1_

Rosé tinted glasses? How a new wine region can adopt existing low carbon practices

Ellen Redford

Master Thesis Series in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science, No 2016:025

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Lund University International Master’s Programme in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science (30hp/credits)

LUCSUS Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies

Rosé tinted glasses? How a new wine region can adopt existing low carbon practices

Ellen Redford

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Lund University International Master’s Programme in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science

Submitted May 16, 2016

Supervisor: Kim Nicholas, LUCSUS, Lund University

i

ii Abstract

Decarbonising agriculture is vital to meet the global climate change target of limiting warming to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. However, the agricultural sector is not a current focus for greenhouse gas reduction. The wine industry is growing and contributes to agricultural emissions. It is therefore important to understand how wine producers can increase their use of low carbon practices to minimise their carbon footprint.

To understand how the new and expanding wine region of Sussex can reduce its carbon footprint, I first used a literature review to determine the stages of wine production with the biggest carbon footprint, which are vine growing and bottling. Next, I carried out a wine industry practice review coupled with a questionnaire answered by six global low carbon leaders to find out how and why they are reducing their carbon footprint. I found that they use a variety of low carbon vineyard practices and mainly low carbon lightweight bottles. Economic and environmental reasons motivate low carbon leaders to be carbon neutral and their main barrier is practicality. Finally, Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned behaviour was applied to interviews with ten Sussex wine producers to find out how their intention to use low carbon practices could be increased. Here I found that Sussex wine producers are using low carbon vineyard practices but not bottling practices. Overcoming perceived barriers, including practicality while promoting economic benefits would increase the intention of Sussex wine producers to use more low carbon practices.

Learning from existing global low carbon leaders in combination with identifying motivations and barriers perceived by Sussex wine producers to using low carbon practices, could help to understand how to increase the intention of wine producers in emerging wine regions to reduce their carbon footprint. The wine industry could act as a springboard for pioneering low carbon agriculture because producers of high-end wines have relatively more control over production compared to other agricultural products. These practices could potentially be disseminated to help the rest of the agricultural sector reduce its carbon footprint.

Keywords: carbon neutral, carbon footprint, climate change, Theory of Planned Behaviour, Sussex, wine industry

Word count: 13,940

iii Acknowledgements

Thank you to all the Sussex wine producer’s who welcomed me onto their vineyards and gave their time to meet me and be interviewed for this research. I really enjoyed getting to know about their wine and visiting the beautiful sites. Also, thank you to all the ‘low carbon leaders’ who emailed their responses to the questionnaire with such interesting insights into becoming carbon neutral.

Thank you to Laura, Noor and Pontus who kept ideas bouncing on the rollercoaster. And thank you to Kim for discussing plans and contingency plans.

Thank you to Diana for teaching me ToSIA in Finland. Maybe we can work on it again with less time pressure.

Thank you to mum for technical support and Eric for academic insight.

Finally, thank you to nana and the aerobics class for their weekly encouragement.

iv Table of Contents

Abstract ...... iii Acknowledgements ...... iv 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Study context ...... 1 1.2. Key definitions ...... 2 1.2.1. Carbon footprint ...... 2 1.2.2. Life Cycle Assessment ...... 3 1.2.3. Carbon neutral ...... 3 1.2.4. Wine production stages ...... 4 1.2.5. Low carbon leaders & wine producers ...... 4 1.3. Research Questions ...... 4 1.4. Relevance for Sustainability Science ...... 5 2. Theory of Planned Behaviour ...... 6 3. Case Study ...... 8 3.1. Background on Sussex wine ...... 8 3.2. The significance of the wine industry in Sussex, England ...... 9 3.3. The role of climate change in the Sussex wine industry ...... 10 4. Methodology ...... 12 4.1. Overview of research questions and methods ...... 12 4.2. Literature review ...... 12 4.3. Industry practice review ...... 13 4.5. Low carbon leaders questionnaires ...... 14 4.6. Interviews with Sussex wine producers ...... 15 4.7 Research ethics ...... 16 5. Results ...... 16 5.1. Literature Review ...... 16 5.1.1.The carbon impact of different stages in wine production ...... 16 5.1.2. Why there are discrepancies about the carbon footprint of wine production stages ...... 19 5.2 Industry practice review ...... 21 5.3 Motivations, co-benefits and barriers for global low carbon leaders ...... 25 5.4 Interview Results ...... 27 5.4.1 Baseline of low carbon practices in Sussex ...... 28 5.4.2 Attitude to behaviour ...... 29 5.4.3 Social norms ...... 33 5.4.4 Perceived behavioural control ...... 35 5.5. Global vs Sussex wine production ...... 37 6. Discussion ...... 39 6.1. Global state of low carbon practices in wine production ...... 39 6.1.1. Current practices to reduce carbon-intensive stages of global wine production ...... 39 6.1.2. Motivations, co-benefits and barriers for global low carbon leaders to become carbon neutral ...... 40 6.2. Wine production in Sussex ...... 41 6.2.1 Baseline of low carbon wine production practices in Sussex ...... 41 6.2.2. Increasing the use of low carbon practices in Sussex ...... 43 6.3. Comparison of carbon neutrality in global and Sussex wine industries ...... 47

v 6.4. Recommendations to increase low carbon practices in Sussex ...... 49 6.5. Limitations & further research ...... 50 7. Conclusion ...... 51 8. References ...... 52 Appendices ...... 57 Appendix A – Consent Form ...... 57 Appendix B – Questionnaire to global low carbon leaders ...... 58 Appendix C – Interview questions for Sussex wine producers ...... 59 Appendix D - Carbon footprint of each stage of wine production and assumptions ...... 62

List of figures

Figure 1. Carbon footprint of a product, showing the GHG sources for wine production...... 2 Figure 2. Main stages of wine production…...... 3 Figure 3. Research question (RQ) overview pyramid...... 5 Figure 4. Schematic illustration of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991, p. 182)...... 6 Figure 5. Map showing the main areas of wine production in England...... 9 Figure 6. Two global regional bands suitable for growing wine...... 11 Figure 7. Carbon footprint of 29 LCA studies directly from Rugani et al.(2013)...... 17 Figure 8. Location of 26 low carbon leaders over 10 countries...... 22 Figure 9. How low carbon leaders achieved their status with offsetting...... 22 Figure 10. System boundaries of what is included as carbon neutral for 26 low carbon leaders...... 23 Figure 11. Distribution of carbon reduction packaging options… ...... 23 Figure 12. Proportion of 26 low carbon leaders that are certified verses not certified...... 25 Figure 13. Sussex wine producer’s interview answers about use of low carbon vineyard practices .... 29 Figure 14. Sussex wine producer’s concern about impact of climate change on their vineyard...... 30 Figure 15. Sussex wine producer’s current low carbon practices...... 31 Figure 16. Sussex wine producer’s interview answers about local community perception of low carbon practices...... 33 Figure 17. Sussex wine producer’s interview answers about wine producer perception of low carbon practices...... 34 Figure 18. Sussex wine producer’s interview answers about potential for wine producer collaboration to increase use of low carbon practices...... 35 Figure 19. Motivation comparison of low carbon leaders and Sussex wine producers for CN...... 38 Figure 20. Barrier comparison of low carbon leaders and Sussex wine producers for CN...... 39 Figure 21. Graphical representation of summarised results for TPB (Azjen, 1991)………...... …………..50

List of tables

Table 1. Overview of RQ’s and methods ...... 12 Table 2. Search strings for Google...... 13 Table 3. Location of low carbon leaders who responded to the questionnaire ...... 15 Table 5. Categorised reasons why low carbon leaders became carbon neutral...... 26 Table 6. Categorised co-benefits of low carbon leaders becoming carbon neutral ...... 26 Table 7. Categorised barriers to wine producers becoming low carbon leaders ...... 27 Table 8. Sussex wine producers vineyard size ...... 28 Table 9. Sussex wine producer’s concerned about the impact of climate change on their vineyard ... 30 Table 10. Motivations for using more low carbon practices...... 32

vi Table 11. Barriers to using more low carbon practices...... 36 Table 12. Comparison of motivations low carbon leaders and Sussex wine producers to becoming coming carbon neutral ...... 37 Table 13. Comparison of barriers low carbon leaders and Sussex wine producers to becoming coming carbon neutral ...... 38 Table 14. Recommendations ...... 49

Acronyms

GHG – Greenhouse gas LCA – Life Cycle Assessment RQ – Research question TPB – Theory of Planned Behaviour

vii 1. Introduction

1.1. Study context

Agriculture accounts for up to a third of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Vermeulen, Campbell, & Ingram, 2012). Therefore, decarbonising agriculture is vital to meet the global climate change target of not warming 2°C above pre-industrial levels (UNFCCC, 2013). On a national level, the food chain accounts for 30% of the UK’s carbon footprint (Audsley et al., 2009). These emissions need to be addressed for the UK government to meet their target of reducing GHG emissions 80% by 2050 under the Climate Change Act (Audsley et al., 2009).

Despite the significant contribution of GHGs from agriculture, GHG reduction in this sector is not a current focus. In a European Environmental Agency (2014) report, it was stated problematic that the “agriculture sector is not currently expected to contribute to significant emission reductions in the future” (p. 10).

Wine production contributes to agricultural GHG emissions (Colman & Päster, 2007). It is a growing industry with a 6% increase in the global production of wine between 2011 and 2014 (Wine Institute, n.d.). This growing industry will increase their GHG emissions and impact on climate change. GHGs are emitted along the wine production chain, including vineyard machinery, winery equipment and packaging (Soosay, Fearne, & Dent, 2012).

The wine industry is negatively impacting the very climate that it relies on for success (Colman & Päster, 2007). Grapes are a particularly climate sensitive crop (Mira de Orduña, 2010) and climate change has a big impact on the regional quality of wine (Colman & Päster, 2009). Some regions benefit from newly favourable conditions for vine growth with climate change. However, it is in the interest of grape growers to stabilise the climate to avoid damaged crops and unfavourable growing conditions from shifting climate bands and erratic weather (Nesbitt & Kemp, 2016).

Furthermore, wine is a luxury product and so it could be argued that the wine industry needs to minimise its environmental impact, including it’s carbon footprint, compared to crops that meet our basic needs (Point, Tyedmers, & Naugler, 2012).

The wine industry could be a good springboard for pioneering low carbon agriculture for the following economic and power structure reasons. Firstly, it is a high value product and so has a good

1 economic return for the producer (Ademe et al., 2014). Profit could be reinvested into carbon reduction practices. Secondly, Ponte (2009) states that producers of high quality wine have more control over production compared to low-end wine and other crops because they require on the ground experts to assure quality. This can minimise unwanted external influence and control, for example from supermarkets (Ponte, 2009). Therefore, high-end wines could act as an incubator to test zero-carbon practices, before these practices are disseminated.

The aim of this research is to better understand how the use of low carbon practices can be increased in a new and growing wine industry to contribute to climate change mitigation.

1.2. Key definitions

1.2.1. Carbon footprint

Carbon footprint measures anthropogenic GHGs at each stage of the life cycle of a product (Field & Simmons, 2011). Examples of GHG emissions from wine production are presented in figure 1. The global warming potential of each stage is expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Adopting carbon footprint as a common language allows for easy communication between different actors and comparison between product stages and products from a local to global level (Smith, 2010). Tilley (1999) highlighted the importance of a shared and common language to improve the environment.

Figure 1. Carbon footprint of a product, showing the GHG sources for wine production. Figure adapted from Field & Simmons (2011) with text boxes for wine production.

2

1.2.2. Life Cycle Assessment

A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is the quantification of the environmental impact of a product in each stage of its production. An LCA can be used to calculate the carbon footprint of a product and indicates where the biggest CO2e reductions can be made (Field & Simmons, 2011).

Preparing ground, trellising and planting vines on virgin ground to vineyards

Pruning & thinning vines, management of pests, disease, weeds, nutrition, soil and irrigation, harvesting

Stemming & crushing, fermentation, clarification, ageing

Filling bottles and sealing, labelling, box filling, placement of pallets

Local, national and international distribution by a variety of transport modes

Consumer transport and storage of wine

Bottle management

Figure 2. Main stages of wine production and a brief description of the main activities at each stage. Designed by author, the main categories on the left are based on Rugani et al. (2013) and the description are adapted from Krstic, Moulds, Panagiotopoulos, & West (2003).

1.2.3. Carbon neutral

A product or process is carbon neutral when it does not have a net negative impact on climate change. This is achieved by measuring the GHG sources and sinks of a product, for example with an LCA. GHG emissions are then reduced. Remaining GHG emissions are offset (Kilian, Hettinga, Jiménez, Molina, & White, 2012).

3

1.2.4. Wine production stages

Wine production can be broken down into seven stages: vineyard establishment, viticulture (vine growing), wine making, packaging, transport and distribution, storage and consumption and end-of- life processes (figure 2). Each stage of wine production involves a number of different activities, individually and cumulatively contributing to the carbon footprint.

However, there is also carbon sequestration in the vineyard stages of wine production. Grape vines are a perennial crop and store more carbon in their woody biomass and their vast root system stores more carbon in the soil compared to annual crops (Kroodsma & Field, 2006).

