogen peroxide and ozone, or chlorine dioxide in their bleaching process.
The first combination is totally chlorine-free (TCF). Chlorine dioxide is
elemental chlorine-free (ECF) and produces chloro-organics that are similar to
those produced in nature and which break down naturally.

Non-European mills may still use chlorine gas in the bleaching process: this
can produce small amounts of carcinogenic dioxins.

From an environmental point of view, it is usually ‘better’ to use unbleached and

waste-based pulps rather than bleached and virgin pulps. However, fitness for
purpose may be an issue. Odour taint can be a problem, and recycled board may
need to be a little thicker if it is to achieve the same stiffness and tear-resistance as
virgin-based boards.

16.1.2 Corrugated board

Corrugated board has an in-built strength resulting from the corrugations or ‘flutes’
that exist between the board’s inner and outer layers. It is available in various forms,
from the very strong triple-walled variety that can be used as part of pallet systems,
through the single- and double-walled designs used in regular boxes, to the micro-
fluted designs with smooth surfaces. Corrugated board almost always contains a
high percentage of recycled materials - around 70%, on average, for board made in
the UK - and can itself be easily recycled.

Corrugated board is very versatile. Careful design using, for example, internal folds
and partitions can offer excellent product protection, even for quite delicate items,
and this eliminates the need for expanded polystyrene (EPS) or other forms of
cushioning. However, it is important to ensure that the flutes run vertically in side
walls to provide full compression strength. Using internal corrugated partitions can
improve overall pack strength considerably, while ‘honeycomb’ board structures
offer extra strength and support, particularly for heavier items.

Micro-flutes provide very good printing surfaces and allow the use of corrugated
board for primary packaging. This allows the use of a single packaging material that
is easy to recycle.

Corrugated packaging has other advantages:

• it is relatively simple to change the design, and the lead-time involved is much
shorter than that required to re-tool for plastic mouldings, for example;

• corrugated board attracts a low fee in countries such as Germany where

differential rates are charged for the recovery of packaging materials.

59
SECTION 16

16.2 PLASTICS
Although plastics (polymers) are made from non-renewable oil resources, they are
extremely versatile and have many excellent performance characteristics - a high
strength-to-weight ratio, transparency, toughness/durability, good moisture and, in
some cases, gas-barrier properties, and smooth printing surfaces. Furthermore -
and contrary to popular belief - oil-based packaging accounts for only about 2% of
the oil used in the UK, compared with 29% for road transport and 50% for heating,
electricity and energy.

It is possible to combine plastic materials, by co-extrusion and lamination. This

allows packaging designers to optimise product-protection properties and minimise
packaging weight. Using this approach can reduce the need for food
stabilisers/preservatives and improve food freshness/shelf-life.

Polymers can be very resistant to chemicals and can act as both thermal and
electrical insulators. They can be moulded into virtually any shape of container
(trays, bottles etc). Furthermore, plastic ‘corrugated sheet’ is also manufactured,
providing a more durable version of corrugated board.

Each of the main packaging polymers (high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-

density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET),
polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polystyrene (PS)) has different strengths and weaknesses in
environmental and performance terms14. All can be recycled mechanically although,
ideally, the individual polymers should be separated out in the waste management
system, as the uses for recycled mixed polymer wastes are limited. It is possible to
make greater use of recycled plastic, even in food packaging applications, by using
it as the core layer when co-extruding rigid plastic and films.

14 Further information is available from the IdeMat database (www.io.tudelft.nl/research/dfs/idemat/index.htm).

60
 SECTION 16
Co-extrusion of plastic
Co-extruded rigid plastics and films have three layers:

• A thin outer layer, visible to the consumer, made of virgin material and of
any required colour.

• A middle layer that provides most of the container strength and is made
from recycled plastic.

• A thin inner layer that is in contact with the product. This can generally be
made from recycled plastic if the product is dry and a non-food product.
However, virgin material is usually used if the product is liquid to eliminate
contamination concerns.

Co-extrusion is commonly used for packaging in PE and PET. The latter has
good gas-barrier properties and this makes co-extrusion a possibility even in
food applications as it prevents the migration of contaminants to the product.
Companies such as Unilever, Boots and Coca-Cola use co-extrusion methods
for certain product ranges. In the case of Coca-Cola, a closed loop allows
control over the PET recyclate supply.

Around 5% of total UK plastic bottle production - including milk bottles, fabric

conditioner bottles etc - is manufactured by co-extrusion. Companies such as
Nampack (formerly Plysu) can show that co-extruded bottles meet all but the
most demanding specifications in terms of strength, barrier properties etc.
Furthermore, recycled plastic waste can be significantly cheaper than virgin
material: in some cases the level of saving is 20% or more. However, material
prices do fluctuate, so occasional checks with suppliers are needed.

