PIQET
A packaging decision support tool
Dr Karli Verghese (nee James) Manager Sustainable Products, Centre for Design at RMIT University, URL http://www.cfd.rmit.edu.au E-mail
[email protected] Dr Ralph Horne Director, Centre for Design at RMIT University, E-mail
[email protected] Dr Leanne Fitzpatrick Director, Birubi Innovation Pty Ltd, E-mail
[email protected] Robert Jordan Innovation Management Consultant, Birubi Innovation Pty Ltd, E-mail
[email protected] * All authors are members of the Sustainable Packaging Alliance (www.sustainablepack.org) ABSTRACT
Australian food and beverage companies and government agencies are partnering with the Sustainable Packaging Alliance (SPA) to develop a prototype rapid packaging environmental impact assessment tool, PIQET© - the Packaging Impact Quick Evaluation Tool. The prototype project establishes the methodology to convert complex life cycle assessments (LCA), environmental data and packaging waste management and recycling data into a decision making business tool. The tool will enable companies to incorporate scientific based environmental decision-making into their packaging design process in an affordable and timely manner. The tool will report a range of environmental indicators including depletion of non-renewable resources, generation of greenhouse gases, energy use, landfill and litter and the (Australian) National Packaging Covenant (NPC) Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The tool will dovetail with the Environmental Code of Practice for Packaging (ECoPP), a key component and requirement of the NPC, by providing the quantitative data required by NPC signatories to effectively apply the Code. A discussion of PIQET© s evolution is provided, followed by an account of the prototype tool development and application. Testing and trials are ongoing, and the functionality and use of PIQET© is explored in this context.
Keywords: packaging, environmental tool, LCA
5th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment Achieving business benefits from managing life cycle impacts Melbourne, 22-24 November 2006
1
1. INTRODUCTION Since the 1980 s there has been growing pressure from society and governments upon the manufacturers and users of packaging to reduce its environmental impacts. Nevertheless, packaging is necessary, and its functions include protection, containment, distribution, convenience and marketing. The widespread availability of packaging materials and technology delivers significant outcomes, including: allowing products to be manufactured and distributed throughout the economy; efficient distribution and marketing of products; and prevention of product spoilage and waste thereby reducing environmental impacts [2, 6]. Companies need to consider environmental impacts of packaging materials, in conjunction with the impact on the final product cost, associated profit margins, and a range of other factors including function (e.g., to maintain shelf life); distribution; available technology and its compatability with capital infrastructure (e.g., packaging machines); compatability with the product; graphic design; impact on the retail shelf; and marketing. The need to reduce the amount of packaging used, the growing trend to single-use and convenience packaging and waste management problems including material to landfill and litter, has meant that many people in society believe that there is excess packaging and it should be removed. The DUMP1 Awards, an initiative of Environment Australia (a non-government organisation), draws attention to the packaging of everyday consumer products that they consider to be the worst examples of the use of unnecessary, hazardous and non-recyclable packaging. In 2005, Environment Victoria stated in their second report, environment groups are concerned that industry continues to produce packaging without due regard to the environment and without paying a fair share of the costs to the community. This lack of producer responsibility is leading to: Unnecessary use of precious resources; Public waste management problems; and Consumer confusion about their role in reducing the environmental impact of packaging [1, p 3]. Internationally, new environmental legislation has been a driver for companies to change packaging materials and systems. Whether voluntary or mandatory, regulations typically focus on the reduction of packaging waste through the principles of reduce, reuse, and recycle [2, 3]. In Australia, the National Packaging Covenant (NPC) is the voluntary component of the national co-regulatory approach between government and industry to the life cycle management2 of packaging throughout the supply chain. The NPC aims to improve the total environmental performance and lifecycle management of consumer packaging and paper by pursuing the following specific environmentally focused performance goals [4, p1]: 1.
Packaging optimised to integrate considerations about resource efficiency, maximum resource re-utilisation, product protection, safety and hygiene.
2.
Efficient resource recovery systems for consumer packaging and paper.
3.
Consumers able to make informed decisions about consumption, use and disposal of packaging of products.
4.
Supply chain members and other signatories able to demonstrate how their actions contribute to goals (1) (3) above.
5.
All signatories demonstrate continuous improvement in their management of packaging through their individual Action Plans and Annual Reports .
