Life Cycle Assessment of the Look Fantastic Beauty Box packaging On behalf of The Hut Group December 2022
1 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Executive Summary MyCarbon, on-behalf of THG Eco, have performed a Life Cycle Assessment of the cradle to grave emissions for the previous and current packaging solutions for the Look Fantastic Beauty Box (LFBB). These results are tabulated in Table 1. Table 1: Previous and current LFBB packaging solution emissions *Note that the material acquisition and production emissions for the current packaging solution could not be separated, and so are both presented as material acquisition emissions **These results contain a 5% risk factor to account for uncertainties arising from data quality. Emissions Sources Previous solution (kg CO2e) Current solution (kg CO2e) % Difference Material acquisition 0.392 0.17* N/A Materials 0.375 N/A Transport of materials 0.017 N/A Production 0.011 N/A N/A Energy 0.011 N/A Distribution and storage 0.07 0.02 -69.23% Distribution 0.072 0.022 Use N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A End of Life 0.08 0.03 -61.43% Waste 0.08 0.03 Overall Results** 0.59 0.16 -72.48%
2 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk The total weight of paper/cardboard used in the previous packaging solution is 0.26kg. The total weight of paper/cardboard used in the current packaging solution is 0.10kg, representing a 61.40% decrease in weight. The total emissions of the previous LFBB packaging is 0.59 kg CO2e. The total emissions of the current LFBB packaging is 0.16 kg CO2e. This represents a 72.48% decrease in total emissions between the previous and current packaging solutions. The results include a 5% risk factor to account for uncertainties arising from data quality. Figure and Figure 2 are pie charts of the previous and current packaging solutions emissions by lifecycle stage. The key source of emissions for both solutions are associated with the material acquisition phase, accounting for 70.39% in the previous solution. Due to methodological limitations, the material acquisition and production phases of the current solution could not be separated, however, combined these account for 80.29% of total packaging emissions. Material Acquisition 70.39% Production 1.94% Distribution and storage 12.89% Use 0.00% End of Life 14.79% Previous LFBB packaging breakdown according to Lifecycle Stages Figure 1: Previous LFBB packaging breakdown by Lifecycle Stage Material Acquisition and Production 80.29% Distribution and storage 10.58% Use 0.00% End of Life 9.13% Current LFBB packaging breakdown according to Lifecycle Stages Figure 1: Current LFBB packaging breakdown by Lifecycle Stage
3 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Formal Notes Client: The Hut Group Date: 16.12.2022 Product: Look Fantastic Beauty Box previous and current packaging solutions The accuracy and integrity of this Life Cycle Assessment is directly related to the quality of the data provided by the client. Primary data representative of activities associated with the reporting product is used where available. In certain circumstances, secondary data in the form of estimates, extrapolations and/or industry averages is used where primary data is not available. ……………………………….. ……………………………….. Michael Greenhough Co-Found & Director | MyCarbon michael.greenhough@mycarbon.co.uk +44 (0) 7885 991779 James Cuomo Carbon Consultant | MyCarbon james.cuomo@mycarbon.co.uk 0330 174 3177
4 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. FORMAL NOTES .............................................................................................................................. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... 4 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 5 2. GOAL AND SCOPE .................................................................................................................. 7 2.1. GOAL OF THE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................7 2.2. SCOPE ..................................................................................................................................................7 2.2.1. Functions of the system...........................................................................................................7 2.2.2. Functional unit..........................................................................................................................7 2.2.3. System(s) to be Studied and their Boundaries ......................................................................7 2.2.4. Data Requirements ..................................................................................................................8 2.3. ALLOCATION ........................................................................................................................................8 2.4. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...........................................................................................................8 2.5. MATERIALITY THRESHOLD ................................................................................................................... 10 2.6. EXCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 10 3. LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 11 3.1. DATA COLLECTION AND QUALITY ...................................................................................................... 11 3.2. REFINING SYSTEM BOUNDARIES ......................................................................................................... 11 3.3. CALCULATION PROCEDURES .............................................................................................................. 12 3.4. DATA VALIDATION, ASSURANCE AND CRITICAL REVIEW ...................................................................... 13 3.5. UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................... 13 4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT........................................................................................................... 15 4.1. CATEGORY DEFINITION ...................................................................................................................... 15 4.2. CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................................................................ 15 4.3. CHARACTERISATION ........................................................................................................................... 15 4.4. VALUATION & WEIGHING ................................................................................................................... 