Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs): Coffee

Transcription

1 2 3 Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules 4 (PEFCRs): 5 6 Coffee based beverage 7 8 9 DRAFT: November 14, 2014 10 Prepared by the Technical Secretariat: 11 D.E Master Blenders 1753, European Aluminium Foil Association (EAFA), 12 European Coffee Federation (ECF), Flexible Packaging Europe (FPE), Swiss 13 Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Mondelēz International, Colombian 14 Coffee Growers Federation (FNC), Nestlé, Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) 15 Platform, Tchibo and Quantis 16 1
Quantis Sàrl - EPFL Innovation Park Bâtiment D, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
TEL +41 (21) 693 91 92 - FAX + 41 (21) 693 91 96 | info @quantis-intl.com - www.quantis-intl.com
17 PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs): Coffee based beverage Technical D.E Master Blenders 1753, European Aluminium Foil Association (EAFA), European Secretariat Coffee Federation (ECF), Flexible Packaging Europe (FPE), Colombian Coffee (TS) members Growers Federation (FNC), Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Mondelēz International, Nestlé, Tchibo, Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) and Quantis Liability Information contained in this report has been compiled from and/or computed Statement from sources believed to be credible. Application of the data is strictly at the discretion and the responsibility of the reader. Quantis is not liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of the information in this document. Quantis Project team Other TS members contacts Laura Peano, Project Manager and Life Cycle Analyst (laura.peano@quantis-‐
intl.com), main contact Sebastien Humbert, Life Cycle Assessment Expert, quality control (sebastien.humbert@quantis-‐intl.com) Carole Dubois, Business Leader Single Market for Green Products (SMGP) (carole.dubois@quantis-‐intl.com) Simone Pedrazzini, Product Environmental Footprint/Organisation Environmental Footprint (PEF/OEF) scientific support (simone.pedrazzini@quantis-‐intl.com) D.E Master Blenders 1753: Willem Hettinga European Aluminium Foil Association (EAFA): Gerald Rebitzer European Coffee Federation: Tijmen de Vries Flexible Packaging Europe (FPE): Gerald Rebitzer Colombian Coffee Growers Federation (FNC): Adriana Mejia, Lina Echeverri-‐Roeder, Juan Mauricio Rojas FOEN: Frank Hayer and Geneviève Doublet Mondelēz International: Fabien Guilmineau Nestlé: Christophe Boussemart and Roman Irurre SAI Platform: Emeline Fellus Tchibo: Cornel Kuhrt PEFCR_Coffee_ 1stPhysicalConsultation_StakeholdersComments_2014-‐11-‐14.xlsx 18 Associated files 19 20 This report has been prepared by Quantis’s Swiss office. Please direct all questions regarding this report to Quantis Suisse. 21 Quantis Suisse 22 Innovation Park EPFL, Building D 23 CH – 1015 Lausanne 24 Switzerland 25 Tel: +41 21 693 91 92 26 E-‐mail: info@quantis-‐intl.com 27 Web: www.quantis-‐intl.com 2
28 Executive Summary 29 Through its initiative, “Building the Single Market for Green Products”, the European Commission 30 aims to harmonize the communication of environmental performances of products and 31 organisations for producers and consumers alike. Member States and the private sector are 32 encouraged to test two life cycle assessment (LCA)-‐based methods developed by the European 33 Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) to measure the environmental performance of products 34 and organisations throughout their life cycles known as the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) 35 and the Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF), respectively. 36 The European Commission launched a three-‐year pilot testing period for both the non-‐food and food 37 sectors through a multi-‐stakeholder process to develop product-‐specific rules, Product 38 Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs), and organisation-‐specific rules, Organisation 39 Environmental Footprint Sector Rules (OEFSRs), as well as to test communication principles for a few 40 specific sectors and products. 41 In May 2014, the European Commission approved the pilot project to develop PEFCRs for coffee 42 based beverage. The Technical Secretariat (TS) in charge of developing the PEFCRs is composed of 43 the following organisations: D.E Master Blenders 1753, European Aluminium Foil Association (EAFA), 44 European Coffee Federation (ECF), Flexible Packaging Europe (FPE), Swiss Federal Office for the 45 Environment (FOEN), Mondelēz International, Colombian Coffee Growers Federation (FNC), Nestlé, 46 Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) Platform, Tchibo and Quantis. 47 The product category for this PEFCR is coffee based beverage which includes the full life cycle (cradle 48 to grave) of a coffee based beverage serving sold in any market and intended for end-‐consumers. 49 A screening study will be conducted for a set of three products (self-‐portioned soluble coffee, self-‐
50 portioned roast & ground filter coffee and pre-‐portioned roast & ground coffee in capsules) along 51 with their sensitivity analysis representing the majority of the coffee consumption in Europe and 52 used as “representative products”. The bills of materials (BOMs) used for each representative 53 product were determined partly based on primary data from coffee manufacturers, existing sector 54 guidance and European market statistics. 55 This PEFCR will address in detail the core stages of a coffee based beverage: green coffee production 56 and supply, packaging supply, manufacturing (production centre -‐ including roasting, grinding, 57 packaging filling, etc.), final product distribution, other ingredients supply (i.e. sugar, cream, milk, 58 chocolate), coffee machine (including kettle) and its packaging production, beverage preparation 3
59 (including cup production and washing), end-‐of-‐life of packaging, coffee and coffee machine. The 60 modelling of the products added to the coffee product (i.e. sugar, cream, milk, chocolate), though 61 being part of the system boundary of the coffee product, will not be addressed in detail by this 62 PEFCR and will be obtained from background datasets and/or modelled using other PEFCR. 63 Details on the scope of this PEFCR and the representative products chosen for the PEF screening 64 study are presented in Annex I – Representative product of this report. 4
65 66 Acronyms and abbreviations BOM bill of material CPA Classification of Products by Activity DC distribution centre EF Environmental Footprint EOL end of life g gram ISO International Organization for Standardization JRC Joint Research Centre kcal kilocalories kg kilogram km kilometre LCA Life Cycle Assessment LCI Life Cycle Inventory NACE Nomenclature Générale des Activités Economiques dans les Communautés Européennes OEF Organisation Environmental Footprint OEFSRs Organisation Environmental Footprint Sector Rules PCR Product Category Rule PEF Product Environmental Footprint PEFCRs Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules SMGP Single Market for Green Products TS Technical Secretariat 5
67 Glossary 68 This glossary defines key terms used in this PEFCR. Many of the terms are based on the PEF Guide 69 (European Commission, 2013) unless otherwise noted. For further clarifications, please refer to the 70 PEF Guide. 71 Cradle to grave An assessment, including raw material extraction, processing, distribution, storage, use, and disposal or recycling stages. All relevant inputs and outputs are considered for all of the stages of the life cycle. Input Product, material or energy flow that enters a unit process. Products and materials include raw materials, intermediate products and co-‐products. (International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) 14040:2006) Life cycle Consecutive and interlinked stages of a product system, from raw material acquisition or generation from natural resources to final disposal. (ISO 14040:2006) Life cycle approach Takes into consideration the spectrum of resource flows and environmental interventions associated with a product or organisation from a supply chain perspective, including all stages from raw material acquisition through processing, distribution, use, and end-‐of-‐life processes, and all relevant related environmental impacts (instead of focusing on a single issue). Life cycle assessment Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle. (ISO 14040:2006) Output Product, material or energy flow that leaves a unit process. Products and materials include raw materials, intermediate products, co-‐products and releases. (ISO 14040:2006) System boundary Definition of aspects included or excluded from the study. For example, for a “cradle-‐to-‐grave” EF analysis, the system boundary should include all activities from the extraction of raw materials through the processing, distribution, storage, use, and disposal or recycling stages. System boundary diagram Graphic representation of the system boundary defined for the PEF study. Unit of analysis The unit of analysis defines the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the function(s) and/or service(s) provided by the product being evaluated; the unit of analysis definition answers the questions “what?”, “how much?”, “how well?”, and “for how long?” Note 72 6
The glossary will be expanded as more sections of this report are completed. Quantis Sàrl - EPFL Innovation Park Bâtiment D, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
73 ******************************************************************************* 74 How to read this document 75 This draft document includes different types of information: 76 •
Note Notes addressed to the reader are presented in orange boxes, as shown below: According to the European Commission (2014), the documents to be drafted by the Technical Secretariat before the 1st physical consultation are: 1. Compiled overview of existing product category rules (PCRs) 2. Overview report highlighting possible core conflicts between existing PCRs and PEF guides 3. Description of the scope 4. Description of the representative product(s) 5. Description of the model for the PEF screening studies The first two items mentioned above are presented in Appendix A while the remaining three items are presented following the template provided by the European Commission (see note below). 77 Note This document is based on the template provided in “Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental Footprint (EF) Pilot Phase. Version 4.0.” (European Commission, 2014). 78 Original text included in the template provided by the European Commission is in grey, as shown 79 below (European Commission, 2014): 80 The Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide provides detailed and comprehensive technical 81 guidance on how to conduct a PEF study. PEF studies may be used for a variety of purposes, 82 including in-‐house management and participation in voluntary or mandatory programmes. 83 Recommendations provided in the PEF Guide (European Commission, 2013) or the Guidance for the 84 Implementation of the EU PEF during the EF Pilot Phase (European Commission, 2014) are presented 85 in purple boxes, as shown below: 7