Specific overarching targets have been established to measure progress towards each of the above goals [4]: 1. Increased recycling of post consumer packaging; 2. Increased recycling rate for 'non-recyclable' packaging3; and 3. No increase in the amount of packaging disposed of to landfill (against 2003 baseline data). The NPC is underpinned by a regulatory framework, the National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) for Used Packaging Materials, which is implemented by each State or Territory Government in Australia, and is designed to deal with non-signatories and non-compliant signatories. Accompanying the NPC, in Schedule 5, is the Environmental 1
Damaging and Useless Materials from Packaging (DUMP). Means management of the potential environmental impacts of a product in all stages of production, distribution, use, collection, re-use, recycling, reprocessing and disposal of that product. 3 Covers plastics coded 4-7, non-recyclable paper and cardboard and all composite packaging. 2
5th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment Achieving business benefits from managing life cycle impacts Melbourne, 22-24 November 2006
2
Code of Practice for Packaging (ECoPP), which has been designed to assist companies with guidelines to help them evaluate the environmental impact of new and existing packaging. The ECoPP is a statement of general principles for the design of environmentally responsible packaging. It is accompanied by more detailed Environmental Guidelines for Packaging (Guidelines),designed to assist companies in implementing the principles of the Code in their product development processes [5]. Packaging design and development is the domain of packaging technologists who are either employed within companies or outsourced as specialists from packaging suppliers. Typically, packaging technologists are responsible for developing packaging for new products or variations of existing products (line extensions). Packaging technologists work with: packaging suppliers to screen and develop new packaging formats; marketers to ensure the packaging portrays the right marketing message; logistics and supply chain managers to ensure it is robust within the distribution chains; and product developers to ensure product preservation, shelf-life and function. They must also consider internal and external environmental policies and regulations and work with environmental managers and company NPC representatives. Environmental analysis of packaging design has hitherto largely been neglected in business decision making. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a scientific and internationally recognised methodology that has been used for several decades to improve our understanding of the enviornmental life cycle impacts of material production, selection, use and disposal. Most companies, however, have limited access to available information on the life cycle impacts of their packaging and no straightforward scientific way of strategically addressing packaging system sustainability. Tools that are currently available vary in their operation (e.g., manual checklists through to software programs), their coverage (e.g., life cycle stages, compliance with EU Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste), cost (i.e., free through to expensive), relevance, availability and turnaround times. The advanced LCA tools are generally prohibitive in terms of cost and turnaround time (especially for products in the fast moving consumer goods category) and are used by very large companies on an ad hoc basis only. Other tools are either too simplistic or are not tailored for packaging. A sample of a selection of tools currently available internationally are summarised below: Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been in existence for several decades with several software programs developed to perform the modelling and calculations. Due to the specific nature and expertise required to undertake such assessments and the time and costs, companies generally outsource the modelling and preparation of the reports to academic researchers or consultants. This limits use to larger companies with the ability to access funds to justify investment in this analysis and is used to a large extent as a one off exercise. The online Tool for environmental Optimisation of Packaging design (TOP) was developed in 2003 by Kiem Sustainable Innovations and CREM in the Netherlands. The development of this simple software tool that could be used to optimise packaging was commissioned by the Netherlands Packaging Centre (NVC) and was funded by NOVEM (government) with input from 30 major packaging supply chain companies. The TOP tool links with industrial packaging development processes with the focus upon meeting the EU packaging legislation (Essential Requirements) and evaluates packaging in conjunction with the product. The tool contains an explanatory description with examples and practice calculations and work sheets (excel) via CD or on-line. There are seven indicators considered: Product-packaging combination: Added value: Logistics efficiency: Heavy metals: Re-use and recovery: Material consumption: Environmental impact [7]. Limitations include the focus on compliance with EU Essential Requirements and the language, making it limited in use for Australian based companies. The BASF eco-efficiency tool is based on assessing environmental behaviour, environmental impact, possible impacts on human health and eco-systems, and on the costs of products and processes from the cradle to the grave [8, p 1]. In 1996, BASF started development of their in-house eco-efficiency tool that brings together economy and ecology. To date, 210 products and manufacturing processes have been analysed against six environmental categories: Energy consumption, Materials consumption: Emissions: Toxicity: Hazard potential and Land use. This information is then combined with economic data to arrive at an ecoefficiency matrix. The eco-efficiency analysis is a standard tool within the BASF Group and is a method for the comprehensive assessment of products and processes. The ecological and economic aspects are given