Al Cans

Life Cycle Assessment
of Aluminium Beverage
Cans in Europe
Methodological report
Metal Packaging Europe
July 2019
RDC Environment SA
Av Gustave Demey 57 Tel. +32 (0)2 420 28 23 web: www.rdcenvironment.be
B-1160 Brussels (Belgium) Fax. +32 (0)2 428 78 78 Email: [email protected]
1
LCA of Aluminium Beverage cans in Europe
Table of contents
Table of tables ...................................................................................................... 5
Table of figures ..................................................................................................... 6
Glossary ............................................................................................................... 8
I. Introduction ...................................................................................................10
II. Goal and scope of the study .............................................................................11
II.1. Goal of the Study .....................................................................................11
II.2. Scope of the Study ...................................................................................12
II.2.1. Product system description ...............................................................12
II.2.2. Representative products ..................................................................13
II.2.3. Functional unit ................................................................................14
II.2.4. System boundaries ..........................................................................14
II.2.5. Cut-off criteria ................................................................................14
II.2.6. Data quality requirements ................................................................15
II.2.7. Allocations .....................................................................................19
Recycling allocation and End-of-Life modelling ....................................19
Recycling allocations and End-of-Life modelling of the post-consumer
aluminium beverage cans ................................................................................20
Recycling allocations and End-of-Life modelling of the pre-consumer
aluminium scrap .............................................................................................22
II.2.8. Selection of life cycle impact assessment methods ..............................23
II.2.9. Critical review .................................................................................25
III. Limitations of the study ...................................................................................26
III.1. General LCA methodology limitations ..........................................................26
III.2. Specific limitations from this study .............................................................27
IV. Inventory analysis ..........................................................................................29
IV.1. Data collection and quality ........................................................................29
IV.1.1. Data sources ..................................................................................29
IV.1.2. Questionnaires ................................................................................29
IV.1.3. Data validation ...............................................................................30
IV.1.4. Data averaging ...............................................................................31
IV.1.5. Filling data gaps ..............................................................................31
IV.1.6. Foreground data quality assessment ..................................................31
IV.1.7. Background data quality assessment .................................................33
March 2019 Final report Page 2 of 87

IV.2. Life cycle model description .......................................................................35

IV.2.1. Categories ......................................................................................35
IV.2.2. Raw materials for beverage cans (body and end) ................................35
IV.2.3. Secondary and tertiary packaging .....................................................36
IV.2.4. Energy data ....................................................................................36
IV.2.5. Transport .......................................................................................38
IV.2.6. End-of-Life .....................................................................................41
V. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) ................................................................43
V.1. System considered and methodology ..........................................................43
V.2. Results – Base case scenario .....................................................................44
V.2.1. Environmental impacts of the closed-loop scenario ..............................44
V.2.2. Climate change ...............................................................................45
V.2.3. Resource depletion-mineral, fossil .....................................................46
V.2.4. Resource depletion – water scarcity ...................................................47
V.3. Sensitivity analysis ...................................................................................48
V.3.1. Sensitivity analysis: variation of the recycling rate ..............................48
Climate change ...............................................................................48
Resource depletion-mineral, fossil .....................................................50
Resource depletion-water scarcity .....................................................52
V.3.2. Sensitivity analysis: variation of the allocation factor ...........................54
Climate change ...............................................................................55
Resource depletion – water scarcity ...................................................59
V.3.3. Sensitivity analysis: variation of the recycled content ..........................61
Climate change ...............................................................................62
Resource depletion - water ...............................................................65
V.3.4. Sensitivity analysis: yearly improvement ...........................................67
Context and limitations ....................................................................67
Data used for 2006 and 2016 scenarios .............................................68
Environmental results of the life cycle of the cans ...............................68
Detailed analysis for 33 cl can on Climate Change ...............................71
Contribution to the impact reduction per life cycle stage ......................71
VI. Conclusions ...................................................................................................73
VI.1. Completeness and consistency check ..........................................................73

VI.1.1. Completeness .................................................................................73

VI.1.2. Consistency ....................................................................................73
VI.2. Limitations ..............................................................................................73
VI.3. Identification of significant issues ...............................................................74
VI.4. Recommendations ....................................................................................75
VII. Annex ........................................................................................................76
VII.1.1. Electricity mix modelling ..................................................................76
VII.1.2. Datasets used .................................................................................78
VII.1.3. Critical review report .......................................................................81

Table of tables
Table 2: Geographical coverage: representativeness by country ...................... 17

Table 3: End-of-Life parameters for post-consumer aluminium beverage cans 22
Table 4: LCIA methods applied in the study...................................................... 23
Table 5: Methods used in previous studies ....................................................... 25
Table 6: List of activities ................................................................................... 32
Table 7: data quality assessment ..................................................................... 34
Table 8: Weight of final products - Source: member data (2016) ..................... 35
Table 9: Secondary and tertiary data – Source: member data (2016) .............. 36
Table 12: Distances for the main transports ..................................................... 39
Table 13: Loading rates .................................................................................... 41
Table 14: End-of-Life parameters for secondary and tertiary packaging .......... 42
Table 15: Impact results based on the closed-loop scenario. Results are
expressed by 1,000 unit of packaging. ....................................................... 45
Table 16 Sources of the most relevant data for 2007 and 2017 scenarios ........ 67
Table 18 Environmental impacts between 2006 and 2016 scenarios per size of the
cans ............................................................................................................ 69
Table 19 Detailed climate change impact per life cycle stages – 33 cl can ........ 71

Table of figures
Figure 1: Life cycle flow diagram for the system analysed ............................... 13
Figure 6: Electrical mix per energy source to produce the body ....................... 37
Figure 7: Electrical mix per energy source to produce the ends of the cans ..... 38
Figure 12: Truck norm according to Euro Code ................................................. 40
Figure 13: LCA system boundaries.................................................................... 43
Figure 23: Influence of recycling rate (by one thousand 25cl cans) ................. 49
Figure 29:Influence of recycling rate (by one thousand 25cl cans) .................. 53
Figure 32: Influence of allocation factor (by one thousand 25cl cans) ............. 56
Figure 33:Influence of allocation factor (by one thousand 33cl cans) .............. 56
Figure 41: Influence of allocation factor and recycled content (by one thousand
25cl cans) ................................................................................................... 62
33cl cans) ................................................................................................... 63
50cl cans) ................................................................................................... 63
25cl cans) ................................................................................................... 64
33cl cans) ................................................................................................... 64
50cl cans) ................................................................................................... 65
25cl cans) ................................................................................................... 66

33cl cans) ................................................................................................... 66
50cl cans) ................................................................................................... 66
Figure 50 Environmental impacts reduction between 2006 and 2016 scenarios for
25 cl can ..................................................................................................... 70
33 cl can ..................................................................................................... 70
50 cl can ..................................................................................................... 70
Figure 55. Contribution per life cycle stage to the total reduction of impact – All
indicators (percentage gives the total reduction of impact between scenario
2006 and scenario 2016). CC: Climate change - ET: Eutrophication terrestrial
- EcT: Ecotoxicity freshwater - LU: Land use - IR: Ionising radiation - TH:
Toxicity human - EF: Eutrophication freshwater - A: Acidification - RI:
Respiratory inorganics - SOD: Stratospheric ozone depletion - POF:
Photochemical ozone formation - EM: Eutrophication marine - ADP: Abiotic
resource depletion - WS: Water scarcity .................................................... 72

Glossary
Allocation1 Partitioning the input or output flows of a process (e.g.

recycling) or a product system between the product system
under study and one or more other product systems.
Particular case: proportion of material in the input to the
production that has been recycled from a previous system
Characterization Factor derived from a characterization model which is applied to

factor1 convert an assigned life cycle inventory
analysis result to the common unit of the category indicator
Critical review1 Process intended to ensure consistency between a life cycle

assessment and the principles and requirements of the
International Standards on life cycle assessment
Cut-off criteria1 Specification of the amount of material or energy flow or the

level of environmental significance associated with unit
processes or product system to be excluded from a study
Elementary flow1 Material or energy entering the system being studied that has
been drawn from the environment without previous human
transformation, or material or energy leaving the system being
studied that is released into the environment without
subsequent human transformation
Energy flow1 Input to or output from a unit process or product system,

quantified in energy units
Functional unit1 Quantified performance of a product system for use as a

reference unit
Impact category1 Class representing environmental issues of concern to which life

cycle inventory analysis results may be assigned
Life Cycle Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the
Assessment potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout
(LCA) 1 its life cycle
Primary data2 Directly measured or collected data from one or multiple

facilities (site-specific data) that are representative for the
activities of the company. It is synonymous to “company-
specific data”.
Process1 Set of interrelated or interacting activities that transforms inputs
into outputs
1 Source: Iso 14044

Recycled content Proportion of material in the input to the production that has been
(R1)2 recycled from a previous system
Recycling rate Proportion of the material in the product that will be recycled (or
(R2)2 reused) in a subsequent system
Reference flow1 Measure of the outputs from processes in a given product

system required to fulfil the function expressed by the functional
unit
Sensitivity Systematic procedures for estimating the effects of the choices

analysis1 made regarding methods and data on the outcome of a study
System Set of criteria specifying which unit processes are part of a

boundaries1 product system
2 Source: PEFCR guidance V6.3

I. Introduction
Metal Packaging Europe (MPE) is the European federation of metal packaging makers. MPE
brings together more than 300 manufacturers, suppliers and their national associations, to
promote the benefits of rigid metal packaging. MPE supports more than 60,000 employees
in 23 European countries. Each year, they use 5 million tonnes of steel and aluminium to
produce more than 85 billion units, which reach consumers every day.
MPE has been created by the merger of Beverage Can Makers Europe (BCME) and European
Metal Packaging (Empac).
MPE promotes the common interests of its members throughout Europe and is actively
engaged in dialogue with European stakeholders and NGOs.
Consequently, MPE must rely on the most current environmental life cycle information on
metal packaging production in order to promote continuous improvement of the
environmental sustainability performance of metal packaging.
To accomplish this, MPE commissioned RDC Environment which is an independent

consultancy based in Belgium with extensive experience in conducting LCA studies and
facilitating critical stakeholder review processes. RDC Environment provided MPE and
member companies with the present LCA study which has been conducted according to the
requirements of the international standard ISO 14040/44.

II. Goal and scope of the study

II.1. Goal of the Study
The goals of the study are the following:
▪ To determine the environmental impacts and credits (i.e. avoided impact) along the
life cycle of the aluminium beverage cans produced in Europe. This will be done by
generating an LCA of 3 volumes of aluminium beverage cans (25, 33 and 50cl)
produced in Europe according to the following system boundaries (see Figure 1):
▪ Cradle-to-gate + transport to filling site + End-of-Life.
▪ Gate-to-gate
▪ To generate Life Cycle Inventories (LCIs) of the production phases and some
selected further life cycle phases of three volumes (25, 33 and 50cl) of aluminium
beverage cans produced in Europe according to the following system boundaries
(see Figure 1):
▪ Cradle-to-gate + transport to filling site + End-of-Life.
The study has been performed according to ISO 14040/44 and provides LCIs and LCA
report of the aluminium beverage cans produced in Europe as average across the industry
and various technologies. Therefore, the intended applications of the study are:
▪ Internally to Metal Packaging Europe:
▪ To increase the knowledge and to provide Metal Packaging Europe members

with objective and reliable information about the environmental impacts and
credits connected with the life cycle of the average aluminium beverage
cans produced in Europe;
▪ To provide to Metal Packaging Europe members with objective and reliable
information about the performance of the average aluminium beverage cans
production in Europe in 2016 compared to 2009.
▪ Externally to Metal Packaging Europe:
▪ To communicate to external stakeholders the environmental impacts and

credits connected with the life cycle of the average aluminium beverage
cans produced in Europe;
▪ To share the report and the LCIs with LCA practitioners willing to include
metal packaging in their LCA applications.
The study is not intended to support comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to

the public. The use of Metal Packaging Europe study results in further comparative studies
shall be under the responsibility of the future LCA practitioner. This responsibility includes
the check of ISO requirements regarding communication of comparative results to the
public.

The intended audience of the study includes Metal Packaging Europe and its members, the
manufacturers of metal packaging, government, customers and retailers, non-
governmental organizations and LCA practitioners. The LCA report was developed in
compliance with the international standard ISO 14040/44 for reporting to third party.
A third-party critical reviewer was engaged to ensure that the highest level of compliance
with the ISO 14040/44 standards was met.
II.2. Scope of the Study

This section describes the scope of the study in order to achieve the above stated goals:
▪ The product system and its function, the definition of the functional unit and the
system boundaries.
▪ The data requirements including cut-off criteria and limitations.
▪ The data quality requirements and the allocation procedures.
▪ The LCIA methodology to be used.
▪ The type of critical review performed.
II.2.1. Product system description
Figure 1 shows the life cycle flow diagram for the system analysed. Each box is a life cycle
phase of the metal packaging.
Two scopes are highlighted on this figure:
• Gate-to-gate scope (orange box): the manufacture of the product at the MPE
plants.
• Cradle-to-gate + transport to filling site + End-of-Life (blue box excluding the

white box): the production of raw and secondary (recycled) materials, the
manufacture of metal packaging, the transport to filling site and the End-of-Life
scenarios. The filling and processing phases (including the manutention of the
bodies/ends and cans inside the filling plant, the seaming of the end to the body
and the final inspection of the cans) and the use phase are excluded from this
study as they are not under the direct control of MPE members.

