All India Glass Manufacturer‘s Federation

LCA of Container Glass and comparison All India Glass with PET, Beverage Carton, Pouch and Al Manufacturer’s Federation, Can New Delhi India

Jürgen Stichling, Global Head of Consulting Services, PE International AG, Germany Rajesh Singh, Managing Director, PE Sustainability Solutions Pvt Ltd, India 1. Introduction to LCA 2. AIGMF Study 1. Goal and Scope 2. System Boundary 3. Results and Comparison 4. Conclusion 3. Introduction to PE International 4. Q&A

Sustainability Leaders Perform Better

80% of sustainability leaders gain a competitive advantage from investing in sustainable products

*McKinsey Survey, July 2011

15.05.2012 3 Principles of Life Cycle Assessment What is LCA? LCA

Definition of Life Cycle Assessment from DIN ISO 14044:

Life Cycle Assessment is the compiling and evaluation of the input and outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system during its lifetime.

4 Principles of Life Cycle Assessment The concept of Life Cycle Thinking

Intermediates Manufacturing

Raw materials

Deposit Recycling Use

5 Principles of Life Cycle Assessment The Framework

“Cradle to grave“ “cradle to gate”

Phases of the Production phase Use phase End of Life life cycle

Disposal Life cycle Preparation of Manufacturing Production Use Recycling stages raw materials Pre-products Deposition

I N P U T R e s o u r c e s Inventory analysis O U T P U T E m i s s i o n s a n d W a s t e

Energy consumption, Raw material consumption, Impact Greenhouse effect, Summer smog, Acidification, Over fertilisation, assessment Environmental toxins, Waste etc.

15.05.2012 6 1. Introduction to LCA 2. AIGMF Study 1. Goal and Scope 2. System Boundary 3. Results and Comparison 4. Conclusion 3. Introduction to PE International 4. Q&A

Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging AIGMF LCA Study: Goal and Scope

Objective • To evaluate the environmental profile of glass, determine improvement opportunities • External communication of product environmental attributes for enhancing the green brand of glass product, provide foundation for meaningful use of LCA results to project the green image of the product amongst consumers and other stakeholders. • Independent Review by Panel of International Experts • Comparison with alternative packaging materials such as PET, beverage carton, pouch, Al Can

Life cycle assessment framework

Goal and Coverage of study Scope Definition Scope, functional unit, reference flow, time frame,

geographical boundary, data requirements Inventory Interpretation Analysis

Audience Impact Assessment Internal, external

15.05.2012 8

Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging AIGMF LCA Study: Goal and Scope

Functional unit Comparable size of container glass (amber, flint, green) and alternative packaging products (Beverage Carton, PET and Pouch) Time coverage 2010-11 Geographical coverage 72% of Indian production mix (48 furnaces; 2.8m tons) Independent Review LCA study and comparative assessment

[Source: www.gpi.org/...] 9 Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging AIGMF LCA Study: Goal and Scope

ISO 14040/44 compliant study Third party critical review panel comprising three independent experts: • Prof. Dr. Matthias Finkbeiner, Technische Universerität Berlin - Department of Environmental Technology - Chair of Sustainable Engineering (Panel Chair) • Mr. Matthias Fischer, Head of Department - Life Cycle Engineering, Fraunhofer IBP and University of Stuttgart, LBP and • Mr. VS Mathur, General Manager, Quality and Environmental, Crop Nutrition and Agri Business, Tata Chemicals Limited, Babrala, India,

[Source: www.gpi.org/...] 10 1. Introduction to LCA 2. AIGMF Study 1. Goal and Scope 2. System Boundary 3. Results and Comparison 4. Conclusion 3. Introduction to PE International 4. Q&A

Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging Scope / System Boundaries

[Source: www.gpi.org/...] 12 Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging Functional units or Stock Keeping Units (SKUs)

Bottle type Glass Bottle

Packaging Size (ml) 20 60 120 180 200 330 500 750 Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Packaging Use syrup syrup syrup Liquor Juice Beer Ketchup Liquor

Bottle type PET Bottle

Packaging Size (ml) 20 60 120 180 500 750 Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Pharmaceutical Packaging Use syrup syrup syrup Liquor Ketchup Liquor

Bottle type Beverage Carton Packaging Size (ml) 180 200 330 Packaging Use Liquor Juice Beer

Bottle type Aluminum Can Packaging Size (ml) 250 330 330 Packaging Use Juice Beer Aerated Drink

Bottle type Pouch Packaging Size (ml) 180 Packaging Use Liquor

15.05.2012 13 Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging Environmental Impact Categories

Impact category Unit Source

Global warming potential kg CO2eq IPCC 2007, CML2001 - Nov. 2010

[ Photochemical Smog kg C2H4eq CML2001 - Nov. 2010 (POCP,)

Air acidification potential kg SO2eq CML2001 - Nov. 2010 (AP)

3- Eutrophication potential kg PO4 eq CML2001 - Nov. 2010

Human toxicity potential kg 1,4-DB eq

CML2001 - Nov. 2010, Terrestrial ecotoxicity potential kg 1,4-DB eq

Primary energy MJ primary Primary energy demand

15.05.2012 14 Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging GaBi Models for Glass

15.05.2012 15 Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging GaBi Software

LCA models are created using the GaBi 5 Software for life cycle engineering, developed by PE International AG. GaBi database provides the life cycle inventory data for several of the raw and process materials obtained from the upstream and downstream system.