Both EPS and PVC have been criticised on environmental grounds, and some of the
key issues are summarised below.

Expanded polystyrene (EPS)

Expanded polystyrene is extremely light (being 98% air) and reasonably strong
in compression. It offers extremely good cushioning and thermal insulation. It
is also resistant to moisture, salt, numerous types of acid and most oils, but it
does dissolve in certain organic solvents. The use of ozone-depleting CFCs to
‘blow’ EPS is now banned and should not be a concern.

As well as coming from a non-renewable source, most EPS packaging

generally contains only a small amount of recyclate, even though the material
attracts heavy recovery fees in some countries that charge for packaging
recovery. Some recycling schemes are now in place in the UK, although the
storage and transportation of such a low-density material still act as barriers.
A 38-tonne HGV can typically carry only 0.5 tonnes of EPS.

It is worth noting that any polymer can be ‘foamed’ or expanded: common

packaging examples include polyurethane rubber (PUR) and PE, both of which can
be used as alternatives to EPS when ‘impact’ packaging is required.
61
SECTION 16

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)

Polyvinyl chloride is a very clear and versatile plastic that is suitable for a
range of applications. It is relatively simple to make objects from PVC as the
manufacturing techniques required are less sophisticated than those required
for most other polymer products. PVC is the only material that meets the
requirements for the blood and plasma bags used in transfusion - it is also
used in many other surgical applications.

Unlike most polymers, which are totally oil-based, PVC has a hydrocarbon
content of only around 43%. A major component in its manufacture is chlorine
from brine, of which there is an almost limitless supply. Its high ignition
temperature means that it is not very flammable - it is hard to keep alight
unless in contact with a flame.

However, there are concerns relating in particular to:

• hazardous substances during manufacture;

• the potential release of hazardous substances during manufacture, use and

disposal.

Chlorine gas (toxic) and two process intermediates, vinyl chloride and ethylene
dichloride (both carcinogenic) are used in the manufacture of PVC. Concern
has been expressed about the use of phthalate plasticisers (DINP, DEHA and
DEHP) during manufacture and the risk of these and vinyl chloride migrating
into food, medicine etc. Phthalates have been implicated in asthma, endocrine
(hormone) disruption and cancer, and are known to accumulate in certain
organisms. Scientific evidence concerning the danger of phthalates, however,
is mixed, and the industry claims that concerns are unfounded. Lead stabilisers
are used in around 60% of PVC products - but not in food packaging.

There are also concerns about the release of carcinogenic dioxins, both during
manufacture and when PVC is burnt or incinerated. A US EPA study, sampling
data from various points in the vinyl production process, showed emissions of
only about 24g of dioxin to air, land and water, less than 1% of the total emitted
annually by sources throughout the country. The incineration of PVC does
produce more acid gases than, say, HDPE waste, but this is true for any
chlorine-containing item such as coal, wood or chlorine-bleached paper. It has
also been suggested that incinerating PVC may slightly increase the generation
of dioxins, although there is no firm evidence for this.

Although incinerator emissions are very tightly controlled in the UK, with flue
gases being cleaned, recycling is generally the best practicable environmental
option for PVC. Although the recyclate is being used for items such as water
pipes and road cones, the scale of PVC recycling in the UK is limited.

In some countries, PVC has a poor public image, and some manufacturers and
retailers (eg Marks and Spencer) claim to be phasing it out of their packaging
and products. It attracts high fees in certain EU countries that charge for
packaging recovery.

62
Ionomers offer significant benefits over linear LDPE (LLDPE) and other film materials

SECTION 16
(eg acid copolymers) in the production of plastic films. They can, for example, offer
lower-temperature sealing and better thermoform performance (eg in vacuum
packing) where higher infrared (IR) absorption rates result in higher packaging
speeds and energy savings. Ionomers also offer better hot-tack strength, higher
puncture and pinhole resistance, greater tensile strength and improved chemical
resistance. Gas permeability is similar to that of LLDPE, although moisture
permeability is generally slightly greater.

16.3 GLASS
Glass containers are made primarily from silica (sand), and almost all contain some
recycled glass (cullet). The proportion of cullet varies in the UK from around 90% in
green glass manufacture to 30% in the production of clear and brown (amber) glass.
The source of materials is, therefore, effectively unlimited.

Glass represents a strong and durable material for containers. It can withstand
significant loads and temperatures and is resistant to most chemicals. Glass
containers act as an excellent moisture and gas barrier. They can also be attractively
shaped and allow the product to be clearly seen by the consumer.