Figure 1: Life cycle flow diagram for the system analysed
The white area indicates processes excluded from the product system analysed in the
study: these processes are related to the specific applications of the aluminium beverage
cans, which would include, among others, the filling and processing of the cans, its
distribution to the market and the use of the cans.
These processes and applications are excluded from the study in accordance with its goal
(i.e. generating LCIs of product phases and some further selected life cycle phases) as well
as they are not under the direct control of MPE members.
Warning: The future users of Metal Packaging Europe LCIs must be aware of the exclusion
of filling, distribution and use phases. Those phases must be accounted additionally for a
complete life cycle assessment of the metal packaging.
II.2.2. Representative products
The weight of the beverage cans selected for this study is defined for 3 standard units
existing on the packaging market which volumes are: 25, 33 and 50cl. These standard
units are the most sold on the beverage market. The weight includes the body, bottom and
the top end (i.e. the lid) of the can. For simplicity, in the report the body and the bottom
end are referred to the “body” whereas the top end is referred to the “end”.
Despite it was originally intended to include the 44cl can in this study, it has not been
possible to gather data from enough plants producing the 44cl can and therefore, due to
confidentiality reasons, it has been decided to exclude the 44cl can from this study.

II.2.3. Functional unit
The functional unit of an LCA study represents the quantified performance of a product
system for use as a reference unit.
In this study, the provided function of the aluminium beverage cans is defined as: ‘to
contain, protect and decorate standard volumes of beverages’ and is quantified as 1000
units.
Therefore, in accordance with the goals of this study, the functional unit is defined as:
“One thousand (1,000) units of aluminium beverage cans, used to contain,
protect and decorate standard volumes of beverage (25, 33 and 50cl).”
II.2.4. System boundaries
The system boundaries define all phases that are included in the selected scope.
As shown on Figure 1, the study includes the following phases (cradle-to-gate + transport
to filling site + End-of-Life):
▪ Upstream processing and production of raw and recycled materials
▪ Upstream production of secondary and tertiary packaging
▪ Transport of raw materials, secondary and tertiary packaging to the aluminium
beverage cans manufacturers
▪ Manufacturing of aluminium beverage cans and infrastructure of the plants
▪ Transport to filling sites
▪ End-of-Life of used cans: disposal, incineration and recycling
The following phases are not included in the study:
▪ Filling and grouping
▪ Packaging of final products
▪ Transport to warehouse and to final customer
▪ Use of the product
II.2.5. Cut-off criteria
In LCA practice, it is not always possible to achieve data for each flow or process of the life
cycle due to lack of information, time or resources. Some flows or processes were excluded
from the study in accordance with ISO 14044:2006, which defines criteria based on mass,
energy and environmental significance in order to assess whether a flow or process can be
neglected.
An exclusion threshold of 5% has been established in the study. This means that the sum
of all elementary flows belonging to the excluded processes must be less than 5% of the
contribution in terms of mass, energy and environmental significance of the life cycle. This
threshold is a compromise between precision and feasibility (especially data availability).
In this study, the process excluded according to the cut-off criteria are linked to the

maintenance and operation of the can manufacturing equipment (i.e: the equipment used
for the manufacture of the body/end in MPE member’s plants).
These excluded processes are not expected to contribute to more than 5% to any of the
three criteria, as detailed below.
▪ Mass criteria: based on expert judgement, the process of maintenance and
operation of can manufacturing equipment are not expected to contribute to more
than 4% to the mass criteria.
▪ Energy criteria: based on expert judgement, the process of maintenance and
operation of support equipment are not expected to contribute significantly to the
energy criteria.
▪ Environmental significance: no calculation was performed to assess precisely how
much would the excluded processes contribute to the total impact for each impact
category. As regards the excluded processes, they are not expected to contribute
to more than 5% to each impact category assessed in the study.
II.2.6. Data quality requirements
Temporal validity
Primary data (i.e: data from MPE plants, representative of their activities – see also
Glossary) were collected on aluminium beverage cans manufacturing for the year 2016.
The year 2016 is considered a normal year for the operations and production volume of
aluminium beverage cans manufacturing.
Electrical data and secondary datasets come from ecoinvent database v3.4.
Considering that there is no major technological evolution underway for the can
manufacturing, the time validity of this study is 3 – 5 years.
Representativeness of the study

There is no official data detailing the European market for aluminium beverage cans,
therefore an estimation of the representativeness of this study is provided based on the
available information. This estimation provides a higher and lower limit of the
representativeness of the study as described below.
Higher limit:
The higher limit is based on information from the three Beverage Can manufacturers, who
are members of MPE, and from estimates from GlobalData. Based on a third-party report3
covering the production volumes of beverage cans in 2016 (which is the activity year
considered in this study), the estimates from GlobalData provide that the market coverage
of the three can manufacturers is approximately 87% of cans manufactured in Europe.
Therefore, the higher limit of the representativeness of the study is 87%.
3 Analyst report: Jefferies Franchise note, December 2016. Chart 9

Lower limit:
European Aluminium was consulted to estimate the total production of aluminium beverage
cans in Europe (EU28 and Turkey) for the year 2017.
European Aluminium is the European association that represents the whole value chain of
the aluminium industry in Europe. They bring together more than 80 members including
primary aluminium producers; downstream manufacturers of extruded, rolled and cast
aluminium; producers of recycled aluminium and national aluminium associations,
representing more than 600 plants in 30 European countries.
In 2017, based on data from European Aluminium, the European production of aluminium
sheets for rigid packaging applications (i.e. without foil stock) is estimated at 1040 kt. In
total, these shipments of rigid packaging represent about 20% of the total European
production of aluminium sheets. In addition, Europe imported about 520 kt of aluminium
sheet, which represents about 10% of the European market. Unfortunately, it’s not possible
from the official trade data to indicate in which market the imported sheets are going to.
On the other side, Europe exported about 480 kt of aluminium sheets.
Within the 1040kt of aluminium sheets for rigid packaging application delivered by
European producers, about 90% of the volume (936 kt) are related to can stock (i.e. sheets
for producing mainly beverage cans but also food cans). Assuming that the average pre-
consumer scrap generated at the can manufacturing in Europe is equivalent to the average
of the three can manufacturers analysed in this study, which is about 18% of the incoming
aluminium sheets, the aluminium cans produced in Europe are about 768 kt. Hence, based
on these data, the coverage of this study corresponds to 55% and is calculated as the ratio
between the production of aluminium beverage cans communicated by MPE members via
the questionnaire (422 kt) and the estimation of the total production of aluminium cans in
Europe (768 kt) derived from European Aluminium data.
Based on the above information, the representativeness of this study is comprised between
55% and 87%, however it must be noted that the European Aluminium data include
beverage cans and food cans, therefore the lower limit of 55% is not accurate.
Considering that the previous LCA study on aluminium beverage cans 4 assessed a market
coverage of 80% in 2009, it is more likely that the representativeness of this study is closer
to the higher limit of 87%.
Technology coverage
In the study, site-specific data are representative of current technology used in Europe for
aluminium beverage cans manufacturing for the reference year 2016.
4BCME, EAA, APEAL, PE International, Life Cycle Inventory and impact Analysis for Beverage Cans,
2009

Data collection involved up to 26 manufacturing plants, distributed among 15 countries,

and approximately 422 kt of produced aluminium beverage cans.
It is assumed that the technology used for aluminium beverage cans production is the two-
piece drawing.
The two-piece can is a can manufactured from two pieces:
• the body which is shaped from one sheet of metal by deep drawing
• and the end
After the filling operation, the body and the end are seamed together to form the can.
To model the aluminium production and the aluminium recycling at the End-of-Life, the
datasets provided by European Aluminium in 2017 were used in the study. These datasets
are based on primary data from 2015 and are the most up-to-date datasets regarding the
produced aluminium in Europe.
Geographical coverage
The geographical coverage is aluminium beverage cans produced in the
EU28+Serbia+Turkey.
Table 1 shows the country share based on the produced tonnages (for which RDC collected
data). It also gives the number of responding plants in each country.
Table 1: Geographical coverage: representativeness by country
Country #plants Repres. of sold tons
AT - Austria 2 5-10%
DK - Denmark 1 <5%
FI - Finland 1 <5%
FR - France 2 5-10%
DE - Germany 4 15-20%
EL - Greece 2 <5%
IT - Italy 1 <5%
IRL - Ireland 1 <5%
NL - Netherlands 1 <5%
PL - Poland 1 <5%
SK - Slovakia 1 <5%
SRB - Serbia 1 <5%
ES - Spain 2 5-10%
UK - United Kingdom 4 20-30%
TR - Turkey 2 <5%
TOTAL 26 100%
Precision
As regards the data collected at the aluminium beverage cans plants, the precision of these
data is considered very good for bill of materials, energy and water consumption. This is
due to the fact this information is under control of the metal packaging manufacturers.

As regards the data collected for other emissions to air and effluents, the precision of these
data is considered fair, due to the fact that a limited number of plants answered to the
questionnaires (it is assumed that the margin of error is under 30%).
As regards ecoinvent v3.4 database, the precision of the database is considered as fair to
good, depending on the specific dataset. For further details, see v3.4 documentation.
Completeness
All relevant, specific processes were considered in the study. As regards the emissions at
the metal packaging plants, beside the tracked emissions reported in the questionnaire,
other emissions associated to fossil fuels combustion were assessed based on secondary
databases.
As regards ecoinvent v3.4 databases, the completeness of the database is considered as
good to very good, depending on the datasets. For further details, see ecoinvent v3.4
documentation.
Consistency
Consistency of the study has been considered through three different aspects:
▪ As regards the primary data, plausibility checks of each data were done through cross-
checks and comparison to average. See further for details on primary data validation.
▪ As regards the methodological consistency, most of the background datasets come

from the same database (ecoinvent v3.4 – “Allocation, cut-off by classification”) and
few processes come from other datasets suppliers (e.g. European Aluminium). Some
methodological differences between datasets belonging to different databases are
possible. Based on expert judgement, the consequences of these methodological
discrepancies have no significant consequences on the results.
▪ As regards the consistency of the LCA model, cross-checks regarding mass and energy
flows were carried out.
Reproducibility
As far as possible, all considered assumptions and data are detailed in the LCA report to
allow reproducibility and transparency. An external audience may not be able to reproduce
all life cycle phases, however experienced LCA practitioners should find key data and
assumptions in the current study.
Uncertainty of the information

Uncertainty of the results were considered through two different aspects:
▪ As regards the primary data, a precision assessment was carried out while collecting
data from the plants. Uncertainty is very low for the bill of material composition, energy
and water consumptions. Uncertainty is medium to high regarding emissions (such as
carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, sulphur oxide, VOC and dust).

