300Module 4 of 7
Life Cycle Assessment for Packaging
ISO 14067 and GHG Protocol. How to scope, gather data, and interpret hotspot analyses.
7 minutes
lcaLesson Video
Life Cycle Assessment for Packaging
Module Content
Cover
Title (CourseTitle): Life Cycle Assessment for Packaging: ISO 14067 & GHG Protocol
Abstract: This research paper is a practitioner’s guide to planning and executing credible, packaging-specific LCAs and product carbon footprints (PCFs). It translates ISO 14040/44 and ISO 14067 into concrete steps for scoping, data collection, modelling (including end-of-life and recycling), and interpreting hotspots. It also maps alignment with the GHG Protocol Product and Scope 3 Standards, flags regional nuance (US/EU/UK), and supplies reusable checklists, data templates, calculator blueprints, and decision trees.
Intended readers (TargetSegments): Packaging engineers, senior designers, sustainability leads, LCA practitioners, brand managers, procurement & sourcing.
Assumptions & scope: Focus on primary and secondary FMCG packaging. Core impact category is climate change (GWP100) per ISO 14067; multi-impact LCIA options (TRACI, EF 3.1/ILCD) are referenced. Comparative assertions between packaging types require PCR/PEFCR consistency and critical review; this paper does not publish comparative claims for marketing. [1][2][3]
Regions covered: US, EU, UK (highlighted differences).
DepthTarget: Expert/Practitioner.
SourceTypesRequired: Official standards & regs, trade bodies, converter/OEM docs, peer-reviewed papers.
Last reviewed date: 10 August 2025.
1) Executive Summary
Most important insights
- Anchor methods early. For climate-only PCFs, use ISO 14067 with GWP100 factors (IPCC-consistent), and document all modelling choices (biogenic carbon, land-use change, capital goods, end-of-life allocation). [1]
- GHG Protocol alignment. For product-level accounting and for Category 1 (Purchased Goods & Services) in Scope 3, apply the Product Standard and Scope 3 Guidance; disclose sources of GWP factors and the ratio of primary to secondary data. [4][5]
- End-of-life drives results. Choice of EoL method (cut-off, substitution, or EU Circular Footprint Formula, CFF) can swing results substantially; CFF is mandated in PEF/EF contexts and balances burdens/credits via allocation factor A and energy factor B. [6][7]
- Data quality is your risk control. Apply ISO 14044 data-quality criteria and, where relevant, PEF Data Quality Rating (DQR) or a pedigree matrix; report representativeness (time/geo/tech), completeness, and uncertainty. [2][8][9]
- Material intensities vary widely. Order-of-magnitude benchmarks (indicative): EU corrugated ≈ 0.49 kg CO2e/kg; primary aluminium ≈ 14.8 kg CO2e/kg (2023 world avg), recycled aluminium far lower; virgin PET often 1.5–3.6 kg CO2e/kg; rPET cases around 0.45 kg CO2e/kg. Use with caution and cite your specific datasets. [10][11][12][13]
- Region matters. EU comparability pushes EF 3.1 (and CFF); US practice often uses TRACI 2.1; the UK leans on DEFRA conversion factors and OPRL/EPR labelling which can influence use-phase and EoL assumptions. [14][15][16]
- Standards are moving. The GHG Protocol is in an update process; EF methods moved to 3.1, with EPD programmes sunsetting EF 3.0 factors—track updates before publishing. [17][18]
Recommended near-term actions
- Lock goal/scope and functional unit; pre-decide EoL method (CFF vs cut-off/substitution) per market/disclosure need. [1][6]
- Build a supplier data pack (mass, spec, %RC, yield loss, energy by process, scrap fate, transport, inks/adhesives/films) and a data-quality rubric (DQR/pedigree). [2][8][9]
- Use authoritative factors: electricity (US EPA eGRID/DEFRA), freight (DEFRA), and compliant LCIA methods (EF 3.1, TRACI). [14][15][19]
- Pre-define hotspot rules: Pareto 80/20, scenario runs (recycled content, light-weighting, format switch, EoL rates), and uncertainty bands. [9]
Key risks & watch-outs (12–24 months)
- Method shifts (GHG Protocol updates; EF 3.1; EPR-driven EoL data changes). [17][18][20]
- Supplier data quality; regional electricity factors; recycling allocation controversies (credits vs cut-off vs CFF). [6][9]
2) Definitions & Concepts
Glossary (plain English)
- LCA (Life Cycle Assessment): ISO-standard method for quantifying environmental impacts across cradle-to-grave life cycle. [2]
- PCF (Product Carbon Footprint): Single-impact LCA for climate change (GWP100) per ISO 14067. [1]
- Functional unit / Reference flow: Quantified performance (e.g., 1 L delivered); reference flow is packaging amount needed for that function. [2]