Brown and, to a lesser extent, green glass reduce light penetration levels, while
clear glass offers good natural protection from the high-energy UV light that occurs
in natural sunlight and in the light created by in-store fluorescent lamps. (Plastic
containers require the addition of chemical UV filters where photodegradation is an
issue.) Modern, printed shrink sleeves can offer colour and graphic design features
and provide an alternative to the use of coloured glass and labels.

A glass bottle and an equivalent plastic bottle consume similar amounts of energy
during their manufacture. However, despite very significant weight reductions in
recent years, the glass bottle is at least five times heavier than the plastic bottle.
This means that a truck-load of drinks in plastic bottles typically consists of around
90% drink and 10% packaging (by weight), whereas a truck-load of drinks in glass
bottles typically consists of around 60% drink and 40% packaging. As a result,
glass does not perform well environmentally when compared with single-trip plastic
containers and paperboard cartons.

However, glass packaging can achieve a good environmental performance where it

is re-used a significant number of times, particularly where the trips are local (as in
local milk deliveries). Glass containers are well suited to re-use, being robust and
easily cleaned and resealed. Furthermore, unlike certain plastic packaging and
composite packaging materials, there is a well-established infrastructure in the UK
for the post-consumer recycling of glass containers.

16.4 STEEL AND ALUMINIUM

Steel and aluminium offer extremely good strength, durability and long-life
protection for many food and drink products. Steel drums offer the same for
industrial materials such as chemicals. Furthermore, both types of packaging
currently contain a significant quantity of recycled/scrap metal.

63
SECTION 16

However, steel cans and drums can be difficult to reseal once opened. Furthermore,
despite the considerable weight reductions that have been made, for example, by
introducing ribbed steel cans, steel is heavy when compared with packaging
materials such as plastic.

Ribbed steel cans for lightness

Unox, a Unilever food company in the Netherlands, has reduced the weight of
its regular can by 15% in recent years by introducing ribbing on the can wall.
This improves stiffness and allows the use of a thinner-gauge steel.

Aluminium, while more expensive per tonne, is far lighter per can and hence
competitive in cost when compared with steel. Life-cycle analyses comparing
aluminium cans with steel cans have been unable to reach any clear conclusions as
to which is better environmentally.

16.5 RENEWABLE AND BIODEGRADABLE MATERIALS

There are various renewable and biodegradable packaging materials. Paper and
wood are both renewable and biodegradable. Furthermore, paper can be made from
food and non-food crops such as rice and flax as well as from wood. Cellophane,
made from plant cellulose, is biodegradable unless coated.

Moulded packaging made from recycled paper - egg boxes are an example - has
been in widespread use for many years. Packaging made from 100% recycled
material (eg steel or plastic) could also be considered renewable.

Recently, other renewable and biodegradable packaging materials have come on to

the market. Replacements for EPS foams can now be made from corn starch and
wheat. There are also biodegradable coatings/laminates that can provide a gas and
moisture barrier, heat sealability and tensile strength similar to PE.

It is worth noting that some biodegradable polymers are oil-based while others are
derived from agricultural crops. Some care, however, is needed as life-cycle
assessment has indicated that some biopolymers (eg PHA/PHB) require more
energy for their production than is used to manufacture hydrocarbon-based
polymers. They may also be more expensive. Cargill Dow Polymers claims to have
overcome some of the problems with its maize-based product (PLA). This is claimed
to use 20-50% less fossil resources than equivalent oil-based polymers.

Biodegradable packaging at Sainsbury’s

Sainsbury’s is using a biodegradable packaging material. This is a combination
of potato starch and cellulose fibres with a coating of biodegradable polyester
film to provide moisture protection. At present the material is only used for
certain organic produce.

64
Work is also under way to produce packaging materials by mixing calcium

SECTION 16
carbonate with plastics to create a soft, egg-shell-like material. Trials of milk cartons
containing 40% calcium carbonate have already been carried out in Sweden.
Packaging can even be grown directly in the form of moulded gourds (vegetables),
with logos and other information embossed from the mould. These can be used for
liquid and non-liquid applications.

Renewable/biodegradable packaging - some points to note

• Some new materials may, when compared with regular polymers, require
increased energy inputs and/or more material to provide the same level of
performance.

• Composting is still under development in the UK and, in the medium term,

most packaging waste will go to landfill. However, the Landfill Directive
requires a reduction in the disposal of biodegradable municipal waste to
landfill from 2010 onwards.

• It may be difficult for householders to separate biodegradable polymers

from plastics. If biodegradable polymers enter the plastics recycling stream,
they may seriously impair the suitability of the recycled material.

• The use of substitutes for plastic may, in the future, reduce the costs of
compliance under the packaging waste regulations. Securing PRNs for
plastic is more costly than for other materials.

