evaluating the sustainability impacts of packaging: the plastic carry bag dilemma

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Evaluating the sustainability impacts of packaging: the plastic carry bag dilemma

By Helen Lewis,1 Karli Verghese2 and Leanne Fitzpatrick3

1Centre for Design, RMIT University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia2Centre for Design, RMIT University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia

3Birubi Innovation, Melbourne, Vic., Australia

ABSTRACT

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is used by practitioners and policy-makers to help them understand the sus-tainability impacts of packaging. LCA is useful because it quantifi es the impact of a product throughout its life cycle, from raw materials extraction through to disposal or recovery. However, it can only ever be one input to decisions about the design or procurement of packaging. LCA has limitations as a tool to measure environmental impact and it does not currently evaluate social or fi nancial impact. This paper provides a critical review of the role of LCA in evaluating packaging sustainability. It does this by evaluat-ing the results of LCA studies that compare different types of carry bags and their implications for policy and practice. The benefi ts and limitations of this type of analysis are discussed. The case study of plastic carry bags demonstrates that while a scientifi c understanding of life cycle impacts is essential to support informed decision-making, a broader sustainability analysis is required to ensure that all relevant issues are considered. These include the functionality of alternative bags, their relative cost, convenience for consumers and retailers, and the availability of reuse and recovery systems. An alternative approach, which evaluates packaging design within a broader sustainability framework, is presented and discussed. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 18 May 2009; Revised 10 December 2009; Accepted 18 December 2009

KEY WORDS: Sustainability; life cycle assessment; plastic carry bags; sustainable packaging

INTRODUCTION

The plastic carry bagi has become an iconic product in debates about the sustainability of packaging. Its high strength to weight ratio, its barrier properties, and its low cost to manufacture have made it a popular choice with retailers and consumers. At the same time, it has come to symbolize many of the environmental concerns that consumers, governments and environmental organizations have about packaging. The perceived impacts of plastic carry bags include the consumption of non-renew-able resources to manufacture a single-use product, low recovery rates at end of life, and high visibility and ecological impacts in litter. As a result of these concerns, a number of countries and cities have introduced regulations to reduce consumption of the bags or to eliminate them completely. Some retailers are also taking action to reduce bag consumption in the absence of regulation. In the UK,

PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCEPackag. Technol. Sci. 2010; 23: 145–160

Published online 29 January 2010 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pts.886

Correspondence to: H. Lewis, Centre for Design, RMIT University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.Email: [email protected]/grant sponsor: The Australian LCA reported in this paper (Verghese et al. 2009) was funded by Woolworths Limited.i In this paper the term ‘plastic carry bag’ is used to refer to lightweight plastic bags, with integral handles, provided to consumers at the checkout to carry products home from a retail store. It excludes biodegradable plastic shopping bags; shopping bags designed for reuse; and bags without handles used for fresh produce. The term ‘plastic bag’ is sometimes used as short-hand for plastic carry bag.

146 H. LEWIS, K. VERGHESE AND L. FITZPATRICK

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2010; 23: 145–160 DOI: 10.1002/pts

for example, Marks & Spencer1 introduced a voluntary surcharge on single-use bags and cut their bag use by 80%.

A systematic approach to environmental evaluation, using the life cycle assessment (LCA) meth-odology, reveals a more complex environmental picture. This paper presents the results of a stream-lined LCA of carry bags conducted by the authors on behalf of the Sustainable Packaging Alliance (SPA)ii in Australia for Woolworths Limited.iii The results, which confi rm the fi ndings of previous studies in Australia and elsewhere, demonstrate that each carry bag option has a different environ-mental profi le. Reusable bags tend to have the lowest impacts overall against most criteria, but this outcome is highly sensitive to the number of times they are reused. The ‘best’ single-use bag from an environmental perspective varies depending on which environmental impact criterion is examined.

The plastic carry bag case study is used to undertake a critical review of the role of LCA in evalu-ating packaging sustainability. The case study is introduced by reviewing the economic, social and political context, which is shaping perceptions of plastic carry bags among different stakeholder groups and regulatory responses. The strengths and limitations of LCA as an environmental assess-ment tool are then briefl y discussed. LCA and other environmental assessment reports on plastic bags are reviewed, with a particular focus on a recent study conducted in Australia. Finally, a defi nition of ‘sustainable packaging’ is suggested and then used to evaluate alternative carry bags from a ‘triple bottom line’ sustainability perspective.

THE PLASTIC CARRY BAG DILEMMA: ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT

Plastic carry bags are widely used around the world by supermarket chains and other retailers to provide consumers with a way of carrying their purchases away from the store. Most single-use plastic carry bags are manufactured from high-density polyethylene (HDPE), are lightweight (generally less than 20 microns thick) and have handles. Approximately 3.9 billion plastic carry bags were issued by Australian retailers in 2007, a 34% reduction since 2002.2,iv This can be attributed to campaigns by environmental organizations to encourage consumers to reduce or reuse bags, and the voluntary efforts of supermarkets to reduce consumption through implementation of the Australian Retailers Associa-tion’s code of practice for plastic shopping bags.3

The main alternatives to the single-use HDPE plastic carry bag for supermarkets are single-use paper bags and purpose-designed reusable bags, generally made from woven polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), low density polyethylene (LDPE) or calico. Degradable plastic bags are also starting to be issued by some retailers. The two most common degradable alternatives are biodegradable corn starch bags and oxo-degradable HDPE (i.e. plastic combined with a small amount of prodegradant additive).v

Plastic carry bags have been the focus of campaigns by environmental groups in Australia since the early 1990s. Clean Up Australia, for example, has run a high-profi le campaign against plastic bags for many years with the support of some retailers and the Australian Government. Their campaign slogan is ‘Say NO to plastic bags’.5 The organization’s main concern appears to be the potential im pacts of plastic bags in litter, such as blocked drains, visual pollution and harm to wildlife. This view is refl ected in media reports, which often include disturbing photographs of marine animals and birds entangled in plastic bags and use emotive language. One journalist claimed that ‘[Plastic bags] are lethal to marine life, kill livestock and trap birds . . . Marine animals often mistake them for jellyfi sh and eat them and birds, who cannot fl y once they are entangled in them, die of starvation’ (p. 4).6 Claims about the impact of plastic carry bags on animals are based on anecdotal evidence and case studies, for example from the dissection of dead marine species and birds. It is impossible to

ii The Sustainable Packaging Alliance (SPA) (www.sustainablepack.org) is a not for profi t company established as a focal point for strategic research, technology transfer and education to facilitate development of sustainable packaging systems.iii www.woolworthslimited.com.au.iv This was offset by a small increase in consumption of ‘kitchen tidy’ bags (bin liners). For example, in 2006 consump-tion of plastic carry bags fell by 3,455 tonnes while consumption of kitchen tidy bags increased by 364 tonnes [2].v Degradable plastic carry bags are discussed in more detail in ExcelPlas et al. [4].