15.05.2012 16 Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging Sensitivity Analysis

For 180 ml packaging size of all packaging systems, various sensitivity analyses have been performed in order to assess the influence of different parameters.

• Weight of the packaging medium A sensitivity analysis is conducted for a variation in weight of the primary packaging ranging from -20%, -10%, +10% and +20%.

• EoL share of recycling A sensitivity analysis is conducted for variation in the recycling rates of the primary packaging for 50% and 75%. The materials, which are not recycled, are considered to be land filled.

• Transport distances A sensitivity analysis is conducted for the transportation of primary packaging to the filling station for distances of 500 km and 700 km.

• Batch materials, energy consumption, electricity consumption

15.05.2012 17 Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging EoL scenario and Closed loop recycling

End-of-life management scenarios: (1) Closed-loop of glass packaging back to new packaging (2) Recycling of glass packaging into non-packaging products or fiberglass (3) Losses via aggressive landfill cover, incineration

Benefits of closed-loop recycling: a) Substitution of primary batch materials by post-consumer cullet b) Reduction of energy consumption in melting process due to cullet replacing raw materials c) Reduction of emissions in melting process:

i. Reduction of CO2 emissions in relation to the (reduced) consumption of raw materials and energy (calculated via standard emission factors)

ii. Reduction of NOx, Dust and SOx emissions in proportional relation to the (reduced) energy input

18 1. Introduction to LCA 2. AIGMF Study 1. Goal and Scope 2. System Boundary 3. Results and Comparison 4. Conclusion 3. Introduction to PE International 4. Q&A

Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging Exemplary LCA Results (cradle-to-cradle)

Transport gate-to-cradle, Landfill, Washing and sterilization, Cullet Treatment Plant

Reuse

Cradle-to-cradle

End-of-Life

Environmental Environmental Impact Recycling

(Net!) Credits for recycling into container glass

20 Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging Selected LCA Results (cradle-to-cradle) – per kg container glass

Primary Energy Demand Global Warming Potential

Recycled Content

[Source: www.gpi.org/...] 21 Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging Selected LCA Results (cradle-to-grave/cradle) – per kg container glass

Global Warming Potential (kg CO2e/kg container glass)

1.8 1.55 1.6 1.4 1.25 1.2 1.09 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 no reuse of bottles 25% Reuse of bottle North America* India Primary Energy Demand (MJ/kg container glass) 20 18.9 18 16.6 16 13.6 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 no reuse of bottles 25% Reuse of bottle North America* India

*Environment overview: Complete life cycle assessment of North American Container Glass, GPI; www.gpi.org 15.05.2012 22 Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging Base Case (Glass, PET) and Improvement Potential (Glass)

LCIA Results (%)

150 136 130 123 246 110 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

90 69 73 74 60 70 57 59 55 56 55 50 48 50

30

10

-10

Equiv.]

DCB-Equiv.]

Phosphate-Equiv.]

[kg DCB-Equiv.][kg

years) CO2-Equiv.][kg

(POCP)Ethene-Equiv.][kg

EutrophicationPotential (EP) [kg

AcidificationPotential (AP) SO2- [kg

GlobalWarming Potential (GWP 100

Photochem. OzoneCreation Potential

HumanToxicity Potential (HTP inf.)[kg

Primaryenergy demand from ren. and

nonren. resources(net cal. value)[MJ] TerrestricEcotoxicity Potential (TETP inf.)

Glass Ref PET Ref G(-20%)+ 75% R- Best case scenario

15.05.2012 23 1. Introduction to LCA 2. AIGMF Study 1. Goal and Scope 2. System Boundary 3. Results and Comparison 4. Conclusion 3. Introduction to PE International 4. Q&A

Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging Achievements

Tremendous achievement to set up the AIGMF inventory for container glass – representing 72% of the Indian production First comprehensive inventory for a material in India Eight scenario calculations to identify sensitivity, hot spots and the potential for improvement Transparency and increased awareness as first step towards sustainable products Quantified environmental impact assessment result using worldwide accepted LCA methodology First study in India being reviewed by an international and independent review panel according to ISO 14040/14044 Reliable and transparent environmental profile for glass are now available for stakeholder dialogue

