20130321PhaseIsynthesisreport FINAL

Phase I synthesis report
Evidence to support the development of

a sustainability roadmap for soft drinks
Disclaimer
Best Foot Forward has prepared this report for the sole use of the client and for the intended purposes as stated in the
agreement between Best Foot Forward and the client under which this report was completed. Best Foot Forward has
exercised due and customary care in preparing this report but has not, save as specifically stated, independently verified
information provided by others. No other warranty, express or implied, is made in relation to the contents of this
report. The use of this report, or reliance on its content, by unauthorised third parties without written permission from
Best Foot Forward shall be at their own risk and Best Foot Forward accept no duty of care to such third party. Any
recommendations, opinions or findings stated in this report are based on facts and circumstances as they existed at the
time the report was prepared. Any changes in such facts and circumstances may adversely affect the recommendations,
opinions or findings contained in this report.
Phase I synthesis report:

Evidence to support the development of a
sustainability roadmap for soft drinks
Prepared for: The Project Management Group
Prepared by:
Best Foot Forward
The Future Centre
9 Newtec Place
Magdalen Road
Oxford,
OX4 1RE
E-mail: mail@bestfootforward.com
Web: www.bestfootforward.com
Tel: 01865 250818 Fax: 01865 794586
Company Registration 3409491
2nd July 2012
Quality Assurance
Report approved by:
Chris Stanley
Signature Chris
Stanley
2 July 2012
Executive summary
The UK soft drinks industry has a market value of 14.5 billion and annual consumption exceeding 14.6 billion litres per
year. Whilst the industry has been proactive in its work to minimise its environmental footprint, there is still an
opportunity to further this work through improved focus and collaborative action. Defra is seeking to establish a
sustainability roadmap with the sector which requires that the environmental, social and economic impacts need to be
more clearly understood. This roadmap will be intended to target resource efficiency, waste reduction, reduced water
and energy use, and to build on the work already undertaken by the sector.
Best Foot Forward has been commissioned to collate the evidence to form the basis for such a roadmap and to engage
industry stakeholders on identifying the areas for focus. The work has two phases: Phase 1 has been concerned with
understanding the industry context and the key issues and opportunities, and Phase 2 will refine the understanding and
prepare the foundation for the roadmap.
The Phase 1 report is an initial draft document, drawing on early conclusions and preliminary opportunities identified in
an overview of the UK sector, literature review and stakeholder engagement. It provides steering for Phase 2 priorities.
1
For the purposes of this research, five key sub-categories of soft drinks have been defined as follows :
1. Carbonates (CSDs)
2. Dilutables
3. Fruit juice & smoothies
4. Still & juice drinks
5. Bottled water
A key focus of the work has been on the identification of environmental hotspots along the UK soft drinks category
supply chains. Based on research to date, the total UK soft drinks supply chain material volumes and GHG emissions
have been estimated at:
Product volume: 15 million tonnes
Materials used: 40 million tonnes
GHG emissions: 7.8 million tonnes CO2e

Water used in the production of drinks is the major contributor to the total material volumes consumed. Fruit (2.6m
tonnes CO2e) and PET bottles (2m tonnes CO 2e) contribute the most to the overall greenhouse gas (GHG) impact. At
over 16m tonnes, the CSDs category contributes the most to the total material volumes consumed, followed by
dilutables (almost 12m tonnes). The same two categories dominate the contribution to total GHG emissions
dilutables (3.25m tCO2) and CSDs (just under 2m tCO2).
Following the environmental hotspots analysis, five common environmental impact themes have emerged. These have
been listed in order of potential significance and/or priority. A more detailed explanation of each theme and proposed
focus for additional research in Phase 2 accompanies this report:
1. Fruit & sugar - fruit and sugar production and processing contribute significantly to GHG emissions and to the
use of water for agriculture
2. Water not in product water use is significant in the processing of ingredients (especially fruit and sugar-based
drinks).
3. Energy (incl. refrigeration) energy use is significant in the processing of ingredients and manufacture of
packaging, fuel use in distribution and in refrigeration and freezing.
4. Product waste post-consumer waste is seen as more of a concern compared to waste arising elsewhere in
the supply chain.
5. Packaging - primary packaging, particularly PET bottles and aluminium cans, contributes significantly to
resource consumption and to post-consumer waste.
In addition to the identification of the environmental impact themes, a programme of stakeholder engagement
identified a range of opportunities and barriers for reducing these impacts. Stakeholders particularly highlighted the
following barriers to the industry achieving improved resource efficiency:
Improved engagement across the supply chain recommendations on how this could be achieved can be
sought from the stakeholders themselves and the Project Management Group,
Improved sharing of best practice building on and sharing good work in the sector through channels and
consortia already implemented, and
Improved education of those working in the supply chain to improve skills, including resource efficiency
management.
1
As defined by the British Soft Drinks Association. Tea, coffee and milk are not included.
A key objective of the Phase 1 research has been to establish where improvement of data and evidence is needed to
support the final recommendations for a sustainability roadmap. The following areas have been identified for further
work in Phase 2:
2
Fruit & sugar :

Gather further information on the production of the most commonly used fruits used in the production of drinks
consumed in the UK, namely oranges, grapefruit, lemons and limes, apples, pineapple, grape, cranberry and
blackcurrant.
Gather better data on sugar cane and high fructose corn syrup production and volumes produced for UK soft
drinks use, including associated impacts, such as agricultural and processing impacts.
Dependent on data availability and access, identify the volumes of sweeteners used in soft drinks and clarify the
environmental impact associated with the production and processing of sweeteners, including those extracted
from natural ingredients. This will help to prioritise the
Review the different types of sugar and fruit production methods that are reported to have a lower
environmental impact in order to identify potential best practice as solutions to reducing the environmental
impact of fruit and sugar production.
Energy (including refrigeration):
Establish greater clarity on why and where refrigeration is needed along the supply chain, and how much energy
is used in refrigeration.
Clarify the GHG impact of refrigeration from both energy use and refrigerant emissions to the atmosphere used
in the soft drinks supply chain (drawing on currently published research, such as Defras examination of the GWP
of refrigeration in the food chain).
Packaging:
Derive more robust figures for packaging consumed by and disposed of through the on-trade, by drawing on
research being undertaken for the WRAP Hospitality and Food Service sector voluntary agreement.
Provide better estimates on secondary packaging and their impacts for the different categories.
Collation of information and review of best practice technologies developed to reduce the environmental
impacts of packaging for soft drinks. This would draw very much on research produced by WRAP and present it
specifically for the soft drinks sector.
Product waste:
Build on WRAPs supply chain work and aim to fill in the gaps identified in the drinks resource maps.
Dependent on the availability, a more robust product waste figure for the soft drinks sector will be proposed in
order to establish whether product waste in manufacture, distribution and retail is significant or not.
Water not in product:
Build on the work BIER have undertaken to benchmark the water not in product to litre of product ratio for fruit
juice & smoothies, still & juice drinks and dilutables.
Expand research on water to include a water footprint (green, blue and grey) and sustainability assessment
(including water scarcity) of the key ingredients used for each soft drinks category. It is proposed that the Water
Footprint Networks Waterstat database be used to establish water footprints for mainly fruit and sugars used
(these are available).
In addition to the above, further investigation will be carried out into the feasibility of implementation of actions to
reduce impacts, who should be involved across the industry, what other enabling actions may be needed, and possible
timescales.
Given the remaining time and budget, an agreed list of additional work is required drawn from that above. Details for
each recommendation are provided in the report to aid this selection, as well a proposed timeline for each option.
Once the Phase 2 work activities have been agreed, the focus will be to undertake this research up to October 2012,
when it is proposed that a final workshop is held with supply chain stakeholders. The aim of this workshop will be to
share the recommendations drawn from these refined findings for a sustainability roadmap for the sector. This
stakeholder input is critical in ensuring the roadmap proposed is focussed for maximum reduction in impact, fit-forpurpose, challenging and yet realistic. Based on feedback from the workshop the evidence and recommendations will
be presented to the Project Management Group in December 2012 upon which to agree and implement a sustainability
roadmap for the sector.
For the purposes of the research to date, all sugar is accounted as sugar beet, which has a GHG emission (tCO2e) 2.5 times larger than sugar can.
Adequate data sources at the time of analysis were not available for sugar cane, however whilst writing up the Phase I Synthesis Report a life cycle
assessment comparing sugar beet versus sugar cane became available. Dependent on the quality of the data, this will be included in Phase II to
derive a more accurate picture of sugar usage in CSDs. Corn syrup is not included as it is hardly available in the EU, according to BSDA (BSDA,
2012c). In the USA, high fructose corn syrup has almost completely replaced sugar in soft drinks but it is not widely used in the UK, due to European
Union restrictions in the Common Agricultural Policy.
Contents
Executive summary
Abbreviations
1.
2.
3.
Introduction
1.1.
Objectives of the Phase I synthesis report
1.2.
Methodology for gathering insights
UK soft drinks sector overview
2.1
Key statistics
10
2.2.
Soft drinks products
10
2.3.
Soft drinks supply chain
11
2.4.
Key trends
11
Environmental impacts & key themes
13
3.2.
Introduction
13
3.2.
Soft drinks category hotspots
14
3.3.1 Carbonated soft drinks
14
3.3.2 Dilutables
17
3.3.3 Fruit juice and smoothies
18
3.3.4 Still and juice drinks
21
3.3.5 Bottled water
24
3.4.
Five key themes
26
3.4.1.
Fruit and sugar
26
3.4.2.
Energy (including refrigeration and freezing)
27
3.4.3.
Packaging
28
3.4.4.
Product waste
29
3.4.5.
Water not in product
Error! Bookm
4.
Data gaps
30
5.
Recommendations for Phase II Research
31
5.1 Fruit & sugar
31
5.2 Energy (including refrigeration)
32
5.3 Packaging
32
5.4 Product waste
33
5.5 Water not in product
33
Revised project plan
33
6.
Appendix 1: UK soft drinks sector overview process and approach
35
Appendix 2: Literature review process and approach
36
Appendix 3: List of proactive stakeholders
38
Appendix 4: Detailed data tables for total soft drinks and drinks categories
39
Appendix 5: Some key voluntary and regulatory sustainability initiatives
45
Bibliography
48
Abbreviations
BCME
BIER
BSDA
CCE
CSD
CO2e
Defra
FDF
GHG
GSK
LCA
m
PET
PP
PRN
rPET
tCO2e
WRAP
Beverage Can Makers of Europe

Beverage Industry Environment Roundtable
British Soft Drinks Association
Coca-Cola Enterprises
Carbonated Soft Drink
GHG reported as carbon equivalent
Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs
Food & Drink Federation
Greenhouse Gas
GlaxoSmithKline
Life Cycle Assessment
million
Polyethylene terephthalate (plastic-type)
Polypropylene
Packaging Recovery Note
PET containing a percentage of recycled PET
tonnes carbon equivalent
Waste & Resources Action Programme
1. Introduction
3
The UK soft drinks industry has a market value of 14.5 billion and annual consumption exceeding 14.6 billion litres per
th
year (BSDA, 2012a). In 2009, the UK was the 12 largest consumer of soft drinks globally (Key Note, 2011). Whilst the
industry has been proactive in its work to minimise its environmental footprint (BSDA, 2012b), there is still an
opportunity to further this work through improved focus and collaborative action. Defra is seeking to establish a
sustainability roadmap with the sector which requires the environmental, social and economic impacts need to be more
clearly understood. This roadmap will be intended to target resource efficiency, waste reduction, reduced water and
energy use, and to build on the work already undertaken by the sector. Best Foot Forward has been commissioned to
collate the evidence to form the basis for such a roadmap.
A sustainability roadmap is a sectors route towards environmental success and resource efficiency. It is a result of
collaboration between Government, business & other stakeholders to review evidence and engage stakeholders to
develop and implement a voluntary action plan which is flexible to changes within the sector, and which builds on
what the industry has already achieved.
The key activities to establish the evidence include:

A categorisation of the soft drinks sector;
An overview of the UK soft drinks sector;
A literature review;
Stakeholder engagement; and
A synthesis of the findings highlighting key issues and opportunities, data gaps and recommendations for a
roadmap.
These activities are being undertaken over two phases of work, as outlined in the diagram below.
Figure 1: Project activities and outputs
1.1. Objectives of the Phase I synthesis report

This synthesis report is an initial draft document, drawing on early conclusions and preliminary opportunities identified
in the UK sector overview, literature review and stakeholder engagement. It provides steering for Phase 2 priorities.
This report contains:
A UK soft drinks sector analysis, including a detailed overview of the soft drinks supply chain;
Mapping of the research findings to the UK market;
Identification of key issues (environmental impacts);
3
Soft drinks definition, as defined by the BSDA: Carbonated drinks, dilutables, fruit juice & smoothies, still & juice drinks and bottled water.
Preliminary identification of potential opportunities for impact reduction;

Confirmation of the scope of work and recommendations for Phase 2; and
An analysis of evidence gaps and costed proposals for new work required to fill said gaps.
1.2. Methodology for gathering insights

As illustrated in Figure 1, above, a number of activities have been undertaken to establish an overview of the UK soft
drinks sector, and to determine the key environmental impacts and potential themes of focus for Phase 2 and the
roadmap. Two main sources of information have been used to gather this insight: 1) Research, and 2) Stakeholder
engagement.
1.2.1
Research
The aim of the research was to collate and review available current data about the environmental sustainability of the
sector. This work covers the entire supply chain, including international sourcing of product and ingredients, and a
variety of sustainability metrics (including carbon, water, energy and waste). The process and approach adopted for the
UK Sector Overview and environmental hotspots analysis is outlined in Appendix 1.
A literature review was produced to summarise the extensive range of data sources which were accessed and a quality
assessment of this literature was also undertaken. An overview of the literature review is provided in Appendix 2.
1.2.2
Stakeholder engagement
Best Foot Forward have collated a list of over 150 stakeholders representing organisations across the soft drinks supply
chain and interested parties. This list continues to grow as more organisations are contacted or made aware of the
project. The key focus for the stakeholder engagement has been:
To gather insights on the key issues facing the sector and current areas of activity; and
To act as a sounding board on findings and to identify opportunities for improvement.
To enable active participation by stakeholders in this work we used various methods including:
Targeted telephone interviews,
On-line questionnaire, and
A workshop and webinar held in June (over 40 attendees).
A list of participating stakeholders is provided in Appendix 3.
2. UK soft drinks sector overview

For the purposes of this research, five key sub-categories of soft drinks have been identified, as defined by the British
Soft Drinks Association (BSDA)(BSDA, 2012a), and reported accordingly in this report as follows:
4
1. Carbonates (CSDs)
5
2. Dilutables
6
3. Fruit juice & smoothies
7
4. Still & juice drinks
8
5. Bottled water
Tea, coffee and milk-based drinks have not been included. For sustainability roadmap purposes, these drinks are
covered within the Dairy Roadmap (Dairy Supply Chain Forum, 2011).
Carbonates include ready to drinks and draught dispense (for the hospitality sector), home dispense (for example, Soda Stream), mixers including
tonic and bitter drinks, orange and shandy; energy drinks; sparkling flavoured water, health drinks and herbal drinks. They cover regular including
sparkling juice, low calorie and zero calorie. Flavours include cola, lemon, lemon-lime, other fruit flavours (BSDA, 2012a).
5
Dilutables include squashes, cordials and powders and other concentrates for dilution to taste by consumers, normally adding 4 parts water to 1
part product. High juice contains a minimum of 40% fruit content (as sold). Regular dilutables include squashes and cordials with a minimum of 25%
fruit. Low sugar variants include no added sugar and sugar free (BSDA, 2012a).
6
Fruit juice is defined as having 100% fruit content equivalent, sometimes referred to as pure juice or 100% juice. Chilled juice comprises of four main
types: smoothies (based predominantly on whole crushed fruit, chilled and with a short shelf-life); freshly squeezed (not pasteurised, chilled with a
short-shelf life); not-from-concentrate (squeezed then pasteurised, chilled with a shelf life of a few weeks; and other chilled from concentrate (from
concentrate or part squeezed and part from concentrate). Ambient or long life juice is mainly from concentrate and heat treated, with a shelf life of
up to 18 months (BSDA, 2012a).
7
Still and juice drinks include high juice drinks (25-99% fruit content), juice drinks (5-25% fruit content) and other still drinks (0-5%) including iced tea,
sports drinks, still flavoured water and non-fruit drinks (BSDA, 2012a).
8
Bottled water is defined as still, sparkling and lightly carbonated water. It is further characterised as being natural miner water, spring water or
bottled drinking water (BSDA, 2012a).
2.1 Key statistics

Table 1: Estimated material volumes and values associated with the annual UK consumption of soft drinks
Life-cycle stage
Processing & manufacturing Ingredients
Water in product
Sales channels
Retail
Consumer use
End of life
Packaging
PET (bottles)
Paper / card
Glass
Steel
Aluminium
Secondary packaging
Paper / Card
Plastic
Water used in process
On-trade (sales)
On-trade (vol.)
Off-trade (sales)
Off-trade (vol)
Total retail sales ()
Total retail units
Water used
Waste
Recycled
Landfill
Energy recovery
Total
Unit
5,408,000 tonnes
12,600,000 m3
682,000 tonnes
403,000 tonnes
106,000 tonnes
102,000 tonnes
19,000 tonnes
52,000 tonnes
175,000 tonnes
133,000 tonnes
42,000 tonnes
27,383,000 litres
30% %
7% %
70% %
93% %
13,880,000,000 ()
14,585,000,000 litres
28,000,000 litres
562,000 tonnes
528,000 tonnes
429,000 tonnes
58,000 tonnes
Sources: Britvic, 2011; BSDA, 2011; Valpak, 2012; WRAP, 2010; WRAP, 2011 and WRAP, 2012a.
2.2. Soft drinks products

In 2011, the UK consumed over 14.6bn litres of soft drinks, an average of 235 litres per person (BSDA, 2012a). Figure 2
below provides a breakdown of this consumption by soft drink type (BSDA, 2012a).
Figure 2: UK soft drinks consumption, as a percentage, by type
For retail sales data there were several possible sources of information. The sources selected were based on discussions with the BSDA and other
stakeholders. BSDA (BSDA, 2011) retail sales data is based on manufacturer-supplied data whereas the alternative Britvic report (Britvic, 2011) was
based on retail samples and household surveys from Nielsen and gave a total less than half of the BSDA figure. NOTE: At the time of writing up the
Phase I Synthesis Report, the BSDA-derived data had not been updated to reflect the 2012-released data. This will be updated in Phase 2.
10
2.3. Soft drinks supply chain

The industry is dominated by a small number of large companies who are often both manufacturers and brand owners,
such as AG Barr, Bottlegreen, Britvic), Coca-Cola Enterprises (CCE), Cott Beverages, Danone Waters (UK & Ireland), GSK,
innocent drinks, Nestle Waters, (Vimto), PepsiCo and Princes. Most manufacturers and brand owners operate in most
soft drinks sectors. In addition, there are key players within each part of the supply chain, such as:
Ingredients suppliers, such as:
10
o Sugar and sweeteners: American Sugar Refining , British Sugar and Cargill, and
o Fruit juice: Continental Juice and Citrosuco
Packaging manufacturers, such as:
o Metal cans: Ball Packaging, Crown and Rexam
o Glass: Allied Glass, Ardagh Glass, Beatson Clark, O-I, Quinn Glass
o Liquid cartons: Tetrapak, Elopak and SIG Combibloc
o Plastic: Amcor/APPE, Constar, Esterform and Sidel
Third-party / own-label fillers: Cott Beverages, Gerber Juice and Princes; and
Packaging recyclers and reprocessors, such as Glass Recycling UK and Novellis (cans). There are over 100
plastics recyclers operating in the UK11. Some of those focusing on plastics used for soft drinks include Closed
Loop London, Ecoplastics, Petcore and RE PET.
The generic supply chain for soft drinks, which also indicates the different life cycle stages, is shown in Figure 3. Each of
the 5 soft drinks sub-categories has particular features so specific supply chain maps showing environmental impacts
have been developed and are provided in Section 3 .
Figure 3: Generic soft drinks supply chain, by life-cycle stage
2.4. Key trends

As well as an overview of the current status of the UK soft drinks sector, it is useful to understand the emerging trends,
in particular those that may have a significant impact on the business and manufacture of UK soft drinks. There are a
number of trends emerging in the UK soft drinks sector in terms of health, nutrition and sustainability. Some of these
are outlined below:
10
11
American Sugar Refining bought Tate & Lyle in 2010.

British Plastic Federation (2012) Plastics recycling
11
Trend
Growth/decline in
categories
Description
Overall there has been little change in the
consumption of soft drinks between 2010/11.
However, some categories have seen growth
including bottled water (2.2%), carbonates (4.1%),
still and juice drinks (1.2%) and most significantly
sports and energy drinks (10%). Dilutables, fruit
juice and smoothies have seen a decline of 1.7% and
1.2% respectively. Decline is often associated with
poor weather and reduced household income.
Potential environmental impact