EVALUATING THE SUSTAINABILITY IMPACTS OF PACKAGING 147


know the extent of the problem, but the available evidence demonstrates that plastic bags are a poten-tial hazard to wildlife. A government report in Australia concluded that ‘[t]here is clear evidence of impacts on marine species (including seabirds, turtles and crustaceans) but a lack of data about overall impact. Hence a precautionary approach is appropriate’ (p. 10).7 The report also noted that injury and death to marine species has been linked to plastic litter in general rather than plastic bags alone (p. 11).7

Consumers appear to have mixed views about plastic carry bags. In an Australian survey of people’s environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviour in 2006, 71% of respondents said that they had ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ avoided plastic bags to carry shopping, an increase from 53% in 2003 (p. 80).8 However, an observational survey of shoppers at supermarkets found that 67% of transactions still involved a single-use plastic carry bag, 16% involved reusable bags and 17% involved no bag (p. 18).2

A more substantial and sustained change in consumer behaviour is likely to require some form of regulation. In the state of Victoria, a voluntary 10 cent levy imposed on plastic carry bags by super-markets in a 2-month trial in 2008 resulted in a 79% fall in the number of plastic bags issued by participating retailers, and 86% of customers said that they supported initiatives to reduce bag use (p. 8).9 The impact of the trial on bag consumption is consistent with the experience in Ireland, where the introduction of a compulsory levy on plastic carry bags in 2002 resulted in a fall in consumption of over 90%.10 The Irish levy has proved to be very popular, with almost all consumers believing that it has had a positive impact on the environment and a minority claiming that it has had a negative impact on cost or convenience (p. 9).11

Many governments at a national, state or municipal level have introduced or considered some form of regulation to reduce or ban the use of ‘disposable’ (single use) plastic carry bags. Bans exist in a number of African countries (South Africa, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda) and will be introduced in Italy and France from 2010. Other policy measures include a tax in Denmark and a levy in Ireland and Malta. The Australian Government and state governments, through the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC), have undertaken extensive research to inform the develop-ment of a national regulatory framework to control the use of plastic bags.7 At the time of submission, EPHC had not been able to reach agreement on a national approach, but the South Australian Govern-ment banned non-biodegradable plastic carry bags from May 2009.

LCA studies have been commissioned by governments to inform decisions about the regulation of plastic carry bags (e.g. in Australia) and by retailers to inform procurement decisions.12 The following two sections provide an introduction to LCA and an overview of some recent research on the envi-ronmental impacts of plastic carry bags.

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

LCA is a systematic way of calculating the inputs (materials, energy and water), outputs (solid, waterborne and gaseous wastes) and potential environmental impacts of a product or service through-out its life cycle. It is governed by a series of international standards that provide the defi nitions, methods and protocols for undertaking and reporting LCA studies.13,14

LCA has commonly been used to compare the environmental impacts of a product or service with another providing a similar function.15 It provides quantifi able results that help to reveal the ‘causes’ of environmental impact and the points in the supply chain where changes can be made to reduce them (p. 35).16 Using a scientifi cally rigorous approach, it often reveals counter-intuitive results that reveal the need for a systematic approach to environmental assessment.15 For example, natural materi-als have often been found to be less optimal from an environmental perspective than synthetic materi-als based on oil or gas. LCA can, therefore, be classifi ed as a ‘change-oriented tool’ because it is often used to analyse the consequences of a choice.17

The LCA method has some limitations as an environmental assessment tool. One critic has argued that LCA doesn’t work because ‘it is impossible, practically speaking, to identify and measure all of the indirect sources of environmental problems for a given product or service’ (p. 19).18 The results are also heavily dependent on the assumptions made about the product system, including the system



boundaries and how the product is made, consumed and disposed of. LCA practitioners acknowledge the limitations of the method, but also recognize its value as a decision support tool: ‘. . . there is a tension between LCA not in itself providing comprehensive, objective or ‘big’ answers, yet having a role in producing unique, profound, useful information, which can lead to fundamental shifts in prac-tice’ (p. 40).16

Data and methodological challenges involved in an LCA need to be acknowledged and addressed, for example by:

• ensuring that the research is based on LCA standards13;• carefully scoping the study to ensure that it is appropriate and rigorous enough to answer the

research question;• undertaking sensitivity analyses to identify and measure the importance of parameters for which

the data is uncertain; and• identifying, considering and reporting any gaps or limitations in the research.

Many practitioners manage the balance between scientifi c rigour and practicality by using tech-niques that ‘streamline’ the LCA method, for example by leaving out some life cycle stages or impact areas.19 A common technique is to reduce the amount of time and effort required to undertake the study by using existing data in public databases, often already integrated in LCA software.20 This is the approach taken in the streamlined LCA of plastic shopping bags in Australia (discussed below).

LCA AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS OF PLASTIC CARRY BAGS

International studies

Concerns about the environmental impacts of plastic carry bags, and confl icting claims about the rela-tive benefi ts of plastic and paper, have prompted a number of government and industry organizations to undertake detailed assessments of alternative bags. The fi rst major study, by Franklin Associates21,22 compared the impact of single-use paper and polyethylene bags in the USA. Despite assuming a ratio of 2 plastic to 1 paper bag (based on research in the USA about packing practices), the research concluded that plastic carry bags had lower environmental impacts and used less energy at current recycling rates. An interesting aspect of the study was the use of sensitivity analysis to investigate relative impacts of the two options at different recycling rates. Some of the major conclusions were that21:

• Plastic carry bags require 20–40% less energy than paper carry bags at a zero recycling rate for both bags. As recycling rates increase the energy difference decreases because of the higher energy saving from recycling paper compared to plastic. The energy requirements become equivalent at a 60% recycling rate.

• Plastic bags contribute 70–80% less solid waste than paper bags and this difference remains stable at all recycling rates.

• Atmospheric emissions for the plastic bag were 63–73% lower than the paper bag and these dif-ferences continue regardless of the recycling rate.

• At a zero recycling rate the plastic bag contributed over 90% less waterborne emissions than the paper bag. This difference increased at higher levels of recycling because of the process involved in recycling paper.

