Purpose: The year-round supply of fresh fruit and vegetables in Europe requires a complex logistics system. In this study, the most common European fruit and vegetable transport packaging systems, namely single-use wooden and cardboard boxes and re-useable plastic crates, are analyzed and compared considering environmental, economic, and social impacts. Methods: The environmental, economic, and social potentials of the three transport packaging systems are examined and compared from a life cycle perspective using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Life Cycle Working Environment (LCWE) methodologies. Relevant parameters influencing the results are analyzed in different scenarios, and their impacts are quantified. The underlying environmental analysis is an ISO 14040 and 14044 comparative Life Cycle Assessment that was critically reviewed by an independent expert panel. Results and discussion: The results show that wooden boxes and plastic crates perform very similarly in the Global Warming Potential, Acidification Potential, and Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential categories; while plastic crates have a lower impact in the Eutrophication Potential and Abiotic Resource Depletion Potential categories. Cardboard boxes show the highest impacts in all assessed categories. The analysis of the life cycle costs show that the re-usable system is the most cost effective over its entire life cycle. For the production of a single crate, the plastic crates require the most human labor. The share of female employment for the cardboard boxes is the lowest. All three systems require a relatively large share of low-qualified employees. The plastic crate system shows a much lower lethal accident rate. The higher rate for the wooden and cardboard boxes arises mainly from wood logging. In addition, the sustainability consequences due to the influence of packaging in preventing food losses are discussed, and future research combining aspects both from food LCAs and transport packing/packaging LCAs is recommended. Conclusions: For all three systems, optimization potentials regarding their environmental life cycle performance were identified. Wooden boxes (single use) and plastic crates (re-usable) show preferable environmental performance. The calibration of the system parameters, such as end-of-life treatment, showed environmental optimization potentials in all transport packaging systems. The assessment of the economic and the social dimensions in parallel is important in order to avoid trade-offs between the three sustainability dimensions. Merging economic and social aspects into a Life Cycle Assessment is becoming more and more important, and their integration into one model ensures a consistent modeling approach for a manageable effort

No abstract

No abstract

Decision-making by life-cycle-approaches is a matter of responsibility and plays a substantial role in corporate identity of innovative companies. The use of customised tools and databases is growing. In product optimisation, the decisions can be based on available life-cycle information and a sustainable decision with a company's perspective can be drawn. Green procurement decisionmaking can be especially demanding because the 'best available decisions' from the viewpoint of the (often diverse thinking) public may be required. The presentation shows various effects of lifecycle-related decision-support in product optimisation and green procurement by applying and modifying successful approaches. Databases already available can be adapted to specific situations and offer an ideal basis for effective decision support. This issue is presented using PVC as an example. PE Europe is the leader of an international consortium working on a report for the European Commission, sorting and structuring available LCA facts about PVC for decision support in future PVC policy. The way of structuring available information led to a discussion of the pros and cons of different solutions, which will be shown. The overview of different aspects enables prioritisation using Life Cycle Assessment, to support decision making effectively and to avoid omitting important facts. Professionals in companies and in (public) procurement fields may be inspired to base their decisions on life-cycle related information and may be encouraged to take immediate steps towards sustainability. Academics obtain feedback on the most important topics in 'public' decision-support that will inspire further target-oriented life-cycle research.

Data availability and data quality are still critical factors for successful LCA work. The SETAC-Europe LCA Working Group 'Data Availability and Data Quality' has therefore focused on ongoing developments toward a common data exchange format, public databases and accepted quality measures to find science-based solutions than can be widely accepted. A necessary prerequisite for the free flow and exchange of life cycle inventory (LCI) data and the comparability of LCIs is the consistent definition, nomenclature, and use of inventory parameters. This is the main subject of the subgroup 'Recommended List of Exchanges' that presents its results and findings here: 9 Rigid parameter lists for LCIs are not practical; especially, compulsory lists of measurements for all inventories are counterproductive. Instead, practitioners should be obliged to give the rationale for their scientific choice of selected and omitted parameters. The standardized (not: mandatory!) parameter list established by the subgroup can help to facilitate this. 9 The standardized nomenclature of LCI parameters and the standardized list of measurement bases (units) for these parameters need not be applied internally (e.g. in LCA software), but should be adhered to in external communications (data for publication and exchange). Deviations need to be clearly stated. 9 Sum parameters may or may not overlap-misinterpretations in either direction introduce a bias of unknown significance in the subsequent life cycle impact assessments (LCIA). The only person who can discriminate unambiguously is the practitioner who measures or calculates such values. Therefore, a clear statement of independence or overlap is necessary for every sum parameter reported. 9 Sum parameters should be only used when the group of emissions as such is measured. Individually measured emission parameters should not be hidden in group or sum parameters.