Plastics Composition 2011 Final Report 26 02 2013 - WRAP Composition 2011 Report.… · Consumer...
Transcript of Plastics Composition 2011 Final Report 26 02 2013 - WRAP Composition 2011 Report.… · Consumer...
Plastics P
Repo
Plast
Janu
Packaging Co
ort
tic Pack
ary 201
omposition R
kaging C
13
Report
Compo
osition 2
2011
Novvember 20122
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
Executive Summary
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to provide a more comprehensive picture of the composition (by packaging
format and by plastic polymer type) of plastic packaging flowing onto the UK market in 2011.
A better understanding of the composition of plastic packaging provides a baseline for further work,
such as projections of future flows of plastic packaging, analysis of the proportions of each polymer or
format currently recycled and assessment of feasible recycling prioritisation strategies.
The research undertaken included both secondary and primary investigations and covered both
consumer and non‐consumer packaging. However, the work focused mainly on implementing a new
methodology for estimating the composition of consumer plastic packaging through sampling
supermarket goods packaging use. This was possible using Valpak’s access to supermarkets’ suppliers
(for packaging weight/format/polymer data) and product sales data. It is believed that this is a novel
way in which to estimate consumer plastic packaging consumption, as previous studies have been based
on either UK industry/stakeholder consultations or waste arisings data1.
Methodology
The total quantity of UK plastic packaging used in this report, and its breakdown by consumer and non‐
consumer streams, were estimated in the PackFlow 20172 study as ranges, and are illustrated in Figure
ES1 below. For simplicity in this project, the mid‐points from the PackFlow 2017 ranges have been used,
for instance, 2.5m tonnes of total plastic packaging of which 1.7m tonnes are consumer plastic
packaging.
Figure ES 1 UK Plastic Packaging Flows 2011 (PackFlow 2017 Estimates)
In order to provide information on the composition of these packaging streams by format (e.g. bottle, film, tray, etc.) and by plastic polymer type (e.g. HDPE, PET, PP, etc.), the following methodologies were adopted:
1 One of the main advantages of this methodology is that the data inherently includes products and packaging imported for sale in the UK and excludes products and packaging exported. 2 PackFlow 2017 is published and is available on the Valpak website http://www.valpak.co.uk/BuildYourKnowledge/MarketResearchAndAnalysis/ProjectsAndCaseStudies.aspx
FLOW ONTO MARKET 2011Total 2,409-2,660kConsumer (Total) 1,638-1,809kConsumer (Household) 1,373-1,516kConsumer (Away from Home) 265-293k
Non-Consumer 771-851k32%
Split100%68%57%11%
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
ii
Consumer3 For the purposes of this project, consumer packaging composition has been established by randomly
sampling a specific quantity of the packaging used around products (including food and drink, toiletries,
cleaning products, toys, electricals, etc.) found in major UK supermarkets4. Whilst it is acknowledged
that consumer packaging also arises in retailers other than supermarkets, it is believed this is by far the
largest source of consumer packaging and is the best current dataset available for use.
A random survey sample of 4675 products was assessed for packaging weight, format and polymer type
of primary packaging. The sample of products and their associated suppliers were extracted from
Valpak’s EPIC (Environmental Product Information Centre) database6 and over 3,000 suppliers
contacted. Data on weight, format and polymer type were provided by 355 suppliers. The packaging
weights data were then multiplied by the respective supermarket product sales data, to provide a
dataset that represents the format and polymer composition of UK consumer plastic packaging
consumption, in percentages. After the sales weighting, the 467 products sampled represented 421
million products, weighing upwards of 3,000 tonnes.
Broadly speaking, this means the sample is large enough to give 95% confidence that the resulting
estimates of the composition of consumer plastic packaging are within +/‐4.5% of their true value (see
footnote 7 for a more technical statement). This assumes, as noted before, that supermarket packaging
is representative of all consumer packaging.
The composition of this dataset was then applied to the PackFlow estimate of consumer plastic packaging weight (1,724K tonnes in 2011) to derive estimates of UK consumer plastic packaging consumption by polymer type and format, in tonnes. Consumer packaging can be further broken down, depending on where the packaging is disposed of; at
home (household) or away from home (on‐the‐go):
Consumer (on‐the‐go): an analysis of nine local authority litterbin and street sweeping compositions data was considered in order to establish splits and tonnages of away from home formats by rigids, film and bottles. Food and drink data from the random sample detailed above was then used to
3 Consumer packaging is all packaging found around products that are placed on the market for consumer consumption 4 The term ‘supermarkets’ is used loosely to refer to sales from companies operating supermarkets (typically with sales area of 3,001 – 25,000 sq ft selling a broad range of grocery items) and superstores (typically with sales areas above 25,000 sq ft selling a broad range of grocery items as well as non‐food items). The main companies operating supermarkets in the UK include Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, Waitrose, Iceland and the Co‐op, some of which share their sales data with Valpak for packaging regulation purposes and allow Valpak the anonymised use of the associated packaging information. The database in which Valpak holds this information (weight of packaging and, for some packaging also polymer type and/or packaging format) is called ‘EPIC’. 5 Initially a target of 1066 products was set; however, in the limited timescales, the response rate achieved was lower. It has therefore been assumed that the 467 responses received are representative of the 1066 responses aimed for and are non‐biased towards any particular packaging formats or polymer types. 6 The random sample of products was taken from the products with known packaging weights within the EPIC database. This is believed to be a fair representation of supermarket packaging. 7 Assuming a worst case scenario of the ratio of the standard deviation (SD) to the corresponding mean being 0.5, a sample size
of 467 gives a 95% confidence interval of width +/‐4.5% from the sample mean. This confidence interval gives the range within which the likely true amount of consumer plastic packaging is likely to lie, based on the sample of packaging used and assuming the sample is representative of the population of consumer packaging. These margins of error allow for the uncertainty in using a sample to estimate the amount of packaging that is present in the larger population of products.
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
iii
provide a breakdown by polymer. The resulting proportions were applied to the PackFlow 2017 midpoint estimate of “away from home” consumer packaging in the UK in 2011 (279k tonnes).
Consumer (household): the remaining tonnages (after subtracting the on‐the‐go packaging figures from the total consumer figures) were considered to be packaging disposed of by consumers at home.
Non‐consumer8: The starting point for establishing the recent (2011) levels of non‐consumer plastic packaging was the
PackFlow 2017 midpoint estimate of 811K tonnes. This was broken down by sub‐sector (agricultural,
construction & demolition [C&D], and commercial and industrial [C&I]), based on a split obtained from
WRAP’s 2006 report ‘UK Plastic Waste – A review of supplies for recycling, global market demand, future
trends and associated risks’, which is based on 2005 estimates. In this context, commercial plastic
packaging is packaging used in the retail sector, wholesale sector, hospitality sector and offices, but that
is not sold with product to consumers. It includes items such as secondary and transit packaging and
sacs, pots, crates, etc. that are sold with product to trade customers. Further existing data was gathered
from a variety of sources and used to establish format and polymer breakdowns within each sub‐sector.
Some of the estimates produced using this methodology differ from existing estimates, arrived at by
other methodologies. These differences are highlighted and discussed throughout this report and in this
respect, the work brings to light levels of uncertainty surrounding estimates of plastic packaging.
Key Findings and Conclusions – All Plastic Packaging
Figure ES 2 UK Plastic Packaging by Format and by Polymer type, 20119
8 For the purposes of this study, the non‐consumer flow represents all packaging from the commercial and industrial streams as well as agricultural and construction & demolition (C&D) plastic packaging. 9 As is clear in the main body of the report, the analysis relies on a number of assumptions and approximations. As such, there are margins of error around the data. Furthermore, the level of precision presented here (namely, to the nearest thousand tonne) is not meant to represent the level of accuracy attached to the figures: the figures are simply quoted as they arose from the analysis.
ALL Plastic PackagingLDPE/ LLDPE
HDPE OPP PP PET PS PVC OtherGrand Total
(tonnes)
Grand Total (%)
Film Total 628k 145k 16k 143k 72k 5k 13k 98k 1119k 44%Film 508k 33k 11k 96k 58k 3k 12k 69k 790k 31%Film - Bags 120k 112k 5k 45k 9k 1k 1k 29k 321k 13%Film - Strapping/Tape/Bands 0k 0k 0k 3k 5k 0k 0k 0k 8k 0%
Rigids Total 11k 265k 4k 227k 730k 89k 75k 15k 1415k 56%Bottles 1k 202k 0k 5k 337k 0k 3k 0k 548k 22%Consumer Closures 3k 32k 3k 17k 21k 0k 1k 3k 80k 3%Consumer PTTs 5k 0k 0k 123k 329k 53k 39k 7k 556k 22%Non-Consumer Rigids 0k 19k 0k 76k 30k 22k 0k 0k 147k 6% Closures 0k 1k 0k 1k 1k 0k 0k 0k 2k 0% Injection Moulded Pallets, Crates, etc 0k 0k 0k 22k 0k 0k 0k 0k 22k 1% EPS Transit Packaging 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 9k 0k 0k 9k 0% Pails, Drums, Industrial 0k 17k 0k 12k 0k 0k 0k 0k 29k 1% Non-Consumer PTTs 0k 0k 0k 41k 30k 13k 0k 0k 85k 3%Other 1k 12k 0k 5k 14k 13k 32k 5k 83k 3%
Grand Total (tonnes) 638k 410k 20k 370k 803k 93k 88k 113k 2535k
Grand Total (%) 25% 16% 1% 15% 32% 4% 3% 4% 100%
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
iv
Key features of plastic packaging in 2011
The following key features of plastic packaging were highlighted and/or identified as part of this study. They are illustrated in Figures ES2, ES3 and ES4.
1. UK plastic packaging consumption amounted to 2.5m tonnes in 2011 (PackFlow 20172 Estimation)
68% of plastic packaging is for consumer consumption (1.7mt)
32% of plastic packaging is for non‐consumer consumption (0.8mt)
2. Rigid packaging (including bottles, PTTs, closures, etc.) account for the majority (56%) of plastic
packaging
45% of rigid plastic packaging is PTTs
39% of rigid plastic packaging is bottles
3. Plastic film including bags, strapping, tape and bands constitute the next largest proportion of
plastic packaging consumed in the UK
44% of plastic packaging is made of film (1119kt)
Of this, 71% is non‐bag film (790kt) and 29% is film used as bags (321kt)
4. Plastic pots, tubs and trays represent 25% of UK plastic packaging
32% of consumer plastic packaging comprises PTTs (556kt)
Only 10% of non‐consumer plastic packaging is PTTs (85kt)
5. Bottles represent 22% of plastic packaging consumption in the UK
91% of plastic bottles arise in the consumer sector
29% of consumer plastic packaging is bottles
6. PET is the most commonly used polymer in UK plastic packaging
32% of UK plastic packaging is made of PET (803kt)
43% of consumer plastic packaging is made of PET (747kt)
7. LDPE/LLDPE is used to make a quarter of plastic packaging (638kt)
9% of consumer plastic packaging is made of LDPE/LLDPE (156kt)
60% of non‐consumer plastic packaging is made of LDPE/LLDPE (483kt)
8. HDPE is used to make 16% of UK plastic packaging
HDPE is used to manufacture 410kt of UK plastic packaging
19% of consumer plastic packaging is made of HDPE (333kt)
9% of non‐consumer plastic packaging is made of HDPE (77kt)
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
v
9. PP is used to make 15% of UK plastic packaging
PP is used to manufacture 370kt of UK plastic packaging
14% of consumer plastic packaging is made of PP (243kt)
16% of non‐consumer plastic packaging is made of PP (127kt)
10. PET bottles represent the largest single tonnage of consumer plastic packaging
PET bottles represent 13% of UK plastic packaging (337kt)
Industry reports a move towards packaging products in PET bottles rather than HDPE due to changes in bottle requirements, improved visual impact, lighter weight and lower cost
11. The 50% HDPE:50% PET composition split of bottles entering the sorting/recycling stream may not
necessarily be appropriate for packaging consumption
The split derived from the survey sample suggests a split for consumer consumption of around two thirds (62%) PET and one third (38%) HDPE bottles.
Packaging consumption figures and the composition split of bottles entering the sorting/recycling stream can vary due to factors such as disposal of household packaging away from home; as on‐the‐go bottle collections are still extremely limited and a considerable proportion (around one‐third) of PET bottles are potentially disposed of on‐the‐go (and are therefore unlikely to enter the recycling stream as on the‐go recycling is very limited), it is understandable that the quantities of PET and HDPE bottles in household waste arisings and passing through MRFs and PRFs are broadly equivalent.
Key developments in plastic packaging since 2005
These potential trends arise from comparing the data in this report with the previously most
comprehensive composition analysis published by WRAP containing 2005 data. It should be noted that
the methodologies used to derive the estimates in each report are very different and there is
considerable uncertainty over estimates in both reports. Therefore, the comparison data should be
treated with caution and as only one means of establishing potential trends. Data for 2005 is detailed in
Annex II Figures A5 –A7.
