Single-use beverage cups and their alternatives - Recommendations from Life Cycle Assessments - Life Cycle ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
hosted by Single-use beverage cups and their alternatives Recommendations from Life Cycle Assessments
Acknowledgements
AUTHORS: Yvonne Lewis, Alexandra Gower and Philippa Notten (TGH Think Space)
REVIEWERS:
Marjukka Kujanpaa (Stora Enso), Eugenievan der Harst (Wageningen University & Research), Safia Qureshi (CupClub) and
Alison Watson (UNEP).
This publication is commissioned and supervised by the United Nations Environment Programme and the Life Cycle Initiative
(Economy Division): Llorenç Milà i Canals, Claudia Giacovelli, Kaushik Andakudi Kesavan.
DESIGN AND LAYOUT: www.rothko.co.za
Copyright © United Nations Environment Programme, 2021
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special
permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. The United Nations Environment
Programme would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this
publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from
the United Nations Environment Programme.
DISCLAIMER
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area
or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment
Programme, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.
Suggested citation:
(UNEP 2021). United Nations Environment Programme (2021).
Single-use beverage cups and their alternatives - Recommendations from Life Cycle Assessments.
UNEP promotes
environmentally sound practices
globally and in its own activities.
This report is intended to be
an online publication. Our
distribution policy aims to reduce
UNEP's carbon footprint.
Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION 14
1.1 Background.................................................................................................. 14
1.2 Purpose, scope and method.......................................................................... 15
1.3 LCA method in brief....................................................................................... 16
2 META-ANALYSIS OF THE LCA STUDIES 20
2.1 LCA studies comparing single-use beverage cups...........................................20
2.1.1 Existing meta-study of single-use beverage cups made from HI-PS, EPS,
PP, PET and rPET, PLA and paperboard lined with PE, PLA and wax:
Van der Harst and Potting, 2013..........................................................20
2.1.2 Single-use PS, PLA and paperboard cups lined with PLA using multiple
data sets: Van der Harst, Potting and Kroeze, 2014.............................. 23
2.2 LCA studies comparing single-use and
reusable beverage cups – hot drinks............................................................. 25
2.2.1 Single-use PE-lined paper cups and
reusable PP cups: Foteinis, 2020........................................................ 25
2.2.2 Single-use paper cups (PE- and PLAlined) and
reusable PP, stainless steel and ceramic cups in sit-down and
takeaway contexts: VTT, 2019.............................................................. 27
2.2.3 Single-use paper cups (PE- and PLAlined), single-use EPS cups and
reusable PP and ceramic cups: CupClub, 2018....................................29
2.2.4 Single-use plastic-lined paper cup and reusable ceramic mugs:
Martin, Bunsen and Ciroth, 2018......................................................... 31
2.2.5 Reusable plastic (PP) and glass KeepCups, reusable bamboo and plastic
cups and single-use PE- and PLA-lined paper cups: Almeida, Pellec and
Bengtsson, 2018................................................................................ 33
2.2.6 Single-use and reusable cups: Woods and Bakshi, 2014...................... 35
2.3 LCA studies comparing single-use plastic bottles
and non-container means for providing drinking water................................... 37
2.3.1 Single-use PLA, PP and PET cups and reusable stainless steel cup:
Changwichan and Gheewala, 2020..................................................... 37
2.3.2 Single-use PP, PLA and PE-lined paper cups and reusable PC cups:
Vercalsteren, Spirinckx and Geerken, 2010..........................................40
3 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 43
3.1 Environmental impacts of single-use plastic beverage cups and
their alternatives.......................................................................................... 43
3.1.1 Comparison of different single-use beverage cups............................... 43
3.2 Important aspects of LCAs of single-use beverage cups and
their alternatives.......................................................................................... 45
3.3 Important aspects in policy making...............................................................49
REFERENCES 51
SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES 1
Executive Summary
Single-use beverage cups are amongst the top items actions to regulate their use. It is a meta-analysis of ten
found littered on beaches around the world. Typically Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies that can be grouped
made from polystyrene (PS) or polymer-lined paperboard, in three distinct clusters: LCA studies comparing single-
these disposable cups are widely used as a cheap and use beverage cups; LCA studies comparing single-use
convenient way to consume takeaway drinks. But due in and reusable beverage cups – hot drinks; and LCA studies
part to variable recycling habits and waste management comparing single-use and reusable beverage cups – cold
practices globally, too many of the 500 billion single-use drinks. These studies and their key findings are summarised
cups consumed each year end up discarded as litter. in the table at the end of the Executive Summary.
As with all mismanaged plastic waste, single-use beverage The analysis demonstrates, there are multiple variables
cups contribute significantly to marine pollution with that affect the environmental impacts of beverage cups
impacts on marine biodiversity loss, as well as impacts on across their value chain, whether single-use or reusable.
industries like tourism fishing and shipping. Overall, reusable cups emerge as the better alternative,
The use of disposable beverage cups is set to rise ex- dependent on specific conditions; and in regions where
ponentially in line with changing food trends that fa- renewable electricity makes up a high proportion of the
vour convenience, especially in middle- to low-income grid mix, recycling rates are low, and consumers are aware
countries. Urgent action is therefore needed – at policy, and responsible with regards to washing practices and
business and citizen level – to find sustainable alter- number of reuses, reusable cups are the clear choice.
natives for consuming beverages outside of the home.
Because of the degree of variability revealed in the
In recent years, a number of alternatives have been put
studies, a key message of this meta-analysis is that
forward, including reusable cups and improved man-
policy solutions will need to be context specific and
agement at end-of-life. However, these are not without
locally relevant and take into consideration the role
challenges of their own.
of human behaviour. There is no one-size-fits-all
This report summarises current knowledge about the approach. Instead, policy makers can draw on best
environmental performance of single-use beverage practice and make sure that this is adapted in a way
cups and their alternatives in order to help guide policy that will work for their own country and population.
