19.2.1 Principles of LCA

The International Standards Organisation (ISO) has defined LCA as: '[A] Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its lifecycle' [4, p. 2], as depicted in Fig. 19.1. The technical framework for LCA consists of four components, each having a very important role in the assessment. They are interrelated throughout the entire assessment and in accordance with the current terminology of the ISO. The components are goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation as illustrated in Fig. 19.2.

Once the goal and scope of an LCA have been determined, the inventory of the product or service being analysed is collected. The environmental impacts are then assessed using an impact assessment method in comparison to a functional unit, usually focusing on the most important impact categories, whether that is amongst others regionally, timely or thematically. Common indicators are included in Table 19.1.

Once this assessment has been carried out, the results are interpreted, and often accompanied by sensitivity analyses to test the validity of the results under a range of different circumstances. The framework is designed so that the LCA practitioner can revisit a stage as they are progressing through the assessment, i.e. modifying the goal and scope based on relevance of the data following inventory collection.

19.2.2 Strengths and weaknesses

The real strength of LCA is the ability to combine multiple detailed environmental metrics to analyse life cycles to make informed decisions about where to concentrate on changes to product systems to reduce environmental impacts. This means that any sensitivities and change in the life cycle can be monitored across the range of indicators, where advantages and tradeoffs can be assessed on face value comparatively. In terms of the TBL, LCA excels in environmental analysis, however lacks some of the more progressive social and economic metrics, such as behavioural attitudes, cultural sensitivity, socio-economic divides, complex economic models, policy drivers and some human health-related issues.

Although LCA has evolved and been standardised, it can also fail to provide reputable results if gaps are present in the data modelled [14], or if transparency is compromised when data sources and methods are withheld.

19.2.3 Gaps from a sustainability perspective

To supplement the broader definitions of sustainability, there has been a number of 'sustainable packaging' frameworks developed globally. In 2002, the Australian-based Sustainable Packaging Alliance (SPA) proposed that sustainable packaging [15]: consider TBL; consider the entire product life-cycle; and minimise environmental impacts of the packaging whilst considering interactions between the package and the product it contains. Over this time [16, 17], SPA has refined their approach with the addition of a series of key performance indicators (KPIs) to the four pillars of a framework for packaging sustainability, namely 'effective', 'efficient', 'cyclic' and 'safe' (Fig. 19.3).

The US-based Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) have more recently complemented their sustainable packaging mandate with the following criteria [18]:

Where SPA started, SPC continued in capturing the importance of renewable energy and considering the reuse, recycling and renewable resources for materials. LCA in particular can capture the nuances of the latter, where sometimes the mantra of 'renewable is better' is not necessarily the case environmentally [2], depending on the intensity of stock production on the farm (i.e., maize, starch, etc.) compared to highly efficient polymerisation processes.

More recently, the global group The Consumer Goods Forum (members include retailers, manufacturers, service providers and other stakeholders) have developed an approach incorporating TBL principles to sustainable packaging credibility supported by tangible metrics including points such as [19]:

LCA tends to be a subset of sustainable packaging frameworks globally, where common ground includes concepts such as life cycle evaluation, end-of-life strategies, efficiency, clean production, and renewable materials. Social implications, packaging/product interaction, detailed cost benefits, functionality and usability are some of the broader themes in global frameworks where the LCA methodology struggles to capture adequate data. Examples of these broader themes synchronising with LCA are generally when customised methodology has developed internally, such as the LCA link to cost effectiveness in the Toyota Motor Sales packaging supply chain with the development of the Environmental Packaging Impact Calculator (EPIC) [6, p. 55].

Life cycle thinking and management has derived from the methodology of LCA, and provides designers, manufacturers and other stakeholders with the ability to affect the impacts of packaging at the conceptual stage of the design process, rather than retrospectively, as with the majority of traditional LCA. By understanding where the majority of impacts occur in a streamlined fashion (or with quick tools) for particular product systems, packaging can be created that minimises the impacts effectively, before it is procured. The management of the packaging system is then aligned with the sustainability goals set out by using life cycle thinking. Various standalone tools have been developed for this, as have integrated packages for design tools such as computer aided design (CAD), computer aided manufacturing (CAM), and management systems such as distribution software and supply chain inventories.

19.3.1 A brief historical look at some of the factors influencing food and beverage packaging design

Packaging has played an integral role in the availability of food and beverages. The unique properties and innovations in packaging materials have enabled food items to be preserved and transported around the globe. Packaging has also increased the shelf life of products and enabled many food items to be available 'out of season'. As Risch writes: 'Demand for quality food has driven packaging innovation, and innovations in packaging have helped to create new food categories and added convenience' [20, p. 8091].

Packaging has come a long way from the days when its primary functionality was just to hold the product. As our lifestyles evolved, we not only required better quality food, but also food whose integrity had to be preserved for longer periods of time. Currently, the role of packaging is multifunctional. It ranges from containing the product; protecting the product from external gases; blocking external light to protect the food's nutrients, colour and texture; and preservation of the product by maintaining specific ambient conditions around the food inside a container [20].