1. The largest growth in plastic packaging format appears to have been in PTTs
Results from the current study estimate 641k tonnes of plastic PTTs
This is more than double the quantity of PTTs reported in this report compared to the quantity reported back in 2005
2. Film and Bottle tonnages appear to have remained relatively stable since 2005
Results from the current study estimate 1119k tonnes of plastic film packaging
This is similar to the 897k tonnes (plus assumed 227kt imports) reported in 2005
A wider range of polymers are now used in film and bag manufacture (new polymers representing ~33% and ~28% respectively)
Results from the current study estimate 548k tonnes of plastic bottles
This is similar to the 548k tonne (plus assumed 11kt imports) reported in 2005
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
vi
Industry’s view confirms any growth in consumption has been negated through light‐weighting of bottles and down‐gauging of films
3. The largest growth in plastic packaging polymer appears to have been in PET
Results from the current study estimate 803k tonnes of plastic PET packaging
This is almost double the quantity reported in 2005 (96% growth)
The majority of this growth is in PTTs (around 300kt)
PET is becoming a preferred polymer due to favourable properties such as visual impact, barrier properties, food‐grade recyclability and price (relative to HDPE)
The largest decline in plastic packaging format appears to have been in plastic bags
Consumer bag (carrier bags and other bags) tonnages have reduced by approximately one third since 2005
Carrier bags look to have reduced by about one quarter
There has been growth in non‐carrier bags such as fresh produce and bread bags
4. The largest decline in plastic packaging polymer appears to have been in LDPE/LLDPE
Results from the current study estimate 638k tonnes of plastic LDPE/LLDPE packaging
This represents a 34% decrease (322kt) on reported 2005 figures
This is likely due to a shift from LDPE bags to HDPE bags and the switching to alternative film polymers with different technical capabilities (e.g. storage in ambient instead of chilled environment, closures on ready meals)
HDPE bags have experienced significant growth at the expense of LDPE bags
Key Findings and Conclusions – Consumer Plastic Packaging
Figure ES 3 UK Consumer Packaging by Format and by Polymer type, 2011
Consumer Plastic PackagingLDPE/ LLDPE
HDPE OPP PP PET PS PVC OtherGrand Total
(tonnes)
Grand Total (%)
Film Total 145k 140k 16k 93k 59k 1k 6k 95k 556k 32%Film 59k 28k 11k 58k 50k 0k 5k 67k 279k 16%Film - Bags 86k 112k 5k 35k 9k 1k 1k 29k 277k 16%
Rigids Total 10k 193k 4k 150k 688k 66k 42k 15k 1167k 68%Bottles 1k 158k 0k 4k 333k 0k 2k 0k 498k 29%Consumer Closures 3k 32k 3k 17k 21k 0k 1k 3k 80k 5%Consumer PTTs 5k 0k 0k 123k 329k 53k 39k 7k 556k 32% Thermoformed Packs 3k 0k 0k 23k 293k 8k 39k 2k 368k 21% Injection Moulded Rigids 2k 0k 0k 100k 36k 46k 0k 5k 188k 11%Other 1k 2k 0k 5k 6k 13k 0k 5k 33k 2%
Grand Total (tonnes) 156k 333k 20k 243k 747k 68k 48k 110k 1724k
Grand Total (%) 9% 19% 1% 14% 43% 4% 3% 6%
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
vii
498k tonnes of plastic bottles were purchased/consumed by consumers in the UK, in 2011
556k tonnes of PTTs were purchased/consumed by consumers in the UK, in 2011
Consumer plastic packaging is split broadly evenly between three main packaging formats: films (32%, 556k tonnes), PTTs (32%, 556k tonnes) and bottles (29%, 498k tonnes)
Combined, rigid plastic packaging accounts for approximately two‐thirds (68%) of consumer plastic packaging and film accounts for one‐third (32%)
The most common polymer found in plastic consumer packaging is PET, which represents 43% of the total tonnage, or 747k tonnes
Key consumer packaging made from PET is bottles, typically containing soft drinks/water/cordials/energy drinks, and PTTs
The second most prominent polymer is HDPE (19%, 333k tonnes), which is mainly found in the form of milk bottles and vest‐style carrier bags
Key Findings and Conclusions – Non‐consumer Plastic Packaging
Figure ES 4 UK Non‐consumer Packaging by Format and by Polymer type, 201110
The majority (69%) of non‐consumer packaging is film (563kt), which is primarily non‐bag film made of LLDPE/LDPE (449kt) and mainly used when transporting goods
The remainder is rigid packaging (31%, 248kt)
10 Some figures do not add due to rounding (Non‐consumer PET Rigids, for example)
Non-consumer Plastic PackagingLDPE/ LLDPE
HDPE OPP PP PET PS PVC OtherGrand Total
(tonnes)
Grand Total (%)
Film Total 482k 5k 0k 50k 14k 3k 7k 3k 563k 69%Film 449k 5k 0k 37k 8k 3k 7k 3k 511k 63%Film - Bags 34k 0k 0k 10k 0k 0k 0k 0k 44k 5%Film - Strapping/Tape/Bands 0k 0k 0k 3k 5k 0k 0k 0k 8k 1%
Rigids Total 0k 72k 0k 77k 42k 22k 33k 0k 248k 31%Bottles 0k 44k 0k 1k 4k 0k 1k 0k 50k 6%Consumer Closures 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0%Consumer PTTs 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 0%Non-Consumer Rigids 0k 19k 0k 76k 30k 22k 0k 0k 147k 18% Closures 0k 1k 0k 1k 1k 0k 0k 0k 2k 0% Injection Moulded Pallets, Crates, etc 0k 0k 0k 22k 0k 0k 0k 0k 22k 3% EPS Transit Packaging 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 9k 0k 0k 9k 1% Pails, Drums, Industrial 0k 17k 0k 12k 0k 0k 0k 0k 29k 4% Non-Consumer PTTs 0k 0k 0k 41k 30k 13k 0k 0k 85k 10%Other 0k 10k 0k 0k 8k 0k 32k 0k 50k 6%
Grand Total (tonnes) 483k 77k 0k 127k 56k 26k 40k 3k 811k 0Grand Total (%) 60% 9% 0% 16% 7% 3% 5% 0% 0
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
Glossary ABS – Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene
BPF – British Plastics FederationC&I – Commercial & Industrial DIY – Do It Yourself EA – Environment Agency EPIC – Environmental Product Information Centre EPS – Expanded Polystyrene HDPE – High Density Polyethylenek ‐ Thousandkt ‐ Thousand tonnesLDPE – Low Density PolyethyleneLLDPE – Linear Low Density Polyethylene NPWD – National Packaging Waste Database OPP – Oriented PolypropylenePA – PolyacrylatePAFA – Packaging and Films Association PC – PolycarbonatePE – PolyethylenePET – Polyethylene TerephthalatePO – Polyolefin POM – Polyoxymethylene (Acetal)PP – PolypropylenePrimary Packaging – Any packaging that the customer will take
home, remove and throw away e.g. aluminium can, plastic bottle
PRF – Plastics Recovery Facility PRN – Packaging Recovery NotePRODCOM – PRODuction COMmunautaire PS – PolystyrenePTT – Pots, tubs and traysPVC – Polyvinyl ChlorideRTP – Returnable Transit Packaging Secondary Packaging – Inner packaging used to transport or display
goods to/in store, usually cardboard boxes or shelf‐ready packaging
Transit/Tertiary Packaging
– Any transit packaging e.g. pallets, shrink wrap, staples or strapping
WRAP – Waste and Resources Action Programme
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
Acknowledgments
This study has been jointly funded by Valpak Ltd and the Waste and Resources Action Programme
(WRAP), who would both like to thank all those who have contributed to the study by providing and/or
reviewing key data.
All attendees of WRAP’s Plastics Round Table
British Plastics Federation (BPF)
British Polythene Industries (BPI)
DEFRA
Innovia Films Ltd
LINPAC Packaging Limited
Nampak Plastics Europe Ltd
Plastics Europe
Recoup and their Board of Directors
RPC Containers Ltd
The Advisory Committee on Packaging (ACP)
The Packaging and Films Association (PAFA)
Verde Recycling Solutions
Disclaimer While Valpak Ltd and WRAP have tried to make sure this report is accurate, we cannot accept
responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with
this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy
it free of charge as long as the material re‐produced is accurate and is not used in a misleading context.
You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material
to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see
terms and conditions on the WRAP website at www.wrap.org.uk.
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
Table of Contents
1.Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objectives 1
1.3 Deliverables 1
2.Methodology 2
2.1 Introduction 2
2.1.1 Composition of Plastic Packaging 2
2.1.2 Quantity of Plastic Packaging 2
2.2 Total UK Consumption of Plastic Packaging 2
2.3 Consumer Plastic Packaging 3
2.3.1 Introduction 3
2.3.2 Data Sampling 3
2.3.3 Sample Size Representation 3
2.3.4 Household Plastic Packaging 4
2.3.5 On‐the‐Go Plastic Packaging 4
2.4 Non‐consumer Plastic Packaging 4
2.4.1 Agricultural Plastic Packaging 5
2.4.2 C&D Plastic Packaging 6
2.4.3 C&I Plastic Packaging 7
3.Overview of Plastic Packaging Data Sources 10
3.1 Data Sources 10
3.2 PackFlow 2017 11
3.2.1 Introduction 11
3.2.2 Definitions: Consumer & Non‐Consumer Packaging 12
3.2.3 PackFlow Industry Consultation 12
3.2.4 Key Findings 13
3.2.5 PackFlow 2017 Assumptions 13
3.3 Valpak’s EPIC Database 14
3.4 Packaging Formats 15
4.Total UK Consumption of Plastic Packaging 16
4.1 Introduction 16
4.2 Plastic Packaging Formats 18
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
4.3 Plastic Packaging Polymer Types 18
4.4 Trends in Plastic Packaging 19
4.4.1 Film 19
4.4.2 Strapping 20
4.4.3 Plastic Bottles 20
4.4.4 Consumer Plastic Pots, Tubs and Trays (PTTs) 21
4.4.5 Non‐consumer Rigid Packaging 22
4.4.6 Consumer Packaging Closures 23
5.Consumer Consumption of Plastic Packaging 24
5.1 Introduction 24
5.2 Plastic Packaging by Format and Polymer 25
5.2.1 Consumer Films (32% of Consumer Plastic Packaging) 25
5.2.2 PTTs (32% Consumer Plastic Packaging) 27
5.2.3 Bottles (29% Consumer Plastic Packaging) 27
5.2.4 Other (2% of Consumer Plastic Packaging) 29
5.3 Consumer (Household) Plastic Packaging 30
5.3.1 Packaging Formats 30
5.3.2 Polymer Types 31
5.4 Consumer (On‐the‐Go) Plastic Packaging 32
6.Non‐consumer Consumption of Plastic Packaging 33
7.Conclusions 34
7.1 Formats of Plastic Packaging 34
7.2 Polymers used in Plastic Packaging 34
7.3 Trends in Plastic Packaging 35
Annexes
Annex I Imports of Plastic Packaging
Annex II Key Data tables from WRAP’s UK Plastic Waste – A review of supplies for recycling,
global market demand, future trends and associated risks’ (Table 2.1 & Table 2.3)
Plastics P
Figure
Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9
Figure 10Figure 1Figure 12Figure 13Figure 14Figure 15Figure 16Figure 17Figure 18Figure 19Figure 20Figure 2Figure 22Figure 23
Packaging Co
es
PackFlowBreakdoAgricultuC&D PlaUK C&I PUK C&I PRigid PaPackFlowPackagin
UK Plast0 UK Cons1 UK Cons2 Consum3 Consum4 Typical P5 Consum6 Consum7 Consum8 Consum9 Consum0 Consum1 On‐the‐G2 Non‐Con3
omposition 2
w 2017 Plastown of Sectoural Plastic Pstic PackaginPlastic PackaPlastic Packackaging Formw 2017 Estimng Formats ..tic Packagingsumption of sumption of mer Plastic Pamer Plastic FilProduct Type
mer Plastic Pomer Plastic Bomer Packagingmer (Househomer (Househomer (HousehoGo Plastics Pnsumer Plast
2011
tic Packagingrs included iPackaging Arng Arisings ...aging Arisingsaging Splits bmat & Polymmates of Plas....................g ConsumptioPlastic PackaPlastic Packaackaging (Tonm by Polymees for Consuots, Tubs andottles by Polyg Formats Inold) Plastic Paold) Plastics Pold) Plastics PPackaging bytic Packaging
g Flowing on in Non‐consuisings ..............................s ..................by Format ....mer Splits usestic Consump....................on by Formaaging by Formaging by Polynnes & Perceer ................mer Bags ....d Trays by Poymer ............cluded in Caackaging .....Packaging byPackaging byy Polymer Typg Arisings .....
to the UK Mumer Packag................................................................................ed for Manufption ................................at & Polymermat ..............ymer ............ent) ......................................................olymer ..............................tegory ‘Othe....................y Packaging Fy Polymer Type ....................................
Market in 201ging ..............................................................................................facturing Ind........................................r Type (Tonne............................................................................................................................................er’ ....................................Format ........pe .......................................................
Ja
11 ....................................................................................................................dustries ................................................es) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
anuary 2013
................. 2
................. 5
................. 6
................. 7
................. 8
................. 8
................. 9
............... 12
............... 15
............... 17
............... 18
............... 18
............... 24
............... 25
............... 26
............... 27
............... 28
............... 29
............... 30
............... 30
............... 31
............... 32
............... 33
3
2
6 7 8 8 9 2
7 8 8 4
6 7 8 9 0 0 1 2
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
1
1. Introduction
The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive picture of the composition (format and
polymer) of plastic packaging flowing onto the UK market in 2011.
A better understanding of the composition of plastic packaging provides a baseline for further work,
such as projections of future flows of plastic packaging, analysis of the proportions of each polymer or
format currently recycled and assessment of feasible recycling prioritisation strategies.
1.1 Background
This report is the result of research undertaken over an eighteen month period to establish a more
detailed and up‐to‐date breakdown of the format and polymer splits of UK plastic packaging. The
research undertaken included both secondary and primary investigations, and covered both consumer
and non‐consumer packaging. The work focused mainly on implementing a new methodology for
estimating the composition of consumer plastic packaging through the use of plastic packaging data of
supermarket products (weight, format, polymer and sales data). It is believed that this is a novel way in
which to estimate consumer plastic packaging consumption, as previous studies have been based on
either UK industry/stakeholder consultations or waste arisings data.
1.2 Objectives
The final phase of this project had the following key objectives, as addressed in this report:
Establish a sampling methodology and undertake a data specification exercise to understand the
proportions of plastic packaging on the UK market;
Present five plastic packaging composition summary tables: Total, Total Consumer11, Consumer
Household, Consumer On‐the‐Go and Non‐consumer12;
Produce a breakdown of the types of products to be found in key packaging formats; and
Consult with industry on key polymer/format arisings.
1.3 Deliverables
The final deliverable from the project is this report, which presents the composition estimates and
provides associated commentary and analysis.
11 Consumer packaging is all packaging found around products that are placed on the market for consumer consumption 12 For the purposes of this study, the non‐consumer flow represents all packaging from the commercial and industrial streams as well as agricultural and construction & demolition (C&D) plastic packaging
Plastics P
2. M
2.1 I
2.1.1 C
The com
methods
breakdo
(includin
2.1.2 Q
The quan
the vario
Please se
PackFlow
(Section
2.2 T
The tota
describe
13 PackFlohttp://ww
Packaging Co
Methodo
Introducti
Compositio
mposition of p
s and data so
wn of all pla
ng household
Quantity o
ntities of pla
ous subsets,
Figure 1
ee section 3.
w 2017 (Sect
3.1).
Total UK C
al consumptio
ed below.
ow 2017 is publww.valpak.co.uk
omposition 2
ology
ion
on of Plast
plastic packa
ources. The s
stic packagin
d and on‐the
of Plastic Pa
astic packagin
have been a
PackFlow
.2.2 of this re
tion 3.2) and
Consumpt
on data is sim
lished and is avk/BuildYourKno
FLOW OTotalConsumConsumConsum
Non-Con
2011
tic Packagi
aging consum
section below
ng consumed
e‐go packagin
ackaging
ng flowing o
adopted from
w 2017 Plastic
eport for a d
other repor
tion of Pla
mply an addi
vailable on the Vwledge/Marke
ONTO MARK
mer (Total)mer (Househomer (Away from
nsumer
ng
med in the U
w outlines th
d, but also th
ng) and non‐
nto the UK m
m PackFlow 2
c Packaging Fl
definition of t
rts and inform
astic Packa
ition of the c
Valpak websitetResearchAndA
KET
old)m Home)
K has been e
he methodol
hose used to
‐consumer p
market in 20
201713 as illu
owing on to t
these subset
mation used
aging
consumer an
Analysis/Project
2,1,1,
32%
Split100%68%57%11%
estimated us
ogies adopte
o provide a b
ackaging.
11, and a bre
strated in Fig
the UK Marke
ts, along with
in the comp
nd non‐consu
tsAndCaseStudi
2011,409-2,660k,638-1,809k373-1,516k265-293k
771-851k
Ja
sing a variety
ed to estima
reakdown of
eakdown of
gure 1, below
et in 2011
h further det
pilation of th
umer data se
ies.aspx
anuary 2013
2
y of
ate the
f consumer
these by
w:
tails of
is report
ets as
3
2
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
3
2.3 Consumer Plastic Packaging
2.3.1 Introduction
Consumer packaging is all packaging found around products that are placed on the market for consumer
consumption. This includes the primary packaging around groceries, toiletries, electronics and toys, for
example. Consumer packaging can be further broken down, depending on where the packaging is
disposed of; at home (household) or away from home (on‐the‐go).
2.3.2 Data Sampling
For the purposes of this project, consumer packaging composition has been established by randomly
sampling a specific quantity of the primary packaging used around products found in major UK
supermarkets. Whilst it is acknowledged that consumer packaging also arises in retailers other than
supermarkets, it is believed this is by far the largest source of consumer packaging and is the best
current dataset available for use.