1.2.5. Low carbon leaders & wine producers

For the purpose of this study, ‘low carbon leaders’ refers to wine producers who have an aspect of their wine production as carbon neutral. ‘Wine producers’ applies to someone who has responsibility for the wine making process. This includes viticulture, the winery or both.

1.3. Research Questions

The answers from one research question (RQ) feeds into the next, starting on a global level for the first two RQ themes, finally narrowing to answer the third RQ theme about the local context of low carbon wine practices in Sussex. This leads to my five RQs, grouped into three themes (figure 3):

1. What do previous studies show to be the stages of wine production with the biggest carbon footprint?

2. a) What practices do low carbon leaders currently use to reduce their emissions for the stages of wine production with the biggest carbon footprint? b) What motivates low carbon leaders and what are the co-benefits and barriers they experience to become carbon neutral?

3. a) What is the baseline of low carbon practices in Sussex? b) How could the use of low carbon practices in Sussex be increased?

4

Theory of Reducing Planned RQ3 Sussex wine Behaviour

carbon footprint

How & why 'low carbon Climate

RQ2 leaders' reduce the biggest change carbon footprint stages of mitigation wine produc9on

RQ1 What stages of wine produc9on have the biggest carbon footprint

Figure 3. Research question (RQ) overview. The pyramid represents the RQ building on each other and providing the foundation for the case study at the top. The captions on the right show the red thread is climate change mitigation, and the Theory of Planned Behaviour is applied to the case study.

1.4. Relevance for Sustainability Science

Sustainability science strives to understand the complex relationship between nature and society (Jerneck et al., 2011; Kates et al., 2001). Looking at how environmental behaviour can be improved, in this case increasing low carbon practices, addresses the question by Kates et al., (2001) “What systems of incentive structures… can most effectively improve social capacity to guide interactions between nature and society toward more sustainable trajectories?”.

Jerneck et al (2011) makes the point that the Anthropocene marks the start of humans radically changing the face of the planet, including one of the biggest threats to society; climate change from anthropogenic GHGs. Kates et al., (2001) conclude that to tackle this urgent threat, researchers need to engage with local actors to better understand the interconnection with this global issue and work towards tangible solutions for climate change mitigation.

Furthermore, I inlcude literature from a variety of disciplines to provide an interdisciplinary perspective (Jerneck et al., 2011), combined with academic and industry information to help bridge the gap between research and industry.

5

2. Theory of Planned Behaviour

The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) by Ajzen (1991) will be used to answer RQ3 “How can the use of low carbon wine production practices be increased in Sussex?” TPB is a conceptual framework that looks at the intention of an individual to behave a certain way, with the assumption that the higher their intention, the more likely the individual will perform the behaviour. In this case, I will look at the intention of wine producers to use low carbon practices is Sussex. TPB identifies three factors that influence how strong an individual’s intention is to behave a certain way: attitude to behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control (figure 4).

Figure 4. Schematic illustration of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991, p. 182).

Attitude to behaviour is about how positively or negatively an individual views the behaviour in question; in this case, the use of low carbon practices. Subjective norms are the extent to which the individual feels social pressure to perform the behaviour; in this case I’m focusing on pressure from the local community and other wine producers. I see these two groups as significant because firstly the local community may be impacted by wine production in their area and their reaction to certain practices may impact the reputation of the wine and influence wine producer’s decisions (Sogg, 2000). Secondly, I’m looking at other wine producers because wine producers are influenced by their industry peers, for example in informal networks which are particularly significant for small and medium sized businesses (Rothenberg & Becker, 2004) as found in the Sussex wine industry. Perceived behavioural control is the extent to which the individual thinks they have the necessary

6 resources and opportunities to carry out the behaviour, for example, access to information, time and money.

Depending on the control that an individual has over certain behaviour, the three factors outlined above influence the intention of an individual to perform the behaviour to varying degrees. When the individual has not got total control over the behaviour, because they require resources to be able to perform the behaviour, then perceived behavioural control has a more significant role (Ajzen, 1991). In the case of wine producers, I am assuming that they require resources to use low carbon practices because this behaviour is not innate but requires resources such as information, time and money, and so the dashed arrow in figure 4 from perceived behavioural control to behaviour applies.

Azjen (1991) found that in some ways, perceived behavioural control is more important than actual control because if an individual is not confident that they have control over certain behaviour, they are less likely to perform it, regardless of the actual circumstances. These factors are linked to the individual’s belief about the behaviour, rather than reality.

TPB includes several aspects that can be criticised. Ajzen himself identified shortcomings with TPB including the uncertainty about the role of beliefs in the three factors “the exact form of these relations is still uncertain” (Ajzen, 1991, p. 206). Other criticisms include that while TPB provides structure to research, it does not try to explain why certain behaviours are as they are. Sniehotta et al. (2014) criticise the theory for not providing a clear theory of change. Furthermore, Sutherland (2014) criticised TPB for not explaining change on a macro level. The theory can also be criticised for only including intentional behaviour, and ignoring unconscious behaviour. Finally, the relationship between intention and behaviour can be questioned because an individual may have an intention to perform a certain behaviour, but they do not actually carry it out (Orbell & Sheeran, 1998).

However, despite these criticisms, TPB serves a purpose of this research by structuring qualitative research around the role of climate change mitigation in wine producers decision-making and more specifically to help identify what could drive the intention of wine producers to increase their use of low carbon practices. For the purpose of this research, the focus will be on structuring the research around the three factors and the role of beliefs will reflect an individual’s perception of behaviour (Sutherland, 2014). I will take the opportunity to use TPB as a catalyst to place the micro level findings in the bigger picture. I will discuss the influence of macro level influences, for example society, legislation, technology, norms and values on the micro level, for example individual wine producers’ patterns of behaviour, actions and perceptions. I am interested in how adopting low

7 carbon practices can be intentionally increased, and so unconscious behaviour is not a focus of my research.

TPB has already been applied to the wine industry. More recently it was used for marketing behaviour, including wine consumers (Agnoli, Capitelo, & Begalli, 2016; Jamison & Myers, 2008; Silva, Figueiredo, Hogg, & Sottomayor, 2014; Yang & Paladino, 2015) and wine tourists (Quintal, Thomas, & Phau, 2015; Sparks, 2007). Cordano, Marshall, & Silverman (2010) applied the TPB to winery managers to examine their decision making process for more sustainable wine in the US but they just focused on practices in the winery. Marshall, Cordano, & Silverman (2005) applied TPB to key US wine industry stakeholders, including winery managers, to identify drivers of environmentalism in the wine industry.

This research will follow the approach taken by Sutherland (2010, 2011, 2014), who used TPB for qualitative research into farmer’s behaviour, rather than Ajzen’s (1991) original use of TPB for quantitative research. This has the benefits of firstly, avoiding complex questionnaires (Beedel and Rehman, 2000). Secondly, it gives people the freedom to express their views and provides an insight into peoples opinions to understand how low carbon practices can be increased.

3. Case Study

3.1. Background on Sussex wine

Sussex is located in southeast England and it is made up of two counties, East Sussex and West Sussex, with a total area of 3,700 km2 (figure 5). The current focus of vine growth in England is in south-central and southeast England. The recent success of this area of the English wine industry, including Sussex, has been particularly noticeable since 2004, correlating with an increase in temperature due to climate change (Nesbitt & Kemp, 2016).

This rise in temperature, combined with the commonly chalky soil of Sussex, allows grapes suitable for sparkling wine to thrive. Sparkling wine is now the predominant wine produced in Sussex. Climate change means that these conditions are comparable to the Champagne region about 25 years ago (Nesbitt & Kemp, 2016).

8

Figure 5. Map showing the main areas of wine production in England in green, including the location of the wine region Sussex (East and West) in southeast England. Image taken directly from Decanter (2016).

3.2. The significance of the wine industry in Sussex, England

Sussex is an interesting case to focus on for the latter part of my thesis about increasing the use of low carbon practices in wine production, for five main reasons I outline below.

Firstly, the English wine industry is relatively new. Vines are successfully grown in this region because of climate change and the resulting increase in temperature (Nesbitt & Kemp,2016). The relative infancy of this wine industry means that, unlike more established wine regions, some wine producers in Sussex are less inclined to manage their wine production based on tradition, but instead take advise from experts and scientists (Winkler & Nicholas, 2016). This highlights a potential leverage point for scientific evidence to guide sustainable wine production in newer wine regions, such as Sussex.

Secondly, Sussex has the largest and most dense area of vineyards in England with approximately 74 vineyards (English Wine Producers, 2014). This accounts for 401ha of land planted with vines in Sussex (Food Standards Agency, 2016). Therefore, the impact of best practice in this region, in terms of low carbon practices, could be significant for England.

9

Thirdly, the Sussex wine industry is expanding, both physically and economically. The Sussex wine industry is part of the growing English wine industry. The English Wine Producers (2014) reported that the hectares planted with vines in England and Wales has doubled in the last seven years. Therefore, intercepting with low carbon practices before the industry is established could reduce the carbon impact of future wine production. In the next three three years, the retail value for English wine is predicted to increase from £82m to £100m, approximately 66% of which will be generated from sparkling wines (English Wine Producers, 2014). This figure is set to grow for English wine in both the domestic and export market (Eads, 2016). Therefore, the industry could have more power, influence and more money to invest in low carbon practices.

Fourthly, recognition of the Sussex wine industry in the market is set to increase. Sussex wine is in the process of applying to the EU for protected status, like Champagne (BBC, 2015). Achieving this status may encourage other English wine regions to follow suit and increase the recognition of English wine on the market. A more prominent position in the wine industry may inspire other wine regions with their practices.

Finally, there is a UK wine association strategy that includes carbon reduction. The United Kingdom Vineyard Association (UKVA) sustainability strategy, 2010, includes an objective on carbon management: “Carbon Management - developing a standard approach to carbon foot-printing and establishing a baseline figure for the industry. Guidance on GHG reduction plans” (UKVA (2010) p.3). Cordano et al. (2010) identified trade associations as having an important educational role to improve industry’s environmental performance. Although in its current state, the sustainability strategy appears to be more an introduction to sustainability, the strategy has the potential to be developed and become a catalyst for low carbon practices in the Sussex wine industry.

3.3. The role of climate change in the Sussex wine industry

As already discussed, the boom of the Sussex wine industry, like the rest of England, is largely because of climate change creating favourable conditions for vine growth. Climate change has caused a rapid 0.5°C increase in the average temperature in the UK since the 1970s (Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2014).

The increase in global temperature has shifted the regional temperature bands to higher latitudes, to maintain the optimal vine growing temperature between 12°C and 22°C (figure 6, Nesbitt & Kemp,

10

2016). Meanwhile, the increasing temperature has lead to unfavourable conditions for wine regions at low latitudes, which now exceed the optimal growing temperature range (Smyth & Nesbitt, 2012).

The increase in temperature in the UK has been higher than the global average since the 1960’s (Nesbitt & Kemp, 2016). Climate change has had a direct impact on the success of vine growth in southeast and south-central England, increasing the growing season average temperature in April to October. There has been a 0.3°C increase in growing season average temperature to 14°C between 2004 and 2013 (Nesbitt & Kemp, 2016).

Figure 6. Two regional bands suitable for growing wine shown between the red and blue lines in the Northern and Southern hemisphere, with a preferred growing season temperature range between 12°C and 22°C for vine growth (Smyth & Nesbitt, 2012).

However, stabilising the climate is in the interest of the wine industry because, while the increased temperature has created opportunities for cool climate wine, climate change is predicted to increase erratic precipitation, extreme weather events and increase pressure from agricultural pests and disease (Cho, Falloon, Gornall, Betts, & Clark, 2012). Unpredictable weather can be particularly damaging to yields at key times of vine development, for example heavier rain during flowering in June has already affected grape yields (Nesbitt & Kemp, 2016). There was a drop in yield in 2012 in England due to a particularly wet and cold summer (Nesbitt & Kemp, 2016), and poor quality grapes led Nyetimber vineyard in Sussex to not harvest to maintain wine quality (BBC, 2012).

11

4. Methodology

4.1. Overview of research questions and methods

Table 1. Overview of RQ’s and methods Research Questions Methods to collect & analyse Data data 1. What do previous studies Synthesis of previous studies in Literature and secondary show to be the stages of a systematic literature review to data on the carbon wine production with the present what is known about footprint of each stage of biggest carbon footprint? the carbon footprint of wine wine production. production. Secondary data converted to show the carbon footprint of each stage of wine production. 2.a) What practices do low Content analysis of both low Low carbon practices and carbon leaders currently use carbon leader’s and associated the location they are to reduce their emissions for websites to identify low carbon currently used. the stages of wine practices and innovations. production with the biggest carbon footprint? 2.b) What motivates low Questionnaire emailed to low Low carbon leader’s carbon leaders and what are carbon leaders about why they questionnaire answers the co-benefits and barriers became carbon neutral and the about their experiences they experience to become co-benefits and barriers they of the process of reducing carbon neutral? experienced. their carbon footprint in wine production. 3.a) What is the baseline of Semi-structured interviews with Coded transcripts from low carbon practices in Sussex wine producers. interviews. Sussex? 3.b) How can the use of low Semi-structured interviews with Coded transcripts from carbon practices in Sussex Sussex wine producers. interviews. be increased?

