Standard Standard

Packaging choice and coordinated distribution logistics to reduce the environmental footprint of small-scale beer value chains. / Morgan, Dyfed; Styles, David; Lane, Eifiona.
In: Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 307, 114591, 01.04.2022.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

HarvardHarvard

APA

CBE

MLA

VancouverVancouver

Morgan D, Styles D, Lane E. Packaging choice and coordinated distribution logistics to reduce the environmental footprint of small-scale beer value chains. Journal of Environmental Management. 2022 Apr 1;307:114591. Epub 2022 Jan 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114591

Author

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Packaging choice and coordinated distribution logistics to reduce the environmental footprint of small-scale beer value chains

AU - Morgan, Dyfed

AU - Styles, David

AU - Lane, Eifiona

PY - 2022/4/1

Y1 - 2022/4/1

N2 - This study assesses the extent to which packaging and distribution impacts can be mitigated as environmental hotspots in the life cycle of micro-brewed beer. We conduct life cycle assessment (LCA) of seven breweries and compare their existing packaging and distribution practises with three mitigation options; use of aluminium cans or reusable glass bottles instead of single use glass bottles or use of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) kegs instead of steel kegs. Findings show that all participating breweries can achieve reductions across multiple impact categories if single use glass bottles are changed to aluminium cans or reusable glass, and further reductions are possible if mode of transport is changed from small delivery vans to lorries for distribution to retailers. The use of PET keg as an alternative to reusable steel keg is a less environmentally sustainable option when beer is delivered short distances, but some savings are possible in long distance scenarios using vans. Carbon footprints per litre beer range from 727 to 1336 g CO2 eq. across the case study breweries, with reductions of 6–27% or 3–27% by changing to aluminium can or reusable glass bottle, respectively, when beer is delivered by van. The optimal combination of reusable glass bottle delivered by lorry reduces carbon footprints by between 45 and 55% but will require significant investment and coordination across the wider food and drink sector to implement. Identifying the best packaging material requires a holistic approach that considers interactions and burdens across packaging manufacturing, distribution, use and end-of-life stages.

AB - This study assesses the extent to which packaging and distribution impacts can be mitigated as environmental hotspots in the life cycle of micro-brewed beer. We conduct life cycle assessment (LCA) of seven breweries and compare their existing packaging and distribution practises with three mitigation options; use of aluminium cans or reusable glass bottles instead of single use glass bottles or use of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) kegs instead of steel kegs. Findings show that all participating breweries can achieve reductions across multiple impact categories if single use glass bottles are changed to aluminium cans or reusable glass, and further reductions are possible if mode of transport is changed from small delivery vans to lorries for distribution to retailers. The use of PET keg as an alternative to reusable steel keg is a less environmentally sustainable option when beer is delivered short distances, but some savings are possible in long distance scenarios using vans. Carbon footprints per litre beer range from 727 to 1336 g CO2 eq. across the case study breweries, with reductions of 6–27% or 3–27% by changing to aluminium can or reusable glass bottle, respectively, when beer is delivered by van. The optimal combination of reusable glass bottle delivered by lorry reduces carbon footprints by between 45 and 55% but will require significant investment and coordination across the wider food and drink sector to implement. Identifying the best packaging material requires a holistic approach that considers interactions and burdens across packaging manufacturing, distribution, use and end-of-life stages.

KW - Life cycle analysis

KW - Recycling

KW - Local food

KW - Food miles

KW - Circular economy

KW - Climate change

U2 - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114591

DO - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114591

M3 - Article

VL - 307

JO - Journal of Environmental Management

JF - Journal of Environmental Management

SN - 0301-4797

M1 - 114591

ER -