A random survey sample of 46714 products, including items such as margarine tubs, packs of water, toys,
etc., was assessed for packaging weight, format and polymer type. The sample of products and their
associated suppliers were extracted from Valpak’s EPIC (Environmental Product Information Centre)
database15. Throughout autumn 2012, over 3000 different supermarket suppliers were contacted for
information. Data on weight, format and polymer type were provided by 355 suppliers, and were then
sense checked and analysed for the purpose of this study.
The packaging weights data were then multiplied by the respective product sales data to provide a
dataset that represents the format and polymer composition of UK consumer plastic packaging
consumption, in percentages. The composition of this dataset was then applied to the PackFlow
estimate of consumer plastic packaging weight (1,724K in 2011) to derive estimates of UK consumer
plastic packaging consumption by polymer type and format, in tonnes.
2.3.3 Sample Size Representation
It has been assumed that supermarket packaging is representative of all consumer packaging. Assuming
a worst case scenario of the ratio of the standard deviation (SD) to the corresponding mean being 0.5, a
sample size of 46716 gives a 95% confidence interval of width +/‐4.5% from the sample mean. This
14 Initially a target of 1066 products was set; however, in the limited timescales the response rate achieved was lower. It has therefore been assumed that the 467 responses received are representative of the 1066 responses aimed for and are non‐biased towards any particular packaging formats or polymer types. 15 The random sample of products was taken from the products with known packaging weights within the EPIC database. This is believed to be a fair representation of supermarket packaging. 16 It should be noted that once the sample size is multiplied by the number of sales of those products, the number of products for which weights, formats and polymers were identified increases to 421 million, weighing upwards of 3,000 tonnes.
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
4
confidence interval gives the range within which the likely true amount of consumer plastic packaging is
likely to lie, based on our sample of packaging, assuming the sample is representative of the population
of consumer packaging. These margins of error allow for the uncertainty in using a sample to estimate
the amount of packaging that is present in the larger population of products.
It should be noted that once the sample size is multiplied by the number of sales of those products, the
number of products for which weights, formats and polymers were identified increases to 421 million,
weighing upwards of 3,000 tonnes.
2.3.4 Household Plastic Packaging
The consumer (household) dataset was calculated by subtracting the consumer (on‐the‐go) elements
from the complete consumer dataset. Consumer (on‐the‐go) packaging composition was established as
described below.
2.3.5 On‐the‐Go Plastic Packaging
In order to establish the format and polymer breakdown of consumer (on‐the‐go) plastic packaging,
further secondary research was undertaken. This established an average split of plastic bottles, plastic
film and other plastic packaging as reported in a number of litterbin and street sweeping analyses
undertaken in different parts of the UK over the last ten years. Litterbin and street sweeping
compositions were deemed to be a fair reflection of the mix of consumer plastic packaging disposed of
on‐the‐go. The average splits adopted were (see section 3.1 for data sources):
Plastic Bottles: 42%;
Plastic Film: 37%; and
Other Rigid Plastic Packaging: 20%.
The formats and polymer types of the plastic packaging and the composition of ‘other rigid plastics’
were estimated using the format splits of food and drink products derived from the survey sample (see
above). The exception to this was plastic bottles, which has been assumed to be all PET soft
drink/water/energy drink bottles only, rather than a wider mix of HDPE milk bottles and PP/PVC
cleaning or toiletry bottles.
2.4 Non‐consumer Plastic Packaging
For the purposes of this study, the non‐consumer flow represents all packaging from the commercial
and industrial streams as well as agricultural and construction & demolition (C&D) plastic packaging.
Commercial plastic packaging includes that which arises from the retail, wholesale, hospitality, offices
and similar operations. Non‐consumer plastic packaging accounts for all three layers of packaging,
including primary (from trades sales, not consumer sales), secondary and transit.
Plastics P
The start
PackFlow
This was
proporti
demand
Whilst b
consume
show the
Each of t
2.4.1 A
The resu
packagin
within va
Using th
farms, w
17 It is impyears old. 18 http://w19 UK Plas20 Develop21 UK Plas
Packaging Co
ting point fo
w 2017 estim
s broken dow
ons from the
, future tren
eing six year
er plastic pac
e estimated
Figu
the three key
Agricultura
ults of the En
ng format typ
arious plastic
is data, WRA
which equate
portant to note
webarchive.natstic Waste – A rping the Evidenstic Waste – A r
omposition 2
or establishin
mate of 811K
wn by sub‐se
e WRAP repo
nds and assoc
rs old, this re
ckaging arisi
breakdown
Breaure 2
y non‐consu
al Plastic P
nvironment A
pe of annual
c reports sin
AP (2006)21 id
ed to 4.5% of
e that this repor
tionalarchives.greview of supplince Base for Plareview of suppli
2011
ng the recent
K tonnes.
ctor (agricult
ort: ‘UK Plast
ciated risks’ ,
eport remain
ngs publicly
of non‐consu
akdown of Se
mer sectors
Packaging
Agency’s Agr
plastic pack
ce 2003, inc
dentified tha
f the Agri/C&
rt is fairly dated
gov.uk/2011040ies for recyclingastics Recycling ies for recycling
t (2011) leve
tural, constr
tic Waste – A
, researched
ns the latest,
available17. F
umer plastic
ectors include
is discussed
ricultural Wa
kaging arising
luding WRAP
at around 32
&D/C&I prop
d now, particula
07094538/httpg, global markein Scotland. ZWg, global marke
ls of non‐con
ruction, etc.)
A review of s
d in 2006.
most compr
Figure 2 has
c packaging:
ed in Non‐con
in turn belo
ste Survey 2
gs from UK fa
P19 and Zero
2k tonnes of
ortions. Usin
arly with regard
p://www.agwaset demand, futuWS, 2012. et demand, futu
nsumer plast
, based on th
supplies for r
rehensive br
been adapte
sumer Packag
w.
00318 provid
arms. These
Waste Scotl
plastic packa
ng this 4.5% a
d to non‐consum
steplastics.org.uure trends and a
ure trends and a
Ja
tic packaging
he Agri/C&D
recycling, glo
reakdown of
ed from this
ging
de a breakdo
results have
land (ZWS)20
aging arises f
and applying
mer data, which
uk/agri/about.associated risks
associated risks
anuary 2013
5
g was the
D/C&I
obal market
non‐
report to
own by
e been used
.
from UK
g it to the
h is up to 14
html. s. WRAP, 2006.
s. WRAP, 2006.
3
5
Plastics P
2011 dat
be aroun
ZWS23 es
which if
agricultu
use the e
Using th
arisings d
2.4.2 C
WRAP (2
represen
calculate
around 1
Wider so
Council o
2011, is
This wou
the WRA
ZWS (20
be aroun
22k tonn
22 PackFlo23 Develop24 Assumi25 http://w26 UK Plas27 PackFlohttp://ww28 Plastic 29 AssumiManufactu30 Develop31 Assumi
Packaging Co
ta calculated
nd 37k tonne
stimates tha
scaled up to
ure may have
estimate of a
is and the br
displayed in
C&D Plasti
2006)26 ident
nts around 1
ed by Valpak
11.4k tonnes
ources were
of Vinyl Man
around 158k
uld result in a
AP and Valpa
12)30 data w
nd 2k tonnes
nes31. This fig
ow 2017. ping the Evidening Scotland repwebarchive.natstic Waste – A row 2017 is publww.valpak.co.ukWaste from Buing a proportionurers (2011) anping the Evidening Scotland rep
omposition 2
d by Valpak/W
es, and as su
t agricultura
o represent U
e differing ch
around 37k t
reakdown of
Figure 3 bel
Figure
c Packagin
tified that ar
.4% of the A
k/WRAP (201
s, and as suc
also used to
nufacturers, w
k28. It is belie
around 8k to
ak estimates.
were also use
s. If this volu
gure is much
nce Base for Plapresents 8.8% otionalarchives.greview of supplilished and is avk/BuildYourKnouilding & Constrn of PP and PE ind corroboratednce Base for Plapresents 8.8% o
Po
PE
PP
HDP
HDP
Tota
2011
WRAP (2012
ch, is in line
l plastic pack
UK arisings, w
haracteristics
tonnes to rep
f formats/po
ow.
Agricue 3
ng
ound 10k to
Agri/C&D/C&
12)27, the flow
h, is broadly
o investigate
which estima
eved that aro
onnes of C&D
.
d to assess C
me is scaled
larger than
astics Recycling of UK total empgov.uk/2011040ies for recyclingvailable on the Vwledge/Markeruction, Europeis packaging usd by Developingastics Recycling of UK total emp
lymer For
Film
Film
PE Bottl
PE Core
al
2)22, the flow
with earlier
kaging in Sco
would equate
s to the rest
present the f
olymers prov
ultural Plastic
nnes of plas
&I proportion
w of C&D pla
y in line with
the flow of C
ates that the
ound 5% of t
D plastic pac
C&D arisings
up to repre
those produ
in Scotland. ZWployment. 07094538/httpg, global markeValpak websitetResearchAndAan Council of Vsing Plastic Wasg the Evidence Bin Scotland. ZWployment.
mat % o
Arisi
56%
26%
es 14%
s 4%
of agricultu
estimates.
otland in 200
e to around
of the UK, it
flow of agric
ided by the E
Packaging Ar
tic packaging
s. Using this
astic packagi
earlier estim
C&D plastic p
e total C&D p
otal C&D pla
kaging arisin
, and estima
sent UK arisi
uced from th
WS, 2012.
p://www.agwaset demand, futu Analysis/ProjectVinyl Manufactuste from BuildinBase for PlasticsWS, 2012.
of
ngs
Appro
Ton
% 2
% 1
% 5
%
3
ral plastic pa
09 equated to
25k tonnes24
t was conside
ultural plast
Environment
risings
g arises from
1.4% and ap
ng in 2011 is
mates.
packaging, in
plastic use in
astic consum
ngs, which is
ted those oc
ings, this wo
e three alter
steplastics.org.uure trends and a
tsAndCaseStudiurers, 2011. ng & Constructis Recycling in S
oximate
nnage
21k
10k
5k
1k
37k
Ja
ackaging is es
o around 2,24. However,
ered more su
tics onto the
t Agency res
m C&D in the
pplying it to
s estimated t
ncluding the
n the UK by t
mption is pack
broadly con
ccurring in Sc
ould equate t
rnative sourc
uk/agri/about.associated risks
ies.aspx
ion, European CScotland. ZWS, 2
anuary 2013
6
stimated to
200 tonnes,
as Scottish
uitable to
UK market.
ults25 in the
UK, which
data
to also be
European
he sector in
kaging29.
sistent with
cotland to
to around
ces
html. s. WRAP, 2006.
Council of Vinyl 2012.
3
6
Plastics P
investiga
the rest
this proj
In order
report ‘E
March 2
informat
indicativ
are show
2.4.3 C
To estim
polymer
Firstly, u
identifie
result in
format a
more up
Various
publishe
C&D sec
business
the prop
the plast
32 www.w33 UK Plas34 Comme35 In the aproxy for pconsumpti
Packaging Co
ated and is p
of the UK. A
ect.
to break dow
Establish Ton
00432. Altho
tion on splits
ve and were
wn in Figure
C&I Plastic
mate the rem
r and format,
using PackFlo
d above, an
a 2011 flow
and polymer
p‐to‐date dat
C&I waste su
ed by Defra in
ctors34. The d
s sector, but
portion of pla
tic packaging
wrap.org.uk/docstic Waste – A rercial and Indusabsence of any plastic packaginion.
omposition 2
potentially an
As a result, th
wn the 11k t
nnages, and C
ugh this rese
s on construc
established f
4.
Fig
c Packaging
aining tonna
, various dat
ow 2017 and
estimate of
w of approxim
type, the da
ta sources w
urveys have
n 2010. This
data available
not specifica
astic waste a
g arisings35 in
cument.rm?id=review of supplistrial Waste Surother data the ng waste arisin
Po
PE
PP
HD
Tot
2011
n over‐estim
he estimate o
tonnes into f
Cost Effectiv
earch is fairly
ction plastic
from packag
C&gure 4
g
age from the
a sources co
accounting
the remainin
mately 763k t
ata displayed
ere research
been undert
survey cove
e from this s
ally by plastic
arising from e
n each key bu
=1592. ies for recyclingrvey 2009: Finasimplified assugs, and in turn
olymer Fo
Film
Pots
DPE Pots
tal
ation as Scot
of 11k tonne
format and p
veness of Col
y dated, it st
packaging. I
ging audits ca
&D Plastic Pac
e non‐consum
ould be used
for the 48k t
ng non‐cons
tonnes of pla
d by WRAP (2
hed.
taken over th
red business
urvey allow
c packaging.
each sector,
usiness secto
g, global markeal Report. Defraumptions that thplastic packagi
ormat %
Ar
m 8
s 1
s & Bags
ttish C&D m
s was consid
polymer type
lection, of C
ill contains t
t should be n
arried out on
ckaging Arisin
mer stream a
. Each of the
tonnes of ag
umer packag
astic packagi
2006)33 could
he past 10 ye
ses in Englan
for plastic w
Using the D
which in tur
or, as shown
et demand, futua, 2010. he proportions ing waste arisin
% of
risings
App
To
86%
10%
4%
ay have diffe
dered the mo
e, splits were
onstruction
he most rece
noted that th
n 25 construc
gs
and break th
ese sources is
ricultural an
ging could be
ng. To asses
d be used; ho
ears, the mo
nd, excluding
waste arisings
efra data pro
rn has been u
n in Figure 5 b
ure trends and a
of plastic wastengs are a proxy
roximate
onnage
9k
1k
0k
11k
Ja
ering charact
ost suitable f
e taken from
Site Packagi
ent publicall
he splits are
ction sites. T
is down by k
s described h
d C&D packa
e made. This
ss this tonnag
owever, alte
ost recent of
g the agricult
s to be asses
ovides a bre
used as an in
below.
associated risks
e arisings in eay for plastic pack
anuary 2013
7
teristics to
for use in
the WRAP
ng Waste’,
y available
only
The results
key sector,
here.
aging
s would
ge by
rnative
which was
tural and
ssed by key
akdown of
ndication of
s. WRAP, 2006.
ch sector are a kaging
3
7
Plastics P
In order
assumpt
Below th
describe
Where d
splits, th
Fo
Te
Po
Ch
Me
Ma
Re
Ho
Pu
Ed
Tra
Ot
To
Food, drin
Textiles/w
Power and
Chemicals
Metals ma
Machinery
Retail & w
Hotels & c
Public adm
Education
Transport
Other Serv
Packaging Co
to estimate
tions have be
his, the assum
ed.
data was una
he following
od, drink & t
xtiles/wood
ower and uti
emicals/non
etals manufa
achinery & e
tail & whole
otels & cater
blic adminis
ucation
ansport & sto
her Services
tal
Business Typ
nk & tobacco
wood/paper/pub
d utilities
s/non‐metallic m
anufacturing
y & equipment (
wholesale
catering
ministration & so
& storage
vices
omposition 2
Figu
the format s
een made. T
mptions mad
Figure 6
available to d
methodolog
Business Typ
tobacco
d/paper/pub
lities
n‐metallic m
acturing
equipment (
esale
ring
stration & so
orage
s
pe
blishing
minerals manuf.
(other manuf.)
ocial work
2011
UK Cure 5
split of this C
he table belo
de to fill the
UK C&I 6
determine th
y was used:
pe
blishing
minerals man
other manu
ocial work
Film
60%
88%
57%
55%
46%
Data not
Data not
Data not
Data not
Data not
Data not
Data not
C&I Plastic Pa
C&I packagin
ow illustrate
gaps and pro
Plastic Packag
he film/rigid
Propo
nuf.
f.)