Other studies have been reviewed by Marlet.12 The most extensive of these was undertaken by the French retailer Carrefour. The LCA compared the impact of four options in the countries where Car-refour operate (France, Belgium, Spain and Italy): single-use carry bags made from polyethylene, paper and a biodegradable plastic; and a reusable polyethylene bag. The study concluded that the reusable polyethylene carry bag was always better than single-use carry bags when used at least four times. The environmental impact of the single-use bags varied depending on the indicator being assessed. For example, the paper bag used three times more water than the single-use plastic bag, generated 80–90% more greenhouse gas emissions, and 80–90% more air acidifi cation. The only



impact category for which it had a lower impact was litter. The biodegradable plastic bag was also found to have higher impacts in most categories, with the exception of photochemical oxidants (smog) and litter. The authors concluded that after the reusable carry bag, the next preferable option was the single-use plastic bag (Carrefour as cited in Marlet, pp. 7–9).12

An environmental assessment of alternative carry bags was also undertaken in Israel.23 This research was based on life cycle thinking; that is, it analysed the environmental impacts of bags over their life cycle, from resource extraction through to disposal, but did not use the LCA method defi ned by the International Standards Organisation (ISO). Rather, it reviewed a range of qualitative and quantitative data and used these fi ndings to assess the need for regulation of bag use in Israel. The authors con-cluded that a high levy or ban was not justifi ed because the bags are ‘more a politically correct issue than an actual environmental hazard’ (p. 2025). In their view the main issue with plastic carry bags is their visual impact when they become litter. Their negligible weight and structure allows them to fi ll with air and disperse over long distances, accumulating on fences, trees and bushes, and this makes collection diffi cult. A maximum of 6% of bags were estimated to become litter each year because this is the percentage reused by consumers to pack products for outdoor use (p 2027).23

Australian research

A streamlined LCAvi was used to evaluate the environmental impacts of different supermarket carry bags used in Australia, updating several earlier studies.4,24,25 The results of the LCA modelling were combined with a qualitative review of disposal and recovery options for each carry bag to provide a more comprehensive review of recovery options and litter impacts.

To allow the different carry bags to be compared the analysis was based on a common ‘functional unit’, defi ned as ‘the number of shopping bags consumed by a household to carry 70-grocery items home from the supermarket each week for 52 weeks’. The life cycle that was modelled included the environmental impacts associated with raw material sourcing and production, manufacture of the bags and their disposal at end of life (i.e. landfi ll, recycling, compost or litter).

The seven carry bags that were evaluated were:

• a single-use HDPE bag;• a single-use HDPE bag with recycled material;• a single-use biodegradable plastic bag;• a single-use oxo-degradable plastic bag;• a single-use paper bag;• a reusable 100% recycled PET bag; and• a reusable PP bag.

Eight environmental impact categories were used to assess the impacts of carry bags (see Table 1): global warming, photochemical oxidation (smog), eutrophication (nutrients released to waterways), land use, water use, solid waste, fossil fuels and minerals.

The reusable bags (PET and PP) were found to have lower environmental impacts than all of the single-use bags. These fi ndings are consistent with previous studies and illustrate the benefi ts that can be achieved when reusing an item for the same application. However, a sensitivity analysis found that the benefi ts of a reusable bag depend on the number of times each bag is used during its life. For example, if a reusable PP ‘green bag’ is only used 52 times (weekly for a year) instead of the assumed 104 times (weekly for 2 years) then its impact on global warming is higher than the impact of each of the single-use bags, except the paper bag.

The single-use carry bag with the lowest impact depends on the environmental impact category being considered. The single-use paper bag was found to have the highest impact, or equal highest impact, for all categories included in the LCA except eutrophication. For most impact categories this result does not change if the bag is reused again (i.e. used for two shopping trips). The biodegradable

vi The study is referred to as a streamlined LCA because it used existing data in SimaPro® software rather than data from the actual processes used for each specifi c bag. The results therefore represent indicative environmental impacts rather than a full scientifi c study.



Tabl

e 1.

Env

iron

men

tal

impa

ct i

ndic

ator

s fo

r al

tern

ativ

e ca

rry

bags

35a .

Impa

ct c

ateg

ory

Uni

t

HD

PE p

last

icba

g 10

0%vi

rgin

HD

PE p

last

icba

g w

ithre

cycl

ed c

onte

ntB

iode

grad

able

bag

Oxo

-de

grad

able

bag

Pape

r ba

gR

eusa

ble

PET

bag

R

eusa

ble

PP b

ag

Glo

bal

war

min

gkg

CO

2 eq

. (ca

rbon

dio

xide

) 7.

527.

359.

196.

6944

.74

6.47

5.43

Phot

oche

mic

al

oxid

atio

nkg

C2H

4 eq

. (m

etha

ne)

0.04

50.

038

−0.0

010.

036

0.07

20.

005

0.00

4

Eut

roph

icat

ion

kg P

O4 eq

. (ph

osph

ates

) 0.

005

0.00

50.

278

0.00

40.

033

0.00

30.

003

Lan

d us

eH

a a

(hec

tare

s pe

r ye

ar)

6.62

7E-0

65.

945E

-06

3.48

9E-0

49.

158E

-07

1.99

2E-0

32.

033E

-06

1.32

0E-0

6W

ater

use

kL H

2O (

wat

er)

0.01

30.

053

0.05

00.

012

0.42

30.

038

0.01

6So

lid w

aste

kg2.

737

3.30

70.

832

2.56

43.

243

0.80

63.

283

Foss

il fu

els

MJ

surp

lusb

19.9

2719

.067

9.96

417

.937

44.7

716.

463

6.64

6M

iner

als

MJ

Surp

lusc

8.44

5E-0

47.

786E

-04

1.01

8E-0

21.

735E

-03

7.42

3E-0

33.

388E

-05

2.49

7E-0

5

Not

es:

a To

allo

w t

he d

iffe

rent

car

ry b

ags

to b

e co

mpa

red

the

anal

ysis

was

bas

ed o

n a

com

mon

‘fu

nctio

nal

unit’

, defi

ned

as

‘the

num

ber

of s

hopp

ing

bags

con

sum

ed b

y a

hous

ehol

d to

ca

rry

70-g

roce

ry i

tem

s ho

me

from

the

sup

erm

arke

t ea

ch w

eek

for

52 w

eeks

’.b A

dditi

onal

fos

sil

fuel

ene

rgy

requ

ired

to

prov

ide

futu

re f

ossi

l an

d m

iner

al r

eser

ves

as t

he q

ualit

y of

exi

stin

g re

serv

es a

re d

eple

ted.

c Add

ition

al e

nerg

y re

quir

ed t

o ex

trac

t re

sour

ces

due

to d

eple

tion

of r

eser

ves,

lea

ving

low

er q

ualit

y of

res

erve

s be

hind

.



bag has the highest eutrophication impact, which is approximately 70 times greater than the eutro-phication impact of the other bag options with the exception of the paper bag (the impact of the biodegradable bag is approximately seven times higher than the impact of the paper bag).