According to the European Commission (2014): The PEF screening is necessary because it helps focussing data collection activities and data quality priorities for the PEFCR supporting study. The screening shall be carried out by the Technical Secretariat based on the “representative product”. The objective of the screening is to pre-‐identify the following key information: •
Most relevant life cycle stages; •
Most relevant processes; •
Preliminary indication about the most relevant life cycle impact categories; •
Data quality needs; •
Preliminary indication about the definition of the benchmark for the product category/sub-‐
categories in scope. 86 ******************************************************************************** 87 8
88 Product Environmental Footprint 89 Category Rules: 90 Coffee based beverage Introduction 91 92 The Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide provides detailed and comprehensive technical 93 guidance on how to conduct a PEF study. PEF studies may be used for a variety of purposes, 94 including in-‐house management and participation in voluntary or mandatory programmes. 95 This PEFCR shall be used in parallel with the PEF Guide. Where the requirements in this PEFCR are in 96 line with but at the same time more specific than those of the PEF Guide, such specific requirements 97 shall be fulfilled. 98 The use of the present PEFCR is optional for PEF guide in-‐house applications, it is recommended for 99 external applications without comparison/comparative assertions, while it is mandatory for external 100 applications with comparisons/comparative assertions. 101 In the latter two application contexts, organisations are to fulfil the requirements of this PEFCR 102 document from section B.7 to B.10. 103 B.1 General information about the PEFCR 104 B.1.1 Technical Secretariat 105 The technical secretariat responsible for the development of the PEFCRs for coffee based beverage 106 is composed of the following organisations: 107 1. D.E Master Blenders 1753: Willem Hettinga 108 2. European Aluminium Foil Association (EAFA): Gerald Rebitzer 109 3. European Coffee Federation (ECF): Tijmen de Vries 110 4. Flexible Packaging Europe (FPE): Gerald Rebitzer 111 5. Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN): Frank Hayer and Geneviève Doublet 112 6. Mondelēz International: Fabien Guilmineau* 113 7. Colombian Coffee Growers Federation (FNC): Adriana Mejia, Lina Echeverri-‐Roeder, Juan 114 Mauricio Rojas 115 8. Nestlé: Christophe Boussemart (Nespresso)* and Roman Irurre (Nestec)* 9
116 9. Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) Platform: Emeline Fellus 117 10. Tchibo: Cornel Kuhrt 118 11. Quantis: Laura Peano, Sebastien Humbert, Carole Dubois and Simone Pedrazzini 119 where * indicates that the organisation is a coffee manufacturer that will be performing a 120 supporting study. 121 B.1.2 Consultation and stakeholders 122 The development of this PEFCR can be followed on the dedicated page for the PEFCR for coffee 123 based beverage through this main page: 124 •
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/ 125 The 1st public consultation was performed from October 2nd, 2014 to November 2nd, 2014. A 1st 126 physical consultation has been held in Brussels on October 16th, 2014. Documents related to the 127 consultation are available on the dedicated page indicated above. Note This section will be completed at a later date. 128 [Cumulative description of participants and statistical figures related to each consultation. Mention 129 the address of the web page related to the PEFCR development] 130 B.1.3 Date of publication and expiration 131 Version number: Version to be submitted to the Steering Committee for approval of scope and 132 representative products definition. 133 Date of publication/revision: November 14th, 2014 134 Date of expiration: N/A 135 B.1.4 Geographic region Note This section will be completed at a later date. 136 [Identify the name of the country or countries for which the PEFCR is valid] 137 B.1.5 Language(s) of PEFCR 138 This PEFCR has been written in English. It is not foreseen to make this document available in other 139 languages. 10
140 B.2 Methodological inputs and compliance Note This section will be completed at a later date. 141 [List the PEF Guide that the PEFCR is in conformance with, including year of publication or version. 142 List compliance with other global guidances (e.g. ISO 14040-‐44, BPX 30-‐323…)] 143 [Identify the registration/identification number (if applicable), PCR name, program operator name (if 144 applicable), and web-‐link to the PCR that was referenced while creating this PEFCR] 145 B.3 PEFCR review and background information Note This section will be completed at a later date. 146 B.3.1 PEFCR review panel 147 [Provide the name, contact information and affiliation of the chair and the other members of the 148 review panel] 149 B.3.2 Review requirements for the PEFCR document 150 [Specify the requirements set for the critical review of this PEFCR document] 151 B.3.3 Reasoning for development of PEFCR 152 [Describe application contexts of PEFCR. Describe any attempt to harmonize PEFCR or align with 153 existing PCRs] 154 B.3.4 Conformance with the PEFCR Guidance 155 [Summarize the conformity assessment against the ‘Guidance for the Implementation of the EU PEF 156 during the Environmental Footprint (EF) pilot phase’]. 11
157 B.4 PEFCR scope According to the European Commission (2014): •
The PEFCR shall clearly state the product category for which the PEFCRs apply by using descriptive language. Once the scope has been finalised the corresponding relevant CPA/NACE codes shall be listed. Products that are not covered by the PEFCR shall be clearly listed (as a clarification when products are similar). •
Products having similar functions and applications should be grouped under one product category. However, within a single PEFCR sub-‐categories of products/applications can be identified. •
Technical Secretariat shall choose one of the following options: a. The scope is limited, there is a single main application/function and all products/technologies covered are very similar […]; b. The scope is wide, there is a single main function but different applications/technologies/materials […]; c. The scope is relatively narrow, there is a single main function, but alternative technologies/materials delivering the same function are available […]; •
The most relevant options shall be clearly indicated and justified in the scope section of the PEFCR template. The proposed scope shall be discussed and agreed by the end of the first consultation phase. 158 159 The product category for this PEFCR is a coffee based beverage which is defined as follows: 160 •
Coffee based beverage, sold in any market, and intended for end-‐consumers. Coffee based 161 beverage covered by this PEFCR may include other ingredients such as sugar, cream, milk 162 and/or cocoa powder. 163 When other ingredients (i.e. sugar, cream, milk and/or cocoa powder) are added to a cup of coffee, 164 they need to be included in the system boundaries since they are part of the PEF of coffee based 165 beverage. However, though some basic rules on how to include those ingredients in the coffee PEF 166 will be provided in this PEFCR, the modelling of these additional ingredients is not addressed in 167 detail by this PEFCR and will be obtained from background datasets and/or modelled using other 168 PEFCR. 12
169 The entire life cycle (cradle to grave) of a coffee based beverage can be assessed using this PEFCR. 170 Additionally, this PEFCR could also be used to assess partial life cycle impacts of products included in 171 this category1. In both cases, the scope of the analysis has to be clearly stated. 172 Ready-‐to-‐drink coffee, considered as a beverage including coffee and milk, sold pre-‐packed, chilled 173 or heated through a chemical reaction before opening it, is not addressed by this PEFCR: the TS 174 considers it as a different product, with a different function from the coffee prepared at the time of 175 the consumption and this makes it more competing with other products such as soft drinks instead 176 of coffee products. However, as long as no specific PEFCR is addressing ready-‐to-‐drink coffee, 177 companies desiring to assess the PEF of their ready-‐to-‐drink are invited to be aligned as much as 178 possible with this PEFCR. According to the European Commission (2014): •
Once the scope has been clearly identified the Technical Secretariat shall decide if more than one sub-‐category is needed and if the unit of analysis shall be refined for the subcategories. If a single unit of analysis is used, the benchmark (and classes of performance if relevant and appropriate) is chosen at the unit of analysis level […]. In case the PEFCR includes sub-‐categories with appropriate unit of analysis, then the benchmark (and classes of performance if relevant and appropriate) can only be defined at the sub-‐category level […]. In case there are no sub-‐categories then the situation is more straightforward […]. 179 180 The main function of the coffee products is to provide the consumer with a coffee based beverage 181 and alternative technologies to deliver the product are available. According to Nielsen (2014), the 182 average of volumes of coffee sold in Europe in one year up to June 2014 (from 1st July 2013 to 30th 183 June 2014) is partitioned as follows: 33.3% soluble coffee2, 55.6% roast & ground coffee3 (excluding 184 coffee in capsules) and 11.1% roast & ground coffee in single serve which include capsules and soft 185 pods. Therefore, the majority of coffee consumption in Europe can be captured by a set of three 186 products, being self-‐portioned soluble coffee, self-‐portioned roast & ground filter coffee and pre-‐
187 portioned roast & ground coffee in capsules, along with their sensitivity analysis. This set is used as 188 “representative product”. 1
Making this document (the PEFCR for coffee based beverage) implicitly also the PEFCR for green coffee production 2
It includes the single serve soluble coffee 3
It includes coffee beans 13