equal weight in the assessments and the products are analysed from the viewpoint of the end customer. Scenarios can be presented by modifying various action options. Different strategic recommendations are given depending upon where in the quadrant the analysed product sits after the eco-efficiency evaluation which is presented as both a spider diagram and a matrix quadrant. This is an in-house tool which requires a company to engage with BASF their services (i.e., out-source the modelling) for a fee. Developed by Bridges to Sustainability in the USA (http://www.bridgestos.org/about_us.htm) the BRIDGESworks Metrics identifies key sustainability indicators and offers a variety of metrics for measuring sustainability performance. It constructs the sustainability metrics as ratios with environmental impacts in the 5th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment Achieving business benefits from managing life cycle impacts Melbourne, 22-24 November 2006
3
numerator and a physically-or financially meaningful representation of output in the denominator. The metrics are currently organized into six basic impact categories: material, energy, and water intensities, solid waste, toxic releases, and pollutant effects. A seventh basic impact category, land use, is currently under development. The metrics are calculated usually with mass of product(s), sales revenue, and value-added in the denominator. Other representations of outputs, however, can also be used. This includes other units of production (volume, pieces of products, etc.) and functional units such as service life. MERGE arose from work The Alliance for Environmental Innovation undertook in partnership with SC Johnson for their intranet-based STEP Tool , with subsequent input from Clairol and Mead Johnson Nutritionals (www.environmentaldefense.org/alliance/merge/merge.htm). MERGE focuses primarily on formulated goods such as personal care items and household/professional cleaning and maintenance products. It is intended for product design and development staff who have no prior environmental expertise or training. MERGE utilises input data such as components and weight of primary and secondary packaging, percent of post consumer recycled material, rate of use, and main materials used. This data is assessed over a set of metrics for environmental impacts based on the formulation or packaging. The metrics for formulation include acute and chronic ecological hazards, dispersivity, VOC content, and bad actor chemicals, while metrics for packaging include resource consumption, energy consumption, virgin materials content, non-recyclable materials content, bad-actor packaging, greenhouse gases, and pallet inefficiency. MERGE allows for direct comparison of product design alternatives, both to each other and to other product groups. In Australia there is an urgent need to develop an environmental assessment tool that signatories to the NPC can use in their packaging development process. None of the tools reviewed above meet the day to day needs of Australian industry they are either too advanced, not packaging specific or are too simplistic. Such a tool needs to: Be relevant and accessible to all signatories from small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) with less than 200 employees, through to multi-national companies with manufacturing and distribution activities in Australia; Take into account the unique characteristics of the packaging material recovery and recycling infrastructure in Australia and also link to Australian specific LCA data; Be regularly updated to reflect the constantly changing nature of packaging development, recovery and disposal; Be easy and quick to use so that it can be readily integrated into the day to day business activities; and Be compliment with the functional design and financial methodologies already used by companies for packaging design. These criteria were the challenges facing the Sustainable Packaging Alliance in the development of PIQET© Packaging Impact Quick Evaluation Tool.
The
2. WHAT IS PIQET? PIQET© is a rapid LCA based tool that enables users to assess or inform packaging designs / specifications without the need for investment in the knowledge, time and resources otherwise needed to make complex environmental impact evaluations. Packaging specifications will be able to be quickly entered and assessed against regularly updated LCA and environmental data and Australian packaging recycling and waste management data. Users of PIQET© will be able to re-run evaluations by making changes to the packaging specification input data and thereby continuously improve the sustainability of their packaging systems. PIQET© will evaluate the environmental impacts of packaging systems throughout their lifecycle i.e., from raw material extraction, packaging manufacture, filling and product/packaging distribution through to packaging disposal, re-use and material reclamation. The tool will report against a range of environmental indicators including depletion of non-renewable resources, generation of greenhouse gases, energy use, landfill and litter, and provide the basis for compliance against the National Packaging Covenant (NPC) Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and the Environmental Code of Practice for Packaging (ECoPP). PIQET© is aimed at environment managers, packaging buyers and technologists, marketers and those with NPC responsibilities. Environmental managers will be able to run simulations, identify priority areas, set goals and targets, track progress, benchmark packaging designs over time and use it as a powerful awareness building/training tool to inform and challenge key packaging decisions. Packaging buyers will be able to evaluate the impacts of packaging from different suppliers and use the tool to leverage changes in specifications to better meet their own sustainable packaging strategies and goals. Packaging technologists will be able to seamlessly slot PIQET© into key business processes such as new product development and assess new or future packaging formats and components and utilise the 4 th 5 Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment Achieving business benefits from managing life cycle impacts Melbourne, 22-24 November 2006