15 5. EMISSIONS SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 17 5.1. SUMMARY OF ALL EMISSIONS .............................................................................................................. 17 5.2. PREVIOUS LFBB PACKAGING EMISSIONS SUMMARY ............................................................................. 18 5.3. CURRENT LFBB PACKAGING EMISSIONS SUMMARY .............................................................................. 19 6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION.......................................................................................... 21 6.1. HOTSPOT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 21 6.1.1. Previous LFBB packaging emissions hotspot analysis....................................................... 21 6.1.2. Current LFBB packaging emissions hotspot analysis ........................................................ 23 6.2. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 25 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 26 CONTACT DETAILS........................................................................................................................ 28 APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................................... 29
5 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk 1. Introduction LCA is a technique for assessing the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product, by: • Compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs of a system • Evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with those inputs and outputs • Interpreting the results of the inventory and impact phases in relation to the objectives of the study This is an LCA report commissioned by The Hut Group (THG) for the cradle to grave emissions of the previous and current packaging solutions for the Look Fantastic Beauty Box (LFBB). This assessment is produced by MyCarbon, a brand of Carbon Green Ltd, following a combination of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) protocol for life cycle assessment, ISO 14040, and ISO 14067 guidance, focusing specifically on the product carbon footprint. The purpose of this assessment is to quantify the CO2e emissions inclusive of CO2, CH4, N2O and any other significant GHGs identified. The scope of this LCA is cradle-to-grave, accounting for the emissions associated with the raw materials arriving at supplier facilities, to the end-of-life waste treatment of the product. Figure 2 and Figure 3 are high-level value stream maps for the previous and current LFBB packaging. This outlines the inputs and outputs of each life cycle phase. The key phases assessed in this LCA are the material acquisition from suppliers, the transport between supplier and THG facilities, and the end-of-life waste treatment of the product. Due to the nature of the packaging product, no use-phase emissions were identified and so this phase has been omitted from the value stream maps. Full details of the scope and boundary of this report are described in Section 2. Figure 2: High level value stream map for the previous LFBB packaging Supplier (China) Warehouse (Poland or UK) End user Outputs: Transportation Inputs: Transportation Inputs: Inner box Inner box Packaged product Tissue paper Tissue paper Outputs: Shredded paper Shredded paper Waste packaging Sticker Sticker End-of-life Product Supplier (UK) Transportation Outer box Outputs: Outputs: Outer box Packaged product Manufacturing Packaging Location Inputs / Outputs Material flow Processes Key
6 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Figure 3: High level value stream map for the current LFBB packaging This report follows the five main reporting principals as outlined by ISO 14040: • Precision: Measure of the variability of the data values for each data category ex- pressed. • Completeness: Percentage of locations reporting primary data from the potential number in existence for each data category in a unit process. • Representativeness: qualitative assessment of the degree to which the data set reflects the true population of interest. • Consistency: Qualitative assessment of how uniformly the study methodology is applied to the various components of the analysis. • Reproducibility: Qualitative assessment of the extent to which information about the methodology and data values allows an independent practitioner to reproduce the results reported in the study. Supplier (UK) Warehouse (Poland or UK) End user Outputs: Transportation Inputs: Transportation Inputs: Outer box Outer box Packaged product Tissue paper Outputs: Supplier (China) Transportation Product Waste packaging Outputs: Outputs: End-of-life Tissue paper Packaged product Manufacturing Packaging Location Inputs / Outputs Material flow Processes Key
7 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk 2. Goal and Scope 2.1. Goal of the Life Cycle Assessment The goal of this LCA is to determine the GHG emissions associated with the previous and current LFBB packaging, from cradle-to-grave. 2.2. Scope 2.2.1. Functions of the system The primary function of the LFBB packaging is to adequately secure the products within the Look Fantastic Beauty Box for transportation to the end customer. 2.2.2. Functional unit The main purpose for a functional unit is to provide a reference to which the input and output data are normalized. A functional unit of the system shall be clearly defined and measurable. The result of the measurement of the performance is the reference flow. Given that there are two products in this LCA, the functional units are: • The previous packaging associated with a single Look Fantastic Beauty Box, delivered to the end consumer. • The current packaging associated with a single Look Fantastic Beauty Box, delivered to the end consumer. 2.2.3. System(s) to be Studied and their Boundaries The system boundaries define the processes and operations, as well as the inputs and outputs to be considered in the LCA. The system boundary for this LCA is from cradle-to-grave. Primary suppliers – These are the suppliers providing the raw materials to the secondary suppliers. Secondary suppliers – These are the suppliers providing the product to THG operated warehouses. Cradle – This is the point at which raw materials are supplied to secondary suppliers, including the delivery from primary supplier locations. THG or its secondary suppliers does not have ownership or significant control over the extraction and pre-production of the raw materials which make up the LFBB packaging product. This LCA instead assumes the GHG emissions of the raw materials based on industry averages. Grave – This is the end-of-life waste treatment of the LFBB packaging.