189 The TS has already started to define an approach for benchmarks determination. Given the 190 complexity of the scope and market for coffee, the discussion on benchmarks will be continued 191 during the next months: today, the TS has agreed on the approach proposed in Appendix B and it is 192 the intention of the TS to refine this approach in the coming months. Note The current document presents a first approach to the benchmarks definition which will be refined in the coming months. 193 194 B.4.1 Unit of analysis 195 Key aspects to determine the unit of analysis are summarized in Table 1. Key aspects regarding 196 “what?”, “how much?”, “how well?”, and “for how long?” are used to define the function provided 197 by coffee based beverage. 198 199 Table 1 Key aspects to determine the unit of analysis Product Aspect detail Coffee PEFCR What? Function provided Coffee based beverage4 How much? Magnitude of the function A typical serving size associated with that specific «technology» How long? Duration of the product provided Once How well? Expected level of quality The typical serving temperature associated to this «technology» 200 201 The reason for choosing a coffee based beverage serving instead of just a “cup of coffee” is because 202 this PEFCR may include additional ingredients such as sugar, cream, milk and/or cocoa powder which 203 may be added to the coffee depending on the consumer taste and habits. 204 In relation to the answer to the questions “how much?” and “how well?”, this PEFCR considers 205 providing the typical serving size and serving temperature expected by a consumer and associated 206 with that specific « technology » (i.e. brewing method) because both serving size and temperature 207 are often defined by the technology and the consumer (out-‐of-‐home) may not have the possibility to 4
Or, for example, 1 kg of green coffee, when this PEFCR is used to assess only the green coffee production part. 14
208 choose which technology to use (i.e. a soluble coffee over a coffee in capsule or a small size coffee 209 over a big coffee). 210 Thus, for the complete life cycle of coffee based beverage, the following unit of analysis will be 211 considered for this PEFCR as default: 212 •
Providing one coffee based beverage serving of the type and size typically associated with 213 the technology assessed 214 B.4.2 Representative product(s) 215 The majority of coffee consumption in Europe can be captured by a set of three products, being self-‐
216 portioned soluble coffee, self-‐portioned roast & ground filter coffee and pre-‐portioned roast & 217 ground coffee in capsules, along with their sensitivity analysis. This set is used as “representative 218 product”. 219 Typical serving size for each representative product was determined based on public studies or 220 sector guidance already existing and TS inputs. 221 The packaging type selected for each representative product was determined by selecting the typical 222 popular product for each representative product, on the basis of knowledge of the TS: for coffee in 223 capsules, other type of packaging will be assessed as sensitivity. Other sensitivity analyses that will 224 be assessed are related to beverage composition (sugar, milk, cream, cocoa powder), quantity of 225 water, capsules delivery, coffee beans distribution, loss rates, coffee machine, cup (production with 226 end-‐of-‐life and washing) and other parameters which will be identified important during first 227 iterative screening (possibly infrastructure). The set of three products together with the sensitivity 228 analysis cover the majority of the coffee consumption in Europe. 229 Table 2 presents the amount of coffee and water per serving to satisfy the functional unit for each 230 product defined. The quantity of water used per serving was estimated to be a typical serving size 231 used in Europe for each type of coffee based beverage, on the basis of the knowledge of the TS: 232 serving size will depend on consumer preference in a given market and to the knowledge of the TS 233 there are no studies available to support this choice. Therefore, the quantity of water chosen for 234 each product was determined by selecting the most popular product in Europe for each type of 235 coffee based beverage on the basis of the experience and knowledge of the TS. Additionally, 120 ml 236 is the size used in the Commission Working Document on possible Ecodesign and EU Energy Label 237 measures for Domestic Coffee Machines which defines the protocol for measuring electricity 238 consumption by coffee machines. For coffee capsules, the 120 ml size is assessed as sensitivity. 239 Other ingredients such as sugar, cream, milk and/or cocoa powder can be added and they are 15
240 assessed as sensitivity: Table 2 reports only the amounts of coffee and water, the amounts of the 241 additional ingredients will be presented at a later stage in Annex I. The quantity of coffee grounds 242 used per serving has been defined according to the Syndicat Français du Café (2013) for the roast & 243 ground filter coffee and soluble coffee, while for coffee capsules values are based on experts 244 judgement from the members of the TS. 245 246 Table 2 Amount of coffee and water per serving to satisfy the functional unit for each product Self-‐portioned soluble coffee Self-‐portioned roast & ground filter coffee Pre-‐portioned roast & ground coffee in capsules Quantity of coffee grounds Quantity of water inside the cup or soluble coffee for one for one serving (ml) serving (g) 2 120 7 120 5.3 40 247 248 249 Additional information is detailed in “Annex I – Representative product”. 250 B.4.3 Product classification 251 The corresponding Classification of Products by Activity (CPA) codes for coffee based beverage are 252 shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. 16
253 254 Figure 1 CPA Section A and its divisions 255 256 Figure 2 CPA Section C and its divisions 257 258 This PEFCR covers coffee beans and processed coffee, as defined by the CPA codes A01.27.11 coffee 259 beans, not roasted and C10.83.11 Coffee, decaffeinated or roasted. As a clarification, processed tea 260 (which is included in the CPA code 10.83.1) is not assessed in this PEFCR. 261 B.4.4 System boundaries – life-‐cycle stages and processes 262 The main processes included within each life cycle stage are detailed in Figure 3. 17
Green+coffee+produc0on+and+supply+*+
Green'coffee'cul4va4on'incl.'chemicals'and'fer4lizers''
PostAharvest'processing''
Green'coffee'transport'to'produc4on'centre'
Packaging+supply+*+
Packaging'materials'produc4on'and'processing'
Packaging'transport'to'produc4on'centre'
'
Manufacturing+(produc0on+centre)+++
Energy','water'and'other'inputs'for'roas4ng,'grinding,'packaging'filling,'etc.'
Treatment'of'waste'produced'
'
Final+product+distribu0on++
Transport'from'produc4on'centre'to'the'distribu4on'centres'and'points'of'sale'
Warehousing'and'retail'
Transport'to'home'(by'car)'and'offices'
Other+ingredients+supply+*+
Sugar,'cream,'milk,'chocolate'produc4on'and'delivery'to'
user'
Coffee+machine+(incl.+keFle)+and+its+packaging+
produc0on+*+
Produc4on'and'delivery'to'user'
Beverage+prepara0on+
Water'and'electricity'for'coffee'prepara4on'*''
Cup'produc4on'and'washing'***'
Packaging,+coffee,+cup+and+coffee+machine+end=of=life**+
EndAofAlife'container'produc4on'and'maintenance'(compost'box)'
Transport'of'wastes'from'home'to'the'collec4on'and'treatment'centres'
Packaging'treatment:'incinera4on,'landfilling'and'recycling'
Coffee'endAofAlife'and'coffee'machine'(incl.'keGle)'endAofAlife'
263 *Full'cradle'to'gate'**Full'gate'to'grave'***Full'cradle'to'grave'
264 Figure 3 Details on each life cycle stage considered Note Some of the topics listed below are already mentioned in the “Annex I – Representative product”. This section will be completed at a later date. 265 [Specify all attributable life-‐cycle stages and processes that are part of the product system. (The co-‐
266 products, by-‐products and waste streams should be clearly identified) Justify any deviation from the 267 default cradle-‐to-‐grave approach (e.g. exclusions of life cycle stages and processes), referring to the 268 results of the screening and approval processes for decisions taken.] 269 System diagram 270 [Provide a system diagram clearly indicating the processes that are included in the product system. 271 Provide a second diagram indicating the organizational boundary, to highlight those activities under 272 the control of the organization, indicate with more detail the processes that are on the interface of 273 the investigated product system (processes that are included) and other product systems (excluded 274 processes) or the environment] 275 System boundaries -‐ upstream processes/scenarios 276 [Specify upstream scenarios (e.g. raw material production, raw material extraction). If necessary, a 277 more detailed description can be provided in Annex IV (optional). 18
278 System boundaries -‐ downstream processes/scenarios 279 [Specify downstream processes in terms of selected scenarios for e.g. use phase and end of life. If 280 necessary, a more detailed description can be provided in Annex V (optional).] 281 B.4.5 Selection of the EF impact categories indicators Note This section will be completed at a later date. 282 [If applicable, identify the most relevant EF impact categories for the product category in scope]. 283 All the background information concerning the rationale for the selection of the most relevant 284 impact categories shall be provided in Annex XI to the PEFCR. 285 B.4.6 Additional environmental information Note This section will be completed at a later date. 286 [Specify which additional environmental information that shall/should be included. Reference all 287 methods used to report additional information.] 288 All the background information concerning the rationale for the selection the additional 289 environmental information shall be provided in Annex XI to the PEFCR. 290 B.4.7 Assumptions/limitations This section will be completed at a later date. Note Some of the topics listed below are addressed in this document in a draft/screening approach according to the European Commission (2014). For more information, please refer to the “Annex I – Representative product”. 291 [Report product category-‐specific limitations and define the assumptions necessary to overcome 292 these.] 293 B.5 Resource use and emission profile Note This section will be completed at a later date. 294 B.5.1 Screening step 295 [ i) Specify processes to be included, as well as associated data quality and review requirements; 296 ii) Specify for which processes specific data are required, for which the use of generic data is either 297 permissible or required.] 19
298 B.5.2 Data quality requirements 299 [Provide guidance on data quality assessment scoring with respect to time, geographical and 300 technological representativeness. Specify if there are any additional criteria for the assessment of 301 data quality (compared to default criteria reported in the PEF Guide)] 302 B.5.3 Requirements regarding foreground specific data collection 303 [Specify: 304 i)
305 306 Unit processes for which primary specific data are required (e.g. foreground processes) and how they are to be collected. ii) Define the data collection requirements for the following aspects for each site: 307 •
Data collection coverage 308 •
Location of data collection (domestically, internationally, …) 309 •
Term of data collection (year, season, month, …) 310 •