Rigid
40%
12%
43%
45%
54%
t available
t available
t available
t available
t available
t available
t available
ackaging Arisi
g, various ad
es the initial s
ovide furthe
ging Splits by
composition
ortion of Tot
Valpak Waste A
150k tonnes es
data, 2012), an
Waste from Sc
Motor, Wholes
The Compositi
Industry, WRA
The Compositi
Social Care, Ed
in 2011, ZWS 20
The Compositi
Social Care, Ed
in 2011, ZWS 20
ngs
dditional sou
splits found f
r format and
Format
n and in orde
tal UK Plastic
6%
7%
2%
20%
1%
8%
32%
2%
3%
2%
13%
3%
100%
Sou
Audits
stimate as back o
d remaining use
ottish Health &
sale & Retail Sec
on of Waste Dis
P 2011
on of Mixed Wa
ucation & Moto
012
on of Mixed Wa
ucation & Moto
012
Ja
urces of infor
for rigids and
d polymer sp
er to estimat
c (Defra Ton
urce
of store film (Va
es The Composit
Social Care, Edu
ctors in 2011, ZW
sposed of by the
aste from Scottis
or, Wholesale &
aste from Scottis
or, Wholesale &
anuary 2013
8
rmation and
d film.
plits are
e polymer
nage)
alpak internal
tion of Mixed
ucation &
WS 2012
e UK Hospitality
sh Health &
Retail Sectors
sh Health &
Retail Sectors
3
8
Plastics P
Busisocia
For s
All ‘m
For r
For h
For m
36 This estreview of sdata was 537 This est38 This estdataset. 39 Split of 40 Split of 41 In the a42 UK Plas
EPS tranPallets, cPails, druThermofInjectedBottlesOther
Packaging Co
ness types wal work, and
simplicity, al
manufacturin
retail & who
The weig
Bags we
The poly
The split
The split
No repreapplied t
hospitality, t
The 5% s
All film w
The poly
The propdata (10
No repreapplied t
manufacturi
All film w
The breaPackaginWRAP re
Figure 7
timate was masupplies for rec5%. timate was matimate was ma
f bags by polymf film by polymeabsence of any stic Waste – A r
nsit packagingcrates, etc ums & industrformed packs moulded rigid
omposition 2
were groupedEducation) o
l business ty
ng’ business
lesale, the fo
ght of strapp
re assumed
ymer split of
t of bags by p
t of film by p
esentative spto PP and PE
the following
strapping pro
was assumed
ymer split for
portion of clo0%); and
esentative spto PP and PE
ng the follow
was assumed
akdown of ring, Pails/Drueport, exclud
Rigid Packag
de as the averacycling, global m
de using 2011 Ede using 2010 E
mer: LDPE 75%,Per HDPE 2%, LDother data, thisreview of suppli
rialsds
2011
d into either or ‘manufact
ypes in ‘hosp
types were
ollowing assu
ping was take
to be 1% of t
strapping w
polymer was
olymer was
plit of PTTs bET: the most
g assumption
oportion wa
d to be LDPE
r bottles was
osures reflec
plit of PTTs bET: the most
wing assump
d to be LDPE
gids into pacms/Industriading imports
ging Format &
age proportion omarket demand
Epic secondary Epic secondary
PET 4%, PP 17%PE 69%, PET 4%s was deemed ties for recycling
‘retail’, ‘hosturing’ (all re
itality’ were
given the 60
umptions we
en as 5% of t
total film37;
was 67% PP a
s taken from
taken from 2
by polymer wlikely polym
ns were also
s adopted as
;
s taken from
cts the ratio
by polymer wlikely polym
ptions were a
;
ckaging formal, PTTs) andand films as
& Polymer Sp
of strapping tod, future trends
and tertiary daand tertiary da
%, PS 2%, PVC 2%%, PP 18%, PS 2the most suitabg, global marke
112
12
spitality’ (Hoemaining typ
given the 57
0%/40% film/
ere also mad
the weight o
nd 33% Pet38
2011 Epic se
2011 Epic se
was availablemers.
made:
s above;
m the consum
of closures t
was availablemers.
also made
mats (Closured polymer typs shown belo
lits used for M
Non‐bag Film iand associated
ata. ata as insufficie
%. 2%, PVC, 3%, Otble for use: PVCet demand, futu
5% (PS 10012% (PP 10016% (PP 40%22% (PP 44%1% (100%
18% (100% 26% (66% P
tels & cateripes);
7%/43% film/
/rigid split.
e:
f all film36;
8;
econdary and
condary and
; therefore,
mer plastic bo
to bottles/PT
; therefore,
s, Pallets/Crpes was adopow:
Manufacturing
in the WRAP red risks’ and in Ep
nt polymer spli
her Plastic 1%. 52%, PP 29%, L
ure trends and a
0%)0%)%, HDPE 60%%, PS 33%, PPP)HDPE)
PVC, 17% HD
Ja
ng, Public ad
/rigid split; a
d tertiary da
d tertiary dat
a 50:50 split
ottle splits41;
TTs split in th
a 50:50 split
rates, EPS Trapted from th
g Industries
eport ‘UK PlasticEpic secondary a
its were availab
LDPE 19%. associated risks
%)PET 23%)
DPE, 16 %PET
anuary 2013
9
dmin. &
and
ata39;
ta40; and
t was
he consumer
t was
ansit he 200642
c Waste – A and tertiary
ble in the 2011
s’ WRAP, 2006.
T, 1% Other)
3
9
r
)
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
10
3. Overview of Plastic Packaging Data Sources
The overview of data sources used in the methodologies described in Section 2, is separated into the
following sections:
Data Sources;
PackFlow 2017; and
Valpak’s EPIC Database.
3.1 Data Sources
Three main data sources were used in the production of this report:
PackFlow 201743: a report on the flows of UK packaging (see section 3.2 below);
Valpak’s EPIC (Environmental Product Information Centre) database: contains information on over 400,000 packaging items, including packaging weights and formats, and in the case of plastic packaging, polymer types (see section 3.3 below); and
The WRAP report ‘UK Plastic Waste – A review of supplies for recycling, global market demand, future trends and associated risks’44.
In addition, following the secondary research phase of the project, the following reports and information sources were used:
Key Note 2010 Packaging (Food & Drink)45;
UK Household Plastics Packaging Collection Survey 2011, Recoup46;
Environment Agency’s Agricultural Waste Survey 200347;
The Agricultural Waste Plastic Programme48;
Establish Tonnages, and Cost Effectiveness of Collection, of Construction Site Packaging Waste, WRAP, March 200449;
Environment Agency NPWD Public Reports50;
National Statistics’ PRODCOM data51;
Defra: Commercial and Industrial Waste Survey 200952: Final Report 2010;
North London Waste Authority Waste Composition Analysis Project, October 2010 53;
Plymouth City Council, Municipal Solid Waste Composition Analysis, November 200554;
43 PackFlow 2017 is published and is available on the Valpak website http://www.valpak.co.uk/BuildYourKnowledge/MarketResearchAndAnalysis/ProjectsAndCaseStudies.aspx 44 http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/UK%20Plastics%20Waste.pdf. See Annex II of this report for key tables. 45 http://www.keynote.co.uk/ 46 http://www.recoup.org/business/homedocs/HPPC_2011_survey.pdf 47http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110407094538/http://www.agwasteplastics.org.uk/agri/about.html 48 The results of The Agricultural Waste Plastics Collection and Recovery Programme trials were reported in the Final Report of this project, which remains unpublished. Please see http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110407094538/http://www.agwasteplastics.org.uk/agri/about.html for further details of the Agricultural Waste Plastic Programme. 49 www.wrap.org.uk/document.rm?id=1592 50 http://npwd.environment‐agency.gov.uk/Public/PublicSummaryData.aspx accessed 08/01/2012 51 National Statistics, Product Sales and Trade, Final Estimates 2009, Division 22, Manufacture Of Rubber and Plastic Products 52 Commercial and Industrial Waste Survey 2009: Final Report Defra 2010 53 http://www.nlwa.gov.uk/docs/2011/wastecomposition2010.pdf 54 http://www2.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Plymouth_Trade_Waste_Analysis_05.399cdb9c.8740.pdf
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
11
Greater London Authority, Waste Composition Scoping Study, October 200455;
Davies, G (2004) The Recycling Impact Of Targeting And Separating Selected Packaging Waste In
Split Bodied Street Litter Bins. In: Waste 200456;
Zero Waste Scotland, The composition of municipal solid waste in Scotland, April 201057; and
UK market composition data of polypropylene packaging, WRAP, 201258.
Gaps in current secondary data were identified in the areas of consumer (on‐the‐go), agricultural,
construction and manufacturing plastic packaging. Specifically, this pertained to an up‐to‐date
breakdown by format and polymer type. Also, no supportive/comparative data was found for non‐
consumer plastic packaging in general.
3.2 PackFlow 2017
3.2.1 Introduction
PackFlow 2017 is the latest edition of the PackFlow Project, which seeks to understand the flow of
packaging materials onto the UK market, the quantity of packaging materials collected for recycling and
from this, the potential for achieving UK recycling targets.
As the PackFlow 2017 high level estimates of UK plastic packaging tonnages form the baseline for this
composition project, key points from that report are summarised below to explain the definitions,
consultation process, assumptions and findings.
All figures representing the flow of packaging material onto the UK market (or ‘consumption’ of
packaging) are estimates: past, present and future. This is due to the way packaging data is reported in
the UK. Whilst this serves the purpose of demonstrating compliance with packaging regulations for
obligated companies, it does not lend itself to providing actual quantities of packaging flowing onto the
market in the UK.
For example, only obligated packaging is covered (companies handling fewer than 50 tonnes of
packaging or with a turnover of less than £2 million do not report any packaging data); ‘free rider’
companies that are unaware that they are obligated do not report any packaging data. Further,
packaging data can be reported multiple times by a number of obligated companies and data is only
reported to the level of material type (e.g. not by format, polymer type, consumer or non‐consumer use,
etc.).
This report has adopted the midpoint of the latest PackFlow estimates to provide totals for plastic
packaging consumption in 2011 (2,535k tonnes), and suggests the proportion of this that is consumer
(68%) and non‐consumer packaging (32%). These categories are explained in more detail below.
55http://legacy.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/waste/docs/waste_composition_scoping_study.rtf. 56 http://warrr.org/971/ 57 http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Scotland_MSW_report_final.pdf 58 http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Phase%203%20Food%20Grade%20rPP%20Market%20Final%20Report.pdf
Plastics P
3.2.2 D
For the p
Consum
In this re
by the lo
typically
pots, tub
Consum
Househo
Non‐Con
Packagin
as drums
These st
levels of
3.2.3 P
In order
undertak
consiste
The indu
intention
was then
All inform
agreeme
59 It shoulThe data is
FLOW ONTotal
ConsumerConsumerNon-Consu
Packaging Co
Definitions
purposes of
er Packaging
eport, consu
ocal authorit
y includes key
bs and trays.
er Packaging
old‐type prim
nsumer Pack
ng consumed
s and pallets
reams have
f contaminat
PackFlow I
to review U
ken. This wa
nt and comp
ustry consult
n to revise P
n contacted
mation colla
ent. The plas
ld be noted thas also illustrate
NTO MARKET
r (Household)r (Away From Houmer
omposition 2
s: Consume
PackFlow, co
g (Household
mer packagi
y for disposa
y primary pa
g (On‐the‐Go
mary packagi
kaging
d by industry
s along with
been report
ion and pote
Industry Co
K consumpti
s carried out
prehensive se
tation involve
ackFlow, a re
by phone to
ted was ana
stic consultat
Figure 8
at the PackFlowed as a range to
ome)32%
Split100%
57%11%
2011
er & Non‐C
onsumption
d)
ng likely to e
al or recyclin
ckaging form
o)
ng consume
y is considere
most second
ed separatel
ential as unta
onsultatio
ion figures o
t using a top
et of questio
ed relevant s
equest for th
discuss pack
lysed and or
tion results a
PackFlow 20
w figures are esto highlight the u
20062,295k
1,308k252k734k
Consumer
has been div
end up in the
g, is termed
mats such as
ed on‐the‐go
ed to be non
dary and tert
ly due to the
apped mater
n
f plastic pac
ic guide to e
ons.
stakeholders
heir support
kaging flow f
rganised and
are summari
017 Estimates
timates and notuncertainty aro
20072,318-2,387k
1,321-1,360k255-263k742-764k
Packaging
vided into th
e household
‘consumer p
drinks bottl
and dispose
n‐consumer p
tiary packagi
eir difference
rial for recyc
kaging, an in
ensure releva
s being sent a
and a copy o
for their part
presented b
sed in Figure
of Plastic Con
t necessarily acound precise flo
20082,341-2,458k
1,334-1,401k258-270k749-787k
g
ree key strea
waste stream
packaging (h
es; plastic fil
ed of away fr
packaging an
ng.
es in terms o
cling.
ndustry consu
ant stakehold
an introduct
of the topic g
ticular mater
back to the re
e 8.
nsumption59
curate to the new estimates.
20092,363-2,520k
1,347-1,436k260-277k756-806k
Ja
ams, as deta
m, and as su
ousehold)’. T
lm and bags;
rom home.
nd includes it
of ease of rec
ultation was
ders were as
tory email ou
guide. Each s
rial.
elevant stak
earest one thou
20102,385-2,583k
1,359-1,472k262-284k763-827k
anuary 2013
12
ailed below:
ch collected
This
; and plastic
tems such
covery,
sked a
utlining the
stakeholder
eholders for
usand tonnes.
20112,409-2,660k
1,373-1,516k265-293k771-851k
3
2
r
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
13
3.2.4 Key Findings
The latest estimations for packaging consumption are for 2011, which suggest that the total quantity of
plastic packaging placed on the market was between 2.4M and 2.6M tonnes. Of this, it is estimated that
57% is consumer (household) plastic packaging, which amounts to between 1.4M and 1.5M tonnes.
Consumer (on‐the‐go) plastic packaging accounts for 11% of all plastic packaging, which equates to
approximately 0.3M tonnes. Non‐consumer plastic packaging accounts for 32% of all plastic packaging,
or around 0.8M tonnes.
3.2.5 PackFlow 2017 Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in calculating the PackFlow 2017 plastic packaging projections:
Consumer (household) plastic packaging, likely to be collected by local authority bring or kerb collections, is 57% of the total flow onto the market;
Consumer (on‐the‐go) plastic packaging, consisting of both plastic bottles and mixed plastics, equates to 11% of the total flow onto the market;
Non‐consumer plastic packaging, most likely to be film, equates to 32% of the total flow onto the market;
These splits were established from pooled WRAP /Recoup/BPF and Valpak knowledge;
All three categories of flow will grow at the same rate; and
Growth rates take into consideration further potential light‐weighting of plastic packaging.
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
14
3.3 Valpak’s EPIC Database
Valpak’s EPIC database holds considerable data on consumer and non‐consumer packaging. This includes packaging weights, sales volumes and, for many products, either the format, the polymer or both. Data on various retail, hospitality, clothing, electrical, etc., packaging is held. However, the largest volumes of plastic packaging are associated with supermarket supply chains, which account for over 90% of consumer plastic packaging sales by weight recorded in EPIC. In the earlier part of the study, additional data from EPIC was interrogated, covering any available relevant consumer household data (for example, from clothing, toy and electrical retailers); however, the total additional tonnage, the majority of which was not specified by format or polymer type, represented less than 3% of supermarket tonnage and its inclusion would have had very little impact on the coverage of consumer household data or its breakdown by format or polymer type. As a result, the analysis focused on packaging from supermarket goods. Supermarket packaging covers a wide variety of goods, including not only food and drink products but many other products too: 56% of the EPIC supermarket data relates to food and drink packaging, with the remaining 44% covering products such as cosmetics, health & hygiene products, cleaning products, clothing, toys and electricals. The working assumption of this report has therefore been that the analysed supermarket data sufficiently represents consumer packaging and is referred to from here on as ‘consumer data’. Whilst it is acknowledged that it is not an exact representation, no further data was found that provided more accurate or detailed results, or proved the working assumption to be inappropriate.