25 Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging Conclusion

Glass weight reduction results in substantial improvement in environmental performance

Cullet recycling saves batch materials and energy consumption compared to primary glass production

Recycling of all the packaging materials need to be enhanced

Transportation impact is only 5-6% of the total life cycle of glass

Glass considered as Inert waste - no major impact on open landfill, however improvement in recycling to be promoted

Scenarios show a huge improvement potential for glass

26

Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging Situation in Europe

In Europe, bottles are getting lighter and lighter for high material efficiency and lower transport impact too In Germany high recycling rates are typically achieved via deposit systems Consumer pays a deposit per bottle/can and gets this refunded when bringing back Another option to increase recycling rates are collection systems Communities in Germany offer collection systems where the consumer brings one-way glass bottles/containers to, often combined with paper/carton collection system Green dot system in Germany collects packaging waste and separates one-way containers such as PET bottles or metal cans. Households use a specific bag or trash can for this On average, the EU27 members reach 68% of recycling rate for glass saving 12 Million tons of raw materials. Belgium proves that recycling rates might be close to 100% (95%).

27 Life Cycle Analysis of Glass Packaging What does an LCA not include?

…safest packaging material on the market in terms of potential migration into food and drinks. …only common packaging material where no plastic lining is placed between it and the contents. …longer shelf life

[Source: www.feve.org/...] 28 1. Introduction to LCA 2. AIGMF Study 1. Goal and Scope 2. System Boundary 3. Results and Comparison 4. Conclusion 3. Introduction to PE International 4. Q&A

Headquarters and global office locations

PE Offices in: Berlin Bihlai Boston Bolder Chicago Copenhagen Stuttgart Guelph Hamburg Istanbul Johannesburg Kapstadt Kuala Lumpur London Lyon Mumbai Ottawa Perth Ravenna San Francisco Seattle Sheffield Tokyo Wellington Wien Winterthur

30 PE has the assets to deliver a total sustainability solution

•2,000 man years of sustainability •Encyclopedic knowledge Reference •Sustainability and expertise Data Business Intelligence •Vertical • Learnings Market and data •Sustainability specialists captured from Performance over 1,500 Optimization projects

31 9 of the 10 Best Global Green Brands of 2011 are customers…

Rankin Brand Name Country of Origin Sector Customer? g 1 Japan Automotive P 2 United States Diversified P 3 Germany Diversified P 4 United States FMCG P 5 United States Electronics P 6 Germany Automotive P 7 Japan Automotive P 8 United States Electronics P 9 Unites States Business Services P

10 Japan Electronics

•Source: Interbrand Best Global Brands Ranking 2011 32 …with solutions that specifically address the needs of unique verticals

CONSTRUCTION ENERGY & & BUILDING UTILITIES

TRANSPORT & METALS & RETAIL LOGISTICS MINING

AGRICULTURE OIL & GAS APPAREL FOOD

ELECTRONICS CONSUMER CHEMICAL HIGH-TECH GOODS

MANUFACTURING PACKAGING FINANCE

AUTOMOTIVE TOURISM

AEROSPACE MEDIA GOVERNMENT

33 1. Introduction to LCA 2. AIGMF Study 1. Goal and Scope 2. System Boundary 3. Results and Comparison 4. Conclusion 3. Introduction to PE International 4. Q&A

Thanks for Patience Hearing Q&A Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging Selected LCIA Results (cradle-to-cradle)

Disposal Downstrea Credit and m Primary Secondary Upstream Impact Category Energy Recycling Transport Packaging Packaging Transport

Acidification Potential (AP) [kg SO2- Equiv.] -9% 2% 3% 100% 2% 2% Eutrophication Potential (EP) [kg Phosphate-Equiv.] -9% 4% 9% 84% 7% 5% Global Warming Potential (GWP 100

years) [kg CO2-Equiv.] -11% 7% 4% 100% -2% 2% Human Toxicity Potential (HTP inf.) [kg DCB-Equiv.] -5% 1% 1% 103% 0% 0% Photochem. Ozone Creation Potential (POCP) [kg Ethene-Equiv.] -11% 7% -33% 147% 7% -18% Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential (TETP inf.) [kg DCB-Equiv.] -9% 7% 0% 95% 7% 0% Primary energy demand from ren. and non ren. resources (net cal. value) [MJ] -8% 4% 4% 90% 8% 2%

15.05.2012 39 Life Cycle Assessment of PET Packaging Selected LCIA Results (cradle-to-cradle)

Credit Second Corrugat Disposal ary ed and Downstream Primary Packagi Upstream Impact Category Board Recycling transport Packaging ng transport