Examples of some significant developments related to food and beverage packaging are discussed below, drawing from the following literature [2028]. The original packaging materials consisting of natural materials such as skins, bark, leaves and woven twigs worked marginally well as foods were preserved by drying, smoking, salting or fermenting. Deficiencies in these materials led to the development of textile, wood and ceramic/glass containers, though they also had limitations in protecting food adequately. The development of lithography in 1798 saw the rise of low cost printing and the development of labels. Canned tomatoes were introduced around the time of the American Civil War.

The introduction of heat sterilisation of perishables in metal and glass containers in the early nineteenth century was a significant step in packaging development. Following a century later was the development of frozen foods, in paperboard packages, that maintained the nutrition, taste and convenience of perishables all year-round. During the time of the industrial revolution, metal cans were predominantly used to protect pulverised tobacco from ambient moisture and maintain the flavour of the product.

The cans were later utilised to preserve food for the French army, an idea developed by Nicholas Appert in response to emperor Napoleon Bonaparte's demand. The metal cans replaced glass bottles and they protected the food better by allowing increased heat processing, which was not possible earlier due to the fragility of glass. Individual packaging was originally utilised first in the 1890 s for biscuits. Until then biscuits sat in large open containers in the market, and consumers buying them were allowed to fill their bags and take them home. However, in an attempt to maintain the colour, texture and the crispness of the biscuits, an inner liner was developed that protected the biscuits from external moisture. This was an important milestone in the history of packaging, when customised packaging was invented for a specific product. In 1892 William Painter developed the metal cork that was used in glass bottles to reduce the influx of oxygen into the container. Before this significant invention, glass bottles could not be tightly sealed.

Another influence upon food and beverage packaging was the evolution of how consumers shopped for food:

The Second World War stimulated the development of a range of new packaging and distribution techniques. The key innovations were thin metal foils, plastic films and sheets. Mid-way through the nineteenth century, polyethylene was increasingly used as a packaging material for food and beverages. Imperial Chemical Industries patented the manufacturing of ethylene packaging material by compressing ethylene gas and heating it to a higher temperature. Single use packaging containers were introduced into the marketplace during the mid-twentieth century replacing to some extent refillable containers. This changed the dynamics of the distribution chain and introduced new issues related to resource consumption, waste generation and littering. During the 1980s and 1990s a considerable number of LCAs were conducted on beverage packaging as a result of the influx of these new packaging formats and resulting environmental impacts. Tin-plated steel cans and, later in the 1950s, aluminium cans were commonly used to package carbonated beverages. At first metal can packaging could only be opened with the use of a can opener. It was not until 1963 that the ring pull was introduced, and in 1975 a stay tab was introduced that attached the ring to the can after being opened to ensure the tab was not ingested.

The application of modified atmosphere packaging has also increased in recent times. This type of packaging increases the shelf life of the product by managing the level of oxygen in the ambiance near the food. Utilising gas such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide decreases the speed of oxidation reactions and reduces the growth of aerobic bacteria, thus extending the shelf life of the food. This form of packaging has enabled a large array of food items to be manufactured or packaged that have extended the shelf life of the product and made it easier for meals to be prepared. Single serve packaging has also grown in prominence when compared to bulk packaging in recent years. Single serve packaging serves a defined quantity of food or beverage, rather than serving food in bulk quantities. There exists a balancing act between appropriate serving size and changes in demographics and lifestyles. As households become smaller in western society and working hours outside of the home increase, manufacturers are reacting with the introduction of smaller serving sizes and ready-to-go meals. As lifestyles continue to change, packaging continues to meet the challenge of delivering the product, though with this convenience comes environmental consequences that need to be acknowledged, managed and balanced against [13]. This is resulting, though, in an array of different packaging material formats, in some cases more packaging per product unit, and packaging that cannot be reprocessed under current waste management technology.

19.3.2 Lessons from case studies

One of the main applications of LCA over the past five decades has been in food and beverage packaging. Coca Cola Amatil was the first company in 1969 to undertake such studies, at the time known as resource and environmental profile analysis (REPA). This was at the time when single use packaging containers were being introduced to the market, and Coca Cola Amatil was interested in knowing what the environmental profile of this type of packaging format had compared with refillable containers. Since this time, LCAs have been undertaken on many different packaging formats, across the globe, to better understand the dynamics of material selection, inform packaging format design, and argue for better waste management practices of used packaging. While most studies have focused on the retail packaging level, others have looked at industrial packaging (Table 19.2). What these studies do reveal is that there is no simple answer to which packaging format is better than another. It depends entirely on geographical situations, functional units, data quality, assumptions made, system boundaries selected, available waste management practices, capture rates of materials and the context of the situation.

Most packaging LCAs have focused on the assessment of the packaging system format itself without consideration of the product (i.e., food, beverage) contained within or the interaction between the product and packaging system. This has been due to government and consumer concerns regarding the environmental impacts of the actual packaging materials themselves, without significant attention being made to what is within the packaging [36]. As studies on agricultural and food production systems have illustrated, the greater environmental impacts of the product packaging system is the food/beverage item contained within and not the packaging materials themselves [36–39].