Plastics P
3.4 P
Figure 9
Packaging Co
Packaging
provides an
omposition 2
g Formats
overview of
2011
f some key p
Figure 9
packaging for
Packaging
rmats discuss
g Formats
sed in this re
Ja
eport.
anuary 2013
15
3
5
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
16
4. Total UK Consumption of Plastic Packaging
The next three sections of this report provide a detailed understanding of the consumption of plastic
packaging in the UK. UK plastic packaging consumption has been analysed and reported in two parts:
consumer plastic packaging (Section 5) and non‐consumer plastic packaging (Section 6). This section
covers the totality (consumer and non‐consumer) of plastic packaging. This is a simple summation of the
two estimated data sets. However, consumer plastic packaging accounts for the majority (68%) of total
packaging and the methodology developed for this report offers most insight into this area, compared
with non‐consumer packaging, where data is sparser and fragmented.
Consumer plastic packaging composition has been estimated using primary research. A significant
sample of consumer packaging data was sought from major retailer suppliers, and the proportions of
packaging formats and polymers were established by using retailer sales figures. Please see Section 2.3
of this report for further details on methodology. Where possible, results have been informed using
comparative data from secondary research.
Non‐consumer plastic packaging has been estimated using a combination of secondary research data
and data from Valpak’s EPIC database. The key documents consulted are given in Section 3.1 of this
report and further details on methodology are provided in Section 2.3.
A small selection of key stakeholders were invited to participate in a consultation, to sense‐check the
orders of magnitude of the findings and help provide context and industry insight into the analysis.
Where discrepancies with existing data or knowledge were identified, they are reported in the text.
4.1 Introduction
Combining the datasets for consumer and non‐consumer plastic packaging generates format and
polymer splits for all plastic packaging, as can be seen in Figure 10 below. This represents an updated
version of WRAP’s Table 2.1 from the report: “UK Plastics Waste – A review of supplies for recycling,
global market demand, future trends and associated risks”.
Figure 10 differs slightly from this table due to the following:
The column ‘Unspecified OP’ (other polyolefins) was not required/able to be defined;
The column ‘Bio Plastic’ has been excluded;
The row ‘HDPE Other’ was not required;
The row ‘Semi‐rigid Sheet’ was unable to be defined;
The row ‘Fibre for Packing’ was unable to be defined; and
Imports of plastic packaging are inherently included throughout the estimates, but have not been separately identified60. Annex 2 reports some estimates of imports of packaging for completeness, although not by format or polymer type.
60 For consumer packaging, the survey sample included imported products, but did not identify them or have any statistical analysis undertaken. For non‐consumer estimates, this level of data was not available from secondary research. All quantities of plastic packaging used are based on PackFlow 2017 estimates and these include both UK and imported packaging placed on the UK market.
Plastics P
61 The anathe level ofattached t
ALL
Film Total
Film
Film - Bags
Film - Strap
Rigids Total
Bottles
Consumer C
Consumer P
Thermoform
Injection Mo
Non-Consum Closures
Injection Mo
EPS Transit
Pails, Drums
Non-Consum
Other
Grand Total
Grand Total
Packaging Co
Figure 10
alysis relies on of precision presto the figures: t
L Plastic Packagin
ping/Tape/Bands
l
Closures
PTTs
med Packs
oulded Rigids
mer Rigids
oulded Pallets, Crates
t Packaging
s, Industrial
mer PTTs
l (tonnes)
l (%)
omposition 2
UK Plastic
a number of assented here (nathe figures are s
ngLDPELLDP
628k
508k
120k
0k
11k
1k
3k
5k
3k
2k
0k0k
s, etc 0k
0k
0k
0k
1k
638k
25%
2011
Packaging Co
ssumptions andamely, to the nesimply quoted a
E/ PE
HDPE
k 145k
k 33k
k 112k
0k
k 265k
202k
32k
0k
0k
0k
19k1k
0k
0k
17k
0k
12k
k 410k
% 16%
onsumption b
d approximationearest thousandas they arose fr
OPP PP
16k 143k
11k 96k
5k 45k
0k 3k
4k 227k
0k 5k
3k 17k
0k 123k
0k 23k
0k 100k
0k 76k0k 1k
0k 22k
0k 0k
0k 12k
0k 41k
0k 5k
20k 370k
1% 15%
y Format & P
ns. As such, thed tonne) is not mrom the analysi
PET
72k
58k
9k
5k
730k
337k
21k
329k
293k
36k
30k1k
0k
0k
0k
30k
14k
803k
32%
olymer Type6
re are margins meant to repress.
PS PVC
5k 13k
3k 12k
1k 1k
0k 0k
89k 75k
0k 3k
0k 1k
53k 39k
8k 39k
46k 0k
22k 0k0k 0k
0k 0k
9k 0k
0k 0k
13k 0k
13k 32k
93k 88k
4% 3%
Ja
61 (Tonnes)
of error aroundesent the level o
OtherGrTo
(ton
98k 11
69k 79
29k 32
0k 8
15k 14
0k 54
3k 8
7k 55
2k 36
5k 18
0k 140k 2
0k 2
0k 9
0k 2
0k 8
5k 8
113k 25
4% 10
anuary 2013
17
d the data, andof accuracy
rand otal nnes)
Grand Total (%)
119k 44%90k 31%21k 13%8k 0%
415k 56%48k 22%
80k 3%56k 22%68k 15%88k 7%47k 6%2k 0%
22k 1%9k 0%
29k 1%85k 3%83k 3%
535k
00%
3
7
d
Plastics P
4.2 P
As can b
followed
4.3 P
As can b
principa
LDPE/LL
Packaging Co
Plastic Pac
e seen in Fig
d by consum
Plastic Pac
e seen in Fig
lly in the for
DPE, typicall
omposition 2
ckaging Fo
gure 11 below
er pots, tubs
Figure 11
ckaging Po
gure 12 below
mat of consu
y used as film
Figure 12
2011
ormats
w, the most
s and trays a
UK Consum
olymer Ty
w, the most
umer drinks
m for tertiary
UK Consum
commonly f
nd plastic bo
mption of Plas
ypes
commonly f
bottles and
y packaging
mption of Plast
ound packag
ottles.
stic Packaging
ound packag
pots, tubs an
and transpo
tic Packaging
ging format i
g by Format
ging polymer
nd trays. This
rtation.
by Polymer
Ja
in the UK is f
r in the UK is
s is followed
anuary 2013
18
film,
s PET,
d by
3
8
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
19
4.4 Trends in Plastic Packaging
The following paragraphs describe the trends that emerge from comparing the data in this report with
the previously most comprehensive composition analysis published by WRAP, containing 2005 data19. It
should be noted that the methodologies used to derive the estimates in each report are very different
and there is uncertainty over these estimates in both reports. Therefore, the comparison data should be
treated with caution and as only one means of establishing potential trends.
Furthermore, assumptions have been made as to the split of non‐consumer/consumer tonnages and the
allocation of imports to the 2005 data. These are detailed in footnotes and in Annex II.
4.4.1 Film
Overall
Overall, the data suggests that the consumption of film (bag, non‐bag and strapping) has remained
stable at around 1,119k tonnes. In 2005 this was reported at 927k tonnes excluding imports, which if
included62, brings the 2005 figure to around 1,155k tonnes. Bags separately appear to have decreased,
balanced by an increase in non‐bag films (please see below).
A wider variety of polymers exists in the 2011 non‐bag film composition, including previously
unreported tonnages of HDPE, PP, PET, PS and Other. These represent a third of the 2011 composition
(259kt, 33%). Likewise with bag film, additional tonnages of PP, PET, OPP, PS, PVC and Other film are
reported, representing 28% of the 2011 composition (90kt).
Innovia63 Films agrees with the finding of a split between more polymers in 2011, since retailers have
moved products from frozen, to chilled, to ambient. The reason for this trend is that retailers are trying
to reduce their carbon footprint, and chilling and freezer cabinets account for relatively high carbon
emissions. To facilitate this without increased food waste has required more technical products e.g.
barrier films, requiring new polymers to be used. Also, at the same time, retailers have been focusing on
reducing food waste, which has required more technical films.
The data shows that the split of all film arisings for consumer and non‐consumer is 50:50, this is in line
with industry understanding of a relatively balanced split.
Approximately two‐thirds (65%) of non‐bag film arises in the non‐consumer sector, leaving a substantial
proportion (35%) of non‐bag film arising in the consumer sector. This split is in line with WRAP’s 2005
estimates (65% and 35% respectively) and suggests that, whilst the tonnages have increased, the
proportional split has remained similar.
From discussions with a small number of stakeholders, it emerges that industry believes there has been
little shift in film tonnages since 2005. This is because film usage has increased in line with light‐
weighting activity. This view therefore supports the trend of no overall increase in film tonnages.
62 2005 WRAP figures were broken down by polymer type only; therefore, for the purposes of this comparison it has been assumed that all imported PE and OPP are film and 1/3 of imported HDPE is film. 63 Taken from consultation carried out by Valpak October 2012.
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
20
Film – Bags
The total tonnage of film‐bags appears to have reduced by approximately a third64 since 2005 to 321k
tonnes in 2011.
The tonnage of consumer bags appears to have reduced by up to a quarter65 to 277k tonnes. There were
an estimated 60kt of supermarket thin‐gauge carrier bags in the UK in 2011, down from 110K tonnes in
200666 (55%). However, there has been an increase in fresh produce and bread bags, which would
counter some of the reduction in carrier bags.
The results of the EPIC 2011 survey sample indicate a large swing in tonnage from LDPE bags (350k, 74%
decrease) 67 to HDPE Bags (81K, 261% increase)68. This is likely to have been caused by many single‐use
LDPE carrier bags switching to the commonly found ‘vest‐style’ HDPE bags. This switch is recognised due
to the fact that HDPE bags can be made thinner; using less material and costing less.
4.4.2 Strapping
The reported tonnage has decreased by 23k tonnes (74%)69. This is mainly due to a reduction of PP and
PET strapping. Again, this may be due to strapping not being specifically recorded in EPIC or separately
reported in secondary research, rather than a real reduction in tonnages.
4.4.3 Plastic Bottles
Overall, bottle tonnages have remained broadly the same (559kt in 2005, 548k t in 2011)70; this fits with
industry’s view that any growth in consumption has been negated through light weighting of bottles.
Looking at bottles by polymer type shows an increase in PET bottles (26kt, 8% increase), broadly
matched by a decrease in the other polymer type bottles of HDPE, PVC, PP and PS (28k tonnes
combined). This potentially illustrates a trend of ‘switching’ to PET bottles, away from other polymer
type bottles.
The lower reported tonnage of HDPE and increase in PET bottles could reflect the following:
A shift from HDPE to PET bottles. According to Nampak71, there has been a shift from HDPE to PET bottles over the last five years or so. Other than milk72, there has been a move towards packaging products in PET bottles rather than HDPE, for example, detergents. This is mainly due to changes in
64 This assumes that 2005 imports of PE and HDPE are allocated as follows ‐ PE: 49% bags; HDPE: 31% bags. 65 The 2005 consumer bag estimate does not include any imports, therefore the 25% is a maximum and would be less if any
tonnage of consumer bags were imported. 66 http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/new‐figures‐carrier‐bags‐use‐released‐wrap, based on data from participating retailers (Asda (including ex‐Netto stores), Co‐operative Group, Marks & Spencer, Morrison’s, Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Tesco and Waitrose) 67 The reduction in LDPE/LLDPE assumes a 2005 figure of 470kt including imports.
68 The increase in HDPE assumes a 2005 figure of 31kt including imports. 69 This assumes an additional 1kt for imported strapping. 70 This assumes an additional 11kt for imported PET bottles. 71 Taken from consultation carried out by Valpak October 2012. 72 The exception to this is one litre bottles of Cravendale milk, which were switched from HDPE to PET bottles in 2012.
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
21
bottle requirements. Detergents are becoming more concentrated and smaller so there is no need for a handle. The visual impact of PET is also regarded as more attractive than HDPE, which can influence sales of detergent products. Finally, the price of PET has reduced relative to HDPE. Other industry representatives suggest the HDPE tonnage, particularly that representing non‐food consumer and non‐consumer HDPE bottles, is low. A proxy of 50% food/drink, 50% non‐food/drink HDPE bottles of a total around 220tonnes was indicated73, which implies the food/drink figure derived from the survey sample is a little high (~153kt) and the non‐food consumer and non‐consumer tonnage figure is a little low (59kt). However, taken in combination, the total HDPE bottle figure is broadly aligned with industry views.
Light‐weighting. There has been significant work done on the light‐weighting of PET and HDPE bottles (potentially as much as 20% in the last 5 or six years).
The 50% HDPE:50% PET composition split of bottles entering the sorting/recycling stream may not necessarily be appropriate for packaging consumption According to waste industry discussions, the split of PET to HDPE bottles entering the
sorting/recycling stream sits at around 50% each. The split derived from the EPIC data sample
suggests a different split for consumption: 62% PET and 38% HDPE. As ‘on‐the‐go’ bottle collections
are still extremely limited and a considerable proportion (around one‐third, please see section 5.4
for more details) of PET bottles are potentially disposed of on‐the‐go, and are therefore unlikely to
enter the recycling stream, it is understandable that the quantities of PET and HDPE bottles passing
through MRFs and PRFs are more similar. Furthermore, data from Wales shows 50:50 for recyclates,
but 60/40 (PET/HDPE) for residual waste74.
4.4.4 Consumer Plastic Pots, Tubs and Trays (PTTs)
Due to the difficulty in distinguishing between consumer thermoformed packs and injection moulded
packaging from the packaging description (format and polymer types requested in the survey sample
and/or stored in the EPIC database) the breakdown of consumer PTTs into thermoformed packs and
IMRs provided is at best indicative, and should be treated with caution.
Overall, it would appear that there has been a dramatic increase in consumer PTTs over the last six
years, potentially doubling in weight, bringing current levels to 556k tonnes. This increase is discussed
below, in terms of thermoformed and IMR packaging. (Please see Annex II for estimates of 2005 splits by
Non‐consumer, from which the Consumer figures have been calculated).
Thermoformed Packs
Overall tonnage of consumer thermoformed packs has increased by over 100k tonnes75 (40‐50%). This is
due to a very large increase of around 250k tonnes76 in consumer PET packs. Although some increase is
in line with industry expectations, this level of increase is very high. According to industry,
thermoformed packaging in food has grown around 2% per annum since 2005 i.e. only around 13% in
total since 2005. Industry believes increases are primarily due to PP and PET growth because of their:
73 Conversation with Stuart Foster, CEO, Recoup, December 2012. 74 The composition of MSW in Wales, WRAP, 2010. 75 This assumes an approximate import tonnage of 19k in 2005. 76 The split of consumer/non‐consumer figures by polymer type was not included in the WRAP 2006 report.
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
22
Barrier properties (extending shelf life of perishable goods);
Suitability for recycling; and
Clarity, strength and robust nature as polymers.
Once again, it should be noted that industry views contradict the potential size in growth trend, rather
than the current tonnages presented or the polymer splits. As highlighted at the beginning of this
section, the arisings figures in the two reports were derived in very different ways and comparisons in
data should be done so cautiously. It may well be that there has been a lesser trend in increasing
quantities of consumer PTTs or that inaccuracies in either/both the 2005 or the current dataset exist.
