Robert Fell, director and chief executive, Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association, looks at Lifecycle Analysis (LCA), asking why, when they all profess to be correct, do they often contradict each other?
As the saying goes “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics “. It’s not totally clear who first coined the phrase, but it first seems to have appeared in 1891 and has been used ever since to describe, amongst other things, the questionable or inappropriate use of data.
Sadly, it seems that the same description can also be applied in the field of Lifecycle Analysis. A fact that I was reminded of recently having read another LCA report that, while presenting itself as a scholarly and definitive work, appeared to come to the very conclusion you would have expected the commissioning organisation to want.
The problem is they are not the only ones.
Historically, LCAs have been used to praise and damn every form of packaging format pretty much in equal measure.
The point is that while they [LCAs] all profess to be correct, they often contradict each other, sometimes in spectacular fashion.
They all use persuasive arguments and clever calculations and claim to be the final word in LCA accuracy. However, dig a little deeper and you often find a highly selective use of data, or system boundaries and, in some cases, you will even find cherry picking of data from other reports to make their case.
The point is that while they all profess to be correct, they often contradict each other, sometimes in spectacular fashion.
Clearly, they can’t all be right and, given the level of contradiction, some must be very wrong. The question is therefore, how can pieces of work supposedly undertaken using scientific rigour produce such conflicting results?
You could perhaps claim the “legitimate” use of setting different system boundaries or including or excluding different elements to ease the complexity of the calculation.
Or perhaps the more likely thought process goes along the lines of “make our packaging format look as good as you possibly can.”
Vested interest
Vested interest is a dangerous thing when you’ve got serious problems to resolve, and not too long to resolve them in.
It doesn’t matter how persuasive your arguments or how clever your calculations, if your material can’t be easily recycled, or the infrastructure is not in place, or even if it can be recycled, no one wants it, then you’re only going to add to the problem and make the situation worse.
The European Commission seems to agree and has recently adopted a new Circular Economy Action Plan which forms part of their European Green Deal, Europe’s new agenda for sustainable growth.
The new Action Plan includes initiatives along the entire life cycle of products, targeting amongst other things, their design, promoting circular economy processes, fostering sustainable consumption, and aiming to ensure that the resources can be used in the economy for as long as possible.
The Action Plan also reminds us that up to 80% of a product’s environmental impacts are determined at the design phase.
In Section 3.3 which covers packaging, the Action Plan states that “In order to ensure that all packaging on the EU market is reusable or recyclable in an economically viable way by 2030, the Commission will review Directive 94/62/EC to reinforce the mandatory essential requirements for packaging to be allowed on the EU market”.
For me it’s very simple: is the material recyclable, easy to extract from the waste stream, and will it actually be reused if collected
All things being equal, this should be good news for metal packaging, after all, metal packaging is already fully reusable or recyclable, and already has a complete and self-financing recycling infrastructure in place.
Additionally, its recyclability is not affected or diminished in any way by pack customisation or by contamination from the pack’s contents.
This helps to explain why something like 80% of all the metal ever produced is still in use today and why metal paint cans for instance, are classified as widely recycled – contamination by dried paint has no effect on their recyclability. The furnace just doesn’t care.
Which all brings me back to LCAs. For me it’s very simple: is the material recyclable, easy to extract from the waste stream, and will it actually be reused if collected?
Does it have a high recycling rate with the real possibility of getting to 100%? Also, when it is reused does it have a beneficial effect compared to using its virgin alternative by reducing the impact of that material on the environment?
And finally, can it be used again and again with no loss of quality?
If you can’t answer yes to these questions, I’m not sure it really matters what your favourite LCA says.
