Carbon footprint of honey produced in Argentina

Mujica, María Virginia; Blanco, Gabriel; Santalla, Estela

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.086

Cited by 24 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A GWP impact was selected for comparison because this is the most common and advanced environmental indicator amongst LCA studies (Muijica et al, 2016;Stoessel et al, 2012). Despite this, for such comparisons, there are major limitations due to differences in system boundary, life cycle impact assessment methodologies and data quality.…”

Section: Comparison With Other Food Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental management of confectionery products: Life cycle impacts and improvement strategies

Miah

Griffiths

McNeill³

et al. 2018

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThis paper presents the first environmental life cycle analysis for a range of different confectionery products. A proposed Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was developed to characterise and identify the environmental profiles and hotspots for five different confectionery products; milk chocolate, dark chocolate, sugar, milk chocolate biscuit and milk-based products. The environmental impact categories are based on Nestle's EcodEX LCA tool which includes Global Warming Potential (GWP), Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP), ecosystems quality, and two new indicators previously not considered such as land use and water depletion. Overall, it was found that sugar confectionery had the lowest aggregated environmental impact compared to dark chocolate confectionery which had the highest, primarily due to ingredients. As such, nine key ingredients were identified across the five confectionery products which are recommended for confectionery manufacturers to prioritise e.g. sugar, glucose, starch, milk powder, cocoa butter, cocoa liquor, milk liquid, wheat flour and palm oil. Furthermore, the general environmental hotspots were found to occur at the following life cycle stages: raw materials, factory, and packaging. An analysis of five improvement strategies (e.g. alternative raw materials, packaging materials, renewable energy, product reformulations, and zero waste to landfill) showed both positive and negative environmental impact reduction is possible from cradle-to-grave, especially renewable energy. Surprisingly, the role of product reformulations was found to achieve moderate-to-low environmental reductions with waste reductions having low impacts. The majority of reductions was found to be achieved by focusing on sourcing raw materials with lower environmental impacts, product reformulations, and reducing waste generating an aggregated environmental reduction of 46%. Overall, this research provides many insights of the environmental impacts for a range of different confectionery products, especially how actors across the confectionery supply chain can improve the environmental sustainability performance. It is expected the findings from this research will serve as a base for future improvements, research and policies for confectionery manufacturers, supply chain actors, policy makers, and research institutes towards an environmentally sustainable confectionery industry.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Other Food Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental management of confectionery products: Life cycle impacts and improvement strategies

Miah

Griffiths

McNeill³

et al. 2018

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…En lo que corresponde a la producción de miel, Mujica, Blanco y Santalla (2016) han calculado la huella de carbono para Argentina, que exporta el 95% de su producción y es el tercer productor mundial. Indican que la huella de carbono desarrollada bajo la norma ISO 14040 es de 2,5 ±0,17 kgCO2eq/kg de miel.…”

Section: Comparación Con La Huella De Carbono De Otros Productos De Eunclassified

Huella de carbono del cultivo de rosas en Ecuador comparando dos metodologías: GHG Protocol vs. PAS 2050/ Carbon footprint of the cultivation of roses in Ecuador comparing two methodologies: GHG Protocol vs. PAS 2050

Constante

Baile

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecuador es el tercer exportador de rosas a nivel mundial. Un factor clave para la competitividad internacional es calcular y reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero (GEI). Por ello, se calculó la huella de carbono (HC) del cultivo de rosas en Ecuador, tomando como caso de estudio la Empresa Ecoroses S.A. en el año 2015. La empresa está ubicada en el cantón Mejía, provincia de Pichincha y dedica el 100% de su producción a las rosas. La HC se calculó mediante dos metodologías: GHG Protocol y PAS 2050, considerando los límites del sistema “de la cuna a la puerta”. Los factores de emisión fueron recopilados de bases de datos internacionales como IPCC y Ecoinvent v2.2. El resultado de la HC fue de 3,75 kg CO2eq/kg de rosa exportada. Las tres fuentes de emisión de GEI que más afectan son: los productos agrícolas (37,7%), la energía eléctrica (13,3%) y el uso de combustibles fósiles (10,95%). Esta HC duplica a la del cacao seco y es más de 8 veces mayor que la del banano nacional. Por ello, se propone implementar buenas prácticas ambientales para reducir los GEI, en concreto, fertilizantes orgánicos, ahorro energético y biocombustibles. Abstract Ecuador is the third largest exporter of roses worldwide. A key factor for the international competitiveness is to calculate and reduce greenhouse gases (GHG). For this reason, we calculated the carbon footprint (CF) of the cultivation of roses in Ecuador, taking as a case study the Company Ecoroses S.A. in the year 2015. The company is located in the canton Mejia, province of Pichincha, and dedicates 100% of its production to roses. The CF was calculated using two methodologies, GHG Protocol and PAS 2050, considering the limits of the system “from the cradle to the door”. The emission factors were compiled from international databases such as IPCC and Ecoinvent v2.2. The result of the CF was 3,75 kg CO2eq/kg of rose exported. The three sources of emission of GHG that most affect are: agricultural products (37,7%), electrical energy (13,3%), and the use of fossil fuels (10,95%). This CF doubles that of dry cocoa, and is more than 8 times higher than that of domestic bananas. Therefore, the implementation of good environmental practices is proposed to reduce GHG, specifically, organic fertilizers, energy saving, and biofuels.

show abstract

“…As part of the farming sector, the wine industry has a close relationship with the environment which has been addressed in many studies with different focuses [6][7][8][9][10], the carbon footprint measurement and labelling being one of the most important ones [11][12][13][14][15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for Carbon Footprint Flows in Wine Production Process. Case Study in Spanish Winery

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Companies are gradually becoming conscious about the necessity of reducing their environmental impact and adopting low-carbon strategies in order to cope with increasing institutional and social demands. However, remaining competitive while reducing the environmental impact and improving the corporate image requires adopting sophisticated mechanisms boosting eco-efficiency and keeping costs tight. Material Flows Cost Accounting (MFCA) is an instrument that allows the monitoring of, measurement of, and accounting for physical and monetary processes along the production process. If extended to the supply chain, and applied to the energy usage and CO2 emissions, it allows one to account for the Carbon Footprint (CF) of a company and its products at any given stage of the value chain. The current paper presents a case study developed under the framework of a three-year project to introduce an energy use and carbon emissions monitoring and accounting system in a large winery company in Spain, based on the MFCA approach and CF accountability. Including the supply chain of the company and the whole farming cycle of its main input, the case study presents the method and phases adopted to implement the project, its direct and indirect results and outcomes, and the conclusions that can be extracted, which may be inspirational for practitioners and scholars envisaging similar projects.

show abstract

Carbon footprint of honey produced in Argentina

Cited by 24 publications

References 8 publications

Environmental management of confectionery products: Life cycle impacts and improvement strategies

Environmental management of confectionery products: Life cycle impacts and improvement strategies

Huella de carbono del cultivo de rosas en Ecuador comparando dos metodologías: GHG Protocol vs. PAS 2050/ Carbon footprint of the cultivation of roses in Ecuador comparing two methodologies: GHG Protocol vs. PAS 2050

Accounting for Carbon Footprint Flows in Wine Production Process. Case Study in Spanish Winery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About