16.6 LAMINATES AND COATINGS

Many paperboard packages are laminated or coated. The materials most commonly
used are LDPE, aluminium foil, synthetic waxes and various varnishes. These
enhance barrier properties and improve the pack’s finish. However, these laminates
and coatings can cause problems for companies recycling paper, as can ‘wet
strength’ papers, which are inherently difficult to repulp.

Wax coatings can be a particular problem for paper mills as the wax can carry
through to the product and build up on equipment. The same can be true for certain
adhesives (see below). Plastic and aluminium laminates create problems by reducing
the fibre yield and increasing the amount of waste from the pulp-preparation process.

There are replacements for PE and wax. These include water-soluble, starch-based
polymeric laminates and water-based acrylic lattice coatings. The latter can be used
freely in food contact packaging: they are heat sealable (in some formulations),
biodegradable and readily recycled. Tests in Germany have shown that, with some
formulations, the lattice breaks down leaving the polymers stuck to individual
cellulose fibres. As a result, very little acrylic is lost with the effluent, while the pulp
produces a stronger product.

Ceramic or glass vapour deposition films can be used as an alternative barrier

medium to aluminium foil. In Japan, inorganic films of this kind are now used in food
and non-food applications. In the USA, silicon-oxide-based barrier layers are used
to replace foil laminates in some applications. These are readily broken down in the
repulping process and cause no apparent problems with the final product. However, 65
SECTION 16

they do not offer as good a light and gas barrier as aluminium foil and, hence, have
only been used for extended shelf-life applications rather than for long-life products.

The packaging recovery systems in place in EU (Green Dot) countries provide a

significant financial incentive for organisations exporting to those countries to use
readily recyclable materials. The latter attract only a fraction of the normal fee for
more ‘difficult’ materials.

The bagless cereal carton

Carton packaging often contains high levels of voidspace. The air content of
cereal packets, for example, is typically around 20% and is caused by the
unavoidable ‘settling’ of the product after high-speed packing. Packaging of
this type, as well as using a plastic inner, is more inefficient in terms of product
distribution and store shelf utilisation.

Crystal, a packaging design house in the Netherlands, has designed and fully
tested (with the assistance of UK and German equipment and material
suppliers) a resealable bagless carton that provides a moisture and partial gas
barrier without the need for an inner plastic bag. The concept is similar to that
of a beverage carton but avoids using a PE laminate.

The new bagless box uses an acrylic barrier coating and hot-melts. These not
only facilitate recycling at the paper mill but are completely acceptable for food-
contact applications. Corner and seam paper patch strips improve box rigidity
and prevent product ‘sifting’ and insect infestation. The box can be filled from
directly above (eliminating the need for vertical form fill sealers) and is vibrated
to significantly reduce voidspace. High packing line speeds can be maintained.

Although the box is more expensive than regular cartonboard, the new
packaging will significantly reduce overall costs for the packer-filler. Licences
have so far been granted in the Netherlands, Germany and Japan15.

16.7 COMPOSITE MATERIALS

Composite materials, ie combinations of regular materials, can offer excellent
packaging performance. Cartonboard laminated with PE, for example, can offer very
good moisture resistance in milk and juice cartons. Aluminium foil and PE together
can provide a shelf-life of around six months in aseptic applications (eg long-life milk
cartons). Unfortunately, these laminated cartons cannot readily be recycled in UK
paper mills, however, one mill in Scotland can now recycle beverage carton waste
which previously had to be sent to overseas paper mills.

15 Further information is available from the Crystal website (www.crystal-bv.nl).

66
 SECTION 16
Innovative use of recycled cartons
High-strength thermoformable chipboard can be made from used beverage
cartons and beverage carton production waste. Shredded cartons are washed,
dried and spread in a layer of the desired thickness. The layer is then put in a
press and heated to 170°C. The PE content melts and produces a resilient
matrix of densely packed fibre and aluminium shreds without the need to use
the sort of binding agent (eg urea formaldehyde) that is necessary when
manufacturing hardboard. The matrix is then rapidly cooled, forming a tough
chipboard with a glossy impermeable surface. A variety of shapes can be
thermoformed, which gives designers the potential to create a variety of
products including office furniture.

Despite recycling difficulties, laminated cartons offer environmental benefits because

they use such small amounts of raw materials. According to GlaxoSmithKline, the
288ml Ribena beverage carton weighs 60% less and uses 80% less energy
throughout its life-cycle than an equivalent plastic bottle.

Plastic and aluminium foil pouches are also becoming increasingly common. A
pouch uses very little material (around 10% by weight of that used in an equivalent
glass bottle). It also takes up very little space as waste. Although these composite
pouches are not recycled in the UK, they are in Germany. The layers are separated
in a high-temperature vacuum and the aluminium is recycled. The paper/plastic
components are used to provide process heat for the operation. The best UK option
for most composite packaging is currently some form of thermal treatment (eg
incineration) with energy recovery.