Overall, reusable cups emerge as the better
alternative. In regions where renewable electricity
makes up a high proportion of the grid mix, recycling
rates are low, and consumers are aware and
responsible with regards to washing practices and
number of reuses, reusable cups are the clear choice.
2 SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES
This meta-analysis suggests: renewables in the regional electricity grid mixes.
Along with consumer behaviour in the use phase,
• Single-use cups have similar environmental impacts
the end-of-life technology used and the available
regardless of the material they are made of (whether
recycling infrastructure are also important. So
bio-plastic, fossil-based plastic or paper). When
much so that paper cups can become the better
choosing between single-use options, the least
option in terms of climate impact than reusable
environmentally problematic choice may be to use
cups if recycling of paper cups exceeds 80%,
paper cups, especially if the currently low recycling
although this recycling rate is seldom achieved.
rates can be turned around.
• For cold drinks, reusable cups are also a better
• Hot drinks should be served in reusable cups (e.g.,
option (e.g., stainless steel, polycarbonate, etc.)
ceramic cups, glass cups, reusable plastic cups,
and have lower environmental impacts compared
and melamine and bamboo cups; depending
to any other single-use alternative. This holds true
on the design these cups can have silicon or
for public events, especially smaller events which
cork bands; and silicone or rubber lids). These
have a lower percentage of losses.
reusable options are more environmentally
sound than any other single-use alternative, as • For both hot and cold drinks most studies identify
long as washing of the reusable cups between a breakeven point for reusable cups, which is
uses is efficient. This means using an efficient, the number of times a reusable cup needs to be
fully-loaded dishwasher or, if handwashed, used for the impact to be similar or better than a
using cold water. The case becomes even more single-use cup. In all cases, the number of reuses
compelling as older, inefficient dishwashers are required to breakeven is well within the assumed
replaced and there is increased penetration of life span of the reusable cups.
SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CRITICAL PARAMETERS INFLUENCING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
OF BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES
Based on the studies analysed, several parameters should • End-of-life treatment: After manufacturing, the
be considered when conducting and interpreting LCAs of management of single-use cups at end-of-life is an
single-use beverage cups and their alternatives. Below is a important contributor to life cycle impact. Neither
non-exhaustive list of these. recycling, composting, landfilling or incinerating
consistently give the lowest life cycle impacts across
• Single- or multi-use: Reusable cups have lower climate
the studies and across all environmental impact
impact than single-use cups, regardless of material,
categories considered. Nonetheless, for all materials,
although the number of reuses to breakeven with
recycling the cups at end-of-life is preferred to landfill.
single-use cups in terms of climate impact varies with Furthermore, the higher the recycling rate, the lower
the material. The number of reuses ranged from 10 to the potential impact on climate change; especially
670, depending on the materials compared, end-of- pertinent to paperboard cups. This is due to differences
life assumptions and especially washing assumptions. in degradation rates assumed for the different materials
Reusable cups also have lower impacts across most across the studies, and also whether – and to what
of the other impact categories considered in the degree – recycling credits are applied.
studies, although this varies even within the studies
with different use and behaviour scenarios. Consumer • The role of consumer behaviour: While reusable cups
behaviour is uncertain, and the number of reuses is an offer a lower impact than single-use cups across most
assumption in most studies. impact categories, this is contingent on the number
of uses of the reusable cup. As a result, consumer
• Material used: No material consistently performs the behaviour plays a major role in determining the impact
best or worst across the studies, although some trends of a reusable cup, regardless of the material type.
are evident: paper cups are comparable to recycled Furthermore, consumer behaviour in how cups are
plastic (rPET); paper and bio-plastic cups have lower washed, for example, whether they are washed by hand
impacts than polystyrene cups (PS and HI-PS); paper or in a machine, and at what water temperature is an
cups lined with plastic (PE) have lower impacts than important determinant of the degree to which reusable
paper lined with bio-plastic (PLA); and wax-lined cups are environmentally preferable to single-use cups.
paper cups have lower impacts than PE-lined paper Washing reusable cups is the most significant contributor
cups. Manufacturing is the largest contributor to the to the life cycle environmental impacts of reusable cups,
life cycle environmental impacts of single-use cups. followed by manufacturing. Most of the studies analysed
Using recycled materials to produce beverage cups determine a breakeven point ranging from 10 to 670
reduces fossil fuel resource depletion and impact on uses depending on the materials compared, end-of-life
climate change substantially. assumptions and washing assumptions.
Manufacturing is the largest contributor to the life cycle
environmental impacts of single-use cups. Using recycled
materials to produce beverage cups reduces fossil fuel resource
depletion and impact on climate change substantially.
4 SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES
• Choice of environmental impact indicators: The purpose agement option with landfilling the most common
of an LCA is to assess all types of environmental impacts alternative. In the developing country context, for-
to better understand trade-offs and avoid burden mal waste management may be lacking with many
shifting. There is a tendency to focus on climate impact single-use items ending up as litter or in informal
due to its relevance and the fact that it is a priority for waste management systems. Similar geographical
policy makers. In some cases, results for other impact disparities can be observed in the availability of
categories are not presented, or given far less attention. bio-based feedstocks, electricity grid mix, accepta-
Impact on water scarcity tends to be neglected (even bility of reusable alternatives to consumers, availa-
omitted in many studies) despite water use being higher ble recycling infrastructure, and so forth. It is also
and potentially significant in some regional contexts vital to consider and geographically differentiate
in reusable cup systems. Most studies also assume consumer behaviour. This includes consumer atti-
all cups end up in formal waste management systems tudes to alternatives (especially to reusable cups),
at end-of-life (rather than being littered or informally washing practices and waste behaviours, such as
disposed). Potentially important aspects, such as litter likelihood of recycling and littering single-use cups.
impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, and further
• Functional equivalence: The cups compared in the
disamenity impacts associated with the higher waste
studies were all fairly similar in terms of the size of cup
volumes of single-use cups are not well assessed by the
and function, particularly for hot drinks. However, they
LCA studies (if at all).
