lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 72 (2014) 110e119

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Environmental impacts of consumption of Australian red winein the UK

David Amienyo a, Cecil Camilleri b, Adisa Azapagic a,*

a Sustainable Industrial Systems Group, School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, The University of Manchester, Room C16,The Mill, Sackville Street, M13 9PL, UKb The Yalumba Wine Company, Angaston, SA 5353, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 6 September 2013Received in revised form21 February 2014Accepted 22 February 2014Available online 5 March 2014

Keywords:Environmental impactsLife cycle assessmentPackagingWine

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: adisa.azapagic@manchester.ac.uk

1 This includes still wine below 15% of alcohol by vand wine over 15% ABV but excludes wine made by asubstance or the mixing of wine with any substance.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.0440959-6526 � 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier

a b s t r a c t

The UK consumes almost 5% of world’s wine production, drinking 12.9 million hectolitres annually or 21 lper capita per year. Australian wines are most popular with the UK consumer, accounting for around 17%of total take-home purchases. This paper focuses on Australian red wine and presents the life cycleenvironmental impacts of its consumption in the UK. The results indicate that a 0.75 l bottle of winerequires, for example, 21 MJ of primary energy, 363 l of water and generates 1.25 kg of CO2 eq. For theannual consumption of Australian red wine, this translates to around 3.5 PJ of energy, 600 millionhectolitres of water and 210,000 t CO2 eq. Viticulture and wine distribution are the main hot spotscontributing over 70% to the environmental impacts considered. Shipping in bulk rather than bottledwine would reduce the global warming potential (GWP) by 13%, equivalent to 27,000 t CO2 eq. annually.For every 10% increase in recycled glass content in bottles, the GWP would be reduced by 2% or 3600 tCO2 eq./yr; the savings in other environmental impacts are smaller (0.7e1.5%). A 10% decrease in bottleweight would reduce the impacts by 3e7%; for the GWP, the saving would be 4% or 7000 t CO2 eq./yr. Ifonly 10% of the wine was packaged in cartons instead of glass bottles, the GWP savings would be 5% or10,600 t CO2 eq./yr; the other impacts would also be reduced by 2e7%. These measures could togethersave at least 48,000 t CO2 eq./yr, almost a quarter of the current emissions from the UK consumption ofAustralian red wine.

� 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

1. Introduction

The global production level of wine stands at around 27 billionlitres a year (Key Note, 2011). The UK consumes 12.9 million hec-tolitres1 or 4.8% of theworld’s wine production; this is equivalent to21 l per capita per year (HMRC, 2012). However, only 3% of this isproduced in the UK, so that the UKwine sector is heavily dependenton imports. It is thus not surprising that, with an estimated value of£11.8 billion (retail selling price), the UK was the world’s largestmarket in 2010 for imported wines (Key Note, 2011). Prior to that,the UK was ranked 3rd behind the USA and France in terms ofnational shares of world wine consumption value (Anderson andNelgen, 2011), while for total consumption volumes for 2011 theUK was ranked 6th behind France, USA, Italy, Germany and China

(A. Azapagic).olume (ABV), sparkling winelcoholic fermentation of anyFigures are for the year 2011.

Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND

(OIV, 2012). As shown in Fig. 1, Australian wines are most popularwith the UK consumer, with around 17% adults buying these wines(Key Note, 2011). The next most popular are French wines (13%).

The environmental impacts from wine consumption in the UKare unknown apart from few estimates. For example, it has beensuggested that wine consumption contributes around 0.4% of thetotal UK greenhouse (GHG) emissions (Garnett, 2007) and 559,000tonnes of packaging waste per year (Jenkin, 2010). On a global scale,the study by Rugani et al. (2013) estimates that the wine sector isresponsible for around 0.3% of annual global GHG emissions fromanthropogenic activities.

An extensive body of literature exists on the environmentalimpacts of wines produced in various regions, including Canada(Point et al., 2012), Italy (Notarnicola et al., 2003; Ardente et al.,2006; Petti et al., 2006; CIV, 2008a, b; Pizzigallo et al., 2008;Benedetto, 2010, 2013; Cichelli et al., 2010); New Zealand (Herathet al., 2013), Portugal (Neto et al., 2013), Spain (Aranda et al.,2005; Panela et al., 2009; Gazulla et al., 2010; Vázquez-Roweet al., 2012a, 2012b; Villanueva-Rey et al., 2014) and the USA(Colman and Päster, 2007). Most studies have focused on GHG

license.

Australia17.4%

France13.1%

USA9.1%

South Africa8.6%

Chile7.4%

Spain6.0%

New Zealand4.5%

UK2.6%

Others22.9%

Italy8.4%

Fig. 1. Wine purchased in the UK by country of origin (Data from Key Note, 2011).[Data represent percentage of adults buying wine. Others: Germany 3.8%; Argentina1.7%; Portugal 1.3%; Bulgaria 0.5%; Other 3.8%].

D. Amienyo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 72 (2014) 110e119 111

emissions and their review can be found in Rugani et al. (2013).Studies that have considered other environmental impacts inaddition to the GHG emissions include Notarnicola et al. (2003),Aranda et al. (2005), CIV (2008a, b), Gazulla et al. (2010) andPoint et al. (2012).

This paper sets out to estimate the life cycle environmentalimpacts of red wine produced in Australia and consumed in the UK.In the first part of the paper, the focus is on the wine produced byone of largest producers in South Australia, which itself is thelargest wine-producing state in the country (Fearne et al., 2009).These results are then used to estimate the environmental impactsat the sectoral level related to the consumption of Australian redwine in the UK. Several options for reducing the impacts are alsoconsidered, including transport of bulk rather than bottled wine,increased recycling and light-weighting of glass bottles, as well asuse of carton packaging.