16.8 ADHESIVES AND MECHANICAL LINKAGES

Adhesives often cause problems for paper recyclers as they leave ‘stickies’ or blemishes
on the final product. Pressure-sensitive adhesives (PSAs) and cold-seal adhesives (as
found on envelopes) are generally the most difficult to deal with, although they are not
often used in product packaging applications. However, hot-melts, which are very widely
used, have also proved difficult to remove during recycling for two reasons:

• they break up;

• their density is similar to that of water/fibre, making them difficult to remove by

conventional means.

Research has shown that thin beads of hot-melt can actually cause more problems
than thick beads as they fragment more readily. However, newer EVA-hot-melts and
fast-drying polyurethane rubber (PUR) adhesives (used, for example, for telephone
directories) are available. Because these are tougher and have a higher or lower density
(for example, a specific gravity of < 0.94), they are easier to remove from the pulp.

Water-based and water-soluble adhesives (such as PVA) are still widely used in the
UK and do not involve the release of VOCs to air. However, they generally require
more drying energy and/or compression time than hot-melts, although IR curing can
speed up the process. Such adhesives may also be difficult to use in some
applications, for example, where the surface is too smooth to obtain a ‘key’. Most
67
SECTION 16

UK paper mills prefer an adhesive that can be separated out rather than dissolved,
as soluble adhesives can build up on equipment and become difficult to remove.

An alternative to adhesives in the construction of cartonboard packaging is to use

mechanical fastenings such as interlocking tabs and metal staples. Interlocking
cardboard tabs are used widely, often in conjunction with an adhesive seal elsewhere
on the package (eg down the side seam of a box). However, interlocking tabs can
often be used without any adhesive, making the pack inherently more recyclable.
Adhesive-free packs are now used by many companies in various applications, from
shoe boxes to can and bottle multi-packs. Plastic packaging can also be designed
with interlocking tabs and integral press-together fittings (eg plastic press-studs).

While staples are not suitable for certain applications - food packaging, toys etc -
they can offer an alternative to adhesives in other product groups, eg DIY goods.

Mechanical locks for can and bottle multi-packs

Mead Packaging, which supplies many of the can and bottle multi-packs in the
UK, pioneered the lock-form pack as long ago as 1964 and has been producing
it ever since, either through licensees or in its own plants across Europe.
Today, around 60% of UK production, which covers the smaller packs (eg eight
bottles or fewer), uses mechanical locks rather than hot melts. The benefits are
both practical and economic:

• Better packaging performance. It was found that a tighter hold could be

achieved on smaller packs using the mechanical lock method.

• Reduced cost. Mechanical locks proved to be cheaper, eliminating the cost

of hot- melt adhesive (typically around 2p per pack).

• Ease of use. Mechanical locks are less messy than hot-melts and involve
less machine set-up, cleaning and maintenance.

The company has found that, in this particular range of applications, packing
lines that use mechanical lock packs continue to achieve production speeds of
more than 200 packs per minute.

Hot-melts are still used on larger and heavier packs.

16.9 INKS
Water-borne and UV-curable inks can offer an environmental benefit in terms of
reduced VOC emissions to air. In selecting materials, overall environmental impacts and
manufacturing issues should be considered. For example, water-borne inks may require
more drying energy and/or may slow down the flexographic and rotogravure printing
processes used in most packaging applications. UV-cured print is generally acceptable
for all types of primary food packaging, having low taint and odour and good basic
adhesion. Water-borne inks are not always suitable for high specification packaging
applications on non-absorbent plastic surfaces, as substances may shrink during the
drying stage after being printed with a water-borne (or water-borne UV-curable) ink.

68
Water-borne inks can also be more difficult to remove during the repulping and de-

SECTION 16
inking process at the paper mill. De-inking usually involves flotation techniques, and
the ease with which ink can be removed from the pulp relates to ink particle size and
hydrophobicity. Despite this, ink contamination is not usually a problem, given that
packaging waste is generally used for other packaging applications, eg for
corrugated board or cartonboard, with the latter being ‘white-lined’ where necessary.

Organic solvents and VOCs

The term ’volatile organic compound’ covers a wide range of naturally
occurring and synthetic organic substances that evaporate into the
atmosphere during handling or use. Organic solvents are used widely in
printing (eg in inks and for cleaning) and in certain adhesives and coatings.

The specific effects of VOCs on human health are highly substance-dependent

and most with significant health effects are no longer used by European
manufacturers of inks, adhesives and coatings, although some (such as
toluene) are used in other countries. UK occupational health and safety
legislation (such as COSHH) provides a sound basis for ensuring the protection
of those working in the printing industry.