8 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Across these system boundaries the following stages will be considered: - Material Acquisition – Production and transport - Production – Energy and direct emissions - Distribution and Storage - End-of-life – waste treatment 2.2.4. Data Requirements Primary data from the 2022 calendar year was used to calculate the product carbon footprint. 2.3. Allocation Emissions are allocated to a specific system based on the guidance provided in the GHG protocol. Allocation is required when systems overlap, and inputs / outputs are not easily distinguishable between the overlapping systems. There were no allocations necessary as part of this assessment. 2.4. Assumptions and Limitations Where possible, primary data has been used to calculate product emissions. In the instance that this data is not available, industry averages and assumptions have been used. The key assumptions used in the LCA process are listed within Table 2.
9 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Table 2: A list of key assumptions used in the LCA process Product Assumption Previous packaging outer box The double-sided tape contains equal quantities of silicone and paper and has an overall weight equal to the ripper strip. Previous packaging outer box and Current packaging inner box 3 g of ink is required per m2 of packaging [1]. Previous packaging inner box Any products made in Guangdong province have travelled 200 km to reach the factory location in Guangdong province. Previous packaging inner box and Current packaging tissue paper An average 20 ft shipping container was used, weighing 2.2 tonnes [2]. Previous packaging inner box The Polybag used to package the product weighs 0.025 kg. Previous packaging inner box The corrugated bulk outer box for distribution weighs 0.2 kg. Current packaging tissue paper The paper packaging for distribution weighs 0.1 kg per ream. Current packaging tissue paper 10 pallets of product per 20 ft shipping container [3]. All products All packaging of products is recycled at THG facilities. All products The weight of a wooden pallet is 22 kg [4]. All products The end-of-life waste treatment is based on EU averages [5]. All products Based on primary data from one supplier, a 15% scrap rate was assumed for the production of all products. All products Due to the lightweight nature of the products, distribution via shipping was assumed to be with a bulk carrier, with the additional weight of the containers added separately. All products A weighted average distance was used to calculate the emissions of distribution to THG warehouses from Secondary supplier locations. All products A weighted average distance was used to calculate the emissions of distribution to the end customer from THG warehouses.
10 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk 2.5. Materiality threshold A materiality threshold determines the point at which a source of GHG emissions is deemed insignificant, so that very minor sources of emissions do not demand the same time and effort as more significant sources. The materiality threshold for this LCA is set at 1% of total product GHG emissions. 2.6. Exclusions The following have been excluded from the LCA: - The carbon emissions associated with the production of reused packaging (i.e., pallets). The reuse of these means that it is responsible for significantly less than 1% of the total product footprint. - Overhead energy consumption at THG warehouses. The packaging products undergo manual assembly at THG warehouses and so are considered to consume negligible amounts of energy in this process. - Given the nature of a packaging product, no use-phase emissions have been accounted for.
11 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk 3. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis 3.1. Data Collection and Quality The GHG protocol for life cycle assessment uses five principles for assessment of data quality: - Technological representativeness: The degree to which the data reflects the actual technologies used in the process. - Geographical representativeness: The degree to which the data reflects actual geographic location of the processes within the inventory boundary (e.g., country or site). - Temporal representativeness: The degree to which the data reflects the actual time (e.g., year) or age of the process. - Completeness: The degree to which the data is statistically representative of the process sites. - Reliability: The degree to which the sources, data collection methods, and verification procedures used to obtain the data are dependable. This data quality assessment applies to the primary collected data and emissions factors. The emissions factors used in this LCA are listed in Table 10 within the appendix. Data Quality Statement: Technological representativeness was 90% based on the availability of primary data from the suppliers of raw materials and THG facilities. The remaining calculations are based on the use of secondary data and emissions factors. Geographical representativeness was high with 92% of emissions factors and activity data points located in the correct country or a global commodity average value. Temporal representativeness was high with 100% of emissions factors sourced since 2019. Reliability was high with 100% of data coming from high quality sources (government, peer-review, LCA databases or industry experts). The completeness of the data is representative of the life cycle assessed with cradle to grave analysis from the point of raw materials arriving at the Secondary suppliers’ facilities. In conclusion the data quality of the LCA study is deemed as high as all quality scores are 90% or higher. 3.2. Refining System Boundaries Reflecting the iterative nature of LCA, decisions regarding the data to be included shall be based on a sensitivity analysis to determine their significance, thereby verifying the initial analysis. The initial product system boundary shall be revised in accordance with the cut-off criteria established in the scope definition. The sensitivity analysis may result in: - The exclusion of life cycle stages or subsystems when lack of significance can be shown by the sensitivity analysis - The exclusion of material flows which lack significance to the outcome of the results of the study - The inclusion of new unit processes that are shown to be significant in the sensitivity analysis