output data alongside economic and functionality considerations to develop optimised packaging systems. They will be able to consider current capability of packaging recovery and recycling system infrastructure in their packaging design process and have a scientific basis for demonstrating and quantifying improvements or supporting and quantifying changes in packaging. Packaging manufacturers will be able to use the tool to drive sustainable packaging innovation and advise customers especially SMEs without in-house packaging expertise. The use of PIQET© will demonstrate to company stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, shareholders and government, a continous improvement approach to packaging sustainability. PIQET© will inform NPC Action Plans and assist in the reporting of specific NPC KPIs including: Setting individual NPC targets (KPI 29); Demonstrating the systematic application of the Environmental Code of Practice for Packaging (KPI 22) which will be embedded within the tool; and Providing a scientific basis for supporting and quantifying changes in packaging (KPI 4) and or demonstrating and quantifying improvements in packaging (KPI 3). PIQET also has the potential to become a valuable research and policy-making tool. It will help government, researchers and non-government organisations understand the context in which companies must make packaging design decisions for example choosing between a light weight non-recyclable component and a heavier recyclable component. Understanding these complexities and realities will aid policy making and the strategic development of recycling and recovery infrastructure. Governments will be able to use the tool for research, benchmarking and scenario planning; for example running sensitivity analysis and simulations around actual or real scenarios of direct relevance such as determining the environmental benefits (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions) of increasing the recycling rate of a material from say 40-70% or from the introduction of a non-recyclable material to the packaging recovery chain. PIQET© will enable multiple LCA based evaluations to be carried out in a very short time opening up many research opportunities in modelling packaging materials and recovery systems. Table 1 presents a sample of the environmental indicators that are being considered for inclusion in the prototype version of the PIQET and examples of their application.
5th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment Achieving business benefits from managing life cycle impacts Melbourne, 22-24 November 2006
5
Table 1 Sample of environmental indicators being considered for inclusion in the PIQET Indicator and How indicators can be used Description LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT INDICATORS Life cycle greenhouse Calculate and report for each material type gases (GHG) (kg CO2 eq) Identify areas for reduction Increased awareness of GHG profile of materials among organisation Identify appropriate transport modes Cumulative energy Input into NPC KPI 2a demand (CED) (MJ) Resource depletion (MJ) Calculate and report for each material type Identify areas for reduction Increased awareness of GHG profile of materials among organisation Prioritise materials to be used Water use (kL H2O) Input into NPC KPI 2b Solid waste (kg)
Identify wastage levels through supply chain and programs to reduce quantities generated.
PACKAGING SPECIFIC INDICATORS Product/packaging ratio Provide insights into how much packaging is being used to deliver each product Can be used to identify potential for packaging format changes to improve the ratio Input into NPC KPI 1a Recycled content Identify materials where recycled content could be included and source appropriately. Consult with packaging manufacturers to identify materials where recycled content should be included. Input into NPC KPI 5 Recyclability Increase understanding of which materials are recyclable
3. DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION The Sustainable Packaging Alliance s (SPA) vision has been to create and provide credible environmental performance indicators to support decision making in defining company packaging development and innovation strategies, selecting materials for packaging re-design or packaging innovation, and improving packaging associated with procurement of inbound goods. The first stage of PIQET s development (the prototype), is focussing upon methodology development and proof of concept with the following objectives: Demonstrate that rapid and credible environmental assessments can be performed for food packaging systems within the Australian context; Demonstrate the validity of the approach through application to case studies that demonstrate the diversity of needs that PIQET© will need to address; and Develop a prototype tool for food brand owner sponsors involved in the prototype project to use for NPC reporting, by August 2006.
5th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment Achieving business benefits from managing life cycle impacts Melbourne, 22-24 November 2006
6
The key activities in PIQET s development have been: Engagement with users: o
In November 2004, a food brand owner meeting was held which established the Industry Advisory Committee (IAC) for PIQET. This consisted of 5 major food and beverage companies (Cadbury Schweppes, Lion Nathan, Masterfoods Australia New Zealand, Nestle Australia and Simplot Australia) and was formed to confirm the need for a business decision-making tool and the scope of its functionality. Regular meetings with the IAC have been held every 3-4 months to provide ongoing input to the research and the tools development. As PIQET has developed the IAC has expanded to include Sustainability Victoria and the National Packaging Covenant (NPCC) Executive Officer.
o
Briefing sessions with packaging manufacturers, industry associations and band owner companies have occurred throughout the project to inform them of the PIQET project and to engage them in discussions on its usefulness and need.