▪ As regards the background databases, uncertainty is considered as low except for

elementary flows contributing to Ozone layer depletion, Toxicity (human and
ecotoxicity) and Resources depletion for which the uncertainty is considered as high.
II.2.7. Allocations
Recycling allocation and End-of-Life modelling
The End-of-Life modelling was calculated according to the following formula. This formula
is compliant with the ISO standard for open-loop and closed-loop formula5.
𝑬 = 𝑬𝑽 + 𝑨 × 𝑹𝟏 × (𝑬𝒓 − 𝑬𝑫 − 𝑬𝑽 ) + 𝑬𝑫 + (𝟏 − 𝑨) × 𝑹𝟐 × (𝑬𝒓 − 𝑬𝑫 − 𝑬𝑽 )
Equation 1: End-of-Life formula
With this formula, the allocation of environmental credits due to the recycling is shared
between the supplier of the recyclable material and the incorporator of the recycled
material (into the next life cycle). The parameters of the formula are explained as follows:
A: allocation factor of burdens and credits between supplier and user of recycled materials.
R1: proportion of material, that has been recycled from a previous system, incorporated
as input to the production of the new product.
R2: proportion of the material in the product that will be recycled (or reused) in a
subsequent system. R2 shall therefore take into account the inefficiencies in the collection
and recycling (or reuse) processes. R 2 shall be measured at the output of the recycling
plant.
EV: specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional unit) arising from the
acquisition and pre-processing of virgin material.
ER: specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional unit) arising from the
recycling process of the recycled (reused) material, including collection, sorting and
transportation process.
ED: specific emissions and resources consumed (per functional unit) arising from disposal
(i.e. landfill and incineration) of waste material at the End-of-Life.
Values for allocation factors and proportion of materials for each destination (R 1 and R2)
for secondary and tertiary packaging materials were taken from the Annex C of the PEF
methodology6.
5Application of the ILCD handbook: “International Reference Life Cycle Data System – General
guide for Life Cycle Assessment – Detailed guidance. 2010. Recycling in consequential modelling.”
6 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/PEFCR_OEFSR_en.htm

Recycling allocations and End-of-Life modelling of the post-

consumer aluminium beverage cans
1. Base case: closed-loop scenario

As base case, the End-of-Life of post-consumer aluminium beverage cans is modelled
considering a closed-loop system, which means that aluminium is recycled in the same
production system as its previous use without any changes to its inherent properties (i.e.
aluminium sheet for beverage application). Recycled aluminium displaces virgin material,
hence there is no need to define the allocation.
According to the closed-loop formula, the value for R 1 and R2 are equal and there is no
need to define the allocation factor A. The Equation 1 becomes (with R1 = R2 = R):
𝑬 = (𝟏 − 𝑹) × 𝑬𝑽 + 𝑹 × 𝑬𝑅 + (𝟏 − 𝑹) × 𝑬𝑫
Equation 2: closed-loop formula
In the base case, R is equal to 72.9% according to the latest recycling rate published by
European Aluminium in 2014. This recycling rate was the most up to date value for
aluminium beverage can recycling in Europe at the time the study was started.
Sensitivity analysis is performed with different recycling rate (from 40% to 95%). The
parameters for the base case and the sensitivity analysis are indicated in Table 2.
For this study, the dataset used for primary aluminium production is the ‘Aluminium
primary ingot used in Europe’ provided by European Aluminium (used both for the base
case and sensitivity analysis).
The “used in Europe” primary LCI dataset (EV) corresponds to the production of 1 tonne of
ingot from primary aluminium, i.e. from bauxite mining up to the sawn aluminium ingot
ready for delivery. This dataset includes all the environmental aspects of the various
process steps and raw materials used to deliver 1 tonne of sawn primary ingot. It includes
the aluminium which is produced by the European smelters and the aluminium which is
imported into Europe and which represent 49% of the primary aluminium used in Europe
in 2015.
For this study, the dataset used for recycled aluminium production is the ‘Aluminium
remelting’ (ER) provided by European Aluminium (used both for the base case and
sensitivity analysis) which is described in the next paragraph.
2. Sensitivity analysis: open-loop scenario

In some countries and for some markets, used aluminium beverage cans are recycled into
other aluminium applications, such as aluminium sheet for non-beverage application.
Therefore it is modelled, in this sensitivity analysis, that used aluminium beverage cans
are recycled in the same production system but with changes to its inherent properties
(condition for open-loop allocation according to the ISO standard 14040/44). For this

study, the European Aluminium recycling dataset for “remelting” aluminium has been used7
for ER.
According to European Aluminium8: “the ‘remelting’ process LCI dataset correspond to the
transformation of the aluminium (pre or post-consumer) scrap into a wrought alloy ingot
(i.e. aluminium alloys used for e.g. sheet or extrusion where the final product shape is
generated by mechanically forming the solid metal) ready for delivery to the user. It also
includes the recycling of dross and skimmings. This dataset should be used for the recycling
of process scrap as well as for the recycling of some specific end-of-life products using well
controlled collection schemes like big aluminium pieces in building or aluminium beverage
cans collected through specific collection networks. The ‘remelting’ data are based on the
year 2015”.
As sensitivity analysis, the End-of-Life of post-consumer aluminium beverage cans is

modelled considering an open-loop system. For this system, the Equation 1 is used.
𝑬 = 𝑬𝑽 + 𝑨 × 𝑹𝟏 × (𝑬𝒓 − 𝑬𝑫 − 𝑬𝑽 ) + 𝑬𝑫 + (𝟏 − 𝑨) × 𝑹𝟐 × (𝑬𝒓 − 𝑬𝑫 − 𝑬𝑽 )
Equation 3: Open loop formula
Two types of sensitivity analyses are performed:

• A sensitivity analysis with different allocation factors (A varying from 0 to 100%;
R2 = 72,9% and R1 = 40%). According to European Aluminium, this value of R 1
corresponds to the average recycled content for aluminium products and is not
specific to packaging.
• A sensitivity analysis with different recycling rates (A varying from 0 to 100%; R2
= 72,9% and R1 = 40%, 60% and 80%)
3. Summary of parameters for the post-consumer aluminium beverage cans

The parameters for these sensitivity analyses are indicated in Table 2.
7 Another scenario of open-loop occurs when aluminium is recycled in a different production system
compared to its previous use and with changes to its inherent properties (e.g. aluminium casting);
in this case, the European Aluminium recycling dataset for “refining” aluminium should be used,
however this scenario has been excluded from the current report for simplicity and could be covered
in the next update of the study.
According to European Aluminium: “The ‘refining’ process LCI dataset correspond to the
transformation of the aluminium (pre or post-consumer) scrap into a casting alloy ingot (i.e.
aluminium alloys used for the production of castings where the final product shape is generated by
pouring molten metal into a mould) ready for delivery to the user. This dataset includes the melting,
purifying and casting operations. It also includes the salt slag processing. The refining data related
to the year 2015 are still under preparation, the previous one refers to year 2010”.
8 European Aluminium, Environmental Profile Report: Life-cycle inventory data for aluminium
production and transformation processes in Europe, 2017

Post-consumer aluminium beverage cans

Scenarios R1 R2 A
Base case: closed-loop Equal to R2 72.9% -
Sensitivity analysis 1: closed-loop Equal to R2 40-95% -
Sensitivity analysis 2: open-loop -

40% 72.9% 0-100%
Variation of A
Sensitivity analysis 3: open-loop -
40%, 60%, 80% 72.9% 0-100%
Variation of R1
Table 2: End-of-Life parameters for post-consumer aluminium beverage cans
As explained above, the European Aluminium recycling dataset for “remelting” aluminium
has been used for the closed-loop scenario as well as for the open-loop scenario.
The reader should understand that the above described open-loop and closed-loop
scenarios of aluminium recycling and production follow the ISO methodology for LCA
modelisation; despite these open-loop and closed-loop scenarios may represent specific
real cases, a mix of the two scenarios is what occurs usually in reality. As no statistics are
available to model a realistic share of the two scenarios, the sensitivity analysis described
at paragraph V.3.3 enables the reader to derive the environmental performance of the
aluminium beverage cans based on a chosen mix of the two scenarios.
Recycling allocations and End-of-Life modelling of the pre-

consumer aluminium scrap
The End-of-Life of pre-consumer aluminium scrap is modelled considering a closed-loop

system. This is valid for every scenario.
The totality of the pre-consumer aluminium scrap is recycled (hence, R=100%).
With this value of R, the Equation 2 for the pre-consumer aluminium, can be written as:
𝑬 = 𝑬𝑅
Equation 4: closed-loop formula with R = 100%
For the closed-loop scenario, the European Aluminium recycling dataset for “remelting”
aluminium has been used.
Warning: the future users of the results of the study must be aware that the recycling
credits are already included in the LCI, hence they should not be accounted additionally.
Background dataset
Most of the background datasets used in the study come from the database ecoinvent v3.4
– “Allocation, cut-off by classification”. No change was made to the allocation rules used
by ecoinvent.

II.2.8. Selection of life cycle impact assessment methods
The choice of the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods aims at giving an overall
view of environmental impacts of metal packaging production in Europe.
Total results are presented for 14 impact categories:
• Most of these impact categories come from the category set referred as ‘ILCD 2011’,
recommended by the EF (Environmental Footprint methodology by the European
Commission) in 20119.
• For some impact categories, recent method developments were taken into account
and the more recent methods, recommended by the PEF (Product Environmenal
Footprint) project of the European Commission in 2017 have been used. These
methods are updates from similar methods that were included in the ILCD set and
refer to the same environmental problematics.
This is the case for:
o Climate change was assessed using IPCC 2013 characterization factors
(ILCD 2017), while ILCD handbook refers to IPCC 2007 (ILCD 2011). As
IPCC 2013 is an update of the 2007 method, the most recent one was
considered as more robust.
o Human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity were assessed using USEtox 2.0
characterization factors, while ILCD handbook refers to USEtox 1. As the
version 2.0 is an update of the first version, the most recent one was
considered as more robust.
o Resource depletion – water scarcity was assessed using AWARE method
(ILCD 2017), while ILCD 2011 handbook refers to the ‘Swiss Ecoscarcity
Model’. This former method was elected as it is in line with the water flows
used in the European Aluminium LCIs as no characterization factors exist in
the ILCD 2011 method for those flows.
The list of the impact categories is indicated in Table 3.
Table 3: LCIA methods applied in the study
Impact Impact assessment Recommended

Units Author
categories model in
Bern model – Global Intergovernmental

Climate change kg CO2 eq. Warming Potential over a Panel on Climate PEF 2017
100-year horizon Change, 2013
EDIP model based on the

ODPs of the World
Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq. Meteorological WMO 1999 ILCD 2011
Organization (WMO) over
an infinite time horizon
Human toxicity –
CTUh USEtox 2.0 USEtox 2.0 PEF 2017
cancer effects
Ecotoxicity for
aquatic PAF*m³*day USEtox 2.0 USEtox 2.0 PEF 2017
freshwater
9 ILCD Handbook – Recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context

Impact Impact assessment Recommended

Units Author
categories model in
Particulate
matter/
kg PM2.5 eq RiskPoll model Humbert, 2009 ILCD 2011
respiratory
inorganics
Ionizing Human Health effect

kBq U235 eq Dreicer et al., 1995 ILCD 2011
radiations model
Photochemical Van Zelm et al., 2008

kg NMVOC eq LOTOS-EUROS model ILCD 2011
ozone formation as
Accumulated Exceedance
Acidification mol H+ eq. Seppälä et al., 2006; ILCD 2011
model
Terrestrial Accumulated Exceedance

mol N eq. Posch et al., 2008 ILCD 2011
eutrophication model
Freshwater
kg P eq. EUTREND model Seppälä et al., 2006; ILCD 2011
eutrophication
Marine
kg N eq. EUTREND model Posch et al., 2008 ILCD 2011
eutrophication
Soil Organic matter (SOM)

Land use kg C deficit Struijs et al., 2008 ILCD 2011
model
m³ of water- Available WAter

Water use Boulay et al., 2016 PEF 2017
eq deprived REmaining (AWARE)
Resource
depletion- kg Sb eq. CML 2002 model Milà I Canals et al., ILCD 2011
mineral, fossil
Warning: the future user of the LCI must be aware of the use of ILCD2011 and PEF
methods in this report.
The detailed results per life cycle phases and the sensitivity analyses are only presented in
this study for the following impact categories, which were selected by MPE as the main
environmental areas to focus on:
▪ Climate change (PEF 2017)

▪ Resource depletion-mineral, fossil (ILCD 2011)
▪ Water use (PEF 2017)
These categories (or their methods used before being updated) were selected because are
the most relevant for MPE members and because were used (among other methods) for
the latest LCA studies on steel packaging and, only partly, on aluminium beverage cans
commission by the metal packaging industry (see

Table 4). Selecting these categories is therefore the continuation with the previous LCA
studies.

Table 4: Methods used in previous studies
Commissioner of the LCA study EMPAC BCME/EAA/Apeal

Year of publication 2016 2009
Analysed product Steel Packaging Aluminium Beverage cans
X X
Climate change
(IPCC 2013) (CML 2001)
X
Resource depletion-mineral, fossil
(CML 2002)
X
Resource depletion – water (Swiss Ecoscarcity
model 2008)
II.2.9. Critical review
As the study is intended to be used for communication purpose to third party and the LCIs
could be used in other studies (including comparative assertion), the critical review was
performed by the LCA expert: Delphine Bauchot from the company Solinnen.
The critical review process ensured that:
▪ The methods used to carry out the LCA are consistent with this International Standard
ISO 14040/44:2006.
▪ The methods used to carry out the LCA are scientifically and technically valid.
▪ The data used are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the goal of the study.
▪ The interpretations reflect the limitations identified and the goal of the study.
▪ The study report is transparent and consistent.
The conclusions of the critical review are listed hereunder:
Conclusions of the review:

The CR first set of 53 comments covered the following points:
• Deviation (11 comments),
• Recommendation (31 comments),
• Editorial comments and other miscellaneous comments (11 comments).
Out of these comments, 6 covered methodological issues, 25 about Data and technical
issues, 9 about Analysis and Interpretation.
An exhaustive work has been done by RDC Environment and Romeo Pavanello from
Metal Packaging Europe to provide a final report integrating answers to all the CR points,
and the final result has improved as compared to the first one.
As a whole, the expert considers that the final report answers to the goals which have
been set up, within the scope of the limitations that are mentioned in the report.
The critical review report is available in Annex VII.1.3 as for further detailed references of
the peer reviewer.