For example, serving coffee in a single serving stick increases the overall resource efficiency of the system by decreasing the material losses in other life cycle stages of coffee production and usage. It has also been determined that the impacts associated with packaging production are significantly lower when compared to the impacts associated during the production of the product in itself. Life cycle assessment methodology provides a framework that can be utilised to evaluate the comparative impacts in producing the product and the packaging, and also the corresponding influence of using a particular packaging option on the impacts associated with the product utilisation [30].

Humbert et al. [31] investigated the comparative primary energy and greenhouse gas emission impacts of glass jars and plastic pot baby food packaging containers. With the same transportation, the plastic pot exerts 14–27% less primary energy and 28–31% less global warming potential impact than the glass option. The actual material production, packaging weight and on-site preservation parameters were identified to influence the final impacts of the two alternatives. Keoleian and Spitzley [34] compared glass, high-density polyethylene (HDPE), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) pouches, paperboard carton and polycarbonate packaging systems for the delivery of 1,000 gallons of milk. This study identified refill-able HDPE, polycarbonate bottle and flexible pouches to exert the lowest life cycle environmental impacts among the multiple options.

Three clamshell-packaging options of polylactic acid (PLA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polystyrene (PS) were evaluated for their environmental impacts applying a life cycle framework. Due to the higher weight of containers, PET was determined to be the least preferred option. The resin production and transportation contributed to the environmental impact exerted by the packaging option [32]. When the environmental profile of beverage cartons was compared with alternative packaging options, the beverage cartons exerted lower climate change, cumulative energy demand, resource consumption and acidification impact categories. On the other hand, beverage cartons do consume higher land use forestry area to deliver the service [33].

Roy et al. [37] recommended utilising multiple indicators to compare the different environmental impacts of food options. Utilising a single indicator does not accurately capture all of the trade-offs associated with one specific mode of production over another. For example, when conventional and organic agricultural practices are compared based exclusively on environmental impacts of fertilisers, organic production is the preferred option. However, a more complete life cycle study must also consider the arable land usage as a metric when comparing both agricultural practices, as organic production consumes comparatively higher amounts of arable land for delivering the same service. Similarly, when investigating the comparative impacts of conventional and genetically modified agricultural practices, it is very important to consider the reduced environmental impacts of the latter due to decreased herbicide manufacturing, transport and field operations.

When compared to the energy invested in the various sectors involved in food production, the energy flows associated with packaging are low. Previous studies have reported total primary energy consumption in the range of 7.3–10 units to produce one unit of food energy in the United States [40–42]. Based on conservative estimates, 9% of the total energy invested to produce food is contributed by manufacturing packaging material. Manufacturing packaging material consumes 1,000 PJ² out of the 11,000 PJ consumed by the US food sector, on an annual basis [41]. In addition, rapid conversion of prime farmland, the political problem of illegal workers, depletion of top soil and rate of groundwater withdrawal were identified as the key parameters posing a significant risk to the long-term sustainability of the US food sector. Hence manufacturing impacts of packaging material are comparatively lower when compared to the impacts exerted by the other sectors (e.g. agricultural production, transportation, processing, household storage and preparation) involved in food production.

19.3.3 Gaps in how LCA is currently used/opportunities

As mentioned previously, the emphasis of the environmental impacts of food products has often focused on the packaging, often seeing a gap in data on the products themselves. Companies will increasingly focus LCA on both the product and the packaging; where the impacts of the entire product system are considered to determine where the greatest environmental saving can occur. By doing this, trade-offs can be assessed to reach a common sustainability goal, and the best possible result.

Given the recent technology developments in packaging, life cycle studies should potentially consider the influence of utilising different packaging options in extending the shelf life of the product. Packaging product shelf life is a metric that evaluates the product shelf life, with and without the existence of a particular packaging option. Hence the inter-link between the two life cycle stages (packaging and product usage) should be captured. The life cycle studies discussed above, and studies in the literature evaluate the environmental profile of alternative packaging options. Further, based on the relative environmental impacts, a preferred packaging option is recommended. Going forward the inter-link between utilising a particular packaging option and the increase in product shelf life must be considered. If the primary function of packaging is to protect the food without spoilage, then a packaging option that increases the shelf life of the product is indeed preferable. Hence, even if such a packaging option is marginally higher and energy intensive than an alternative low energy intensive option (which does not increase the shelf life of the good as much as the former), then the net environmental impacts must be considered during the decision-making process. The net environmental impact can be formulated by evaluating the environmental impacts of producing the packaging system, and deducting the avoided impacts due to increased product shelf life. This provides a more holistic metric for comparing the environmental profile of packaging systems. Under the proposed framework, a higher energy and carbon intensive packaging system might well be a preferred one: investing upfront energy to manufacture a more robust packaging system is preferable if it reduces significant environmental impacts down the line by increasing product shelf life.

