The study compares packaging systems for beer and carbonated soft drinks sold in Denmark. Its functional unit is the packaging and distribution of 1,000 litres of beverage. For aluminium cans, the assessment includes primary aluminium production and can manufacture, filling, distribution, use, cooling in the consumer’s refrigerator, waste management and recycling. It also accounts for secondary packaging and transport packaging, while identifying some packaging-production processes that were not included.
The report applies the EDIP impact assessment method and interprets results through dominance and sensitivity analyses, alongside a review of data gaps and data quality. For the aluminium-can system, the summary identifies terrestrial ecotoxicity and human toxicity in soil and water among the impact categories with the largest contributions. It also reports a notable contribution to hazardous-waste and nuclear-waste targets.
The sensitivity analysis highlights several assumptions that can affect results: can weight, electricity supply, allocation between virgin and recycled aluminium, and the collection rate. The authors find that can weight, electricity assumptions and collection rate matter, while the distribution transport mode and the amount of internal can coating have less influence in the examined cases. The allocation choice is particularly difficult to assess because the actual recycled-aluminium content was not known. These findings show why comparisons should be read in light of the study’s Danish context and assumptions.
The assessment has defined boundaries. It excludes the environmental impacts of beverage use and misuse, including littering and migration from packaging into the beverage. Noise, visual impacts and bodily harm from accidents are also outside scope. The report additionally notes omitted packaging-conversion steps and some material inputs, so its results describe the modelled systems rather than every possible impact associated with aluminium packaging.