Industry believes that there is more PP & PET replacing PS & PVC. This is not totally in line with the
current results presented here, since PVC was not reported at all in 2005 and represents a tonnage of
39k tonnes in 2011. PP has also seen a reduction of around 80k tonnes.
Injected Moulded Rigids (IMRs)
The total reported tonnage has increased by approximately 170k tonnes (over 1000%, from a low base
of an estimated 14K77 tonnes in 2005). This is due to an increase in PP IMRs (86k tonnes) and new
tonnages of PET (36k tonnes) and PS (46k tonnes).
This growth has most likely been driven by increased demand for convenience foods, itself driven by
portion control packs such as Heinz snap pots and Heinz fridge packs, both of which have substituted tin
cans.
Industry suggests a minimum increase of about 10% ‐ 15% per year; however, current figures suggest a
much larger growth of around 35% per year.
Industry also suggests that PS has declined because retailers have sought to reduce the number of
polymers in the market place, in line with WRAP’s guidelines. PET has definitely grown as this material is
seen as aesthetically better for point of sale attributes. This growth has also been a quick response to
the incorporation of food grade recycled materials (as a system exists for PET and such a system is still
several years away for rPP food grade). PET is a new IMR polymer, recorded after the 2005 table was
produced.
4.4.5 Non‐consumer Rigid Packaging
For the purpose of this report, non‐consumer rigid packaging formats were broken down into:
Closures;
Injection Moulded RTPS, Crates, etc.;
EPS Transit Packaging;
Pails, Drums & Industrial; and
PTTs.
This breakdown was not available in any of the secondary research found, other than the WRAP 2006
report. Therefore, the proportions of non‐consumer rigids format were transposed onto the non‐
consumer rigids total (derived from a variety of secondary research ‐ please see section 2 and 3 of this
77 Assumes 2k tonnes of 2005 tonnage is non‐consumer and 1kt is imported
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
23
report for methodologies and data sources used). The splits presented are therefore only indicative and
should be treated with caution.
EPS Transit Packaging
Overall tonnage has decreased by around 20k (~70%) for this packaging format. This may be due to:
The assumptions made in defining EPS transit packaging in the non‐consumer table;
Alternative forms of protective packing being adopted, such as use of corrugated card, shredded paper and blown LDPE pouches;
Packaging reduction initiatives in the supply chain; and
Data inaccuracies.
Injected Moulded RTPS, Crates
The reported tonnage of PP returnable plastic transit packaging has decreased by around 50k tonnes
(~67%) since 2005.
Pails, Drums & Industrial
The overall tonnage of pails, drums and industrial has reduced by around 70k tonnes (~70%), with HDPE
now seeing the highest tonnage compared to PP in 2005.
Closures
It is not possible to identify the proportion of non‐consumer from the 2005 figures. Therefore, no
comparison can be made.
4.4.6 Consumer Packaging Closures
Reported total tonnage for consumer closures has approximately doubled78 (~30k increase) since 2005,
which according to RPC Containers, is reasonable. In 2005, polymers for closures were not specified. In
2011, polymers have been identified and the key ones are HDPE (32k tonnes), PET (21k tonnes) and PP
(17k tonnes). However, RPC believes that the majority of caps are made of PP, which isn’t in line with
what has been found here. Differences in the definition of what is included as lids/caps79 in each report
and the assumptions made in estimating non‐consumer data most likely contribute to the discrepancies
in polymer breakdown.
78 The split of consumer/non‐consumer figures for closures was not included in the previous WRAP report and therefore the 60% is a minimum, as the 2005 baseline figure includes a proportion of non‐consumer closures. 79 For this report, any packaging item described by suppliers as a cap or closure or lid in its own right has been included. Where the lid is part of the body of the packaging it has not been included as a cap but rather with the remainder of the packaging format.
Plastics P
5. C
5.1 I
Consum
random
section 3
quantitie
PackFlow
section 2
The follo
and poly
breakdo
consume
Consu
Film Total
Film
Film - Bags
Rigids Total
Bottles
Consumer C
Consumer P Thermoform
Injection Mo
Other
Grand Total
Grand Total
Consu
Film Total
Film
Film - Bags
Film - Strap
Rigids Tota
Bottles
Consumer
Consumer Thermoform
Injection M
Other
Grand Tota
Packaging Co
Consume
Introducti
er packaging
sample of co
3.3 above), d
es. The prop
w consumer
2.3 of this re
owing tables
ymer type, an
wn of consu
er packaging
mer Plastic Packa
l
Closures
PTTsmed Packs
oulded Rigids
l (tonnes)
l (%)
umer Plastic Pac
s
pping/Tape/Band
al
Closures
PTTsmed Packs
Moulded Rigids
al (%)
omposition 2
er Consu
ion
g (including h
onsumer (su
determining
ortions of pa
packaging q
port for furt
provide a br
nd is discuss
mer data by
g disposed of
Figure 13
agingLDPELLDP
145k
59k
86k
10k
1k
3k
5k3k
2k
1k
156k
9%
ckagingLL
ds
0
0
2011
umption o
household an
permarket) p
its weight, fo
ackaging form
uantity of 17
her details o
reakdown of
ed below. Th
y packaging t
f away from
Consumer
E/ PE
HDPE
k 140k
k 28k
k 112k
k 193k
158k
32k
0k0k
0k
2k
k 333k
% 19%
LDPE/ LDPE
HDPE
8.4% 8.1%
3.4% 1.6%
5.0% 6.5%
0.0% 0.0%
0.6% 11.2%
0.1% 9.2%
0.2% 1.9%
0.3% 0.0%0.2% 0.0%
0.1% 0.0%
0.1% 0.1%
9.0% 19.3%
of Plasti
nd on‐the‐go
packaging ga
ormat and p
mats and po
724k tonnes,
on the metho
f the consum
he remainde
that is dispos
the home (c
Plastic Packag
OPP PP
16k 93k
11k 58k
5k 35k
4k 150k
0k 4k
3k 17k
0k 123k0k 23k
0k 100k
0k 5k
20k 243k
1% 14%
OPP
0.9%
0.6%
0.3%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
c Packag
o) has been e
athered for V
olymer type
lymers foun
, to estimate
odology.
mer element
er of this sect
sed of at hom
onsumer on
ging (Tonnes
PET
59k
50k
9k
688k
333k
21k
329k293k
36k
6k
747k
43%
PP PET
5.4% 3.4%
3.4% 2.9%
2.0% 0.5%
0.0% 0.0%
8.7% 39.9%
0.2% 19.3%
1.0% 1.2%
7.1% 19.1%1.4% 17.0%
5.8% 2.1%
0.3% 0.4%
14.1% 43.3%
ging
estimated by
Valpak’s EPIC
and applyin
d have then
e scaled‐up q
of UK plastic
tion then pre
me (consume
‐the‐go).
& Percent)
PS PVC
1k 6k
0k 5k
1k 1k
66k 42k
0k 2k
0k 1k
53k 39k8k 39k
46k 0k
13k 0k
68k 48k
4% 3%
T PS
% 0.1%
% 0.0%
% 0.1%
% 0.0%
% 3.9%
% 0.0%
% 0.0%
% 3.1%% 0.4%
% 2.7%
% 0.8%
% 3.9%
Ja
y taking a sig
C database (p
g the approp
been applie
quantities. Pl
c packaging b
esents a furt
er household
OtherGrTo
(ton
95k 55
67k 27
29k 27
15k 11
0k 49
3k 8
7k 552k 36
5k 18
5k 3
110k 17
6%
PVC Oth
0.3% 5.5
0.3% 3.9
0.0% 1.7
0.0% 0.0
2.4% 0.8
0.1% 0.0
0.0% 0.2
2.3% 0.42.3% 0.1
0.0% 0.3
0.0% 0.3
2.8% 6.4
anuary 2013
24
gnificant
please see
priate sales
d to the
ease see
by format
her
d) and
rand otal nnes)
Grand Total (%)
56k 32%79k 16%77k 16%
167k 68%98k 29%
80k 5%56k 32%68k 21%88k 11%33k 2%
724k
herGrand
Total (%)
5% 32.3%
9% 16.2%
7% 16.1%
0% 0.0%
8% 67.7%
0% 28.9%
2% 4.7%
4% 32.3%% 21.3%
% 10.9%
3% 1.9%
4% 100.0%
3
4
Plastics P
5.2 P
Consum
556k ton
packagin
(32%).
The mos
total ton
soft drin
333k ton
most sig
The thre
5.2.1 C
Film pac
stand in
bag film
The estim
proporti
Packaging Co
Plastic Pac
er plastic pa
nnes), PTTs (
ng accounts f
st common p
nnage, or 747
nks/water/co
nnes), which
gnificant poly
ee main pack
Consumer
ckaging can b
fairly equal
can be blurr
mated split o
on of carrier
omposition 2
ckaging by
ckaging is sp
32%, 556k to
for approxim
polymer foun
7k tonnes. K
ordials/energ
is mainly fo
ymer is PP (1
kaging forma
Films (32%
be further br
proportions.
ry, and accor
of bag and no
r bags and th
Figu
2011
y Format
plit broadly e
onnes) and b
mately two‐th
nd in plastic c
Key consume
gy drinks, and
und in the fo
4%, 243k ton
ts, and their
% of Consu
oken down i
. The distinct
rdingly there
on‐bag film i
he breakdow
Consre 14
and Polym
evenly betwe
bottles (29%,
hirds (68%) o
consumer pa
er packaging
d PTTs. The s
orm of milk b
nnes), which
r associated p
umer Plasti
into bag and
tions betwee
e is some unc
is shown in F
wn of non‐bag
sumer Plastic
mer
een three ma
, 498k tonne
of consumer
ackaging is P
made from
second most
bottles and v
h is principall
polymers, ar
ic Packagin
non‐bag film
en some type
certainty aro
Figure 14 bel
g film by pol
c Film by Poly
ain packaging
es). When co
plastic pack
ET, which re
PET is bottle
t common po
vest‐style car
ly used to ma
re discussed
ng)
ms, and the a
es of bags an
ound the exa
ow, which a
ymer type.
mer
Ja
g formats: fi
mbined, rigi
kaging and fil
epresents 43
es, typically c
olymer is HD
rrier bags. Th
ake PTTs.
below.
analysis sugg
nd some typ
ct split.
also illustrate
anuary 2013
25
lms (32%,
d plastic
lm one‐third
% of the
containing
DPE (19%,
he third
gests they
es of non‐
es the
3
5
Plastics P
Film‐ bag
The data
WRAP U
carrier b
tonnage
vegetabl
mapping
The brea
is used f
common
Please se
is consum
Non‐bag
A wide v
comprisi
believed
years du
Redufilms
The
The
Please se
80 UK Sup
Packaging Co
gs
a does not di
K Supermark
bags used by
in our analy
les, bread, et
g the type of
akdown in Fi
or single use
nly as a gene
ee section 4.
mer packagi
g Film
variety of pol
ing LDPE/LLD
d by industry
ue to a numb
ucing carbons that aid lon
focus on red
growth in co
ee section 4.
permarket Retai
omposition 2
istinguish be
ket Retailers
the major su
ysis, up to 20
tc. Figure 15
f products as
Figure 1
gure 15 was
e carrier bags
eral film, wra
.4.1 of this re
ng and the p
lymer types
DPE (21% of
that the ran
ber of factors
n footprints hngevity in am
ducing food w
onsumer PTT
.4.1 of this re
ilers Voluntary
Fr
Br
Cr
Po
Br
Tis
M
Pe
Ch
Ot
2011
etween carrie
s Voluntary C
upermarkets
00k tonnes of
5 illustrates t
sociated wit
Typical 5
confirmed a
s, LDPE/LLDP
p, lining or la
eport for fur
potential gro
were identif
non‐bag film
nge of polym
s:
has led to lesmbient tempe
waste has re
Ts and the as
eport for fur
Carrier Bag Agr
Bags
uit & Veg
read
risps
otatoes
reakfast Cere
ssue/Kitche
eat Products
et Food
heese
ther
er bags and o
Carrier Bag80
s was just ov
f plastic bags
he specific u
th ‘other bag
Product Type
as ‘reasonab
PE for long lif
abel.
rther comme
wth and poly
fied for non‐
m, 26% of all
mers currently
ss chilling aneratures, req
equired more
ssociated film
rther comme
reement, 2011
eal
n Roll
s
other bags. N
Agreement,
er 60k tonne
s are used to
uses, based o
gs’ (other tha
es for Consum
le’ in the ind
fe carrier ba
entary on the
ymer substit
bag films in t
film), PP (21
y used in non
d freezer caquiring differ
e technical fi
m lids/seals r
entary on pot
Carrier Bag Us
% of Bags
27%
21%
15%
14%
10%
3%
2%
2%
1%
5%
Nevertheless
in 2011 the
es. Based on
o package pr
on detailed a
an single use
mer Bags
dustry consul
gs or as plas
e proportion
tution trends
this report; t
%, 17%) and
n‐bag films h
binets and mrent polymer
lms; and
required.
tential consu
e, WRAP July 20
Ja
s, according t
weight of si
this, and the
roducts such
analysis of EP
e carrier bags
ltation. Gene
stic wrap and
of all plastic
s identified.
the larger sh
d PET (18%, 1
has grown in
more technicrs;
umer plastic
012
anuary 2013
26
to the
ngle use
e total bags
as fruit and
PIC data,
s).
erally, HDPE
d PP more
c bags that
are
11%). It is
recent
al barrier
film trends.
3
6
Plastics P
5.2.2 P
The anal
thirds of
below, a
Please n
moulded
sample a
and IMR
The majo
Detailed
small qu
some bo
The majo
constitut
further 1
Please se
potentia
5.2.3 B
The anal
tonnes. T
81 The splcertain tercombined
Packaging Co
PTTs (32%
lysis suggest
f PTTs), with
along with th
ote due to t
d packaging f
and/or store
Rs provided is
ority of therm
d analysis of t
antities of b
oxes. PVC the
ority of injec
tes 24% of in
19% of this ty
ee section 4.
al consumer
Bottles (29
lysis suggest
This proport
lit of thermoforrms such as plaas PTTs with gr
omposition 2
Consumer
s that PTTs a
the remaind
he polymer s
he difficulty
from the pac
ed in the EPIC
s at best indi
Figure 16
moformed p
the packagin
oxes and blis
ermoformed
ction moulde
njection mou
ype of packa
.4.4 of this re
PTTs trends.
9% Consum
s that bottle
tion is lower
rmed packs andstic boxes, contreater confiden
2011
r Plastic Pa
are mainly in
der being inje
plits of therm
in distinguis
ckaging desc
C database, t
icative and s
Consumer P
packs are ma
ng formats su
ster packs. S
packaging is
ed rigid packa
ulded rigid pa
aging.
eport for fur
mer Plastic
es account fo
than that pr
d injection moultainers, etc. counce; the split pro
ackaging)
n the form of
ection mould
moformed p
hing betwee
cription, form
the breakdow
should be tre
lastic Pots, Tu
de of PET (8
uggests that
Similarly, PP t
s also mainly
aging is PP (5
ackaging, ma
rther analysis
Packaging
or 29% of Con
resented in t
lded rigids relieuld be either typovided for therm
f thermoform
ded rigids81.
acks.
en consumer
mat and poly
wn of consum
eated with ca
ubs and Trays
0% of Therm
nearly all th
thermoform
y trays.