Studying the dynamic between packaging and food is more relevant as it has been determined that the energy embodied in food is significantly higher than the energy embodied in the packaging system. Also, a constrained focus on reducing the material intensity of packaging systems must be reconsidered. From a life cycle standpoint, the packaging systems with lower material intensity become the preferred option because of their lower environmental impacts. Innventia's paradox illustrates this concept: a marginal increase in packaging (i.e. over-packaging) exerts marginally higher environmental impacts, whereas a marginal decrease in packaging potentially leads to disastrous consequences, ranging from product damage to complete spoilage of the product [38]. At the fundamental level it involves estimating the potential risks in the future, contingent on the decisions made today. Hence evaluation of packaging systems using a life cycle framework in the future must consider such inter-links between the life cycle stages, and the trade-offs involved in material and energy investment during packaging production and food protection and shelf life.

Andersson [43] discusses the implications and the limitations of applying a life cycle framework to study food products and packaging systems. The study identifies availability of environmental data as one of the primary constraints in conducting life cycle studies. Given the number of life cycle studies and data collection projects (e.g. Franklin Associates, Australian Life Cycle Inventory and Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe) in the past decade, the data constraint problem has been alleviated to a certain extent. It is also very challenging to interpret the results of a particular study to explore generic trends, because of the significant variations in mode and distances of transportation, agricultural practices, and the resource profile generating electricity and energy in different countries across the globe. Such variations lead to large uncertainties in the life cycle results, and are definitely a limitation that needs to be addressed in the future. Even with the existence of a number of life cycle packaging studies, utilising the specific results to interpret generic overarching trends is very challenging due to the variation in the key life cycle parameters governing the results. Identification of the key parameters in a life cycle packaging study is a potential solution to this limitation. Once such parameters are identified, sensitivity analyses can be developed for those parameters to estimate the variation in results due to different parameters in multiple geographical locations. It will also expand the applicability of the existing literature to different locations on an international scale.

• the tool should facilitate a simple work flow for the user, being intuitive, logical and easy to communicate;

• it needs to be able to fit within the company culture;

• have low set up time to use the tool;

• have low data input requirements to make it easier for users to understand the benefits and features of the tool;

• clearly presented results that are in a visually appropriate format that are easy to adopt; and

• include issues that are relevant to users on a daily basis.

19.4.1 Responding to supplier requests

Various suppliers are now looking at implementing sustainability initiatives through their supply chain, often translating to food manufacturers adhering to new protocols and utilising tools with which to reach these targets. Where environmental metrics are concerned, measurements are often underpinned with LCA data or methodology.

Proctor and Gamble are currently looking at sustainability as a business opportunity, and promote

Within this definition, and a requirement now for supply chains to report on various environmental indicators through the recently introduced Supplier Environmental Sustainability Scorecard, there is a clear use of life cycle thinking to foster environmental improvements, including analysing 'trade off' of decisions so as not to degrade one indicator for the sake of another (i.e., focusing on carbon, only to see water use and land use increase).

In a further sign of proactivity, WalMart has developed a Packaging Scorecard, and more recently a software platform Package Modelling, which allows supplied groups to be ranked, and actively improve by modelling changes to designs and increase that rank in real time. These tools also integrate with WalMart's already sophisticated supply chain management systems, and utilise life cycle data, both primary and generic data throughout the ranking process.

Private sector supply chain collaborations such as those from WalMart and Proctor and Gamble, complement industry-based initiatives such as the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) in the United States and the Sustainable Packaging Alliance (SPA) in Australia. These bodies have formed guidelines and protocols that are underpinned by life cycle thinking, and provide a platform for companies through the supply chain to actively cooperate in reducing the environmental impact of food and beverage packaging products.

19.4.2 Using LCA for marketing

As corporate social responsibility (CSR) becomes ubiquitous in big business, so have environmental metrics become key communication tools in making the public aware of company values in this space. Whether this be participation in mandatory reporting schemes such as the EU Directives in Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS), or voluntary promotional labelling mechanisms such as the Carbon Trust's Carbon Reduction Label, often good design philosophies in simplicity, efficiency and 'form follows function' lead to compliance in the former and potent success in the latter. Groups are now seeing credible green marketing as a strategic advantage, to differentiate themselves from the sometimes muddy waters of 'greenwash', defined as spurious, uninformed or misleading environmental claims.

A good example is participants in the Carbon Trust Carbon Reduction scheme, such as New Zealand Wine Company (NZWC). NZWC was the first winery to achieve carbon neutral certification under the world leading carboNZero^TM programme in 2006 [59], where reducing emissions and offsetting the remainder have been embedded in the production, distribution and consumption of their wines. If anything, it makes financial sense for the group to reduce emissions, rather than just offset what was already happening, in saving on energy and resources, as well as reduced offset costs.

By default this held them in good stead to qualify for the Carbon Reduction Label procured by the Carbon Trust using the PAS2050 life cycle standard. In doing so, the narrative in the marketplace has been bolstered beyond a company vision, tied more directly to individual products they sell. These products bare the hallmark of CSR in practice with a unique label, where the environmental implications of materials, production process, operations, distribution and end-of-life are considered as part of product development, and strikingly visible with respected certification schemes and standards. More of these initiatives are predicted as consumers become more aware of sustainability in all market guises.