2. Methods

2.1. Goal and scope of the study

The main goal of this study is to estimate the environmentalimpacts and identify improvement opportunities in the life cycle ofred wine produced in Australia and consumed in the UK. Theanalysis is carried out in two stages. First, the environmental im-pacts are calculated based on the functional unit defined as ‘pro-duction and consumption of a 0.75 l bottle of wine’. In the secondstage, the functional unit is the ‘annual consumption of Australianred wine in the UK’ to determine the total impacts from itsconsumption.

As shown in Fig. 2, the system boundary of the study is from‘cradle to grave’, comprising the following stages, described inmoredetail in subsequent sections:

� Viticulture: water supply, production of fertilisers and pesti-cides and fuels for cultivation and harvest of wine grapes;

� Packaging: production of primary packaging comprising glassbottles, cork stoppers and paper labels;

� Vinification and bottling: production and bottling of wine,generation and consumption of electricity; production and

consumption of auxiliary materials including water, sulphurdioxide and sodium hydroxide used in the production of wine;

� Transport: transport of packaging materials to the winery,bottled wine to UK retailers and post-consumer waste pack-aging to waste management; and

� Waste management: wastewater treatment of effluents fromthe winery and disposal of in-process and post-consumerwastes.

The following activities are outside the system boundary of thestudy for the following reasons:

� Secondary and tertiary packaging for the wine: their contribu-tion to the impacts is assumed to be small based on the findingthat it accounts for less than 1% of the total carbon footprint ofwine (BIER, 2012); this exclusion is also common in otherstudies (e.g. Gazulla et al., 2010; Point et al., 2012).

� Yeasts, filtering and clarifying agents, bacteria, enzymes andantioxidants used in the manufacturing process: the study byNotarnicola et al. (2003) estimates that the contribution of theseauxiliary materials to the overall impacts is negligible.

� Transport of consumers to purchase the wine: transport ofconsumers to and from the point of retail purchase is notconsidered owing to a large uncertainty related to consumerbehaviour and related allocation of impacts to a bottle of winerelative to other items purchased at the same time; this also iscongruent with the PAS 2050 standard (BSI, 2011).

2.2. Inventory data and assumptions

Primary production data have been obtained from a wine pro-ducer, including the amount of fuels, fertilisers and pesticides forviticulture as well as electricity and auxiliary materials used forvinification. All other data have been sourced from Ecoinvent(2010), Gabi (PE, 2011) and CCaLC (2013). Data from open litera-ture have also been used to estimate inventory data where specificdatawere not available. More detail on the inventory data and theirsources as well as on the life cycle stages is provided below.

2.2.1. ViticultureConventional cultivation of the Shiraz grape, the predominant

viticulture practice and grape varietal in South Australia (WineAustralia, 2013), has been assumed in this study. The averagegrape yield has been estimated at just over 10 t/ha (Anderson andNelgen, 2011). This falls within the range of 6e12 t/ha.year esti-mated by Notarnicola et al. (2003) for other regions.

As shown in Table 1, the main input materials for cultivation ofthe grapes are irrigation water, fertilisers and pesticides. Addi-tionally, diesel and petrol are used for the agricultural machinery.Note that site-specific dispersion of nutrients and pesticides has notbeen considered owing to a lack of site-specific dispersion modelsto estimate the fate of these emissions to the air, water and soil(Milà i Canals and Polo, 2003). This is consistent with some otherstudies (e.g. Point et al., 2012) but it may have an effect on eutro-phication and the toxicity-related impacts from the viticulturestage and should be borne in mind when interpreting the results.

2.2.2. Vinification and bottlingTo produce 0.75 l of red wine, 1.05 kg of grapes are required

(Table 1). This is also within the range estimated by some otherauthors (e.g. Notarnicola et al., 2003; Benedetto, 2013; Villanueva-Rey et al., 2014). The wine production process begins with de-stemming and crushing of the grapes to obtain a liquid must(juice). Prior to fermentation, the temperature of the must can be

PACKAGINGVITICULTURE

RETAIL

Glass botlles

Pesticides

Fuels

Water

Fertilisers Kraft paper labels

Wood corks

Fuel

WASTEMANAGEM

ENT

Wastewatertreatment

Landfill

Grapes

VINIFICATION AND BOTTLINGDe-stemming and crushing

Fermentation

Lighting and HVAC

Bottling

Filtering and ageing

TRANSPORT

Wastewater

Waste(packaging)

USE(consumption)

Waste(packaging)

Fuel

TRANSPORT

Fuel

TRANSPORT

Fuel

TRANSPORT

Fuel

TRANSPORT

Fuel

TRANSPORT

Energy(electricity, heat,

steam)

Fig. 2. The life cycle of wine [dStages excluded from the system boundary. HVAC: heating, ventilation and air conditioning].

D. Amienyo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 72 (2014) 110e119112

adjusted to allow a period of cold maceration during which thegrape skins are softened by soaking. This allows the extraction oftannins and flavour compounds into the must from the grape skinswhich is crucial to red-wine making. This is also the process duringwhich red wine gets its colour as most musts are clear or greyish incolour. The must is then fermented at a temperature between 28and 30 �C, during which yeast is fed into the fermentation vessel toconvert the sugars into alcohol. After fermentation, which usuallylasts between one and two weeks, the wine is pumped off intotanks and the skins are pressed to extract the remaining juice andwine. Secondary fermentation is then carried out using bacteria todecrease the acidity and soften the taste of wine by convertingmalic to lactic acid. Prior to bottling, the wine must be settled,clarified and finally filtered. Most red wine is then matured in oakbarrels for a few weeks to several years depending on the variety ofgrapes and desired wine style (Wine Australia, 2012).

The inventory for vinification and bottling is based on primaryproduction data provided by the wine producer. Life cycle impactsof electricity generation have been modelled based on the relativeshares of primary energy resources in the Australian grid. Fugitiveemissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from fermentationhave also been considered (see Table 1). The co-products fromwine-making (pomace, lees and press syrup) have been assumed tobe disposed of as waste owing to a negligible economic value. A

similar approach has also been taken by some other authors (seeRugani et al., 2013).