An increase in products with a high fruit or sugar content could
result in an increase in the total soft drinks environmental
impact.
Natural
In many parts of the world there is a rising demand

and premium price charged for products using
natural ingredients. Particularly common are those
with reduced or no artificial flavourings,
preservatives or colourants (Datamonitor, 2010)12.
In essence, there is no obvious link between whether the

ingredients are natural and the environmental impact of the
product. Each product and ingredient must be assessed on its
own merit depending on what ingredient is being reduced,
eliminated or introduced. For example, promoters of stevia as
a replacement for sugar claim that the crop is less water
intensive than sugar, as its potency means less has to be used
in the products that it is sweetening, necessitating fewer crops.
Likewise, if stevia is acting as a natural replacement for
artificial sweeteners, rather than for sugar, the water intensity
may in fact be higher, as it is a farmed, rather than artificial,
input14.
An example of this trend is the increased use of

stevia13, a sweetening herb of South American
origin, as a natural replacement for artificial
sweeteners and a healthier replacement for sugar.
Already, companies such as Cargill manufacture
stevia and Coca-Cola uses it in some of its products.
Healthy products
One of the most clear trends in the soft drink

market is the drive towards healthier products,
whether they be caffeine or sugar-free versions of
existing products, those that are perceived to be
healthier because they are fruit-based, or existing
unhealthy products that are packaged in smaller
sized.
One notable change could occur from the increased use of

smaller pack sizes for sugared drinks. This may be due to
rising demand or simply the banning of sugary drinks in large
sizes (as recently proposed by the Mayor of New York City
(BBC, 2012) or currently adopted in most UK schools). In
addition, a smaller product to pack ratio could increase
packaging waste unless consumers buy the same number of
units at lower volumes.
Product concentration
There has been an increase in demand for double

concentrated products such as squashes. This is
often linked to the demand for smaller pack sizes.
Many retailers and brand-owners have moved to
double concentrate products. (Convenience
Store, 2012). There has also been an increased
uptake of concentrated fruit juices by the
hospitality industry.
There has been increased use of packaging
innovations.
Higher concentrate products are more efficient to package and

transport
Packaging innovation
Many manufacturers are moving to in-house

blowing from preforms for example where a
bottle is blown out from a preformed template on
the production line. This improves transport
efficiencies, and reduces storage requirements
(WRAP, 2012a).15
Most of the major manufacturers of soft drinks are
using a percentage of rPET in their PET bottles, with
the intention to increase this (see (Britvic,
Increased use of rPET: Currently the demand for rPET for use in
soft drinks bottles outstrips supply. The soft drinks industry and
WRAP are investigating opportunities to improve the situation
in particular the quality of the recycled material and packaging
produced from reprocessed PET. This could be a good area for a
roadmap to investigate, as using rPET in packaging reduces the
amount of energy needed for bottle manufacture which offers
resource and energy savings (WRAP, 2007; Gyekye, 2011).
Increased use of plant-based PET: One of the advantages of
plant-based PET is it can be recycled in the PET recycling stream.
It compares favourably to polylactic acid (PLA)16, which currently
12
Datamonitor (2010) Product Insight Series: Soft drinks in the UK

Stevia is a natural, calorie-free sweetening ingredient, being up to 300 times sweeter than sugar. It is a plant native to South America that has been
used for centuries as a sweet herb. It is now cultivated throughout the world, but most significantly in China, Paraguay, Colombia, India, Kenya, and
Brazil, with development expanding into the United States, Vietnam and other countries. Stevia was approved for consumption in food stuffs by the
EU in 2011 (Jobs, 2012; Global Stevia Institute, 2011 and Stones, 2011).
14
While companies, such as Cargill have recognised this and developed social and environmental goals for the production of stevia and other
commodities, it is clear that there are difficulties in assessing the link between how natural a product is and the size of its environmental impact
(Cargill, 2012).
15
WRAP (2012) Draft Resource Review: Resource efficiency in the UK soft drinks sector
16
PLA is made from starch rich plants such as corn, wheat and sugar beets.
13
12
2012)(Coca-Cola Enterprises, 2009).

Bottles are increasingly been made from plantbased PET - initially used by Danone for Volvic (20%
plant-based), Coca-Colas Plantbottle (30% plantbased) and PepsiCo (trialling 100% plantbased)(Danone, 2012; Mercer, 2011; PepsiCo,
2011).
cannot be accommodated in the UK recycling stream resulting in

contamination of recycling batches. Some brands, such as
innocent drinks, withdrew their PLA bottles and have focused on
increasing the recycled content of PET packaging instead
(Kiernan, 2007).
3. Environmental impacts & key themes

3.2. Introduction
The environmental impacts and themes identified focused on 5 key metrics (carbon, water not in product consumption,
energy, resource use and waste), and did not cover social, biodiversity and land use impacts, which was not part of the
scope of this project but could be considered for a roadmap or further investigation in Phase 2.
Based on research to date, the total UK soft drinks supply chain material volumes and GHG emissions have been
estimated at:
Materials: 40 million tonnes17

GHG emissions: 7.8 million tonnes CO2e
18
As is evident from Figure 4, water is the major contributor to the total volume of materials consumed by the sector.
However, it is worth noting here that water not in product has low GHG (carbon) impact (see Figure 5). Fruit (2.6m
tonnes CO2e) and PET bottles (2m tonnes CO2e) contribute the most to the overall soft drinks GHG impact.
Figure 4: Estimated material volumes associated with the UK soft drinks supply chain
Figure 5: Estimated GHG (tCO2e) emissions associated with the UK soft drinks supply chain
17
Due to a lack of data this currently excludes distribution, domestic refrigeration and end of life use.
Process water - does not include the water in the product. It refers to water used during the manufacture of a soft drink, for example cleaning
machinery or preparing fruit. Water in product is captured within other ingredients.
18
13
3.2. Soft drinks category hotspots

The following section provides a more in-depth look at the five key categories of soft drinks, with particular reference to
19
a categorys environmental impacts (or hotspots ).
3.3.1 Carbonated soft drinks
Carbonated soft drinks (CSDs) make up the largest portion of soft drinks consumed in the UK- 45% of total consumption
(BSDA, 2012a), and are defined by their fizzy nature, which is achieved by dissolving carbon dioxide (CO 2) in water and
20
adding sweeteners and flavourings . There are three key types of carbonated soft drinks:
Flavoured: The most common being cola and lemonade, but also includes other fruit flavours, such as citrus or
berry. This also includes energy drinks.
Diet: Low- or zero calorie versions of regular flavours and brands, which include the use of both natural and
artificial sweeteners; and
21
Mixers: For mixing with alcoholic drinks, such as tonic water .
Almost 60% of carbonated soft drinks are sold in PET packaging, with 27% in cans and 10% dispensed on-trade premises
22
from bulk packaging (BSDA, 2012a). Table 2 below outlines the estimated volumes and values associated with the
main supply stages for CSDs consumed in the UK.
Table 2: Estimated material volumes associated with the UK CSD supply chain
Sources: Britvic, 2011; BSDA, 2011; Valpak, 2012; WRAP, 2010; WRAP, 2011; and WRAP, 2012a.
Environmental hotspots
23
The most significant hotspots for carbonates are water in product (in volume) and PET and aluminium packaging for
GHG emissions. Figure 6 provides two charts, which represent the estimated material volumes and GHG emissions
associated with the UK CSDs supply chain.
19
The term hotspot is used to refer to an area of greatest impact. The identification of supply hotspots along a products supply chain enables these
areas to be targeted for maximum environmental and potentially economic, reduction opportunities along a products supply chain.
20
The CO2 can be added at point of manufacture or point of consumption, for example via a SodaStream in the home, or when dispensed from a
fountain in the hospitality trade. This also normally involves dilution of a concentrate to deliver the final drink at the point of consumption.
21
Key Note (2011) Market Report: Soft drinks (carbonated & concentrated)
22
The on-trade refers to on-premise, such as clubs, pubs, restaurants, events, on-site catering and catering in public establishments, such as hospitals,
schools and prisons.
23
This would not be the case for CSDs dispensed in the on-trade where the ingredients would dominate the footprint. In terms of recycled content in
packaging, this is taken into account in calculating the GHG emissions (as adopted for WRAPs Courtauld Commitment (WRAP, 2010)).
14
Figure 6: Estimated material volumes and GHG emissions associated with the UK CSDs supply chain
Material volumes
24
GHG emissions (tCO2e)
Figure 7 provides a summary illustration of the UK CSD supply chain, and highlights where the key hotspots occur along
the supply chain, thereby providing a focus for opportunities for potentially the most significant reductions.
24
Processed water has been excluded from the materials volume pie chart as it dominates inputs, and makes it difficult to recognise the other key
input materials.
15
Figure 7: Illustration of the UK carbonated soft drinks supply with environmental hotspots
3.3.2 Dilutables
Dilutables are the second most popular soft drink consumed in the UK (22% of total consumption). Dilutables are also
often referred to as concentrates, cordials or squash and include powders and other concentrates. As with carbonates,
there are low or no-sugar versions, with these variants making up the dominant portion of sales with just over 70% of
the dilutables market. The most common flavours are fruit blends (51%), orange (29%) and blackcurrant (11%). Almost
all dilutables are packaged in PET bottles (BSDA, 2012a). Table 3 below outlines the estimated volumes and values
associated with the main supply stages for UK consumed dilutables.
Table 3: Estimated material volumes associated with the UK dilutables supply chain
Life-cycle stage
Water in product
Packaging
PET
Carton
Glass
Aluminium
Secondary packaging
card
plastic
Sales channels
On-trade (sales)
On-trade (vol.)
Retail
Total retail units
Consumer use
Consumer use
End of life
Water used
Waste
Recycled
Landfill
Energy recovery
Total
Unit
805,000 tonnes
2,695,000 m3
167,000 tonnes
132,000 tonnes
20,000 tonnes
15,000 tonnes
0 tonnes
59,000 tonnes
42,000 tonnes
17,000 tonnes
8,052,000 m3
27% %
3% %
910,000,000 ()
3,500,000,000 litres
28,000,000
53,000
117,000
119,000
16,000
m3
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
tonnes
Sources: Britvic, 2011; BSDA, 2011; Valpak, 2012; WRAP, 2010; WRAP, 2011 and WRAP, 2012a.
The most significant GHG hotspots for dilutables are fruit juice and, to a slightly lesser extent, PET bottles. Like CSDs,
water in product is significant in terms of product volume, and the type of liquid used for dilution may have an impact
on total impact of the category. Figure 8 provides two charts which represent the estimated material volumes and GHG
emissions associated with the UK dilutables supply chain.
Figure 8: Estimated material volumes and GHG emissions associated with the UK dilutables supply chain
Material volumes
25
Figure 9 provides a summary illustration of the UK dilutables supply chain, and highlights where the key hotspots occur
along the supply chain, thereby providing a focus for opportunities for potentially the most significant reductions.
25
input materials.
3.3.3 Fruit juice and smoothies

Fruit juice and smoothies are the smallest category of soft drinks consumed in the UK (8% of total consumption). They
are defined as having a 100% fruit content equivalent. 55% of fruit-dominant juices are sold chilled. The most common
flavours consumed are orange (54%), apple (15%) and fruit blends (14%). At 75% of the total packaging for this product
group, liquid cartons are the predominant pack format used with the remaining formats being plastic (17%) and glass
(8%) (BSDA, 2012a). Table 4 below outlines the estimated volumes and values associated with the main supply stages
for UK fruit juice and smoothies.
Table 4: Estimated material volumes associated with the UK fruit juice and smoothies drinks supply chain
Life-cycle stage
Packaging
PET Bottles
Cartons
Glass
Secondary packaging
Card
Plastic
Sales channels
On-trade (sales)
On-trade (vol.)
Retail
Total retail units
Consumer use
Waste
End of life
Recycled
Landfill
Energy recovery
Total
Unit
3,154,000 tonnes
61,000 tonnes
18,000 tonnes
31,000 tonnes
12,000 tonnes
30,000 tonnes
28,000 tonnes
2,000 tonnes
4,131,000 m3
24%
5%
1,760,000,000 ()
1,180,000,000 litres
160,000 tonnes
62,000 tonnes
23,000 tonnes
3,000 tonnes
Sources: Britvic, 2011; BSDA, 2011; Valpak, 2012; WRAP 201; WRAP, 2011 and WRAP, 2012a.
The most significant hotspot, in both GHG emissions and volume, for fruit juice and smoothies is fruit. For GHG
emissions, this is associated with agricultural production of fruit. Figure 10 provides two charts which represent the
estimated material volumes and GHG emissions associated with the UK fruit juice, smoothies, still and juice drink supply
chains.
Figure 10: Estimated material volumes and GHG emissions associated with the UK fruit juice and smoothies chains
Material volumes
26
Figure 11 provides a summary illustration of the UK fruit juice and smoothies supply chain, and highlights where the key
hotspots occur along the supply chain, thereby providing a focus for opportunities for potentially the most significant
reductions.
26
input materials.
18
Figure 9: Illustration of the UK dilutables supply with environmental hotspots
Figure 11: Illustration of the UK fruit juice and smoothies supply with environmental hotspots
3.3.4 Still and juice drinks