19.5.1 Increasing demands for information from customers and consumers

There is a growing trend for businesses to be accountable for their actions under the banner of corporate social responsibility. Major retail outlets such as Marks and Spencer and Wal-Mart have recently introduced sustainable packaging strategies [62]. Wal-Mart's packaging scorecard rates packaging on indicators such as CO₂e/tonne, and innovation to assist in meeting their target of reducing packaging across the supply chain by 5%. Brands such as Coca-Cola and Cadbury have significant CO₂e reduction targets in place, like Cadbury's 'purple Goes Green commitment' to reduce 50% of absolute carbon emissions by 2020 and to reduce packaging used per tonne of product by 10% [63, p. 10]. In addition to companies' individual CO₂e targets, 92% of the retail markets in the UK are signatories to the Courtauld Commitment [64], which aims at 'improving resource efficiency and reducing the carbon and wider environmental impact of the grocery retail sector'. It supports the aim of the UK Climate Change Act 2008, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 34% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 [65, p. 1]. Such strategies require the packaging industry to be accountable for their ecological impacts - which LCA is well suited to measuring.

The packaging industry also faces increased consumer pressure to counter the image as the visible face of waste within the household. LCA has a role to communicate the worth of packaging in preserving and protecting the product. For example 'food waste in the supply chain in developing countries is between 30% and 50%, compared to 2% in Europe, where sophisticated packaging solutions are more prevalent' [62, p. 4]. The objective approach of LCA will be increasingly required to counter the consumer perceptions of particular materials and packaging types being 'sustainable', by communicating to consumers the actual environmental impacts of food packaging and food. Voluntary carbon labelling schemes for foods have been trialled in several countries [66, p. 22] including:

Drawing heavily on LCA, the UK's Carbon Trust label informs consumers of the CO₂e across the entire life cycle of the product (including food and packaging). The four elements of the label are: 'the footprint; the carbon footprint measurement given in CO2-e terms, but expressed as CO₂ for simplicity on the label; an endorsement by the Carbon Trust; and a commitment by the producer to reduce emissions or lose accreditation' [66, p. 21]. Optional elements of the scheme include an educational component to explain how the footprint is created, providing an opportunity for the packaging industry to communicate the worth of packaging.

While advantageous in providing consumers with the carbon impacts of a product's life cycle, relying on one indicator alone from a LCA perspective does not communicate the entire environmental impacts of a product (such as water use or human toxicity). It is envisioned that more sophisticated labelling schemes will continue to be developed.

19.5.2 Development/refinement of streamlined tools, decision-making tools and systems from reflection to action

LCA has traditionally been used as a reflective exercise to assess the environmental impact of the existing packaging systems placed on the market or to make environmental claims on how a packaging system format performs in relation to competitors. The glass, plastic and aluminium industry have all laid claim to the environmental credentials of their products. To make such environmental claims requires the completion of a peer reviewed ISO 14040:2006 Life Cycle Assessments [4]. Completing LCAs in such detail can be timely and expensive [67].

What is more desirable, from an ecological perspective, is to utilise the life cycle thinking inherent in LCA as an action-orientated decision-making tool to improve the design of packaging systems. Heiskanen [68] suggests that it is life cycle thinking that is the best thing to have come from LCA. Similarly Mellick's Design for Sustainability Guide suggests that it is the 'learning potential of the process rather than the outcome' [69, p. 1] that is beneficial for designers.

To utilise LCA as an action-orientated decision-making tool means that it is necessary to quickly identify the area of the life cycle with the greatest impact, and assess alternative courses of actions that lead to improved environmental outcomes. A number of streamlined tools exist to facilitate this form of decision making (see Table 19.3). For example PIQET is a streamlined LCA tool that identifies and reviews actions to reduce the environmental impact of food and beverage packaging, particularly at the design development stage. Users of PIQET are able to explore improvement options by quickly re-running evaluations with changed packaging system specifications [53].

To enable LCA and streamlined tools to be effective requires the continued development and maintenance of databases as a priority [14]. This would include the inclusion of new materials as they enter the market to enable packaging designers to make informed decisions.

19.5.3 Methodological issues - beyond packaging: upscaling the functional unit

Historically, the environmental impacts of food packaging have been assessed in isolation from the food they contain. Within Australia, food is responsible for approximately 49% of an individual's ecological footprint [70] with studies suggesting that up to 30% of the food that is purchased is thrown away [71]. Food wastage is a major ecological concern - which food and beverage packaging has a role in preventing.

As mentioned earlier, if food is included in the LCA, then packaging will account for a small percentage of the overall impact in terms of global warming impact and water use. To move towards more sustainable food and beverage packaging, the relational complexity between the role of packaging and reduced food waste needs to be included beyond just extending shelf life to consider user behaviour. The Waste and Resources Action Programme's Packaging design and food waste checklist [72] suggests resealable/ recloseable packaging, portion packaging, shelf life extension packaging and better on-pack consumer communication as a means to address food waste.