2.2.3. PackagingThe wine is packaged in 0.75 l bottles using cork stoppers and

paper labels (Table 1). Data on the components and weights of thebottles have been obtained from Gujba and Azapagic (2011) andCCaLC (2013). The life cycle impacts for manufacturing and recy-cling of glass bottles have beenmodelled based on industry-specificdata available in CCaLC (2013). The bottles are assumed to contain85% recycled content and the emissions associated with the recy-cling process have been allocated to the life cycle stage that utilisesthe recycled material, thereby displacing a portion of virgin mate-rial. This approach has also been adopted by the beverage industryin studies of the carbon footprint of various beverages, includingwine (BIER, 2012). Different percentages of recycled glass contentare also considered in the sensitivity analysis to examine the effectof this parameter on the environmental impacts.

2.2.4. TransportAfter bottling, the wine is shipped to the UK (Table 2). Shipping

bottled rather than the wine in bulk is the usual practice for winesimported to the UK from Australia (Garnett, 2007). Transport dis-tances have been estimated based on the data obtained from the

Table 1Inventory data for grape viticulture, vinification and wine bottlinga.

Inputs Amount per 0.75 l of wine

ViticultureWater 362 lNitrogen fertiliser 9.6 gPhosphorus fertiliser 27.8 gPesticides 9.8 gElectricity 37 WhDiesel 0.074 lPetrol 0.032 l

Vinification and bottlingWine grapes 1.05 kgWater 1.31 lElectricity 115 WhGlass bottles (0.75 l; 85% recycledglass content)

465 g

Cork stoppers 5.25 gKraft paper labels 1.05 gVOC emissions from fermentationb 0.4 g

a All life cycle inventory data are from the Ecoinvent database (2010) except forthe data for glass bottles which are from CCaLC (2013).

b Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) as ethanol. Source: US EPA (1995).

Table 3Waste managementa.

Waste Amount (g/0.75 l of wine) Waste management option

Effluents fromthe winery

615 Wastewater treatment

Glass 465 85% recycled, 15% landfilledPaper label 1.05 LandfilledWood cork 5.25 Landfilled

a All life cycle inventory data are from the Gabi database (PE, 2010).

D. Amienyo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 72 (2014) 110e119 113

wine manufacturer. Owing to a lack of specific data, the trucks areassumed to have a total capacity of 40 tonnes. Generic distances of50 km have been used for transport of wine grapes, cork stoppersand paper labels as well as post-consumer waste, for which specificdata have not been available.

2.2.5. Waste managementAs indicated in Table 3, the waste streams considered are ef-

fluents from thewinery and post-consumerwaste packaging; thesedata have been obtained from the wine manufacturer. Given thatthewine is consumed and bottles discarded in the UK, the UKwastemanagement practice is assumed for waste bottles, with 85% ofglass recycled and the rest landfilled together with the labels; allpost-consumer cork is also landfilled (WRAP, 2007; British Glass,2007). As mentioned earlier, the effect on the results of differentglass recycling rates is considered as part of the sensitivity analysislater in the paper.

3. Results and discussion

The Gabi 4.3 LCA software has been used to model the systemand the CML 2001 impact assessment method (Guinee et al., 2001)has been used to calculate the environmental impacts. The CMLmethod has been selected because of its coverage of awide range ofenvironmental impacts relevant towine and the regions covered bythe study. As a mid-point method, it also helps to preserve trans-parency by allowing an analysis of individual impacts rather thanaggregating them in to a single measure of environmental ‘damage’

Table 2Transport modes and distances in the wine supply chaina.

Material Transport mode Distance (km)

Wine grapes Truck (40 t) 50Glass bottles Truck (40 t) 39Cork stoppers Truck (40 t) 50Kraft paper labels Truck (40 t) 50Bottled wine Truck (40 t)

Container ship12820,030

Post-consumer packaging waste Truck (40 t) 50

a All life cycle inventory data are from the Gabi database (PE, 2010), except for thedata for the container ship which are from ILCD (2010).

as is the case in end-point approaches such as Ecoindicator 99(Goedkoop and Spriensma, 2001). In addition to the CML impactcategories, the primary energy consumption and water demandhave also been estimated. The results are first presented for a bottleof wine, followed by the discussion of the environmental implica-tions associated with the annual consumption of Australian redwine in the UK.

3.1. Environmental impacts of a bottle of wine

The life cycle environmental impacts of wine are shown in Fig. 3.For example, a bottle of wine requires around 21 MJ of primaryenergy, 363 l of water and contributes 1.25 kg CO2 eq. to the globalwarming potential (GWP).2 As indicated in Fig. 3, viticulture,transport and packaging are the major contributors to most of theimpacts. The former is the hot spot for eight out of 12 categoriesconsidered: primary energy demand (PED), water demand (WD),abiotic depletion (ADP), GWP, human toxicity (HTP), and marine,freshwater and terrestrial ecotoxicity (MAETP, FAETP and TETP,respectively). The results suggest that emissions arising from theproduction and use of pesticides, fertilisers and fuels are the maincontributors to the impacts from viticulture. For the example ofGWP, pesticides and fertilisers collectively contribute 82% and fuelsthe remaining 18%.

Transport is the key contributor to the acidification (AP),eutrophication (EP), GWP, ozone depletion (ODP) and photo-chemical oxidant creation (POCP) potentials. The majority of theseimpacts are due to wine shipping. For instance, shipping isresponsible for 84% of GWP from transport, with the remaining 16%being from road transport, in both cases owing to the emissions ofCO2. The other impacts from shipping are mainly due to theemissions of SO2 and NOx.

Packaging is an important contributor to PED, AD, GWP, HTP,MAETP, FAETP and ODP, accounting for over 20% to each impactand, in the case of HTP andMAETP, over 40%. Emissions of seleniumin the production of glass bottles are largely responsible for HTPand hydrogen fluoride for MAETP.