When the location or term of data collection must be limited to a certain range, provide a 311 justification and show that the collected data will serve as sufficient samples.] 312 [Provide a list of substances/elementary flows in the foreground system that shall be collected. This 313 list shall be added as an Annex VIII; 314 Include one or more examples for compiling foreground data, including specifications with respect 315 to: 316 •
Substance lists for activities/processes included, 317 •
Units, 318 •
Nomenclature for elementary flows (in line with ILCD Data Network entry level 319 requirements).] 320 B.5.4 Requirements regarding background generic data and data gaps 321 [Specify: 322 i)
323 ii) Secondary generic data for each process. 324 iii) Semi-‐specific data for which default values are proposed but company can replace it by better 325 ones if they have it. Semi-‐specific data are significant regarding each environmental indicator 326 but not easily accessible for companies. Semi-‐specific data can be replaced by specific data 327 when available. Semi-‐specific data should be based on a worst case scenario. 20
Unit processes for which secondary generic data may be used (e.g. background processes) Quantis Sàrl - EPFL Innovation Park Bâtiment D, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
328 iv) Provide generic substance to replace the actual substance in the BOM based on relevant 329 properties (e.g. physical, chemical, processing, etc). 330 All generic and semi-‐specific data shall be specified in Annex IX 331 B.5.5 Data gaps 332 [Specify: 333 i)
potential data gaps and guidance for filling these gaps, 334 ii) Sectorial conservative default value to be used to fill the gaps] 335 B.5.6 Use stage 336 [Specify: 337 •
The use-‐stage scenarios to be included in the study, 338 •
The time span to be considered for the use stage. The lifetime shall be determined according 339 to verifiable technical performance and should not be related to other alike parameters (e.g. 340 if a paint can technically last 10 years, the lifetime to consider is 10 years even if the sector 341 knows that users paint their home every other 5 years. However, for transparency reasons, a 342 reference to scenarios that are considered to be close to real use (e.g. inform that a repaint 343 is expected by the average user pattern every 5 years) should be made, 344 •
345 The use phase scenario shall be based on the best-‐known average situation. In case of different user patterns, more than one scenarios should be provided.] 346 B.5.7 Logistics 347 [Specify transport, distribution and storage scenarios to be included in the study together with the 348 underlying assumptions (e.g. distribution in central Europe, distribution in south Europe, distance to 349 port, etc.)] 350 B.5.8 End-‐of-‐life stage 351 [Specify end-‐of-‐life scenario, if part of the system boundary. Specify underlying scenario 352 assumptions e.g. waste sorting in central Europe or waste incineration in plants of central Europe, 353 etc.] 21
354 B.5.9 Requirements for multifunctional products and multiproduct processes 355 allocation 356 [Specify multi-‐functionality solutions and clearly justify with reference to the PEF multi-‐functionality 357 solution hierarchy. Where subdivision is applied, specify which processes are to be sub-‐divided and 358 how to subdivide the process by specifying the principles that such subdivision should adhere to. 359 Where system expansion is used, specify which processes are added to the system. Where 360 allocation by physical relationship is applied, specify the relevant underlying physical relationships to 361 be considered, and establish the relevant allocation factors or rules. Where allocation by some other 362 relationship is applied, specify this relationship and establish the relevant allocation factors or rules.] 363 B.6 Benchmark and classes of environmental performance Note This section will be completed at a later date. 364 [Identify the environmental performance benchmark for the product category, based on the results 365 of the screening on the representative product and the information gathered through the 366 stakeholders consultation. Provide a description of the benchmark, by summarising information 367 reported in Annex III. 368 Identify classes of environmental performance. Ideally, there should be 5 classes of environmental 369 performance (from A to E, with A being the best performing class and C being the performance of 370 the representative product, i.e. the benchmark), by taking into account the estimated spread 371 (including uncertainty) around the benchmark results, which might differ from impact category to 372 impact category. 373 BREF, EU legislation and ISO type I labels are example of sources of information that may be used to 374 define best and worst performance. 375 B.7 Interpretation Note This section will be completed at a later date. 376 [Describe the hot-‐spots and the most relevant impact categories of the product category. 377 Describe uncertainties common to the product category. The range in which results could be seen as 378 not being significantly different in comparisons or comparative assertions shall be identified. Provide 379 an assessment on whether this PEFCR can be used for comparing performances of similar products.] 22
380 B.8 Reporting, Disclosure and Communication Note This section will be completed at a later date. 381 [Specify and describe the 3-‐4 best ways of communicating the results of a PEF-‐profile for this 382 product category to different stakeholders (B2B and B2C as appropriate)] 383 B.8.1 PEF external communication report 384 In case a PEF external communication report is listed among the communication options, the PEFCR 385 shall: 386 i)
Specify and justify any deviations from the default reporting requirements presented in chapter 387 8 of the PEF Guide, as well as specify and justify any additional reporting requirements and/or 388 differentiate reporting requirements depending on, for example, the type of applications of the 389 PEF study and the type of product being assessed. 390 ii) Specify whether the PEF results shall be reported separately for each of the selected life cycle 391 392 stages.] iii) Specify the format for reporting any additional environmental information.] 393 B.8.2 PEF performance tracking report 394 In case a PEF performance tracking report is listed among the communication options, the PEFCR 395 shall: 396 [Specify and describe the requirements for a PEF performance tracking report, allowing for the 397 comparison of a PEF profile of a specific product over time with respect to its original or previous 398 PEF profile] 399 B.8.3 PEF Declaration 400 In case a PEF declaration is listed among the communication options, the PEFCR shall specify and 401 describe the requirements, as listed in chapter 3.10.3 of this guidance]. 402 B.8.4 PEF label 403 In case a PEF label is listed among the communication options, the PEFCR shall specify and describe 404 the requirements for the use of the label, its content and its layout. 23
405 B.9 Verification Note This section will be completed at a later date. 406 [Specify the requirements for verification to be used, depending on the intended application and 407 communication vehicles used]. 408 B.10 Reference literature Agne (200) Agne (2000). The impact of pesticide taxation on pesticide use and income in Costa Rica’s coffee production. A Publication of the Pesticide Policy Project. Hannover, March 2000. Special Issue Publication Series, No. 2 Coltro et al. (2006) Coltro L, Mourad AL, Oliveira P, Baddin J, Kletecke R (2006). Environmental profile of Brazilian green coffee, Int J LCA 11 (1) 16–21 DG ENER (2011) DG ENER, BIO IS, ARTS (2011). Lot 25 Non-‐Tertiary Coffee Machines Preparatory Studies for Ecodesign Requirements of EuPs (III) Tasks 1 to 8 [Contract No. TREN/D3/91-‐2007-‐Lot 25-‐SI2.521716] Environdec (2013) Environdec (2013). PCR on UN CPC 01610 green coffee 2013:21 VERSION 1.01 European European Commission (2008). Statistical Classification of Economic Activities Commission (2008) in the European Community, Rev. 2 (2008). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DS
P_NOM_DTL_VIEW&StrNom=NACE_REV2&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntPcKey=1
8510944&IntKey=18510944&StrLayoutCode=HIERARCHIC&IntCurrentPage=1 European European Commission (2013). 2013/179/EU: Commission Recommendation of Commission (2013) 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. Annex III: Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) Guide. Official Journal of the European Union, L 124, Volume 56, May 4th, 2013. http://eur-‐lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:124:SOM:EN:HTML European European Commission (2014). Environmental Footprint Pilot Guidance Commission (2014) document. Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental Footprint (EF) Pilot Phase, v. 4.0, May 2014. European Coffee Federation (2014) European Coffee Federation (2014). European Coffee Report 2013/14. European chapter and key national data. http://www.ecf-‐coffee.org/images/European_Coffee_Report_2013-‐14.pdf Eurostat (2011) Eurostat database available on-‐line. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu German Coffee Association (2013) German Coffee Association (2013), Kaffeemarkt. Humbert et al. (2009) Humbert S, Loerincik Y, Rossi V, Margni M, Jolliet O (2009). Life cycle assessment of spray dried soluble coffee and comparison with alternatives (drip filter and capsules espresso). Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 1351-‐
1358. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.04.011 24
http://www.kaffeeverband.de/images/dkv_pdf/geschuetzt/Jahresbericht/Kaff
eemarkt2013.pdf Quantis Sàrl - EPFL Innovation Park Bâtiment D, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
Nespresso (2011) Comparative full life cycle assessment of B2C cup of espresso made using a packaging and distribution system from Nespresso Espresso and three generic products Nielsen (2014) Nielsen market research (2014). Moving Annual Total (MAT) to P6 2014. Panhuysen et al. (2014) Panhuysen, S. and Pierrot, J. (2014). Coffee Barometer 2014. Syndicat Français du Café́ (2013) Syndicat Français du Café́ (2013). Guidelines to the environmental impact assessment of coffee in France Tchibo (2008) Tchibo and Öko-‐Institut e.V. Institute for Applied Ecology (2008). Case study Tchibo privat kaffee rarity machare by Tchibo GMBH. Case Study undertaken within the PCF Pilot Project Germany. www.pcf-‐projekt.de https://hivos.org/sites/default/files/coffee_barometer_2014.pdf 409 B.11 Supporting information for the PEFCR 410 Open stakeholder consultations 411 This document is available for consultation in the stakeholder workspace dedicated to this PEFCR 412 which is accessible through this site: 413 •