12 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk The system boundaries were unchanged following the sensitivity analysis. Recommendations for further analysis are as follows: - Improved data collection from Primary suppliers so that industry averages for material extraction and pre-processing are not required. - Improved data collection from Secondary suppliers so that industry averages for production of packaging materials are not required. 3.3. Calculation Procedures Calculations of the product carbon footprints have been conducted using standard practices. Standard practice requires multiplication of activity data with high quality industry average emissions factors or direct measurement of GHG emissions. Additional features of the calculation practice conducted in this life cycle assessment: - Cradle-to-grave assessment has been completed. - 100-year global warming potentials (GWP) have been used in the calculation process. The calculation methodologies for the life cycle assessment are listed in Table 3. Table 3: Summary of the calculation methodology used in the LCA Emissions Source Method Raw material acquisition and preproduction All raw materials and pre-production emissions were calculated based on weight / volume of material purchased / used and multiplied by the appropriate emissions factor as listed in Table 10 within the appendix. This includes the upstream and downstream packaging raw materials. Production All emissions from the production of the packaging products at secondary supplier locations were calculated based on a combination of primary data and industry averages, adapted for the weight / size of the product. Transportation All distribution emissions have been calculated based on the weight of the products (inclusive of packaging) and the weighted average distance travelled for each type of vehicle. This was then multiplied by the appropriate emissions factor as listed in Table 10. End-of-life (waste) The emissions associated with the waste treatment of the LFBB packaging products was calculated based on the weight, material type and average recycling rate for the EU, detailed in Table 10.
13 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk 3.4. Data Validation, Assurance and Critical Review During the process of data collection, a permanent and iterative check on data validity is conducted. Validation may involve establishing, for example, mass balances, energy balances and/or comparative analysis of emission factors. Obvious anomalies in the data appearing from such validation procedures shall result in data values complying with the data quality requirements as established. Assurance has been conducted by MyCarbon for THG. This is classed a first party assurance classification due to the production of the inventory report and assurance by the same party. The assurer for this assessment is Michael Greenhough, a competent engineer with significant knowledge and experience of corporate GHG accounting and life cycle assessments. Michael Greenhough did not complete the initial inventory so is classed as an independent first party assurer. MyCarbon have included all emissions factors in this report to aid the assurance process. This checklist is listed in Table 11 within the appendix and ensures transparency as required by the chosen reporting methodology. Due to the nature of first party assurance, the assurance process in this instance is a qualitative assessment of the life cycle assessment, calculations and alignment to the chosen reporting standards as listed in Table 11. THG have two options to ensure the validity of the findings of this report and any statements made about the carbon footprint of the LFBB packaging products using this report are valid and true. Option 1 is to make this report publicly available in an easy to access setting and that any statements relating to the LFBB packaging products carbon footprint reference this report and where it can be located. Option 2 is to receive 3rd party verification by a competent individual or organization to the applicable standard. 3.5. Uncertainty Assessment Table 4 lists the uncertainties that must be assessed as part of the life cycle process. Due to the uncertainty highlighted in the activity data, a 5% error has been applied to increase the overall carbon footprint across all cradle-to-grave phases.
14 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Table 4: Summary of uncertainty analysis Category Uncertainty Factor Uncertainty Statement Risk (%) Parameter Uncertainty Direct emissions data No direct emissions data collected 0 Parameter Uncertainty Activity data Conservative estimates used where primary activity data could not be collected. Bill of materials, process routing, waste streams and distribution streams are all precise. Primary uncertainty arises from the acquisition and pre-production of raw materials, with limited information on these processes. 5 Parameter Uncertainty Emissions factor data High quality emissions factors have a high level of uncertainty balanced in the positive and negative directions. This assessment will not include any additional risk for the use of emissions factors. 0 Parameter Uncertainty Global warming potential (GWP) factors Primary source of GWP data included in emissions factors is from DEFRA. DEFRA includes all key GHG factors, but this is a broad industry average and therefore carries uncertainty that is equal and opposite in the uncertainty distribution. 0 Scenario Uncertainty Methodological Choice No uncertainty assigned. 0 Model Uncertainty Model limitations Standard carbon footprinting process of primary data multiplied by industry average emissions factors used. 0 Summary Overall risk applied to the total carbon footprint to account for the above uncertainty categories is 5% for the entire footprint. 5
15 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk 4. Impact Assessment 4.1. Category Definition The aim of this section is to provide guidance for selecting and defining the environmental categories. In this report, the dedicated category can be considered as carbon footprint of the partial systems in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. Due to the single category assessed within the system boundaries the impact assessment will not be conducted but the section is included in case of future expansion into other categories for the chosen product. 4.2. Classification The classification element aims to assign inventory input and output data to categories. In this case this section is not applicable. 4.3. Characterisation The goal of characterisation is to model categories in terms of indicators, and, if possible, to provide a basis for the aggregation of the inventory input and output within the category. This is also done in terms of the indicator to represent an overall change or loading to that category. The result of characterization is that the combination of category indicators represents initial loading and resource depletion profile. In this case this section is not applicable. 4.4. Valuation & Weighing Weighting aims to rank, weight, or, possible, aggregate the results of different life cycle impact assessment categories in order to arrive at the relative importance of these different results. In this case this section is not applicable.