For LCA this would entail the modelling of various 'scenarios of use' to measure the viability of increased packaging and possible reduced food waste. To test the success of such strategies, additional fieldwork and empirical research outside the traditional boundaries of LCA may be required. For example, it is easy to compare the life cycle of a 450 ml PET bottle, against a 450 ml glass juice bottle and make an informed decision as to which has the lower ecological impact. More difficult is to assess if a reduced serving size may lead to reduced beverage wastage. A major aged care provider in Australia identified through their plate waste studies that smaller individual portion sizes reduced waste in their residential care.

The future direction of LCA will see an increase in the functional unit in LCA to include food production, potential food waste and packaging systems.

Key books

Boylston, S. Designing Sustainable Packaging. London: Laurence King Publishing; 2009.

Chiellini E., ed. Environmentally Compatible Food Packaging. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing, 2008.

Imhoff, D. Paper or Plastic. Searching for Solutions to an Overpackaged World. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books; 2005.

Jedlicka, W.Packaging Sustainability. Tools, Systems and Strategies for Innovative Package Design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.

Lewis, H., Gertsakis, J. Design + Environment – A Global Guide to Designing Greener Goods. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing; 2001.

Mcdonough, W., Braungart, M. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York: North Point Press; 2002.

Sterling, S. Field Guide to Sustainable Packaging. Chicago, IL: Summit Publishing; 2007.

Verghese K., Lewis H., Fitzpatrick L., eds. Packaging for Sustainability. London: Springer, 2011.

Key reports, documents and journal articles

APCCAustralian Packaging Covenant. A commitment by governments and industry to the sustainable design, use and recovery of packaging. Australian Packaging Covenant Council, 2009.

Ecr Europe andEuropen. Packaging in the Sustainability Agenda: A Guide for Corporate Decision Makers, ECR Europe and The European Organisation for Packaging and the Environment. Belgium: Brussels; 2009.

Envirowise. Packaging design for the environment: reducing costs and quantities. Didcot, Oxfordshire: Hartwel International Business Centre; 2002.

EnvirowisePackguide: A guide to packaging eco-design. Oxfordshire, 2008.

International Environmental Management Standards (ISO14000 series, including LCA) www.iso.org/iso/iso_14000_essentials

International Organisation For Stanardization (ISO) TC 122/SC 4 – Packaging and Environment, http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_technical_committee.html?commid=52082.

Murray, S. Moveable Feasts: from ancient Rome to the 21st century, the incredible journeys of the food we eat. New York: St. Martin's Press; 2007.

Sustainable Packaging Coalition. Design guidelines for sustainable packaging, Version 1. Charlottesville, VA: GreenBlue Institute; 2006.

TCGF. Packaging sustainability indicators and metrics framework, 2010. [Version 1.0, The Consumer Goods Forum.].

Verghese, K., Horne, R., Carre, A. PIQET: the design and development of an online 'streamlined' LCA tool for sustainable packaging design decision support. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2010; 15(6):608–620.

Verghese, K. Environmental assessment of food packaging and advanced methods for choosing the correct material. In: Chiellini E., ed. Environmentally Compatible Food Packaging. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing, 2008.

Associations, research and interest groups

Websites

[1] Weidema, B. Environmental Assessment of Products-A Textbook on Life Cycle Assessment. Helsinki: The Finnish Association of Graduate Engineers; 1997.

[2] Horne, R., Grant, T., Verghese, K. Life Cycle Assessment - Principles, Practice and Prospects. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing; 2009.

[3] International Organisation For Standardisation. Environmental Management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines. Geneva: International Organisation for Standardisation; 2006.

[4] International Organisation For Standardisation. Environmental Management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework. Geneva: International Organisation for Standardisation; 2006.

[5] ECRM. Package Modeling, 2010. http://www.ithumbprint.com/presentations/Wal-Mart_Stores_Web_Cast_files/frame.htm [Available from:].

[6] Early, C.K., Menvielle, T., Geyer, M., Mcmullan, R. Informing Packaging Design Decisions at Toyota Motor Sales Using Life Cycle Assessment and Costing. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 2009; 13(4):592–606.

[7] Klöpffer, W. The Role of SETAC in the Development of LCA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2006; 11:116–122.

[8] Goldsmith, E., Allen, R. Blueprintfor Survival. New York: New American Library; 1972.

[9] World Commission On Environment And Development. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.

[10] Griesshammer, R., Benoît, C., Dreyer, L.C., Flysjö, A., Manhart, A., Mazjin, B., Méthot, A.-L., Weidema, B. Feasibility Study: Integration of Social Aspects into LCA, 2006. [UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative.].

[11] Weidema, B. The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Internatioal Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2006; 11(1):89–96.

[12] Swarr, T. Societal life cycle assessment - could you repeat the question? International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2009; 14(4):285–289.