Note https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/EUENVFP/ This section will be completed at a later date. 414 415 PEFCR Review Report 416 Additional requirements in standards not covered in PEFCR 417 [If a PEFCR is designed to be compliant with more than one standard, list requirements for any claim 418 that intends to be compliant with these standards] 419 Cases of deviations from the default approach 420 [Where deviations from the default approach (as given in the PEF or in this PEFCR) is made, 421 justification, results, interpretation and recommendation to the European Commission and the PEF-‐
422 practitioner should be included.] 423 B.12 List of annexes 424 Annex I – Representative product 425 All steps taken to define the model for this PEFCR are detailed in the subsections below. 426 25
According to the European Commission (2014): •
Once the scope of the PEFCR has been agreed, the Technical Secretariat shall develop a “model” of the representative product existing in the EU market and belonging to the product category at hand. •
At least one representative product (RP) has to be defined for each PEFCR as it forms the basis for the modelling of the PEF screening. When within a product category several different applications are supported, several RPs may need to be identified. •
Also, when a product category is made up of various technologies which all deliver the same function, several RPs may be needed to ensure that the PEFCR will cover the data collection specific for all these technologies and to allow the identification of relevant life cycle stages and hotspots for each technology used. •
In order to use the screening step to identify the hotspots, the “model” of the representative product shall cover all potential technologies/materials that fulfil the scope in order to perform relevant sensitivity analysis. Lack of available data and low market shares shall not be used as an argument for exclusions. •
There are two options for defining the representative product: 1. It could be a virtual (non-‐existing) product. This is probably the best option when the market is made up of different technologies/materials and there is sufficient market and technical information available. The virtual product could be calculated based on average sales-‐weighted characteristics of all existing technologies/materials covered by the scope of the PEFCR. In addition to the sales-‐weighted average, other weighting sets can be explored in the pilot phase, for example weighted average based on mass (ton of material) or weighted average based on product units (pieces); 2. It could be a real product. This is probably the best option when the market is made up of different technologies, but incomplete market and/or technical information are available. A real product sold at EU market level may be chosen as representative product. 427 Representative product description 428 The product category of coffee is made up of various technologies (i.e. brewing methods) which all 429 deliver the same function. According to Nielsen (2014), the average of volumes of coffee sold in 430 Europe in one year up to June 2014 (from 1st July 2013 to 30th June 2014) is partitioned as follows: 431 33.3% soluble coffee, 55.6% roast & ground coffee (excluding coffee in capsules) and 11.1% roast & 432 ground coffee in single serve which include capsules and soft pods. Therefore, the majority of coffee 26
433 consumption in Europe can be captured by a set of three products, being self-‐portioned soluble 434 coffee, self-‐portioned roast & ground filter coffee and pre-‐portioned roast & ground coffee in 435 capsules, along with their sensitivity analysis. This set is used as “representative product”. These 436 products are better defined and explained in Table 3. The choice of real products instead of virtual 437 products which include for example different types of coffee or packaging (i.e. glass jar together 438 with sticks and laminate pouch for soluble coffee on the basis of their share on the market), has 439 been done because of incomplete statistical market data for packaging and coffee types. 440 Table 3 Representative products considered Type of product Self-‐portioned Pre-‐portioned Technology Representative product Soluble A 120 ml serving prepared with spray dried soluble coffee bought at supermarket and water boiled in an electric kettle. The serving is drunk in a reusable cup. Roast & ground A 120 ml serving prepared with roast & ground coffee bought at supermarket in a specific drip filter machine with hot plate unit. This serving is drunk in a reusable cup. Capsules A 40 ml serving prepared with roast & ground coffee capsule bought at supermarket in a specific capsule coffee machine. This serving is drunk in a reusable cup. 441 442 For the complete life cycle of a coffee based beverage, the following unit of analysis will be 443 considered in this PEFCR as default: 444 •
445 Providing one coffee based beverage serving of the type and size typically associated with the technology assessed 446 Regarding the coffee cultivation, the Arabica coffee will be assessed as default scenario, for all the 447 representative products, according to the inventory data provided by Syndicat Français du Café 448 (2013), based on Coltro et al. (2006) and Agne (2000) and presented in Table 4. Robusta and organic 449 Arabica coffee will be assessed as sensitivity provided we have the primary data at the time of the 450 PEF screenings. Multi-‐cropping, sustainable coffee production practices (e.g. organic and other 451 sustainability standards) and land-‐use change will be addressed in the category rules drafting. 452 27
453 Table 4: Inventory data for the production of 1000 kg of green coffee (Syndicat Français du Café (2013)) Parameter
Energy
Unit
Value
Electricity (mains grid)
Liquefied petroleum gas
MJ
kg
646
6
Wood
Diesel
kg
kg
368
94
Other resources
Water (coffee crop processing)
Water (irrigation)*
kg
m³
11,437
660
Fertilizers: N, P, K
kg
274
Fertilizers: B, Cu, Fe, Mn, S, Zn
kg
6
Comment / Hypothesis
Brazilian energy mix, medium-‐voltage
256 MJ of light fuel oil, use for heating and burned in a 1 MW boiler (heating value: 42.7 MJ/kg)
25% wood-‐fuel energy generated through deforestation
Diesel used for tractors (“building machinery”), with a heating value of 42.7 MJ/kg
(irrigation not involved)
2,220 m³ for 1,000 kg of irrigated green coffee (working to 4,000 m³ per ha/yr an a yield of 1,800 kg/ha/yr), factoring in 30% irrigation
N-‐P-‐K split: 35-‐7-‐50
•
104 kg ammonium nitrate (N)
•
47.7 kg triple superphosphate (P2O5)
179 kg potassium sulphate (K2O)
•
N-‐P-‐K split: 33-‐33-‐33 (stoichiometric split)
2 kg ammonium nitrate (N)
•
•
454 Fungicide
Herbicide
kg
kg
1.72
1.15
Insecticide
Bactericide
Acaricide
Acaricide / Insecticide
Additives: Ca, Mg Land occupation Occupation Emission to water Fertilizers – Nitrate* Fertilizers – Phosphate* Fertilizers – Phosphorous* Biological oxygen demand* Emissions to air Fertilizers – Nitrous oxide Fertilizers – Ammonia* Fungicide Herbicide Insecticide/Acaricide/Bactericide Emissions to soil Fungicide Herbicide Insecticide/Acaricide/Bactericide kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
0.98
0.14
0.35
0.002
273
m²/yr kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg kg 5,556 115 1.48 0.5 500 2.78 8.34 0.168 0.17 0.22 0.951 0.977 1.25 4.58 kg triple superphosphate (P2O5)
2.41 kg potassium sulphate (K2O)
•
Copper oxide
Paraquat (Bipyridynium)
Terbufos (organophosphorous compounds)
50% lime–50% gypsum
Fruit permaculture, intensively farmed 0.017 kg N as N2O/kg N 0.08 kg NH3/kg N Copper 15% to air, 85% to soil 15% to air, 85% to soil copper 15% to air, 85% to soil 15% to air, 85% to soil 28
455 The following primary packaging types will be considered for each of the three representative 456 products, being typical for each product, based on TS knowledge: 457 •
Roast & ground coffee in capsules: plastic capsules 458 •
Soluble coffee: glass jar 459 •
Roast & ground filter coffee: flexible laminate pouch 460 Different alternative primary packaging for capsules are evaluated as sensitivity analysis: aluminium, 461 bio-‐plastic, paper capsules. 462 Regarding distribution, the default scenarios for the three representative products will include the 463 delivery to supermarket for households consumption. For roast & ground coffee in capsules, the 464 scenario of delivery to offices will be assessed as sensitivity. 465 The determination of the reusable cup as the most representative scenario has been done on the 466 basis of the TS members knowledge. However, the use of a disposable carton cup is assessed as 467 sensitivity. 468 Wastage is assessed as sensitivity since according to Syndicat Français du Café́ (2013) avoidable 469 waste can play a non-‐negligible role in the environmental impact assessment (e.g. the excess 470 quantity of water boiled or coffee prepared per functional unit). The following assumptions will be 471 assessed as sensitivity: 472 •
473 Spoilage of prepared coffee for roast & ground filter coffee: 33% losses (according to Humbert et al. (2009)) 474 •
475 Spoilage of boiled water for soluble coffee: 200% the amount of water needed is boiled (according to Humbert et al. (2009)) 476 Table 5 reports the complete list of the sensitivity analyses that will be performed in the PEF 477 screenings. Assumptions for the sensitivity analyses related to beverage composition, water, 478 capsules, capsules delivery, coffee beans distribution, coffee machine, cup and other parameters 479 which will be identified important during first iterative screening (possibly infrastructure) will be 480 presented at a later stage. 29
481 Table 5 List of the sensitivity analyses that will be performed in the PEF screenings Life cycle stage Sensitivity analyses Ingredients Beverage composition Beverage with sugar, milk, cream, cocoa powder Water Coffee in capsules: long cup (120 ml) Packaging Capsules Aluminum, bio-‐based, paper capsules Distribution Capsules delivery Transport by post to offices, internet order Coffee beans Whole supply chain of coffee beans to consumer Loss rates Spoilage of prepared coffee for roast & ground filter coffee and spoilage of water for soluble coffee Coffee machine Full automatic espresso-‐machine using coffee beans instead of ground coffee Cup Disposable carton cup Use Cup washing by hands 482 30
483 Bills of materials (BOMs) or if more suitable, ingredients According to the European Commission (2014): •
When defining the “representative product” model, the Technical Secretariat should include the following elements to the extent possible: •
Bill of materials (BOM) or if more suitable, ingredients; •
A flow diagram (system boundaries) covering the entire life cycle ; •
Assumptions related to transportation systems; •
Assumptions related to use scenario (if relevant); •
Assumptions related to End of Life scenario, including recycling and re-‐use as relevant. •