16 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Findings and Hotspot Analysis
17 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk 5. Emissions Summary 5.1. Summary of all emissions MyCarbon, on-behalf of The Hut Group, has performed a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the cradle to grave emissions for the previous and current packaging solutions for the Look Fantastic Beauty Box (LFBB). These results are listed in Table 5. The total weight of paper/cardboard used in the previous packaging solution is 0.26 kg. The total weight of paper/cardboard used in the current packaging solution is 0.10 kg, representing a 61.40% decrease in weight. The total emissions of the previous LFBB packaging are 0.59 kg CO2e. The total emissions of the current LFBB packaging are 0.16 kg CO2e. This represents a 72.48% decrease in total emissions between the previous and current packaging solutions. The results include a 5% risk factor to account for uncertainties arising from data quality. Table 5: Previous and current LFBB packaging solution emissions Emissions Sources Previous solution (kg CO2e) Current solution (kg CO2e) % Difference Material acquisition 0.39 0.10* N/A Materials 0.37 N/A Transport of materials 0.02 N/A Production 0.01 N/A N/A Energy 0.01 N/A Distribution and storage 0.07 0.02 -69.23% Distribution 0.07 0.02 Use N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A End-of-Life 0.08 0.03 -61.43% Waste 0.08 0.03 Total** 0.59 0.16 -72.48% *Note that the material acquisition and production emissions for the current packaging solution could not be separated, and so are both presented as material acquisition emissions **These results contain a 5% risk factor to account for uncertainties arising from data quality.
18 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk 5.2. Previous LFBB packaging emissions summary The total emissions associated with the previous LFBB packaging are listed in Table 6. The total emissions of the previous LFBB packaging are 0.59 kg CO2e. Figure 4 is a pie chart segmenting the proportion of these emissions by lifecycle stage. Material acquisition was the main source of emissions, accounting for 70.39% (0.39 kg CO2e). The second and third highest sources of emissions were the end-of-life and distribution and storage phases, accounting for 14.79% (0.08 kg CO2e) and 12.89% (0.07 kg CO2e) respectively. The production phase at secondary supplier locations accounted for 1.94% (0.01 kg CO2e) of total product emissions. Table 6: Previous LFBB packaging emissions Emissions Sources Previous packaging (kg CO2e) % Of total footprint Material acquisition 0.39 70.43% Materials 0.37 Transport of materials 0.02 Production 0.01 1.94% Energy 0.01 Distribution and storage 0.07 12.87% Distribution 0.07 Use N/A N/A N/A N/A End-of-Life 0.08 14.76% Waste 0.08 Total* 0.59 100% *These results contain a 5% risk factor to account for uncertainties arising from data quality.