Two successful competitive funding grants have been received for PIQET s development through the Department of Environment and Heritage and the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts through their Information Technology On-Line Program (ITOL). By November 2006 a prototype version of PIQET was completed. Case studies from the company sponsors can be modelled in this version of the tool to test run and assess the benefits of PIQET. By July 2007 an on-line software prototype program of PIQET will be completed and available for external use. In consultation with the company sponsors, case studies have been identified for use in validating, testing and proving PIQET. An example of the type of data being collected in the case studies is presented in Figure 1. This data is then combined with LCA data and other environmental data to arrive at a profile of the packaging system format which can be compared with an alternative packaging format. Figure 1 Example of data being collected on the packaging case studies
The PIQET prototype version is currently being used by five company sponsors in evaluating packaging formats and comparing options for both new products and line extensions. Trials to date indicate that an initial data upload with a trainee can take up to an hour, however, with a day s experience this typically is reduced to 20-30 minutes for a system iteration comparison, which is the target time envisgaed for the tool. This will provide a resource and cost-effective tool in full commercial use. An online platform has now been identified and this is currently being constructed, with similar requirements for ease, simplicity and updateability having been met. Figure 2 illustrates an input screen shot of the PIQET prototype. Note that the tool is designed around the different packaging system levels, with the pallet taken as the base unit. Data on number of components per unit is input and the tool then calculates materials and environmental burdens on a per pallet basis. Material data (at the bottom of Figure 2) can be selected from a drop-down menu, with default data from the extensive LCA database being used, with the facility to over-ride this and utilise user input data available. Results are automatically produced by PIQET in tabular and graphical forms both at the packaging system level and for comparisons between up to three systems or options at a time. The automated PIQET graphical output from a case study to assess materials options for water containers is indicated in Figures 3, 4 and 5. Figure 3 shows carbon dioxide emissions for a PET water container. This indicates that, for the case in question, the sub-retail pack (the PET bottle itself) provides the main contribution of the packaging system to global climate change emissions, with the retail cluster and traded unit packaging making only relatively minor contributions.
5th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment Achieving business benefits from managing life cycle impacts Melbourne, 22-24 November 2006
7
Figure 2 Input screen shot of the PIQET prototype tool OPTION 1:
PET WATER BOTTLE
SKU
Name of option
Product type
Step 2: Materials and packaging
Configuration of packed product on pallet as shipped
Components
Number of sub-retail units per retail unit
Total units per pallet
6 Bottle
Number of retail units per merchandising unit
Packaging Hierarchy
1728
Sub-Retail unit
4 Six pack
Number of merchandising units per traded unit
Retail unit
288
Number of traded units per pallet
72 Carton Merchandising unit
Amount of product contained in packaging Amount of product in retail unit
2250
Bulk density of product
grams
72
Traded unit
1 kg/litre (g/ml)
Volume of product in retail unit
2250.00 ml
Mass of product on pallet
648.00 kg
# of detachable parts in the retail level
parts
Annual retail sales
retail units p.a.
1
Pallet
% product remaining in packaging after use
No.
Type of component
Level of packaging
Type of material
ECoPP category
Weight of one Total number component of components only per pallet load (grams)
1
Bottle
Resin - PET transparant
Sub-retail unit
35
1728
2
Closure
Resin - PP
Sub-retail unit
2
1728
3
Wrapper
Resin - HDPE
Retail unit
5
288
4
Carton
Board - cardboard corrugated
Traded unit
150
72
5
Wrapper
Resin - HDPE
Pallet unit
100
1
Figure 3 Case study example result for PET water container-based packaging system: carbon dioxide emissions Global Warming
kg CO2 per kg of product on a pallet
0.35 0.3 0.25
Waste management Transport to retailer
0.2
Filling of product Transport to filler
0.15
Converting Pkg material
0.1 0.05
Total
Pallet
Traded
Merchandising
Retail
Subretail
0
Figure 4 shows the comparison of three material options for this case study. PET produces lower overall life cycle carbon emissions than the steel can and glass options. Irrespective of material choice, water packaging can be expected to add some 300-500 grams of carbon emissions for each litre bottle consumed. While there are various assumptions embedded within these results, the main ones concern average recycling rates for Victoria, and typical production processes for the various materials, all using Australian electricity grid mix where appropriate. In this example, there is some confirmation that PET can be the appropriate choice under the assumption that bottled water packaging is required.
