Scholle Bag-In-Box Sustainability
Scholle Bag-In-Box: Providing More By Using Less
Scholle Packaging is a global supplier of bag-in-box packaging to the food, beverage and industrial markets. One way we demonstrate our commitment to sustainability is through the packaging formats we produce. Scholle Packaging’s bag-in-box and Jerribox® packaging provides more value, performance, and protection by using less raw materials, fossil fuels and space when compared to various traditional packaging formats.
We’ve compared bag-in-box and Jerribox® packaging formats to common rigid package formats based on three environmental impacts: energy usage, greenhouse gas emission and post-consumer waste. These side-by-side comparisons reveal that bag-in-box and Jerribox® packaging produce less environmental impacts than their rigid counterparts.
Companies looking to reduce their environmental impacts could see reduced impacts by using bag-in-box or Jerribox® packaging. The impacts are summarized in tables below.
20 Liter Jerribox® v. 20 Liter HDPE Pail
|
Estimated Impacts Basis: 1,000 L of Packaged Product
|
| Package |
Total Material Weight (g) |
Total Energy(MJ) |
Process Greenhouse Gases (g) |
Post-Consumer Solid Waste (g) |
| 20 L Jerribox® |
47,150 |
1069 |
75,793 |
47,150 |
| 20 L Pail |
49,940 |
2,912 |
86,169 |
49,940 |
| |
 |
Comparison of Impacts Per 1,000 L |
| Total Material Weight (g) |
20 L Jerribox is 6% less than 20 L pail |
| Total Energy (MJ) |
20 L Jerribox is 63% less than 20 L pail |
| Process Greenhouse Gases (g) |
20 L Jerribox is 12% less than 20 L pail |
| Post-Consumer Solid Waste (g) |
20 L Jerribox is 6% less than 20 L pail |
|
2 Liter Bag-In-Box v. 64 Ounce PET Bottle
|
Estimated Impacts Basis: 1,000 L of Packaged Product
|
| Package |
Total Material Weight (g) |
Total Energy(MJ) |
Process Greenhouse Gases (g) |
Post-Consumer Solid Waste (g) |
| 2 L Bag-In-Box |
15,500 |
1137 |
31,752 |
15,500 |
| 64 oz Bottle |
44,021 |
3,042 |
111,726 |
44,021 |
| |
 |
Comparison of Impacts Per 1,000 L |
| Total Material Weight (g) |
2 L BIB is 65% less than 64 oz bottle |
| Total Energy (MJ) |
2 L BIB is 63% less than 64 oz bottle |
| Process Greenhouse Gases (g) |
2 L BIB is 72% less than 64 oz bottle |
| Post-Consumer Solid Waste (g) |
2 L BIB is 65% less than 64 oz bottle |
|
10 Liter Bag-In-Box v. 10 Liter HDPE F-Style Jug
|
Estimated Impacts Basis: 1,000 L of Packaged Product
|
| Package |
Total Material Weight (g) |
Total Energy(MJ) |
Process Greenhouse Gases (g) |
Post-Consumer Solid Waste (g) |
10 L
Bag-In-Box |
28,241 |
1,542 |
41,740 |
28,241 |
10 L
F-Style Jug |
46,093 |
1,415 |
41,630 |
46,093 |
| |
 |
Comparison of Impacts Per 1,000 L |
| Total Material Weight (g) |
10 L HDPE jug is 39% less than 10 L bag-in-box |
| Total Energy (MJ) |
10 L bag-in-box is 8% less than 10 L jug |
| Process Greenhouse Gases (g) |
10 L bag-in-box is 0% less than 10 L jug |
| Post-Consumer Solid Waste (g) |
10 L bag-in-box is 39% less than 10 L jug |
|
1000 Liter One-Way IBC v. 1000 Liter Bin
|
Estimated Impacts Basis: 1,000 L of Packaged Product
|
| Package |
Total Material Weight (g) |
Total Energy(MJ) |
Process Greenhouse Gases (g) |
Post-Consumer Solid Waste (g) |
| 1000 L IBC |
53,000 |
1,502 |
41,460 |
53,000 |
| 1000 L Bin |
62,000 |
3,254 |
86,076 |
62,000 |
| |
 |
Comparison of Impacts Per 1,000 L |
| Total Material Weight (g) |
1000 L IBC is 15% less than 1000 L bin |
| Total Energy (MJ) |
1000 L IBC is 54% less than 1000 L bin |
| Process Greenhouse Gases (g) |
1000 L IBC is 52% less than 1000 L bin |
| Post-Consumer Solid Waste (g) |
1000 L IBC is 15% less than 1000 L bin |
|
Calculator provided by: Dow Chemical and Allied Development
Dow internal calculations based on:
System boundary: Raw Material Cradle-to-Gate, plus recycle
*Discards = package mass – recycle stream
**Lifecycle inventory data sources:
— Paper: Environmental Defense – www.papercalculator.org
— EVA: Dow Chemical
— Other Plastics: Boustead Model V5