4.2. Literature review

To answer my first RQ I identified what previous studies show to be the most carbon intensive stages of wine production. I identified a comprehensive review of 29 LCA studies on the carbon footprint of wine production by Rugani, Vázquez-Rowe, Benedetto, & Benetto (2013). Rugani et al. (2013) compared studies that included different stages of wine production and not all of the papers explicitly looked at the carbon footprint and for these they had to manipulate data to calculate the carbon footprint. To reduce uncertainty from the comparison of studies which include different stages of wine production, I selected studies from Rugani et al. (2013) that included 70% or more of the stages to compare. I identified 16 studies that met this criteria, but only seven studies could be compared that explicitly looked at the carbon footprint (appendix D). Pattara et al., (2012) was also

12 included for taking into account carbon sequestration in the vineyard. Three papers that did not already present the percentage of each stage of wine production were converted to percentages.

I then discussed why there were discrepancies between studies about the carbon footprint of wine production stages. At the time of writing the literature review, there were no studies with carbon footprint data for wine production stages published post Rugani et al. (2013).

4.3. Industry practice review

To identify current low carbon wine production practices, I conducted a content analysis of websites to find low carbon wine leaders and their practices, focusing on the most carbon intensive stages of wine production. To identify low carbon leaders, I focused on wine producers that declared an aspect of their wine production to be carbon neutral. To understand what practices low carbon leaders are using, I used the Boolean method to combine keywords (Bryman, 2012) and create five search strings used in Google (table 2).

Table 2. Search strings and number of Google pages examined for each search string, determined by frequency of results (explained further in text). Search strings Google Pages “‘carbon neutral’ and wine” 10 “‘zero carbon’ and wine” 10 “‘climate neutral’ and wine” 5 “‘climate friendly’ and wine” 5 “‘greenhouse gas neutral’ and wine” 5

I chose these search strings to focus on GHG reduction and identify low carbon leaders in the wine industry. The first 10 pages of Google were examined for “‘carbon neutral’ and wine” and “‘zero carbon’ and wine”. This was sufficient because the vast majority of results were in the first 5 pages, with the next 5 pages not showing any new results for carbon neutral and just three new results for zero carbon. Search strings “‘climate neutral’ and wine”, “‘climate friendly’ and wine” and “‘greenhouse gas neutral’ and wine” resulted in one new result each in 5 Google pages. Therefore I deemed this enough pages to examine for these search strings. As with any search engine, Google only provides access to a portion of the Internet, and the search engine results may be biased (Bryman, 2012).

If there was insufficient information about low carbon leader’s practices on their website, I searched for further details about their practices on associated certification sites and environmental wine

13 articles with additional searches on the wine producers by searching the wine producers name and ‘carbon’. Furthermore, low carbon practices were identified from wine association sustainability guides from the three countries with the most carbon neutral wine producers.

My results are based on what is reported and open to the public, and not based on my observations and so the results cannot be verified first hand. It is important to consider that the wine producer’s websites are there for commercial reasons. There is a degree of trust about the accuracy of the information I find but caution should be given to the results as they may be biased towards the wine producers. Information may be missing about wine producers low carbon practices if they choose not to share the information online. Contacting the low carbon leaders would increase the accuracy of low carbon practices.

There could be an issue with how wine producers interpret the word ‘winery’. The Oxford dictionary definition for winery is “an establishment where wine is made”. However, some wine producers declared themselves as carbon neutral wineries, but also went onto discuss low carbon practices in the vineyard. This implies that they could have been a carbon neutral wine estate, which includes the vineyard. However, without knowing the interpretation of winery from each wine producer, I used the dictionary definition.

4.5. Low carbon leaders questionnaires

I identified 20 low carbon leaders in the industry practice review. These 20 low carbon leaders were emailed a short self-completion questionnaire (appendix B). This method allowed me to contact low carbon leaders around the world in a short space of time. The short questionnaire was designed to encourage completion by minimising participation time and allowed me to ask three open questions. Open questions have the benefits of not constraining respondents to answer in a certain way, which may reflect my pre-conceived ideas (Bryman, 2012).

Six low carbon leaders answered the questionnaire (table 3) and one replied that they had changed owner and were no longer carbon neutral. I analysed this qualitative data using the web-based open source coding software ‘Saturate’. I used an inductive approach by creating codes from respondent’s answers. I created codes in line with the idea that “in theme (code) discovery, more is better” (Ryan & Bernard, 2003, p. 103). I coded ideas that were both repeated and unique, while keeping a record of the frequency that different wine producers mentioned the codes. I grouped similar codes into broader categories. While there is no clear cut way to check the validity of the codes, I presented

14 tables of what codes were included in each broader category to increase transparency (Ryan & Bernard, 2003).

Table 3. Low carbon leaders who responded to the questionnaire and their location Wine producers name Location Backsberg Wine New Zealand Yealands New Zealand Tahblik Winery Australia Tinhorn Creek Vineyards Canada Cono Sur Chile Vignobles-Lacombe France

4.6. Interviews with Sussex wine producers

To find out how low carbon practices can be increased in Sussex, ten Sussex wine producers were interviewed. All of the interviewees had vineyard manager as part of their role and decision-making power about wine production practices. I focused on vineyard managers because the vineyard questions were much more detailed and required more expert knowledge, compared to the bottling questions. This is because a larger variety of potential low carbon vineyard practices were identified in RQ2. Two wine producers were not yet commercial, but planning to sell wine in the very near future.

I used a two-step sampling process. Firstly, wine producers were identified from a list of Sussex wine producers from the English Wine Producers website. I prioritised contacting wine producers who positively engaged with the environment on their website, because I assumed that they would be more willing to engage with my research. This method of purposive sampling resulted in four interviewees out of eight contacted. Next, to boost the sample size, a further ten wine producers were randomly contacted from the remaining 66 wine producers from the English Wine Producers list, resulting in six more interviewees. Once I had a sample size of ten, I stopped contacting more wine producers. The results could not be generalised to represent Sussex wine producers because the sample is not totally random and so may not be representative, but the results could be a catalyst for further research (Bryman, 2012).

15

The interview was semi-structured and made up of open questions (appendix C). This allowed some flexibility regarding follow up questions to significant answers and an understanding of people’s opinions (Bryman, 2012). The interviews took 30-60 minutes. The interview questions were focused on the stages of wine production with the highest carbon footprint, as identified in RQ1 and included questions about the low carbon practices identified in RQ2a. The questions were linked to the TPB (Azjen, 1991). One wine producer was only able to answer in writing, another could only be interviewed over the phone, and the remaining eight wine producers were interviewed face-to-face at the location of their vineyard. Nine out of the ten interviewees were male.

Interviews were transcribed and the data was analysed using the same coding method as explained in section 4.5.

4.7 Research ethics

I am aware that gathering data from human subjects can be sensitive and I have tried to address this in the following ways. I followed the four ethical principles set out in Bryman (2012): firstly I avoided harm to participants. Participants consented to whether or not they would like to remain anonymous and references to participants are sensitive to this and records of the data are appropriately stored. Secondly to avoid uniformed consent, all interviewees signed consent forms (appendix A) to ensure that they were aware of my research purpose, the interview process, and their rights. Thirdly, to avoid invasion of privacy, I made it clear to participants that they had the right to decline answering any question. And finally, to avoid deception, the purpose of my research was made clear to all participants.

5. Results

5.1. Literature Review

A literature review was conducted to answer the first RQ about the stage of wine production with the biggest carbon footprint. Despite the disagreement between studies, my analysis of this literature leads me to conclude that vine growing and bottling have the biggest carbon footprints.

5.1.1.The carbon impact of different stages in wine production

An overview of the general trend of the carbon footprint of wine production stages was carried out by Rugani et al. (2013) who compared 29 LCA studies about the carbon footprint of wine production

16

(figure 7). They found that the stages with the biggest carbon footprint were: end-of-life processes (22%), packaging (22%) and viticulture (18%).

Figure 7. Average carbon footprint of 29 LCA studies with standard deviation, taken directly from Rugani, Vázquez-Rowe, Benedetto, & Benetto (2013).

However, there are discrepancies between studies as indicated with the error bars in figure 7. The stage with the most uncertainty between authors is the end of life processes, a stage with one of the biggest carbon footprints. The authors state that if just two studies were removed from their analysis, the carbon footprint of the end-of-life processes would drop to 12%.

To reduce the error from comparing studies with different wine production stages, I examined and compared seven like-for-like studies from Rugani et al. (2013). Pattara et al. (2012) was also included for taking into account carbon sequestration in the vineyard (appendix D).

Vineyard establishment

Soosay et al. (2012) analysed an Australian wine and found that vineyard establishment had the third biggest carbon footprint at 23%. They included the initial inputs of: fertiliser, pesticides, trellis and wooden posts.

However Bosco et al. (2011) looked at an Italian wine and found that vineyard establishment accounted for just 7% of carbon of the carbon footprint.

17

Viticulture/vine growth

Rugani et al. (2013) showed that the vineyard stage was commonly among the highest carbon footprint stages. Gazulla et al. (2010) found that viticulture had the biggest carbon footprint at 47%, the largest proportion of this from fertiliser. Point et al. (2012) agreed that fertiliser contributed the most to the vineyard carbon footprint. Soja et al. (2010) found that viticulture accounted for 31% of the carbon footprint. Soosay et al. (2012) found that viticulture had the second biggest carbon footprint at 28% and included decomposition of timber posts & biomass, fuel used in the vineyard and transport of grapes to winery.

However, Barry (2011) found the vineyard to only be accountable for 6% of the carbon footprint, but just frost protection was accounted in this analysis. Pattara et al. (2012) found that fertiliser has minimal impact at 0.1% of the carbon footrint.

Although the vine growing stage has one of the biggest carbon footprints, this is also when carbon is sequestrated by vine growth (Soosay et al., 2012). The majority of LCA studies often ignored this factor. Pattara et al. (2012) accounted for this sequestration and found that vine growth sequestrated 29% of the carbon that is emitted in wine production.

Winery

Soosay et al. (2012) found that the winery had the second lowest carbon footprint at 5%, mainly from the fermentation and crushing of grapes. Barry (2011) found that electricity from the winery made up 5% of the carbon footprint, other winery processes were not included. Gazulla et al. (2010) found that the winery contributed 4% to the carbon footprint from the electricity required for 2 year ageing, suggesting electricity input to the winery is relatively low. Pattara et al. (2012) found the impact from an organic winery had a similar impact at 6%.

However other authors found that the winery had a more significant contribute to the carbon footrpint with Soja et al. (2010) at 17%, Point et al. (2012) at 12% and Bosco et al. (2011) at 11%.

Bottling and packaging

Pattara et al. (2012) found that packaging had the biggest carbon footprint at 85%, with the vast majority of this, 70%, from glass bottle production. In agreement were: Barry (2011) at 53%, Bosco et al. (2011) at 47%, Soja et al. (2010) at 39%. The majority of these emissions came from glass production because it requires high heat and so is a very energy intensive process.

18

However, Soosay et al. (2012) found that packaging had a lower impact on the carbon footprint at 30%. Gazulla et al. (2010) found that bottle production made up 26% of the overall production. Point et al. (2012) found that glass bottles accounted for 14% of the carbon footprint of wine production.

Transport and distribution

Some authors found transport to have a huge impact on the carbon footprint. Barry (2011) found that transport made up 36% of carbon, with shipping from NZ to UK emitting over three times as much carbon as a customer car trip to supermarket. Gazulla et al. (2010) found transportation accounted for 30% of the carbon footprint. This is in line with WRAP (2007) who found that carbon from the winery to retailer could make up 28% of the carbon footprint.

However, Point et al. (2012) found that a 5km consumer car trip to buy wine accounted for the majority of carbon at 37%, compared to just 12% for transport to the retailer. Soosay et al., (2012) found that consumer travel had a more significant impact on the carbon footprint at 10% compared to transport to the retailer at 1.2%. This is because the consumer transports a much smaller volume of wine than to the retailer, so the carbon footprint per bottle is much more significant. Soosay et al., (2012) found that the carbon footprint from transportation is affected by the means of transport and the weight of cargo rather than the distance travelled, so the carbon footprint from shipping wine is insignificant.

Consumers

The carbon footprint from consumer refrigeration divided the studies. WRAP (2007) found that this stage had a significant impact at 23%. In contrast Point et al., (2012) found that this had an insignificant impact at just 1%.

End-of-life processes

Waste management was included in two studies and had an insignificant impact at 1% (Point et al., 2012) and 3% (Bosco et al., 2011).

5.1.2. Why there are discrepancies about the carbon footprint of wine production stages

Different carbon footprint results between LCA studies can be attributed to the study design, including: system boundaries, assumptions and data quality. Different studies include a different

19 number of stages, each with their own stage assumptions. For example Barry (2011) just looked at electricity use in the winery, whereas Bosco et al. (2011) included a variety of winery processes.

LCA studies require a large amount of data and the data quality affects the results. The more detailed the data is from wine producers; the less assumptions are needed by the author. More accurate data has been shown to lower the carbon footprint results (Vázquez-Rowe, Rugani, & Benetto, 2013).