53%) and inc
ainly as pots
s of consume
g)
nsumer plast
he PackFlow
es on the descrippe of packagingmoformed pack
med packs (a
This is illustr
r thermoform
mer types re
mer PTTs int
aution.
s by Polymer
moformed Pa
ermoformed
ed packaging
cludes pots, p
and tubs an
er PTTs and c
tic packaging
w 2017 report
ption of the pacg. Therefore, thks and injection
Ja
approximatel
rated in Figu
med packs an
equested in t
to thermofor
acks, 53% of
d packs are t
g is nearly al
punnets and
nd PET consti
commentary
g, amounting
t (40%); how
ckaging as entehe data is presen moulded rigid
anuary 2013
27
ly two‐
re 16
nd injection
the survey
rmed packs
all PTTs).
rays, with
ll trays with
d tubs. PS
itutes a
y on
g to 498K
wever, this
ered into EPIC –ented ds is indicative.
3
7
–
Plastics P
current p
to deter
proporti
(consum
packagin
then the
fairly con
What is
reported
consume
estimate
packagin
approxim
plastic p
Discussio
import a
study re
growth i
material
bottle to
industry
Figure 17
82 WRAP Mhttp://ww83 Recoupwith the Rappreciate84 Percent
Packaging Co
piece of wor
mine the pro
on consists o
mer on‐the‐go
ng disposed o
e figures are
nsistent with
less consiste
d as part of t
er plastic bot
es have been
ng data weig
mate 2% yea
ackaging ton
ons with Rec
and C&I tonn
cognising an
n the weight
s), but subst
onnage figure
and become
7 below illus
Market Situatioww2.wrap.org.up engaged with Recoup Board aned and recognistages do not su
omposition 2
rk succeeds P
oportion of c
of plastic bot
o). If the pro
of at home (
broadly com
h current vie
ent with indu
his study (49
ttle consump
n derived in v
hts/formats/
r‐on‐year bo
nnage.
coup83 have h
nages of plas
n average 2%
t of bottle an
tantial growt
e presented
es accepted
strates the po
Figure
on Report, Realuk/downloads/MValpak on a nund telephone cased in publishinum due to round
2011
PackFlow and
consumer pla
ttles dispose
portion that
26%) is com
mparable and
ws.
ustry percept
98kt), due to
ption adopte
very differen
/polymers an
ottle growth
highlighted t
tic bottles. T
% annual incre
nd film packa
th in other ri
in this repor
as the best a
olymer split
Consu17
lising the value MSR_Redesign_umber of occasialls regarding tg this report. ding.
d has followe
astic packagi
ed of at hom
t is consume
pared to Wr
d suggest tha
tion to date
o this being c
ed by Recoup
nt ways: this
nd Recoup’s
rate betwee
the sensitivit
The principal
ease in plast
aging (due to
gid plastic p
rt may be ad
available bot
of consume
mer Plastic B
of recovered pl_June_2011.6aions in the prepthe difference in
ed a more st
ing that is bo
e (consumer
r plastic bott
ap and Defra
at the overal
is the quanti
considerably
p46. However
study throug
through ind
en 2005 and
ty of applying
difference i
tic packaging
o light weigh
ackaging suc
opted by Re
ttle arising fig
r plastic bott
ottles by Poly
lastic – an upda6e1bc2.10876.pparation of this n bottle tonnag
tatistically ro
ottles. The co
r household)
tles from all
a’s most rece
l consumer b
ity of consum
lower than t
r, it should b
gh sampling
ustry consul
2011, based
g growth rat
n the two fig
g overall, in w
hting and dow
ch as PTTs. It
coup in the f
gure.
tles consume
ymer84
ate, Spring 2010pdf report, includines. Their suppo
Ja
obust metho
onsumer bot
) and away fr
consumer p
ent estimate
bottle propo
mer plastic b
the 605k ton
be noted that
2011 superm
ltation suppo
d on a higher
tes and estim
gures arises f
which there
wn gauging o
t is possible t
future, if it is
ed in the UK
0,
ng presentationort and particip
anuary 2013
28
d in order
ttle
rom home
lastic
e82 (23%),
rtion is also
bottles
nnes of
t the two
market
orting an
r 2005 total
mating
from this
has been no
of
that the
s agreed by
:
n/discussion ation is much
3
8
Plastics P
The majo
carbonat
mainly u
and LDP
Nampak
the majo
consume
estimate
remainin
Accordin
waste ar
two third
consider
potentia
understa
similar.
5.2.4 O
Figure 18
not ‘Bott
The resu
the total
85 Taken f86 NampaConsumpt
Packaging Co
ority of plast
ted drinks, b
used as milk,
E (just over 1
k85 estimates
ority of whic
er bottles su
ed that aroun
ng 45k tonne
ng to industr
risings. The s
ds (68%) PET
rable propor
ally disposed
andable that
Other (2%
8 provides a
tle’, ‘Film’, ‘C
Figu
ults calculate
l consumer p
from consultatiak’s figure is bation & Productio
omposition 2
tic bottles bo
bottled wate
cleaning or
1% combine
that 119k86
h is consume
ch as those u
nd 113k tonn
es (28%) are
ry discussion
split derived
T and one th
tion (around
of on‐the‐go
t the quantit
of Consum
list of the pa
Closure’ or ‘P
Conure 18
ed a tonnage
packaging.
ion carried out bcked by Defra’son Taskforce.
2011
ought by con
r, cordials an
toiletries bot
d).
tonnes of HD
er, but includ
used by cafe
nes (72%) of
used for con
s, the split o
from the EP
ird (32%) HD
d one‐third, p
o and are the
ies of PET an
mer Plastic
ackaging for
PTTs’.
nsumer Packa
of 33k tonn
by Valpak Octos milk road map
O
Act
App
Bas
Hi C
Pad
Pum
Spr
Ste
Stri
Tie
Tub
Val
nsumers are
nd energy dr
ttles. A smal
DPE milk bot
des an unkno
es, restauran
f consumer H
nsumer non‐
f PET to HDP
IC data samp
DPE. As on‐th
please see se
erefore unlik
nd HDPE bott
Packaging
mats that we
aging Formats
es that comp
ober 2012. p report produc
ther Descrip
tuator
plicator
se
Cone
d
mp
ray Top
m
ip
be
ve
made of PET
rinks. This is f
ll proportion
ttles were pl
own (small, p
ts, etc.. This
HDPE bottles
grocery pack
PE bottles sit
ple suggests
he‐go bottle
ection 5.6 fo
kely to enter
tles passing t
g)
ere included
s Included in C
prises these
ced by the Dairy
ptions
T (67%, 333kt
followed by
of bottles a
aced onto th
perhaps 5%)
being the ca
are used for
kaging.
s at around
a different s
collections a
r more detai
the recyclin
through MRF
in the ‘Othe
Category ‘Oth
packaging fo
y Supply Chain F
Ja
kt), commonl
HDPE (32%,
re also made
he UK marke
quantity of
ase, it could
r milk and th
50% each, at
split for cons
are still limit
ils) of PET bo
ng stream, it
Fs and PRFs
er’ packaging
her’
ormats. This
Forum’s Sustain
anuary 2013
29
ly used for
158kt),
e of PP, PVC
et in 2010,
non‐
be
he
t least as
umption:
ted and a
ottles are
is
are more
g format, i.e.
s is 2 % of
nable
3
9
.
Plastics P
5.3 C
Total con
consume
calculate
disposed
5.3.1 P
The mos
thermof
tonnes).
Consumer
Film Total
Film
Film - Bags
Rigids Total
Bottles
Consumer C
Consumer PT Thermoforme
Injection Mou
Other
Grand Total
Grand Total
Packaging Co
Consumer
nsumer plast
er on‐the‐go
ed by extract
d on‐the‐go,
Packaging
st common p
formed packs
Figure
r Household Plastic
losures
TTsed Packs
ulded Rigids
(tonnes)
(%)
omposition 2
r (Househ
tic packaging
o plastic pack
ting the tonn
from the tot
Figure 1
Formats
packaging for
s (23%, 336k
Cons20
c PackagingLDLL
1
5
7
1
1
9
2011
old) Plast
g can be bro
kaging (see S
nages of vari
tal consume
Consum19
rmats identif
k tonnes), film
umer (Househ
DPE/ LDPE
HDPE
27k 105k
53k 20k
74k 85k
10k 189k
1k 158k
3k 28k
4k 0k2k 0k
2k 0k
1k 2k
37k 294k
9% 20%
tic Packag
ken down in
ection 2.3). T
ous plastic p
r figures, as
mer (Househo
fied are bott
m non‐bags
hold) Plastics
OPP PP
13k 77k
9k 47k
4k 29k
4k 138k
0k 4k
3k 15k
0k 113k0k 21k
0k 92k
0k 5k
16k 215k
1% 15%
ing
nto consume
The consum
packaging for
illustrated b
old) Plastic Pac
tles (26%, 38
(16%, 228k t
s Packaging by
PET
47k
40k
7k
k 539k
215k
18k
k 300k267k
33k
6k
k 586k
41%
r household
er (househo
rmats and po
elow.
ckaging
1k tonnes), f
tonnes) and f
y Packaging Fo
PS PVC
1k 5k
0k 4k
1k 1k
61k 39k
0k 2k
0k 1k
49k 36k7k 36k
42k 0k
12k 0k
62k 43k
4% 3%
Ja
plastic pack
ld) figures ha
olymers estim
followed by
film bags (16
ormat
OtherGranTota
(tonne
77k 452k
54k 228k
23k 224k
14k 993k
0k 381k
3k 73k
6k 509k2k 336k
4k 174k
4k 30k
91k 1445
6%
anuary 2013
30
aging and
ave been
mated to be
6%, 224k
nd al es)
Grand Total (%)
k 31%k 16%k 16%
k 69%k 26%
k 5%k 35%k 66%
k 34%
k 2%
5k
3
0
Plastics P
5.3.2 P
With reg
up of PE
The large
meals, fo
HDPE is t
majority
due to it
A key for
items su
A recent
used89) p
87 http://w22 Novem88 UK mar89 The mestatistical
Packaging Co
Polymer Ty
Figu
gard to polym
T (41% of to
est proportio
ollowed by b
the second m
y of HDPE pla
ts chemical r
rmat of PP is
ch as yoghu
t report by W
presents esti
www.wrap.orgber 2012 rket compositioethods used areanalysis of con
omposition 2
ypes
Conure 21
mer type, the
tal Consume
on of PET pla
bottles (37%)
most used po
astic packagi
esistant pro
s injection m
rts, deli filler
WRAP88 on PP
imates that c
g.uk/sites/files/w
on data of polype very different sumption data
2011
nsumer (Hous
e most comm
er [household
astic packagi
) to package
olymer (20%
ng is bottles
perties.
oulded rigid
rs, spreads a
P packaging (
can be comp
wrap/Phase%2
propylene packadue to WRAP’s.
sehold) Plastic
mon type of
d] plastic pa
ng is thermo
juice drinks.
% of total Con
(54%) and it
s (43%), whi
nd margarin
(to be used w
pared with PP
203%20Food%2
aging, WRAP, 2s report being b
cs Packaging b
plastic packa
ckaging, 586
oformed pac
.
nsumer [hou
t is mainly us
ch is princip
ne tubs and ic
with caution
P consumer
20Grade%20rPP
2012 ased on consul
by Polymer Ty
aging used in
6kt).
ks (46%) use
sehold] plast
sed to packa
ally made up
ce cream tub
due to the d
household p
P%20Market%2
tation and Valp
Ja
ype
n the househ
ed to packag
tic packaging
age milk and
p of pots to p
bs87.
different me
packaging he
20Final%20Repo
pak’s being bas
anuary 2013
31
hold is made
e ready
g). The
toiletries,
package
thodology
re:
ort.pdf, visited
sed on
3
1
Plastics P
W
C
e
T
5.4 C
In order
packagin
plastic fi
undertak
The anal
packagin
It should
report (1
Collectio
are not r
recycling
90 UK mar
ConsumerPlast
Film Total
Film
Film - Bags
Rigids Tota
Bottles
Consumer C
Consumer P Thermoform
Injection Mo
Various App
Grand Tota
Grand Tota
Packaging Co
PP consume
WRAP: 60‐10
Consumer ho
estimate of 6
The breakdo
PP report90 f
Consumer
to establish
ng, further se
lm and othe
ken in differe
lysis suggest
ng and, accor
d be noted th
118kt) is far g
on Survey 20
recycled and
g. Further re
rket compositio
r Away from Hometic Packaging
s
l
Closures
PTTsmed Packs
oulded Rigids
plications
l (tonnes)
l (%)
omposition 2
r household
00K tonnes);
ousehold PP
60K tonnes;
own of consu
for details.
r (On‐the‐
the format a
econdary res
er plastic pac
ent parts of t
Figure 22
s that bottle
rdingly, PET
hat the tonna
greater than
01146. This is
d therefore re
search in thi
on data of polyp
e LDPE/ LLDPE
18k
6k
12k
0k
0k
0k
0k0k
0k
0k
19k
7%
2011
film is consi
;
P bottles is m
and
umer PTTs fo
‐Go) Plast
and polymer
search was u
kaging as rep
the UK over
On‐the‐Go
es are the sin
(mainly PET
age of plastic
n the 25kt est
an importan
epresent a co
s area is req
propylene packa
HDPE OPP
35k 3k
8k 2k
27k 1k
4k 0k
0k 0k
4k 0k
0k 0k0k 0k
0k 0k
0k 0k
39k 3k
14% 1%
stent betwe
much lower in
or PP in both
ic Packagi
r splits of the
undertaken t
ported in a n
the last ten
o Plastics Pack
ngle largest c
bottles) is th
c bottles est
timated in R
nt figure as th
onsiderable
uired to esta
aging, WRAP, 2
PP
17k
11k
6k
11k
0k
2k
10k2k
8k
0k
28k
10%
en both repo
n this analysi
reports diffe
ing
e consumer (
o estimate a
number of lit
years (See se
kaging by Poly
component (4
he most com
imated to be
ecoup’s UK H
he vast majo
tonnage of u
ablish a more
2012
PET PS
12k 0k
10k 0k
2k 0k
149k 6k
118k 0k
2k 0k
28k 4k26k 1k
3k 4k
1k 1k
161k 6k
58% 2%
orts (77K ton
s at 4K tonn
er in style an
(away‐from h
appropriate s
tterbin and s
ection 2.3.2
ymer Type
42%) of tota
mmonly found
e disposed o
Household P
ority of bottle
untapped pla
e accurate, a
PVC O
1k
1k
0k
3k
0k
0k
3k3k
0k
0k
4k
2%
Ja
nnes compar
es compared
nd tonnages,
home) plasti
splits of plast
street sweep
for more de
l consumer (
d polymer (5
of on‐the‐go
Plastics Packa
es disposed o
astic packagi
agreed figure
OtherGrand Total
(tonnes
18k 105k
12k 51k
5k 54k
1k 174k
0k 118k
0k 8k
1k 47k0k 32k
0k 15k
0k 2k
19k 279k
7%
anuary 2013
32
red to
d to WRAP’s
please see
c
tic bottles,
ing analyses
tail).
(on‐the‐go)
58%).
in this
aging
of on‐the‐go
ing for
e.
s)
Grand Total (%)
37%18%19%
63%42%3%
17%11%
5%
1%
3
2
s
o
Plastics P
6. N
For the p
commer
packagin
hospitali
The start
PackFlow
data sou
apply an
detail on
this repo
Figure 25
best esti
The majo
made of
LLDPE/L
applicati
and tray
broadly
packagin
most like
non‐con
91 UK mar
Non-con
Film Total
Film
Film - Bags
Film - Strap
Rigids Total
Bottles
Consumer C
Consumer P
Non-Consum Closures
Injection Mo
EPS Transit
Pails, Drums
Non-Consum
Other
Grand Total
Grand Total
Packaging Co
Non‐con
purposes of t
rcial and indu
ng. Commerc
ity, offices an
ting point fo
w 2017 estim
urced from a
ny errors of m
n the method
ort.