III. Limitations of the study

III.1. General LCA methodology limitations
As preliminary warning, general LCA limitations are reminded:
• Limitations inherent in the LCA methodology (ISO 14040:2016, 5.4.3)
The LCIA addresses only the environmental issues that are specified in the goal
and scope. Therefore, LCIA is not a complete assessment of all environmental
issues of the product system under study.
• LCIA cannot always demonstrate significant differences between impact

categories and the related indicator results of alternative product systems. This
may be due to:
▪ Limited development of the characterization models, sensitivity analysis and

uncertainty analysis for the LCIA phase,
▪ Limitations of the LCI phase, such as setting the system boundary, that do
not encompass all possible unit processes for a product system or do not
include all inputs and outputs of every unit process, since there are cut-offs
and data gaps,
▪ Limitations of the LCI phase, such as inadequate LCI data quality which
may, for instance, be caused by uncertainties or differences in allocation
and aggregation procedures, and
▪ Limitations in the collection of inventory data appropriate and

representative for each impact category.
The lack of spatial and temporal dimensions in the LCI results introduces uncertainty
in the LCIA results. The uncertainty varies with the spatial and temporal characteristics
of each impact category. There are no generally accepted methodologies for
consistently and accurately associating inventory data with specific potential
environmental impacts. Models for impact categories are in different phases of
development.
Uncertainty about the toxicity impact method: the level of uncertainty of the toxicity
indicators are very high, especially for metals, due to the elementary flows (inventory)
and the characterisation factors (USEtox methodology). Toxicity indicators should be
use with caution. See paragraph II.2.6 and Table 6 for more details.

III.2. Specific limitations from this study

In this study the main limitations are related to the quality of the background datasets and
the approach to average the information collected from the involved members. The list of
limitations is detailed below.
Limitation due to potential methodological inconsistencies between

background databases: most of the background datasets used in the study come
from ecoinvent v3.4 – “Allocation, cut-off by classification”. The use of different
background databases can lead to inconsistencies due to different methodological
rules applied in the databases.
As a rough estimation, the influence of this limitation on the results is assumed,
based on expert judgement, to be lower than 10%.
▪ Limitation due to the approach to average the information collected from

the different members: when modelling the average production occurring at
different sites, two approaches can be used:
▪ Horizontal averaging, which consists in weighting each collected primary

data (e.g., amount of primary steel, amount of natural gas, etc.) according
to the sales volume of the plant, and then averaging them in order to
produce a virtual plant. The LCIs and LCIA are then calculated based on the
virtual average plant.
 This approach was used in the study (see 0) because it is the best
compromise between quality of the results and time and resource
availability.
 It is a less accurate approach than the vertical averaging (for instance,

in case of regionalized methods, there could be a loss of accuracy in
locating the emissions).
▪ Vertical averaging, which consists in calculating each LCI per plant based
on its specific data and then averaging the LCIs based on the sales volume
per plant.
 This approach gives more precise results, but it is time and resources
consuming as 26 plants have to be modelled separately. Hence, this
approach was not used for this study.
In both cases, the weighting applied is the sum of aluminium beverage cans
produced by each responding plant.
It is assumed, based on expert judgement, that the influence of this limitation on

the results has an order of magnitude of one percent (1%).
▪ Limitation due to filling missing data: when empty cells were found in the filled
questionnaires, they were assumed to be a “no data entry” (instead of a “zero
value”) and the average value was calculated including the empty cells. This

approach can maximize the bill of materials and the energy consumption and
therefore can overestimate the overall environmental impacts. Hence, the results
of the study can be considered as conservative.

▪ Limitation due to simplified modeling for some minor raw materials:

Solvents, inks and sealing are modelled considering average compositions of
solvent, solid substances and water. The composition of these raw materials is
derived from a previous study carried out by RDC Environment and does not
represent the average composition used by MPE members. This proxy is used as
these raw materials are not available in the used background database.

▪ Limitations due to the use of average recycling rate: The recycling rate for
aluminum beverage cans was provided by European Aluminium (for year 2014) 10
and corresponds to the European average post-consumption recycling rate for
aluminium beverage cans. It does not stand for any of the specific packaging
volumes modelled in this study.
▪ Limitations due to the geographical scope: the study refers to the average
European production, including Serbia and Turkey. However, differences between
countries exist regarding recycling rates, emissions norms (emission norms for
truck, for electricity production, for can production), electricity mix and the
surrounding environment. The average value is thus not reflecting any individual
country and the reader should keep in mind that the LCA of the aluminium beverage
cans in a specific country/plant might lead to different results compared with this
study. This limitation is also due to the fact that data collected from the plants were
anonymized due to confidential reasons.
Besides, an estimation of the aluminium beverage cans recycled content (as

provided by European Aluminium) is used as European average. The specific
recycled content was not asked in the questionnaire sent to the members
participating to the study.
▪ Limitations due to non-regionalized water consumption: except for the

aluminium LCI, the other water flows used in the LCA model of this study are not
regionalized.
10 https://www.european-aluminium.eu/media/1988/european-aluminium-press-release-2014-can-
recycling-result-7nov2017_final.pdf

IV. Inventory analysis

IV.1. Data collection and quality
This section describes the process followed by RDC Environment to collect the data used
in the study. Data concern the gate-to-gate processes (aluminium beverage cans
manufacturing and printing) and the upstream transport.
IV.1.1. Data sources
Data were collected for aluminium beverage cans manufacturing with:
▪ 26 responding plants
▪ 422 thousand tonnes of aluminium beverage cans
The following measures have been taken to ensure confidentiality of collected data: RDC
signed a non-disclosure agreement with the Metal Packaging Europe members involved in
the study. Individual company data, collected by RDC on a strict bilateral basis, is
accessible only to the team of RDC in charge of the project. In addition, RDC has taken the
necessary steps to ensure that the information made available in the study is sufficiently
aggregated and does not allow the identification of individual confidential company data.
In addition to the 26 responding plants mentioned previously, 2 plants answered the
questionnaire but were excluded from the analysis as their production corresponds to steel
packaging. The total number of responding plants was thus 28 before the exclusions and
26 after the exclusions.
IV.1.2. Questionnaires
A questionnaire was sent to the 3 members participating to the study. It was developed
based on a discussion with Metal Packaging Europe. RDC Environment experience was also
used as basis for the questionnaire.
The questionnaire concerns the data related to the manufacturing plant. Three volumes of
packaging were clearly identified: 25cl, 33cl and 50cl. Another volume called “other
volume” was also included. Three kinds of plants were identified:
• Body manufacturing plants, where only can bodies are manufactured.

• End manufacturing plants, where only can ends are manufactured.
• Body and ends manufacturing plants, where can bodies and can ends are
manufactured.

IV.1.3. Data validation
Several checks were made in order to validate the data received from the metal packaging
manufacturing plants. When questionable data were identified, an email was sent to the
metal packaging manufacturing plant to validate the data. More than 25 correction
responses from members helped to ensure that data collection was of high quality.
Three types of data quality tests were performed as part of the data validation process.
These tests are presented in this section along with a list of examples. These lists are non-
exhaustive.
Logical tests
These tests aim to check the consistency of data provided by each member:
• 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 = ∑(𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑠) ?
• ∑(𝑟𝑎𝑤 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑠) > 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 ?
Comparison tests
These tests aim to check whether the data of one specific issue (energy, waste, water…)
are in a range of acceptable values. When data is out of range, it is important to find the
reason (technological reason for example):
• Comparison of energy consumption “GJ/ton” for each plant
• Comparison of water consumption “m³/ton” for each plant
Value tests
After validating data per member (logical tests) and data per issue for all members
(comparison tests), the average values weighted by volumes were calculated (for the 26
members of MPE) and value tests were performed. These tests aim to check whether
average values are in line with the range of values commonly used and the standards:
• Are atmospheric emissions in the ranges observed with other plants from the
same company (i.e: the same MPE member) or with plants from other companies
(i.e: from the other MPE member)?
• Are water consumption values (in & out) in the ranges observed with other plants
from the same company (i.e: the same MPE member) or with plants from other
companies (i.e: from the other MPE member)?
• Are emissions in natural environment acceptable regarding European directive?

IV.1.4. Data averaging
A horizontal averaging approach was performed to average data across the manufacturing
plants. The horizontal averaging approach consists in weighting each collected primary
data (e.g., amount of aluminium, amount of natural gas, etc.) according to the sales
volume of the plant, and then averaging them in order to produce a virtual plant. A vertical
averaging approach would be more accurate, but it also requires modelling every plant
separately and then average them on the basis on their sales volume (see also section 0).
IV.1.5. Filling data gaps
In the questionnaires it was clearly stated to answer the questions by differentiating

between “no data entry” and “zero value”.
When empty cells were found in the filled questionnaires, they were assumed to be a “no
data entry” and the average value was calculated excluding the empty cells.
This approach mainly concerned:
• Secondary and tertiary packaging for which, at a first time, no data was filled by
any plant. Average values of these data were, in a later stage, sent by MPE
members (not plant-specific);
• The emissions to the natural environment (air, water).
A different approach was used to fill in the data gap related to transport modes, as there
were clear reasons to think that some of the empty cells correspond to zero values:
▪ In case of a questionnaire partially filled in but presenting also empty cells as
regards all transport modes, the empty cells were considered as “zero value”.
▪ In case of a questionnaire completely empty as regards all transport modes, the
cells were considered equal to the average of the answers of other questionnaires.
IV.1.6. Foreground data quality assessment
Activities at MPE plants

The following Table 5 shows a qualitative description of the activities occurring at MPE
plants which are responsible for the consumption of energy, heat, water and for the VOC
emissions.
Note: regarding the office activity at MPE plants, no information was received from the
members whether the electricity, water and heat consumptions from offices are included
or excluded in the collected data. It is possible that it has been included for some plants
whereas excluded for other plants. However, based on our experience, these consumptions
are negligible compared to the total consumptions of an industrial plant.

Table 5: List of activities
VOC
Process Electricity Heat Water emissions
to air
Coil handling x
Can forming x x
End forming x
Can coating/printing x x x
Can washing/drying x x x
End sealing x x x*
End printing/decoration x x x
Transport / Palettizing x
Testing x
Auxiliaries (HVAC, compressor x x x
etc.)
Offices x x x
Warehousing x x
* End sealing usually is a VOC emission free process, however some plants may still
use solvent based tab lubes
Data quality assessment

In the questionnaire, it was required to the compiler to encode an estimation of the quality
for each provided data, according to three ranges of data quality. No data qualities were
filled by any plant, therefore primary data quality is only estimated, for each data, as the
percentage of plants encoding the data.
Based on the point mentioned above, the main inputs and outputs of the manufacturing
plants can be classified as follows:
• Data with high coverage:
▪ Raw material to produce the aluminium beverage cans were answered by

every plant, hence has a very good coverage (100%)
▪ Electricity consumption has a very good coverage (100%)
▪ Heat and water consumptions have a very good coverage (96%)
▪ Heat mix consumption has a very good coverage (100%)

▪ Atmospheric emissions of CO2 have a medium coverage (38%)
▪ Atmospheric emissions of NOx, SOx, dust (unspecified) and VOC have a good
coverage (46%)
▪ Truck transport of aluminium has a good coverage (61%)

▪ Truck transport of raw materials other than aluminium has a medium

coverage (38%)
▪ Secondary and tertiary packaging: These data were answered by some of
MPE members following a ‘data validation question’ procedure (see 0)
(66%).
• Data with low coverage:

▪ Water emissions have a very low coverage (under 25%)
▪ No data were filled in the questionnaire for atmospheric emissions of

ammonium and dust (PM 2,5 and PM 10) (0%)
▪ No data were filled for ship and train transport of aluminium and other raw
materials
IV.1.7. Background data quality assessment
Background datasets used in the study mostly come from ecoinvent v3.4 – “Allocation,
cut-off by classification” and RDC models based on COPERT 4. The following table assesses
the data quality of the background datasets by considering the influence on results (based
on contribution to LCIA results) and the data quality (based on expert judgement).
Legend
Influence on the results Data quality

+ Low influence + Low quality data
++ Medium influence ++ Fair quality data
+++ High influence +++ Good quality data

Table 6: data quality assessment
Influence Data
Data Comments
on results quality
Energy carrier
Natural gas supply ++ ++

Datasets from ecoinvent v3.4 – “Allocation, cut-off by
classification”. with a good geographical and
Light fuel supply + ++
technological representativeness but low time
representativeness
Electricity +++ ++
Raw materials production
Dataset from European Aluminium 2017 with a good

Aluminium +++ ++
time, geographical and technological representativeness.
Lacquers, coatings,
+ ++
varnishes Datasets from ecoinvent v3.4 – “Allocation, cut-off by
classification”. with a good geographical. Technological
Printing inks + ++ representativeness and Time representativeness are
lower.
Sealing compounds + ++
Transports
Datasets produced by RDC according to Copert IV

methodology, considering truck classes, pollution norm,
Truck emissions + ++ real payload, etc.
Emission from Diesel production are already considered
in ecoinvent v3.4 – “Allocation, cut-off by classification”.
Infrastructure
Datasets from ecoinvent v3.4 – “Allocation, cut-off by

classification”.
Metal working factory
(used as infrastructure Process highly influent on a limited number of impact
+++ + categories: Human toxicity, Ecotoxicity, Abiotic resources
for metal packaging
plants) depletion, Land use. The quality of these impact
categories is seen as limited, leading to a high uncertainty
for these indicators.
Waste and wastewater treatment
Hazardous and non-

