Current packaging footprint
The weights recorded in table 1 were used to calculate both the carbon footprint (figure 2) and non-renewable energy use (figure 3) of the packaging format as it currently exists:

Figure 2: Carbon footprint of the current packaging
(per 30 pairs of gloves)
|
Figure 3: Non-renewable energy use of current packaging
(per 30 pairs of gloves) |
The total packaging carbon footprint was 0.9 kgCO2e per 30 pairs (irrespective of whether the plastic was assumed to be PP or LDPE). The plastic bags represented the largest proportion of the footprint (65%), while cardboard accounted for 35%. Only 0.2% was associated with the paper labels.
The non-renewable energy use of the packaging was 23 MJ per 30 pairs (for both PP and LDPE-based scenarios). The plastic bags represented 79% of the total figure and cardboard made up 21%. Paper labels only accounted for 0.1% of the total.
In both of the above cases (i.e. in terms of both greenhouse gas emissions and non-renewable energy consumption) the plastic portion of the packaging was the element with the largest environmental footprint.
Polylactic acid
Polylactic acid (PLA) is a compostable bio-polymer produced at industrial scale from corn starch by Natureworks (Nebraska, USA) or from sugarcane by Purac in Europe and Asia. Other smaller producers also exist, but these two producers currently dominate the market. PLA is used as an alternative to traditional oil-derived plastics in a wide range of applications, including packaging.
Natureworks and Purac have both published eco-profiles of their PLA which show that it compares favourably with many traditional plastics in terms of both greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and non-renewable energy (NRE) consumption. The Natureworks data is used in this report because it provides a detailed breakdown of the analysis and has been peer-reviewed and published in the scientific literature1.
Using the Natureworks data, the packaging footprint was recalculated assuming that the plastic bags were produced from PLA. It was assumed that the dimensions of the bags were the same as those currently in use and the different densities of the polymers were then taken into account. Energy for extrusion was factored in, although production of the Ziploc strip was excluded (in both cases) due to the lack of data about this particular production process. The results should therefore be seen as an approximation rather than as definitive numbers given the scope of the analysis.
|
Carbon Footprint
|
|
kg Co2e
|
% reduction
(using PLA)
|
| PLA |
0.53
|
|
| PP |
0.58
|
-8%
|
| LDPE |
0.56
|
-4%
|
|
|
Non-renewable energy
|
|
MJ
|
% reduction
(using PLA)
|
| PLA |
14
|
|
| PP |
18
|
-23%
|
| LDPE |
18
|
-22%
|
|
Figure 2: Carbon footprint of the current packaging
(per 30 pairs of gloves)
|
Figure 3: Non-renewable energy use of current packaging
(per 30 pairs of gloves) |
The results show that switching to PLA could reduce the GHG emissions associated with the plastic part of the packaging by 4-8% and NRE consumption by 22-23%. This translates to a reduction in the overall packaging footprint (i.e. plastic, cardboard & labels combined) of 2-5% GHGs and 18% non-renewable energy.
Note that these figures don’t take into account the end-of-life disposal of the packaging by the consumer (or retailer) – a factor that is beyond the control of Signature Leather. PLA is technically compostable, although the separation of bio-polymers from municipal waste and the industrial composting facilities needed to process them have not been widely realised as yet. Where PLA is composted, additional environmental advantages would be realised.