LCA studies, particularly those based on a streamlined method, need to be interpreted with caution. In this case there are a couple of issues that need to be taken into account:

• The research was based on publicly available data in the SimaPro® software and the results may have been different if data had been collected for the manufacturing, transport and energy pro-cesses used for specifi c bags (e.g. in this case, for the bags used by Woolworths Limited in Australia).

• One of the assumptions built into the study was that 19% of plastic carry bags are reused by consumers as bin liners (based on an estimate of the maximum number of bin liners required by a household each week). While the avoided consumption of ‘kitchen tidy’ bags was taken into account in the LCA, the reuse of plastic carry bags for other purposes was not considered.

Litter was also excluded from the LCA assessment because there is no reliable data available on the average length of time taken for each of the bag materials to degrade or their ecological impact in the natural environment. In addition, the LCA method is currently unable to analyse the ecological and ethical issues associated with wildlife impacts. For these reasons a supplementary analysis of litter impacts, based on qualitative and quantitative data, was undertaken. Consistent with earlier studies (e.g. the Carrefour LCA reported in Marlet),12 paper carry bags were found to have the lowest impact in the litter stream. Single-use plastic bags and paper bags make up a small percentage of littered items (both less than 1% according to Keep Australia Beautiful (KAB)).26 However, plastic carry bags tend to have a higher impact than paper bags because they are more visible and take longer to break down in the environment (it should be noted, however, that there is no data available on actual degradation times for each time of bag). They can also cause injury to wildlife through ingestion, smothering or entanglement (p. 10).7 Biodegradable and oxo-degradable plastic carry bags are likely to break down at a faster rate than conventional HDPE bags but there is limited data avail-able on how long degradation would take in different environments (e.g. soil, marine water, fresh water). The environmental impact of the prodegradant additive in oxo-degradable bags is also unknown.

Supplementary analysis was also undertaken on the availability of recovery systems for each bag, the potential to extend these systems to increase recovery rates, and the risks of cross-contamination. All of the bags have potential to be recovered at end of life rather than disposed to landfi ll. Whether or not they are actually recovered depends on three things: the material the bag is made from, the infrastructure available for collection and reprocessing,vii and the willingness of consumers to dispose of the bag through an available recovery system.

Paper bags can be recycled through widely available kerbside collection programmes and are therefore the most recyclable. The kerbside recycling rate for paper and cardboard in Australia was estimated to be 65% in 2007 (p. 6),27 though the recovery rate for paper carry bags in unknown. HDPE plastic bags can be recycled through supermarket collection bins, although this is less convenient than kerbside recycling programs. It has been estimated that 16% of bags were recycled in 2007.7 If the recycling rate for HDPE bags increased from 16% to 50%, its greenhouse emissions would fall from 7.5 kg per year to 6.5 kg per year. This is the same as the emissions associated with a reusable PET bag, which has the second lowest impact for this category (the reusable PP bag has the lowest impact for greenhouse emissions).

Biodegradable carry bags can potentially be recovered through kerbside organic material collections or home composting systems, although there are a number of issues which need to be resolved before this can be done. First, the bags would need to be certifi ed to the relevant Australian standard or a similar international standard for commercial and/or home composting.viii Second, re-processors

vii Companies will only invest in reprocessing facilities if there is a reasonable amount of material available, at the required quality standard, and if there is a viable market for the end product.viii The Australian Standard for compostable polymers in commercial reprocessing facilities is AS 4736 – Biodegradable plastics – biodegradable plastics suitable for composting and other microbial treatment.



(composters) would need to be consulted to ensure that compostable bags are acceptable in their process, and whether there are any limits or special requirements. Finally, consumers would need to be educated to fi nd out about how to correctly dispose of the bags through their kerbside organic collection and/or home composting system. There is a risk that some biodegradable and oxo-degrad-able bags will be collected through existing recovery systems for plastic carry bags and will contami-nate the recycled material.

Oxo-degradable carry bags are not recoverable. Plastics recyclers are generally unwilling to accept them because they can potentially reduce the quality of the recycled material. There is also no evidence that they are compostable.

In conclusion, the combination of LCA modelling and qualitative research for this study enabled a number of conclusions to be made about the environmental impacts of plastic carry bags compared to alternative bags. In particular, it reinforced the fi ndings of earlier studies that reusable carry bags tend to have a lower environmental impact that single-use bags. It also highlighted the fact that reus-able bags need to be used many times – at least 50 times based on the assumptions used for this study – to ensure that the benefi ts are realized. The reason is that the heavier PP and PET bags use more material and energy during manufacture. This demonstrates the importance of conducting a sensitivity analysis as part of the LCA modelling to understand the impact of key variables on real-izing potential environmental benefi ts. Encouraging reusable bags without ensuring that the minimum reuse levels are achieved will result in a worse environmental outcome overall.

The research also supported the fi nding of earlier studies (particularly Franklin Associates)21 that single-use paper bags tend to have higher environmental impacts in most impact categories than single-use plastic bags. One of the benefi ts of LCA is that it can help to over-turn commonly held beliefs about the environmental attributes of packaging materials that are regarded as ‘renewable’ or ‘natural’. These beliefs are often based on intuition, or a focus on one part of the life cycle, rather than a strong understanding of life cycle environmental impacts. Paper carry bags, often promoted by environmental organizations as an environmentally preferred option, have a higher impact than HDPE carry bags for all of the impact categories included in the streamlined LCA.

However, the LCA was not capable of addressing in any substantive way the broader environmental impacts of plastic bags such as the potential hazards to wildlife when they become litter. The ‘answers’ provided by an LCA are clearly shaped by the question being asked.16 Litter and recyclability – two issues of concern to environment groups and consumers – had to be reviewed through more qualita-tive analysis to ensure that all of the environmental concerns raised by stakeholders, and potential changes in the recovery infrastructure for different materials, were considered. The primary benefi ts of paper carry bags are their recyclability, degradablility and minimal impacts in the litter stream.