Still and juice drinks make up 10% of all soft drinks consumed in the UK (the fourth largest category). They are defined
27
as high juice drinks (25-99% fruit content), juice drinks (5-25% fruit content) and other still drinks, functional drinks
and iced tea (0-5% fruit content). Juice drinks make up the majority of sales (60%). The most common pack format is
liquid cartons (48% of the total), followed by plastic (25%) and glass and other packaging types (27%)(BSDA, 2012a).
Table 5 below outlines the estimated volumes and values associated with the main supply stages for UK still and juice
drinks.
Table 5: Estimated material volumes associated with the UK still and juice drinks supply chain
Life-cycle stage
Water in product
Packaging
PET (bottles)
Liquid carton
Glass
Secondary packaging
Card
Plastic
Sales channels
On-trade (sales)
On-trade (vol.)
Retail
Total retail units
Consumer use
Waste
End of life
Recycled
Landfill
Energy recovery
Total
Unit
954,000 tonnes
1,450,000 m3
76,000 tonnes
22,000 tonnes
39,000 tonnes
15,000 tonnes
34,000 tonnes
32,000 tonnes
2,000 tonnes
3,336,000 m3
49% %
2% %
1,770,000,000 ()
1,450,000,000 litres
not specified
tonnes
83,000 tonnes
33,000 tonnes
5,000 tonnes
Sources: Britvic, 2011; BSDA, 2011; Valpak, 2012; WRAP 201; WRAP, 2011 and WRAP, 2012a.
The most significant hotspots for the still and juice drinks are water in product for volume, and fruit for both volume
and GHG emissions. For GHG emissions, agricultural production is the primary contributor to fruit. Figure 12 provides
two charts which represent the estimated material volumes and GHG emissions associated with the UK still and juice
drink supply chains.
Figure 12: Estimated material volumes and GHG emissions associated with the UK still and juice drink supply chains
Material volumes
27
28
Functional drinks enriched beverages, such as juices and waters with added minerals and vitamins. They include sports drinks and
neutraceuticals (products with added ingredients targeted at specific medical or health benefits, such as claims for reducing
cholesterol)(Nutraingredients-usa.com, 2003).
28
input materials.
Figure 13 provides a summary illustration of the UK still and juice drink supply chain, and highlights where the key
hotspots occur along the supply chain, thereby providing a focus for opportunities for potentially the most significant
reductions.
22
Figure 13: Illustration of the UK still and juice drink supply with environmental hotspots
3.3.5 Bottled water

Bottled water is the third most consumed soft drink in the UK (14% of the total consumed). There are two key
29
classifications for bottled water naturally and not-naturally sourced water, of which naturally-sourced makes up
approximately 90% of sales. Water can be sold as still, sparkling or lightly sparkling, of which still is predominant (72%
of sales). Over 90% of bottled water is sold in plastic PET bottles (BSDA, 2012a and Natural Hydration Council, 2010).
Table 6 below outlines the estimated volumes and values associated with the main supply stages for UK bottled water.
Table 6: Estimated material volumes associated with the UK bottled water supply chain
Life-cycle stage
Processing & manufacturing Water in product
Packaging
PET
Paper
Glass
Secondary packaging
Card
Plastic
Sales channels
On-trade (sales)
On-trade (vol.)
Retail
Total retail units
Consumer use
Waste
End of life
Recycled
Landfill
Energy recovery
Total
Unit
2,055,000 m3
80,000 tonnes
65,000 tonnes
2,000 tonnes
13,000 tonnes
16,000 tonnes
12,000 tonnes
4,000 tonnes
2,884,000 m3
14% %
2% %
1,440,000,000 ()
2,055,000,000 litres
69,000 tonnes
70,000 tonnes
61,000 tonnes
8,000 tonnes
Sources: Britvic, 2011; BSDA, 2011; Mintel, 2009; Valpak, 2012; WRAP, 2010; WRAP, 2011 and WRAP, 2012a.
The most significant GHG emission hotspot for bottled water is PET packaging, and for volume it is, as expected, water
as an ingredient. Figure 14 provides two charts which represent the estimated material volumes and GHG emissions
associated with the UK bottled water supply chain. NB that bottled water represents 10% of estimated GHG (tCO2e) in
the UK soft drinks supply chain. This pie chart shows the breakdown of the emissions associated with the bottled water
supply chain, only.
Figure 14: Estimated material volumes and GHG emissions associated with the UK bottled water supply chain
Material volumes
29
30
Naturally-sourced water is further categorised into: 1) natural mineral water which must originate from an identified and protected underground
source and be bottled at source, and 2) spring water which must originate from an underground source, be bottled at source and be
microbiologically safe without treatment. It may include the removal of certain minerals as defined by the European Union Scientific Committee for
Food.
30
input materials.
Figure 15: Illustration of the UK bottled water supply with environmental hotspots
3.4.
Five key themes
Following the environmental hotspot analysis of the five soft drinks categories, it was possible to ascertain the
environmental impacts most common to all five categories. Based on current data availability, these emerged as the
following:
Fruit & sugar

Energy (incl. refrigeration)
Packaging
Product waste
Water not in product
Water not in product is included as it contributes by far the most volume to the total material volume for the sector
(see Table 1). Table 7 below identifies the Top 3 GHG emissions (tCO 2e) per category, or hotspots contributing over 10%
to the total GHG per category. This table could be used to guide the Project Management Groups thinking on areas of
focus for Phase 2. However, this does not include other metrics, such as water and energy use, which were assessed
separately and considered when pulling together the list of key themes.
Table 7: Main GHG emission (tCO2e) hotspots as a percentage contribution to total of the category
Category
Fruit
Carbonates
Additives
10%
Dilutables
62%
Fruit juice & smoothies
68%
Still & juice drinks
58%
Bottled water
Sugar
10%
PET
bottles
Alu.
cans
31%
19%
2o
packaging
Distribu
-tion
Retail
refrigera-tion
15%
14%
11%
12%
11%
64%
11%
12%
16%
To ensure these key themes were correctly identified, Best Foot Forward shared the research findings with a range of
stakeholders from across the soft drinks supply chain at a workshop and webinar held in May and June respectively. In
addition, the findings were assessed in relation to the information submitted by those who undertook an on-line survey
on key issues facing the sector. (For a list of organisations that contributed to the workshop and webinar, undertook
the on-line survey or were interviewed, see Appendix 3). However, it will be important to check the findings of this
research beyond that of the Project Management Group, with a selected group of stakeholders (potentially some BSDA
members) for feedback.
Opportunities and barriers
In addition to the identification of the environmental impact themes, opportunities and barriers for reducing these
impacts have also been identified through a programme of stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder input has been key to
filtering the focus areas and activities for a sustainability roadmap. The results of this consultation have been drawn in
the discussions below on each environmental impact theme. Within Phase II it is proposed that these insights are
combined with further research into environmental impact reduction opportunities, for example through a sweep of
current and emerging technologies to aid this change.
It has been recognised that any reduction opportunities should build on the activities and targets that have already
been initiated or could be achieved by the sector, whether overarching ambitions, such as the Federation
Commitments Five Fold Ambition, WRAPs Courtauld Commitment or individual company targets and achievements.
For a more comprehensive list of collaborative initiatives, see Appendix 5.
3.4.1. Fruit and sugar
Fruit production and processing contribute significantly to two categories dilutables and fruit juice & smoothies and
still & juice drinks. Sugar as an ingredient is important for CSDs, in particular its production and processing. For both
fruit and sugar production, water use in particular for irrigation - can be significant (Defra, 2006). Stakeholders agreed
that fruit and sugar production is an important theme for the soft drinks sector, not only from an environmental
perspective, but also from a social (ethical) and economic perspective. However, this is only an assumption at this
stage, and the significance needs to be confirmed with further research into this area.

The table below captures stakeholders insights on the opportunities and potential barriers associated with reducing the
environmental impact associated with fruit and sugar.
Opportunities to:
Work with the whole supply chain to achieve reductions.
Share best practice.
Find baseline metrics for fruit and sugar production (may
be available through WRAPs Product Sustainability
Forum). However, this could be complex, as there are
many production systems for each fruit type.
Reduce the use of agricultural chemicals.
Reduce processing waste, and identify better uses for by31
products and waste, such as lemon terpeness .
Reduce energy, in particular transport and processing.
Reduce water use from water stressed areas.
o Sourcing ingredients with low water burden.
Potential barriers
An issue with global economics (demand for sugar)
trade restrictions mean sugar cant be sourced at a
commercially viable cost from certain e.g. nonCommonwealth countries, therefore limiting supply.
Lack of engagement along the supply chain to implement
resource efficiency activities.
Not being able to share data due to confidentiality issues.
Due to the current financial circumstance, companies or
the sector may not be in a position to fund reduction
opportunities.
Lack of knowledge or ability to improve skills to identify
and/or implement reduction opportunities on the
shop/production floor.
3.4.2. Energy (including refrigeration and freezing)

Energy consumption throughout the supply chain contributes most significantly to the soft drinks sectors
environmental impact through direct energy use, in particular the processing of ingredients and manufacture of
32
packaging, fuel use in distribution and refrigeration and freezing . This is specifically the case for bottled water,
where fuel (energy) for distribution of the product is significant in relation to other energy use in production, and retail
refrigeration for CSDs and fruit juices.
environmental impact associated with energy (including refrigeration and freezing).
Opportunities to:
Energy:
Increase and implement production site level audits to
identify inefficiencies and leaks.
Installation of sub-metering to accurately reflect energy
consumption on-site.
Identify appropriate energy efficiency opportunities for
reducing the amount of energy consumed by the soft drinks
sector.
Reduce energy use in transport:
o Optimise fuel usage.
o Increase the use of more efficient transport modes,
such as rail.
o Improve haulage efficiencies minimise doublehandling and empty trips.
Increase the use of alternative sources of fuel/energy:
o Photovoltaic (PV) cells.
o Biomass (although issues around sourcing need to
be considered).
o Energy-from- waste (EfW), such as anaerobic
digestion (AD).
o Ground source heat pumps and other forms of heat
recovery.
Potential barriers
Energy and refrigeration:
Lack of appropriate technologies to significantly reduce
energy consumption. A potential role for the Technology
Strategy Board, and link to findings from Defras research
to reducing GHG emissions in refrigeration.
Investment and running costs. The payback periods need
to be commercially viable, and ideally create additional
jobs.
A risk that energy markets might change, including
government subsidies and support.
Food and safety requirements for the storage of food
stuffs.
Lack of knowledge or ability to improve skills to identify
and/or implement reduction opportunities.
Convenience resulting in an apathy or resistance (e.g.
marketing teams) to change, for example the installation
of fridge doors.
Competition in industry does not allow for sharing of best
practice.
Refrigeration:
Investigate increasing fridge temperatures for storing
drinks, or remove the need for refrigeration completely.
o Use additives to preserve instead of the need to
refrigerate.
o Use of optimum temperatures for fridges
31
Oil extracted from lemon peels.