Common organic solvents are also of concern in relation to the formation

(when combined with sunlight and nitrogen oxides) of low-level ozone. High
concentrations of low-level ozone can lead to respiratory health effects in
humans and animals and cause damage to plant life and to inert materials
such as rubber and masonry.

Organic solvent-borne inks contain the highest levels of solvents; the most
common types being alcohols (eg ethanol), esters (eg ethyl acetate) and glycol
ethers (eg methoxy propanol). Other alternatives, such as water-borne, UV-
curable and lithographic inks, contain no, or significantly lower levels of,
organic solvent. The selection and use of a particular type of ink will be
dependent on a variety of factors, including the substrate, end use and desired
technical performance, costs etc.

Traditional press and equipment cleaners are 100% organic solvent-based.

Alternative, lower evaporating cleaners, such as those based on vegetable oils,
are available for the cleaning of litho presses. They offer potential benefits in
both occupational health and environmental protection.

Alternative fount solutions containing reduced concentrations of organic

solvent or no volatile organic components are available, as are waterless
printing systems, which do not require fount solutions. Again, such materials
offer potential occupational and environmental protection benefits.

69
SECTION 17

PLASTIC PROPERTIES AND CONTAINER DESIGN

(Information given in this section has been prepared in good faith but
packaging designers should check details of any materials they are
considering using. Contact details for many sources of information are
given in Section 18.)

Plastic properties and container design: recommendations from the Association of

Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (APME)

17.1 DENSITY RANGES OF COMMON PLASTICS

Name Acronym Density range (g/cc)

Polypropylene PP 0.9 to 0.91

Low-density polyethylene LDPE 0.91 to 0.93

High-density polyethylene HDPE 0.94 to 0.96

Polystyrene PS 1.04 to 1.06

Nylon PA 1.13 to 1.14

Acrylic PMMA 1.17 to 1.20

Polycarbonate PC 1.20

Polyethylene terephthalate PET 1.35

Polyvinyl chloride PVC 1.35 to 1.45

NB: colouring with 4% pigment can raise density by 0.03g/cc.

70
17.2 RECOMMENDED MATERIALS FOR THE

SECTION 17
COMPONENTS OF RIGID PLASTIC CONTAINERS
17.2.1 PET bottle

Component Yes (suitable) No (not suitable)

Cap HDPE Thermoset

PP PVC, PS
Metal

Inner cap/seal PE PVC

EVA

Handle/collar Clear PET Coloured PET

HDPE PVC
PP

Bottle PET Coloured

Coated
Multi-layer
Non-PET
Direct printing

Label PE PVC
PP/OPP PET
Paper OPS
Water-soluble adhesive Solvent adhesive
Shrink Hot-melt

Base Low-temperature adhesive <80°C Weld

Clear PET Coloured PET
HDPE
The raw material code should be located on the base of bottle. However, if there is the risk of cracking due to
the bottle design, the code may be relocated.

71
SECTION 17

17.2.2 PVC bottle

Component Yes (suitable) No (not suitable)

Cap PVC PET

HDPE PS
PP Metal
Thermoset

Inner cap/seal PVC

PE
EVA

Bottle PVC

Label PVC shrink sleeve PET

PVC label/solvent-based adhesive PS
OPP shrink sleeve Solvent-based adhesive
OPP or paper label Hot-melt adhesive
+ water-soluble adhesive

Raw material code should be located on base of bottle.

17.2.3 HDPE bottle

Component Yes (suitable) No (not suitable)

Cap PP PVC
HDPE PU
PS
Thermoset
Metal

Inner cap/seal HDPE

Bottle HDPE
Multi-layer HDPE

Label HDPE PVC

PP PET
OPP PS
Shrink Hot-melt
Paper/water-soluble adhesive Paper/solvent-based
adhesive

Raw material code should be located on base of bottle.

72
17.2.4 PP container (wide mouth)

SECTION 17
Component Yes (suitable) No (not suitable)

Cap PP PET
HDPE PS
PVC
Thermoset
Metal

Inner cap/seal LDPE PVC

EVA

Bottle/jar PP

Label HDPE PVC

PP/OPP PS
In-mould PET
Direct print Heavy paper
Light paper/water-soluble Hot-melt
adhesive Solvent-based adhesive

The raw material code should be located on the base of container. However, if there is the risk of cracking
due to the bottle design, the code can be relocated.

17.2.5 PP tray

Component Yes (suitable) No (not suitable)

Lid Foil Foil/heavy paper

PP
OPP
Metallised OPP

Tray PP/multi-layer PP

Label PE Heavy paper*

PP/OPP PVC
In-mould PP PET
Water-soluble adhesive Solvent-based adhesive
Direct print** Hot-melt adhesive

Raw material code should be located on base of tray.