All forms of packaging have impacts on the environment. The decision about which option is preferable from an environmental perspective will often depend on which environmental impact category – global warming, land use, water use, etc. – is considered the most important. In the Aus-tralian case study presented here, reusable bags have the lowest impact against most criteria but the ‘best’ single-use carry bag depends on the environmental issue being considered. For example, single-use HDPE bags have a lower impact on global warming and eutrophication than biodegradable plastic bags, but a higher impact on fossil fuels and solid waste. Inclusion of sensitivity analysis in the LCA modelling assists in better understanding the potential overall environmental gains to be made through innovation or supply chain improvement strategies. For example, the LCA highlighted the potential benefi ts that could be achieved if a higher recycling rate for the HDPE bags or a higher recovery rate for biodegradable bags could be achieved.

Any decision about the sustainability of plastic carry bags and alternative bags needs to consider the environmental impacts of each option. The results of the LCA and the qualitative evaluation of disposal and recovery highlighted the fact that the ‘winner’ depends on which impact category is being considered. In choosing between paper bags and plastic bags on environmental criteria, should government organizations and retailers focus on the risk of injury to wildlife or the impacts on global warming? This sort of decision will require a good understanding of environmental impacts and the values and priorities of key stakeholders. However, it also needs to take into account the broader sustainability benefi ts and impacts of each alternative. Other sustainability issues include functional-ity, cost and convenience.



A broader sustainability framework for the evaluation of packaging options is outlined in the next section. This can be used as a decision-support tool by both retailers and government policy-makers.

A BROADER SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK

There is no agreed understanding, either in Australia or internationally, about what constitutes ‘sus-tainable packaging’. In 2002, SPA introduced the fi rst discussion paper, Towards Packaging Sustain-ability,28 aimed at developing a working defi nition of sustainable packaging and providing direction for industry and government efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of packaging. SPA has continued to review and refi ne this defi nition over time,29 taking into account the work of other groups such as the Sustainable Packaging Coalition in the USA.30,31

SPA’s working defi nition of sustainable packaging identifi es four principles to be simultaneously considered when assessing or designing packaging to achieve improvements that contribute to the broader triple bottom line goals of ‘sustainable development’.32,33 According to this defi nition, packag-ing must:

• be fi t for purpose (effective);• consume minimal materials, energy and water (effi cient);• generate minimal waste (cyclic); and• involve minimal health and safety risks to people and ecosystems (safe).

Applying these principles involves consideration of some of the design strategies outlined in Table 2 and is intended to result in packaging that demonstrates social and economic value and environmental benefi ts. The defi nition and the associated strategies and key performance indicators (KPIs) are intended to be used as a decision-support tool, and not a prescriptive guide to packaging design or procurement. The ‘best’ or most appropriate strategies will need to be identifi ed on a case-by-case basis.

From a design perspective, the selection of appropriate strategies will depend on the purpose of the packaging and key requirements in the design brief, for example:

• whether the packaging is primary, secondary or tertiary packaging (a plastic carry bag is a form of tertiary or transport packagingix);

• the technical and performance requirements of the packaging;• the intended market for the product/packaging; and• any limitation on manufacturing and cost.

By comparison with traditional packaging design, sustainable packaging design requires a greater focus on innovation to optimize functionality (‘effectiveness’). It aims to be more ‘effi cient’ by mini-mizing resource consumption (materials, energy and water), wastes and emissions throughout its life cycle. It also aims to be more ‘cyclic’ by maximizing the recovery of materials throughout its life cycle and is designed to minimize health and safety risks to humans and eco-systems.

Some of these broader issues are summarized in Table 3 for three of the bags evaluated above (i.e. single-use plastic carry bags, single use paper carry bags and reusable PP carry bags). It is clear that any fi nal decision about the most ‘sustainable’ option needs to be informed by scientifi c tools such as LCA but it will ultimately be based on an evaluation of specifi c requirements (functionality, cost, etc.) and environmental priorities. For example, the comparison in Table 3 shows that each bag option provides different levels of functionality and convenience, and has environmental advantages and disadvantages. An analysis of options against the sustainability framework can support decision-making by retailers by highlighting sustainability issues and strategies to reduce or manage negative

ix The European Commission has defi ned transport or tertiary packaging as ‘packaging conceived so as to facilitate handling and transport of a number of sales units or grouped packagings [sic] in order to prevent physical handling and transport damage . . .’34



Table 2. Principles and strategies for sustainable packaging.

PrinciplesStrategies for packaging design,

manufacture, logistics and marketing Key performance indicators

Effective: sustainable value

The packaging system achieves its functional requirements and contributes to economic, social and environmental sustainability

Eliminate any packaging which is not necessary

Ensure that the packaging fulfi ls all functional requirements, e.g. product containment, protection, convenience, communication and marketing

Identify any potential health or safety risks to consumers and others in the supply chain and take steps to eliminate or reduce these

Functionality of each component of the packaging system (list)

Social and economic benefi ts of the packaging system as a whole (list)

Effi cient: minimal use of materials, energy and water

The packaging system is designed to use materials and energy effi ciently throughout the product life cycle. Effi ciency can be defi ned through reference to world’s best practice at each stage of the packaging life cycle

Reduce packaging volume and weight to the minimum required for product protection, safety, hygiene and acceptability to the consumer

Increase the effi ciency of the product-packaging system by changing the product, e.g. use of concentrates

Total weight of material used in the packaging system (primary, secondary, tertiary)

Packaging-product ratio by weight (tonnes of product divided by tonnes of packaging)

Minimize product waste Percentage of product which becomes waste before it reaches the consumer (e.g. is damaged in transit)

Percentage of product remaining in the primary packaging once the product has been dispensed

Maximize energy and water effi ciency during manufacturing and recovery systems

Energy consumed over the packaging lifecycle (MJ per tonne of packaging)

Water consumed over the packaging lifecycle (kL per tonne of packaging)

Improve transport effi ciency by maximizing cube utilization

Pallet confi guration and effi ciency – cube utilization (%)

Improve the effi ciency of transport and logistics by redesigning distribution systems

Truck utilizationkm travelled

Cyclic: minimizing waste

Packaging materials used in the system are cycled continuously through natural or industrial systems, with minimal material degradation. Recovery rates should be optimized to ensure that they achieve energy and greenhouse gas savings.