This information, if not already produced when asking the approval of the scope and representative product to the Steering Committee, shall be in any case included in the report to be sent to the Commission describing all the modelling assumptions used for the screening (see 3.5.1). •
The "representative product" shall be presented and discussed with the relevant stakeholders during the first physical consultation meeting. The model and the modelling assumptions are the basis for the screening exercise. 484 485 Table 6 reports the amount of coffee and water per serving to satisfy the functional unit for each 486 product defined. 487 The quantity of water used per serving was estimated to be a typical serving size used in Europe for 488 each type of coffee based beverage, on the basis of the knowledge of the TS: serving size will 489 depend on consumer preference in a given market and to the knowledge of the TS there are no 490 studies available to support this choice. Therefore, the quantity of water chosen for each 491 representative product was determined by selecting the most popular product in Europe for each 492 type of coffee based beverage based on the experience and knowledge of the TS. Additionally, 120 493 ml is the size used in the Commission Working Document on possible Eco design and EU Energy 494 Label measures for Domestic Coffee Machines which defines the protocol for measuring electricity 495 consumption by coffee machines. For coffee capsules, the 120 ml size is assessed as sensitivity. 496 Other ingredients such as sugar, cream, milk and/or cocoa powder can be added and they are 497 assessed as sensitivity: Table 6 reports only the amounts of coffee and water, the amounts of the 498 additional ingredients will presented at a later stage. 31
499 The quantity of coffee grounds used per serving has been defined accordingly to Syndicat Français 500 du Café (2013) for the roast & ground filter coffee and soluble coffee, while for roast & ground 501 coffee in capsules average value is based on the TS knowledge. 502 Table 6 Amount of coffee and water per serving to satisfy the functional unit for each product Self-‐portioned soluble coffee Self-‐portioned roast & ground filter coffee Pre-‐portioned roast & ground coffee in capsules Quantity of coffee grounds or soluble coffee for one serving (g) 2 Quantity of water used to prepare one serving (ml) 7 120 5.3 40 120 503 504 Details for the packaging considered for each products are shown in Table 7. Assumptions related to 505 the sensitivity analyses will be presented at a later stage. 506 Table 7 Packaging considered for each products Primary packaging Soluble coffee glass jar (values per 100 g of coffee) (Source: Humbert et al. (2009)) Glass 242 g Label 0.9 g Cap PP 9.2 g Sealing wad and membrane Secondary Tray packaging 507 Roast & ground flexible laminate pouch (values per 100 g of coffee) (Source: Humbert et al. (2009)) 9.4 g laminate (PET12/alu8/LDPE60) PE: 1.1 g Aluminium: 0.2 g Corrugated 16.3 g cardboard, 0.5 g board: 3.3 g LDPE film LDPE 1.5 g Plastic capsules5 (values per capsule) (Source: fictive product based on primary data) Disc 3.95 g PP Lid 0.095 g PP 0.4 g Aluminium Carton 2.18 g carton board Flow wrap 0.13 g PET 0.15 g Aluminium 0.5 g PE 5
Capsules sold in laminate packs containing typically two thin cardboard boxes 32
508 The term primary packaging is used to represent the packaging that typically cannot be separated 509 from the coffee until the time of consumption (such as the packaging in direct contact with the 510 product, the lid, the air tight laminated pocket used to protect capsules which are not air protected 511 as well as any type of label attached to it), while secondary packaging is the packaging which can be 512 separated from the primary packaging days before the consumption without causing conservation 513 problems (such as sleeves and boxes) but that is typically purchased by the consumer, by opposition 514 to the tertiary packaging used to ease distribution but normally not reaching the consumer (such as 515 pallet, packaging film, cardboard trays). The distinction is useful as secondary and tertiary packaging 516 will typically be subject to different modelling approach such as end-‐of-‐life scenarios (end-‐of-‐life for 517 primary and secondary packaging is mainly influenced by consumer while end-‐of-‐life for tertiary 518 packaging is mainly influenced by retailers). 519 33
520 System boundaries 521 This PEFCR will address in detail the core stages of a coffee based beverage as shown in Figure 4: 522 green coffee production and supply, packaging supply, manufacturing (production centre -‐ including 523 roasting, grinding, packaging filling, etc.), final product distribution, coffee machine (including kettle) 524 and its packaging production, other ingredients supply (such as sugar, cream, milk, chocolate), 525 beverage preparation (including cup production and washing), end-‐of-‐life of packaging, coffee and 526 coffee machine. The modelling of the products added to the coffee product (i.e. sugar, cream, milk, 527 cocoa powder), though being part of the system boundary of the coffee product, will not be 528 addressed in detail by this PEFCR and will be obtained from background datasets and/or modelled 529 using other PEFCR. They will be assessed as sensitivity. 530 Green-coffee-produc2on-andsupply!
Manufacturing!
Packaging-supplyFinal-productdistribu2onCoffee-machine-(incl.-keDle)-andits-packaging-produc2on!
Packaging,-coffee,-cupand-coffee-machine-end;of;life-
Beverageprepara2on!
Other-ingredients-supply-
531 532 533 Figure 4 System boundaries for the screening study 34
534 The main processes included within each life cycle stage are detailed in Figure 5. 535 Packaging+supply+*+
Green+coffee+produc0on+and+supply+*+
Packaging'materials'produc4on'and'processing'
Packaging'transport'to'produc4on'centre'
'
Green'coffee'cul4va4on'incl.'chemicals'and'fer4lizers''
PostAharvest'processing''
Green'coffee'transport'to'produc4on'centre'
Manufacturing+(produc0on+centre)+++
Energy','water'and'other'inputs'for'roas4ng,'grinding,'packaging'filling,'etc.'
Treatment'of'waste'produced'
'
Final+product+distribu0on++
Transport'from'produc4on'centre'to'the'distribu4on'centres'and'points'of'sale'
Warehousing'and'retail'
Transport'to'home'(by'car)'and'offices'
Other+ingredients+supply+*+
Coffee+machine+(incl.+keFle)+and+its+packaging+
produc0on+*+
Sugar,'cream,'milk,'chocolate'produc4on'and'delivery'to'
user'
Produc4on'and'delivery'to'user'
Beverage+prepara0on+
Water'and'electricity'for'coffee'prepara4on'*''
Cup'produc4on'and'washing'***'
Packaging,+coffee,+cup+and+coffee+machine+end=of=life**+
EndAofAlife'container'produc4on'and'maintenance'(compost'box)'
Transport'of'wastes'from'home'to'the'collec4on'and'treatment'centres'
Packaging'treatment:'incinera4on,'landfilling'and'recycling'
Coffee'endAofAlife'and'coffee'machine'(incl.'keGle)'endAofAlife'
536 *Full'cradle'to'gate'**Full'gate'to'grave'***Full'cradle'to'grave'
537 Figure 5 Details on each life cycle stage considered 538 539 Within each of these stages, the LCA considers all identifiable “upstream” inputs to provide a 540 comprehensive view of the product system. For example, transportation does not only include the 541 operation (fuel consumption and tail pipe emissions), but also upstream processes such as fuel 542 production, truck production as well as maintenance and road construction. In this way, the 543 production chains of all inputs are traced back to the original extraction of raw materials. 544 Note that infrastructure is included in all stages. 545 Transportation assumptions 546 As shown in Figure 4, transportation associated with each of the life cycle stages is considered. 547 The default distances that will be used for the screening study are provided in Table 8. 35
548 Table 8 Default transportation distances From To Field/farm Shipping port Shipping port Producer Transport mode Truck Assumption for load Weight limited 18’000 Ship Weight limited 1’500 2’000 Truck Truck Weight limited Weight or volume limited Producer Point of sale Point of sale User 4 User “End-‐of-‐life” collection place Treatment centre (municipal solid wastes and composting) Treatment centre (recycling) 5 “End-‐of-‐life” collection place 549 Distance (km) 1’500 Source Syndicat Français du Café (2013) Syndicat Français du Café (2013) Syndicat Français du Café (2013) (finished product sourced on the same continent) Assumption Car (1 Not applicable person per car and 5% allocation of the car trip per item6) Car or truck Not applicable or Assumption weight limited 30 Truck Weight limited Assumption 100 Truck Weight limited Assumption The assumptions related to “from point of sale to user”, “from user to end-‐of-‐life Note collection place” and “from end-‐of-‐life collection place to treatment centre” shall be addressed at a transversal level, to guarantee consistency among the pilots. These values will be updated at a later date. 550 Note Detailed assumptions for transportation of packaging and other ingredients will be provided at a later date 6
With item it is meant one glass jar, one flexible laminate pouch, one box of 16 capsules 36
551 Use stage assumptions 552 The use stage includes the impacts related to the use of the coffee machine and kettle (including its 553 production and delivery) as well as cup production and dishwashing. 554 Table 9 reports the assumptions for the use of the coffee machine. New machines are expected to 555 be more energy-‐efficient. These data will be refined and updated once the PEF Category Rules will 556 be drafted. 557 Table 9 Assumptions for the use of the coffee machine Mode of preparation Electricity consumption [kWh/L] [Wh/cup] Kettle (120 mL) 0.125 15 Roast & ground Filter coffee 0.277 filter coffee machine (120 mL) 33 Roast & ground Coffee pod 0.62 coffee in capsules machine (40 mL) 25 Soluble coffee 558 559 Table 10 reports the assumptions for the coffee machine production. 37
Source Syndicat Français du Café (2013) and Humbert et al. (2009) Syndicat Français du Café (2013) and DG ENER (2011) Syndicat Français du Café (2013) and DG ENER (2011) 560 Table 10 Assumptions for the coffee machines production Coffee kettle assumptions Kettle production Materials Kettle transport Chromium steel 30% Steel 30% PP 37% Electronic components 3% Total mass 1.18 kg Equal to coffee capsules machine Kettle lifetime Amount Source Assumption Assumption 1 l/day, 2 cups/day, 300 days/year over Source: Humbert et al. (2009) 10 years Drip filter machine assumptions Drip filter Materials manufacturing 561 Amount Source Source: DG ENER (2011) Drip filter transport PP 51.8 % PC 0.42 % PPS 1.63 % PVC 1.23 % Glass fibre 11.43 % Non-‐ferrous 0.36 % Ferrous 4.27 % Stainless steel 18.01 % Cu 1.23 % Al 5.69 % Rubber 0.81 % Electronic 2.98 % Miscellaneous 0.14 % Total mass 1.2 kg Equal to coffee capsules machine Drip filter lifetime 6 years, 2 coffee per day Source: DG ENER (2011) Assumption 38