Generic process for waste treatment from ecoinvent v3.4
hazardous waste + +
– “Allocation, cut-off by classification”.
disposal

IV.2. Life cycle model description

IV.2.1. Categories
Three volumes of cans are used to present the data. These volumes result of the
combination of one body and one end, as described below:
▪ 25cl can: consisting of one 25cl body and one 25cl end
▪ 33cl can: consisting of one 33cl body and one “33-50cl” end
▪ 50cl can: consisting of one 50cl body and one “33-50cl” end
Note: the same end may be used for 33cl cans or for 50cl cans. Therefore, these ends are
named in this report as “33-50cl” ends.
Note 2: other can volumes exist but are not part of the scope of this study.
IV.2.2. Raw materials for beverage cans (body and end)
Data collected
The weight of the average final products (body and end) has been calculated from
member’s data.
Table 7: Weight of final products - Source: member data (2016)
Weight of products (g) Can 25 cl Can 33 cl Can 50 cl
Body 7.9 9.8 12.8

End 2.5 2.4 2.4
Can (body + end) 10.4 12.2 15.1
The efficiency of the cans manufacturing process is 82% based on collected data, meaning
that 18% of 1 kg of aluminium sheet becomes scrap (i.e. pre-consumer scrap, also known
as skeleton of aluminium sheet).
Assumption on coatings
According to MPE members, coating is rather complex subject as it depends on different
aspects; for instance, the amount and chemical composition of the coating depend on:
• The application of the cans, for instance more coating is needed respectively for
ciders, soft drinks, beers.
• The internal or external surfaces of the cans; the top can end is coated externally
by the aluminium producer whereas the internal surface and the external wall of
the cans are coated by the packaging manufacturer. Also, coating on the external
wall of the can depends on the customer specifications.
Coating materials used today by the metal packaging industry are almost all water based;
this means that the composition is more than 50% water with the remaining constituents

being solids and solvents; this applies, in particular, to internal coating which is in contact
with the beverage. The composition of the coatings used in this study is derived from a
previous study carried out by RDC Environment and does not represent the average
composition used by MPE members. This proxy is used as these raw materials are not
available in the used background database.
IV.2.3. Secondary and tertiary packaging
Data collected
Consumption of secondary and tertiary packaging was calculated for bodies and ends. It is
assumed that secondary and tertiary packaging are similar no matter the volume of cans.
Four materials were included in the questionnaire to encode the data, see table below.
Table 8: Secondary and tertiary data – Source: member data (2016)
Consumption of secondary and

Body 25cl Body 33cl Body 50cl Ends
tertiary packaging (g/1,000 units)
Wood pallet (reused 15 times on

152.56 197.99 284.61 5.58
average)
Polypropylene pallet (reused 60

38.14 49.50 71.15 1.40
times on average)
Corrugated board 162.18 200.28 165.08 45.67
Polypropylene film and straps 48.17 56.19 41.68 1.84
TOTAL 401.05 503.95 562.52 54.48
The data encoded for the pallet was split between wooden pallet (20%) and
polypropylene pallet (80%). It is considered that the polypropylene pallets are reused 60
times before disposal whereas the wooden pallets are reused 15 times. This was
validated by MPE members.
IV.2.4. Energy data
Consumption data were calculated from members’ data for both consumption of electricity
and heat. It was assumed that heat and electricity consumptions are proportional to the
weight of the cans, therefore heat and electricity consumptions were allocated based on
the mass of the cans. This approach is aligned with the previous LCA study on metal
packaging (i.e. food and non-food applications, excluding beverage) commissioned by MPE.

Electrical mixes
The electricity consumption needed to produce the raw materials is already accounted and
included in the datasets used to model the production of those materials (i.e. for aluminium
the European Aluminium datasets, for other raw materials the ecoinvent datasets). See
section IV.2.2 Raw materials for and IV.2.3 Secondary and tertiary packaging for more
details.
For the manufacturing of bodies and ends, participating members encoded the total
consumption of electricity consumed during a full year of production (2016). The average
electrical mix was calculated per energy source from the countries of all participating
members (weighted by the country production). The next two figures give the final
electrical mixes calculated for the body production (Figure 2) and for the end production
(Figure 3), decomposed by energy source. More information on the modelling of the
electrical mix is available in annex VII.1.1.
Electrical mix per production type:

Body
Solar; 6%
Nuclear;
18%
Coal; 35%
Wind; 7%
Oil; 2%
Gas; 20% Hydro;

13%
Figure 2: Electrical mix per energy source to produce the body

Electrical mix per production type: End

Solar; 4%
Nuclear;
22%
Coal; 35%
Wind; 7%
Oil; 2%
Hydro; 5%
Gas; 25%
Figure 3: Electrical mix per energy source to produce the ends of the cans
IV.2.5. Transport
The main transports occur in the following three phases of the life cycle:
▪ Transport of raw materials to the manufacturing plant
▪ Transport of produced cans from manufacturing plant to the filler
▪ Transport to collect the used beverage cans and to deliver to the recycler at End-
of-Life phase
Distances
Distances are calculated from members data (as regards the raw materials and the
transport to filler) or estimated based on literature. The

Table 9 gives the repartition of transport for raw materials.

According to member’s data, all transport is done by truck. No transport is done by boat
nor train.

Table 9: Distances for the main transports
Transport Truck Train Boat
Distance (km) 1,220 - -

Aluminium
Part (%) 100% 0% 0%

Lacquers, coatings,
varnishes
Part (%) 100% 0% 0%
Raw materials
transport
Printing inks
Part (%) 100% 0% 0%

Sealing compounds
Part (%) 100% 0% 0%
Estimation agreed
2ary and 3ary between RDC
From suppliers to members – distance (km) 250
packaging Environment and
MPE
Estimation agreed
between RDC
Delivery From members to fillers – distance (km) 250
Environment and
MPE
Non selective (km) 12.2
Waste collection ADEME 201211
Transport at the
Selective (km) 86
End-of-Life phase
Transport to the recycler (km) 395 Assumption
Modes of transportation
Transport by truck
Fuel consumptions and airborne emissions from trucks are obtained from the COPERT 4
methodology (version 5.0).
The trucks considered in this study:
• Have a maximum payload of 24 tons;
• Are “Articulated 34-40 tons” (framework);
• The impact of the truck is modelized as follows:
o When the truck is fully loaded, its impact (per km) is equal to 100% of its
maximal impact.
o When the truck is travelling empty, its impact (per km) is equal to 70%
of its maximal impact. The factor 70% is a coarse average value derived
from the Copert 4 methodology by considering a set of trucks of various
11 Data for 2007, published in 2009. « La collecte des déchets par le service public en France » Ademe.

gross vehicle weights for both speed used respectively for rural and urban
transportation;
o The 30% remaining varies linearly with the ratio of load to maximum
payload (the hypothesis of linearity comes from Copert 3 methodology).
• The empty return rate (part of the trip that the truck must achieve empty before
being reloaded) is assumed to be 29% (European average published by Eurostat,
2008).
The repartition in Euro Code is indicated in Figure 4. This comes from MPE members data.
Figure 4: Truck norm according to Euro Code
For the transport of raw materials, trucks are assumed to be fully loaded.
For the transport of bodies and ends from manufacturing site to filling site, the payload is
assumed to be under 100% (i.e. lower than the maximum payload). Indeed, the filling of
the truck is constraint by the volume of the empty packaging rather than their weight. The
total weight of loaded pallets are presented in the section IV.2.3 Secondary and tertiary
packaging. The next table shows the payload for the 3 types of bodies and ends.

Table 10: Loading rates
25 cl 33 cl 50 cl Ends
Number of pallets/truck
20.6 20.2 20.0 26
(data from one member)
Number of bodies/ends per truck 225,055 170,044 117,120 7,800,000
Number of bodies/ends per pallet 10,925 8,418 5,856 300,000
Bodies/ends per pallets (kg/pallet) 86.4 82.5 74.8 706

Secondary and tertiary packaging
38.5 38.5 38.5 16.3
(kg/pallet)
Weight of one loaded pallet (kg/pallet) 124.9 121.0 113.3 722.8
Load/truck (t) 2,574 2,445 2,265 18,793
Payload for 24t truck (%) 11% 10% 9% 78%
IV.2.6. End-of-Life
End-of-Life of pre-consumer aluminium scrap

The pre-consumer aluminium scrap produced during the cans manufacturing phase is
assumed to be 100% recycled (in base case scenario and sensitivity analyses). It is
accounted as recycled in closed loop (including, in the open loop sensitivity analysis). The
transport distance is assumed to be the same as for post-consumer cans.
End-of-Life of post-consumer aluminium beverage cans

The post-consumer aluminium beverage cans are assumed to be either recycled or sent to
elimination (landfill and incineration). Parameters for End-of-Life of post-consumer
aluminium beverage cans are indicated in Table 2 for the different scenarios. The transport
distance is indicated in

Table 9.
End-of-Life of secondary and tertiary packaging

The secondary and tertiary packaging (e.g. pallet or cardboard) are assumed to be either
recycled or sent to elimination (landfill and incineration). Parameters for End-of-Life of
secondary and tertiary packaging are indicated in the next table.

End-of-Life parameters for secondary and tertiary packaging Source

(for all End-of-Life scenarios)
R1 R2 A
Corrugated board 88% 75% 20% PEF project –
Annex C12
LDPE 0% 27.5% 50%
PP 0% 0% 50%
Wood pallet 0% 30% 80%
Table 11: End-of-Life parameters for secondary and tertiary packaging
12 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/PEFCR_OEFSR_en.htm - Annex C

V. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)

V.1. System considered and methodology
Figure 5 shows the system boundaries considered for the study: cradle-to-gate + transport
to filling site + End-of-Life.
The environmental results are calculated for the 3 volumes of cans (25cl, 33cl, 50cl) and
are presented for the 14 impact categories recommended by the EF methodology.
Normalisation and weighting of the results are excluded in accordance to the goal and
scope of the study.
Detailed results per life cycle phases are then analysed for three selected categories
(climate change, resource fossil depletion, water depletion).
Three types of sensitivity analyses were assessed (see also section II.2.6):
• Closed-loop scenario with different recycling rates

• Open-loop scenario with different allocation factors
• Open-loop scenario with different allocation factors for different recycled

contents
Figure 5: LCA system boundaries
Note:
• the metal production phase indicated in the following tables includes the aluminium
production and the transport to MPE members.

• The other raw material production phase in the following tables includes the other
raw materials production and transport to MPE members, including the production
and end-of-life of secondary and tertiary packaging
• The Body manufacturing/End manufacturing include the manufacturing of Body/End
at MPE plants
• The Distribution phase includes the body and end transport to the filling plant
• The EoL – Pre-consumer aluminium scraps includes the End-of-Life of the aluminium
scraps
• The EoL – Post-consumer aluminium includes the End-of-Life of the aluminium cans
including transport linked to End-of-Life of aluminium cans
V.2. Results – Base case scenario

For the closed-loop scenario, all the collected used beverage cans are recycled to produce
new aluminium sheet for beverage use, hence there is no need to define an allocation
factor and the recycling rate and the recycled content are equal (R1 = R2).
The recycled content and the recycling rate of aluminium beverage cans are set to 72,9%.
The formula for the End-of-Life modelling is according to the Equation 2.
V.2.1. Environmental impacts of the closed-loop scenario
Table 12 shows the environmental impacts for each impact category (14) for the 3
packaging volumes. Results are expressed per functional unit, i.e. 1,000 units of
packaging.