Focusing on differences between studies about the carbon footprint of vine growing, a wine production stage with one of the biggest carbon footprints, environmental conditions such as the climate, soil and lay of the land (terroir) impacts wine producer’s decisions about the vineyard, which has a knock on affect on the carbon footprint. Wine producers have to modify their decisions to annual environmental variability. Thus carbon footprints will vary annually within sites and between sites. This will impact the results of the LCA studies, depending when and where they are conducted.

Weather conditions affect the amount of fertilizer, pesticides and herbicide used (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2013). However Colman & Päster (2007) pointed out that vines do not require as much fertiliser as other crops, thus fertiliser does not have a big carbon footprint and so a variation in fertilser would not be accountable for a significant variation in the carbon footprint.

Some authors found that the grape yield impacts the carbon footprint, others found that it does not. Vineyards are often managed for a lower yield compared to other crops, to enhance the wine quality (Colman & Päster, 2007). Energy and GHG emissions from wine production are tied to the yield (Steenwerth, Strong, Greenhut, Williams, & Kendall, 2015). Steenwerth et al., (2015) found that the lower yield, the more intensive resources are used and the higher the carbon footprint. Vázquez- Rowe, Villanueva-Rey, Iribarren, Moreira, & Feijoo (2012) also found that a higher yield was associated with a lower carbon footprint. Colman & Päster (2009) also found that the lower yields associated with organic farming, compared to conventional farming, resulted in an insignificant difference in the carbon footprint between the two farming methods.

However, Malusà, Laurenti, Ghibaudi, & Rolle (2004) found that lower yield associated with organic practices did not impact the carbon footprint. And Rugani et al. (2013) found that while white wine has a higher yield, it requires more inputs and so has a bigger impact on carbon.

20

Soil has been identified as having a major impact on the carbon footprint of the vineyard. The soil type influences a range of activities in the vineyard, including the amount of fertiliser, pesticides and herbicides required, all these inputs are linked to the carbon footprint (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2013).

The lay of the land can impact the use of machinery and fuel use (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2013). Vázquez-Rowe et al., (2013) found that the main contributors to the carbon footprint came from diesel used in field operations, and high pesticide and fertiliser use. Bosco et al. (2011) attributed the different carbon footprint values between vineyards to fertilizer, pesticide and diesel use as well as the amount of material used for trellising.

Wine producer’s decisions can also be made independently of the environment, for example farming type. This will also influence the difference between LCA studies, depending where and when they are conducted. Despite the debate about the impact of yield on the carbon footprint already presented, the general opinion is that organic farming has a lower carbon footprint than conventional farming. Rugani et al. (2013) found that organic wine has a 25% lower carbon footprint than conventional farming systems. This lower carbon footprint is due to the alleviation of chemical pesticides and chemical fertilisers; eliminating the high carbon footprint from chemical production (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2013). Furthermore, organic fertiliser has a lower carbon footprint because it would otherwise be a waste product (Vázquez-Rowe, Villanueva-Rey, Moreira, & Feijoo, 2012). Furthermore organic matter increases the amount of carbon stored in soil (Lal, 2004; Steenwerth et al., 2015).

Wine producer’s decisions about other stages of wine production also impact the carbon footprint. These include processes in the winery, for example the time spent ageing the wine affects the carbon footprint (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2013). Wines that are aged for longer have a higher carbon footprint, mainly because of the carbon footprint associated with the wooden barrels that the wine is aged in and to a lesser extent due to the energy use (Vázquez-Rowe, Rugani, Benetto, 2013). Packaging choices, as already shown, also impact the carbon footprint (Rugani et al., 2013).

5.2 Industry practice review

An industry practice review was carried out to answer RQ2 about what low carbon leaders are currently doing to reduce their carbon footprint with a focus on vine growing and bottling, the wine production stages with the biggest carbon footprint (section 5.1). I identified 26 wine producers who I categorised as low carbon leaders from my Internet search.

21

The majority of low carbon leaders are in Australia (seven), followed by the United States, (three in California and two in Oregon) and New Zealand (three) (figure 8). None of the low carbon leaders are located in England.

Figure 8. Spread of 26 low carbon leaders in wine production over 10 countries.

The vast majority of carbon neutral wine producers (24 out of 26) reached this status through a combination of onsite carbon reduction practices and offsetting. The other two low carbon leaders reached this status through offsets alone and none of the carbon neutral wineries achieved this status by carbon reduction practices alone (figure 9). This highlights the challenge of becoming carbon neutral solely through low carbon practices.

The majority of low carbon leaders had carbon neutral wineries (ten). This was followed by both a carbon neutral vineyard and winery (seven) (figure 10). Three carbon neutral wine producers achieved carbon neutral wine products, by making the entire wine production chain, cradle to grave, carbon neutral.

Figure 9. Spread of 26 low carbon leaders that achieved their status by either carbon reduction practices and offsetting, offsetting only or carbon reduction practices only.

22

In light of the high number of low carbon leaders from Australia and the US, low carbon practices were supplemented with low carbon practices from the California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance and Winemakers Federation of Australia. An equivalent guide was not identified for New Zealand. This added an additional three vineyard practices to the 16 practices that were identified from low carbon leaders (table 4). There are more carbon reduction practices that tackle carbon emissions rather than carbon storage.

Figure 10. System boundaries of what is included as carbon neutral for 26 low carbon leaders.

The majority of carbon reduction bottle measures are focused on lighter bottles (figure 11). Of the nine wine producers reporting to use lighter bottles, two detailed that they used PET bottles, none reported on using other alternative bottle, for example Tetra Pak. PET has a carbon footprint that is 52% less than regular glass (Franklin Associates, 2006).

Figure 11. Distribution of carbon reduction packaging options that are used by 10 low carbon leaders.

23

Table 4. Low carbon vineyard practices from the low carbon leaders and leading sustainability guidelines, how many use them, location, and how the practice decreases the carbon footprint. footprint Increase soil carbon Increase soil carbon Increase soil carbon Increase soil carbon Increase soil carbon Increase soil carbon Decrease GHG emissions Decrease GHG emissions from fuel use Decrease GHG emissions from fuel use Decrease GHG emissions from fuel use Decrease GHG emissions from fuel use Decrease GHG emissions from fuel use Decrease GHG emissions from fuel use Decrease GHG emissions from fuel use Decrease GHG emissions from fuel use Decrease GHG emissions from fuel use Decrease GHG emissions from fuel use Increase biomass carbon (linked to soil) Increase biomass carbon (linked to soil) Increase biomass carbon (linked to soil) Increase biomass carbon (linked to soil) How the practise is reducing the carbon US US US Canada Location Australia Australia Australia Australia, US US, Australia USx3, Canada Australia, USx2 Austria, South Africa California Winegrowers California Winegrowers US, Austria, Australia x2 Australi x2, USx3, NZ, Italy Winemakers Federation of 2 2 4 1 1 1 2 4 7 3 1 1 2 General General General vineyards Number of Explanation requirements sequest carbon (CSWA) Carbon returned to soil Recycles winery grape residue Reduces fossil fuel combustion Reduces fossil fuel combustion Reduces fossil fuel combustion Reduces fossil fuel combustion No GHG emitted from combustion reducing erosion and leaching (CSWA) Increase carbon sequestration in plants Reduces pesticide production & vehicle use Reduces fuel consumption for vineyard machinery microbe activity & reduces organic matter erosion (CSWA) of fertiliser used, increases growth and sequestrated carbon Improves organic matter & retains soil moisture reducing irrigation Reduce weeds and adds fertiliser with manure, minimising vehicle use Precision irrigation reduces water use and reduces fuel for water pump. Roots increase soil carbon storage, retain soil moisture reducing irrigation, Avoids wet anaerobic soil produce more N2O from more active soil microbes legumes add nitrogen reducing fertiliser use, decrease organic matter loss by Eliminates vehicle use to spread fertiliser, precision fertiliser reduces amount Increase soil carbon storage by reducing soil disturbance which decreases soil and too little water can be a limiting factor to vine growth & photosynthesis to fertiliser vineyard Fertigation Cover crops Drip irrigation Manual labour Minimal tillage Plant native plants Low carbon practise Reduce tractor passes Improve vehicle efficiency Water pump run on biodiesal Targeted pesticide application Chip pruning residue for compost No burning of pruning vine residues Sheep for weed control and manure Mulch with organic matter from the Vineyard machinery run on biodiesal Mulch with pomace from the winery

24

Not all of the low carbon leaders who claimed to be carbon neutral were certified (figure 12). However, the majority were certified at 17 out of 26 low carbon leaders.

Figure 12. Proportion of 26 low carbon leaders that are certified verses not certified.

5.3 Motivations, co-benefits and barriers for global low carbon leaders

Out of the 26 low carbon leaders that I emailed the questionnaire to (appendix B), six responded. There was not a main reason for why wine producers became carbon neutral (table 4). Environmental reasons included “I love my planet” (LCLC) and concern about the impact of climate change on their business “our wines will change if our climatic environment changes so we need to do our bit” (LCLB). All of the economic reasons were linked to saving money, for example “we needed to do some work in reducing our reliance on non-renewable resources in response to the rising cost of … non-renewables” (LCLF). The remaining reasons, in order of frequency were categorised into marketing, for example “we were looking to differentiate ourselves from other wineries” (LCLD) and “we recognised the international wine market was looking for products which could satisfy the ‘carbon neutral’ criteria; so we also saw it as a sales opportunity” (LCLF) and morals, for example “I believe my generation owns a large part of the problems of climate change and environmental damage and as is said the sins of the fathers should not be vested on the sons … the next generation include my children” (LCLA).

25

Table 4. Categorised reasons why low carbon leaders became carbon neutral (n=6). Freq. is the frequency that a different low carbon leader mentions a reason; each low carbon leader could have more than one response per question. Category Why carbon neutrality Category total Environment Balance carbon footprint with old world wine 4 Reduce carbon footprint Love for planet Negative impact of climate change on vine growth Economics Efficiency 4 Economic downturn Reduced energy costs with renewables Reduces input costs Marketing Marketing 3 Competitive advantage Certification Morals Climate change and generational equity 2 Duty to customers

There was not a stand out co-barrier when codes were aggregated. The co-benefit with a small majority was marketing, for example “Extra sales opportunities” (LCLF) (table 5). The remaining co- benefits, in order of frequency, could be categorised into: business improvement, for example “it also gets you thinking very hard about your current practices and ways of improving what you do” (LCLB), economics, for example “you find new methods which may involve a capital investment initially but bring about long term savings” (LCLA) and the environment “by purchasing carbon credits we are supporting projects that have reduced greenhouse gas emissions” (LCLE).

Table 5. Categorised co-benefits of low carbon leaders becoming carbon neutral (n=6). Freq. is the frequency that a different low carbon leader mentions a reason; each low carbon leader could have more than one response per question. Category Co-benefits Category total Marketing Marketing 6 Customer satisfaction Customer engagement Sales opportunities Third party endorsements Business improvement More intimate understanding of business 4 Mind-set of employees more efficient Practice improvement Innovation Economics Efficiency 4 Reduced energy costs Saves money Saving money long term Environment Offset projects 1

26

The main barrier that low carbon leaders encountered when trying to become carbon neutral in an aspect of their wine business was practicality, for example “The biggest barrier is having good systems that capture all the data you are required to record – fuel, energy, fertiliser, transport, personnel travel etc. It is a commitment in terms of time” (LCLB) and problems with composting because of “wild animals—we have bears in the summertime on our property” (LCLD) (table 6). The remaining categories of barriers in order of frequency were: marketing, for example “I have very few custumers (distributors) who are really interested by this argument (carbon)” (LCLC), mind-set, for example “biggest hurdles to change the mind-sets of those that need to participate in bringing about change and ensuring that changes that are made become embedded in the DNA of the company” (LCLA) and economics, for example “We have reduced energy costs” (LCLB).

Table 6. Categorised barriers to low carbon leaders becoming carbon neutral (n=6). Freq. is the frequency that a different low carbon leader mentions a reason; each low carbon leader could have more than one response per question. Category Barriers Category total Practical Data intensity 7 implementation Composting with wild animals Controlling pests environmentally Sourcing biodiesel Internationally recognised accreditor Marketing Customers don’t like taste 4 Customers won't pay more for environmental wine Few distributors interested in carbon neutral Difficult to explain carbon neutral Mind-set Internal business mind-set 3 Stakeholder mind-set Economics Expensive 2 Offset cost

5.4 Interview Results

Sussex wine producers were interviewed to answer RQ3 about the baseline of low carbon practices in Sussex, and how they can be increased. The focus was again on the vineyard and bottling stages of wine production, identified as the highest carbon footprints (section 5.1). The interview results are structured around the three main factors that influence a wine producers intention to use low carbon practices in Ajzen’s (1991) TPB: attitude to behaviour, social norms and perceived behavioural control (section 2.2).

Wine producers were categorised into size by their vineyard size and amount of bottles produced in their winery (table 7). Two wine producers were just categorised by vineyard size because they did

27 not have a winery but instead they sent their grapes to an external winery that then sent a proportion back to the wine producer to sell as their own. One wine producer had a large vineyard and produced a medium amount of bottles a year, but they were rapidly expanding and so they were categorised as large. Size categorisation is a subjective task, for example Folwell & Volanti (2003) categorised large wineries as those that produced more than 126,000 cases of wine annually.

