Purpose:The Sustainability and Health Initiative for NetPositive Enterprise (SHINE) project is dedicated to improving the scientific basis for transformative environmental, social, and economic positive changes called handprints. Organizations and individuals can create handprints relative to their business-as-usual (BAU) through voluntary reductions in their own footprint as well as in the footprints of others. The novel SHINE handprint framework expands thus the scope, retains accountability for the outcomes, and increases widespread pursuit of net positive goals.Methods: Handprints are quantified using the dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA)-based modeling and measured in footprint-related impact units. Like LCA, the SHINE handprint framework includes the goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation. Existing life cycle inventory databases are adopted to promote widespread use of the method. However, in the SHINE handprint framework the BAU footprint and the actor's actions and positive changes (handprints) are defined. The scope of the handprint assessment includes changes caused by the action within the system boundary. The BAU footprint is then compared to actual footprint calculated with changes to assess the handprint. An additional element for making comparative claims about net positivity that are meant to be disclosed to the public is an attestation.

No abstract

The present study investigated a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment to estimate the environmental impacts associated with Italian mozzarella cheese consumption. The differences between mozzarella produced from raw milk and mozzarella produced from curd were studied, and differences in manufacturing processes have been emphasized in order to provide guidance for targeted improvements at this phase. Specifically, the third-largest Italian mozzarella producer was surveyed to collect site-specific manufacturing data. The Ecoinvent v3.2 database was used for secondary data, whereas SimaPro 8.1 was the modeling software. The inventory included inputs from farm activities to end of life disposal of wasted mozzarella and packaging. Additionally, plant-specific information was used to assign major inputs, such as electricity, natural gas, packaging, and chemicals to specific products; however, where disaggregated information was not provided, milk solids allocation was applied. Notably, loss of milk solids was accounted during the manufacture, moreover mozzarella waste and transport were considered during distribution, retail, and consumption phases. Feed production and animal emissions were the main drivers of raw milk production. Electricity and natural gas usage, packaging (cardboard and plastic), transport, wastewater treatment, and refrigerant loss affected the emissions from a farm gate-to-dairy plant gate perspective. Post-dairy plant gate effects were mainly determined by electricity usage for storage of mozzarella, transport of mozzarella, and waste treatment. The average emissions were 6.66 kg of CO equivalents and 45.1 MJ of cumulative energy demand/kg of consumed mozzarella produced directly from raw milk, whereas mozzarella from purchased curd had larger emissions than mozzarella from raw milk due to added transport of curd from specialty manufacturing plants, as well as electricity usage from additional processes at the mozzarella plant that are required to process the curd into mozzarella. Normalization points to ecotoxicity as the impact category most significantly influenced by mozzarella consumption. From a farm gate-to-grave perspective, ecotoxicity and freshwater and marine eutrophication are the first and second largest contributors of mozzarella consumption to average European effects, respectively. To increase environmental sustainability, an improvement of efficiency for energy and packaging usage and transport activities is recommended in the post-farm gate mozzarella supply chain.

Summary Beverage producers in the United States choose packaging based on cost and consumer preference. Monolayer high‐density polyethylene (HDPE) and gable‐top carton containers have long dominated the U.S. fluid milk market, but pressure for more sustainable packaging is increasing. We present a broad discussion on environmental sustainability of 18 fluid milk containers through life cycle assessment. Because different container types require unique milk processing, distribution, and disposal and incur or avoid milk losses, fluid milk delivery systems (FMDSs) are evaluated, rather than containers in isolation. By assessing FMDSs, a complete measure of containers’ environmental sustainability was obtained. Despite conservative assumptions about milk losses, differences in container size, milk processing, distribution, and container recycling, pair‐wise cradle‐to‐grave comparisons of FMDSs show there are no superior FMDSs. But, 500‐ to 1,000‐milliliter FMDSs are potentially superior to ≥half gallon if they prevent milk losses. Thus, the future of FMDSs in the United States depends on the industry's ability to prevent distribution (12%) and consumption milk losses (20% to 35%). Farm‐gate‐to‐grave comparisons showed that chilled HDPE FMDSs are superior to other plastic and chilled paperboard FMDSs for climate‐change impact, but the result is inconclusive for chilled HDPE to ambient (unrefrigerated) paperboard or plastic pouch FMDS comparisons. Plastic pouch FMDSs show potential to reduce nonrenewable fossil energy, but need to be recyclable. Ambient FMDSs are superior to chilled FMDSs for water depletion. Eight‐ounce paperboard FMDSs are superior to 8‐ounce plastic FMDSs. Thus, alternative FMDSs may improve environmental sustainability of the U.S. postfarm fluid milk supply chain.