[13] Verghese, K. Environmental assessment of food packaging and advanced methods for choosing the correct material. In: Chiellini E., ed. Environmentally Compatible Food Packaging. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing, 2008.

[14] Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D., Suh, S. Recent developments in life cycle Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management. 2009; 91(1):1–21.

[15] Lewis, H., Sonneveld, K., Fitzpatrick, L., Nicol, R. Towards Sustainable Packaging, Discussion Paper, 2002.

[16] Lewis, H., Fitzpatrick, L., Verghese, K., Sonneveld, K., Jordon, R.Sustainable Packaging Redefined. Draft. Melbourne: Sustainable Packaging Alliance, 2007.

[17] Lewis, H. Designing for sustainability. In: Verghese K., Lewis H., Fitzpatrick L., eds. Packaging for Sustainability. London: Springer, 2011.

[18] Sustainable Packaging Coalition. Definition ofsustainable packaging, version 1.0, 2005. http://www.sustainablepackaging.org/content/?type=5&id=definition-of-sustainable-packaging [Available from: (accessed 19 October 2010).].

[19] The Consumer Goods Forum. Packaging sustainabiltiy indicators and metrics framework. 2010; 1.0.

[20] Risch, S.J. Food packaging history and innovations. Journal of Agricu-lutral and Food Chemistry. 2009; 57:8089–8092.

[21] Verghese K., Lewis H., Fitzpatrick L., eds. Packaging for Sustainability. London: Springer, 2011.

[22] Lovell, H., Food Packaging. 2010. [Personal communication with K. Verghese].

[23] Francis, F.J. Wiley Encyclopedia of Food Science; Vol. 4. Wiley, New York, 2000.

[24] Kraft. History ofKraft. Available from: http://www.kraftcanada.com/en/about/HistoryofKraft.htm, 2009. [(accessed 16 January 2009)].

[25] Holdings, Crown. Available from: http://www.crowncork.com/about/about_history.php, 2009. [(accessed 4 January 2009)].

[26] Brody, A.L., Marsh, K.S. Encyclopedia ofPackaging Technology. 1997:745–758.

[27] Sturges, M., Royce, C., De Leo, F.Facing the Challenge of Sustainable Development, Implications for Companies Operating in the Packaging Supply Chain. Leatherhead, UK: Pira Report (restricted distribution), 2003.

[28] James, K., Fitzpatrick, L., Lewis, H., Sonneveld, K. Sustainable packaging systems development. In: Leal Filho W., ed. Handbook of Sustainability Research. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Scientific Publishing, 2005.

[29] Detzel, A., Monckert, J. Environmental evaluation of aluminium cans for beverages in the German context. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2009; 14(Suppl 1):S70–S79.

[30] Busser, S., Jungbluth, N. The role of flexible packaging in the life cycle of coffee and butter. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2009; 14(Suppl 1):S80–S91.

[31] Humbert, S., Rossi, V., Margni, M., Jolliet, O., Loerincik, Y. Life cycle assessment of two baby food packaging alternatives: glass jars vs plastic pots. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2009; 14:96–106.

[32] Madival, S., Auras, R., Singh, S.P., Narayan, R. Assessment of the environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS clamshell containers using LCA methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2009; 17:1183–1194.

[33] Falkenstein, E.V., Wellenreuther, F. LCA studies comparing beverage cartons and alternative packaging: can overall conclusions be drawn? International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2010; 15(9):938–945.

[34] Keoleian, G.A., Spitzley, D. Guidance for improving life cycle design and management of milk packaging. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 1999; 3(1):111–126.

[35] Lee, S.G., Xu, X. A simplified life cycle assessment of re-usable and single-use bulk transit packaging. Packaging Technology and Science. 2004; 17:67–83.

[36] Williams, H., Wikstrom, F., Lofgren, M. A life cycle perspective on environmental effects on customer focused packaging development. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2008; 16:853–859.

[37] Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Shiina, T. A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. Journal of Food Engineering. 2009; 90:1–10.

[38] Erlov, L., Lofgren, C., Soras, A. PACKAGING - a toolfor the prevention of environmental impact. Kista, Sweden: Packforsk; 2000.

[39] Jungbluth, N., Tietje, O., Scholz, R.W. Food purchases: impacts from the consumer's point of view investigated with a modular LCA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2000; 5(3):134–142.

[40] Hall, C.A.S., Cleveland, C.J., Kaufmann, R. Energy and Resource Quality. New York: Wiley Interscience; 1986.

[41] Heller, M.C., Keoleian, G.A. Assessing the sustainability of the US food system: a life cycle perspective. Agricultural Systems. 2003; 76:1007–1041.

[42] Pimentel, D., Pimentel, M. Energy use in fruit, vegetavle and forage production. In: Pimentel D., Pimentel M., eds. Food, Energy and Society. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado; 1996:131–147.

[43] Andersson, k. LCA of food products and production systems. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2000; 5(4):239–248.

[44] Verghese, K., Lockrey, S. Selecting and applying tools. In: Verghese K., Lewis H., Fitzpatrick L., eds. Packagingfor Sustainability. London: Springer, 2011.