Table 12: Impact results based on the closed-loop scenario. Results are expressed by 1,000 unit of
packaging.
Name Unit Can 25 cl Can 33 cl Can 50 cl
Climate change kg CO2 eq. 62.27 77.21 106.09
Abiotic resource depletion kg Sb eq. 2.51E-03 3.01E-03 4.05E-03
Water scarcity m3 water eq. 7.61 10.13 12.43
Acidification Moles H+ eq. 2.61E-01 3.17E-01 4.25E-01

Photochemical ozone
Mass C2H4 eq. 1.04E-01 1.24E-01 1.66E-01
formation
Eutrophication freshwater; kg P eq. 9.09E-04 1.20E-03 1.51E-03
Respiratory inorganics kg PM2.5 eq. 1.99E-02 2.45E-02 3.38E-02

Stratospheric ozone
kg CFC11 eq. 3.09E-06 4.03E-06 5.64E-06
depletion
Ionising radiation kg U235 eq. 4.10E-05 4.78E-05 6.12E-05
Eutrophication terrestrial Moles N eq. 5.79E-01 7.15E-01 9.52E-01
Eutrophication marine kg N eq. 3.11E-02 3.62E-02 4.68E-02

Mass deficit of Soil
Land use 80.83 100.47 139.27
Organic Carbon
Toxicity human CTU 1.19E-06 1.60E-06 2.29E-06
Ecotoxicity freshwater CTU 311.42 461.48 777.08
V.2.2. Climate change
This section presents and analyses results for Climate change. The average climate change
impact of 1,000 aluminium beverage cans are:
▪ 62.27 kg of CO2 equivalents for the 25cl volume.
▪ 77.21 kg of CO2 equivalents for the 33cl volume.
▪ 106.09 kg of CO2 equivalents for the 50cl volume
The main environmental impacts come from the aluminium production, mainly from the
electrolysis which is an energy-intensive process (it requires 15,460 kWh/ton of produced
aluminium13), whereas the aluminium recycling at the End-of-Life provides an
environmental credit.
13European Aluminium, Environmental Profile Report: Life-cycle inventory data for aluminium
production and transformation processes in Europe, 2017

The body manufacturing is the second highest contribution to the environmental impact,
mainly due to:
• The indirect emissions linked to the consumption of electricity
• The direct and indirect emissions linked to respectively the consumption and
extraction of natural gas
• The direct emissions of NOX, SOX and VOC

Regarding the contribution of the aluminium production, its impact (almost 97%) is
mainly due to the electricity used at the smelters (38%), the fuel consumption mostly at
the alumina refineries (28%) and the processing i.e. mostly the carbon anode
consumption (31%)14. Due to the aggregated European Aluminium datasets, it is not
possible to further specify the contribution of the direct and indirect emissions of the
electrolysis process.
At the manufacturing phase, almost 70% of the contribution is due to the electricity
consumed by the MPE plants whereas 25% is due to the natural gas consumption (mainly
used in the drying oven for coating and inks treatments). Finally, almost 5% is due to the
infrastructure, which takes into account an average impact for the buildings, roads and
parking spaces on the premises as well as other land occupation; it is based on an
average standard impact from ecoinvent for a 27-ha metal factory.
Almost all the contribution to the post-consumer can recycling (-108% of the post-
consumer can recycling) is linked to the credits of recycling the aluminium.
When summing up the impact of aluminium production and the credit of aluminium
recycling, the net impact of aluminium represents about 60%, 55% and 50% of the total
footprint respectively for the 25cl, 33cl, 50cl cans, whereas the impact of the can
manufacturing is 18% on average.
V.2.3. Resource depletion-mineral, fossil
This section presents and analyses results for Resource depletion-mineral, fossil. The
average resource depletion-mineral, fossil impact for 1,000 aluminium beverage cans is:
▪ 2.51E-3 kg of Sb equivalents for the 25cl volume.
The main environmental impacts come from the aluminium production, mainly due to the
related consumption of fluorspar and bauxite whereas the aluminium recycling provides an
environmental credit.
14 European Aluminium, Environmental Profile Report: Life-cycle inventory data for aluminium
production and transformation processes in Europe, 2017. Table 4-17.

The body manufacturing is the second highest contribution to the environmental impact,
mainly related to the consumption of indium and cadmium when building the
infrastructures of the plant.
Regarding the contribution of the aluminium production, almost 57% of the total impact is
due to the use of fluorspar and 38% to the use of bauxite.
At the manufacturing phase, almost 98% of the contribution is due to the infrastructure,
for which the main contributions are indium (82%) and cadmium (10%). The contribution
of natural gas and fossils in the energy mix is less than 1% of the manufacturing phase.
At the distribution phase, all the contribution is linked to the truck production for which the
main contributions come from indium (82%) and cadmium (10%)
All the contribution to the post-consumer can recycling phase (121% of the post-consumer
can recycling) is linked to the credits of recycling the aluminium. The transport of
aluminium contributes to an impact of 15% to the phase.
V.2.4. Resource depletion – water scarcity
This section presents and analyses results for Resource depletion-water scarcity. The
average water scarcity impact for 1,000 aluminium beverage cans is:
▪ 7.61 m³ of water equivalent for the 25cl volume.
▪ 10.13 m³ of water equivalents for the 33cl volume.
▪ 12.43 m³ of water equivalents for the 50cl volume.
The main environmental impacts come from the aluminium production, whereas the
aluminium recycling provides an environmental credit. The body manufacturing is the
second highest contribution to the environmental impact.
Regarding the contribution of the aluminium production, this is mainly due (almost 94,5%)
to water consumed for the aluminium ingot production (including alumina production and
electrolysis) whereas the sheet manufacturing stage is responsible for 6,5% of the impact.
At the manufacturing phase, almost 70% of the contribution is due to the water usage to
produce the electricity consumed by the MPE plants (i.e. cooling water of power plants and
for hydroelectric energy production - see Figure 2 and Figure 3 for more details) whereas
12% of the contribution is due to the water consumption at the factory and only 2% is due
to the natural gas consumption (mainly used in the drying oven for coating and inks
treatments). Finally, almost 14% is due to the infrastructure, which takes into account an
average impact for the buildings, roads and parking spaces on the premises as well as
other land occupation; it is based on an average standard impact from ecoinvent for a 27-
ha metal factory.

Regarding the post-consumer can recycling, almost all the contribution to the post-
consumer can recycling (-105% of the post-consumer can recycling) to the avoided impact
is linked to the credits of recycling the aluminium.
V.3. Sensitivity analysis

V.3.1. Sensitivity analysis: variation of the recycling rate
The purpose of the analysis is to evaluate the influence of the recycling rate of used
beverage cans on the impact results.
In this scenario, aluminium beverage cans are considered recycled in a closed-loop (as per
the base case scenario) and the recycling rate (R2) varies from 40% to 95% in order to
represent the different recycling rates of the main European countries.
As it is a closed-loop scenario, all the collected used beverage cans are recycled to produce
new aluminium sheet for beverage use, hence there is no need to define an allocation
factor and the recycling rate and the recycled content are equal (R 1 = R2) and varies
accordingly.
The formula for the End-of-Life modelling is according to Equation 2. The other parameters
are unchanged compared to the base case scenario.
This sensitivity analysis focuses on three main impact categories.
Climate change
The influence of the recycling rate is shown in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 (for 25, 33
and 50cl respectively), where it can be seen that an increase of the recycling rate allows a
decrease of the environmental impact. Inversely, a decrease of the recycling rate is
responsible for an increase of the impact.
In the closed-loop scenario, any percentage increase of the recycling rate avoids producing
an equivalent amount of virgin aluminium and therefore decreases the total impact.
Compared to the base case scenario (where the recycling rate is set to 72,9%), an increase
of the recycling rate by 1% would allow reducing the climate change impact by:
• 1.35% in the case of 25cl cans

Figure 6: Influence of recycling rate (by one thousand 25cl cans)

The influence of the recycling rate is shown in Figure 9, 27 and Figure 11 (for 25, 33 and
50cl respectively), where it can be seen that an increase of the recycling rate allows a
decrease of the impact. Inversely, a decrease of the recycling rate is responsible for an
increase of the impact.
The reduction of the Resource depletion-mineral, fossil impact is not as sharp as for the
climate change impact. This is because the aluminium production and recycling have a
lower contribution to the Resource depletion-mineral, fossil than for the climate change
impact.
of the recycling rate of 1% would allow reducing the Resource depletion-mineral, fossil
impact by:
Note: there is not a consistent behaviour of the above percentages compared with the
corresponding ones of the climate change impact, as the main contributions are different;
the body and end manufacturing contribute more to this impact category than to the
climate change category.


Resource depletion-water scarcity
The influence of the recycling rate is shown in Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14 (for 25,
33 and 50cl respectively), where it can be seen that an increase of the recycling rate allows
a decrease of the environmental impact. Inversely, a decrease of the recycling rate is
responsible for an increase of the impact.
In the closed-loop scenario, any percentage increase of the recycling rate avoids producing
an equivalent amount of virgin aluminium and therefore decreases the total impact.
of the recycling rate by 1% would allow reducing the water scarcity impact by:

Figure 12:Influence of recycling rate (by one thousand 25cl cans)

V.3.2. Sensitivity analysis: variation of the allocation factor
The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the influence of the allocation factor on the
impact results.
In order to study the influence of the allocation factor, it is assumed that the aluminium is
recycled in an open-loop15: this is the case of some countries and some aluminium markets
for which it is not always possible (for technical, logistic and economic reasons) to recycle
used beverage cans into new aluminium sheet for beverage use, and therefore the
aluminium is recycled into aluminium sheet for non-beverage application16.
The formula for End-of-Life modelling is according to Equation 3 (see section 0), where the
recycled content (R1) is set equal to 40% according to the average recycled content of
aluminium (not beverage cans specific) as communicated by European Aluminium, and the
recycling rate (R2) remains equal to 72.9%. The allocation factor (A) varies from 0% to
100%, meaning that:
• A=0% corresponds to the so-called “End-of-Life” or “0:100” allocation approach,
which is the allocation supported by metals and MPE. This allocation method
accounts for the impact of the recycling process at the End-of-Life (i.e. collection,
sorting, remelting) in the first life cycle (i.e. the one providing the recyclable
15 In the closed-loop scenario, there is no need to define the allocation factor.

16 Source: Metal Packaging Europe

material, such as the used beverage can) as well as for the credit of avoiding an
equivalent virgin material production in the next life cycle (i.e. the one incorporating
the recycled material) which are calculated proportionally to the recycling rate 17.
Therefore, in this allocation approach, the recycled content does not affect the
results.
• A=20% corresponds the “20:80” allocation approach set by the PEF (Product
Environmental Footprint) methodology for metals (and other) materials. It means
that 80% of the impact of the recycling process and its credit are allocated to the
first life cycle, whereas the 20% are allocated to the next one.
• A=50% corresponds to the allocation approach “50:50” set by some LCA
methodologies (as well as previously by the PEF). It means that the impact of the
recycling process and its credit are equally split between the first life cycle and the
next one.
• A=100% corresponds to the so-called “Recycled content” or “100:0” allocation
approach. This allocation method considers the recycling process at the End-of-Life
of the first life cycle as belonging entirely to the second life cycle (i.e. the one
incorporating the recycled material) and accounts for its impact and credit
proportionally to the recycled content of the new product, hence reducing the need
of virgin material. Therefore, in this allocation approach, the recycling rate does not
affect the results.
This sensitivity analysis focuses on the three main impact categories.
Climate change
The influence of the allocation factor is shown in Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17 (for
25, 33 and 50 cl respectively), where it can be seen that an increase of the allocation factor
is responsible for an increase of the impact because more weight is given to the recycled
content of the product in the next life cycle and less to the recycling rate of the product in
the current life cycle: as the recycled content is lower than the recycling rate, it follows
that the credit decreases by increasing the allocation factor.
As an example, an increase of the allocation factor from 0% to 10% would increase the
Climate change impact by:
17Guidance to the use and interpretation of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) results through the Instant
LCA tool – MPE. Version of 23rd August 2018.

Figure 15: Influence of allocation factor (by one thousand 25cl cans)
Figure 16:Influence of allocation factor (by one thousand 33cl cans)

is responsible for an increase of the impact as explained in the previous paragraph for
Climate change.
Resource depletion-mineral, fossil impact by:
As for the previous sensitivity analysis, this increase is not as sharped as the increase for
climate change because the aluminium production and recycling have a lower contribution
to the Resource depletion-mineral, fossil than to the Climate change impact.


Resource depletion – water scarcity
is responsible for an increase of the impact as explained in the previous paragraph for
Climate change.
Resource depletion - water impact by:


V.3.3. Sensitivity analysis: variation of the recycled content
The purpose of the analysis is to evaluate the influence of the recycled content (R1) of
aluminium on the impact results.
As for the previous sensitivity analysis, it is assumed that the aluminium beverage cans
are recycled in an open-loop and the recycled content (R1) varies from 40% to 60% and
80% whereas the allocation factor also varies from 0% to 100%. The recycling rate remains
equal to 72.9%.
The formula for End-of-Life modelling is according to Equation 3 (see section 0).
This sensitivity analysis focuses on the three main impact categories.
Regarding the results of this section, it should be noted that:

• The variation of the allocation factor from 0% to 100% corresponds to transfer the
recycling credits from the End-of-Life stage of the current life cycle (i.e. the
recycler) to the production stage of the next life cycle (i.e. the incorporator).
• The variation of results, observed in the figures hereunder, depends on whether the
credits are calculated at the production or at the end-of-life stage because of
different recycling rate and recycled content):
o The recycling credit at the end-of-life depends on the recycling rate (R2): the
higher is the recycling rate, the higher would be the credit.
o The recycling credit at the production stage depends on the recycled content
(R1): the higher is the recycled content, the higher is the credit.
o When the recycled content is equal to the recycling rate, according to the
equation 1, the allocation factor does not influence the results.