The vinification stage is a hot spot for EP, accounting for 30% ofthe total, largely because of the emissions of organic compounds tofreshwater arising from the winery effluents. For all other impacts,its contribution is on average 10% or less. The contribution offugitive VOC emissions from grape fermentation to GWP and POCPis negligible (0.03% and 0.004%, respectively) as is that of wastemanagement (�1%).

3.1.1. Comparison of results with other studiesAs mentioned in the introduction, a number of studies of the

environmental impacts of wine have been carried out, but com-parison of the results is difficult because of different geographical

2 Note that the water demand refers to viticulture and vinification owing to a lackof water usage data in LCA databases for the other life cycle stages. Biogenic carbonis not included in the estimates of GWP.

Fig. 3. Life cycle environmental impacts of wine (functional unit: 0.75 l of wine) [The scaled values should be multiplied with the factor shown in brackets against the relevantimpact to obtain the original values. PED primary energy demand, WD water demand, ADP abiotic depletion potential, AP acidification potential, EP eutrophication potential, GWPglobal warming potential, HTP human toxicity potential, MAETP marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential, FAETP freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity potential, TETP terrestrial ecotoxicitypotential, ODP ozone depletion potential, POCP photochemical ozone creation potential].

D. Amienyo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 72 (2014) 110e119114

regions, varying agricultural practices as well as study assumptionsand data sources. Nevertheless, an attempt is made here tocompare the results of this with some other studies. As the GWPhas been studied most extensively, these results are discussed first,followed by a comparison of other impacts (for studies where theyhave been estimated and comparison has been possible).

The review study by Rugani et al. (2013) provides estimates ofthe GWP of red wine obtained in around 30 LCA studies worldwide.The authors observe a large variation in the results, ranging from0.83 to 3.51 kg CO2 eq. per bottle, with an average estimated at2.17 kg CO2 eq. Therefore, the total GWP obtained in the currentstudy falls well within the reported range. The results are alsowithin the range for the cradle-to-gate GWP, here estimated at

Fig. 4. Comparison of environmental impacts of wine obtained in this and other studies (funand styles) produced and consumed in Canada, minus consumer shopping and storage. bLifeminus impacts from secondary packaging (barrel production). For full names of the impact cshown in brackets against the relevant impact to obtain the original values. Note the comparithem.].

0.86 kg CO2 eq. per bottle; this compares to 0.26e1.92 kg CO2 eq.reported in literature (see Rugani et al., 2013).

The results for the other environmental impacts are comparedto those reported by Gazulla et al. (2010) and Point et al. (2012) inFig. 4. Comparison with the other studies is not possible eitherbecause they do not include impacts other than GWP or because ofdifferent assumptions. As can be seen from the figure, there aresignificant differences between the results in the three studiesowing to different geographical regions, waste management op-tions, bottle weights and recycled content as well as wine distri-bution scenarios. The closest agreement is found between thecurrent and Point et al. study for the ODP while the largest differ-ence is for the POCP which is around 70% higher in this research

ctional unit: 0.75 l of wine) [aLife cycle impacts of conventional wine (different varietiescycle impacts of conventional red wine produced in Spain and transported to the UK,ategories, see caption for Fig. 3. The scaled values should be multiplied with the factorson of other environmental impacts is not possible as the other studies did not consider

Fig. 5. Life cycle environmental impacts of UK consumption of Australian red wine (basis: annual consumption of 1.25 million hl of red wine) [For full names of the impactcategories, see caption for Fig. 3. The scaled values should be multiplied with the factor shown in brackets against the relevant impact to obtain the original values.].

D. Amienyo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 72 (2014) 110e119 115

than in either of the two studies, largely because of the long-distance transport from Australia to the UK.

3.2. Environmental impacts of consumption of Australian red winein the UK

The environmental impacts from the consumption of Australianred wine in the UK have been estimated by scaling up the LCA re-sults for a bottle of wine to the annual consumption of the wineobtained through market analysis. As mentioned before, theAustralian wine considered in this study can be assumed to berepresentative of Australian red wines in general for several rea-sons. First, South Australia represents the largest wine making re-gion in Australia (WRAP, 2007; Fearne et al., 2009) and this studyconsiders a producer in this region. Secondly, the data are sourcedfrom one of the ten largest producers by sales of branded wine inAustralia (Winebiz, 2013). However, it should be noted that allsectoral assessments carry some uncertainty owing to limited dataavailability and the need to extrapolate the results. Nevertheless,this kind of analysis helps to put environmental impacts intobroader, national context and identify opportunities for improve-ments at the sectoral level.

In 2009, a total of 2.2 million hectolitres of Australianwine wereimported into the UK (New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, 2011) ofwhich 57% was red and 40% white wine with the rest being spar-kling wine (PIRSA, 2010). Extrapolating the above LCA results forthe amount of red wine, gives the total environmental impacts for1.25 million hl of red wine as shown in Fig. 5. For example, the totalannual PED is estimated at around 3.5 PJ, water consumption is600 million hl and the GWP is around 210,000 tonnes CO2 eq. Thelatter represents about 0.08% of the consumption-based GHGemissions from total annual UK imports in 2011 (Defra, 2013)3. Toput these results further into context, assuming that the averageGWP of all wine is 2.2 kg/bottle (Rugani et al., 2013), then12.9 million hectolitres of wine consumed in the UK annually(HMRC, 2012) emit 3.78million tonnes of CO2 eq. per year or 0.6% ofthe UK emissions.3 This is slightly higher than the previously

3 Total UK consumption-based GHG emissions are estimated at650 million tonnes CO2 eq. in 2011 (Defra, 2013). The consumption-based emissionsfrom imports are 252 Mt CO2 eq.

mentioned estimate of 0.4% (Garnett, 2007). While this percentageappears to be small, it is equivalent to the annual GHG emissionsfrom 1 million cars.4 By comparison, the estimated annual contri-bution of wine to the global GHG emissions is 0.3% (Rugani et al.,2013). Putting the other environmental impacts in context ismore difficult owing to a lack of data at the national level.

