19
“Switching from solid bleached board can reduce the carbon footprint by 50%, while switching from white lined chipboard can provide a reduction of 60% or even more.”
Metsä Board has conducted assessments to demonstrate the carbon footprint reduction potential of its paperboard materials. For exam- ple, switching from solid bleached board (SBB) to Metsä Board’s folding boxboard can reduce the carbon footprint of packaging by over 50 per cent, while a switch from white lined chipboard or recycled paperboard to Metsä Board folding boxboard can provide a reduction of 60 per cent or even more.* The assessments have been veri- fied by IVL Swedish Environmental Research In- stitute. Fresh or recycled? The carbon footprint of pharma packaging made from fresh fibres can be lower than that of pack- aging made from recycled fibres. The paperboard weight and the amount of material needed to pro-
duce a piece of packaging, as well as the type of energy used, play an important role in the car- bon footprint. “With recycled paperboard, you often need more material to meet the same strength and stiff- ness requirements that you’d get with fresh fibre,” says Uusitalo. “Fresh fibre paperboards provide high strength and bulk, so lighter basis weights can be used for the same packaging quality. This translates into less packaging material needed, less weight to transport and less waste to dispose of at the end of the chain.” Moreover, the type of energy used in paper- board production plays a key role: “Our paper- boards are produced with a high share of fossil free energy, which lowers the carbon footprint,” Uusitalo adds. •
FAST FACTS: CARBON FOOTPRINT CALCULATIONS AND EMISSION SCOPES
EU to combat greenwashing The European Union is willing to set new criteria for B2C communication related to the marketing of the environmental merits of a product or service for con- sumers to be able to make better-informed purchas- ing decisions. The new criteria include requirements for data quality and verification. The Green Claims Directive is currently in the EU leg- islative process, with multiple steps before entry into force. However, European consumer authorities have already started to challenge companies for their vague use of terms and visuals referring to sustainability. “Even though Metsä Board is not a direct partic- ipant in B2C communication, we have a big role to play in providing our customers with reliable data on our products that can then be utilised as environ- mental information for end customers,” says Lari Oksala , Sustainability Manager at Metsä Board. Calculations for transparency Metsä Board calculates the carbon footprint of its paperboards by following specific product category rules for processed paper and paperboard, which are based on the requirements set out in the ISO 14025
and ISO 14040/14044 international standards. “These calculations are performed so that we can provide fully transparent information to our customers about the environmental impact of our paperboard products,” says Oksala. Scope 3 makes the impact Scope 1 emissions include direct greenhouse gas emissions from a company’s own operations, while Scope 2 emissions include indirect greenhouse gas emissions from the generation of purchased energy. Scope 3 emissions include indirect greenhouse gas emissions from the value chain. For many companies, Scope 3 emissions account for 70 per cent of their carbon footprint. The greatest impact can therefore be achieved by reducing Scope 3 emissions. “The combined greenhouse gas emissions from the Scopes 1, 2 and upstream Scope 3 value chain will all be embedded into the products a company produces. These embedded emissions, from cradle-to-gate, will then be visible in their customers’ Scope 3 upstream greenhouse gas inventories based on the quantity of products purchased,” explains Oksala.
* Assessments follow the procedural and methodological requirements of ISO 14025 and are consistent with ISO 14040 and 14044 standards. The selected system boundary for the study was cradle-to-gate + end-of-life, and selected climate change impact methodology was EF3.1 Climate Change - total. Climate change impacts for competing materials utilise data from Sphera LCA for Packaging, which seeks to represent general products in the European market. The technical background report and the verification statement are available on Metsä Board’s website.
Powered by FlippingBook