Refrigeration of fruit purees, concentrates and juice is common practice in the manufacture of fruit juice, still and juice drinks. In particular, for
storing juices for use out of a fruits growing season (Walkden, 2012).
32
27
o Only refrigeration and/or freeze when necessary.

Build on research undertaken by Defra on reducing the
GHG emissions associated with the refrigeration food and
drink products.
Increase the use of refrigerators with doors.
33
Increase the use of LED lighting for fridges .
Increase the use of more environmentally friendly
refrigerants, such as propane.
Use clever packaging to shift from chilled to ambient
storage for drinks in the home and on-the-go, thereby
reducing the need for refrigeration.
3.4.3. Packaging
34
Primary packaging production and consumption contributes significantly to most of soft drinks categories, especially
PET bottles for example, 31% of total impact for CSDs and 64% for bottled water, and aluminium cans which for
35
example contribute 19% of total impact for CSDs. Secondary packaging is an important impact for bottled water
(12%). Stakeholders agreed that this was one of the most important areas of consideration for a roadmap, however a
discussion was held on the actual versus perceived importance of packaging and that it is acknowledged that:
Packaging is necessary to protect and preserve the product;

Numerous initiatives are in place to reduce the environmental impact of packaging, such as the Courtauld
Commitment (WRAP, 2012b) (also see Appendix 5) which includes optimisation and minimisation, increasing
recycled content and increasing recyclability of packaging; and
Many soft drinks companies have actively reduced the packaging on their products or within the supply chain,
for example as is evidenced in the UK Soft Drinks Responsibility Report (BSDA, 2012d) and interviews held with
plastics bottle manufacturers and recyclers (Moody, 2012).

environmental impact associated with packaging.
Opportunities to:
Potential barriers
Optimisation & minimisation:

Continue investing in optimal packaging and reduction of
resources (see WRAP Courtauld Commitment).
Increase the use of renewable materials in packaging.
o Use of biomass crops for biopolymers rather than
food crops.
Explore the standardisation of labels.
Explore alternative ways of delivering product to
consumer e.g. more concentrates or soda stream
system.
Optimisation & minimisation:

Marketing practices, such as brand protection
(shape/size).
Shift to smaller pack sizes for health and convenience
could lead to an increase in packaging as packaging to
product ratio increase, or this could lead to changes in
optimal packaging (which is an opportunity). This
needs to consider the interaction with health/obesity
initiatives and balance of reduced product waste.
Large labels often the result of presenting information
required by EU/domestic legislation.
Recycled content & recycling

Improve food-grade recycling opportunities for
polypropylene (PP), as is currently being investigated by
WRAP (WRAP, 2011d).
Reduce the use of virgin and increase the recyclability of
packaging (see WRAPs rPET categorisation matrix
(WRAP, 2011e)).
o Reduce print on bottles.
o Reduce material that causes reprocessing and
problems (e.g. black PET).
Increase recycled content, recycling rates and quality of
material collected (e.g. standardising local authority
collection)(see WRAPs roundtable on improving recycled
content for the drinks sector (Gyekye, 2011)).
Recycled content & recycling

Recycling economics not commercially viable.
Diversity of local authority recycling schemes.
Lack of availability of and good quality recycled
material.
Design issues as a barrier to 100% recyclable PET.
Brand identity vs increased use of recycled content.
o Consumer awareness/ acceptance.
Consumer perception of packaging as a key
environmental issue.
33
LED lights use between 50-90% less energy, do not contain mercury and can last up to 20 times longer than a conventional bulb (Matrixled, 2012).
Primary packaging or 'sales' packaging is packaging which forms a sales unit for the user or final consumer, for example, a plastic bottle containing
water (DOE, 2010).
35
Secondary packaging or 'grouped' packaging is that which contains a number of sales units, for example, a cardboard outer containing a number of
bottles of water (DOE, 2010). Within the retail environment this would include retail-ready (RRP) or sales-ready (SRP) packaging.
34
28
Improve technology in the UK for recycling liquid cartons.

Consumer, hospitality and food sector messaging and
awareness to increase recycling.
Increase the collection of recyclables by local authorities
from the hospitality and food sector.
Improve recycling on the go.
Educate consumers on the true understanding of
packaging.
3.4.4. Product waste

Product waste (excluding packaging) does not emerge as a major environmental hotspot in terms of GHG emissions and
waste arisings (as per findings from WRAPs drinks resource map). However it is considered to be an issue of concern
with both the Food & Drink Federation (FDF) and WRAPs Courtauld Commitment both focussing on supply chain waste,
and for the latter, food and drink waste thrown away in the home. Based on feedback from stakeholders, waste in
manufacturing and distribution processes has been a major focus in recent years and is now not considered to be an
issue compared with post-consumer waste. However, this does need to be clarified, with WRAP and the FDF who have
been investigating waste arisings in this area, as to whether further work needs to be undertaken in reduce waste
arisings in the manufacture of soft drinks. A roadmap would need to work in collaboration with activities being
undertaken and promoted by these two organisations.
Research carried out on behalf of WRAP suggests that UK households are wasting over 0.5bn litres of soft drinks a year
(WRAP, 2011f). Figure 16 below provides and estimated breakdown of this waste (WRAP, 2011g).
Figure 16: Household soft drinks waste, by category
The reasons behind this waste figure require further investigation and clarification. For example, for CSDs is the
wastage due to product going flat? WRAP are currently undertaking research to better understand the behaviours
behind such wastage. This will help to provide guidance on how to reduce drink waste in the home, and it is
recommended that for the roadmap the outcomes of this research are taken into consideration. However, there are
concerns as to how to education consumers as Government budget is currently not available to fund any campaign to
reduce food and drink waste in the home.
environmental impact linked with product waste along the supply chain and in the home.
Opportunities to:
Reduce any waste produced going to landfill.
o Consider waste to energy/anaerobic digestion (AD)
options (collection method from manufacturers to
be identified).
o Reduce waste, reuse and then recycle.
Reduction in consumer waste down the drain.
o Portion control although this may result in
increased packaging.
Potential barriers
The cost of investing in the reduction of supply chain
waste.
Lack of technologies to reduce supply chain waste.
Product innovation does not always consider
sustainably.
Training issues high staff turnover in entire supply
chain.
Fear of change / short-sightedness.
Short life-cycle products.
29
Shelf-life, especially carbonated soft drinks.
3.4.5. Water not in product

Water used for the processing of ingredients (especially fruit and sugar-based drinks), and manufacture of soft drinks is
the most significant material consumed (by volume) by the sector (84% of all materials consumed). Drinks companies
rely on water as a primary ingredient for their products, therefore the promotion of the sustainable use and protection
of water is a business imperative, in particular as it can be a reputational and environmental risk (especially if sourced
from a water stressed area). The Beverage Industry Environment Roundtable (BIER, 2012) recently reported
benchmarks for the water use ratio for two soft drinks categories, as follows:
Carbonates: 2.11 litres for 1 litre of product

Bottled water: 1.53 litres for 1 litre of product
Based on the evidence to date and stakeholder feedback, water not in product use is considered to be a very important
theme to incorporate into the roadmap and it was agreed that opportunities still exist for improvement. These could be
investigated further in Phase 2.
The table below captures stakeholders insights on the opportunities and potential barriers associated with reducing
water not in product along the supply chain.
Opportunities to:
Identify and benchmark best practice by sector (see BIER
Appendix 5).
Capture direct and indirect water use data to develop a
baseline from which to measure improvements.
Identify emerging technologies to reduce water consumption
along the supply chain
o Need to assess viability/payback.
o Increase the use of and invest in more waterless
cleaning.
Consider and/or increase the use of other water sources e.g.
grey water use, and reuse of water where possible e.g.
reverse osmosis (what are the legal restrictions?)
Increase the delivery of drinks products to consumers in
concentrate form to reduce water in products, thereby
improving transport efficiencies.
o Increase use of piped water at point of use.
Potential barriers
Availability of information of water use throughout
the supply chain (which could be a good focus area
for a roadmap)
Ensure opportunities take quality control and safety
into account.
o Food safety.
o Hygiene at point of use.
Overcome stigma attached to reusing water in the
supply chain (which could be a good focus area for a
roadmap).
Economic drivers e.g. local water cost and
availability. In the future UK water is likely to become
scarcer and expensive due to e.g. changes in
abstraction licences.
4. Data gaps
As part of building the evidence for the roadmap, the aim has been to draw on currently available data from within and
external to the soft drinks sector and to cover the entire supply chain (including international sourcing of product and
ingredients) and a variety of sustainability metrics (including carbon, water, energy and waste). From the initial data
completion exercise and analysis, literature review and stakeholder engagement, it is apparent that there is a wide
range of variability in the availability and quality of data pertaining to the sector. The most common data gaps or where
data requires clarification as identified in the table below (orange indicating gaps or poor information). It is hoped
that in Phase 2 industry stakeholders will be willing to help improve this data and information by either sharing
information they have, or indicating if such data exists but may not be available for confidentiality reasons..
Life-cycle stage
Processing & manufacturing
CSDs
Dilutables
Fruit juice
&
smoothies
Still &
juice
drinks
Bottled
water
Manufactured sales ()
Manufactured units
Ingredients
Water in product
30
Sales channels
Retail
Consumer use
End of life
Packaging
Secondary packaging
Waste
On-trade (sales)
On-trade (vol.)
Off-trade (sales)
Off-trade (vol)
Total retail units
Packaging
Water used
Waste
Water used
Waste
Packaging
Reuse
Recycled
Landfill
Energy recovery
5. Recommendations for Phase II Research

This section provides a synthesis of research recommended to be undertaken during Phase II. The recommendations
are drawn from gaps identified in data assessed for the UK overview, environmental hotspots analysis and stakeholder
engagement. These recommendations are outlined below, and require Project Management Group views on which to
prioritise and focus on in Phase 2.
5.1 Fruit & sugar

Fruit production data gaps:
The aim will be to try and gather further information and data on the production of the most commonly used fruits
for fruit juice in the UK, including: Orange, Apple, Pineapple, Grapefruit, Lemons and limes, Grape, Cranberry and
Blackcurrant. This will include country of origin, production and processing methods, volumes, refrigeration along
the chain and supply chain routes to the UK.
This will also include clarification of the average amount of fruit required to produce 1 litre of soft drink.
Best Foot Forward has begun to identify and engage with key organisations producing, processing or selling fruit for
soft drinks or fruit juice to manufacturers to try to refine the findings ascertained to date. Some of the additional
organisations identified for this purpose are: British Fruit Juice Association; Citrosuco (oranges); Continental Juice
(oranges); European Fruit Juice Association; Gerber Juice Company (manufacturer); GSK (manufacturer of Ribena);
International Federation of Fruit Juice Producers.
Sugar production:
The aim will be to try and gather further information and data on sugar cane production to gain a clearer
understanding of the volumes produced for UK soft drinks use, agricultural and processing impact. Information has
become available for this to be clarified.
To clarify and characterise the supply chains, such as origins of sugar and environmental impacts associated with e.g.
sugar refining.
To clarify the consumption of corn syrup as a sugar in the production of soft drinks consumed in the UK.
Best Foot Forward has begun to identify and engage with key organisations producing, processing or selling fruit or
fruit juice to manufacturers to try to refine the findings ascertained to date. Some of the additional organisations
identified for this purpose are: American Sugar Refining (Tate & Lyle); British Sugar; Committee of European Users
of Sugar (CIUS) and UK Sugar Users Group (BSDA).
Environmental impact of sweeteners:
As requested by stakeholders, there is a desire to understand the environmental impact associated with the
production and processing of sweeteners (artificial and natural) compared to sugars for the use in soft drinks. This
will include:
31
Producing a list of sweeteners used by the soft drinks sector, and associated volumes, source and method of
production
The aim will be to consult with producers of sweeteners and gather information from secondary data, such as LCAs
to try and clarify the impact of sweeteners. In particular, how would the growing trend in the use of no-calorie
sweeteners impact on the current soft drinks GHG baseline.
Production methods:
An additional recommendation, again proposed by stakeholders, would be to carry out a sweep of the different
types of sugar and fruit production methods that are reported to have a lower environmental impact than some
current methods, for example concentrating fruit near the agricultural production or manufacturing site. This could
include, for example, investigating alternative supply chains such as increased concentration of juices to reduce
transport impacts.
The aim of this sweep would be to gather evidence for potential reduction opportunities that could be adopted
during the implementation of a roadmap.
5.2 Energy (including refrigeration and freezing)