The following sections explore how the impacts from the con-sumption of Australian wine in the UK could be reduced. Given thehigh contribution of transport and packaging, opportunities forimprovements in these two life cycle stages are examined.Although the considerations here refer to Australian wine, thereduction strategies considered also apply to wines from otherregions.

Note that, although viticulture is also an environmental hot spotowing to the use of fertilisers and pesticides, improvements instage are not considered. The reason for this is that fertiliser andpesticide inputs are based on the actual data obtained from thewine producer, representing a viticulture practice optimised overthe years. Therefore, there is little scope for improvement in thisstage.

3.2.1. Improvement opportunities for shippingThis analysis focuses on GWP owing to a lack of data on the

effect of shipping on other environmental impacts. This study in-dicates that shipping bottled wine from Australia to the UK ac-counts for 84% of the GWP from transport and 26% of the total GWP(see Section 3.1). This means that shipping adds around 0.33 kg CO2eq./bottle to the total GWP from wine. As this is a significantcontribution, found not only in this but other studies related towine shipping (e.g. WRAP, 2007), it is important to look at alter-native options. For example, bulk shipping of wine and bottlingcloser to the consumer has been suggested as an option forreducing the GHG emissions fromwine. The study byWRAP (2007)estimates that a GWP saving of 0.16 kg CO2 eq. per bottle of winecan be achieved by shipping it in bulk from Australia to the UK.Applying this estimate to the results from the current study in-dicates that the total GWP would be reduced by 13% to 1.09 kg CO2eq./bottle. For context, the GWP without the shipping from

4 Assuming average car with 242.34 g CO2 eq. per km (Defra, 2012) and annualdistance of 15,000 km per car.

Fig. 6. Effect of recycled glass content on the environmental impacts of wine (basis: annual consumption of 1.25 million hl of red wine) [Water demand not shown as it is notaffected by recycled glass content. For full names of the impact categories, see caption for Fig. 3. The scaled values should be multiplied with the factor shown in brackets against therelevant impact to obtain the original values.].

D. Amienyo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 72 (2014) 110e119116

Australia (i.e. if thewinewas produced in the UK) would be reducedby 26% to 0.93 kg CO2 eq./bottle. Annually, bulk shipping could savearound 27,000 t CO2 eq. This would contribute 0.4% towards thefood and drinks industry’s aim to reduce its CO2 emissions by 35%by 2020 on the 1990 levels (FDF, 2012).

Therefore, bulk shipping of wine and bottling closer to the finalmarket should be encouraged to reduce the GHG and other emis-sions, particularly SOx (because of high-sulphur fuel used in ship-ping). In addition to the environmental benefits, bulk shippingwould also result in cost savings through more efficient utilisationof container space (WRAP, 2008). On average, 67% more wine canbe transported by shipping wine in flexi-tanks or ISO tanks,compared to standard container shipping.5 However, issues such ascontamination (from residues of previous cargoes) and negativeconsumer perceptions may hinder the widespread adoption of bulkshipping of wine (WRAP, 2008).

3.2.2. Improvement opportunities for packagingGlass bottles contribute over 40% to the HTP andMAETP and 20%

to the other environmental impacts (see Fig. 3). Thus, the sectionsbelow explore the effect of two parameters on the environmentalimpacts from wine: recycled glass content and bottle light-weighting. A further packaging option is also considered: usingcarton containers instead of glass bottles, as practiced by somewine producers (FDIN, 2012).

3.2.2.1. Recycled glass content. To examine the effect of glass recy-cling on the environmental impacts, a range from 0% to 100%recycled glass content has been considered. The results are shownin Fig. 6 for the annual wine consumption (the trend is the same perbottle of wine and hence not shown). For example, for each 10%increase in the amount of recycled glass, GWP is reduced by 2%. Thisamounts to a saving of 22 g CO2 eq. per bottle of wine or around3600 tonnes annually. The savings are due to lower energy con-sumption for bottle manufacturing and reduced amount of post-consumer waste being landfilled. The savings for the other

5 A standard container holds 12,000e13,000 bottles, whilst standard flexi-tanksand ISO containers hold the equivalent of approximately 32,000 and 35,000 bottles,respectively (WRAP, 2008).

environmental impacts are smaller and range from 0.7% (POCP) to1.2% (HTP). Vázquez-Rowe et al. (2012a) also observed similarenvironmental savings from recycling of glass bottles. Although thesavings appear relatively small per bottle of wine, they are never-theless significant at the sectoral level. Thus, there is a clear case forincreasing the recycled content of glass packaging to reduce theenvironmental impacts from wine.

3.2.2.2. Bottle light-weighting. The results in Fig. 7 show thatreducing the weight of glass bottles by 10% results in GWP savingsof about 4% or 43 g CO2 eq. per bottle; this is equivalent to around7000 tonnes of CO2 eq. based on the amount of Australian red wineconsumed per year. Savings in other impacts range from 3% (TETP)to 7% (ODP). For 30% lighter bottles, the GWP would be reduced by11% with the other impacts decreasing by 7e15%. These reductionsare due to lower energy and material consumption formanufacturing of glass bottles and reduced impacts from trans-porting less glass. Similar savings were estimated in the study byPoint et al. (2012) for wine in Canada who found that 30% lighterbottles saved from 2% to 10% of the impacts. Thus, these resultsindicate that light-weighting is an important option for reducingthe environmental impacts in the wine sector.