- Primary vs secondary data: Measured/supplier-specific vs generic/industry-average; disclose mix. [5]
- CFF (Circular Footprint Formula): EF method allocating recycling/energy recovery burdens/credits via factors A, B and quality terms Qsin/Qsout. [6][7]
- DQR / Pedigree matrix: Data quality rating to score representativeness, precision, completeness, etc. [8][9]
Concept map
- Goal & scope → Functional unit → System boundary → Inventory (BOM, processes, transport, energy, wastes)
- LCIA method (GWP100; optional TRACI/EF) → Allocation (multi-output, recycling/CFF)
- Biogenic carbon & LUC → EoL scenarios → Hotspot & uncertainty → Reporting & critical review
3) Standards, Regulations, and Governance
Core standards
- ISO 14040/14044: Principles, framework, requirements for LCA. [2]
- ISO 14067:2018: Requirements/guidelines for product carbon footprints (GWP100, biogenic carbon, reporting). [1]
- GHG Protocol Product Standard + Scope 3 Guidance (Category 1 Purchased Goods & Services). [4][5]
- ISO 14025 / ISO/TS 14027: Type III EPDs and PCR development (if publishing comparative declarations). [21][22]
EU (PEF/EF) specifics
- 2013/179/EU and 2021 updates encourage PEF/OEF methods. [23][24]
- EF 3.1 LCIA method (JRC 2023 update) widely adopted; EF 3.0 CFs sunset in several EPD programmes. [14][18]
- CFF mandated in PEF contexts for EoL modelling. [6]
US specifics
- TRACI 2.1 LCIA method often used for multi-impact LCAs. [15]
- US electricity factors via EPA eGRID and regional sources. [25]
UK specifics
- DEFRA/BEIS GHG Conversion Factors for electricity/freight; align to UK disclosure practice. [19]
- OPRL/EPR labelling influences realistic EoL assumptions. [20]
What differs by region (snapshot)
| Topic | EU | US | UK |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preferred LCIA | EF 3.1 (PEF/PEFCR) | TRACI 2.1 | Often DEFRA + EF/TRACI as needed |
| EoL allocation | CFF mandated in EF studies | Cut-off/substitution common; TRACI agnostic | Similar to EU for comparability; EPR data steer scenarios |
| Electricity data | EU average/country mixes; EF datasets | US EPA eGRID | DEFRA grid factors |
| Label/EPR signals | PEF + national EPR | State-level variation | OPRL mandated labelling timeline |
Upcoming changes & timelines
- GHG Protocol corporate/scope 3 updates in progress; monitor before setting policy. [17]
- EF 3.1 now default in EU-facing declarations; EF 3.0 CFs sunset from 2024-09-01 in many EPDs. [18]
4) Evidence Base & Benchmarks
Representative benchmarks (use with care)
- Corrugated board (EU avg): ~0.49 kg CO2e/kg (491 kg/t). [10]
- Primary aluminium (global avg 2023): ~14.8 kg CO2e/kg; recycled aluminium far lower. [11][28]
- Virgin PET resin: typically 1.5–3.6 kg CO2e/kg (process/geo dependent). [12]
- Recycled PET (mechanical rPET) case: ~0.45 kg CO2e/kg (plant-specific). [13]
Method notes & conflicts
- EoL allocation sensitivity: cut-off vs substitution vs CFF produce different results; document choice/parameters (A, B, Q). [6][7]
- LCIA method choice: EF 3.1 for EU comparability; TRACI 2.1 common in US; avoid mixing methods within comparisons. [14][15]
5) Design & Production Implications
Rules of thumb (with citations)
- Mass is king for single-use packs; lightweighting often outperforms marginal process tweaks. [29][30]
- Electricity mix dominates many conversion hotspots—use regional or supplier-specific factors. [19][25]
- Model both recycled content and realistic EoL pathways (collection/sorting yields), not theoretical recyclability. [6][31][32]
Material/format trade-offs (qualitative)
- PET bottle vs Al can vs returnable glass: outcomes hinge on mass, recycling rates, grid mix, and trip counts; model locally. [29][33][34]
Manufacturability flags to collect data for
- Resin grade, %RC; film structure/thickness; adhesive/ink types & coatweights; forming yields & trim; wash-off/ink removal guidance; palletisation & cube; distribution modes/distances; avoided product loss. [31]
Supplier perspective
Provide spec sheets per component (mass, material, %RC), energy by process (kWh/kg), scrap rates/fates, transport lanes/modes, EoL evidence (sorting tests, guidance status). [31][32]
6) Sustainability & Compliance Considerations
- Recyclability guidance (APR, CEFLEX, OPRL) informs realistic EoL scenarios but is not an LCA method. [31][32][26]
- UK pEPR → mandatory labelling by 2026–27; model collection improvements as scenarios and document assumptions. [20]
