Life-cycle assessment of packaging materials: making meaningful comparisons

What a life-cycle assessment examines

A life-cycle assessment examines packaging from raw material extraction through manufacturing and transport to recovery or disposal. The impact categories examined may include global warming potential, energy and water requirements, and resource consumption.

A robust comparison requires the same functional unit. Rather than comparing one kilogram of board with one kilogram of plastic, the question must be which packaging accommodates a defined quantity of product while providing the required protection and processing characteristics.

Structural design also makes a difference

Material selection and structural design go hand in hand. An optimised folding carton can save material, allow flat blanks to be transported and stored, and run reliably on existing packaging lines. Packaging that is designed too weakly, on the other hand, can lead to rejects or product damage.

• Use as little material as is technically appropriate
• Prefer single-material solutions designed for recycling
• Optimise format, sheet layout and logistics together
• Do not neglect protection and machine compatibility

Putting solid board into perspective

Folding cartons made from solid board are fibre-based and can be collected through established paper recycling systems. However, their specific environmental performance depends on fibre origin, recycled content, grammage, printing and finishing, as well as transport distances and recovery.

HvC supports the development of material-efficient folding cartons and assesses structural design and material in relation to the product, process and series production. Blanket environmental promises are no substitute for a project-specific assessment.

Assessing ‘plastic-free’ claims and alternative fibres properly

Switching from plastic to board can make sense if a fibre-based solution designed for recycling provides the required protection. However, the term ‘plastic-free’ alone says little about material use, coatings, transport or the actual end of the life cycle.

Grass fibres and other alternative fibre contents do not automatically offer an environmental advantage either. A robust comparison must consider their origin, proportion, technical performance and effects on manufacturing and recovery. The key remains packaging that is as simple and material-efficient as possible while reliably fulfilling its purpose.