3.2.2.3. Cartons vs. glass bottles. In addition to increasing therecycled content and light-weighting of glass bottles, the effect ofusing carton packaging instead of glass bottles has also beenassessed. It has not been possible to ascertain the volume of winepackaged in cartons in the UK market owing to a lack of data.However, recent reports show that a number of wine producers andimporters were starting to introduce wines packaged in cartonsinto the UK market (FDIN, 2012). Currently, around 10% of stillwines in the global market are packaged in cartons (FDIN, 2012).

As can be seen in Fig. 8, packaging wine in cartons instead ofbottles results in savings in all the environmental categoriesconsidered, except for water demand which is close to the glassbottle system (however the latter should be interpreted with careowing to a general lack of data on water consumption in LCA da-tabases). For example, compared to the current operations, pack-aging wine in cartons reduces the GWP by 51%, from 1.25 to 0.62 kgCO2 eq. per bottle of wine compared to the glass bottles. For theother environmental impacts, the savings range from 25% (EP) to

Fig. 7. Effect of light-weighting on the environmental impacts of wine (basis: annual consumption of 1.25 million hl of red wine) [For full names of the impact categories, seecaption for Fig. 3. The scaled values should be multiplied with the factor shown in brackets against the relevant impact to obtain the original values.].

D. Amienyo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 72 (2014) 110e119 117

70% (MAETP). The savings arise mainly from reduction in the en-ergy required for manufacturing of the packaging and reducedemissions from transporting the significantly lighter cargo.

Scaling the results up for the annual consumption of Australianred wine and assuming (hypothetically) that 10% of the Australianred wine consumed in the UK is packaged in cartons, the annualsavings of GHG emissionswould be around 5% or 10,600 tonnes CO2eq. (Fig. 9). Savings for the other environmental impact categoriesrange from 2.5% (EP) to 7% (MAETP).

These results show that, on the environmental basis, there is acompelling case for a widespread adoption of cartons in the wineindustry. However, other factors such as economic aspects,

Fig. 8. Effect of using carton packaging on the environmental impacts of wine (functionalagement as in Table 3. Carton: 100% virgin component materials (cardboard, plastic filmpackaging from CCaLC (2013). For full names of the impact categories, see caption for Fig. 3relevant impact to obtain the original values.].

consumer perception, ease of transportation, shelf life and poten-tial impacts on the glass-bottle industry need to be investigated tounderstand the full sustainability impacts of thewider use of cartonpackaging for wine.

4. Conclusions

This paper has presented and discussed the life cycle environ-mental impacts of consumption of Australian red wine in the UK.The results have been estimated first for one bottle and then for thetotal annual consumption of Australian red wine in the UK. Forexample, it has been found that a bottle of wine requires 21 MJ of

unit: 0.75 l of wine) [Glass bottle: 85% recycled glass content, end-of-life waste man-and aluminium foil), end-of-life waste management: 100% landfill. Data for carton

. The scaled values should be multiplied with the factor shown in brackets against the

Fig. 9. Effect of using carton packaging on the environmental impacts of wine (basis: 1.25 million hl of red wine) [For assumptions see the caption for Fig. 8. For full names of theimpact categories, see caption for Fig. 3. The scaled values should be multiplied with the factor shown in brackets against the relevant impact to obtain the original values.].

6 Assuming shipping only from outside Europe, based on the import data pro-vided by Key Note (2011).

D. Amienyo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 72 (2014) 110e119118

primary energy, 363 l of water and generates 1.25 kg of CO2 eq.Extrapolating these results to the annual UK consumption ofAustralian red wine gives the total primary energy demand ofaround 3.5 PJ, water consumption of around 600 million hl andGWP of 210,000 tonnes CO2 eq. The latter represents about 0.08% ofthe consumption-based GHG emissions from total annual UK im-ports in 2011. A total of 12.9million hectolitres of wine consumed inthe UK annually emits 2.8 million tonnes of CO2 eq. per year or 0.6%of total the UK emissions.

The results show that viticulture is the main hot spot in the lifecycle of wine, contributing on average 41% to the impacts; this ismainly due to the life cycles of pesticides, fertilisers and fuels.Transport is the next largest contributor adding on average 32% tothe impacts, largely from the shipping of wine to the UK fromAustralia. For instance, shipping generates around 0.33 kg CO2 eq.per bottle of wine. The impacts of packaging are also significant,contributing on average 24%, mainly owing to the production ofglass bottles. Finally, vinification contributes around 8% while theimpacts from the end-of-life management are small (1%).

Several options for reducing the impacts from wine have beenconsidered based on the identified hot spots: shipping of bulkrather than bottled wine, increased recycling and light-weightingof glass bottles as well as using carton packaging instead ofbottles. The results suggest that bulk shipping would reduce theGWP by 13% to 1.09 kg CO2 eq./bottle, saving 27,000 t CO2 eq.annually. This would contribute 0.4% towards the food and drinksindustry’s aim to reduce its CO2 emissions by 35% by 2020 on the1990 levels.

It has also been found that for every 10% increase in the amountof recycled glass, the GWP is reduced by about 2%. This amounts to asaving of 22 g CO2 eq./bottle or around 3600 tonnes per year. Thesavings are due to lower energy consumption for bottlemanufacturing and reduced amount of post-consumer waste beinglandfilled. The savings for the other environmental impacts rangefrom 0.7% (POCP) to 1.2% (HTP). Light-weighting could also lead tosavings in environmental impacts from wine. For example,reducing the weight of glass bottles by 10% results in a GWPreduction of about 4% or 43 g CO2 eq. per bottle; this is equivalent toaround 7000 tonnes of CO2 eq. per year. The savings are due tolower energy and material consumption for manufacturing of glassbottles and reduced impacts from transporting lighter cargo. Sav-ings in other impacts range from 3% (TETP) to 7% (ODP).

The environmental benefits of using cartons instead of glassbottles would also be significant. For example, if only 10% of theAustralian red wine consumed in the UK were packaged in cartons,the annual savings of GHG emissions would amount to 5% or 10,600tonnes CO2 eq. Savings for the other environmental impact cate-gories range from 2% (EP) to 7% (MAETP).