were less consistent in terms of the other functions
• Geographical context: The environmental impacts provided by a certain beverage cup, specifically lids
of beverage cups have been shown to be strongly to prevent spilling when transporting hot drinks or
influenced by technologies and energy sources for bands or sleeves to make the cup more handleable
production and end-of-life management. These are when hot. The functional equivalence of these “add-
parameters that are region- and country-specific. ons” were not often discussed but might be relevant to
For example, in Europe, incineration is a common- consumers particularly when considering a transition
ly employed waste management option where the from a single-use to a reusable system. Lids and
energy value of the waste is recovered. In other re- sleeves were also shown to potentially add a sizable
gions, incineration is an unacceptable waste man- increase to the environmental impacts.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY MAKERS
This meta-analysis serves to highlight important aspects to inform policy development that is context specific and
that policy makers should consider when evaluating locally relevant. These contexts and the preferences for
environmental information (often in the form of LCA the different beverage cups under different scenarios are
studies) on single-use beverage cups and their alternatives summarised in the matrix below.
SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES 5
Preferred type of beverage cups depending on waste management context and behavioural considerations
This matrix helps countries, regions and cities to identify the closest scenario and most appropriate options for their context.
The content of the matrix is simplified. Please refer to the full narrative of the meta-study for details.
Eco- or cost-conscious Consumer Indifferent Consumer
Considerations
of geographical EFFICIENT WASHING during CUPS REUSED UNLIKELY TO LITTER / INEFFICIENT WASHING INSUFFICIENT REUSE of cups LIKELY TO LITTER /
use-phase (energy efficient many times likely to recycle or compost during use-phase (Hand (Little consumer awareness) unlikely to recycle
and technological dishwasher or hand wash in wash in hot water)
context cold water)
NO FORMAL WASTE Reusable in case of
MANAGEMENT & POOR renewable energy mix
RECYCLING SUPPORT
Reusable regardless Reusable Ceramic; glass; Reusable Ceramic; glass; Single-use Wax-, PE- or Reusable Ceramic; glass;
unsanitary landfill, open of energy mix stainless steel; bamboo stainless steel; bamboo bioplastic-lined paper stainless steel; bamboo
dumps, open burning, no
policy support for recycling Single-use in case of carbon
and/or composting intensive energy mix
FORMAL WASTE No clear preference No clear preference Single-use in case of carbon
MANAGEMENT BUT POOR in case of carbon intensive between reusable and intensive energy mix
RECYCLING SUPPORT energy mix single-use (EPS) If
Reusable Ceramic; glass; Single-use EPS; wax-, PE- or Reusable Ceramic; glass;
sanitary landfill, incineration incineration with energy
stainless steel; bamboo; PP bioplastic-lined paper stainless steel; bamboo
with energy recovery, but no or recovery and importantly
low policy support for recycling Reusable in case of if single-use are being No clear preference in case
and/or composting renewable energy mix collected and managed. of renewable energy mix
Single-use in case of Single-use PE- or bioplastic-
FORMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT carbon Intensive energy mix lined paper; rPET
& RECYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE Reusable especially
Single-use regardless Single-use PE- or bioplastic- Reusable PP; ceramic; glass;
sanitary landfill and/or recyclable materials such as
of energy mix lined paper; rPET stainless steel; bamboo
incineration with energy PP, glass, and stainless steel Reusable especially
Reusable in case of
recovery recyclable materials such as
renewable energy mix
PP, glass and stainless steel
Reusable cups preferred Single-use cups preferred No clear preference for reusable or single-use cups
6 SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overall the meta-analysis recommends the following: Where possible, likely improvements in terms of
environmental performance should be included. Energy,
• Policies must take a systems perspective and consider
transport and waste management systems as well as
the whole life cycle of the beverage cup/take-away drink
appliance efficiencies and recycling processes may
system. In addition to the material of the cup, it is also
change over time, influencing the relative environmental
important to consider a wider set of factors including
performance of different beverage cups.
energy sector developments, current and future waste
management infrastructure, complementary and • Policies must take into account consumer behaviour and
conflicting policies in place, implementation costs, perceptions, for example perceptions around hygiene
consumer awareness, perceptions and behaviour and public health, which vary from country to country,
change required (especially around reuse and will have a significant impact on the uptake of reusable
responsible disposal of cups after use), and related cups. Heightened concerns around hygiene during the
implementation barriers. Many of these considerations Covid-19 pandemic have hampered efforts to address
are not only country specific, but also vary with time. single-use plastic products and stalled the uptake
of reusable alternatives, with some countries even
• Policies must consider regional and country-specific
reversing or delaying single-use plastic product bans¹.
differences including any transportation, washing
The characteristics of the consumer population will
(and drying) technologies and practices as well as
influence policy uptake in other ways too. For example,
barriers to uptake. For example, reusable cups may be
littering is common behaviour in certain countries and
unpractical in situations where facilities for washing
non-existent in others. Changing consumer behaviour
are absent, limited or inconvenient. Geographical
in this regard is necessary to tackle plastic pollution.
differences are also evident in waste treatment
However, influencing consumer behaviour through
processes. It is important that the end-of-life fate of
policies – such as charging for single-use cups,
material is correctly and appropriately modelled taking
incentivising mug-share schemes and product bans – is
into account the geographic location and limitations
complex and care must be taken that devised policies
of existing infrastructure and technologies (as well
have the desired effect and do not lead to unintended
as the potential of future technologies). For example,
consequences themselves. Interventions that are
although most bio-plastics are compostable under the
accompanied by clear environmental messaging and
correct conditions in industrial facilities, there are often
social marketing campaigns can increase success.
limited or no facilities for the separate collection of
materials and infrastructure for industrial composting, • Policies must recognise and manage trade-offs and
so most will be disposed of in landfill or end up as litter. the risks of burden-shifting between environmental
Other factors that are influenced by geography include impacts and should not focus solely on climate
the availability of feedstocks for bio-plastics, the type impact just because it is relevant, urgent and familiar.
of power generation technology, whether handwashing Policy makers should also seek to be cognisant of
or machine washing is most prevalent and consumer environmental impacts not quantified in life cycle
perceptions with regard to reuse and recycling. assessments, most notably marine litter, health and
safety aspects, biodiversity and land use change
• Policies should be based on studies that use the
impacts. Ideally, LCA results need to be considered
best available data and account for likely future
together with other sources of relevant information on
developments in production processes and related
environmental aspects, particularly where gaps exist in
systems. Every effort should be made to critically
LCA methodology.
evaluate the data used in the studies and source the
most recent and representative data possible. Newer
technologies may be at a disadvantage to other more
established technologies due to their smaller scale.
