This report analyzes disposable packaging and returnable packaging with the methods life cycle analysis and life cycle costs analysis. These two different packaging are analyzed through the company Clas Ohlson’s packaging-flow. To get a picture of how the flow works, a visit at the company and email contact have been done with Clas Ohlson to get relevant information Today Clas Ohlson has a big flow of articles to the stores without larger variations in the demand, with the exception of autumn, which is when customers start shopping for Christmas. Clas Ohlson’s articles are placed on a pallet and are wrapped into plastic-film for protection and to make sure that nothing will be stolen. In this report Plastic-film is compared to the company Nycopac AB’s product Nyco Sleeve. In Sweden Posten takes care of Clas Ohlson’s transports and is the company’s third party-logistics provider. Nyco Sleeve is a type of pallet box, which is placed on a pallet with the possibility to place three units upon each other. The pallet box is possible to fold, which makes it doable to place pallet boxes upon each other in reverse transportation. Our Life cycle costs analysis shows that Nyco Sleeve is profitable compared to continue using plastic-film as secondary packaging. Nyco Sleeve demands a larger investment, almost seven times larger than the price for plastic-film but the expenses will be recovered relatively fast because of decreasing transportation costs. Posten’s pricing depends on each pallet place that is used which means that Nyco Sleeve’s higher weight does not affect the price. The total costs decreases because Nyco Sleeve increases the fill ratio on each pallet place, which results that less pallet places need to be used in the transport. If Nyco Sleeve is used the total pallet places decrease from about 116 000 to about 93 000 pallets considering 2012s flow. Due to decreasing costs each year, the pay-off-method shows that the investment reaches break even in about 0.7 years The life cycle analysis that examines the environmental impact of the packaging shows the same trend as the life cycle cost analysis, it is the transport that has the decisive influence on the environment. Important to note is that the transportations from Clas Ohlson’s warehouse to stores and the reverse transports stand for the largest carbon dioxide emissions and not the transportations from production or to waste disposal. The production phase’s emission is also important especially for Nyco Sleeve, which causes large amounts of emission compared to the plastic film. Decreasing transportations and that it is possible to reuse Nyco Sleeve even out the differences between the two packaging types when it comes to emission in production. The life cycle analysis’ scenario analysis shows that Nyco Sleeve environmental impact reaches break even after about two years compared to break even for the economic costs in 0.7 years. If only one loop is investigated the calculations show that Nyco Sleeve has larger environmental impact then plastic film but over time and when several loops are considered Nyco Sleeves carbon dioxide emission is economized. / Rapporten analyserar engångs- och returemballage genom de två analysmetoderna, livscykelkostnads- och livscykelanalys. Emballagen analyseras utifrån företaget Clas Ohlsons emballageflöde där studiebesök gjorts för att se hur flödet fungerar. Mailkontakt har också förekommit för annan viktig information kring företagets flöde av artiklar och emballage. Clas Ohlson har idag ett stort och jämnt flöde av produkter till deras butiker med säsongstoppar på hösten inför julhandeln. Deras produkter paketeras idag på lastpallar som sedan sveps in i plastfilm för att skydda och säkerställa att ingen stöld har skett. Det är detta engångsemballage, plastfilm, som jämförs emot returemballaget, Nyco Sleeve. Clas Ohlsons transporter sker idag med en tredjepartslogistiker där Posten är deras distributör inom Sveriges gränser, som är det system som undersöks. Nyco Sleeve är en form av pallbox som ställs på en lastpall och det går lasta tre stycken i höjd, ovan på varandra. Pallboxen går att fälla ihop vid returer och lastas även då ovan på varandra. Livscykelkostnadsanalysen visar att Nyco Sleeve är en ekonomisk lönsam investering i relation till att behålla plastfilmen som sekundärförpackning. Kostnaden att investera i Nyco Sleeve är ca sju gånger högre i jämförelse med inköpskostnaden för plastfilmen, men investeringen blir lönsam relativt snabbt eftersom Nyco Sleeve sänker transportkostnaderna. Posten tar idag betalt per pallplats och därmed gör inte tyngden på en Nyco Sleeve någon påverkan på den ekonomiska kostnaden. Kostnaden minskar genom användning av Nyco Sleeve eftersom fyllnadsgraden ökar och därmed minskar antalet levererade pallplatser. Skulle Nyco Sleeve användas minskas antalet från 116 100 stycken till ca 93 000 pallplatser utifrån Clas Ohlsons flöde under 2012. Genom den stora transportbesparingen per år visar pay-off-metoden att investeringen når break-even efter omkring 0,7 år. Livscykelanalysen som undersöker emballagens koldioxidutsläpp visar på samma tendens som livscykelkostnadsanalysen, att det är transporten som är den stora miljöboven. Viktigt att poängtera är att det är transporterna från Clas Ohlsons centrallager ut till butikerna och returtransporterna för samma sträcka som ger störst miljöpåverkan och inte transporterna från emballagens produktionsanläggningar till centrallagret eller till avfallshanteringen. Produktionen är även den en stor aktivitet som ger stor miljöpåverkan där Nyco Sleeve bidrar till betydligt större utsläpp än plastfilmen. Den stora skillnaden i miljöpåverkan från produktionen kompenseras genom de minskade transporterna och att Nyco Sleeve återanvänds. Livscykelanalysens scenarioanalys visar att Nyco Sleeves miljöpåverkan når break even efter ca två år. Undersöks bara en loop visar beräkningarna att Nyco Sleeve har större miljöpåverkan än om plastfilm används men detta inbesparas genom de minskade transporterna.

This study has been conducted in cooperation with OBOS Kärnhem. The objective of the study is to assess environmental impacts from different structural and facade materials to find a configuration with the lowest impact, and to assess the economic implications of different structural and façade materials. The study is conducted on a case study building planned in Linköping, Sweden. The methods that were used are the life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) methods. Cross-laminated timber and concrete were chosen as the 2 structural materials to investigate, and sheet metal, cut slate, and wood paneling were chosen as the façade materials to investigate. The goal and scope were specified. The goal of the LCA was to analyze the climate implications of different structural and facade materials on a building’s environmental performance, while the scope was to compare the environmental impacts, specifically global warming potential, of six scenarios over a lifetime of 80 years. Later, a life cycle inventory of the materials was conducted, and the life cycle inventory was assessed. Finally, the life cycle interpretation was carried out to analyze and interpret the results. For the LCC, costs were calculated for materials and energy use and applied to the case study building. The analyses of results show that the wooden building scenarios have significantly low environmental impacts when compared with concrete buildings. The analyses of the results also show that the buildings constructed with cast-in-situ concrete have lower life cycle costs when compared with buildings constructed with cross-laminated timber. This study concludes that structural material choices affect the environmental performance of a building significantly. Facade material choices also affect the environmental performance, however much less significantly. This study also shows that, within these specific system boundaries, the most impactful life cycle stage for the wood structure building scenarios is the operational phase B6, while the most impactful life cycle stage for the concrete structure building scenarios is the material production stage A1-A3. This study further concludes that while cross-laminated timber buildings have a lower carbon footprint than concrete structure buildings, they currently cost significantly more to build. This highlights the discrepancies between the changes and choices that are required to reach the climate and sustainable development goals, and what is economically viable.