Table 7. Sussex wine producers code name. Vineyard size: Large, 51ha+, Medium, 6-50ha and Small, 0-5ha. Average annual bottles produced in their winery: Large, 51k+, Medium, 6-50k, Small, 0-5k. Six out of ten wine producers had the same sized vineyard and winery and so were a ‘match’. One had a small vineyard and large winery, the ‘mid-point’ was taken as medium. Two wine producers sent their grapes to an external winery so they were categorised by vineyard size. One wine producer had a large vineyard and produced a medium amount of bottles a year, but they were expanding so rapidly that they were categorised as large. Name Vineyard size Winery size How the size was decided Size Large A Large Large Match Large Large B Large Medium Very rapid growth Large Medium A Medium None Bottles equivalent to large winery Medium Medium B Medium Medium Match Medium Medium C Medium None Bottles equivalent to medium winery Medium Medium D Medium Medium Match Medium Medium E Medium Medium Match Medium Medium F Small Large Mid-point Medium Small A Small Small Match Small Small B Small Small Match Small

5.4.1 Baseline of low carbon practices in Sussex

At least half of the wine producers used 12 out of 16 low carbon vineyard practices, regardless of their size (figure 13). All of the wine producers reported to use manual labour and plant native plants on their vineyard site. Nine out of ten of wine producers reported to use targeted pesticide application. Pest pressure was mainly from fungus: powdery and downy mildew, due to the wet weather. Eight wine producers had cover crops and they minimised tillage. The main cover crop was grass. Wine producers did not use fertigation, drip irrigation or biodiesel.

28

Figure 13. Sussex wine producer’s interview answers about use of low carbon vineyard practices (n=10).

5.4.2 Attitude to behaviour

The main findings for attitude to behaviour are that there is a divide about whether or not wine producers are concerned about the impact of climate change on their vineyard. Concerns are mainly about the impact of extreme weather on their vineyard. Wine producers not concerned is mainly because of the benefits from increased temperature on vine growth. Wine producers already use low carbon vineyard practices and are mainly motivated by environmental reasons. They do not use low carbon bottling, mainly because of customer perception. Economic benefits will motivate Sussex wine producers to use more low carbon practices.

There was a mixed response about whether or not wine producers were concerned about the impact of climate change on their vineyard (figure 14). Half of the wine producers said that they were both concerned, but also saw benefits. Three out of ten interviewees were only concerned about the impact. Two out of ten interviewees were not concerned.

29

Figure 14. Sussex wine producer’s interview answers to whether or not they were concerned about the impact of climate change on their vineyard (n=10).

Eight out of ten wine producers who were concerned about climate change all found extreme weather a concern (table 8). Examples of concerns about extreme weather concerns include “I'm more concerned about extreme weather from climate change, extreme drought, extreme wet” (Medium A), others highlighted seasonal change, for example, “we used to get cold winters and now we get warm winters and a lot of rain” (Medium C). Some explained the problems with wet weather are “rain in the summer…causes mould which is difficult to deal with and if it rains at certain times such as flowering” (Medium C).

Table 8. Sussex wine producer’s reasons for being concerned or not about the impact of climate change on their vineyard (n=10). Frequency is the number of times a reason is mentioned by different wine producers; each respondent could have more than one response per question. Green is why they are concerned and orange is why they are not concerned, the different shades group answers into categories discussed in the text. Answer Reason Frequency Yes Extreme weather 8 Yes Disease 1 Yes Pesticide pollution 1 Yes Pest pressure 1 Yes Water stress 2 Yes Unknown impact 1 No Increased temperature benefits vine growth 6 No Sceptical about the link between observed change & climate change 1 No Increased sunlight benefits vine growth 1

30

The second most common group of concerns was increased pest and disease pressure, for example “warmer climates you get more insect pressure… and the disease pressures we face now in a cooler climate now will change to warmer climate diseases” (Large A). The third most common concern was potential water stress from climate change, for example “Water stress… will start happening which aren’t an issue at this stage” (Large A).

The most common reason to not be concerned about climate change was because of the opportunity that the increase in temperature had created for vine growth in Sussex (table 8). For example, “it's getting warmer, great, we can ripen them (grapes) better… better wine, fantastic” (Medium E) and opportunities for vine growth are similar to France in the past “the climate here now is roughly what the time it was like for champagne 10 years ago” (Large B) and “French wine producers are buying land here” (Small B).

Figure 15. Sussex wine producer’s interview answers to why they use current low carbon practices (n=10).

Six out of ten wine producers used low carbon practices to increase efficiency and decrease costs (figure 15). If categories are aggregated into theme, environmental reasons dominate the motivation to use low carbon practices. Half of these wine producers carried out low carbon practices for general environmental benefits and this was the only motivation for the two large wine producers “we see ourselves as stewards of the land” (Large A). Only one wine producer mentioned ‘carbon’ in explaining why they used low carbon vineyard practices to “increase soil carbon” (Medium D). The other half specifically said that it was to improve the soil, including reducing soil compaction and increasing soil fertility.

31

With regards to low carbon bottling, nine out of ten wine producers used regular glass bottles, with just one wine producer using lightweight glass bottles.

While cost was in the top three motivations for increasing low carbon vineyard and bottling practises and becoming carbon neutral, there was not a clear motivation for any low carbon method (table 9). The top three motivations for using more low carbon vineyard practices were: cost efficiency, for example “Tractors can perform multiple operations in a single pass, reducing tractor hours and labour costs” (Medium D), subsidies and nothing, for example “I don't think that I would be concerned about the carbon emissions” (Small A).

Table 9. Motivations for using more low carbon vineyard practices, low carbon bottling and becoming carbon neutral (n=10). Freq. is the frequency a reason is raised by a wine producer; each respondent could have more than one response per question. Motivations to adopt more low Motivations to use Motivations to carbon vineyard more low carbon become carbon practices Freq. bottling Freq. neutral Freq. Cost efficiency 2 Customer demand 3 Cost effective 2 Subsidies 2 Cost effective 2 Customer demand 2 Technological Nothing 2 2 Marketing 1 advances Practical Supermarkets lead Sustainability 1 2 1 implementation the way Increase business Quality 1 Awareness 1 1 size Business Environmental Moral duty 1 1 1 improvement impact Co-benefits 1 Ambassador 1 Access to 1 information Nothing 1

The top motivation for using low carbon bottling was customer demand, for example, “if all the consumers said ‘actually we only want to buy lightweight bottles that are flat bottomed and really cheap’” (Medium E). The next three motivations were: cost effectiveness, technological advances, for example, “technological advances in bottle production because sparkling wine in particular is under pressure, we’re sort of stuck with what we’ve got, we can't afford to risk have bottles exploding” (Large B) and practicality, for example “plastic might not break so easily” (Small A).

32

The top two motivations for becoming carbon neutral were cost effectiveness, for example “There could be a benefit in terms of cost” (Large B) and customer demand “If the customers start demanding it, it has to be lead by the customer” (Medium A).

5.4.3 Social norms

The main findings for social norms is that the majority of wine producers thought that the local community and wine producers would view them positively if they used more low carbon practices and collaboration with other wine producers would be possible to increase their use of low carbon practices.

Figure 16. Sussex wine producer’s interview answers to how they think the local community would perceive them if they carried out (more) low carbon practices (n=10).

Half the respondents thought that the community’s response would just be positive (figure 16). None of the ten wine producers thought that the local community would view them negatively if they used low carbon practices, for example “They’d probably cheer” (Small A).

Three of ten of the wine producers thought that the community response would be neutral. Their responses included that the community would think of them “No differently” (Small B). Another wine producer highlighted that while visitors are interested in environmental issues, they are not interested in their carbon footprint: “We've done a lot of tours, hundreds and hundreds of people, but we've never been asked about our carbon footprint …We talk about biodiversity on the farm, and … helping nature” (Medium A).

The least common response was that the community response would be mainly neutral but also with an aspect of positivity. This group were just large vineyards. Their responses included: “I think

33 everyone has a greater understanding of the environmental threat we’re under” but reflected “Would that make them buy our product more? I probably don't think it would” (Large A). The other large wine producer reflected on the factor of population size: “I think that locally there is such a small population that they don't really think about low carbon issues... if went into the mainstream press you’d have a lot more people behind it” (Large B).

The majority of wine producers thought that other wine producers would perceive them positively if they carried out more low carbon practices (figure 17). For example, “I think it would be positive, I think all wine producers want their peers following best practices” (Large A). A couple of wine producers thought that there might be interest from other wine producers because there is not a focus on carbon neutral wine in England: “Some of them would be very interested because I think it's not something that has been dealt with too much” (Large B), the other wine producer remarking that they would be viewed as “Forward thinking” (Medium B). Some wine producers took it further and thought that others would want to follow in their footsteps: “I would hope that they might see what we’re doing and adopt that as well” (Medium F) and “They would want to emulate us” (Medium E).

Figure 17. Sussex wine producer’s interview answers to how they think local wine producers would perceive them if you carried out (more) low carbon practices (n=9). One wine producer chose not to answer this question.

Eight out of ten wine producers saw potential in collaborating with other wine producers to increase their use of low carbon practices (figure 18). One wine producer thought that collaboration was the only way progress the industry in low carbon wine practices: “I think it's the only way we could improve, we don't have a market economy to decrease carbon so we have to all collaborate to achieve that, individually it won't work” (Large A). The other wine producers who thought that

34 collaboration was possible highlighted that it is already happening: “Wine producers collaborate through online forums. It’s brilliant… it’s a good form of knowledge” (Small B).

Figure 18. Sussex wine producer’s interview answers to if they see potential for wine producers to collaborate to increase their use of low carbon practices (n=10).

However, some wine producers who agreed that there was potential for collaboration, highlighted potential issues, such as the range of sized wine producers and the practicality of collaboration. For example, “I do think that the bigger guys will get together and something will come of it. I think 10 years before it really gets going” (Large B) and “I think the problem is… trying to encompass lots of different types (size) of business … it’s kind of tricky to please everyone in that scenario” (Medium F). Another wine producer thought that they were too small to get involved: “I can't see myself getting involved with that because we're small fry” (Medium E).

The remaining wine producers thought that collaboration would not increase the use of low carbon practices because it was an individual choice “I think it's totally an individual choice. I think that each company has to make its own informed decision” (Medium A).

5.4.4 Perceived behavioural control

The main findings for perceived behavioural control are that are a range of barriers to using low carbon vineyard practices or becoming carbon neutral but there are two main barriers to not using low carbon bottling: customer perception of a high-end product and practicality.

There was not a clear trend about the barriers for using low carbon vineyard practices (table 10). The barriers with a small majority were: high cost, for example, “at the moment we don’t have the funds available” (Medium D) and lack of awareness for, for example, “it's just what we have to do in the vineyard and that's what we have to do” (Medium A).

35

There was a clear trend in the barriers to using low carbon bottling, the main reason being customer perception of a high-end product (table 10). For example, “sparkling wine is a high end product anyway so people, when they hold a bottle of sparkling wine, expect a sort of luxury feel” (Large B) and “I don't think you could sell your English wine in a Tetra Pak, it would be unappealing” (Medium B). The second most mentioned barrier was the practicality of using low carbon bottling options because of the pressure from sparkling wine that the bottle had to withstand, for example “Unfortunately you couldn't do any of that because basically those bottles take 90 PSI which is the same pressure as a London bus tyre” (Medium C).

Table 10. Barriers to using more low carbon vineyard practices, low carbon bottling or becoming carbon neutral (n=10). Freq. is the frequency a reason is raised by a different wine producer; each respondent could have more than one response per question. Barriers to adopt Freq. Barriers to use Freq. Barriers to Freq. low carbon low carbon become carbon vineyard bottling neutral practices Customer perception of High cost 2 7 High cost 4 high-end product Practical Practical Lack of awareness 2 5 4 implementation implementation Small size of Sceptical of 1 High cost 2 3 business concept Unknown Lack of Not enough 1 2 2 benefits awareness information Small size of Small size of Legislation 1 1 1 business business No customer Weather 1 Health & Safety 1 1 demand Not Worse Against the 1 1 technologically 1 performance norm feasible None 1 Being the first 1 1 Not big impact None 1

The two most common barriers to becoming carbon neutral were cost and practical implementation (table 10). For example, “cost and the practicality of achieving it” (Medium A). The next barrier was wine producers scepticism to offsetting, for example “I'm a bit cynical about it (carbon neutral)

36 because I've seen companies that really have polluted the Earth terribly and continue to pollute and are carbon neutral because they offset which is just a joke” (Medium E).

The UKVA sustainability strategy is a potential source of information but wine producers were split about whether they had heard of it. Six out of ten wine producers said that they had heard of the UKVA sustainability strategy. None of this group found it useful. Half of the wine producers who said that it was not useful also said that it would be more useful as practical guidelines.