1 Although these fears have been countered by experts as without substance, see https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Health-
Expert-Statement_Final.pdf
SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table E1: Overview of studies included in the meta-analysis
The option with the lowest climate impact
Study Functional Material Geographic Main conclusions
unit scope
Single-use Reusable
Bio-based Fossil-based Plastic Plastic Other
plastic plastic
LCA studies comparing single-use beverage cups
A critical comparison of ten Number North The global warming
disposable cup LCAs of cups or America, potential (GWP) both
amount of Europe within and across
Van der Harst, E. and cups needed studies shows that for
Potting, J. (2013) to serve an single-use cups no one
amount of material is consistently
This study is a meta- PE
liquid better or worse than
analysis that compares 10 HI-PS; lining;
other materials and
LCA studies of single-use EPS; PLA
PLA the differences in GWP
cups (for both hot and cold PP; lining;
are due to a number of
drinks) made from a variety PET & rPET wax
factors, including cup
of fossil fuel- (HI-PS, EPS, lining
material, cup weight,
PP, PET and rPET) and bio-
production processes,
based plastics (PLA) as well
waste process,
as paperboard (PE, PLA and
allocation options and
wax lined).
data used.
Multiple data sets and Provision of Global
modelling choices in a disposable
a comparative LCA of beverage
disposable beverage cups cup fit for
serving 180ml
Van der Harst, E., Potting, J. hot drinks
and Kroeze, C. (2014) by vending
machines
This study incorporates and
translates the variability
in inventory data into PLA
a spread in LCA results PLA PS
lining
by applying multiple
data sets. The range of
applicable modelling
choices are also applied
(e.g., different waste
management processes
and allocation methods).
Three types of single-
use beverage cups were
included in the analysis.
8 SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVESTable E1: Overview of studies included in the meta-analysis
Study Functional unit Material Geographic Main conclusions
scope
Single-use Reusable
Bio- Fossil- Plastic Plastic Other
based based
plastic plastic
LCA studies comparing single-use and reusable beverage cups – HOT drinks
How small daily choices play One typical Europe (UK) Recycling single-use
a huge role in climate change: paper cup, paperboard cups rather
The disposable paper cup intended than sending them to
environmental bane for the landfill could reduce
consumption their climate impact
Foteinis, S. (2020) of one medium by 36%. However, a
(hot) drink far greater decrease in
This study compares the PP cup
(340ml) environmental impacts
environmental footprint of with
PE lining can be achieved by
single-use paperboard cups silicone
switching to a reusable
with reusable plastic cups. Two band
plastic cup. The reusable
different end-of-life scenarios
cup option has the
are assessed for the paper cup,
potential to reduce
namely landfilling and recycling.
climate impact by 69%
(assuming 500 uses and
compared to a landfilled
paper cup).
Taking a closer look at paper 1,000 servings Europe This study demonstrates
cups for coffee of coffee in that paper cups can be
sit-down or a better option in terms
VTT (2019) take-away PE of climate impact than
context lining; reusable cups under
This study compares several PP cup
PLA Ceramic; certain situations. In
single-use and reusable with
lining Stainless particular, if recycling of
beverage cups and investigates silicone
with and Steel paper cups exceeds 80%
the impact of recycled content, band
without or if washing of reusable
washing efficiency and different
PS lid cups between uses is
end-of-life scenarios.
inefficient (e.g., if washed
in an older or partially-
loaded dishwasher)
Join the reusable revolution One CupClub Europe The PP plastic cup with
cup and lid lid (CupClub) has lower
CupClub (2018) delivered and environmental impacts
collected from than both types of single-
This study compares the PE liner
manufacture, use paper cups across
quantitative environmental and PS PP cup
used 132 EPS all environmental impact
profile of CupClub – a returnable lid; with
times, with Ceramic category indicators and
packaging service for drinks in PLA liner LDPE
backhauled, PS lid has lower environmental
the United Kingdom – to three and PLA lid
washed and impacts than the single-
single-use cups and a ceramic lid
dried 133 use polystyrene cups and
reusable cup.
times and then ceramic cups in nine and
recycled 17 of the impact category
indicators respectively.
Case Study: Ceramic cup vs. 750 x 300 Ceramic, Europe The study recommends
Paper cup ml of coffee with and (Germany) that hot drinks should be
served in cup PE lining served in reusable cups,
Martin, S., Bunsen, J. and Ciroth, without
– washed in and PS but that the washing
A. (2018 rubber lid –
dishwasher lid method (dishwasher or
washed in
dishwasher handwashing) and water
This study compares the
temperature have a major
environmental impacts of a
750 x 300 Ceramic, effect on the overall
traditional reusable ceramic
ml of coffee PE lining with rubber environmental impacts of
cup, with and without a lid, and
served in cup and PS lid – the reusable cup.
a paper cup with a PE lining
and PS lid, with various use – washed by lid washed by
scenarios. hand hand
SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES 9EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table E1: Overview of studies included in the meta-analysis
Study Functional Material Geographic Main conclusions
unit scope
Single-use Reusable
Bio-based Fossil- Plastic Plastic Other
plastic based
plastic
Reusable coffee cups life One year Australia, The reusable cups
cycle assessment and of coffee New Zealand, (KeepCups, bamboo
benchmark drinking Australia, and PP) have lower
Melamine North America GWP and energy use
Almeida, J., Pellec, M. L. and and and Europe than single-use cups
Bengtsson, J. (2018) bamboo but higher water
PE lining PP cup cup with consumption as a
This study assesses the and PS and lid, silicone lid result of washing.
environmental impact lid; with and and band; The GWP of the three
of three KeepCups and PLA lining without Glass KeepCups and the
three other single-use and PLA silicone cup with bamboo cup are
and reusable cups. It lid band silicone relatively similar and
aims to understand the or cork are 88% lower than
environmental hotspots band and the paper cup with
along the KeepCups supply rubber lid PLA lining.
chain in three key markets:
Europe, Australia/Asia and
the US.