19 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Figure 4: Previous LFBB packaging split by Lifecycle Stage 5.3. Current LFBB packaging emissions summary The total emissions associated with the current LFBB packaging are listed in Table 7. The total emissions of the current LFBB packaging are 0.16 kg CO2e. Figure 5 is a pie chart segmenting the proportion of these emissions by lifecycle stage. Due to methodological limitations, the material acquisition and production phases of the current solution could not be separated, however, combined these account for 64.92% (0.10 kg CO2e) of total packaging emissions. The second and third highest sources of emissions were the end-of-life and distribution and storage phases, accounting for 20.69% (0.03 kg CO2e) and 14.39% (0.02 kg CO2e) respectively. Material Acquisition 70.43% Production 1.94% Distribution and storage 12.87% Use 0.00% End of Life 14.76% Previous LFBB packaging breakdown according to Lifecycle Stages
20 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Table 7: Current LFBB packaging emissions Emissions Sources: Current packaging (kg CO2e) % Of total footprint Material acquisition and Production 0.10 64.92% Combined 0.10 Distribution and storage 0.02 14.39% Distribution 0.07 Use N/A N/A N/A N/A End-of-Life 0.03 20.69% Waste 0.03 Total* 0.16 100% *These results contain a 5% risk factor to account for uncertainties arising from data quality. Figure 5: Current LFBB packaging split by Lifecycle Stage Material Acquisition and Production 64.92% Distribution and storage 14.39% Use 0.00% End of Life 20.69% Current LFBB packaging breakdown according to Lifecycle Stages
21 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk 6. Discussion and Conclusion 6.1. Hotspot Analysis Hotspot analysis assesses the main sources of emissions and provides suggestions for reduction activities or additional research. 6.1.1. Previous LFBB packaging emissions hotspot analysis The emissions of the LFBB previous packaging are listed by component in Table 8. The previous LFBB packaging consists of a corrugated outer box and a rigid inner box (filled with tissue paper, shredded paper, and a sticker). The emissions associated with the tissue paper, shredded paper and sticker are included in the inner box emissions, as these are all purchased from the same supplier as a single unit. Figure 6 is a pie chart of the emissions for the LFBB packaging by component. The inner box is responsible for 77.07% (0.45 kg CO2e) of total product emissions, whilst the outer box is responsible for the remaining 22.93% (0.13 kg CO2e). The inner box has a total weight of 0.18 kg (68.2% of packaging total), whilst the outer box has a total weight of 0.084 kg (31.8% of packaging total). Given that this packaging is no longer in use, no further reccommendations on how to reduce these emissions have been made.
22 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Table 8: Previous LFBB packaging emissions by component Emissions Sources: Inner box (kg CO2e) Outer box (kg CO2e) Material acquisition 0.30 0.09 Materials 0.29 0.09 Transport of materials 0.02 0.00001 Production 0.01 0.002 Energy 0.01 0.002 Distribution and storage 0.06 0.01 Distribution 0.06 0.01 Use N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A End-of-Life 0.06 0.03 Waste 0.06 0.03 Total* 0.45 0.13 *These results contain a 5% risk factor to account for uncertainties arising from data quality.
23 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Figure 6: Previous LFBB packaging emissions by component 6.1.2. Current LFBB packaging emissions hotspot analysis The emissions of the LFBB current packaging are listed by component in Table 9. The current LFBB packaging consists of an outer box and tissue paper. Figure 7 is a pie chart of the emissions for the LFBB packaging by component. The outer box is responsible for 77.36% (0.12 kg CO2e) of total product emissions, whilst the tissue paper is responsible for the remaining 22.64% (0.04 kg CO2e). The outer box has a total weight of 0.086 kg (86% of packaging total), whilst the tissue paper has a total weight of 0.014 kg (14% of packaging total). A conservative industry average for the tissue paper material acquisition and production was used due to a lack of data from the supplier. If THG were able to obtain supplier-specific data for this, then the total carbon footprint of this product could be reduced. Additionally, if this product was sourced from the UK instead of China, then the distribution and storage emissions could be reduced. The paper and board content used in the outer box consists of 46.5% recycled material. If THG were able to source this from fully recycled material, then the carbon footprint of the outer box could be reduced by 4%. Inner box 77.07% Outer box 22.93% Previous LFBB packaging breakdown by component
24 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Table 9: Current LFBB packaging emissions by component Emissions Sources Outer box (kg CO2e) Tissue paper (kg CO2e) Material acquisition 0.07 0.03 Materials 0.07 N/A Transport of materials 0.00001 N/A Production 0.001 N/A Energy 0.001 N/A Distribution and storage 0.02 0.004 Distribution 0.02 0.01 Use N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A End-of-Life 0.03 0.004 Waste 0.03 0.03 Total* 0.12 0.04 *These results contain a 5% risk factor to account for uncertainties arising from data quality.