5.5. Global vs Sussex wine production

Low carbon leaders identified motivations that they encountered in becoming carbon neutral, and these were aggregated into categories (section 5.3). These categories were used to group the motivations that Sussex wine producers pre-empted (section 5.4) to becoming coming carbon neutral (table 11).

Table 11. Comparison of motivations low carbon leaders (LCL) (n=6) encountered becoming carbon neutral (CN) to motivations Sussex wine producers (SWP) (n=10) pre-empt to becoming coming carbon neutral. Cat. total is the frequency barriers were mentioned when aggregated in categories. LCL motivations for CN Cat total SWP motivation for CN Cat total Environment 4 Environmental impact 1 Economics 4 Increase business size 3 Cost effective Marketing 3 Customer demand 4 Marketing Supermarkets lead the way Morals 2 Ambasadors 1 Other 0 Information 2 Nothing

Low carbon leaders and Sussex wine producers were almost in agreement about the frequency of concern for motivation categories, except for the environment which was a much more significant motivation for low carbon leaders than Sussex wine producers (figure 19).

37

Figure 19. Comparison of the frequency that each motivation category is mentioned by low carbon leaders (LCL) (n=6) who are carbon neutral (CN) and Sussex wine producers (SWP) (n=10) in becoming CN.

Low carbon leaders identified barriers that they encountered in becoming carbon neutral, and these were aggregated into categories (section 5.3). These categories were used to group the barriers that Sussex wine producers pre-empted (section 5.4) to becoming coming carbon neutral (table 12).

Table 12. Comparison of barriers low carbon leaders (LCL) (n=6) encountered becoming carbon neutral (CN) to barriers Sussex wine producers (SWP) (n=10) pre-empt to becoming coming carbon neutral. Cat. total is the frequency barriers were mentioned when aggregated in categories. LCL barriers to CN Cat. total SWP barriers to CN Cat. total

• Practicality

• Size of business Practical 7 7 • Not technologically implementation feasible

Being the first •

Marketing 4 No customer demand 1

Mindset 3 Awareness 1

Economics 2 Cost 4

• Sceptical of concept Other 5 0 • Not big impact

• None

Practical implementation is the most popular barrier for both low carbon leaders in their experiences in becoming carbon neutral, and for Sussex wine producers pre-empting barriers to become carbon neutral (figure 20). Marketing, mind-set and economics were in the opposite order of frequency for low carbon leaders and Sussex wine producers.

38

Figure 20. Comparison of the frequency that each barrier category is mentioned by low carbon leaders (LCL) (n=6) who are carbon neutral (CN) and Sussex wine producers (SWP) (n=10) in becoming CN.

6. Discussion

The discussion will be split into four main sections. Part one will focus on global wine production, firstly presenting growing vines and bottling as the stages of wine production with the biggest carbon footprint. Additionally, low carbon practices used by low carbon leaders are discussed, along with their motivations, barriers and co-benefits in becoming carbon neutral. Part two will focus on Sussex wine producers and discuss the use and potential increase of low carbon practices with the TPB (Azjen, 1991). Part three will further help to understand how low carbon practices can be increased in Sussex by comparing Sussex wine producers with global low carbon leaders. Finally, recommendations will be made about how to increase the use of low carbon practices in the Sussex wine industry.

6.1. Global state of low carbon practices in wine production

This section will discuss the results linked to the global carbon footprint of wine production.

6.1.1. Current practices to reduce carbon-intensive stages of global wine production

I answered RQ1 “What do previous studies show to be the stages of wine production with the biggest carbon footprint?” with a literature review, focusing on the comprehensive review of wine production LCA studies by Rugani et al. (2013). This showed that growing vines and bottling wine has the highest carbon footprint (section 5.1).

39

An industry review addressed RQ2a “What practices do low carbon leaders currently use to reduce their emissions for the stages of wine production with the biggest carbon footprint?” Low carbon leaders use a variety of vineyard practices to reduce their carbon footprint, firstly to increase carbon sequestration, for example increasing native plants on site, secondly to reduce their emissions, for example reducing tractor passes and thirdly to protect existing carbon stores, for example minimising tillage. There was less variety of low carbon bottle practices; the common options were plastic bottles and lightweight glass (section 5.2).

However, how much carbon some low carbon practices save is controversial and depends on system boundaries. For example, biofuel has been identified as a low carbon practice, but first generation biofuels are crops on prime land that could be used to grow food and are not likely to be beneficial for climate change mitigation. Land use change from forests to biofuel can increase the GHG emissions for over 30 years before the biofuels start to reduce GHGs (Searchinger et al., 2008). This could be avoided if the type of biofuel recommended was specified, for example third generation biofuels such as microalgae which can be grown on marginalised land (Borowitzka & Moheimani, 2013).

6.1.2. Motivations, co-benefits and barriers for global low carbon leaders to become carbon neutral

Six out of 26 low carbon leaders from the wine industry worldwide completed a questionnaire to answer RQ2b “What motivates low carbon leaders and what are the co-benefits and barriers they experience to become carbon neutral?” Economic and environmental reasons dominated the motivations, co-benefits were mainly economic, and the main barrier was practical implementation.

The main motivations for low carbon leaders to make an aspect of their wine business carbon neutral were evenly split between environmental and economic reasons. Next was marketing and then morals. This suggests that low carbon leaders are trying to balance their business interests with the environment and moral responsibility.

Low carbon leader’s business interests seem to be fulfilled with the top three co-benefits: marketing, business improvement and economics. This suggests that while low carbon leaders are motivated by the environment, they mainly value the benefits that low carbon practices have on their business rather than the environment. This is a reminder that wine producers are businesses and economic

40 institutions and so cost and business implications of practices must be addressed (Flannery & May, 1999).

The main barrier that low carbon leaders encountered when trying to become carbon neutral was practical implementation, followed by marketing and the mind-set of business employees and stakeholders. This suggests that wine producers need more guidance on overcoming practical barriers, such as data requirements, to become carbon neutral. Low carbon leaders highlighted the importance of having good data management systems. Also awareness needs to be raised about low carbon benefits with consumers and distributors as well as internally in wine producer businesses with institutional change. This is in-line with Tilley's (1999) three recommendations for businesses to improve their environmental performance: firstly, businesses must be willing reduce their carbon footprint and acquire appropriate skills and knowledge to do so. Secondly, best practices should be shared between wine producers. Thirdly, the public, government and NGOs need be engaged with the environment. An example of this latter point is Brazil’s Soy Moratorium, a zero deforestation scheme. It was successful due to collaboration between government agencies and NGOs with simple compliance and transparent monitoring and enforcement (Gibbs et al., 2015). A voluntary low carbon scheme could work in the Sussex wine industry, with clear guidelines for low carbon practices and monitoring by NGOs and the UK governments Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.

6.2. Wine production in Sussex

This section will discuss the current state of low carbon practices in Sussex and how the use can be increased in the future.

6.2.1 Baseline of low carbon wine production practices in Sussex

Sussex wine producers were interviewed to answer RQ3a “What is the baseline of low carbon practices in Sussex?” There was a wide range of low carbon vineyard practices adopted in Sussex. All ten vineyards that I interviewed used manual labour and had native plants on site. Many used targeted pesticide application, minimal tillage and cover crops. 12 out of 16 low carbon practices were used by at least half of the wine producers. This was independent of vineyard size. The other four practices that were not used are linked to irrigation (fertigation and drip irrigation) and biodiesel. However, low carbon bottling was not widely adopted in Sussex, with just one wine producer using low carbon bottling options.

41

The variety of low carbon practices used by Sussex vineyards suggests that many practices can be applied across wine regions, regardless of the location. However, Sussex wine producers did not adopt vineyard practices linked to irrigation or biofuel, indicating that some practices are place specific. In the case of irrigation in Sussex, this is for both environmental and legislative reasons. Firstly, the climate is wet (Nesbitt & Kemp, 2016) and so extra irrigation is not usually required. Secondly, EU legislation does not allow artificial irrigation in many Member States to protect the terroir quality of wine (Barriger, 2011) and a Sussex wine producer informed me that this includes the UK. Therefore, producing a blueprint for low carbon vineyard practices and the associated carbon savings is not straightforward because it has to be site specific.

Unlike vineyard practices, low carbon bottling is not dependant on environmental conditions and so they could be more widely adopted. However legislation could play a role. Legislation can have both a positive and negative affect on the carbon footprint of wine production. A negative impact of legislation on the carbon impact includes when it is obligatory to use glass bottles (Vázquez-Rowe, Rugani, Benetto, 2013). Legislation can also have a positive affect on the carbon footprint of wine, for example with eco-labelling (Vázquez-Rowe, Rugani, Benetto, 2013). Nonetheless, a blueprint for low carbon bottling is simpler compared to vineyard practices because they are not site specific.

Therefore there could be widespread use of the bottling option with the lowest carbon footprint for still wine, Tetra Pak, which, although it is not mentioned by any of the low carbon leaders, it reduces the carbon footprint by 75% to 83% compared to glass bottles (Franklin Associates, 2006). For sparkling wine, lightweight glass bottles could be used (WRAP, n.d.). Low carbon bottling options are linked to the way the wine is produced, enabling the weight of the bottle to be reduced. For example the injection method forces carbon dioxide into the wine tank, which reduces the pressure and so reduces the bottle weight from 700g to 400g, but this option may not be desirable for higher end wines. The Charmat method reduces the fermentation time in tanks in a two-step process, again reducing the pressure. It is used for Prosecco and Austrian and German sparkling wines and reduces the glass weight to 550g (WRAP, n.d.).

System boundaries impact the estimation of carbon savings. For example, a wine producer did not use pomace in their vineyard but they used it on their other crops on the farm. Another wine producer ploughs their pruning into their arable fields, rather than their vineyard. The same wine producer also uses local recycled wood for mulch rather than their own pruning because of disease. Therefore, if the system boundary expanded to include the local farmland or local materials, then the carbon footprint results would be different.

42

6.2.2. Increasing the use of low carbon practices in Sussex

To address RQ3b “How could the use of low carbon practices in Sussex be increased?” the TPB (Azjen, 1991) was applied to interviews with Sussex wine producers to understand what could increase their intention to use more low carbon practices. Attitude to behaviour and social norms were generally positive towards low carbon practices, while perceived behavioural control indicated barriers that are preventing more use of low carbon practices, for example cost (figure 21). In a study of pollution in the metal industry in the US, Flannery & May (1999) found that attitude to behaviour and social norms had the most significant affect on environmental decision-making and they also included cost as having a significant impact. Cordano et al. (2010) found that attitude to behaviour and social norms had the most influence on manager’s intention to use environmental practices.

However, in a study by Ashford (1993) on environmental manager decisions about pollution, managers’ knowledge (perceived behavioural control) and attitude to the behaviour were identified as having the most influence over decision-making.

Figure 21. Graphical representation of summarised results for TPB (Azjen, 1991) showing in green that attitude to behaviour and social norms has a positive impact on the intention to use more low carbon practices but perceived behavioural control has a negative impact.

Attitude to behaviour

The overall results for attitude to behaviour suggest that wine producers are positive about low carbon practices and will use more low carbon practices if it benefits their wine business.

43

One way to determine the attitude of wine producers to low carbon practices is to assess their attitude to climate change, because the purpose of using low carbon practices is to mitigate the impact of wine production on climate change. There was a mixed response from wine producers about whether or not they were concerned about the impact of climate change on their vineyard.

Wine producers who were concerned about the impact of climate change on their vineyard might view the use of low carbon practices more positively. Extreme weather dominated their concerns about climate change. This is in line with Nesbitt & Kemp (2016) who interviewed UK wine producers about their opinion on climate change and found that almost two thirds of UK wine producers were concerned about weather related threats from climate change, for example weather negatively impacting the growing season and unpredictable weather, aggregated in my research as extreme weather.

Wine producers who are not concerned about the impact of climate change on their business may view using low carbon practices as unnecessary because they will not benefit from their actions. However, there is also the possibility that they recognise climate change as a global problem that would benefit from their contribution to mitigation, as some low carbon leaders felt. The most common reason to not be concerned about climate change was because of the opportunity that the increase in temperature had created for vine growth in Sussex. This is also in line with Nesbitt & Kemp (2016) who found that UK wine producers were most positive about the impact of a warmer growing season on wine quality.

Whether or not wine producers feel like they have a significant impact on climate change affects their decision-making process about whether or not they should change their practices to low carbon. In a study of small businesses in the UK, Tilley (1999) found that small businesses often do not feel that they have a significant impact on the environment. Flannery & May (1999) found that how wine producers in the US see the significance of their actions affects how they make their decisions. In moral terms, if wine producers perceive there to be high consequences of their actions, for example severe climate change impacts, then they can make the decision to act more clearly. However, if they perceive the consequences of their actions as low, for example a low impact on climate change, then they will be more influenced by other factors. Businesses, such as wine producers, will be particularly influenced by the economic impact of their decisions if they believe that their impact on climate change is low. This could be based on what they think is fair or not.

44

Motivations for the current state of low carbon practices were examined. Despite wine producers expressing concern about climate change, I found that climate change mitigation is not a main motivation for carrying out current low carbon practices. Only one wine producer mentioned carbon reduction in their motivations. And so awareness of climate change mitigation will not necessarily result in low carbon action. Therefore a single pronged approach of educating wine producers about low carbon practices may not be enough to drive change.