Reusable vs. disposable Impact per US Reusable cups
cups revisited: guidance use perform better in
in life cycle comparisons terms of their climate
addressing scenario, model, impact across most
and parameter uncertainties regions of the United
for the US consumer States compared
to single-use
Woods, L. and Bakshi, B. R. polystyrene cups.
(2014) The case for reusable
EPS Ceramic cups in the US will
This study compares the
strengthen further
impact of reusable cups
as older inefficient
and single-use cups in the
dishwashers are
United States, evaluating
replaced and there is
the influence of different
increased penetration
dishwashing appliance
of natural gas and
models and subnational
renewables in the
electricity grid mixes.
regional electricity
grid mixes.
10 SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVESTable E1: Overview of studies included in the meta-analysis
Study Functional unit Material Geographic Main conclusions
scope
Single-use Reusable
Bio- Fossil- Plastic Plastic Other
based based
plastic plastic
LCA studies comparing single-use and reusable beverage cups – COLD drinks
Choice of materials for Providing Asia Handwashed reusable
takeaway beverage cups a 650ml (Thailand) stainless steel cups have
towards a circular economy container for lower environmental
one drink each impacts compared to
Changwichan, K. and workday (five single-use PP, PET and
Gheewala, S. H. (2020) days a week) PLA. Both handwashed
for a year (52 and machine-washed
This study compares
weeks) or 260 stainless steel cups have
three plastic single-use
drinks per year lower potential contribution
beverage cups with lids,
to climate change than
both bio-based and fossil, Stainless
PP the plastic alternatives.
with a reusable stainless PLA steel with
PET The inclusion of recycled
steel beverage cup with a plastic lid
materials decreases the
plastic lid.
impacts of all cup types,
with the stainless steel
cup showing the largest
reductions. Recycling at
end-of-life also significantly
decreases the potential
climate and human toxicity
impact of the PP and PET
cups.
Life cycle assessment and Serving 100 PLA PP PE PC Europe The LCA does not clearly
eco-efficiency analysis litres of beer coating (Belgium) identify the best cup
of drinking cups used at or soft drinks type for both types of
public events at small-scale events. However, in the
indoor event eco-efficiency analysis
Vercalsteren, A., Spirinckx, (2,000 - 5,000) the reusable PC cup
C. and Geerken, T. (2010) performs best in terms of
environmental impacts
The objective of this study
at small events, although
is to gain insight into the
the costs are higher than
environmental impacts and
single-use cups.
costs related to existing Serving 100 PLA PP PE PC
systems for serving litres of beer coating
drinks at public events in or soft drinks
Belgium. The study uses at a large-
LCA and an eco-efficiency scale outdoor
analysis* to evaluate event (>30,000
four alternative types of visitors)
drinking cups used at small
and large public events.
* A single environmental score and economic (cost) score
SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES 11Abbreviations
TERM DEFINITION
EPS Expanded polystyrene
FU Functional Unit
GHG Greenhouse gas
GWP Global warming potential
HI-PS High impact polystyrene
LCA Life cycle assessment
PB Paperboard
PC Polycarbonate
PE Polyethylene
PET Polyethylene terephthalate
PLA Polylactic acid
PP Polypropylene
PS Polystyrene
RFID Radio frequency identification
rPET Recycled PET
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
WTE Waste To Energy (incineration)
12 SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES01 Introduction
SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES 1301 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Plastic products and packaging are pervasive in modern 2018; Foteinis, 2020). Demand for single-use beverage
society, with an estimated nine billion tonnes of plastic cups is expected to grow exponentially in middle- and
produced to date, mostly from fossil fuels (Geyer, Jambeck low-income countries where beverage cup consumption
and Law, 2017; UNEP, 2018). Most of the plastic is in the is currently relatively low (Foteinis, 2020). As recycling is
form of packaging or other single-use items and quickly costly and problematic and waste management is often
ends up as waste. The scale of the problem is already inadequate, a significant proportion of these single-use
immense, with plastic production continuing to increase. cups may end up as litter. Various solutions to address
At the same time, plastic recycling rates remain very low the issues associated with single-use beverage cups have
with only 9% of all plastic ever produced recycled (Geyer, been put forward in recent years including reusable cups
Jambeck and Law, 2017). As a result, plastic waste is and improved management at end-of-life (composting and
steadily accumulating in landfills, and where solid waste recycling systems). However, these alternatives have their
management is inadequate, it ends up littering and own challenges, not least of which is changing entrenched
polluting the natural environment, waterways and oceans. consumer behaviour.