Identify the cyclic loops which are available to recover the packaging and ensure that the packaging can be collected and processed within them

Collection and reprocessing systems for the packaging (list)

Reusable packaging: design to minimize lifecycle impacts, e.g. by maximizing return rates. Design for ‘closed loop’ reuse in preference to an alternative use

Reusability (national recovery rate for the product through company / industry schemes)

Recyclable packaging:• specify a material with an existing and

widespread system for recovery• if possible use only one material, if not

use materials which are easy for the consumer to separate or do not contaminate recycling systems

• design for ‘closed loop’ recycling rather than ‘downcycling’

• use the maximum amount of recycled content which is physically possible (preferably post-consumer)

Recyclability (national recovery rate for the material through recycling systems)

Percentage of the packaging (by weight) which can be recovered through available recycling processes

Average % of recycled material (post consumer)

Average % of recycled material (total)



Table 2. Continued

PrinciplesStrategies for packaging design,

manufacture, logistics and marketing Key performance indicators

Degradable packaging: specify biodegradable rather than oxo-degradable materials and ensure that a system is available for collection and processing

Compostability (national recovery rate for the product through composting systems)

Provide advice to the consumer on correct disposal of the packaging

Recycling information and advice on recyclable packaging

Instructions NOT to recycle on containers used for hazardous products

Minimize the number of separable components to minimize the risk of a component becoming litter

Number of separable components

Specify renewable materials where it is demonstrated they provide the lowest environmental impact

Percentage of packaging material which is from a renewable source

Use renewable stationary energy (e.g. by purchasing ‘Greenpower’)

Percentage of stationary energy use which is from a renewable source

Use renewable transport energy (e.g. biofuels) where these are found to have the lowest environmental impact

Percentage of transport energy which is from a renewable source

Safe: non-polluting and non-toxic

Packaging components used in the system, including materials, fi nishes, inks, pigments and other additives do not pose any risks to humans or ecosystems. When in doubt the precautionary principle applies.

Manufacture packaging using cleaner production techniques and using best practice materials and energy consumption technologies

Cleaner product policies and procedures (list)

Avoid or minimize the use of heavy metal-based additives (<100 p.p.m. per packaging unit).

Use of heavy metal-based additives (list) and concentration (p.p.m.).

Avoid or minimize the use of materials or additives that may migrate into food and be harmful to human health, e.g. certain plasticizers

Avoid or minimize the use of materials or additives which may pose risks to humans or ecosystems during recovery or disposal

Health or environmental risks associated with the package (list)

Minimize the environmental impacts of transport, e.g. by using sea freight rather than air freight, and by using clean fuels for road transport

Mode of transport used for each stage of the packaging life cycle (km)

Fuel type used for each stage of the packaging life cycle (list)

Note: These strategies and key performance indicators provide general guidance for the design, procurement or evaluation of packaging in general. They do not all apply to carry bags.

impacts. For example, the LCA highlighted the fact that reusable carry bags have the lowest impact across all of the measured impact categories, assuming that the bags are reused at a high rate (accord-ing to this LCA, at least 50 times). A policy of promoting reusable bags to customers and discouraging use of plastic bags has merit from an environmental perspective because they are more effi cient in their use of materials, energy and water, safer for the environment and more cyclic if reused many times. One of the implications of the sensitivity analysis of reuse rates is that consumers should be encouraged to buy reusable bags, and then to keep using their existing bags rather than continuously buying new ones. Reusable bags should never be given away free because this would encourage over-consumption.

However, other important issues need to be considered, including:

• functionality and cost (considered under the ‘effectiveness’ principle); and• occupational health and safety (OH&S) (considered under the ‘safe’ principle).



Table 3. Comparing the sustainability impacts of plastic, paper and reusable carry bags.

PrinciplesSingle-use HDPE

plastic bag Single-use paper bag Reusable PP bag

Effective: sustainable value

The bag is functional for all products (high strength to weigh ratio, good moisture barrier).

The capacity of the bag is approximately 6–8 grocery items.

The bag is convenient for consumers – it is normally given away free, is lightweight and durable. It can be reused for many applications, e.g. as a bin liner. The consumer doesn’t need to remember to take bags with them to the store.

The bag is convenient for supermarket retailers – it costs very little and allows fast packaging of goods at the checkout.

The bag is functional for many products but can break if used for wet products (e.g. frozen/refrigerated).


The bag can normally only be used once due to its poor durability.

The bag is less convenient for consumers because they have a smaller capacity (therefore more bags are required) and there is an increased risk of breakage.

The bag is less convenient for supermarket retailers because they take up more space in storage and may be slower to pack.

There is a potential marketing advantage for retailers because many consumers perceive paper bags as ‘environmentally friendly’, though as LCA has shown ‘natural’ products also have environmental impacts.

The bag is functional for all products (high strength to weigh ratio, good moisture barrier).


The bag is durable and can be reused many times by the consumer for shopping and other tasks (the LCA assumes a usage rate of 104*).

The bag may be less convenient for consumers because they have to remember to take them shopping.

The bag is less convenient for the retailer – checkouts have had to be redesigned to handle the new bag, and hygiene and OH&S issues need to be managed.

There is a potential cost saving for retailers from the avoided purchase and storage of single-use bags (for the Irish experience, see Convery et al.).11

Effi cient: minimal use of materials, energy and water

The bag weighs 7.7 g* (total material consumption over a 1-year period is approx. 4 kg*).

The bag weighs 47 g* (total material consumption over a 1-year period is approximately 24 kg*).

Pulp and paper manufacture uses a relatively large amount of water and energy.

The weight of the bags in a car (approximately 517 g for 11* bags) will have a very small impact on fuel effi ciency compared to the HDPE bag.

The bag weighs 116 g* (total material consumption over a 1-year period is approx. 460 g* (half of the total weight because the bag is assumed to be in use for 2 years).

The bag can be reused many times and replaces a large number of single-use carry bags. Their use may contribute to a small increase in consumption of kitchen tidy bags.

Consumption of water and energy is signifi cantly less than for the paper bag if reused 104 times*.

Some water and energy will be used if the bag is washed by the consumer (not included in the LCA calculations).

The weight of the bags in a car (approximately 1 kg for 9 bags*) will have a very small impact on fuel effi ciency compared to the HDPE and paper bag.



Table 3. Continued

PrinciplesSingle-use HDPE

plastic bag Single-use paper bag Reusable PP bag

Cyclic: minimizing waste

Plastics bags are technically recyclable but rates are relatively low (currently 16% in Australia*) due to a range of factors, including the inconvenience of having to take bags to the supermarket for collection, and high levels of reuse as bin liners and for other applications.

Most bags that are not recycled will end up in landfi ll, but may be reused many times before they reach this destination. A small percentage of bags (estimated to be 0.5%) will end up in the litter stream.