5th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment Achieving business benefits from managing life cycle impacts Melbourne, 22-24 November 2006
8
Figure 4 Case study example results for three possible water container formats: carbon dioxide emissions Global Warming Comparison of different packaging formats (Broken down by packaging levels)
kg CO2 per kg of product on a pallet
0.6
0.5
0.4 Fill and trans to retail (kg CO2) Traded (kg CO2) 0.3
Merch (kg CO2) Retail (kg CO2) Subretail (kg CO2)
0.2
0.1
0 PET WATER BOTTLE
GLASS WATER BOTTLE
STEEL CAN
Figure 5 shows the water container case study results for five different impact parameters; carbon dioxide emissions (global warming), solid waste impact, cumulative energy demand, water consumption, and photochemical oxidation (smog) production. Note that PIQET automatically normalises the results so that the axis for each parameter extends to the highest scored result. No attempt is made to provide a single weighted score, or to benchmark each parameter score beyond the comparison being made. This allows users to make their own trade-offs and comparisons according to their own company policies and business drivers, rather than forcing a particular policy objective by prioritising one issue over another. With this in mind, the results show that, while PET is the best performer in this case for carbon emissions, it does not perform so well on cumulative energy demand, due to the use of fossil fuel as a feedstock in the material. Glass, with a relatively high mass when used in a container, produces relatively more solid waste than the other options.
Figure 5 Case study example results for three possible water container formats: five indicators Relative Performance of Options Versus Equal Weighted Indicators Global Warming
Solid waste
Cumulative energy demand
Water Use
PET WATER BOTTLE
Photochemical oxidation
GLASS WATER BOTTLE
5th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment Achieving business benefits from managing life cycle impacts Melbourne, 22-24 November 2006
STEEL CAN
9
4. CONCLUSIONS The success of PIQET to date has been significantly facilitated by the collaborative environment created by the NPC. The NPC brings together all levels of government and industry and this has been reflected in the support and input received by SPA in the development of PIQET. Federal and State Government and industry have all contributed cash to the development of the prototype and the formation of the Industry Advisory Committee has been invaluable in ensuring the tool will meet the needs of end-users. This collaboration and shared need has helped bring SPA s vision to fruition PIQET will enable environmental decision making to be an integral and systematic part of the packaging development process as well as policy and waste management planning. PIQET s future success will lie in its ease, speed and affordability of use and therefore its ability to bring environmental decision making into everyday business processes. SPA s challenge will be to ensure that the quality of the data is continuously improved and maintained so that PIQET maintains its currency and value in evaluating the environmental impact of packaging.
5. REFERENCES 1.
2.
3.
4. 5.
6.
7. 8.
Environment Victoria and Boomerang Alliance, DUMP Awards. Damaging and Useless Materials from Packaging Awards 2005. The DUMP Report. 2005, Melbourne: Environment Victoria with the support of the Boomerang Alliance. December. James, K., L. Fitzpatrick, H. Lewis, and K. Sonneveld, Sustainable Packaging System Development, in Handbook of Sustainability Research, W. Leal Filho, (editor), Editor. 2005, Peter Lang Scientific Publishing: Frankfurt. Sturges, M., C. Royce, and F. De Leo, Facing the Challenge of Sustainable Development, Implications for Companies Operating in the Packaging Supply Chain. 2003, Leatherhead, UK: Pira Report (restricted distribution). NPCC, The National Packaging Covenant. A Commitment to the Sustainable Manufacture, Use and Recovery of Packaging. 15 July 2005 to 30 June 2010. 2005, Canberra: National Packaging Covenant Council. NPCC, Schedule 5 - The Environmental Code of Practice for Packaging. The National Packaging Covenant. A Commitment to the Sustainable Manufacture, Use and Recovery of Packaging. 15 July 2005 to 30 June 2010. 2005, Canberra: National Packaging Covenant Council. Lewis, H. and K. Sonneveld. Unwrapping the Discourse: Product Stewardship and Sustainability in the Australian Packaging Industry. 14th IAPRI World Conference on Packaging. 2004. Lidingö, Sweden, June 13-16: International Association of Packaging Research Institutes. Kiem Sustainable Innovations and CREM, Tool for environmental Optimisation of Packaging design (TOP). 2003, Kiem Sustainable Innovations and CREM: The Netherlands, Saling, P., A. Kicherer, B. Dittrich-Kramer, R. Wittlinger, W. Zombik, I. Schmidt, W. Schrott, and S. Schmidt, Eco-efficiency Analysis by BASF: The Method. International Journal of LCA, 2002.
5th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment Achieving business benefits from managing life cycle impacts Melbourne, 22-24 November 2006
10
