Glass is one of our worst culprits in terms of emissions, so we were keen to investigate alternatives. 3Keel (a leading environment consultancy who we teamed up with last year to measure our 2021 carbon footprint), carried out additional research on several wine packaging formats to see which ones could help us achieve our sustainability goals.
The clear leader is Bag-in-Box (BiB). Compared with glass, BiB offers a big carbon reduction, uses recycled content in the card, and is also likely to be recycled again. Canned wines are another excellent choice. We already stock several, and members can expect to see even more over time.
Other packaging formats under review were recycled flat PET (plastic) bottles (‘rPET’), and ‘paper’ bottles (similar to BiB but the size/ shape of a wine bottle). rPET bottles are easily recyclable, but their shape makes them difficult to fill. This is an issue we are working with our suppliers to solve, and expect to see some of our own-label Society wines packaged in this way in future.
Keep an eye out as we’ll be introducing wine in different formats very soon. Watch this space!
At a glance
Lightweight 420g glass bottle (525G*)
PROS: Ideal for long-term ageing; likely to be recycled; lower carbon footprint than standard glass bottle
CONS: Higher breakage rate; hard to source; carbon footprint still relatively high
Standard 560g glass bottle (675G)
PROS: Ideal for long-term ageing; likely to be recycled
CONS: Heavy to transport; high carbon footprint
Can (141G)
PROS: Convenient; infinitely recyclable; good protection against oxygen
CONS: Not available in larger sizes; limited shelf life
Bag in box (69G)
PROS: Wine stays fresh for up to six weeks; lowest carbon footprint of all formats
CONS: Unsuitable for long-term ageing; packaging elements must be recycled separately
rPET
PROS: Low carbon footprint; reduced shipping space; made of 100% recycled material
CONS: Flat shape is an issue for bottlers
'Paper' bottle (122G)
PROS: Low carbon footprint; compatible with most bottling lines
CONS: Unsuitable for long-term ageing; packaging elements must be recycled separately
*carbon equivalent in brackets, in grammes per litre of wine
Unfortunately precise figures on the carbon footprint of these formats, such as from peer-reviewed Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), are not yet available. So whilst we have shared approximate carbon footprints from publicly available studies, these are only as an indication and are not accurate comparisons. Figures are not yet available for the rPET bottle.
Read our report into wine packaging
Our review of a range of wine-packaging formats