25 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Figure 7: Current LFBB packaging emissions by component 6.2. Conclusions & Recommendations The results from the LCA are described in Section 5. The conclusions that can be drawn from this data are as follows: - The total cradle-to-grave emissions of the previous LFBB packaging are 0.59 kg CO2e. - The total cradle-to-grave emissions of the current LFBB packaging are 0.16 kg CO2e. - The main source of emissions for the previous LFBB packaging is material acquisition (0.39 kg CO2e or 70.39%). - The main source of emissions for the current LFBB packaging is material acquisition/production (0.10 kg CO2e or 64.92%). - There is a 72.48% decrease in emissions from the previous LFBB packaging compared to the to the current packaging. - There is a 61.40% decrease in paper/cardboard weight from the previous LFBB packaging compared to the to the current packaging. - THG could reduce the material acquisition and production emissions of the tissue paper in the current packaging by obtaining supplier specific data instead of using an industry average. This could also be achieved by sourcing the material from the UK instead of China. - THG could reduce the emissions of the outer box in the current packaging by sourcing 100% recycled paper/cardboard instead of the 46.5% currently used. Outer box 77.36% Tissue paper 22.64% Current LFBB packaging breakdown by component
26 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk References [1] Colour Logic, “What is the estimated ink coverage per square metre, for your BEST Offset Silver ink?,” 10 03 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.colorlogic.com/support/faqs/files/56e72fcf9f5d30efbfd3df4fe454595b-41.html. [Accessed 15 12 2022]. [2] Budget Shipping Containers, “How much does a shipping container weigh?,” 06 06 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.budgetshippingcontainers.co.uk/info/howmuch-does-a-shipping-container-weigh/?cn-reloaded=1. [Accessed 15 12 2022]. [3] Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, “Pallet Information and Calculation for Exporters,” [Online]. Available: https://www.fdacs.gov/content/download/60443/file/PalletInformationAndCalculation. pdf. [Accessed 15 12 2022]. [4] Rose Pallet, “Does Pallet Weight Really Matter?,” [Online]. Available: https://www.rosepallet.com/blog/palletweight/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20standard%20wooden%20pallets,pallets%20c an%20bear%203%2C000%20lbs.. [Accessed 151 12 2022]. [5] European Union: Eurostat, “Plastic packaging waste,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-202210201#:~:text=Plastic%20packaging%20waste%3A%2038%25%20recycled,2020%20%2D %20Products%20Eurostat%20News%20%2D%20Eurostat. [Accessed 15 12 2022]. [6] DEFRA, “Greenhouse gas reporting: conversion factors 2022,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversionfactors-2022. [Accessed 11 2022]. [7] Statista, “Recycling rate of paper and cardboard packaging waste in the European Union from 2005 to 2019,” 03 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/974705/recycling-rate-of-paper-and-cardboardpackaging-waste-in-the-eu/. [Accessed 15 12 2022]. [8] Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, “List of Grid Emission Factors, version 11.0,” 10 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.iges.or.jp/en/pub/list-grid-emissionfactor/en. [Accessed 15 12 2022]. [9] European Printing Inks Association, “Life Cycle Assessment of Printing Inks: a generic reference,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://cepe.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/09/20012020-Eco-Footprint-and-Screening-of-Virtualreference-Leaflet-RM.pdf. [Accessed 15 12 2022]. [10] K. E. Tomberlin, R. Vendetti and Y. Yao, “Life cycle carbon footprint analysis of pulp and paper grades in the United States using production-line-based data and integration,” BioResources, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 3899-3914, 2020. [11] J. Yang, Y. Hua, J. Ye, S. Xu and Z. Liu, “CO2 Emissions Accounting and Carbon Peak Prediction of,” Forests, vol. 13, p. 1856, 2022. [12] C. Chen, R. Qiu and J. Gan, “Energy use and CO2 emissions in China’s pulp and paper industry:,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Architecture and Environmental Engineering (ICCAE2016), Taipai, 2017.
27 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk [13] A. Nabinger, K. Tomberlin, R. Venditti and Y. Yao, “Using a Data-Driven Approach to Unveil Greenhouse Gas Emission,” in 26th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference, West Lafayette, 2019.