In poorer countries, abundant plastic waste is used as a
Resolution 9 of the Fourth United Nations Environment
fuel for cooking and heating. This releases toxic emissions,
Assembly (UNEA4) in March 2019, on “Addressing single-use
which negatively impact human health.
plastic products pollution” (UNEP/EA.4/R.9), “encourages
Plastic litter not only has impacts on marine, freshwater member states to take actions, as appropriate, to promote
and terrestrial ecosystems, but also an economic impact, the identification and development of environmentally-
particularly on industries like tourism, fishing and shipping. friendly alternatives to single-use plastic products,²
And because most plastic does not biodegrade, but rather taking into account the full life cycle implications of those
breaks down over time into smaller and smaller pieces alternatives” (UNEP, 2019). One of the actions under UNEP/
eventually becoming microplastics, plastic particles have EA.4/R.9 is to make available existing information on the
been found in almost every natural habitat on earth and full life cycle environmental impacts of single-use plastic
in a wide range of organisms and animals. Plastic debris products compared to their alternatives.
has even been found in the deep ocean, with microplastics
Guided by UNEA4 resolution 9, this study aims to
ingested by deep sea amphipods in six of the deepest
provide insight into how LCAs can be used to make
marine ecosystems on Earth (Jamieson et al., 2019).
informed decisions on single-use plastic products and
Single-use beverage cups are one of the top ten items found their alternatives. In particular, it addresses single-use
littered on beaches around the world (Ocean Conservancy, plastic beverage cups and their alternatives. It is part of
2011). Used for take-away drinks such as coffee, they are a series of reports covering other widespread single-use
typically made from polystyrene (PS) or polymer-lined plastic products and their alternatives, including bags,
paperboard. Globally, over 500 billion disposable cups are bottles, take-away food packaging, tableware, nappies,
consumed annually, of which between 250 and 300 billion feminine hygiene products and face masks (personal
are plastic-lined paper cups (Martin, Bunsen and Ciroth, protective equipment).³
Single-use beverage cups are one of the top
ten items found littered on beaches around the
world. Globally, over 500 billion disposable cups are
consumed annually, of which between 250 and 300
billion are plastic-lined paper cups.
2 Although these fears have been countered by experts as without substance, see https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Health-
Expert-Statement_Final.pdf
3 All of these reports are available from https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/single-use-plastic-products-studies
14 SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES1.2 PURPOSE, SCOPE AND METHOD
This report provides insights on how Life Cycle Assess- • Other, reusable: Ceramic, bamboo, glass and stain-
ments (LCAs) can inform policy decisions on single-use less steel
plastic beverage cups and their alternatives. The report
Searches were initially performed on Web of Science to
is based on the review and analysis (meta-analysis) of
identify relevant peer-reviewed studies published between
selected existing LCA studies that compare single-use
beverage cups and their alternatives. The different solu- 2000 and 2020. Further searches were performed using
tions for providing customers with a means to consume Google Scholar and Google to ensure the literature search
beverages outside of the home considered in this report was comprehensive and included both academic literature
thus follow those that have been covered in the LCA lit- as well as company-sponsored LCA studies. With input
erature. Beverage cups for containing both hot and cold from UNEP and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the
beverages are covered in the report, with the following initial list of 27 identified studies was narrowed down using
single-use and reusable options considered: the following criteria:
• Bio-based plastic, single-use: biodegradable⁴ ther- • Type of packaging studied: Studies that focused on single-
moplastic made from renewable resources (PLA) use and reusable beverage cups for both hot and cold
• Fossil-based plastic, single-use: polystyrene (HI-PS beverages were included. This meta-analysis therefore
and EPS), virgin thermoplastics (PP, PET) and recycled did not include other types of take-away packaging,
thermoplastic polymer (rPET) even if the packaging was similar to beverage cups (e.g.,
• Paper, single-use: Paperboard lined with plastic, plastic-lined paper cups or tubs for yoghurt or ice cream).
both conventional (PE) and bio-based (PLA), and Beverage bottles and cans were also excluded. The
wax-lined paperboard studies were required to focus on the cups themselves
• Plastic, reusable: virgin thermoplastics (PP and PC) and exclude any assessment of beverage contents.
4 The bio-based plastic included in the options is PLA, which only biodegrades under industrial composting conditions (i.e. at high humidity and temperatures
of around 60°C).
SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES 1501 INTRODUCTION
• Completeness of the study: Full LCA studies were Compliance with international standards was not used
preferred over preliminary or screening LCA studies. as a selection criterion as this is often not explicitly
stated in publications. Furthermore, it is assumed that
• Transparency of the study: It was important
the peer review process would focus on compliance
that as much detail as possible was included in
with relevant standards.
the publication, particularly on methodological
assumptions and sources of underlying data and Ten studies fulfilled the criteria and were selected for the
selected impact assessment methods.
meta-analysis (Table E1). These studies can be clustered
• Geographic coverage: Electricity grid mix, available as follows:
waste management technologies and efficiencies, and
• LCA studies comparing single-use beverage cups
local recycling rates differ significantly by geographic
• LCA studies comparing single-use and reusable
region. Thus, including studies from as many regions as
beverage cups – hot drinks
possible was important for the meta-analysis. This report
is intended to have global applicability, which provided • LCA studies comparing single-use and reusable
further rationale for broad geographic coverage. beverage cups – cold drinks
• Publication date: Technologies improve over time In terms of geographic scope, an existing meta-study
and so although the original screening considered that compares the results of ten studies covering
publications from 2000 onwards, more recent Europe and North America was included for the
studies were given preference in the final selection. comparison of single-use beverage cups. The authors
of this meta-study published a second study on single-
• Language: The meta-analysis only included studies
use beverage cups, which used multiple data sets to
published in English.
account for geographic differences. For the hot drinks
• Peer-reviewed studies: Preference was given to studies cluster, four European, one North American and one
that have been through a peer-review to ensure a global study were reviewed. For cold drinks, one Asian
level of rigour and quality from expert reviewer input. and one European study were analysed.
1.3 LCA METHOD IN BRIEF
LCA is a well-established tool for assessing the potential life. This method allows the user to draw conclusions
environmental impacts associated with a product or and make recommendations on the impact and
service, providing a structured framework within which significance of each life cycle stage of the product
to model its consequences on the natural environment analysed and makes possible comparisons with
and society. All stages of a product’s life cycle are different products or systems. International standards
considered, from mining, extraction or growing of raw on LCAs (ISO 14040 and ISO 14044) divide LCAs into
materials, to its manufacturing, distribution and use, four main stages:
right up to the final disposal of its components. LCAs
• Goal and scope definition: Objective (goal) and the
have a number of benefits including:
methodological approach (scope).