Coffee capsules machine assumptions Coffee capsules Materials Amount machine manufacturing Aluminium 10% Copper 11% Steel 12% ABS 55% Rubber 0.8% Electric components 2.4% Zamak 6.9% Total mass 2.8 kg Coffee capsules From factory to consumer 800 km by machine transport truck, 7400 km by ship, 20 km by train and 20 km by van Coffee capsules 4380 coffee (B2C machine) machine lifetime Source Source: Nespresso (2011) Source: Nespresso (2011) Source: Nespresso (2011) 562 563 We assume the kettle is used for other purposes other than coffee preparation (e.g. to prepare tea, 564 infusions, etc.). The daily allocation factor attributed to the kettle production is calculated according 565 to Humbert et al. (2009), which considers that 1 litre of water per day is boiled, two cups of coffee 566 per day are prepared and for each cup 200% of the amount of water needed is boiled (this value 567 includes spoilage). Therefore, the daily allocation factor for the kettle is 48%. 568 For washing, it was assumed that cup is washed in a dishwasher. Impacts related to dishwashing in a 569 dishwasher based on the fraction of space that the cup takes up per dishwasher cycle include the 570 following: 571 •
Dishwasher production, delivery and end-‐of-‐life 572 •
Electricity necessary to operate the dishwasher 573 •
Water usage and associated wastewater treatment 574 •
Soap usage 575 Table 11 reports the assumptions for dishwasher production, delivery, use and end-‐of-‐life. 576 39
577 Table 11 Assumptions for dishwasher production, delivery, use and end-‐of-‐life Dishwasher assumptions Dishwasher production Dishwasher transport Dishwasher lifetime PP Steel Aluminium Electronic components Printed wiring board Packaging cardboard Packaging LDPE film Electricity Neglected 10 kg 20 kg 12 kg 3 kg 0.1 kg 10 kg 2 kg 20 kWh Assumption 1500 cycles Dishwasher use One cycle: 1.2 kWh, 15 L water and 10 g detergent (Kaenzig and Jolliet, 2006). 40 cups washed per cycle (as per Humbert et al. (2009)) End-‐of-‐life Neglected 578 579 Table 12 reports the assumption for cup production. 580 Table 12 Assumptions for cup production Cup production assumptions 581 Ceramic cup 120 g ceramic/cup Lifetime: 365 coffees/cup (as per Humbert et al. (2009)) production Delivery and end-‐of-‐life are neglected Carton cup 5 g carton/cup 0.5 g LDPE/cup Delivery neglected, end-‐of-‐life included in the end-‐of-‐life stage 582 End-‐of-‐life assumptions 583 Table 13 presents the end-‐of-‐life assumptions for each kind of packaging used by the representative 584 products. End-‐of-‐life treatments for the packaging materials are based on EUROSTAT statistics for 585 municipal waste treatment in Europe (EUROSTAT, 2011). Note 40
This section and Table 13 will be completed at a later date. Quantis Sàrl - EPFL Innovation Park Bâtiment D, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
7
586 Table 13 End-‐of-‐life for coffee based beverage primary and secondary packaging Product Recycling Incineration Landfill Glass A% B% C% Aluminium D% E% F% Paper/cardboard G% H% I% Plastic L% M% N% 587 588 The end-‐of-‐life stage is modelled according to recommendations provided by the European 589 Commission to deal with multi-‐functionality in end-‐of-‐life situations (European Commission, 2013). 590 The Excel file named “RecyclingFormula-‐v1-‐EFPilot-‐ems24Jan2014.xls” (sent by e-‐mail on January 591 29th, 2014) will be considered. 592 Annex II – Supporting studies Note This section will be completed at a later date. 593 Reports, without disclosing any confidential information8, describing the at least 3 PEF supporting 594 studies that shall be carried out in compliance with the latest version of the PEF guide and with the 595 included draft PEFCR. 596 They shall be based on existing, real products. The studies should always be done under the 597 assumption that its result would be used for a PEFCR that could support comparisons or comparative 598 assertions intended to be disclosed to the public. 599 The report on the supporting studies will be used to: 600 •
Test the draft PEFCR 601 •
Check the relevance of the identified the most relevant environmental impacts 602 •
Check the relevance of the environmental performance benchmarks 7
To be further discussed during the end-‐of-‐life workshop organised by the European Commission on October th
6 , 2014 in Brussels 8
Confidential information can be dealt with in a separate way in line with chapter 8.2.4 in the PEF guide Fourth element: Confidential Report: “The Confidential Report is an optional reporting element that shall contain all those data (including raw data) and information that are confidential or proprietary and cannot be made externally available. It shall be made available confidentially to the critical reviewers.” 41
603 •
604 605 Check the relevance of the classes of environmental performance related to the specific product category in scope of the PEFCR (if feasible) Annex III – Benchmark and classes of environmental performance Note This section will be completed at a later date. 606 Document all the steps taken to define the benchmark, as a result of the 2nd consultation. 607 Document all the steps taken to define the classes of environmental performance, as a result of the 608 2nd consultation. 609 Annex IV – Upstream scenarios (optional) Note This section will be completed at a later date. 610 Report describing upstream scenarios and processes as a result of the 1st virtual consultation. 611 Annex V – Downstream scenarios (optional) Note This section will be completed at a later date. 612 Report describing downstream scenarios and processes as a result of the 1st virtual consultation. 613 Annex VI – Normalisation factors Note This section will be completed at a later date. 614 List normalisation factors to be used in the PEFCR pilot phase 615 Annex VII – Weighting factors Note This section will be completed at a later date. 616 List alternative weighting approaches tested as “additional” compared to the baseline approach (i.e. 617 all impact categories shall receive the same weight in the baseline approach). 618 Annex VIII – Foreground data Note 619 This section will be completed at a later date. Including a list of mandatory substances/elementary flows in the foreground system to be collected. 42
620 Annex IX – Background data Note This section will be completed at a later date. 621 List of generic and semi-‐specific data that shall be used in the PEFCR 622 Annex X – EOL formulas Note This section will be completed at a later date. 623 List of alternative formulas tested as “additional” compared to the baseline approach specified in 624 the PEF Guide (if appropriate). 625 Report of the sensitivity analysis carried out by the Technical Secretariat. 626 Annex XI – Background information on methodological choices taken during the 627 development of the PEFCR Note This section will be completed at a later date. 628 Provide detailed information about the justification for methodological decisions taken (e.g. 629 selection of impact categories, additional environmental information, etc) 43
630 Appendix A – Overview of existing PCR and sectorial guidance documents According to the European Commission (2014): •
There are many existing PCRs for several product categories. Before starting the development of a new PEFCR, the Technical Secretariat shall carry out a thorough search to identify if PCRs for the same product category have been developed. •
If no PCRs for the product category of interest are found suitable to be used as basis for the PEFCR, the Technical Secretariat shall move forward to develop its own PEFCR “from scratch”. However, when the Technical Secretariat finds that a PCR exists for the same or overlapping product category in one or more other program(s), the Technical Secretariat shall perform an analysis identifying the consistency of the existing PCR(s) against the criteria set in this Guidance and in the PEF Guide. Existing PCRs need to be evaluated only up to the point where a decision can be made whether they should be used as a basis for the development of a PEFCR or not. Only those PCRs identified as suitable basis for a PEFCR need to be evaluated further with the necessary detail. 631 632 The main documents for coffee based beverage available to date to the TS’s knowledge are 633 presented below. 634 These documents are not totally aligned with the PEF requirements because they do not fully follow 635 a mandatory requirement for PEFCRs (e.g. some stages are excluded from the product life cycle or 636 default EF impact categories are not included). Nevertheless, these documents represent very useful 637 sources of information and they are used as references when relevant. 638 44
639 GAP ANALYSIS Guidelines to the environmental impact assessment of coffee in France PCR on UN CPC 01610 green coffee 2013:21 Life cycle assessment of spray dried soluble coffee and comparison with alternatives (drip filter and capsules espresso). Version 10-‐Jul-‐13 Environdec (2013). VERSION 1.01 Authors Syndicat Français du Café Scope Beverages made from pure coffee The Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) Platform Coffee Working Group, in collaboration with the Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH) Coffee green beans Journal of Cleaner Production 2009 Humbert et al. Functional unit Provide the user with an X mL cup of coffee. The quantity of water can be 40 ml or 100 ml depending on the product category Exclusion "Mix”-‐type beverages (cappuccino, mocaccino, etc.) are excluded from the scope 640 641 45
Comparative full life cycle assessment of B2C cup of espresso made using a packaging and distribution system from Nespresso Espresso and three generic products 2011 Case Study undertaken within the PCF Pilot Project Germany on privat kaffee rarity machare Nespresso Tchibo Spray dried soluble coffee, drip filter and capsule espresso coffee Espresso coffee made with capsules Roast & ground filter coffee 1 (one) kilogram of Green Coffee at 11.5% moisture delivered to port of origin (FOB) or the roaster’s warehouse (CIF) if processing domestically To provide 1dl of coffee ready to be drunk at the consumer's home One cup of brewed Tchibo Privat Kaffee Rarity Machare which is equivalent to 7 grams of coffee powder with 0.125 litre of water consumed There are no other inclusions in the declared unit except for the product itself (i.e. packaging weight is not included in the 1 kilogram of product). Coffee beverages with additional ingredient as milk and sugar are excluded To provide a 40 ml cup of espresso coffee prepared in a Nespresso machine in a business-‐to-‐
consumer (B2C) environment (at home) for a Swiss and French market All the other technology systems, other than capsules Capsules for B2B environment Quantis Sàrl - EPFL Innovation Park Bâtiment D, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