* Excessive paper content can be a problem if a large proportion of the recycled containers have paper
labels/lids or use heavy weights of paper.
** Although direct printing is acceptable, it may be necessary to consider ink types to avoid reducing the
quality of the recycled granulate.

73
SECTION 17

17.2.6 PS pot

Component Yes (suitable) No (not suitable)

Lid Foil PET/Heavy paper

PET/light paper
Metallised OPET
Metallised OPP
PBT/PS
OPS

Pot PS Multi-layer*
HIPS/PS

Label Paper (reduced) Heavy paper**

PE PVC
PP/OPP PET
OPS Solvent-based adhesive
EPS Hot-melt adhesive
In-mould PS
Water-soluble adhesive
Direct print***

The raw material code should be located on the base of the container. However, if there is the risk of cracking
due to the bottle design, the code can be relocated.
* Multi-layer can be accommodated if based on polystyrene or in limited quantities, as polymers will
disperse.
** Excessive paper content can be a problem if a large proportion of the recycled containers have paper
labels or use heavy weights of paper.
*** Although direct printing is acceptable, it may be necessary to consider ink types to avoid reducing the
quality of the recycled granulate.

74
SOURCES OF FURTHER INFORMATION

SECTION 18
Organisation Web address

Packaging and the environment

The Industry Council for Packaging and the www.incpen.org
Environment (INCPEN)
European Organisation for Packaging and the www.europen.be
Environment (Europen)
Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) www.wrap.org.uk
Valpak www.valpak.co.uk
Remade (Scotland) www.remade.org.uk
French Packaging Council www.conseil-emballage.com
DSD (German Green Point Scheme) www.gruener-punkt.de

Trade associations/advisory bodies

The Packaging Federation www.packagingfedn.co.uk
IoP: The Packaging Society www.pi2.org.uk
Institute of Grocery Distribution www.igd.org.uk
Association of Plastics Manufacturers in www.apme.org
Europe (APME)
British Plastics Federation (BPF) www.bpf.co.uk
Corrugated Sector of the Confederation of www.corrugated.org.uk
Paper Industries
Plastics and Rubber Specialists RAPRA www.rapra.net
British Glass www.britglass.co.uk
Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association www.mpma.org.uk
Aluminium Can Recycling Programme www.alupro.org.uk
Steel Can Recycling Information Bureau www.scrib.org
British Coatings Federation (BCF) www.coatings.org.uk

Packaging design
The Design Council www.design-council.org.uk/design
Pira International www.piranet.com

Regulations
Office of Public Sector Information www.opsi.gov.uk
Department for Environment, Food and www.defra.gov.uk
Rural Affairs (Defra)
Department for Business Enterprise & www.berr.gov.uk
Regulatory Reform (BERR)
Environment Agency www.environment-agency.gov.uk
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) www.sepa.org.uk
Environment and Heritage Service, N. Ireland www.ehsni.gov.uk
Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory www.lacors.com
Services (Lacors)
75
SECTION 19

GLOSSARY
APME Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe

BSI British Standards Institution

CAD Computer-aided design

CAM Computer-aided manufacture

CEN European Committee for Standardisation

CTPA Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association

DEHA Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate (plasticiser used in some food wrap products)

DEHP Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (a commonly used plasticiser)

DINP Diisononyl phthalate (plasticiser often found in children’s products)

ECF Elemental chlorine-free

EPS Expanded polystyrene

EVA A type of hot-melt

FBB Folding box board. Cartonboard manufactured entirely from

bleached pulp, apart from the surface coating

FEA Finite element analysis

HDPE High-density polyethylene

LCA Life-cycle assessment

LDPE Low-density polyethylene

LLDPE Linear low-density polyethylene

MEK Methyl ethyl ketone, a solvent

MET matrix Material, Energy, Toxicity matrix

MFA Mould flow analysis

NAMAS National Accreditation of Measurement and Sampling

PCR Post-consumer recyclate

PE Polyethylene

PET Polyethylene terephthalate

76
PHA/PHB Biopolymer

SECTION 19
PLA Maize-based polymer

PP Polypropylene

PRNs Packaging waste recovery notes

PROR The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste)

Regulations 1997 (as amended)

PS Polystyrene

PSA Pressure-sensitive adhesive

PUR Polyurethane rubber

PVA Water-soluble adhesive

PVC Polyvinyl chloride

QM Residual quantities

SBB Solid bleached board. Cartonboard manufactured entirely from

bleached pulp, apart from the surface coating

SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency

SML Specific migration limits

TCF Totally chlorine-free

UV Ultraviolet

VOC Volatile organic compound

WLC White lined chipboard. Cartonboard manufactured mainly from

recycled paper

77
SECTION 20

CHECKLIST
Please photocopy these checklists for use in your company.