• When the recycling rate (R2 = 72.9%) is lower than the recycled content
(R1 = 80%), by increasing the allocation factor more credits are transferred to the
production stage and consequentially the total impact decreases. The grey line
decreases.
• When the recycling rate (R2 = 72.9%) is higher than the recycled content
(R1 = 40% and 60%), by increasing the allocation factor less credits are
transferred to the production stage and consequentially the total impact increases.
The blue and the orange lines increase.
Climate change
The combined influences of the allocation factor and recycled content is shown in Figure
18, Figure 19 and Figure 20 (for 25, 33 and 50cl respectively). The results vary in
conformity with what is explained in section V.3.3.
Figure 24: Influence of allocation factor and recycled content (by one thousand 25cl cans)


The combined influences of the allocation factor and recycled content is shown in Figure
27, Figure 28, and Figure 29 (for 25, 33 and 50cl respectively). The results vary in
conformity with what is explained in section V.3.3.

Resource depletion - water
The combined influences of the allocation factor and recycled content is shown in
Figure 30, Figure 31 and
Figure 32 (for 25, 33 and 50cl respectively). The results vary in conformity with what is
explained in section V.3.3.


V.3.4. Sensitivity analysis: yearly improvement
Context and limitations
The environmental results of the LCA study on aluminium beverage cans, carried out by
Thinkstep (former PE International) in 2009 for BCME/European Aluminium/APEAL18,
cannot be compared with the current one due to methodological differences such as the
impact categories and the inclusion of beer in the system boundary of the previous study.
Therefore, the purpose of this sensitivity analysis is to evaluate the environmental effect
of the technical improvements made by the metal packaging industry over the last 10
years (referring to the production years 2006 – 2016) from an LCA perspective.
The most relevant improvements of the metal packaging industry focus on the following
aspects:
- Weight of the beverage cans (both body and end)

- Weight of other materials (coating, lacquers, inks and sealing)
- Can manufacturing (electricity, thermal and water consumptions, scrap rate)
- Aluminium production
- Used beverage cans recycling rate
The sources of data used for the analysis are listed in the table below.
Table 13 Sources of the most relevant data for 2007 and 2017 scenarios
Parameters Scenario 1: 2006 Scenario 2: 2016

Data collected by PE
Weight, composition and Data collected for the
International and provided
manufacturing of the cans present study
by the can makers for 200619
Background dataset for
European Aluminium 2005 European Aluminium 2015
aluminium production
Data published by European Data published by European

Recycling rate
Aluminium in 2007 Aluminium in 2018
All the other parameters and

Data and datasets taken from the present study
datasets
It must be noted that the companies involved in the data collection for 2006 are not the
same ones that participated in the present study: in the previous study, data were
provided by Ball Packaging Europe, REXAM and Crown (which at that time represented
about 80% of the European market for beverage cans19) whereas in the present study
data were collected from Ball Packaging Europe, Crown and Ardagh Group.
18BCME, EAA, APEAL, PE International, Life Cycle Inventory and impact Analysis for Beverage Cans,
2009

It also must be noted that in order to ensure confidentiality of collected data as described
at paragraph IV.1.1, MPE was not involved in any data collection - neither for the
previous study nor for the current one - therefore MPE is not aware if any can beverage
plant participated in both studies.
Data used for 2006 and 2016 scenarios
The raw data for 2006, as provided by Thinkstep to MPE, refer to the same size of the cans
of the present study and are expressed per kg as well as per 1000 units.
Data comparison between 2006 and 2016 scenarios: the difference is due to the
improvements made by the metal packaging industry, however it cannot be excluded that
the different scopes or other factors (e.g. data collection modality, data definition, etc.) of
the studies may have an influence. MPE is not able to provide a deeper analysis of the data
discrepancy since MPE was not involved in any data collection - neither for the previous
study nor for the current one.
Environmental results of the life cycle of the cans
The analysis is provided for the base-case scenario of closed-loop (which corresponds to
the open-loop scenario with A=0%). The environmental results refer to the life cycle of the
cans as described in paragraph II.2.4.
The table below shows that the environmental impacts have been reduced for all indicators
and for each size of the cans. This is due to the combined effect of:
- A lower environmental impact of the aluminium production
- A lower weight of the body and the end of the can
- A lower energetic consumption of the can manufacturing
- A higher recycling rate at the end-of-life

Table 14 Environmental impacts between 2006 and 2016 scenarios per size of the cans
25 cl can 33 cl can 50 cl can
Indicators Unit
2006 2016 2006 2016 2006 2016
Climate change kg CO2 eq. 94.8 62.3 115.4 77.2 145.1 106.1
Eutrophication
Moles N eq. 1.17 0.58 1.60 0.72 1.97 0.95
terrestrial
Ecotoxicity
CTU 422.1 311.4 588.3 461.5 903.1 777.1
freshwater
Mass deficit of Soil
Land use 88.8 80.8 113.9 100.5 151.5 139.3
Organic Carbon
Ionizing radiation kg U235 eq. 3.3E-04 4.1E-05 4.0E-04 4.8E-05 4.9E-04 6.1E-05
Toxicity human CTU 2.3E-06 1.2E-06 2.9E-06 1.6E-06 3.6E-06 2.3E-06

Eutrophication
kg P eq. 2.8E-03 9.1E-04 3.3E-03 1.2E-03 3.8E-03 1.5E-03
freshwater
Acidification Moles H+ eq. 0.495 0.261 0.643 0.317 0.800 0.425
Respiratory
kg PM2.5 eq. 0.028 0.020 0.036 0.024 0.047 0.034
inorganics
Stratospheric
kg CFC11 eq. 5.6E-06 3.1E-06 6.6E-06 4.0E-06 8.1E-06 5.6E-06
ozone depletion
Photochemical
Mass C2H4 eq. 0.161 0.104 0.202 0.124 0.257 0.166
ozone formation
Eutrophication
kg N eq. 0.051 0.031 0.064 0.036 0.079 0.047
marine
Abiotic resource
kg Sb eq. 3.9E-03 2.5E-03 4.9E-03 3.0E-03 6.3E-03 4.0E-03
depletion
Water scarcity m3 water eq. 10.5 7.6 13.6 10.1 16.5 12.4
The following charts show the percentage of reduction for each format and impact
category.

Figure 33 Environmental impacts reduction between 2006 and 2016 scenarios for 25 cl can
Figure 34 Environmental impacts reduction between 2006 and 2016 scenarios for 33 cl
can
Figure 35 Environmental impacts reduction between 2006 and 2016 scenarios for 50 cl can

Detailed analysis for 33 cl can on Climate Change
For the 33 cl can, the improvements made from 2006 to 2016 show a reduction of 33% on
the total impact of climate change, as detailed in the table below.
Contribution to
Life Cycle stage Difference
total difference
Aluminium production -12% 38.7%
Other raw materials production +1% 0.4%
Body manufacturing -35% 18.5%
End manufacturing -2% 0.1%
Transport to fillers -3% 0.6%
EoL - Pre-consumer aluminium scrap -8% 0.5%
EoL - Post-consumer aluminium 30% 41.2%
Total -33% 100%
Table 15 Detailed climate change impact per life cycle stages – 33 cl can
The impact reduction of the aluminium production is 12% due to:

- Reduction of the aluminium production (per kg of aluminium): -2.9%
- Reduction of aluminium weight for body production: -3%
- Reduction of aluminium weight for end production: -6.3%
The impact of the Other raw materials production raises by 1%. This stage includes
the production of secondary packaging, which is identical in both scenarios, and the
production of solvent, ink and coating. The small variation comes from the increased
consumption in 2016 compared to 2006. It has a very low influence on the results.
The manufacturing stage shows the higher reduction of impact with -35%. This is
explained by the reduciton of electricity (-30%) and heat (-43%) consumptions.
The transport to the fillers shows a slightly lower impact (-3%) due to the mass
reduction of the cans.
The end-of-life stage shows a greater credit (+30%). Two effects are opposed here: the
higher recycling rate (from 50% to 73%) tends to increase the environmental credit,
however the lower environmental impact to produce virgin aluminium reduces the avoided
impact and overall the credit. The effect of the improved recycling rate is much higher than
the effect of the improved aluminium production, which confirms the increase of recycling
credit.
Contribution to the impact reduction per life cycle stage
On climate change per size of the cans

As seen above for the 33cl can (see column “Contribution to total difference” in Table 15),
the life cycle stages have different contribution to the total reduction of impact.

Differences can be observed between the 33cl can and the 25cl format:
- The contribution of the aluminium production is the lowest for the 25cl can. This is
explained by the lowest weight reduction (-1.6% for 25cl can versus -3.8% and -3.2%
respectively for 33cl and 50cl can).
- This is compensated by the higher contribution of the manufacturing stage mainly due
to the highest reduction of thermal energy consumption: -75% for the 25cl cans
(versus -40% for 33cl and -14% for 50cl can).
- Those effects compensate each other to provide a total impact reduction (-34%)
almost equivalent to the one observed for the 33cl can (-33%).
Differences can be observed between the 50cl can:
- The contribution of the aluminium production is relevant. This is explained by high

weight reduction (-3.2%) almost equivalent to the 33cl (-3.8%).
- The contribution of the manufacturing stage is lower than the ones of the two smaller
formats. This is explained by the low reduction of electricity and thermal energy
consumptions for this format (-6% and -14% respectively).
- The total impact reduction for the 50cl can (-27%) is the lowest observed among the
cans.
On different indicators per average size of the cans

Considering an average size of the cans, most of the contribution to the impact reduction
is given by the aluminium production, the credits at the end-of-life and the manufacturing
stages.
Figure 36. Contribution per life cycle stage to the total reduction of impact – All indicators (percentage gives the
total reduction of impact between scenario 2006 and scenario 2016). CC: Climate change - ET: Eutrophication
terrestrial - EcT: Ecotoxicity freshwater - LU: Land use - IR: Ionising radiation - TH: Toxicity human - EF:
Eutrophication freshwater - A: Acidification - RI: Respiratory inorganics - SOD: Stratospheric ozone depletion -
POF: Photochemical ozone formation - EM: Eutrophication marine - ADP: Abiotic resource depletion - WS:
Water scarcity

VI. Conclusions
Life Cycle Inventories (LCIs) have been calculated for three different volumes (e.g. 25, 33
and 50 cl) of aluminium beverage cans. Those LCIs must be used for LCA studies analysing
the European aluminium beverage cans.
The average results, three sensitivity analyses for different End-of-Life parameters, and an
assessment of the improvements made by the metal packaging industry over 10 years
have been calculated.
The system boundaries described in this study corresponds to: “cradle-to-gate + transport
to filling sites + End-of-Life”.
VI.1. Completeness and consistency check

VI.1.1. Completeness
Completeness checks were carried out at gate-to-gate system boundaries, analysing:

• The completeness of process steps as regards primary data provided by the
aluminium beverage cans manufacturers
• The energy, input materials as well as emissions from aluminium beverage cans
manufacturers. Note that in case where no data were available, average from
other plants or data from literature (as for the electrical mix) were used.
For more details, see section IV.
VI.1.2. Consistency
Several checks were made in order to validate the data received from the aluminium
beverage cans manufacturing plants.
When questionable data were identified, an email was sent to the manufacturing plant to
validate the data. Three types of data quality tests were performed as part of the data
validation process. These tests are presented in the section 0.
As regards the results, plausibility of the results and main source of impacts were assessed
having a critical view on data quality.
VI.2. Limitations
It is important to remind the future users of the results of the study that the recycling
credits are already included in the LCI, hence they should not be accounted additionally.
In this study the main limitations are related to the quality of the background datasets and
the approach to average the information collected from the involved members. The list of
limitations is detailed in paragraph III; the main limitations are listed below:

• Limitation due to potential methodological inconsistencies between background

databases
• Limitation due to the approach to average the information collected from the
different members.
• Limitation due to filling missing data
• Limitation due to simplified modelling for some minor raw materials

• Limitations due to the use of average recycling rate and recycling content
• Limitations due to the geographical scope
• Limitations due to non-regionalized water consumption
VI.3. Identification of significant issues

Depending on the impact category, the environmental impacts of the aluminium beverage
cans are mainly shared between the aluminium production and the cans manufacturing.
The key impacts are related to the primary aluminium production, which is an energy-
intensive process (about 15 MWh/ton for the electrolysis):
• The indirect GHG emissions and water consumption related to the electricity
consumption at smelting process
• The direct GHG emissions and water consumption related to the smelting process
and alumina production
• For the resources consumption, the main part of the impact of the aluminium
production is related to the consumption of fluorspar and bauxite.
At the cans manufacturing, the key impacts are related to the energy consumption and
the infrastructure:
• The indirect emissions linked to the consumption of electricity
• The direct and indirect emissions linked to respectively the consumption and
extraction of natural gas
• The direct emissions of NOX, SOX and VOC
• For the resources consumption, the main part of the impact of the manufacturing
phase is related to the consumption of indium and cadmium when building the
infrastructures of the plant. This seems overestimated and may be due to
assumptions on the use of rare elements for buildings.

VI.4. Recommendations
This assessment reflects the existing technical situation for the year 2016 representing
(as best assumption) 87% of the European production volume of aluminium beverage
cans.
The conditions of packaging manufacturing industry will change over time affecting the
energy and material inputs and subsequent emissions.
Therefore, it is recommended to perform frequent update of the LCIs (at least every 5
years).
In the next update of the study, it is recommended to collect more specific data of the cans
(including data on the surface of the cans) and to use a revised formula to better calculate
the contribution of the coatings on the aluminium beverage cans.