- Comparative claims: favour EF coherence in EU (EF 3.1, CFF) and critical review; elsewhere ensure ISO 14067/14044 conformance and PCR if publishing EPDs. [6][14][21]
7) Workflow & Tooling
Checklists
A) Print-ready LCA data intake
- Component mass & material; %RC (pre/post-consumer); process list & yields; energy by step (kWh/kg), fuel by step; transport mode/distance; packaging efficiency (g per FU); waste fates; EoL split (recycle/energy/landfill) & evidence. [5][19][31]
B) Compliance & method
- Standard chosen (ISO 14067 vs PEF/EF); LCIA method (EF 3.1/TRACI); EoL method (CFF/cut-off/substitution) & parameters (A, B, Q); GWP source & version; biogenic carbon & LUC treatment; capital goods inclusion. [1][6][14]
Decision trees
- Select EoL approach: EU comparability → CFF; ISO PCF for design → cut-off or substitution depending on secondary markets; always document. [6]
- Choose LCIA: EU claim → EF 3.1; US internal → TRACI 2.1; global corporate → ISO 14067 (GWP100) + regional electricity factors. [1][14][15]
Calculator blueprints
- PCF aggregation: PCF = Σ(Activity × EF); maintain units alignment; cite GWP source/version. [5]
- Yield-loss correction: Effective mass = net good output / (1 − scrap); include scrap fate burdens/credits per EoL method. [2][6]
- CFF end-of-life (EF): Use Annex equation with parameters A, B, R1–R3, Qsin/Qsout, Qp; disclose defaults vs measured. [7]
- Uncertainty (pedigree): Parameter uncertainties → pedigree matrix → GSD² and Monte Carlo bands on hotspots. [9]
Template specs (RFQ data pack)
For each component—material spec; %RC target; energy per process; scrap rates; ink/adhesive coatweights; pallets & loads; lane map; certificates/tests (APR/CEFLEX). [31][32]
8) Category-Specific Guidance
Beverage (PET bottle vs Al can vs glass)
PET often lowest for GWP per FU in single-use when transport dominates; Al cans competitive with high recycling & decarbonised power; returnable glass improves with high trip counts and short loops. Model locally. [29][33][34]
Food (corrugated vs RPC)
Outcomes hinge on pool management (breakage, backhaul) and cleaning energy; no universal winner. [35][36]
Beauty (cartons, glass, polymers)
Glass heaviness amplifies distribution emissions; cartons efficient by mass; polymer choice should consider recyclability rules to avoid EoL penalties. [26][31]
9) Case Studies
Corrugated shipper vs RPC for produce (US)
Problem: Which format lowers GWP for fresh produce distribution?
Approach: ISO 14044-compliant comparative LCA (Quantis), TRACI; scenarios on pool return rates and cleaning energy. [36]
Result: No universal winner; key drivers were return logistics and wash energy—model operational realities.
Beverage primary (EU): PET vs Al vs glass
Approach: Literature synthesis and scenario analysis for %RC, recycling rates, and transport distances. [29][33][34]
Result: PET or Al often lowest depending on recycling & grid mix; returnable glass can win with high trips/local loops.
rPET vs virgin PET resin (EU plant)
Approach: Cradle-to-gate comparison using plant-specific LCI; verify with APR/peer studies. [13][37]
Result: ~70–80% lower GWP in specific cases; treat as plant-specific and report DQR.
10) Common Pitfalls & Red Flags
- Unstated functional unit/reference flow → apples-to-oranges comparisons. [2]
- Mixing LCIA methods (EF vs TRACI) within the same comparison. [14][15]
- Silent EoL assumptions (no disclosure of allocation or CFF parameters). [6][7]
- Ignoring electricity geography (using global averages for local conversion). [19][25]
- Treating “recyclable” as “recycled”—model actual collection/sorting/yield. [6][31][32]
15) References (primary standards first)
Primary: ISO 14067; ISO 14040/44; GHG Protocol Product & Scope 3; PEFCR Guidance (CFF); ILCD/EF 3.1; TRACI 2.1; DEFRA conversion factors; sector benchmarks (FEFCO, IAI, PET/rPET studies). Sources keyed in course notes as [1]–[39].
Appendices (Actionable assets)
A. Data request template (per component)
Material & grade; mass [g]; %RC; steps with energy [kWh/kg]/fuel [MJ/kg]; yields/scrap + fate; inks/coatings/adhesives [g/m²]; lanes (mode, distance); pallet & cube; EoL evidence (sorting tests, local schemes). [5][31][19]
B. Hotspot analysis protocol
Contribution analysis; 80/20; scenarios on %RC, mass, grid mix, EoL ±20 pp; CFF parameters A/B per EF defaults; quantify uncertainty bands (pedigree → GSD). [6][9]
C. “What to watch” checklist
Method locked (ISO 14067 or EF 3.1); GWP source/version cited; EoL method disclosed (CFF params if EF); data-quality table; electricity/freight factors regionalised; critical review if comparative. [1][6][14][21]