Investigate Implement
further now

Packaging design to reduce the use of hazardous substances

Packaging design for resource minimisation

Reducing production losses

Elimination of packaging

Reducing voidspace and fillers

78 GG360 published by Envirowise Envirowise Advice Line 0800 585794

 SECTION 20
Investigate Implement
further now

Packaging design for resource minimisation (continued)

Reducing voidspace and fillers

Lightweighting and downsizing

Reducing energy use

GG360 published by Envirowise Envirowise Advice Line 0800 585794 79

SECTION 20

Investigate Implement
further now

Packaging design for resource minimisation (continued)

Improving transport efficiency

Packaging design using recycled and renewable materials

General

Use of recycled paper and board

Use of recycled plastic

80 GG360 published by Envirowise Envirowise Advice Line 0800 585794

 SECTION 20
Investigate Implement
further now

Packaging design using recycled and renewable materials (continued)

Use of recycled glass

Packaging design for re-use

Type of re-use

Durability and weight

Use and handling

Cleaning and refurbishment

GG360 published by Envirowise Envirowise Advice Line 0800 585794 81

SECTION 20

Investigate Implement
further now

Packaging design for eventual recycling and composting

General
Has the segregation, collection and sorting regime for
recycling been considered?

Have the end markets for the materials been considered?

Single materials and compatible polymers

Can an all-cardboard design be used in place of a cardboard
container with EPS/plastic inserts?

Can a blister pack be replaced with an all-cardboard pack

with illustration/photo?

With plastic containers, have efforts been made to stick to a

single polymer design?

Is the APME guidance used for polymer component

compatibility in rigid containers?
Are component polymers identified using the EU/APME
system?

Minimising contamination

Has the use of colourants in plastic containers been

reduced/avoided?

Has the use of potential contaminants (inks, adhesives,

coatings and labels) been minimised?
Can labels be replaced with information that is directly
moulded/printed on the packaging?

On paper packaging, could more use be made of

interlocking tabs?

On plastic packaging, could more use be made of integrally

moulded press-studs?

Is it possible to use fasteners that are easier to remove than

tape (eg staples)?

On paper and board packaging, can pressure-sensitive and

cold seal adhesives be avoided?
Can plastic and foil laminates and UV varnishes on paper
packaging be removed?

82 GG360 published by Envirowise Envirowise Advice Line 0800 585794

 SECTION 20
Investigate Implement
further now

Packaging design for eventual recycling and composting (continued)

Making contamination easier to remove

Can the use of water-based adhesives be avoided in

paper/board packaging?
Is a hot-melt adhesive being used that is tough and either
high or low density?

On paper packaging, are discrete blobs rather than thin

strips of adhesive used?

On paperboard, can water/acrylic-based emulsions and

starch-based coatings be used?

Can inorganic vapour-deposition coatings be used in

certain applications?

Biodegradability

If the pack is to be composted, are biodegradable materials

used?

Packaging design for final disposal

Has the use of biodegradable packaging been avoided if

landfill is inevitable?

Has calorific value been considered where incineration/

energy recovery is inevitable?

Can chlorine content be reduced to minimise emissions to

air/ash during incineration?

GG360 published by Envirowise Envirowise Advice Line 0800 585794 83

84
SECTION 20
 Envirowise - sustainable practices, sustainable profits. Envirowise is a
Government-funded programme dedicated to putting the sustainable use
of resources at the heart of business practice. It is managed by AEA
Technology plc and Serco TTI. Envirowise is funded in England by Defra’s
Business Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW) Programme and
supported by BERR; the Scottish Government in Scotland; the Welsh
Assembly Government’s Materials Action Programme (MAP) in Wales; and
Invest Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland.

Envirowise offers a range of free services including:

• Free advice from Envirowise experts through the Envirowise

Advice Line.

• A variety of publications that provide up-to-date information on

waste minimisation issues, methods and successes.

• Free, on-site waste reviews from Envirowise advisors, called

FastTrack visits, that help businesses identify and realise savings.

• Guidance on resource efficiency clubs across the UK that provide a

chance for local companies to meet regularly and share best
practices in waste minimisation.

• Best practice seminars and practical workshops that offer an

ideal way to examine waste minimisation issues and discuss
opportunities and methodologies.

Harwell Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0QJ E [email protected] www.envirowise.gov.uk

© Crown copyright. First printed November 2002, revised October 2004 and February 2008. Printed on paper containing 80% recycled post-consumer fibre.
This material may be freely reproduced in its original form except for sale or advertising purposes.