Despite this, and the fact that businesses are economic institutions, environmental reasons were the most common motivation for the current use of low carbon practices. Soil improvement made up half of the environmental reasons. This shows that they value the land on which they use for vine growth. Also, soil improvement is a benefit that wine producers can see directly and they own the land as opposed to the shared global commons of the atmosphere and the long term benefit of climate change stabilisation. And so while it is an environmental reason, it also is a reason that benefits wine producers directly by maintaining their livelihood as well as the environment. Concern about the environment can increase the carbon stock of vineyards. For example, concern about air pollution is discouraging tilling in California which is protecting the soil carbon stock (Steenwerth et al., 2015).

Cost effectiveness was in the top two motivations for a future increase of low carbon vineyard and bottling practises and becoming carbon neutral. This is not surprising because they are a business, and so economic sustainability is significant.

Social norms

The results for social norms had a positive influence on the intention for wine producers to use more low carbon practices. Wine producers mainly thought that the community and wine producers would view them positively if they used more low carbon practices. The local community is significant because they have a vested interest in their environment and can be a barrier to using certain vineyard practices, for example pesticide use in Sonoma, California (Sogg, 2000).

The majority of wine producers saw potential in collaborating with other wine producers to increase their use of low carbon practices. They could share knowledge and experiences of using low carbon practices in meetings and on wine association forums. However, a wine producer pointed out that sharing equipment would probably not be appropriate because it was likely that they would need the

45 equipment at the same time. Collaboration could be a potential leverage point for increasing the use of low carbon practices.

However, the fact that many of the wine producers are small to medium in size may impede their ability to have the resources to be able to perceive social pressure (Rothenberg & Becker, 2004).

Perceived behavioural control

The results for perceived behavioural control indicate that the main barriers preventing Sussex wine producers from using more low carbon practices are: cost, customer perception, practical implementation, scepticism of the carbon neutral concept and lack of awareness and information. There was not a clear hierarchy of barriers for using low carbon vineyard practices or to become carbon neutral.

There was a clear barrier to using low carbon bottling; customer perception of a high-end product, especially concerning sparkling wine, because customers associate heavy glass with quality and alternatives like PET indicates cheap wine. Therefore, for a new wine industry, they may feel like it will be detrimental to their business to use alternative, low carbon bottles. This suggests that customer perception is a leverage point for change.

Although consumers might pay less for wine they think is cheap, a market report by WSTA (n.d.) found that: “The current trend (2014) shows consumers paying more for their alcohol but drinking less”. Therefore, consumers could be willing to pay a premium price for carbon neutral wine if it was marketed appropriately, for example to the environmental market. Also the packaging in part determines the popularity of a wine with consumers (Lockshin, Mueller, Louviere, Francis, & Osidacz, 2009) so low carbon wine could stand out with fashionable packaging.

However customers are not a homogenous group, for example there is a difference between novice and experienced wine consumers (Agnoli, Capitelo, & Begalli, 2016). Experienced wine consumers may respond positively to low carbon information on the wine label while novice consumers may be put off by too much information. However, novice consumers could be targeted through carbon neutral novel branding because they choose wine based on first impressions (Agnoli et al., 2016).

46

Packaging is not only consumer driven. The end retailer can also influence the packaging. Tesco, a UK supermarket, expects the wine they sell to be supplied in sturdy packaging. This may encourage wineries to over package their wine (Soosay et al., 2012).

Practical implementation was the next common barrier to bottling because of the high pressure of sparkling wine. This is a perceived technological limitation that a bottle for sparkling wine requires thicker glass to withstand the high pressure of the wine than their still counterpart. However, as already presented, lightweight sparkling wine bottles are available.

There were not clear barrier for carbon neutrality, but the two barriers with the small majority were the cost of becoming carbon neutral and practical implementation, for example the data intensity of the process. This barrier could be met with affordable external experts advising business on environmental improvements and certification, as suggested by Tilley (1999).

The carbon management objective in the UKVA sustainability strategy is a potential platform for collaboration and inspiration for Sussex wine producers to use low carbon practices. Wine producers were almost equally split as to whether they had heard of the strategy or not. None of the wine producers who had heard of the strategy found it useful because the strategy did not include practical guidelines. Tilley (1999) in particular found that small businesses did not react well to vague guidelines but instead benefited from clear guidelines that could be directly applied to their business. Marshall et al. (2005) identified trade associations, such as the UKVA, as key for environmental information sharing and training in the industry. Hoffman (2000) found that if trade associations have legitimacy, such as the UKVA, then they could influence the issues that the industry focuses on, for example low carbon, and educate wine producers about low carbon practices.

6.3. Comparison of carbon neutrality in global and Sussex wine industries

No Sussex wine producers are yet carbon neutral. Their motivations and pre-emptive barriers were compared with the experiences of low carbon leaders to see if there is a gap between anticipation and reality. There are both similarities and dissimilarities of the views of wine producers in the global and Sussex wine industry.

Practical implementation is the most popular barrier for both low carbon leaders and Sussex wine producers for decreasing their carbon impact. This could be because wine producers are not confident about how to implement change. The order of how often the remaining barriers were

47 raised: marketing, mind-set and economics, were in the opposite order for Sussex wine producers and low carbon leaders. The discrepancies could indicate that the real life experiences of low carbon leaders need to be communicated with Sussex wine producers. Or it could also mean that barriers are place specific, for example because of the environmental conditions and legislation.

There was discrepancy between Sussex wine producers and low carbon leaders about the idea of offsetting to achieve carbon neutrality. None of the low carbon leaders achieved carbon neutrality without offsetting. However, some Sussex wine producers were sceptical of the concept, suggesting they want to avoid greenwashing. Mackey et al. (2013) agrees that the concept of offsetting fossil fuel emissions by increasing the carbon stock is “scientifically flawed” (p.552). There is a finite amount of carbon that can be restored on land, and this will not be enough to offset the fossil fuel reserves. Therefore carbon offsetting should not be an excuse for ‘business as usual’ but instead act as a buffer while we reduce our fossil fuel emissions (Mackey et al., 2013).

Some wine producers recognise the limitation of relying on external offsetting, and aspire to become carbon neutral internally. For a wine product to become carbon neutral, a cradle to grave analysis is needed which will highlight some carbon emissions that, while can be reduced, are unavoidable, for example emissions from distribution. One wine producer in Australia called Belgrave Park has overcome this by offsetting its carbon emissions onsite by planting 700 trees on the wine estate. However, not all wine producers may be privileged to have this land available for offsetting. Thus there is still a need to reduce carbon emissions to a bare minimum through low carbon practices, to achieve a manageable amount of carbon to offset on site. Some low carbon leaders exemplify other ways to balance the carbon budget, for example by reinstating native plant species on a smaller scale, planting hedgerows or using renewable energy in the winery which generate extra energy to feed back into the grid.

Low carbon leaders and Sussex wine producers agree that economic and marketing is a popular motivation for using low carbon practices, and morals are at the lower end. This unites both groups in the fact that they are business institutions. Therefore the business benefits of using low carbon practices need to be promoted to encourage further uptake.

However there was a discrepancy with environmental motivation. Low carbon leaders positioned the environment and economics as the most popular motivations, but Sussex wine producers only mentioned environmental motivation once. Small businesses, such as the majority of Sussex wine producers, often lack time, resources and money to invest in environmental improvement, compared

48 to big businesses (Tilley, 1999). Meanwhile, low carbon leaders could have this status because they valued the environment to such an extent that it paralleled economic motivations. Like low carbon leaders, Andrews et al. (2001) and Florida & Davison (2001) found that environmental improvement was the main motivation for businesses to adopt an Environmental Management System.

However, Andrews et al. (2001) and Florida & Davison (2001) found that compliance with regulation came third in the motivations, which was not mentioned by either sample in this study. This could indicate that there is not yet enough regulation about GHG reductions to encourage wine producers to reduce their carbon footprint. Both studies also found that economic motivations were lower on the list compared to both of my samples. This suggests that if there are carbon footprint regulations, economics could become a lower priority.

Low carbon leaders could share the benefits that they experienced with the rest of the industry, to provide evidence for the positivity of reducing their carbon footprint. Cordano & Frieze (2000) found that the past experience of environmental managers had a big impact on their intention to use environmental practices in the future. Therefore promoting benefits could be especially important for building confidence of new industries, such as Sussex, who do not have experience with carbon neutrality.

6.4. Recommendations to increase low carbon practices in Sussex

Table 13 that follows lists study findings, recommendations, for who and intended outcomes. Recommendations are designed to address the study findings, with suggestions of how to increase the use of low carbon practices in Sussex.

Table 13. A list of corresponding study findings, recommendations, and for who and intended outcomes. Study finding Recommendation For who Intended outcomes Low carbon leaders Piloting low carbon practices Sussex wine Inspiration from best exist worldwide & that have been successful producers practices around the there is potential for elsewhere & monitoring their world, testing collaboration with success in Sussex & feeding applicability in Sussex Sussex wine findings back into the & collaborating producers practices & sharing with the industry UKVA sustainability UKVA sustainability strategy UKVA Wine producers have strategy does not developed into practical clear, applicable include practical guidelines for wine producers guidelines to guidelines for carbon encourage use of low management carbon practices

49

Cost is a barrier to Government support, for UK Provide financial low carbon practices example reducing wine tax to government support for low the same level as beer carbon practices

Cost is a barrier to Robust cost/benefit analysis Sussex wine Provide evidence of low carbon practices of low carbon practices producers financial impact

Carbon neutrality is Wine producers obtain Sussex wine Data record for carbon data intensive training about monitoring producers & calculator record keeping of resource Wine use e.g. fuel & fertiliser association Carbon footprint from A closed loop agricultural Sussex wine Holistic view of wine energy required to system to minimise the inputs producers production to allow produce & transport into the vineyard system will synergies to be resources reduce the need to import identified in wine external resources production stages, e.g. pomace from winery to vineyard to decrease GHG emissions Customer perception Customers informed about Customers & Increase pressure and is a barrier to low benefits of low carbon Wine industry acceptance from carbon bottling practices, e.g. with labelling & customers for green marketed as environmental & alternatives fashionable Current Wine Develop updated wine carbon Wine Carbon Wine producers can Protocol Calculator is calculator, covering all wine Calculator monitor their carbon out of date & not regions developers reduction, recommended for encouraging continual accurate results at reduction, minimising present & does not offsetting cover England

6.5. Limitations & further research

I recognise that there are limitations with this study. Firstly, I only interviewed vineyard managers because of the more extensive and complex vineyard questions because a larger array of possible low carbon vineyard practices were identified, compared to bottling. While they were able to answer questions about bottling, interviewing winery managers as well may have produced different results about low carbon bottling. Secondly, if I had taken a larger and random sample of Sussex wine producers, then I would have been able to generalise the results to the Sussex wine industry. Thirdly, conducting an Internet search in English might have missed low carbon leaders when their websites were not in English. The first language of many large wine regions is not English. Finally, it could have

50 been interesting to compare respondents complete answers with each other to get an idea about particular character types, rather than the general trends between their amalgamated answers.

Further research could focus on the cost implications of low carbon practices. While the cost of practices will differ between regions, a cost estimate could allow wine producers to make an informed decision. Also, attempts could be made to quantify carbon savings of low carbon practices on a case study level to account for regional environmental differences. A success story of using low carbon practices in a new wine region such as Sussex may encourage others to follow suit.

7. Conclusion

Climate change mitigation from the wine industry should prioritise reducing the carbon footprint of the stages of wine production with the highest carbon footprint: bottling and growing vines. Sussex is an interesting case study because it is a new and increasing wine industry, made possible because of global warming. However, the impact of climate change, such as extreme weather, threatens the same region that it is benefitting. No wine producers in Sussex are currently carbon neutral but there is an opportunity for them to learn from global low carbon leaders, and implement low carbon practices to reduce their carbon footprint as they continue to expand. Understanding what low carbon leaders are already doing to reduce their carbon footprint, their motivations, co-benefits and barriers could encourage other wine producer producers to follow suit.

The results from TPB (Azjen, 1991) suggest that attitude to behaviour and social norms have a positive impact on wine producers intention to use low carbon practices. Wine producers do not see their impact on climate change as significant enough to make a moral decision without considering potential barriers. Thus, if the barriers to increasing low carbon leaders are addressed to increase wine producers perceived behavioural control, and it can be shown that low carbon practices will benefit Sussex wine producers businesses, then they will have higher intentions to adopt low carbon practices.

Sussex wine is set to make a bigger mark on the map with protected status. If they take the step to become carbon neutral, then they could inspire other emerging wine industries and even develop practices for the rest of the agricultural sector to reduce its carbon footprint.

51

8. References

Ademe, Y., Axtell, B., Fellows, P., Gedi, L., Harcourt, D., La Grenade, C., … Hounhouigan, J. (2014). Opportunities in Food Processing. (P. Fellows & B. Axtell, Eds.). Wageningen: The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA).