Refrigeration in the supply chain:
The aim of this activity will be to better understand and clarify where along the supply chain refrigeration and
freezing starts and ends for each soft drinks category, and why it takes place at any given stage. For example, why is
some fruit juice frozen between fruit producer/processor and drinks manufacturer?
Additionally, clarifying the GHG impacts of refrigeration and freezing from both energy use and refrigerant emissions
to the atmosphere will enable identification of the most appropriate solutions for reduction and optimisation
A number of key sources have recently come to light 36 in order to enable this activity to be undertaken, such as
Defras recent report on an investigation into the GHG emissions associated with the refrigeration of food and drink
products. In addition stakeholders and LinkedIn will be used to survey organisations to clarify the refrigeration and
freezing processes along their supply chains.
5.3 Packaging
On-trade packaging:
It has been recommended by stakeholders to undertake additional research to try and derive more robust figures
for packaging consumed by and disposed of through the on-trade. Information being produced by WRAP on the
hospitality and foodservice sectors, and exploring engagement with Valpaks Data Solutions hospitality clients,
further insights could be obtained.
On the go recycling:
Stakeholder feedback would suggest that the evidence on where soft drinks packaging purchased on the go is
unclear. The intention would to try and better understand the final destination of this packaging and where it is
actually disposed, for example in the workplace or at home/kerbside. This would provide more insight and evidence
for developing any programmes for increasing the collection of packaging on the go for recycling.
Secondary packaging:
Data on secondary data is available, however within the timeframe of Phase I it was not possible to allocate
additional time to deriving more reasonable figures for secondary packaging arising along the supply chain. With
assistance from Valpak we propose delving deeper into data submitted for PRNs to provide better estimates on
secondary packaging for the different drinks categories.
Aluminium and steel cans:
The split between aluminium versus steel cans requires clarification, as the research currently assumes all metal
packaging for cans is aluminium when the UK has a large number of steel cans in circulation. This data is available
for supermarket sales, but would need to be more robust for the on-trade.
Data to refine this split can be extrapolated from Valpak sources for supermarket packaging, the Beverage Can
Manufacturers of Europe (BCME) and Every Can Counts campaign material and research.
36
Additional useful data sources for refrigeration: Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment (Arthur D. Little, 1996); Energy
use in food refrigeration: Calculations, assumptions and data sources (Swain, 2006); Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Food Retailing (Brunel University,
2008); How much electricity does my refrigerator use? (Bluejay, 2011); Refrigeration (Greenconsumerguide.com, 2012) and Reducing refrigerant
emissions & leakage (Institute of Refrigeration, 2010)
32
New technology:
A range of new technologies are under development for primary and secondary packaging, including increased use
of bio-materials, accessing recovered materials for re-cycling or re-use, and for beverage delivery. A review of known
and emerging technologies is proposed for Phase II, in particular mapping existing initiatives and identifying where
there are any information gaps.
5.4 Product waste

Arisings in the supply chain:
Work has been carried out recently for WRAP to identify waste arisings in the drinks sectors supply chains.
However, access to data was problematic and as a result the figures derived from the research are incomplete
(WRAP, 2012a).
It is proposed that further research is undertaken to improve these figures, and confirm whether product waste in
manufacture, distribution and retail is significant or not. This will be undertaken by obtaining data from Best Foot
Forwards soft drinks clients, project stakeholders and secondary data from life-cycle research, as well as building on
the lessons learnt from WRAPs study. Included in this would also be a review of why product waste arises, such as
product shelf life, stock and order policy of retailers.
5.5 Water not in product

Benchmarking:
The aim of this exercise will be to build on the work BIER have undertaken to benchmark the water not in product to
litre of product ratio for CSDs and bottled water. Benchmarks for fruit juice & smoothies, still & juice drinks and
dilutables will be identified.
Secondary data sources, such as LCAs and corporate responsibility reports will be analysed, in conjunction with
engagement with stakeholders and BIER.
Water footprint assessment:
37
Currently this research focuses on water not in product, and does not include a categorys water footprint .
Stakeholders have recommended that within this project a water footprint and/or assessment is undertaken for
each soft drinks category.
However, water footprinting and its associated methodologies are still in an embryonic phase with most of the work
to date having focussed on the agricultural production of products. For this purpose, Best Foot Forward proposes
undertaking the water footprints of the key ingredients (fruits and sugars) used in soft drinks, and undertaking a
water assessment (including water scarcity) by drawing on:
o Water assessments undertaken for soft drinks for WRAPs Product Research Forum (PRF) environmental
hotspots analysis (undertaken by BFF), and
38
39
o The Water Footprint Networks WaterStat database, which contains green, blue and grey water for:
apple juice, sugar cane, glucose and fructose syrups, sugar beet, orange juice, lemons & limes, grapefruit
juice, grape juice and pineapple juice. It is acknowledged that the WFNs data is under discussion,
however by undertaking this footprint and assessment, at least an indicator of water impact can be
proposed.
6. Revised project plan

Following the review of this report, and recommendations for additional work to be undertaken in Phase II, a meeting is
th
to be held on 17 July 2012 with the Project Management Group to agree on the additional work to be taken forward
and the timeframe. In order to guide these decisions, a proposed timeline, broken down by proposed activity is
outlined on the following page.
37
A water footprint is an indicator of water use that looks at both direct and indirect water use of a consumer or producer. The water footprint is
defined as the total volume of freshwater that is used to produce goods and services consumed by an individual or community or produced by a
business (Water Footprint Network, 2012a).
38
Best Foot Forward is a Water Footprint Network partner.
39
The green water footprint measures which part of the total evaporative flow is actually appropriated for human purposes. The runoff flow the
water flowing in aquifers and rivers can be used for all sorts of purposes, including irrigation, washing, processing and cooling. The blue water
footprint measures the volume of groundwater and surface water consumed, i.e. withdrawn and then evaporated. The grey water footprint measures
the volume of water flow in aquifers and rivers polluted by humans (Water Footprint Network, 2012b).
33
Best Foot Forward welcome a discussion on which activities to proceed with, and are flexible as to which activities are
selected within the current remaining budget, unless deemed otherwise by the Project Management Group.
Week commencing
Activity
July
16th
Aug
30th
6th
Sep
20th
3rd
Oct
17th
1s t
Nov
15th
29th
Dec
5th
19th
3rd
Phase II activities agreed

Fruit & sugar
Frui t production da ta ga ps
Suga r production
Envi ronmental i mpa ct of s weeteners
Production methods
Energy (incl. refrigeration)
Refri gera tion & freezi ng i n the s uppl y cha i n
Packaging
On-tra de pa cka gi ng
Seconda ry pa cka gi ng
Al umi ni um vs s teel ca ns
Technol ogy revi ew
Product waste
Ari s i ngs i n the s uppl y cha i n
Process water
Benchma rki ng
Wa ter footpri nting
Stakeholder workshop & feedback
Draft & final report
Key decision points, deliverables & stakeholder workshop
34
Appendix 1: UK soft drinks sector overview process and approach

The methodology used to define the UK soft drinks sector overview is outlined in the figure below:
35
Appendix 2: Literature review process and approach

The literature review examined a great diversity of literature of different origins, ranging from academic life cycle
assessment papers to industry reports; from manufacturer websites to opinion pieces in the industry press. Examples
of the types of information reviewed are listed below:
Industry bodies - collate statistics to provide an overview of drinks sectors.

Market research organisations - review different market segments, although these may be at several year intervals.
Drinks manufacturers - contribute to press releases and opinion pieces about innovations, and report their
sustainability efforts on their websites. These are a good source of news about trends and innovations.
The packaging industry - undertakes internal studies on new materials, new technologies and recycling initiatives.
Environmental Product Declarations - becoming more commonly published, and provide a detailed life cycle
analysis of a small group of products.
Academic life cycle analyses - study particular processes in detail, with specific scenarios.
Literature review process

The literature research for this project was conducted as illustrated:
A list of likely sources was compiled. These included:

Industry bodies such as BSDA, Food & Drink Federation, Beverage Industry Environment Roundtable, Beer &
Pub Association.
UK soft drinks manufacturers.
Packaging trade bodies such as Beverage Can Manufacturers of Europe, British Plastics Federation, British
Glass, Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association and Recoup.
Market research companies in the soft drinks sector, such as Mintel, Zenith International, Canadean, Nielsen,
Euromonitor.
Sustainability organisations such as Environment Agency, WRAP.
Life Cycle Analysis published papers.
Trade press, such as Just drinks, Packaging News, The Grocer, Off-Licence News, Beverage Innovation, and Soft
Drinks International.
Best Foot Forwards internal database of references and statistics.
Researchers built up a list of references that looked potentially interesting and useful. Where the references appeared
to provide data or useful insights, these were extracted.
Preliminary analysis drew on some of the extracted data, but not all was required. These sources were reviewed and
quality assessed. Areas where data was poor or less robust were noted for future investigation.
Gaps and issues
The research for the literature review provided a very wide overview of the UK soft drinks industry. However, there
were several areas where robust research was not available and the current study has used assumptions or proxies. It is
possible that further research may reveal additional sources, but it might be necessary and beneficial to approach
companies in the industry, and the BSDA, to seek their internal monitoring data.
36
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Published estimates of market volume vary by 90% between two respected industry sources (BSDA and Britvic) due
to different estimation methodologies
Market studies tend to concentrate on supermarket sales; therefore sales through other channels (such as on-trade
and on-the-go) seem to be less well covered even though they are likely to be significant for soft drinks.
Studies of packaging volumes are primarily based on supermarket sales while other outlets such as convenience
stores are less well represented in the data. Available published packaging data has been found to be inconsistent
and possibly incomplete.
Published data on water used in processing is sparse and possibly inconsistently reported.
Published ingredient data content of drinks, geographical origins etc. is largely unavailable. A few Life Cycle
Assessments were found but these apply to very specific cases. Ingredients are documented in very general terms
other than for pure fruit products.
Dilutables sales data had to be drawn from several different sources to make a complete set.
Data on the use of energy in processing was not found.
Distribution data had to be extrapolated from a small number of sources.
Refrigeration data had to be extrapolated from a small number of sources.
Further research may be able to fill some of these gaps, but clarification on some details must be provided from within
the industry.
37
Appendix 3: List of proactive stakeholders