28 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Contact Details Client Company Name: The Hut Group (Look Fantastic) Point of Contact: Lou Crane Title: Head of packaging Email: Lou.crane@thehutgroup.com Phone: 07780229538;01606338197 James Cuomo Carbon Consultant at MyCarbon james.cuomo@mycarbon.co.uk | +44 (0) 7885 991779 --- Michael Greenhough Co-Found & Director at MyCarbon Michael.greenhough@mycarbon.co.uk | +44 (0) 7885 991779 --- Adam Lowe Account Manager – Client Services at The Hut Group adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com | +44 (0) 1615 117520
29 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Appendix Table 10: Data quality assessment of Emissions factors and secondary data Category Type Country Value Unit Year Reference All HGVs, 100% laden Emissions factor UK 0.0001 kg CO2e / kg.km 2022 [2] All HGVs, 50% laden Emissions factor UK 0.0001 kg CO2e / kg.km 2022 [2] All HGVs, average laden Emissions factor UK 0.0001 kg CO2e / kg.km 2022 [2] Average EU paper waste Emissions factor EU 0.32 kg CO2e / kg 2019 [3] Average EU plastic waste Emissions factor EU 0.01 kg CO2e / kg 2020 [4] Bulk carrier (average) Emissions factor UK 0.000004 kg CO2e / kg.km 2022 [2] China grid electricity Emissions factor China 0.85 kg CO2e / kg 2022 [5] Ink (general) Emissions factor EU 3.26 kg CO2e / kg 2020 [6] Paper and board: board (non-recycled) Emissions factor UK 0.83 kg CO2e / kg 2022 [2] Paper and board: board (recycled) Emissions factor UK 0.72 kg CO2e / kg 2022 [2] Paper and board: paper (non-recycled) Emissions factor UK 0.92 kg CO2e / kg 2022 [2] Paper and board: paper (recycled) Emissions factor UK 0.74 kg CO2e / kg 2022 [2] Plastics: average plastics Emissions factor UK 3.12 kg CO2e / kg 2022 [2] Plastics: LDPE and LLDPE (incl. forming) Emissions factor UK 2.60 kg CO2e / kg 2022 [2] Plastics: PET (incl. forming) Emissions factor UK 4.03 kg CO2e / kg 2022 [2] Plastics: PP (incl. forming) Emissions factor UK 3.10 kg CO2e / kg 2022 [2] Plastics: PVC (incl. forming) Emissions factor UK 3.41 kg CO2e / kg 2022 [2]
30 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Category Type Country Value Unit Year Reference Tissue paper Emissions factor US 1.72 kg CO2e / kg 2020 [7] UK grid electricity Emissions factor UK 0.19 kg CO2e/kWh 2022 [2] Waste (average plastics) - landfill Emissions factor UK 0.01 kg CO2e / kg 2022 [2] Waste (general) - Recycling Emissions factor UK 0.02 kg CO2e / kg 2022 [2] Waste (paper and board) - Closed-loop Emissions factor UK 0.02 kg CO2e / kg 2022 [2] Waste (paper and board) - Landfill Emissions factor UK 1.04 kg CO2e / kg 2022 [2] Waste: PP (landfill) Emissions factor UK 0.01 kg CO2e / kg 2022 [2] Average shipping container weight Secondary data Worldwide 2.2 Tonnes 2016 [8] Average pallet weight Secondary data Worldwide 22 kg Unknown [9] Pallets in a shipping container Secondary data Worldwide 10 Pallets / shipping container Unknown [10] Table 11: MyCarbon Assurance Requirements Checklist Requirements Report Location GHG Protocol ISO 14040 ISO14067 Assured Contact Information Contact Details Applicable Applicable Applicable MG Product name and description Introduction Applicable Applicable Applicable MG Unit of Analysis and reference flow Introduction Applicable Applicable Applicable MG Type of inventory e.g., cradle to grave? Introduction Applicable Applicable Applicable MG
31 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Requirements Report Location GHG Protocol ISO 14040 ISO14067 Assured GHG's included in the assessment (impact) Introduction Applicable Applicable Applicable MG Product or sector specific guidance Introduction Applicable MG Inventory date and version / previous versions Scope Applicable Applicable Applicable MG Usage limitation disclaimer Scope Applicable Applicable Applicable MG Life cycle stage definitions and descriptions Scope Applicable MG Process maps and attributable process overview Introduction Applicable Applicable Applicable MG Excluded processes and justifications Scope Applicable Applicable Applicable MG Justification of boundaries and assumptions Scope Applicable Applicable Applicable MG Time period Scope Applicable Applicable Applicable MG Emissions allocation Inventory Analysis Applicable Applicable Applicable MG Data collection and quality Inventory Analysis Applicable Applicable Applicable MG Uncertainty Statement Inventory Analysis Applicable MG Emissions factor overview Inventory Analysis Applicable MG Total / % CO2e inventory by stage Life cycle inventory Applicable MG Biogenic vs nonbiogenic emissions Not applicable Applicable MG Assurance statement Inventory Analysis Applicable MG Reduction outcomes where applicable Discussion Applicable MG Hotspot analysis Discussion Applicable MG Goal of LCA Introduction Applicable Applicable MG LCA impact assessment Impact Assessment Applicable Applicable MG LCA interpretation Discussion Applicable Applicable MG
32 Life Cycle Assessment www.thg.eco www.mycarbon.co.uk adam.lowe3@thehutgroup.com info@mycarbon.co.uk Requirements Report Location GHG Protocol ISO 14040 ISO14067 Assured Critical review Inventory Analysis Applicable Applicable MG Functional unit definition Scope Applicable Applicable MG Refinement of system boundaries Inventory Analysis Applicable Applicable MG Calculation procedures Inventory Analysis Applicable Applicable MG Data validation Inventory Analysis Applicable Applicable MG Assurance Completed by Michael Greenhough - MG 12.12.2022
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY2MTQwOA==