Acidification Potential (AP) [kg SO2- Equiv.] 0% 27% 2% 66% 4% 1% Eutrophication Potential (EP) [kg Phosphate-Equiv.] 1% 32% 5% 51% 10% 1% Global Warming Potential (GWP 100

years) [kg CO2-Equiv.] 0% 19% 2% 82% -4% 1% Human Toxicity Potential (HTP inf.) [kg DCB-Equiv.] 0% 43% 0% 57% 0% 0% Photochem. Ozone Creation Potential (POCP) [kg Ethene-Equiv.] 0% 16% -8% 89% 5% -2% Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential (TETP inf.) [kg DCB-Equiv.] 0% 3% 0% 94% 3% 0% Primary energy demand from ren. and non ren. resources (net cal. value) [MJ] 1% 5% 2% 82% 11% 0%

15.05.2012 40 Life Cycle Assessment of Beverage Carton Packaging Selected LCIA Results (cradle-to-cradle)

Credit Disposal Downstrea Primary Secondary Upstream Corrugat and m Packaging Packaging transport Impact Category ed Board Recycling transport Acidification Potential (AP) [kg SO2-Equiv.] 7% 24% 4% 55% 9% 0% Eutrophication Potential (EP) [kg Phosphate- 11% 33% 6% 36% 14% 0% Equiv.] Global Warming Potential (GWP 100 years) -12% 134% 8% -16% -15% 1% [kg CO2-Equiv.] Human Toxicity Potential (HTP inf.) [kg DCB- 1% 47% 0% 50% 1% 0% Equiv.] Photochem. Ozone Creation Potential 10% 48% -20% 51% 13% -2% (POCP) [kg Ethene-Equiv.] Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential (TETP inf.) 17% 23% 0% 38% 22% 0% [kg DCB-Equiv.] Primary energy demand from ren. and non 11% 1% 2% 72% 14% 0% ren. resources (net cal. value)[MJ]

15.05.2012 41 Life Cycle Assessment of Pouch Packaging Selected LCA Results (cradle-to-cradle)

Credit Disposal and Downstream Primary Secondary Upstream Corrugat Recycling transport Packaging Packaging transport ed Board Impact Category Acidification Potential (AP) [kg SO2- 0% 15% 2% 81% 3% 0% Equiv.] Eutrophication Potential (EP) [kg 1% 22% 5% 64% 8% 0% Phosphate-Equiv.] Global Warming Potential (GWP 100 0% 9% 2% 92% -3% 0% years) [kg CO2-Equiv.] Human Toxicity Potential (HTP inf.) [kg 1% 23% 0% 64% 12% 0% DCB-Equiv.] Photochem. Ozone Creation Potential 0% 9% -8% 95% 4% 0% (POCP) [kg Ethene-Equiv.] Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential (TETP 6% 5% 0% 15% 74% 0% inf.) [kg DCB-Equiv.] Primary energy demand from ren. and 1% 1% 2% 89% 8% 0% non ren. resources (net cal. value)[MJ]

15.05.2012 42 Life Cycle Assessment of Al Can Packaging Selected LCA Results (cradle-to-grave/cradle) 330 ml

Disposal Credit Downstream Primary Secondary Upstream and Impact Category Energy transport Packaging Packaging transport Recycling Acidification Potential (AP) [kg SO - 2 0% 1% 1% 94% 4% 0% Equiv.] Eutrophication Potential (EP) [kg 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Phosphate-Equiv.] Global Warming Potential (GWP 100 0% 2% 1% 93% 3% 0% years) [kg CO2-Equiv.] Photochem. Ozone Creation Potential 0% 1% -6% 99% 8% -2% (POCP) [kg Ethene-Equiv.] Primary energy demand from ren. and 0% 2% 1% 92% 5% 0% non ren. resources (net cal. value) [MJ] Human Toxicity Potential (HTP inf.) [kg 0% 0% 0% 99% 1% 0% DCB-Equiv.] Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential (TETP inf.) [kg DCB-Equiv.] 0% 2% 0% 96% 2% 0%

15.05.2012 43 Life Cycle Assessment of Glass Packaging Scenario Analysis for Glass

G(-20%)+ 75% % improvement of G ( 75% R- Best case scenario from Impact Category Glass Ref G ( -20% W) R) scenario glass (ref) Acidification Potential (AP) [kg SO2-Equiv.] 100 82 66 55 45 Eutrophication Potential (EP) [kg Phosphate- Equiv.] 100 83 67 56 44 Global Warming Potential (GWP 100 years) [kg CO2-Equiv.] 100 82 61 50 50 Human Toxicity Potential (HTP inf.) [kg DCB- Equiv.] 100 85 85 73 27 Photochem. Ozone Creation Potential (POCP) [kg Ethene-Equiv.] 100 82 57 48 52 Terrestric Ecotoxicity Potential (TETP inf.) [kg DCB-Equiv.] 100 83 65 55 45 Primary energy demand from ren. and non ren. resources (net cal. value) [MJ] 100 84 69 59 41

15.05.2012 44