Thus, the results of this work indicate that a small (10%) increasein recycled content and reduction in weight of glass bottles,together with 10% of wine packaged in carton and bulk-shippingcould save at least 48,000 t CO2 eq. annually, almost a quarter ofthe current emissions from the UK consumption of Australian redwine. If these measures were adopted across the wine sector in theUK, beyond Australian wine only, this could save up to 200,000 tCO2 eq. annually, equivalent to taking 56,000 cars off the road eachyear6. Extrapolating this to the world consumption of wine wouldalso lead to significant carbon savings e ignoring shipping which isnot relevant for all countries and assuming just the remaining threemeasures (at 10%) would save 4.58 million t CO2 eq./yr or 22 timesthe emissions from the UK annual consumption of Australian redwine.

However, the adoption of these improvements is limited byvarious technical and socio-economic factors. For example, someproducers may be reluctant to adopt lower-weight bottles owing tobrand marketing and consumer perception that heavier bottlesmean better wine quality. With respect to bulk shipping, factorssuch as contamination, ease of transportation and economic im-pacts on the glass bottle industry as well as consumer perceptionwould need to be investigated further. The latter two also apply topacking the wine into cartons. Further aspects, including economicand health costs and benefits should also be considered in futurework to gain a better understanding of the full life cycle sustain-ability implications of wine production and consumption.

Acknowledgements

This work has been funded by EPSRC within the CCaLC and CSEFprojects (grants no. EP/F003501/1 & EP/K011820/1). This funding isgratefully acknowledged.

D. Amienyo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 72 (2014) 110e119 119

References

Anderson, K., Nelgen, S., 2011. Global Wine Markets, 1961 to 2009: a StatisticalCompendium. University of Adelaide Press, Adelaide.

Aranda, A., Zabalza, I., Scarpellini, S., 2005. Economic and environmental analysis ofwine bottle production in Spain by means of life cycle assessment. Int. J. Agric.Resour. Gov. Ecol. 4 (2), 178e191.

Ardente, F., Beccali, G., Cellura, M., Marvuglia, A., 2006. POEMS: a case study of anItalian wine-producing firm. Environ. Manag. 38, 350e364.

Benedetto, G., 2010. Life cycle environmental impact of Sardinian wine. PaperPrepared for the 119th EAAE Seminar ‘Sustainability in the Food Sector:Rethinking the Relationship between the Agro-food System and the Natural,Social, Economic and Institutional Environments’, Capri, Italy, June 30th e July2nd. www.centroportici.unina.it/EAAE_Capri/papers/Session11/Benedetto.pdf.

Benedetto, G., 2013. The environmental impact of a Sardinian wine by partial lifecycle assessment. Wine Econ. Policy 2, 33e41.

BIER, 2012. Research on the Carbon Footprint of Wine. Beverage Industry Environ-mental Roundtable. www.bieroundtable.com/files/Wine%20Final%20DEP.pdf.

British Glass, 2007. Sustainability Report 2007. www.britglass.org.uk/Industry/Recycling.html.

BSI, 2011. Publicly Available Specification PAS 2050:2008. Specification for theAssessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services.British Standards Institution, London.

CCaLC, 2013. CCaLC Tool and Database V3. www.ccalc.org.uk.Cichelli, A., Raggi, A., Pattara, C., 2010. Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint

in the Wine Supply-chain. www.ecososteniblewine.com/files/P17_Cichelli_LCA_Carbon_Footprint.pdf.

CIV, 2008a. Environmental Product Declaration: Bottled Red Sparkling Wine"Grasparossa Righi". CIV. March 2008. http://gryphon.environdec.com/data/files/6/7505/EPD%20S-P-00109%20ingl-2008-def.pdf.

CIV, 2008b. Environmental Product Declaration: Climate Declaration for BottledOrganic Lambrusco Grasparossa Red Sparkling Wine “Fratello Sole”. CIV.Zeko5m@Zeko5m@March 2008. http://gryphon.environdec.com/data/files/6/7521/EPD_Fratello%20Sole_english%202008-def.pdf.

Colman, T., Päster, P., 2007. Red, White and "Green": the Cost of Carbon in the GlobalWine Trade. AAWEWorking Paper No. 9. October 2007. American Association ofWine Economists. www.wine-economics.org/workingpapers/AAWE_WP09.pdf.

Defra, 30 May 2012. Greenhouse Gas Conversion Factors for Company Reporting.2012 Guidelines. www.defra.gov.uk.

Defra, 2013. UK’s Carbon Footprint 1997e2011. Department for Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs, London. www.defra.gov.uk.

Ecoinvent Centre, 2010. Ecoinvent v2.2 Database. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle In-ventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. www.ecoinvent.ch.

FDF, 2012. Cutting CO2 Emissions. Food and Drink Federation, UK. www.fdf.org.uk/priorities_sus_comp.aspx.

Fearne, A., Soosay, C., Stringer, R., Umberger, W., Dent, B., Camilleri, C.,Henderson, D., Mugford, A., January 2009. Sustainable Value Chain Analysis: aCase Study of South Australian Wine. www.pir.sa.gov.au/data/assets/pdf_file/0003/93225/V2D_Final_Report.pdf.

FDIN, 2012. First Carton PackagedWines Now Available in the UK. www.fdin.org.uk/2012/09/first-carton-packaged-wines-now-available-in-the-uk/.

Garnett, T., 2007. The Alcohol We Drink and its Contribution to the UK’s GreenhouseGas Emissions. Food Climate Research Network. www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/ALCOHOL%20final%20version%20TG%20feb%202007.pdf.

Gazulla, C., Raugei, M., Fullana-i-Palmer, P., 2010. Taking a life cycle look at Crianzawine production in Spain: where are the bottlenecks? Int. J. LCA 15, 330e337.