VII. Annex
VII.1.1. Electricity mix modelling
For each country, IEA provides data on the quantity of electricity that is produced, exported
and imported. Based on these three types of information, it is possible to determine the
electricity consumption mix. Electricity consumed is determined based on the following
formula:
elec produced + elec imported - elec exported.
The consumption mix is obtained from the combination of two production mixes:
• For the share that is imported (% imports), the mix to be assigned is
approximated by the continental production mix, assuming importations from
the corresponding continental market, on average.
• For the part of electricity that is consumed locally, i.e. that is not imported (1 -
% imports), the mix is taken equal to the production mix of the considered
country. The calculation is hence made according to the following formula:
Consumption mix = % imports * [continental mix] + (1 - % imports) * [country-specific
production mix]
In this study, the attributional approach is used to model the electricity mixes. In this
approach, the allocation between the consumers is uniform. In other words, in order to
answer the demand of a consumer, all power and heat plants in the country contribute
proportionally to their share in the national electricity generation on a yearly basis.
Electricity supply occurs at different voltage levels (110 V, 220 V...). Figures on total losses
come from IEA data sources (2009 data) and figures on the electricity losses for each of
the voltage levels are based on Ecoinvent modelling (7% of the total losses occur on high
voltage, 13% on medium voltage and 80% in low voltage levels).

Parameter Data Secondary datasets used in the LCA model
Electricity mix used to model the can body production by MPE members
Coal 35% 64% electricity production, hard coal, high voltage, DE, EI v3.4
36% electricity production, lignite, high voltage, DE, EI v3.4
Hydro 13% 5% electricity production, hydro, pumped storage high voltage, DE, EI v3.4
43% electricity production, hydro, reservoir, alpine region, high voltage, NO, EI
v3.4
8% electricity production, hydro, reservoir, non-alpine region, high voltage, SE, EI
v3.4
43% electricity production, hydro, run-of-river, high voltage, PL, EI v3.4
Gaz 20% 44% electricity production, natural gas, combined cycle power plant, high voltage,
IT; EI v3.4
36% electricity production, natural gas, conventional power plant, high voltage, IT;
EI v3.4
20% heat and power co-generation, biogas, gas engine; high voltage, IT ; EI v3.4
Nuclear 18% 93% electricity production, nuclear, pressure water reactor, high voltage, FR, EI
v3.4
7% electricity production, nuclear, boiling water reactor, high voltage, DE, EI v3.4
Oil 2% electricity production, oil, high voltage, GR, EI v3.4
Wind 13% 26% electricity production, wind, 1-3MW turbine, offshore, high voltage, DK, EI
v3.4
74% electricity production, wind, 1-3MW turbine, onshore, high voltage, DK, EI
v3.4
Electricity mix used to model the can ends production by MPE members
Coal 35% 64% electricity production, hard coal, high voltage, DE, EI v3.4
36% electricity production, lignite, high voltage, DE, EI v3.4
Hydro 5% 5% electricity production, hydro, pumped storage high voltage, DE, EI v3.4
43% electricity production, hydro, reservoir, alpine region, high voltage, NO, EI
v3.4
8% electricity production, hydro, reservoir, non-alpine region, high voltage, SE, EI
v3.4
43% electricity production, hydro, run-of-river, high voltage, PL, EI v3.4
Gaz 25% 44% electricity production, natural gas, combined cycle power plant, high voltage,
IT; EI v3.4
36% electricity production, natural gas, conventional power plant, high voltage, IT;
EI v3.4
20% heat and power co-generation, biogas, gas engine; high voltage, IT ; EI v3.4
Nuclear 22% 93% electricity production, nuclear, pressure water reactor, high voltage, FR, EI
v3.4
7% electricity production, nuclear, boiling water reactor, high voltage, DE, EI v3.4
Oil 2% electricity production, oil, high voltage, GR, EI v3.4
Wind 11% 26% electricity production, wind, 1-3MW turbine, offshore, high voltage, DK, EI
v3.4
74% electricity production, wind, 1-3MW turbine, onshore, high voltage, DK, EI
v3.4

VII.1.2. Datasets used
Product/process Type of activity Secondary dataset

Aluminium ingot EU-27: Aluminium ingot mix EAA update 2015
Aluminium
production (consumption mix), EU27, European aluminium
Aluminium sheet EU-27: Aluminium sheet [p-agg] EAA update
Aluminium
production 2015, EU27, European aluminium
Remelting & Casting of rolling scrap [p-agg]
Aluminium Aluminium remelting
EAA update 2015
treatment of waste aluminium, sanitary landfill,
Aluminium Aluminium landfill
CH - Switzerland, EI v3.4
treatment of scrap aluminium, municipal
Aluminium Aluminium incineration incineration, Europe without Switzerland -
Europe without Switzerland, EI v3.4
heat production, at hard coal industrial furnace
Heat production Heat production 1-10MW, Europe without Switzerland - Europe
without Switzerland, EI v3.4
heat production, natural gas, at industrial
furnace low-NOx >100kW, Europe without
Heat production Heat production
Switzerland - Europe without Switzerland, EI
v3.4
heat production, light fuel oil, at boiler 100kW,
Heat production Heat production non-modulating, Europe without Switzerland -
metal working machine production,
Metal working factory Machine production
unspecified, RER - Europe, EI v3.4
metal working factory construction, RER -
Metal working factory Factory production
Europe, EI v3.4
Inks, lacquers and hydroformylation of propylene, RER - Europe,
Other raw materials
sealings EI v3.4
Inks, lacquers and ethylene glycol monoethyl ether production,
Other raw materials
sealings RER - Europe, EI v3.4
Inks, lacquers and dimethylamine production, RER - Europe, EI
Other raw materials
sealings v3.4
Inks, lacquers and acetone production, liquid, RER - Europe, EI
Other raw materials
sealings v3.4
Inks, lacquers and solvent production, organic, RER - Europe, EI
Other raw materials
sealings v3.4
Inks, lacquers and
Other raw materials epoxy resin production, RER - Europe, EI v3.4
sealings
Inks, lacquers and acrylic varnish production, product in 87.5%
Other raw materials
sealings solution state, RER - Europe, EI v3.4
Inks, lacquers and polyester resin production, unsaturated, RER -
Other raw materials
sealings Europe, EI v3.4
Inks, lacquers and pigments, paper production, unspecified, at
Other raw materials
sealings plant, RER [#314], RER - Europe, EI v3.4
Inks, lacquers and
Other raw materials styrene production, RER - Europe, EI v3.4
sealings
Inks, lacquers and
Other raw materials butadiene production, RER - Europe, EI v3.4
sealings

Inks, lacquers and

Other raw materials paraffin production, RER - Europe, EI v3.4
sealings
Inks, lacquers and limestone production, crushed, washed, RER -
Other raw materials
sealings Europe, EI v3.4
Non hazardous waste treatment of municipal solid waste,
Other waste
incineration incineration, CH - Switzerland, EI v3.4
Non hazardous waste treatment of municipal solid waste, sanitary
Other waste
landfill landfill, CH - Switzerland, EI v3.4
Hazardous waste treatment of hazardous waste, hazardous
Other waste
incineration waste incineration, CH - Switzerland, EI v3.4
treatment of recovered paper to linerboard,
Secondary and
Linerboard recycling testliner, Europe without Switzerland - Europe
tertiary packaging
treatment of waste paperboard, sanitary
Secondary and landfill, Europe without Switzerland - Europe
Linerboard incineration
tertiary packaging without Switzerland, EI v3.4 (with CO2
correction from RDC)
treatment of waste polyethylene, sanitary
Secondary and
Polyethylene landfill landfill, Europe without Switzerland - Europe
tertiary packaging
treatment of waste polypropylene, sanitary
Secondary and
Polypropylene landfill landfill, Europe without Switzerland - Europe
tertiary packaging
treatment of waste polypropylene, municipal
Secondary and Polypropylene
incineration, Europe without Switzerland -
tertiary packaging incineration
treatment of waste wood, untreated, sanitary
Secondary and landfill, Europe without Switzerland - Europe
Wood incineration
tertiary packaging without Switzerland, EI v3.4 (with CO2
treatment of waste wood, untreated, municipal
Secondary and incineration, Europe without Switzerland -
Wood incineration
tertiary packaging Europe without Switzerland, EI v3.4 (with CO2
Secondary and Corrugated board linerboard production, kraftliner, RER - Europe,
tertiary packaging production EI v3.4
Secondary and Corrugated board treatment of recovered paper to linerboard,
tertiary packaging recycling testliner, RER - Europe, EI v3.4
Secondary and polyethylene production, low density,
Polyethylene production
tertiary packaging granulate, RER - Europe, EI v3.4
Secondary and polyethylene production, high density,
Polyethylene recycling
tertiary packaging granulate, recycled, RER - Europe, EI v3.4
Secondary and polypropylene production, granulate, RER -
Polypropylene production
tertiary packaging Europe, EI v3.4
Secondary and
Polypropylene moulding injection moulding, RER - Europe, EI v3.4
tertiary packaging
Secondary and EUR-flat pallet production, RER - Europe, EI
Wood pallet production
tertiary packaging v3.4

Secondary and
Wood pallet recycling Wood chips, softwood, RER - Europe, EI v3.4
tertiary packaging
transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton,
Transport Transport by truck
EURO5, RER - Europe, EI v3.4
transport, freight, lorry 16-32 metric ton,
Transport Transport by truck
EURO6, RER - Europe, EI v3.4
municipal waste collection service by 21 metric
Transport Transport for recycling
ton lorry, CH - Switzerland, EI v3.4
transport, freight train, electricity, Europe
Transport Transport by train without Switzerland - Europe without
Switzerland, EI v3.4
transport, freight train, diesel, Europe without
Transport Transport by train Switzerland - Europe without Switzerland, EI
v3.4
transport, freight, sea, transoceanic ship, RER -
Transport Transport by ship
Europe, EI v3.4
maintenance, freight ship, transoceanic, RER -
Europe, EI v3.4
port facilities construction, RER - Europe, EI
v3.4

VII.1.3. Critical review report




Al Cans

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Al Cans

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Al Cans

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life Cycle Assessment

March 2019 Final report Page 2 of 87

IV.2. Life cycle model description .......................................................................35

March 2019 Final report Page 3 of 87

VI.1.1. Completeness .................................................................................73

March 2019 Final report Page 4 of 87

Table 2: Geographical coverage: representativeness by country ...................... 17

March 2019 Final report Page 5 of 87

March 2019 Final report Page 6 of 87

March 2019 Final report Page 7 of 87

Allocation1 Partitioning the input or output flows of a process (e.g.

Characterization Factor derived from a characterization model which is applied to

Critical review1 Process intended to ensure consistency between a life cycle

Cut-off criteria1 Specification of the amount of material or energy flow or the

Energy flow1 Input to or output from a unit process or product system,

Functional unit1 Quantified performance of a product system for use as a

Impact category1 Class representing environmental issues of concern to which life

Primary data2 Directly measured or collected data from one or multiple

1 Source: Iso 14044

March 2019 Final report Page 8 of 87

Reference flow1 Measure of the outputs from processes in a given product

Sensitivity Systematic procedures for estimating the effects of the choices

System Set of criteria specifying which unit processes are part of a

2 Source: PEFCR guidance V6.3

March 2019 Final report Page 9 of 87

To accomplish this, MPE commissioned RDC Environment which is an independent

March 2019 Final report Page 10 of 87

II. Goal and scope of the study

▪ To increase the knowledge and to provide Metal Packaging Europe members

▪ Externally to Metal Packaging Europe:

▪ To communicate to external stakeholders the environmental impacts and

The study is not intended to support comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to

March 2019 Final report Page 11 of 87

II.2. Scope of the Study

II.2.1. Product system description

• Cradle-to-gate + transport to filling site + End-of-Life (blue box excluding the

March 2019 Final report Page 12 of 87

Figure 1: Life cycle flow diagram for the system analysed

II.2.2. Representative products

March 2019 Final report Page 13 of 87

II.2.3. Functional unit

II.2.4. System boundaries

II.2.5. Cut-off criteria

March 2019 Final report Page 14 of 87

II.2.6. Data quality requirements

Representativeness of the study

3 Analyst report: Jefferies Franchise note, December 2016. Chart 9

March 2019 Final report Page 15 of 87

March 2019 Final report Page 16 of 87

Data collection involved up to 26 manufacturing plants, distributed among 15 countries,

March 2019 Final report Page 17 of 87

▪ As regards the methodological consistency, most of the background datasets come

Uncertainty of the information

March 2019 Final report Page 18 of 87

▪ As regards the background databases, uncertainty is considered as low except for

Recycling allocation and End-of-Life modelling

March 2019 Final report Page 19 of 87

Recycling allocations and End-of-Life modelling of the post-

1. Base case: closed-loop scenario