2008 Coffee beverages with additional ingredient as milk and sugar are excluded 642 GAP ANALYSIS Guidelines to the environmental impact assessment of coffee in France PCR on UN CPC 01610 green coffee 2013:21 Life cycle assessment of spray dried soluble coffee and comparison with alternatives (drip filter and capsules espresso). Version 10-‐Jul-‐13 Environdec (2013). VERSION 1.01 System boundaries Green coffee production, coffee processing, packaging production, distribution, use, end-‐of-‐life Land use change (LUC) activities, Seedlings and nursery, Cultivations related to new coffee-‐growing areas or the replacement of trees, Planting, Shading establishment and management, Fertiliser applications including compost and other organic fertilisers, Pruning activities, Any mechanical weed controls, Chemical weed control and plant protection activities, Irrigation, Harvesting, Any other farming operations, Transport to processing, Post-‐
harvest processing (wetand/ordry milling), Packing and repacking, Wastewater (including treatment) and other wastes generated as a result of the growing/ processing Journal of Cleaner Production 2009 Green coffee production and delivery, coffee and packaging manufacturing, distribution , use phase and end-‐
of-‐life 643 644 46
Comparative full life cycle assessment of B2C cup of espresso made using a packaging and distribution system from Nespresso Espresso and three generic products 2011 Case Study undertaken within the PCF Pilot Project Germany on privat kaffee rarity machare (1) Coffee supply (including transports from cultivation place to production center), (2) Packaging production (including transports from production site to manufacturing site), (3) Production center (manufacturing), (4) Distribution, (5) Use stage, and (6) End-‐of-‐
life (landfilling, incineration with energy recovery and/or recycling (e.g., aluminium recycling, bioplastic composting), including transportation to each of these activities). Cultivation as well as primary processing in Tanzania, overseas transportation of the intermediate product, reprocessing in Germany, distribution from wholesalers to retailers, consumption and disposal Quantis Sàrl - EPFL Innovation Park Bâtiment D, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
2008 645 GAP ANALYSIS Guidelines to the environmental impact assessment of coffee in France PCR on UN CPC 01610 green coffee 2013:21 Life cycle assessment of spray dried soluble coffee and comparison with alternatives (drip filter and capsules espresso). Version 10-‐Jul-‐13 Environdec (2013). VERSION 1.01 System boundaries -‐
exclusion Avoidable waste (e.g. the excess quantity of water boiled per functional unit) is excluded from use phase Kettle/Coffee machine manufacture and end-‐of-‐life Filter manufacture and end-‐of-‐life Cup manufacture, end-‐of-‐life and washing Plant machinery and infrastructure. Transport to end-‐of-‐life facilities at each stage in the life cycle Capital inputs – a capital input to the system is an input with a life of greater than 3 years. Human energy inputs Carbon sequestration in above and below-‐
ground biomass (other than in the context of land use change) Soil carbon changes (other than in the context of land use change) Transport of employees to and from their place of work Equipment manufacture such as irrigation pumps The manufacture of machinery sheds and other buildings Any other processes that are not directly related to the production of the green coffee (e.g. administrative functions of the company) as these will have a minimal impact on the final calculation Journal of Cleaner Production 2009 Land use change and multi-‐crops have not been included in green coffee cultivation. For information, factory buildings, administration, commuting and business travels are included in overheads 646 647 47
Comparative full life cycle assessment of B2C cup of espresso made using a packaging and distribution system from Nespresso Espresso and three generic products 2011 Case Study undertaken within the PCF Pilot Project Germany on privat kaffee rarity machare The overheads (e.g. marketing and research and development activities) are excluded of the study Human energy inputs, the production of capital equipment and facilities, carbon storage by shade trees whilst culturing the coffee shrubs, input of Micro-‐
organisms, the production process of sisal bags used by farmers, production of manure Quantis Sàrl - EPFL Innovation Park Bâtiment D, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
2008 648 Appendix B – Definition of the benchmarks 649 650 651 652 653 The TS has already started to define an approach for benchmarks determination based on the products available on the market in Europe. Given the complexity of the scope and market for coffee, the discussion on benchmarks will be continued during the next months: today, the TS has agreed on the approach proposed below. It is the intention of TS to refine this approach in the coming months. 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 Table 14 captures the different types of coffee existing on the European market: values in the red cells will be refined in the coming months on the basis of statistical market data and experts judgement (when market data are not available). More specifically, in the Table 14 market share for coffee products have been calculated on the basis of Nielsen (2014), German Coffee Association (2013) and experts judgement. Green coffee shares have calculated on the basis of Panhuysen et al. (2014), European Coffee Federation (2014) and experts judgement. The other values have been calculated on the basis of experts judgement. Note 661 The current document presents a first approach to the benchmarks definition which will be refined in the coming months. 48
662 Table 14 Types of coffee existing on the European market R&G&coffee&in& R&G&coffee&in&
instant&coffee&in& instant&coffee& instant&coffee& Instant&coffee&
R&G&coffee&in& R&G&coffee&in& Coffee&beans& Coffee&beans&
capsules&(alu,& pods&(paper,&
bulk
in&sticks
in&distributors
bags*
bulk
distributors
bulk
in&distributors
plastics,&...)
...)
33%
11%
56%
25%
4%
2%
1%
3%
8%
39%
11%
3%
3%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
80%
80%
34%
10%
10%
20%
10%
20%
10%
5%
0%
0%
6%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
18%
20%
20%
51%
60%
60%
65%
50%
65%
50%
Type%of%coffee
Market%share
Green%coffee
Robusta&coffee&(Conventional)
Robusta&coffee&(verified/certified)
Arabica&coffee&(Conventional)
663 664 Arabica&coffee&(verified/certified)
Others?
Coffee%manufacturing
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
0%
25%
0%
25%
0%
10%
0%
35%
0%
10%
0%
35%
0%
Spray&drying&(caf)&(includes&roasting&and&grinding)
Spray&drying&(decaf)&(includes&roasting&and&grinding)
Freeze&drying&(caf)&(includes&roasting&and&grinding)
Freeze&drying&(decaf)&(includes&roasting&and&grinding)
Roasting&and&grinding&(caf)
Roasting&and&grinding&(decaf)
Roasting&(caf)
Roasting&(decaf)
Coffee%preparation
SelfRmixed&in&hot&water&(Kettle)
Moka
Drip&filter
French&press&(Bodrum)
Coffee&urns&(for&banquets,&conferences…)&>>&similar&to&moka
Coffee&machines&(for&R&G/whole&beans&in&bulk)
Coffee&machine&(for&capsules/pods)
Vending&machine
Type%of%packaging
Glass&jar
Metal&cans
Carton&cans
Laminate&pouch
Laminated&paper&stick?
Aluminum&capsules
BioRbased&capsules
Plastic&capsules
Paper&pods
Textile&bag?
Type%of%delivery
at&supermarket
delivered&to&home
delivered&to&office/selling&place&(eg.&bar/on&the&go/etc.)
Additional%ingredients
None&(black&coffee)
Sugar
Milk
Cream
Cocoa&powder
Non&diary&creamer
Place%of%consumption
At&home
At&office
At&restaurant/bar/café
On&the&go
In&a&conference/large&meeting
End@of@life
25%
5%
60%
10%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
25%
5%
60%
10%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
45%
5%
45%
5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
30%
10%
30%
10%
15%
5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
90%
10%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
90%
10%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
90%
10%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
90%
10%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
90%
10%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
90%
10%
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
n/a
5%
10%
50%
5%
20%
10%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
2%
7%
15%
5%
1%
50%
n/a
20%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
80%
5%
5%
10%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a?
n/a?
10%
90%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a?
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
20%
3%
77%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
90%
10%
5%
10%
5%
80%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0%
10%
10%
80%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a?
10%
0%
90%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a?
10%
0%
90%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
80%
10%
10%
60%
10%
40%
n/a
n/a
100%
0%
n/a
100%
65%
10%
25%
70%
20&
10%
70%
n/a
30%
n/a
n/a
100%
35%
5%
60%
n/a
n/a
100%
40%
40%
10%
6%
1%
3%
40%
40%
10%
6%
1%
3%
30%
50%
10%
6%
1%
3%
40%
40%
10%
6%
1%
3%
30%
45%
10%
5%
5%
5%
30%
45%
10%
5%
5%
5%
30%
45%
10%
5%
5%
5%
30%
45%
10%
5%
5%
5%
30%
45%
10%
5%
5%
5%
30%
45%
10%
5%
5%
5%
80%
10%
0%
5%
5%
3
50%
10%
20%
15%
5%
n/a
40%
20%
10%
30%
30%
10%
10%
5%
45%
65%
20%
5%
5%
5%
55%
20%
10%
5%
10%
70%
10%
10%
5%
5%
n/a
40%
5%
40%
15%
40%
20%
20%
15%
5%
n/a
40%
5%
40%
15%
Use&specific&data&
for&alu&capsules&at&
home,&at&office,&at&
restaurants/bar/caf
é,&in&
conference/large&
meetings
It&is&function&of&the&type&of&packaging&and&the&place&of&
consumption.&It&will&be&calculated&using&EU&average&if&
no&other&data&are&available.&
49
Washing%(when%cup%and%other%devices)
By&hand Home&dishwasher Industrial&washing
30%
70%
0%
50%
40%
10%
20%
20%
60%
50%
50%
0%
0%
20%
80%
665 666 Table 15 presents a proposition of how benchmarks will be structured and generated on the basis of the values entered in Table 14. 667 Table 15 Proposition of how benchmarks will be structured and generated (Calculated#based#on#market#average#for#each#consumption#place,#
considering#the#average#of#each#technology#of#coffee#preparation,#and#
average#of#each#type#of#delivery)
Per#type#of#coffee#in#terms#of#ingredients
50
In#a#
conference/lar
ge#meeting
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
Black#coffee
Sugar
Milk
Cream
Cocoa#powder
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
Etc.#including#the#mix#of#the#above
A6
B6
C6
D6
E6
!
!
!
!
!
A
B
C
D
E
Market#average
668 At#home
Per#place#of#consumption
At#
At#office
restaurant/bar On#the#go
/café
B1
C1
D1
B2
C2
D2
B3
C3
D3
B4
C4
D4
B5
C5
D5
"
One/average/
benchmark

Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs): Coffee

Transcription

Similar documents

Professors at Kaldi`s Getting Coffee

Coopro Sanvito R.L.

Nescafé Espresso Instant Coffee Tin Features

Grab Coffee Breaker

bosque nublado - Intelligentsia Coffee

ordering instructions mail order

Franchise Opportunities - World Franchise Centre

Coffee Breaker

Post-Show Report CoffeeFest 2015

Wake Up Call Sell Sheet.NEW - Grand Teton Brewing Company