• Creating awareness that decisions are not isolated,
• Inventory analysis: All raw materials and
but that they influence a larger system;
emissions (inputs and outputs) are considered
• Promoting decision-making for the longer-term, by
for each of the unit processes that make up the
considering all environmental issues and potential
life cycle of the product. Inputs include the use
knock-on effects associated with a decision choice;
of natural resources, such as land and water, as
and
well as manufactured materials such as fuels and
• Improving entire systems, and not just single parts of
chemicals. Outputs are released to air, water and
systems, by avoiding decisions that fix one problem
land, as well as all products and by-products.
but cause another unexpected issue.
Taken together these unit processes make up the
LCAs provide a robust framework for analysing life cycle system to be analysed, as defined by the
environmental impacts along the entire product value product system boundary. The Life Cycle Inventory
chain and life cycle, considering different material (LCI) is a comprehensive list of resources and
types and subsequent stages such as use and end-of- emissions (inputs and outputs).
16 SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES• Impact assessment: Assesses the life cycle inventory or damages, as the necessarily global nature of the
by connecting resources and emissions to their predictive LCIA models means they do not take the specific
corresponding impacts on the environment and receiving environment into account. Life cycle inventory
human health. In this way, the inputs and outputs data (the basis for impact assessment) span multiple
are summed up into common areas of environmental geographical locations across countries and continents in
concern, for example, impacts on human health, today’s global supply chains, thus LCIA’s predictive models
impacts on ecosystems etc. This can be done at varying are not like environmental impact assessment (EIA) models
degrees of complexity, and a number of different Life that accurately characterise the actual risks associated with
Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods have been emissions at a particular location. Indeed, the value of an
developed to quantify the potential environmental LCA study lies not so much with the final numbers, but rather
impacts of a product system. with the exploration and consequent understanding of the
system it assesses. Especially valuable is an LCA’s ability
• Interpretation: Findings are evaluated in relation
to highlight hotspots along the value chain (i.e., show the
to the defined goal and scope in order to reach
areas of highest potential impact), and also to highlight
conclusions and make recommendations.
trade-offs between different sustainability impacts. It
It is important to note that although the LCA method is seldom that one system or decision option performs
is standardised, there is still room for a range of better than another in all aspects of environmental impact.
methodological choices that impact the results. Understanding these trade-offs is a prerequisite towards
Additionally, LCAs predict potential environmental impacts improving the sustainability of product systems.
SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES 1702 Meta-analysis
of the LCA studies
18 SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVESThis chapter presents the main findings
and results of the analysed LCA studies.
For each study a short description is
provided together with a summary of the
results and main conclusions. This is
followed by a tabular summary of the study,
which presents details on the products
studied and highlights key assumptions.
Results are summarised using colour
coding to depict the relative performance
of products across the impact indicators
considered in the study.
The colour coding is shown in the Figure
below. Note that the colour coding
only denotes relative and not absolute
impacts and the reader is referred to
the original reference to appreciate the
range and scale of the impacts calculated
by the studies. All LCA studies have
an inherent degree of uncertainty and
variability in their results. In order not
to over emphasise findings, where the
difference in impact category scores
between two options is less than 10%,
they are ranked equally in the tables. For
example, if the 2nd lowest option has
an impact score less than 10% higher
than the lowest option, both options are
ranked “green” in the tables.
Figure 1. Color-coding for the impact indicators.
Lowest relative impact
In-between (neither highest
nor lowest)
Highest relative impact
SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES 1902 META-ANALYSIS OF THE LCA STUDIES
2.1 LCA STUDIES COMPARING SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS
focused on only one impact category indicator, global
2.1.1 Existing meta-study of single-use
warming potential (GWP), as this was the only common
beverage cups made from HI-PS, EPS, impact category indicator across all the studies. The
PP, PET and rPET, PLA and paperboard studies considered are listed in Table 1 together with
lined with PE, PLA and wax: Van der the type of single-use beverage cups covered.
Harst and Potting, 2013
The studies analysed considered a number of waste
This study is a meta-analysis that compares ten LCA treatment options for the cups including landfilling,
studies of single-use cups (both hot and cold) made incineration with energy recovery, use as a fuel substi-
from a variety of fossil fuel-based plastics (HI-PS, EPS, tute, recycling, composting, and a combination of sev-
PP, PET), recycled plastic (rPET) and bio-based plastic eral waste options. Most studies applied energy credits
(PLA), as well as paperboard (PE, PLA and wax lined) for avoided production of conventional energy due to
(Van der Harst and Potting, 2013). The meta-analysis recovered energy during incineration.
TABLE 1: Studies and products included in the meta-study of Van der Harst and Potting (2013)
Study Title (HI)- EPS PP PET PLA PB PB + PB +
PS & + PE PLA wax
rPET lining lining lining
(Franklin Associates, 2006) Life cycle inventory of five products
produced from polylactide (PLA) and x x x x
fossil fuel-based resins.
(Franklin Associates, 2009) Life cycle inventory of 16-ounce
x x x
disposable hot cups.
(Franklin Associates, 2011) Life cycle inventory of foam
polystyrene, paper-based, and PLA x x x x x
foodservice products.
(Garrido and Alvarez del Castillo, Environmental evaluation of single-
2007)Scope and Background. use and reusable cups.
The objective of the study was
to. determine the environmental
effects of the reusable cup used x
during a major event (which took
place in Barcelona, Universal
Forum of Cultures, 2004
(Hakkinen and Vares, 2010) Environmental impacts of disposable
cups with special focus on the effect x x
of material choices and end-of-life.
(PE Americas, 2009) Comparative life cycle assessment
of Ingeo biopolymer, PET and PP x x x
drinking cups.