5 below pres
imated in thi
ority (69%) o
f LLDPE/LDPE
DPE makes u
ions, at 60%
ys and pallets
equates to t
ng report91; h
ely due to th
sumer rigids
rket compositio
sumer Plastic Pac
ping/Tape/Bands
l
Closures
PTTs
mer Rigids
oulded Pallets, Crates
t Packaging
s, Industrial
mer PTTs
l (tonnes)
l (%)
omposition 2
sumer C
this study, n
ustrial stream
cial plastic pa
nd similar op
or establishin
mate of 811K
wide range
margin and t
dology follow
sents the bre
is study.
Figure 2
of non‐consu
E (449kt). Th
up the bigges
of all polym
s/crates. The
he 80k tonn
however, the
he assumptio
s in this study
on data of polyp
ckagingLDPELLDP
482k
449k
34k
0k
0k
0k
0k
0k
0k0k
s, etc 0k
0k
0k
0k
0k
483k
60%
2011
onsump
on‐consume
ms as well as
ackaging incl
perations.
ng the recent
K tonnes. The
of secondary
he format an
wed to estab
eakdown of n
Non‐Co3
umer plastic
e remainder
st proportion
ers. PP const
e 77k tonnes
es estimated
e breakdown
ons, methodo
y.
propylene packa
E/ PE
HDPE
k 5k
k 5k
k 0k
0k
72k
44k
0k
0k
19k1k
0k
0k
17k
0k
10k
k 77k
% 9%
tion of P
er consumpti
s agricultural
ludes that w
t (2011) leve
e packaging f
y research fi
nd polymer s
blish non‐con
non‐consum
nsumer Plast
packaging is
r is rigid pack
n of plastic p
titutes 16% o
total PP non
d in WRAP’s
n of non‐con
ologies and a
aging, WRAP, 2
OPP PP
0k 50k
0k 37k
0k 10k
0k 3k
0k 77k
0k 1k
0k 0k
0k 0k
0k 76k0k 1k
0k 22k
0k 0k
0k 12k
0k 41k
0k 0k
0k 127k
0% 16%
Plastic Pa
ion represen
l and constru
which arises f
ls of non‐con
formats and
ndings. It ha
splits should
nsumer pack
mer plastic pa
ic Packaging A
made up of
kaging (31%,
packaging po
of non‐consu
n‐consumer
UK market c
sumer rigids
age of data u
2012
PET
14k
8k
0k
5k
42k
4k
0k
0k
30k1k
0k
0k
0k
30k
8k
56k
7%
ackaging
nts all packag
uction & dem
rom the reta
nsumer plast
polymers we
s therefore n
be treated a
aging splits,
ackaging by f
Arisings
film (563kt)
248kt).
lymer used i
umer packag
rigids figure
omposition
s is considera
used to provi
PS PVC
3k 7k
3k 7k
0k 0k
0k 0k
22k 33k
0k 1k
0k 0k
0k 0k
22k 0k0k 0k
0k 0k
9k 0k
0k 0k
13k 0k
0k 32k
26k 40k
3% 5%
Ja
ging from the
molition (C&D
ail, wholesale
tic packaging
ere broken d
not been po
as indicative
please see S
format and p
, primarily n
in non‐consu
ging, mainly
from this re
data of poly
ably differen
ide a breakd
OtherGrTo
(ton
3k 56
3k 5
0k 4
0k 8
0k 24
0k 5
0k 0
0k 0
0k 140k 2
0k 2
0k 9
0k 2
0k 8
0k 5
3k 8
0%
anuary 2013
33
e
D) plastic
e,
g was the
down using
ssible to
. For further
Section 2 of
polymer, as
on‐bag film
umer
as pots tubs
port
propylene
t. This is
own of
rand otal nnes)
Grand Total (%)
63k 69%11k 63%
44k 5%8k 1%
48k 31%50k 6%0k 0%0k 0%47k 18%2k 0%
22k 3%9k 1%
29k 4%85k 10%50k 6%
11k 00
3
3
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
34
7. Conclusions
7.1 Formats of Plastic Packaging
Rigid packaging (bottles, PTTs, closures, etc.) account for the majority (56%) of plastic packaging
45% of rigid plastic packaging is PTTs
39% of rigid plastic packaging is bottles
Plastic film including bags, strapping, tape and bands constitute the next largest proportion of plastic
packaging consumed in the UK
44% of plastic packaging is made of film (1119kt)
Of this, 71% is non‐bag film (790kt) and 29% is film used as bags (321kt)
Plastic pots, tubs and trays represent 25% of UK plastic packaging
32% of consumer plastic packaging is comprised of PTTs (556kt)
10% of non‐consumer plastic packaging are PTTs (85kt)
Bottles represent 22% of plastic packaging consumption in the UK
91% of plastic bottles arise in the consumer sector
29% of consumer plastic packaging is bottles
7.2 Polymers used in Plastic Packaging
PET is the most commonly used polymer in UK plastic packaging
32% of UK plastic packaging is made of PET (803kt)
43% of consumer plastic packaging is made of PET (747kt)
LDPE/LLDPE is used to make a quarter of plastic packaging
9% of consumer plastic packaging is made of LDPE/LLDPE (156kt)
60% of non‐consumer plastic packaging is made of LDPE/LLDPE (483kt)
HDPE is used to make 16% of UK plastic packaging
HDPE is used to manufacture 410kt of UK plastic packaging
19% of consumer plastic packaging is made of HDPE (333kt)
9% of non‐consumer plastic packaging is made of HDPE (77kt)
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
35
PP is used to make 15% of UK plastic packaging
PP is used to manufacture 370kt of UK plastic packaging
14% of consumer plastic packaging is made of PP (243kt)
16% of non‐consumer plastic packaging is made of PP (127kt)
PET bottles represent the largest single tonnage of consumer plastic packaging
PET bottles represent 13% of UK plastic packaging (337kt)
Industry confirms a move towards packaging products in PET bottles rather than HDPE due to changes in bottle requirements, improved visual impact, lighter weight and lower cost
The 50% HDPE:50% PET composition split of bottles entering the sorting/recycling stream may not
necessarily be appropriate for packaging consumption
The split derived from the survey sample suggests a split for consumer consumption of around two thirds (62%) PET and one third (38%) HDPE bottles.
Packaging consumption figures and the composition split of bottles entering the sorting/recycling stream can vary due to factors such as disposal of household packaging away from home; as on‐the‐go bottle collections are still extremely limited and a considerable proportion (around one‐third) of PET bottles are potentially disposed of on‐the‐go (and are therefore unlikely to enter the recycling stream as on the‐go recycling is very limited), it is understandable that the quantities of PET and HDPE bottles in household waste arisings and passing through MRFs and PRFs are broadly equivalent.
7.3 Trends in Plastic Packaging
These potential trends arise from comparing the data in this report with the previously most comprehensive composition analysis published by WRAP, containing 2005 data. It should be noted that the methodologies used to derive the estimates in each report are very different and there is considerable uncertainty over these estimates in both reports. Therefore, the comparison data should be treated with caution and as only one means of establishing potential trends. Data for 2005 is detailed in Annex II Figures A5 –A7. The largest growth in plastic packaging format appears to have been in PTTs
Results from the current study estimate 641k tonnes of plastic PTTs
This is more than double the quantity of PTTs reported in this report compared to the quantity reported back in 2005.
Film and Bottle tonnages appear to have remained relatively stable since 2005
Results from the current study estimate 1119k tonnes of plastic film packaging
This is similar to the 897k tonne (plus assumed 228kt imports) reported in 2005
A wider range of polymers are now used in film and bag manufacture (new polymers representing ~33% and ~28% respectively)
Results from the current study estimate 548k tonnes of plastic bottles
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
36
This is similar to the 548k tonne (plus assumed 11kt imports) reported in 2005
Industry’s view confirms any growth in consumption has been negated through light weighting of bottles and down gauging of films
The largest growth in plastic packaging polymer appears to have been in PET
Results from the current study estimate 803k tonnes of plastic PET packaging
This is almost double the quantity reported in 2005 (96% growth)
The majority of this growth is in PTTs (around 300kt)
PET is becoming a preferred polymer due to favourable properties such as visual impact, barrier properties, food‐grade recyclability and price (relative to HDPE)
The largest decline in plastic packaging format (in tonnes) appears to have been in plastic bags
Plastic bag (carrier bags and other bags) tonnages have reduced by approximately one third since 2005 (36%, 181kt)
Carrier bags look to have reduced by up to one quarter
There has been growth in non‐carrier bags such as fresh produce and bread bags The largest decline in plastic packaging polymer appears to have been in LDPE/LLDPE
Results from the current study estimate 638k tonnes of plastic LDPE/LLDPE packaging
This represents a 34% decrease (322kt) on reported 2005 figures
This is most likely due to a shift from LDPE bags to HDPE bags and the switching to alternative film polymers with different technical capabilities (e.g. storage in ambient instead of chilled environment, closures on ready meals)
HDPE Bags have experienced significant growth at the expense of LDPE bags
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
37
Annex I: Imports of Plastic Packaging
Imported Obligated Packaging
Using the data reported to the Environment Agency for compliance with the Packaging Regulations,
available from the National Packaging Waste Database (NPWD), it was possible to estimate the
proportion of obligated plastic packaging sold onto the UK market that was imported, either as empty
packaging or packaging filled with product.
These calculations indicate that, in 2011, approximately 32% of all plastic packaging placed on the
market was imported obligated tonnage, of which 38% was imported empty (and subsequently filled
and sold in the UK) and 62% was imported as pre‐packaged products.
Figure A4 2011 Obligated Plastic Packaging Imports
Imported Non‐obligated Packaging
Calculating the non‐obligated plastic packaging imported into the UK requires identifying the quantity of
plastic packaging imported by companies that are not obligated due to their size, i.e. are excluded from
reporting their packaging data as they handle fewer than 50 tonnes of packaging or have a turnover
below £2m. This is known as the de‐minimus threshold.
If it were possible to calculate the proportion of de‐minimus tonnage of all non‐obligated plastic
packaging, then this proportion could be applied to the above import data to calculate a proxy tonnage
of non‐obligated plastic packaging imported.
The most commonly used method to calculate the tonnage of non‐obligated packaging is to subtract the
obligated tonnage for a given year (as reported in NPWD41) from an estimated packaging flow tonnage.
Following this method, adopting the 2011 total plastic packaging flow estimate from PackFlow of 2,535k
tonnes (please see Section 3.2 for details on PackFlow) and the NPWD 2011 total obligated plastic
packaging figure of 1,868k tonnes, gives a tonnage difference of 667k tonnes or 26%.
However, this 667k tonnes of plastic packaging is not uniquely due to the de‐minimus threshold as
packaging can be excluded from the packaging regulations for a number of other reasons, for example:
There are still a number of ‘free‐riders’ i.e. companies that are not reporting packaging data that should be. For example, not all leased packaging (plastic crates) appears to have picked up its full obligation yet. Companies leasing this packaging out may still not have registered or are not picking up full obligation. There is no list available of those registered to lease out packaging.
000 Tonnes %
2535k
821k 32%
506k 62%
314k 38%
'Filled Imports'
'Empty Imports'
2011
PackFlow Total Flow (midpoint)
Total Imports (NPWD)
Plastics Packaging Composition 2011 January 2013
38
‘Internal use packaging’: large amounts of both disposable and re‐useable packaging are used ‘internally’ within a legal entity, and because supply to an external company does not take place, no obligation currently exists.
Packaging used for things like storage/moving crates outside the system may still end up being recycled but never pick up an obligation.
Ownership of imports:
Raw material/conversion sector: this is an issue in the petro chemical industry especially as many companies have moved offices abroad for tax reasons
Lots of grey imports missing (free riding)
Contract packing operations: a lot of packaging operations are performed by contract packers and/or logistics companies. They may add or remove packaging on behalf of clients; for example, they may remove imported transit packaging which the product owner then forgets to account for, and the contractor does not submit data on as they are a de‐minimus company.
Incapacity: when companies go bust their obligation is normally lost, even if the business is taken on by someone else.
Applying the 26% proxy non‐obligated plastic packaging figure to the 821k tonnes estimation of
obligated imported plastic packaging given in Figure A4 above would therefore give a maximum, but
most likely over estimated, 1,053k tonnes of imported plastic packaging in 2011. It could therefore be
said that imported plastic packaging represents between 40% and 44% of all UK plastic packaging.
Imported Empty Packaging by Packaging Format
National Statistics’ PRODCOM data provides some insight into the proportion of empty packaging
formats imported, using either the tonnage or number of items sold.
Calculations made on 2010 data suggest that approximately 59% of empty plastic sacks and bags were
imported, along with 46% of plastic boxes, cases and crates, 16% of plastic carboys, bottles and flasks
and 29% of bottle caps, capsules, other stoppers & lids.
Plastics P
Anne
su
Figure A
Packaging Co
ex II: Key
upplies fo
A5 Tabl
omposition 2
y Data tab
or recycl
associ
le 2.1 Polym
2011
bles from
ing, glob
ated risk
er demand b
the
m WRAP’
bal marke
ks’ (Table
by applicatio
UK (2005), k
s UK Plas
et deman
e 2.1 & T
on in product
k tonnes
stic Wast
nd, future
able 2.3)
tion of packa
Ja
te – A re
e trends
)
aging for con
anuary 2013
39
view of
and
sumption in
3
9
Plastics P
Figure A
Figure A
th
Bottles
Closures
EPS transit
Film
Film - bags
Injected mo
Other HDPE
Pails, drum
Semi-rigid s
Strapping
Thermoform
Injected mo
Fibre for pa
Various app
Process/sup
Total (Tonn
Total (%)
Packaging Co
A6 Tab
A7 Tabl
he UK (2005),
packaging
oulded RTPS, crat
E
s & industrial
sheet
med packs
oulded rigids
ackaging
plications
pply chain losses
es)
omposition 2
ble 2.3 Chara
le 2.1 Polym
, k tonnes w
PE HD
22
490k470k 31
tes
70
960k 3239% 13
2011
cterisation o
er demand b
ith assumed
DPE OPP P
20k 10
122k1k
750k
40
2212163
21k 122k 283% 5% 12
of C&I plastic
(est. 2005
by applicatio
imports allo
PUnspec
POPE
0k 3152k
5k
0k 58k26
2k 1021k 626k3k
87k 110k 412% 4% 17
c packaging a
5)
on in product
ocated and n
ET PS PV
1k 5k 13
31k10
6k 110k2k 93k
0k 128k 137% 5% 5%
arisings, exc.
tion of packa
on‐consume
VCBio-
plastic
Tota(Tonn
)
3k 55952k31k
0k 62250275k70k98k
1k 13732k
27616k3k
3k 3k
4k 3k 2475% 0%
Ja
. ‘domestic‐l
aging for con
er/consumer
al nes
Total (%)
AssumC&
k 23% 42kk 2%k 1% 14kk 25% 318k 20% 127k 3% 38kk 3% 42kk 4% 52kk 6% 48kk 1% 27kk 11% 20kk 1% 2k
0% 3k0%
91k5k 824
anuary 2013
40
ike’ arisings
sumption in
r splits
med I
Assumed Consumer
k 517k52k
k 17k8k 304k7k 375kk 37kk 28kk 46kk 89kk 5kk 256kk 14kk 0k
3kk -91k4k 1651k
3
0