Denotes the activity to which an organisation has contributed.
Company
Brand owners/manufacturers/packer-fillers
A G Barr plc
Britvic plc
Coca-Cola Enterprises Ltd
Coca-Cola Global
Cott Beverages
Ecofresch
Gerber Juice Company Ltd
GSK
Highland Spring
PepsiCo
Princes Ltd
Goods & service suppliers
Alpla
Aptar Food & Beverage
Ball Packaging
Cargill
Elopak UK Limited
Esterform
Graham Packaging
Krogab
Krones
Nampak Plastics
Quinn Glass
Rexam
RPC Superfos
Solo Cup Europe Ltd
Strapt-pak
T & L Sugars Ltd
Tetra Pak Ltd
Retailers & wholesale (off-trade)
M&S
Morrison's
Musgrave, Londis, Budgens
Sainsbury's
Tesco
The Co-operative
Distribution
Wincanton
End of life (reprocessors/waste/recycling)
Closed Loop Recycling
EcoPlastics
Jayplas
PET Processors
Recoup
Associations & other
ACE UK
Association of Convenience Stores
British Beer & Pub Association
British Glass
British Plastics Federation
British Soft Drinks Association
BCME Can makers
Defra
Food & Drink Federation
INCPEN
Metal Packaging Manufacturers Assocation
Natural Hydration Council
Responsible Hospitality Partnership
UK Industrial Sugar Users Group
University of Manchester
WRAP
Workshop
attendance
31 May
Webinar
attendance
12 June
On-line
survey
Interviewed
Contributed
information
38
Appendix 4: Detailed data tables for total soft drinks and drinks categories
These tables reflect where data gaps exist, the variance in data from different sources and some assumptions and
explanations associated with the data. For Phase II, the intention is to work more closely with stakeholders and carry
out additional research to try and fill in some of the data gaps, refine the data and/or clarify the most appropriate
sources if more than one source exists.
Estimated material volumes and values associated with the annual UK consumption of soft drinks*
Life-cycle stage
Total
Unit
Ma nufa ctured s a l es ()
Year
Source
Value #2
Year 2#
Source #2
Notes/assumptions
()
Ma nufa ctured uni ts

Ingredi ents
Wa ter i n product
5,408,000 tonnes
682,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
based on supermarket sales and size ranges, missing

on-trade packaging profile.
PET (bottles)
403,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Paper / card
106,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Glass
102,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
""
Pa cka gi ng
Steel
#REF!
tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
Aluminium
#REF!
tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
Paper / Card
175,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
133,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
42,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
Plastic
Wood
Wa ter us ed i n proces s
#REF!
27,383,000 l i tres
Wa s te
Sales channels
Retail
On-tra de (s a l es )
""
""
wood incomplete so omitted from totals
2011 WRAP
30%
2011 Bri tvi c
On-tra de (vol .)
7%
2011 Bri tvi c
Off-tra de (s a l es )
70%
2011 Bri tvi c
Off-tra de (vol )
93%
19% %
2009 Mi ntel (BFF ca l cul a ted)
2011 Bri tvi c
Total retai l s a l es ()
13,880,000,000 ()
2011 BSDA
9,434,300,000
2011 Bri tvi c
Total retai l uni ts
14,585,000,000 l i tres
2011 BSDA
7,685,800,000
2011 Bri tvi c
Ingredi ents
tonnes
Pa cka gi ng
tonnes
Wa ter us ed
l i tres
Wa ter us ed
Wa s te
Pa cka gi ng
End of life
""
secondary packaging data incomplete
tonnes
Wa s te
Consumer use
excl water
12,600,000 m3
Reus e
BSDA based on manufacturer data: Britvic based on

Nielsen data
tonnes
#REF!
l i tres
402,000 tonnes
2009 WRAP
tonnes
tonnes
Recycl ed
528,000 tonnes
2010 Courtaul d Commi tment
Based on UK recycling rates achieved, 2009
La ndfi l l
429,000 tonnes
58,000 tonnes
Energy recovery
Retail sales: For retail sales data there were several possible sources of information. The sources selected were based on discussions with the BSDA
and other stakeholders. BSDA (BSDA, 2011) retail sales data is based on manufacturer-supplied data whereas the alternative Britvic report (Britvic,
2011) was based on retail samples and household surveys from Nielsen, and gave a total less than half of the BSDA figure. NOTE: At the time of
writing up the Phase I Synthesis Report, the BSDA-derived data had not been updated to reflect the 2012-released data. This will be updated in the
next stage of the research.
39
Estimated material volumes and values associated with the annual UK consumption of CSDs
Life-cycle stage
Total
Unit
Year
Source
Value #2
Year 2#
Source #2
Notes/assumptions
Ingredi ents
Wa ter i n product
298,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k

on-trade packaging profile
PET (bottles)
166,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Paper / card
14,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Glass
47,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Steel (Metal caps for glass bottle)
19,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Aluminium
52,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
36,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
Paper / Card
19,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
LLDPE film
17,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
2011 WRAP
excludes water in product
Pa cka gi ng
Wood
Wa s te
Sales channels
excl water
495,000 tonnes
6,400,000 m3
8,980,000 m3
""
""
""
tonnes
66% %
2009 Mi ntel
42%
2011 Bri tvi c
Mintel 2007 data
On-tra de (vol .)
32% %
2009 Mi ntel
12%
2011 Bri tvi c
Mintel 2007 data
Off-tra de (vol )
Retail
Consumer use
8,000,000,000 ()
2011 BSDA
6,400,000,000 l i tres
2011 BSDA
Ingredi ents
tonnes
Pa cka gi ng
tonnes
Wa ter us ed
l i tres
Wa s te
tonnes
Wa ter us ed
l i tres
Wa s te
Pa cka gi ng
End of life
Reus e
280,000 tonnes
2009 WRAP
This is only product waste and does not include

packaging waste
tonnes
tonnes
Recycl ed
196,000 tonnes
La ndfi l l
193,000 tonnes
26,000 tonnes
Energy recovery
40
Estimated material volumes associated with the UK dilutables supply chain

Life-cycle stage
Total
Uni t
Year
Source
Notes/assumptions
Ingredi ents
Wa ter i n product
Pa cka gi ng
167,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k

PET
132,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Carton
20,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Glass
15,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Va l pa k
""
Aluminium
0 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
59,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
card
42,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
plastic
17,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
wood
Wa s te
Sales channels
excl water
805,000 tonnes
2,695,000 m3
On-tra de (vol .)
8,052,000 m3
""
""
""
Assumed still drinks levels (Drinks Resource Map
Summary). Excludes water in product
2011 WRAP
tonnes
27% %
2010 Mi ntel
36%
2011 Bri tvi c
3% %
2010 Mi ntel
3%
2011 Bri tvi c
Off-tra de (vol )
Retail
Tota l reta i l s a l es ()
Tota l reta i l uni ts
2011 BSDA
tonnes
Pa cka gi ng
tonnes
Wa ter us ed
l i tres
Wa ter us ed
Wa s te
Pa cka gi ng
End of life
2011 BSDA
Ingredi ents
Wa s te
Consumer use
910,000,000 ()
3,500,000,000 l i tres
Reus e
tonnes
3
28,000,000 m
53,000 tonnes
2009 WRAP
Assuming 25% of dilutables are double strength.

packaging waste
tonnes
tonnes
Recycl ed
117,000 tonnes
2010 Courta ul d Commi tment
La ndfi l l
119,000 tonnes
16,000 tonnes
Energy recovery
41
Estimated material volumes associated with the UK fruit juice & smoothies supply chains
Life-cycle stage
Total
Unit
Year
Source
Notes/assumptions
Ingredi ents
excl wa ter
3,154,000 tonnes
Wa ter i n product
m3
61,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k

PET Bottles
18,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Cartons
31,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Glass
12,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Va l pa k
""
Pa cka gi ng
Va l pa k
Card
30,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
28,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
Plastic
2,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
Wood
tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
4,131,000 m3
Wa s te
Sales channels
On-tra de (vol .)
Off-tra de (vol )
Retail
Consumer use
End of life
""
""
Assumed fruit juice levels (Drinks Resource Map
Summary)
2011 WRAP
tonnes
24%
49%
2010 Mi ntel
5%
2%
2010 Mi ntel
76% %
2011 Bri tvi c
95% %
2011 Bri tvi c
1,760,000,000 ()
2011 BSDA
1,180,000,000 l i tres
2011 BSDA
Ingredi ents
tonnes
Pa cka gi ng
tonnes
Wa ter us ed
l i tres
Wa s te
tonnes
Wa ter us ed
l i tres
Wa s te
tonnes
Pa cka gi ng
tonnes
Reus e
""
Thi s i s onl y product wa s te a nd does not i ncl ude

pa cka gi ng wa s te
tonnes
Recycl ed
62,000 tonnes
Ba s ed on UK recycl i ng ra tes a chi eved, 2009
La ndfi l l
23,000 tonnes
3,000 tonnes
Energy recovery
42
Estimated material volumes associated with the UK still & juice drinks supply chains
Ingredi ents
Wa ter i n product
76,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k

PET (bottles)
22,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Liquid carton
39,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Glass
15,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
34,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
32,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
2,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
Pa cka gi ng
Card
Plastic
Sales channels
On-tra de (vol .)
Retail
excl water
954,000 tonnes
1,450,000 m3
3,336,000 m3
2010 Mi ntel
25%
2011 Bri tvi c
2% %
2010 Mi ntel
5%
2011 Bri tvi c
2011 BSDA
1,450,000,000 l i tres
2011 BSDA
End of life
Recycl ed
La ndfi l l
""
Assumed fruit juice levels(Drinks Resource Map
Summary). Excludes water in product
2011 WRAP
1,770,000,000 ()
Wa s te
""
49% %
Consumer use
""
2009 WRAP

packaging waste
83,000 tonnes
33,000 tonnes
0 tonnes
43
Estimated material volumes associated with the UK bottled water supply chain
Life-cycle stage
Total
Unit
Year
Source
Notes/assumptions
Ingredi ents
Wa ter i n product
Pa cka gi ng
80,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k

PET
65,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Paper
2,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Glass
13,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Steel
0 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
Aluminium
0 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
Card
16,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
""
12,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
Plastic
4,000 tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
Wood
tonnes
2012 Va l pa k
2011 WRAP
Assumed still drinks (Drinks Resource Map Summary)
Wa s te
Sales channels
excl wa ter
tonnes
2,055,000 m3
2,884,000 m3
""
tonnes
On-tra de (vol .)
""
20% %
2009 Mi ntel
14%
2011 Bri tvi c
2%
2011 Bri tvi c
Off-tra de (vol )
Retail
Consumer use
1,440,000,000 ()
2011 BSDA
2,055,000,000 l i tres
2011 BSDA
Ingredi ents
tonnes
Pa cka gi ng
tonnes
Wa ter us ed
l i tres
Wa s te
tonnes
Wa ter us ed
l i tres
Wa s te
Pa cka gi ng
End of life
Reus e
69,000 tonnes
2009 WRAP

packaging waste
tonnes
tonnes
Recycl ed
70,000 tonnes
La ndfi l l
61,000 tonnes
8,000 tonnes
Energy recovery
44
Appendix 5: Some key voluntary and regulatory sustainability initiatives

Initiative
Lead/owner
Geographical
boundary
Objectives/targets
Soft drinks members/signatories
Beverage Industry
Environmental
40
Roundtable (BIER)
Facilitated
by Antea
Group
International
BIER is a partnership of leading global beverage companies working together to

advance the standing of the beverage industry in the realm of environmental
stewardship.
The Coca-Cola Company, Danone Waters, Nestle

Waters (North America), Ocean Spray and PepsiCo.
British Soft Drinks

Association (BSDA)
Most of the major alcoholic drinks brand owners

are also members.
Focus areas:
[Data or other outputs

accessible to rest of industry,
and/or in public domain?]
BSDA
UK
Water stewardship
Energy and climate change
Stakeholder engagement
41
Developed a sustainability strategy to which members have signed up. The

strategy outlines the ambitions, challenges and how these can achieved.
Focus areas: Climate change, Waste and packaging, Water and Transport
Targets:
Courtauld Commitment
42
WRAP
UK
Transport: reduce the external impacts of transport by 20 per cent.