Plastic bags can incorporate some recycled material.

HDPE is made from a non-renewable resource (oil or gas).

Paper bags are highly recyclable and can be manufactured back into paper products. Some fi bre is lost in the recycling process. The current recycling rate for paper in Australia is 65%*. The rate for paper bags is unknown.

A small percentage of paper bags will end up in the litter stream. They have less impact than plastic bags in litter because they degrade at a faster rate and are less visible (they are less likely to become snagged in trees, shrubs and fences; and less likely to fl oat on water).

Paper bags can incorporate some recycled material.

Paper is made from a renewable resource (trees).

The reusable bag minimizes waste by replacing approx. 104* single-use paper or plastic bags.

PP bags are recyclable but collection facilities for the bags are not available at present due to the small volume of material available.

Reusable bags are less likely to become litter than single-use bags.

The bag has potential to incorporate recycled material although bags in common use do not.

PP is made from a non-renewable resource (oil or gas).

Safe: non-polluting and non-toxic

Greenhouse gas emissions are relatively low, primarily due to the small amount of material used to make the bags.

The plastic manufacturing process uses less water than paper manufacture and therefore generates less waterborne waste.

In landfi ll plastic bags are relatively inert. The time they would take to degrade is unknown (possibly hundreds of years).

Plastic bags are a potential hazard to wildlife in litter because they take a relatively long time to degrade and may be mistaken for food.

Paper bags generate more greenhouse gas emissions than single-use plastic bags and reusable bags because the manufacturing process is more energy intensive and because of the larger mass of material used over a 2-year period.

If paper bags are disposed to landfi ll they break down anaerobically over time and generate greenhouse gas emissions (methane).

The paper bag generates more waterborne waste than the plastic bag or reusable bag because the manufacturing process uses large amounts of water and chemicals.

Paper bags have a higher impact on eutrophication (nutrients to waterways) and land degradation due to forestry operations.

The bags don’t present the same risk to wildlife because unlike plastic bags they degrade relatively quickly and are unlikely to be mistaken for food.

Ecological impacts will be lower than for single-use plastic bags and paper bags if high usage rates are achieved.

In landfi ll the reusable bags are relatively inert. The time they would take to degrade is unknown (possibly hundreds of years).

If littered the bags are unlikely to present a hazard to wildlife because they are unlikely to be mistaken for food.

Note: Data marked with an asterisk (*) are from the Australian LCA35 and applies to the following functional unit: the number of bags consumed by a household to carry 70 grocery items home from the supermarket each week for 52 weeks.



The PP reusable carry bag modelled in this study is functional and meets the needs of consumers for durability. It is less convenient for consumers who forget to take their reusable bags with them when they go shopping, and who may therefore need to purchase additional bags. For this reason a retailer might choose to continue providing single-use bags for customers who prefer them or as a ‘back up’ option. Reusable bags could also be sold at a minimal price to ensure cost recovery without imposing an unreasonable cost burden on customers.

The LCA results suggest that replacing one single-use bag (plastic) with another (e.g. paper or a biodegradable plastic) may increase rather than decrease environmental impacts. The notable excep-tion is litter. Paper bags would have a reduced impact in litter because of their faster rate of degrada-tion and because of the minimal risk they present to marine wildlife and birds. A retailer in a coastal area could decide to place a higher priority on litter impacts and therefore to offer paper bags (for sale or for free) as an additional option.

The research highlighted the fact that all of the carry bag options are potentially recyclable, but collection and reprocessing systems are limited for both conventional plastic and biodegradable plastic bags. Most consumers have access to a kerbside recycling service for paper but may need to be en-couraged to recycle paper bags as well as newspapers. Improved systems for the recovery of used paper, plastic or biodegradable carry bags would require collaboration between retailers and other or gan-izations in the product chain, including bag manufacturers, local government and reprocessors.

There are two OH&S risks associated with reusable bags that also need to be considered by retail-ers. A trial in Victoria, Australia, evaluated the practicality and acceptability of a levy on single-use plastic carry bags. A survey of staff and customers during the trial found that 61% of staff members were concerned about hygiene issues with the use of reusable bags (compared to 22% of customers) because some were presented in an unclean state (p. 9).9 The reusable bags have a larger capacity and this can also cause problems for staff members lifting fully packed, heavy bags. These issues can be resolved, for example by staff refusing to accept dirty bags (and offering a free plastic bag instead) and by a redesign of checkouts to minimize lifting of packed bags.

A sustainability framework can also support informed decision-making by policy-makers. It is clear that any proposal to regulate plastic carry bags to reduce their environmental impact needs to be based on a clear defi nition of the problem being addressed. Is it litter, recyclability, use of non-renewable resources or pollution? The preferred option, and therefore the most appropriate policy tool, will depend on the answer to this question. For example, concerns about litter impacts could justify a ban or levy on single-use plastic carry bags but possibly not on paper or biodegradable plastic bags. Concerns about the impacts of plastic bags on resource consumption, waste, air and water pollution could justify a ban or levy on all single-use carry bags to encourage increased use of reusable bags. Any policy proposal would also need to consider the potential impacts on ‘effectiveness’ and take steps to minimize additional costs or inconvenience to retailers and consumers.

CONCLUSIONS

LCA modelling is an essential component of any decision-making process intended to identify strate-gies to improve packaging sustainability. It provides the profi le of the environmental impacts across a range of measures and considers the full life cycle of the package. LCA data is necessary to apply SPA’s defi nition of sustainable packaging.

However, interpretation of the outcomes from LCA modelling is complex and must be combined with qualitative data in areas where LCA capability is limited. To apply the four principles of SPA’s defi nition the LCA modelling must be combined with an understanding of many other complex issues including functionality and end of life impacts not characterized by LCA, such as litter. Environmental impacts often vary between impact categories and results may be highly sensitive to consumer behav-iour and actual waste management practices. By incorporating sensitivity analysis in the modelling, the concerns of various stakeholders can be considered; it is possible to identify the critical factors required to ensure the potential environmental benefi ts are realized; and the potential benefi ts of innovation or supply chain improvements may be estimated. The results can then be used to establish a common understanding of the overall environmental impacts of alternatives.



The specifi c fi ndings of this study have immediate implications for strategies and regulations that aim to reduce the environmental impacts of shopping bags. Generally, the reusable carry bags have lower environmental impacts than single-use bags; however, the benefi ts are highly sensitive to usage rates. Strategies that ensure reuse occurs in practice are therefore essential to realizing the benefi ts of their introduction. The ‘best’ or ‘environmentally preferred’ single-use bag varies depending on the environmental impact category being considered, although paper has the highest environmental impact in most categories as a result of pulp and paper production processes and the weight of material required per bag. This knowledge has little if any profi le in the broader community and is not cur-rently part of the plastic carry bag debate.