[45] Sustainable Packaging Alliance, Rmit University, Helen Lewis Research, Birubi Innovation, Victoria University. SPA Packaging Sustainability Framework. Melbourne: Sustainable Packaging Alliance; 2010.

[46] APCCAustralian Packaging Covenant. A commitment by governments and industry to the sustainable design, use and recovery of packaging. Melbourne: Australian Packaging Covenant Council (APCC), 2009.

[47] Coalition, Sustainable Packaging. Design guidelines for sustainable packaging, Version 1. Charlottesville, VA: GreenBlue Institute; 2006.

[48] Wrap. The Guide to Evolving Packaging Design. Available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/retail/the_guide_to_evolving_packaging_design/index.html, 2010. [(accessed 11 March 2010)].

[49] Envirowise. Packaging designfor the environment: reducing costs and quantities. Oxfordshire: Envirowise; 2008.

[50] Envirowise. Packguide: A guide to packaging eco-design. Oxfordshire: Envirowise; 2008.

[51] Envirowise. EDIT - The Eco-Design Indicator Tool, 2010. http://www.envirowise.gov.uk/uk/Our-Services/Tools/EDIT-The-Eco-Design-Indicator-Tool.html [Available from: (acessed 30 April 2010).].

[52] Walmart. Sustainability Scorecard FAQs, 2008. http://www.sustainability-education.com/faq.aspx [Available from: (accessed 29 September 2010).].

[53] Verghese, K., Horne, R., Carre, A. PIQET: the design and development of an online 'streamlined' LCA tool for sustainable packaging design decision support. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2010; 15(6):608–620.

[54] SPC. COMPASS - Comparative Packaging Assessment, 2009. http://www.sustainablepackaging.org/pdf/SPC_COMPASS_Brochure.pdf [Available from: (acessed 15 March 2009)].

[55] Verghese, K., Lockrey, S. Selecting and applying tools. In: Verghese K., Lewis H., Fitzpatrick L., eds. Packagingfor Sustainability. London: Springer, 2011.

[56] Nordsvan, J. Nestle and the PIQET experience, in 2008 AIP National Conference. Luna Park, Sydney: Australian Institute of Packaging; 2008.

[57] Hawthorne, T., Practical application ofthe Australian Packaging Covenant (APC)Packaging for Tomorrow. Melbourne: 3 Pillars Network, 2010.

[58] White, P. Building a sustainability strategy into the business. Corporate Governance. 2009; 9(4):386–394.

[59] Nzwc. carboNZero recertification provides a practical product standard for measurement of embedded carbon emissions in a bottle of wine, 2008. www.nzwineco.co.nz/press.aspx?pid=10058 [Available from: (accessed 22 Decmeber 2010)].

[60] IPCC. Summary for Policymakers, in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution to Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.

[61] Preston, B.L., Jones, R.N. Climate Change Impacts on Australia and the Benefits of Early Action to Reduce Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Aspendale, Vic: CSIRO; 2006.

[62] Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP. Sustainable Packaging: threat or opportunity?. London: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP; 2010.

[63] Stitzer, T. Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability. Available from: http://www.cadburyinvestors.com/cadbury_ir/res_press/2008-11-07/2008-11-11_pres_v2.pdf, 2008. [(accessed 8 October 2010)].

[64] IGD, Courtauld Commitment. 2010. http://igd.com/index.asp?id=1&fid=1&sid=5&tid=0&folid=0&cid=1519#signatories [Available from: (accessed 8 October 2010).].

[65] WRAP. The Courtauld Commitmentfact sheet. Available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/CC_Info_Sheet_23_sept_2010_final.02baa534.9220.pdf, 2010. [(accessed 8 October 2010)].

[66] Hogan, L., Thorpe, S.Issues in food miles and carbon labelling. ABARE Research report 09.18. Canberra: ABARE, 2009.

[67] Tischner, U., Dietz, B., Masselter, S., Hirschl, B.Agency G.F.E., ed. How to do EcoDesign? A guide for environmentally and economically sound design. Basel: Berlin, 2010. [2000].

[68] Heiskanen, E. The institutional logic of life cycle thinking. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2002; 10(5):427–437.

[69] Mellick, A. Designfor Sustainability Guide. Available from: http://www.changedesign.org/DfSGuideWebsite/IntroBackg/IntroFrameset.htm, 2003. [(accessed 13 October 2008)].

[70] Dey, C., Berger, C., Foran, B., Foran, M., Joske, R., Lenzen, M., Wood, R. Household environmental pressure from consumption: an Australian environmental atlas. In: Birch G., ed. Water, Wind, Art and Debate: How environmental concerns impact on disciplinary research. Sydney: University Press, 2007.

[71] Wrap. Minimisation ofHousehold Food Waste. Available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/WRAP_Food_Waste_Minimisation_adp_-_27_10_071.7aaf9619.4672.pdf, 2007. [(accessed 30 November 2010)].

[72] Wrap. Packaging design and food waste checklist. Oxfordshire: Waste and Resource Action Programme; 2009.