Carbon comparisons and LCAs come under scrutiny
Analysis of carbon and other emissions can yield useful data about the profile of a particular pack or product and how it could be improved. But a UK example demonstrates their limitations, especially where one material or pack is compared with another.
The Sustain consultancy produced a report for plastic reusable transit packaging (RTP) supplier Linpac Allibert, applying the Publicly Available Specification PAS 2050 to compare supply chain carbon footprints of specific RTP crates and corrugated board. Lloyds Register Quality Assurance has since verified Sustain's report.
Linpac claimed this showed its RTP crates were more carbon-efficient than single-trip corrugated after just 20 trips, with an overall footprint 67.8% lower.
The UK's Confederation of Paper Industries questions why neither the full report nor the review have been published. It also criticises the way that a specific case study is apparently being used to justify generalised marketing statements.
Sustain director Sandy Smith says: "In around three quarters of cases where products are compared, the results are too close to call." He admits that such methodologies are best not used in comparisons. But in this case, he says, the typical 92 trips quoted in the findings make them more convincing than others.
IAPRI member the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment (Incpen) has criticised what it believes to be the abuse of such studies. Says director Jane Bickerstaffe: "The results are never precise or consistent enough for comparisons to be made between alternative products."
More :: www.incpen.org
IAPRI is not responsible for the content of other web sites