Energy: achieve at least a 35 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions from manufacturing by 2020 compared to 2002 levels.
Waste: reduce that amount of waste to zero by 2015.
Water: reduce water use by 20 per cent by 2020 compared to 2007.
A responsibility deal aimed at improving resource efficiency and reducing the carbon
and wider environmental impact of the grocery retail sector.
Targets:
40
Packaging: to reduce the weight, increase recycling rates and increase the
recycled content of all grocery packaging, as appropriate. Through these
measures the aim is to reduce the carbon impact of this grocery packaging
Members are from across the soft drinks supply

chain. Key members include: AG Barr, Britvic,
Nestle UK (Buxton Mineral Water), Cobell,
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Danone Waters
(UK & Ireland), Feel Good Drinks, GSK, Munoz
Mehadrin (UK), Nichols plc, Princes Gate, Princes,
Red Bull, Refresco, Tata Global Beverages, Tynant
Spring Water
Britvic Soft Drinks, Coca-Cola Enterprises,

Cott Beverages, Danone Waters (UK & Ireland),
innocent drinks, Mars (UK), Kraft Foods, Nestl
Waters UK, Vimto Soft Drinks (Nichols),
Unilever UK.
All the major retailers are also signatories.
BIER (2012) Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable http://bieroundtable.com/index.html

BSDA (2012) A sustainable future for soft drinks: Soft Drinks Industry Sustainability Strategy http://www.britishsoftdrinks.com/PDF/020608%20BSDA%20sustainability%20strategy%20_3_.pdf
42
WRAP (2012) Courtauld Commitment www.wrap.org.uk/content/courtauld-commitment-2-0
41
by 10%.
Household food and drink waste: to reduce UK household food and drink
waste by 4%.
Supply chain product and packaging waste: to reduce traditional grocery

product and packaging waste in the grocery supply chain by 5% - including
both solid and liquid wastes.
A partnership between drink can manufacturers and the recycling industry, which
aims to
encourage increased recycling at work, colleges, events or festivals whilst on-the-go.
Founded on the need for greater resource efficiency in the food and drink sector's
operations.
Every Can Counts
Alupro
UK
Five-fold Environmental
Ambition
FDF
UK
Targets:
Product Research Forum

43
(PRF)
WRAP
UK
CO2 emissions: Achieve a 35% absolute reduction by 2020 against a 1990

baseline.
Food and packaging waste: to send zero food and packaging waste to
landfill at the latest by 2015 and make a significant contribution to WRAP's
Courtauld Commitment target of reducing product and packaging waste in
the supply chain by 5% by end of 2012 against a 2009 baseline.
Packaging: Contribute to WRAP's Courtauld Commitment target for

reducing the carbon impact of packaging by 10% by 2012 against a 2009
baseline.
Water: To reduce water use by 20% by 2020 compared to 2007.
Transport: Embed environmental standards in transport practices and

contribute to the IGD's Efficient Consumer Response UK Sustainable
Distribution Initiative to save 200 million HGV miles over the period 2007-12
in the grocery sector.
Established to bring together a range of stakeholders with a common interest in
improving
the availability and accuracy of environmental impacts data for consumer products. It is
supported by all UK Governments and relevant industry bodies.
Alupro, Beverage Can Makers Europe (BCME),

Can-pack UK, Novellis, Red Bull, Tata Steel and
WRAP
AB Sugar, Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe, British
Sugar, Cargill, Coca-Cola GB, Danisco, Danone
UK, Firmenich, GSK, HB Ingredients, Kraft Foods,
Nestle UK, PepsiCo, Synergy, Syral, Tata Global
Beverages, Tate & Lyle, Unilever, United Coffee,
Vimto
Predominantly, but not exclusively, signatories

to the Courtauld Commitment.
Aim:
To create a joined-up approach to researching, measuring, communicating and
reducing
the environmental impacts associated with everyday products.
43
WRAP (2012) Product Research Forum www.wrap.org.uk/content/product-research-forum
46
The Sustainability
44
Consortium (TSC)
44
International
A group of international companies (US dominant) who have set the challenge to work
collaboratively, developing an approach that drives better understanding,
standardisation, and informed decision making on sustainability.
Key drivers and focus areas:
Consumers
Global regulations
Supply chains
Science (better evidence)
Cargill, Coca-Cola, DSM, Mars, PepsiCo,

Tetrapak, Unilever
UK retailers (on- and off-trade) include:
Tesco, Walmart (Asda), M&S, McDonalds
TSC (2012) The Sustainability Consortium www.sustainabilityconsortium.org/
47
Bibliography
Arthur D. Little, 1996. Energy Savings Potential for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment.
BBC, 2012. New York mayor proposes ban on big sugary drinks.
BIER, 2012. Water Use Benchmarking in the Beverage Industry: Trends and Observations 2011. Beverage Industry
Environment Roundtable.
Bluejay, M., 2011. How much electricity does my refrigerator use?
Britvic, 2011. Soft Drinks Report 2012.
Britvic, 2012. Increasing the use of rPET.
Brunel University, 2008. Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Food Retailing. for Defra.
BSDA, 2011. The 2011 UK Soft Drinks Report.
BSDA, 2012a. The 2012 UK Soft Drinks Report. London.
BSDA, 2012b. A sustainable future for soft drinks: Soft Drinks Industry Sustainability Strategy.
BSDA, 2012c. Sugar.
BSDA, 2012d. UK Soft Drinks Responsibility Report.
Coca-Cola Enterprises, 2009. Reusing materials and increasing recycled content.
Convenience Store, 2012. Soft drinks: The heat is on.
Dairy Supply Chain Forum, 2011. Dairy Roadmap: Our route towards environmental success.
Danone, 2012. Packaging http://www.danone.co.uk/BetterWorld/Environment/Water/Packaging/
Datamonitor, 2010. Product Insights: Soft Drinks in the UK. Deciphering the trends that drive the UK soft drinks market
through an analysis of the new product launches.
DOE, 2010. Definition of Packaging.
Global Stevia Institute, 2011. About Stevia.
Greenconsumerguide.com, 2012. Refrigeration.
Gyekye, L., 2011. WRAP meeting to address rPET food grade concerns.
Institute of Refrigeration, 2010. REAL Zero: Reducing refrigerant emissions & leakage: Feedback from the IOR Project.
Jobs, L., 2012. Stevia: A Better Alternative to Sugar and Artificial Sweeteners.
Key Note, 2011. Market Report: Soft Drinks (carbonated & concentrated).
Kiernan, S., 2007. Innocent cuts PLA in 100% recycled drive. Packaging News.
Manchester Business School for Defra, 2006. Environmental Impacts of Food Production and Consumption.
Matrixled, 2012. Do LED lights have any environmental benefits?
Mercer, C., 2011. GLOBAL: The Coca-Cola Co aims to create PlantBottle II. Just-Drinks.
Mintel, 2009. Bottled Water, Market Intelligence.
Moody, L., 2012. Evidence to support the development of a sustainability roadmap for soft drinks: Stakeholder
engagement responses.
Natural Hydration Council, 2010. Bottled water classifications.
Nutraingredients-usa.com, 2003. Functional drinks are the future.
PepsiCo, 2011. PepsiCo Develops Worlds First 100 Percent Plant-Based, Renewably Sourced PET Bottle.
Stones, M., 2011. Stevia wins final approval.
Swain, M., 2006. Energy use in food refrigeration: Calculations, assumptions and data sources.
Valpak Consulting, 2012. Final Report: Soft Drinks Sustainability Roadmap: Packaging.
Walkden, A., 2012. Personal communication: AG Barr.
Water Footprint Network, 2012a. Direct and indirect water use.
Water Footprint Network, 2012b. Why distinguish between a green, blue and grey water footprint?
WRAP, 2007. Case study: Using recycled content in plastic packaging: the benefits.
WRAP, 2010. Courtauld Commitment Methodology.
WRAP, 2011a. Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK.
WRAP, 2011b. Are we approaching the final frontier of plastic recycling?
WRAP, 2011c. rPET categorisation matrix.
WRAP, 2011d. New estimates for household food and drink waste in the UK.
WRAP, 2012a. Resource efficiency in the UK soft drinks sector.
WRAP, 2012b. Courtauld Commitment 2.
WRAP, W., 2011e. The water and carbon footprint of household food and drink waste in the UK.
49

20130321PhaseIsynthesisreport FINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20130321PhaseIsynthesisreport FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Phase I synthesis report

Evidence to support the development of

Phase I synthesis report:

2nd July 2012

Product volume: 15 million tonnes

Materials used: 40 million tonnes

GHG emissions: 7.8 million tonnes CO2e

Fruit & sugar :

Objectives of the Phase I synthesis report

Methodology for gathering insights

UK soft drinks sector overview

Soft drinks products

Soft drinks supply chain

Environmental impacts & key themes

Soft drinks category hotspots

3.3.1 Carbonated soft drinks

3.3.3 Fruit juice and smoothies

3.3.4 Still and juice drinks

3.3.5 Bottled water

Five key themes

Fruit and sugar

Energy (including refrigeration and freezing)

Water not in product

Recommendations for Phase II Research

5.1 Fruit & sugar

5.2 Energy (including refrigeration)

5.4 Product waste

5.5 Water not in product

Revised project plan

Appendix 1: UK soft drinks sector overview process and approach

Appendix 2: Literature review process and approach

Appendix 3: List of proactive stakeholders

Appendix 5: Some key voluntary and regulatory sustainability initiatives

Beverage Can Makers of Europe

The key activities to establish the evidence include:

1.1. Objectives of the Phase I synthesis report

Preliminary identification of potential opportunities for impact reduction;

1.2. Methodology for gathering insights

2. UK soft drinks sector overview

2.1 Key statistics

2.2. Soft drinks products

2.3. Soft drinks supply chain

2.4. Key trends

American Sugar Refining bought Tate & Lyle in 2010.

Potential environmental impact

In many parts of the world there is a rising demand

In essence, there is no obvious link between whether the

An example of this trend is the increased use of

One of the most clear trends in the soft drink

One notable change could occur from the increased use of

There has been an increase in demand for double

Higher concentrate products are more efficient to package and

Many manufacturers are moving to in-house

Datamonitor (2010) Product Insight Series: Soft drinks in the UK

2012)(Coca-Cola Enterprises, 2009).

cannot be accommodated in the UK recycling stream resulting in

3. Environmental impacts & key themes

Materials: 40 million tonnes17

3.2. Soft drinks category hotspots

GHG emissions (tCO2e)

GHG emissions (tCO2e)

3.3.3 Fruit juice and smoothies