The study also demonstrates that achieving the best overall environmental outcome requires retail-ers and regulators working in partnership and providing a shared and consistent message to consumers. Together they must translate the complexity of the LCA analysis and convert the results into practical and cost effective strategies. These must go beyond the immediate issue of which bag is best, to strategies and processes to control the introduction of new alternatives and support innovation and supply chain development for longer term sustainability.

REFERENCES

1. Marks & Spencer. M&S reveals new in-store campaign to update on carrier bag charge. 2008; http://corporate. marksandspencer.com/investors/press_releases/company/260808_carrier_bag_update [accessed 14 May 2009].

2. Hyder Consulting. Plastic retail carry bag use. 2008; Report to the Environment Protection and Heritage Council, Canberra.

3. Australian Retailers Association (ARA). Australian Retailers Association Code of Practice for the Management of Plastic Bags. ARA: Sydney, 2003.

4. ExcelPlas, RMIT, and Nolan-ITU. The Impacts of Degradable Plastic Bags in Australia. 2003; Report to the Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

5. Clean Up Australia. Say NO to Plastic Bags. 2005; http://www.noplasticbags.org.au/home/default.aspx [accessed 14 April 2009].

6. Das, S. Dirty Old Bags, in The Age. Melbourne. 29 June 2004; p. 4–5. 7. Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC). Decision Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS): Investigation of

Options to Reduce the Impacts of Plastic Bags. EPHC: Canberra, 2008. 8. Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). Who Cares About the Environment in 2006? DEC: Sydney, 2006. 9. KPMG. Trial of a Government and Industry Charge on Plastic Bags. Report to Environment Protection and Heritage

Council: Canberra, 2008.10. Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) (Ireland). Plastic Bags. 2007; http://www.

environ.ie/en/Environment/Waste/PlasticBags [accessed 12 January 2009].11. Convery F, McDonnell S, Ferreira S. The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bag levy. Environ-

mental and Resource Economics 2007; 38(1): 1.12. Marlet C. The Use of LCAs on Plastic Bags in an IPP context. EuroCommerce: Brussels, 2004.13. International Standards Organisation (ISO). ISO 14040: 2006 Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Prin-

ciples and Management. ISO: Geneva, 2006.14. International Standards Organisation (ISO). ISO 14044: 2006 Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assess-

ment – Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Geneva, 2006.15. Horne R. Life cycle assessment: origins, principles and context. In Life Cycle Assessment: Principles, Practice and Pros-

pects, Horne R, Grant T, Verghese K (eds). CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, 2009; 1–8.16. Grant T, MacDonald F. Life cycle assessment as decision support: a systemic critique. In Life Cycle Assessment: Principles,

Practice and Prospects, Horne R, Grant T, Verghese K (eds). CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, 2009; 33–42.17. Finnveden G, Moberg A. Environmental systems analysis tools – an overview. Journal of Cleaner Production 2005; 13:

1165–1173.18. Arnold F. Life cycle doesn’t work. The Environmental Forum 1993 (September/October): 19–23.19. Weitz K, Todd JA, Curran MA, Malkin M. Streamlining life cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assess-

ment 1996; 1(2): 79–85.20. Grant T. Life cycle assessment in practice. In Life Cycle Assessment: Principles, Practice and Prospects, Horne R, Grant

T, Verghese K (eds). CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, 2009; 23–31.21. Franklin Associates. Resource and Environmental Profi le Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery

Sacks (extract). 1990; http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/bin.asp?CID=1211&DID=4601&DOC=FILE.PDF [accessed 23 November 2009].

22. Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment (ILEA). Paper vs Plastic Bags: Franklin Associates Ltd., 1990. 2004; http://iere.org/ILEA/lcas/franklin1990.html [accessed 13 November 2009].

23. Ayalon O, Goldrath T, Rosenthal G, Grossman M. Reduction of plastic carrier bag use: an analysis of alternatives in Israel. Waste Management 2009; 29: 2025–2032.



24. Nolan-ITU, ExcelPlas, and Centre for Design at RMIT. Plastic Shopping Bags – Analysis of levies and Environmental Impacts, Final Report. Environment Australia: Canberra, 2002.

25. James K, Grant T. LCA of Degradable Plastic Bags. 2005; http://www.cfd.rmit.edu.au/programs/life_cycle_assessment/lca_of_degradable_plastic_bags [accessed 29 September 2008].

26. Keep Australia Beautiful. National Litter Index: Annual Results 2007/08 Tabulations. 2008; http://www.kab.org.au/_dbase_upl/NLI%20Tables%200708.doc [accessed 16 February 2009].

27. Lewis H. National Packaging Covenant Mid-Term Review: Executive Document. Report to National packaging Covenant Council: Melbourne, 2008.

28. Lewis H, Sonneveld K, Fitzpatrick L, Nicol R. Towards Sustainable Packaging, Discussion Paper. 2002; http://www.sustainablepack.org/database/fi les/fi lestorage/Towards%20Sustainable%20Packaging.pdf [accessed 14 May 2009].

29. Lewis H, Fitzpatrick L, Verghese K, Sonneveld K, Jordon R. Sustainable Packaging Redefi ned. Sustainable Packaging Alliance, Melbourne. 2007; http://www.sustainablepack.org/database/fi les/newsfi les/Sustainable%20Packaging%20 Redefi ned%20Nov%20%202007.pdf [accessed 23 November 2009].

30. Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC). Defi nition of Sustainable Packaging, version 1.0. SPC: Charlottesville, Virginia, 2005; http://www.sustainablepackaging.org/about_sustainable_packaging.asp [accessed 19 October 2007].

31. Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC). Design Guidelines for Sustainable Packaging, version 1.0. SPC: Charlottesville, Virginia, 2006.

32. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1987.33. Elkington J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone Publishing: Oxford, 1999.34. European Commission. European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on Packaging and

Packaging Waste. 1994.35. Verghese K, Lewis H, Fitzpatrick L, Di-Mauro Hayes G, Hedditch B. Environmental Impacts of Shopping Bags. Report

by Sustainable Packaging Alliance for Woolworths Limited: Melbourne, 2009; http://mams.rmit.edu.au/r97dgq3iero9.pdf [accessed 11 December 2009].

evaluating the sustainability impacts of packaging: the plastic carry bag dilemma

Documents