Goedkoop, M., Spriensma, R., 22 June 2001. The Eco-indicator 99: a Damage Ori-ented Method for Life Cycle Assessment, Methodology Report, third ed. PréConsultants, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.

Guinée, J.B., Gorrèe, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., van Oers, L., WegenerSleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., de Bruijn, H., van Duin, R.,Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2001. Life Cycle Assessment, an Operational Guide to the ISOStandards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Gujba, H., Azapagic, A., 2011. Carbon footprint of beverage packaging in the UnitedKingdom. Chapter 37. In: Finkbeiner, M. (Ed.), Towards Life Cycle SustainabilityManagement. Springer, pp. 381e390. pp.591.

Herath, I., Green, S., Singh, R., Horne, D., van der Zijpp, S., Clothier, B., 2013. Waterfootprinting of agricultural products: a hydrological assessment for the waterfootprint of New Zealand’s wines. J. Clean. Prod. 41, 232e243.

HMRC, 31 August 2012. Alcohol Bulletin July 2012. www.uktradeinfo.com/statistics/pages/taxanddutybulletins.aspx.

ILCD, 2010. International Life Cycle Database, European Joint Research Centre.http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea.vm.

Jenkin, N., 2010. Wine & Climate Change: Packaging & Transport. Retail Programme,WRAP. www.climatechangeandwine.com/conferencias/conf8/8_1.pdf.

Key Note, 2011. Market Report Plus 2011: Wine. Key Note Ltd, Middlesex. www.keynote.co.uk/market-intelligence/view/product/10466/wine?medium¼download.

Milà i Canals, L., Polo, G.C., 2003. Life cycle assessment of fruit production. In:Mattson, B., Sonesson, U. (Eds.), Environmentally-friendly Food Processing.Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge, England, pp. 29e53.

Neto, B., Dias, A., Machado, M., 2013. Life cycle assessment of the supply chain of aPortuguese wine: from viticulture to distribution. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18,590e602.

New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, November 2011. Exporter Guide Wine in theUnited Kingdom and Ireland. Market Profile. www.nzte.govt.nz/explore-export-markets/market-research-by-industry/Food-and-beverage/Documents/Wine%20in%20UK%20and%20Ireland%20Nov%202011.pdf.

Notarnicola, B., Tassielli, G., Nicoletti, G., 2003. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of wineproduction. In: Mattson, B., Sonesson, U. (Eds.), Environmentally-friendly FoodProcessing. Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge, England, pp. 306e325.

OIV, 2012. Statistical Report on World Vitiviniculture 2012. International Organisa-tion of Vine andWine. www.oiv.int/oiv/files/0%20-%20Actualites/EN/Report.pdf.

Panela, A.C., García-Negro, MdC., Quesada, J.L.D., 2009. A methodological proposalfor corporate carbon footprint and its application to a wine-producing companyin Galicia, Spain. Sustainability 1, 302e318.

PE International, 2010. Gabi 4.3. www.gabi-software.com/databases/professional.Petti, L., Raggi, A., De Camilis, C., Matteucci, P., Sára, B., Pagliuca, G., 2006. Life cycle

approach in an organic wine-making firm: an Italian case study. In: ProceedingsFifth Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment, Melbourne Australia,November 22nde24th, 2006. www.conference.alcas.asn.au/2006/Petti%20et%20al.pdf.

PIRSA, December 2010. Wine Markets and Consumers Opportunities and Chal-lenges for the Langhorne Creek Wine Region Primary Industries and ResourcesSouth Australia. www.pir.sa.gov.au.

Pizzigallo, A.C.I., Granai, C., Borsa, S., 2008. The joint use of LCA and emergy eval-uation for the analysis of two Italian wine farms. J. Environ. Manag. 86, 396e406.

Point, E., Tyedmers, P., Naugler, C., 2012. Life cycle environmental impacts of wineproduction and consumption in Nova Scotia, Canada. J. Clean. Prod. 27, 11e20.

Rugani, B., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Benedetto, G., Benedetto, E., 2013. A comprehensivereview of carbon footprint analysis as an extended environmental indicator inthe wine sector. J. Clean. Prod. 54, 61e77.

US EPA, 1995. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 9.12.2: Wines andBrandy Final Report. US Environmental Protection Agency. www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch09/bgdocs/b9s12-2.pdf.

Vázquez-Rowe, I., Villanueva-Rey, P., Iribarren, D., Moreira, M., Feijoo, G., 2012a.Joint life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis of grape productionfor vinification in the Rías Baixas appellation (NW Spain). J. Clean. Prod. 27, 92e102.

Vázquez-Rowe, I., Villanueva-Rey, P., Moreira, M., Feijoo, G., 2012b. Environmentalanalysis of Ribiero wine from a timeline perspective: harvest year matterswhen reporting environmental impacts. J. Environ. Manag. 98, 73e83.

Villanueva-Rey, P., Vázquez-Rowe, I.,Moreira,M., Feijoo,G., 2014. Comparative life cycleassessment in thewine sector: biodynamic vs. conventional viticulture activities inNW Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 330e341.

Wine Australia, 2012. Red Wine Overview. www.wineaustralia.com/Australia/Default.aspx?tabid¼806.

Wine Australia, 2013. Grape Varieties. www.wineaustralia.net.au/en/grape-varieties.aspx.

Winebiz, 2013. Australasia’s Wine Industry Portal by Wine Titles. http://www.winebiz.com.au/statistics/wineries_branded.asp.

WRAP, 2007. The Life Cycle Emissions of Wine Imported to the UK. Waste andResources Action Programme, London, UK. www.wfa.org.au/entwine_website/files/resources/The_Life_Cycle_Emissions_of_Wine_Imported_to_the_UK_Final_Report.pdf.

WRAP, 2008. Bulk Shipping of Wine and its Implications for Product Quality. Wasteand Resources Action Programme, London, UK. www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Bulk_shipping_wine_quality_May_08.d915ba2a.5386.pdf.