(Ligthart and Ansems, 2007) Single-use cups or reusable (coffee)
drinking systems: an environmental x x
comparison.
(Pladerer et al., 2008) Comparative life cycle assessment of
various cup systems for the selling of x x x x
drinks at events.
(Uihlein, Ehrenberger and Utilisation options of renewable
Schebek, 2008) resources: a life cycle assessment of x x
selected products.
(Vercalsteren et al., 2006) Comparative LCA of 4 types of
x x x
drinking cups at events.
20 SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVESSummary of results and conclusions The differences in results within and across studies are
attributed to differences in methodological choices,
In order to compare the results within and across each
particularly allocation methods, and data sources. The
study, the GWP results were ordinally ranked from lowest
factors contributing to differences in GWP highlighted by
to highest within each study. Secondly, to allow for a
the meta-analysis include:
quantitative comparison between studies, the GWPs were
adjusted to reflect a cup with a volume of 473 ml (16 oz). • The weight of the cup, with GWP increasing almost
proportionally to the weight of the cup.
• Based on the ranking of GWP only, no cup material
ranked consistently better than the other cup materials • Differences in the production of cup material and
across all studies. However, there were several common manufacturing of the cup.
outcomes: the GWPs of paperboard cups were compa-
rable to rPET cups, and lower than the GWPs of PS cups, • Differences in waste treatment processes. For fossil
while PLA cups have lower GWPs than HI-PS cups. With- fuel-based plastics, incineration in comparison to
in the paperboard material group paperboard PLA-lined landfilling can significantly increase GWP (by as much
cups for hot beverages ranked higher in terms of their as 60% for PET cups). Landfilling fossil fuel-based
GWP than PE-lined ones, and paperboard PE-lined cups plastics contributes less than 2% to GWP whereas in-
for cold beverages rank higher than wax-lined ones. cineration contributes between 30 and 40% to GWP.
There were also a number of contradictory results be- The contribution of recycling to GWP is not consist-
tween rPET and EPS, PET and HI-PS, PLA and PET, PLA ent between studies, but in general recycling can de-
and PP, paperboard and EPS, paperboard and rPET and crease GWP compared to landfilling.
paperboard and PLA. The rankings within the fossil fu-
• Bio-based plastics (PLA), like fossil fuel-based
el-based plastic group were also inconsistent.
plastics, are considered inert during landfilling and
• The quantitative assessment similarly did not yield thus contribute little to GWP. Contrary results were
clear results regarding the preferred cup material in reported for composting PLA.
terms of its climate impact. A large variation in results
• For paperboard, incineration can decrease GWP in
is observed across the studies, especially within the
paperboard group. In general, paperboard cups with comparison to landfill, depending on the degradation
incineration or a combination of landfill and incineration rate assumed in the landfill.
have lower GWPs, although where higher degradation • Differences in contribution to GWP from waste
rates are applied paperboard appears towards the treatment processes is strongly affected by the degree
middle or higher end of the range in GWPs. Across all of energy credits applied, recycling credits applied and
cup materials, PET cups that are incinerated or landfilled
degradation assumptions in landfilling and composting.
have GWPs at the top end of the range, but if recycled or
a combination of recycled and incinerated PET cups fall • The contribution of transport to GWP is small in
in the middle of the GWP range. most studies.
SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES 2102 META-ANALYSIS OF THE LCA STUDIES
Table 2: Summary table: Van der Harst and Potting (2013)
Products considered in studies included in the meta-analysis
Beverage cup – hot and cold
Study scope Material HI-PS EPS PP PET & PLA PB with PB with PB with
rPET PE PLA wax
Functional unit Either based on the number of included cups or on the amount of cups needed to serve an
amount of liquid
Capacity [ml] 473
Number of uses Varies according to study and FU
Weight per container [g] Varies according to study
Geographic region EU and US
Life cycle stages Cradle-to-grave (material production, production, use and waste disposal)
End-of-life assumptions
L = landfill;
I = incineration;
Varies with study and scenario (see below)
FS = fuel substitute;
R = recycling;
C = composting
Indicator – (Franklin Associates, 2006) 3 (L/I) 1 (L/I) 4 (L/I) 2 (L/I)
Global warming
potential (Franklin Associates, 2009) 1 (L/I) 1 (R); 2 1 (L/I)
Ranking as in (open-
Van der Harst loop R)
and Potting
(Franklin Associates, 2011)
(2013),
– max decomposition of PB 1 (L/I) 3 (L/I) 2 (L/I)
1 = lowest GWP,
– no decomposition of PB 3 (L/I) 2 (L/I) 1 (L/I)
4 = highest
GWP – max decomposition of PB 1 (L/I) 1 (L/I) 2 (L/I) 3 (L/I)
– no decomposition of PB 3 (L/I) 4 (L/I) 1 (L/I) 2 (L/I)
(Hakkinen and Vares, 2010) 1 (L) 1 (L)
2 (I) 1 (I)
(PE Americas, 2009) 2 (L) 3 (L) 1 (L)
(Ligthart and Ansems, 2007) 2 (R) 1(I)
(Pladerer et al., 2008) 4 (I) 3 (I) 2 (I) 1 (I)
4 (I) 2 (I/R) 3 (C) 1 (I)
(Uihlein, Ehrenberger and 2 (I) 1 (I)
Schebek, 2008)
(Vercalsteren et al., 2006)
Small events 3 (I) 2 (I/C) 1 (I)
Large events 2 (I/FS) 3 (I/C) 1(I/FS)
Method EI99, IPCC, CML 2001 and Impact 2002+
Other The weight of the cups is an influential factor and the GWP outcomes within a study increased nearly proportional to the weight of
comments the cup across cup systems.
Other influencing factors on GWP include cup material, production of cup material, manufacturing of cup, waste treatment option,
input data sources and allocation methods.
22 SINGLE-USE BEVERAGE CUPS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVESYou can also read