Agnoli, L., Capitelo, R., & Begalli, D. (2016). Behind intention and behaviour: factors influencing wine consumption in a novice market. British Food Journal, 118(3), 660–678.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, p. 179-211

Ashford, N. (1993). Understanding technological responses of industrial firms to environmental problems: Implications for government policy. In Environmental strategies for industry: International perspectives on research needs and policy implications. 277–310. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Audsley, E., Brander, M., Chatterton, J., Murphy-bokern, D., Webster, C., & Williams, A. (2009). How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope reduction by 2050. WWF-UK

Barriger, L. (2011). Global Warming and Viticulture: The Ability of Wine Regions to Adapt in Differing Regulatory Schemes. Penn St. Envtl. L. Rev., 19(2), 311–332.

Barry, M. (2011). Life Cycle Assessment and the New Zealand Wine Industry : A tool to support continuous environmental improvement. Massey University.

BBC. (2012). Nyetimber vineyard scraps 2012 grape harvest. Retrieved April 3, 2016, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19895287

BBC. (2015). Sussex winemakers launch bid for protected name status. Retrieved April 3, 2016, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-31750317

Borowitzka, M. A., & Moheimani, N. R. (2013). Sustainable biofuels from algae. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18(1), 13–25.

Bosco, S., di Bene, C., Galli, M., Remorini, D., Massai, R., & Bonari, E. (2011). Greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural phase of wine production in the Maremma rural district in Tuscany, Italy. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 6(2), 93–100.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cho, K., Falloon, P., Gornall, J., Betts, R., & Clark, R. (2012). Winter wheat yields in the UK: Uncertainties in climate and management impacts. Climate Research, 54, 49–68. http://doi.org/10.3354/cr01085

Colman, T., & Päster, P. (2007). Red, White, and “Green”: the Cost of Carbon in the Global Wine Trade. American Association of Wine Economists, (9), 1–19.

Colman, T., & Päster, P. (2009). Red, White, and “Green”: The Cost of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Global Wine Trade. Journal of Wine Research, 20(1), 15–26.

Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. (2000). Pollution Reduction Preferences of U.S. Environmental Managers:

52

Applying Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 627– 641.

Cordano, M., Marshall, R. S., & Silverman, M. (2010). How do small and medium enterprises Go “Green”? A study of environmental management programs in the U.S. wine industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(3), 463–478.

Decanter. (2016). English wine estates bid to create Sussex appellation. Retrieved April 1, 2016, from http://www.decanter.com/wine-news/english-wine-estates-bid-to-create-sussex- appellation- 1828/

Department of Energy & Climate Change. (2014). Climate change explained - Detailed guidance. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/climate-change-explained

Eads, L. (2016). UK To Increase Wine Exports ’10 Fold’ By 2020. Retrieved April 2, 2016, from https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/03/uk-to-increase-wine-exports-10- fold-by-2020/

English Wine Producers. (2014). A Few Facts and Figures About English and Welsh Wines and Vineyards. Retrieved April 2, 2016 from http://www.englishwineproducers.co.uk/files/7614/4604/3476/Instant_Fact_Sheet_2015.pdf

European Environmental Agency. (2014). Trends and projections in Europe 2014 Executive summary. http://doi.org/10.2800/93693

Field, B., & Simmons, C. (2011). Product Carbon Footprinting for Beginners. BSI Group, London.

Flannery, B. L., & May, D. R. (1999). An Empirical Study of the Effect of Moral Intensity on Environmental Ethical Decision Making. Acadamy of Management Proceedings, 1–7.

Folwell, R. J., & Volanti, M. (2003). The Changing Market Structure of the USA Wine Industry. Journal of Wine Research, 14(1), 25–30.

Food Standards Agency. (2016). UK Vineyard Register. Retrieved April 3, 2016, from https://www.food.gov.uk/business-industry/winestandards/ukvineyards

Franklin Associates. (2006). Life Cycle Inventory of container systems for wine. Final Report. Franklin Associate, KS.

Gazulla, C., Raugei, M., & Fullana-i-palmer, P. (2010). Taking a life cycle look at crianza wine production in Spain : where are the bottlenecks ? International Journal of Life Cycle Assessments, 15, 330–337.

Gibbs, B. H. K., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D. C., Noojipady, P., … Cerrado, E. (2015). Brazil’s Soy Moratorium. Science, 347(6220), 377–378.

Hoffman, A. (2000). Competitive Environmental Strategy: a Guide to the Changing Business Landscape. Washington, DC: Island.

Jamison, J., & Myers, L. B. (2008). Peer-Group and price influence students drinking along with planned behaviour. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 43(4), 492–497.

Jerneck, A., Olsson, L., Ness, B., Anderberg, S., Baier, M., Clark, E., … Persson, J. (2011). Structuring sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 6(1), 69–82.

53

Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, M. J., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., … Svedin, U. (2001). Sustainability Science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642.

Kilian, B., Hettinga, J., Jiménez, G. A., Molina, S., & White, A. (2012). Case study on Dole’s carbon- neutral fruits. Journal of Business Research, 65(12), 1800–1810.

Kroodsma, D. a, & Field, C. B. (2006). Carbon Sequestration in California Agriculture , 1980 – 2000. Ecological Applications, 16(5), 1975–1985.

Krstic, M., Moulds, G., Panagiotopoulos, B., & West, S. (2003). Growing Quality Grapes to Winery Specifications. (S. Collings, Ed.). Adelaide, Australia: Wineties.

Lockshin, L., Mueller, S., Louviere, J., Francis, L., & Osidacz, P. (2009). Development of a new method to measure how consumers choose wine. Aust. N. Z. Wine Ind. J., 24, 37–43.

Mackey, B., Prentice, I. C., Steffen, W., House, J. I., Lindenmayer, D., Keith, H., & Berry, S. (2013). Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policy. Nature Climate Change, 3(6), 552–557.

Malusà, E., Laurenti, E., Ghibaudi, E., & Rolle, L. (2004). Influence of organic and conventional management on yield and composition of Grape cv. “Grignolino.” Acta Horticulturae, 640, 135– 141.

Marshall, R. S., Cordano, M., & Silverman, M. (2005). Exploring individual and institutional drivers of proactive environmentalism in the US wine industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(2), 92–109.

Mira de Orduña, R. (2010). Climate change associated effects on grape and wine quality and production. Food Research International, 43(7), 1844–1855. 1

Nesbitt, A., & Kemp, B. (2016). Impact of recent climate change and weather variability on the viability of UK viticulture – combining weather and climate records with producers ’ perspectives Impact of recent climate change and weather variability on the viability of UK viticulture – c. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 1–12.

Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (1998). “Inclined abstainers”: a problem for predicting health-related behaviour. The British Journal of Social Psychology / the British Psychological Society, 37, 151– 165.

Pattara, C., Raggi, A., & Cichelli, A. (2012). Life cycle assessment and carbon footprint in the wine supply-chain. Environmental Management, 49, 1247–1258.

Point, E., Tyedmers, P., & Naugler, C. (2012). Life cycle environmental impacts of wine production and consumption in Nova Scotia, Canada. Journal of Cleaner Production, 27, 11–20.

Ponte, S. (2009). Governing through quality: Conventions and supply relations in the value chain for South African wine. Sociologia Ruralis, 49(3), 236–257.

Quintal, V. A., Thomas, B., & Phau, I. (2015). Incorporating the winescape into the theory of planned behaviour: Examining “new world” wineries. Tourism Management, 46, 596–609.

Rothenberg, S., & Becker, M. (2004). Technical Assistance Programs and the Diffusion of Environmental Technologies in the Printing Industry: The Case of SMEs. Business & Society,

54

43(4), 366–397.

Rugani, B., Vázquez-Rowe, I., Benedetto, G., & Benetto, E. (2013). A comprehensive review of carbon footprint analysis as an extended environmental indicator in the wine sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 54, 61–77.

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109.

Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., … Yu, T.-H. (2008). Use of U. S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change. Science, 319(2008), 1238–40.

Silva, A. P., Figueiredo, I., Hogg, T., & Sottomayor, M. (2014). Young adults and wine consumption a qualitative application of the theory of planned behavior. British Food Journal, 116(5), 832–848.

Smith, J. (2010). Growing Food, Absorbing Carbon. The Organic Grower, 12, 20–21.

Smyth, M., & Nesbitt, A. (2012). Energy and English Wine Production: A review of energy use, benchmarking and good practice. Plumption College, UK.

Sogg, D. (2000). Sonoma Wineries and Environmentalists Battle Over Pesticides. Wine Spectator. Retrieved from http://www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show/id/Sonoma-Wineries-and- Environmentalists-Battle-Over-Pesticides_20817

Soja, G., Zehetner, F., Rampazzo, G., Schildberger, B., Hackl, K., Hofmann, R., … Oman, I. (2010). Wine production under climate change conditions : mitigation and adaptation options from the vineyard to the sales booth. Climate Change: Agriculture, Food Security and Human Health, 1368–1378.

Soosay, C., Fearne, A., & Dent, B. (2012). Sustainable Value Chain Analysis – A Case Study Of Oxford Landing From “Vine to Dine.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(1), 68– 77.

Sparks, B. (2007). Planning a wine tourism vacation? Factors that help to predict tourist behavioural intentions. Tourism Management, 28(5), 1180–1192.

Steenwerth, K. L., Strong, E. B., Greenhut, R. F., Williams, L., & Kendall, A. (2015). Life cycle greenhouse gas, energy, and water assessment of wine grape production in California. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20, 1243–1253.

Tilley, F. (1999). The gap between the environmental attitudes and the environmental behaviour of small firms, 8, 238–248.

UKVA. (2010). UKVA Policy Statement – Sustainability United Kingdom Vineyards ’ Association (UKVA) Policy Statement on Sustainability UKVA Policy Statement – Sustainability (Draft). Retreived March 3, 2016 from http://www.ukva.org.uk/images/documents/symposium_2010/ukva_sustainability_strategy_st atements_mar_2010.pdf

UNFCCC. (2013). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its eighteenth session, held in Doha from 26 November to 8 December 2012. UNFCCC.

55

Vázquez-Rowe, I., Rugani, B., & Benetto, E. (2013). Tapping carbon footprint variations in the European wine sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 43, 146–155.

Vázquez-Rowe, I., Villanueva-Rey, P., Iribarren, D., Moreira, M. T., & Feijoo, G. (2012). Joint life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis of grape production for vini fi cation in the Rías Baixas appellation ( NW Spain ). Journal of Cleaner Production, 27, 92–102.

Vázquez-Rowe, I., Villanueva-Rey, P., Moreira, M. T., & Feijoo, G. (2012). Environmental analysis of Ribeiro wine from a timeline perspective: Harvest year matters when reporting environmental impacts. Journal of Environmental Management, 98(1), 73–83.

Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M., & Ingram, J. S. I. (2012). Climate Change and Food Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 195–222.

Wine Institute. (n.d.). World Wine Production By Country 2011 - 2014 And % Change 2014/2011. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from http://www.wineinstitute.org/files/World_Wine_Production_by_Country_2014_cTr adeDataAndAnalysis.pdf

Winkler, K. J., & Nicholas, K. A. (2016). More than wine : Cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California. Ecological Economics, 124, 86–98.

WRAP. (n.d.). Sparkling wine: the lightweight opportunities. Retrieved from http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/GR_info_CHAMPAGNE.pdf

WRAP. (2007). The life cycle emissions of wine imported to the UK. Retrieved from http://www.wrapcymru.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/The Life Cycle Emissions of Wine Imported to the UK Final Report.pdf

WSTA. (n.d.). Bargain price war on wine is a red herring - Wine sold for less than £3 has halved over last three years. Retrieved April 2, 2016, from http://www.wsta.co.uk/press/742-bargain-price- war-on-wine-is-a-red-herring

Yang, Y., & Paladino, A. (2015). The case of wine: understanding Chinese gift-giving behavior. Marketing Letters, 26(3), 335–361.

56

Appendices

Appendix A – Consent Form Consent Form For participation in Lund University research on low carbon wine practices Description and procedure You are invited to participate in a research study on wine production practices and bottling. The interview will involve questions about how your estate decides upon the management and production styles especially in regards to low carbon practices. The goal of the study is to better understand what wine producers in Sussex think about low carbon practices and to understand the feasibility of using low carbon practices in this region. You will be asked to answer questions, which will be recorded if you consent below. Risks and benefits The risks associated with this study are anticipated to be minimal, not greater than those experienced in daily life. The benefits, which may result from this study, are an insight into the development of wine management choices in your region. However, I cannot guarantee that you will receive any benefits from this study. Time involvement Your participation in this study will take approximately one hour. Participation is completely voluntary, and you will not receive any monetary compensation for your participation. Rights If you have read this form and have decided to participate in this project, please note your participation is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw your consent or discontinue participation at any time. You can decline to answer any questions. Your privacy will be maintained in all published and written data resulting from the study, unless you state otherwise. Questions If you have any questions about this research, please feel free to contact me via phone or mail.

I give consent to be recorded during this study: Please initial: Yes _____ No ___ I give consent for my wine business name to be used in the publication: Yes ___ No ___

I want a copy of the resulting publication: Please initial: Yes ___ No___ If you would like a copy of the thesis, please enter your email:

______Please sign before the interview.

______Participant's Name (please print)

______Participant's Signature Date Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this study.

57 Appendix B – Questionnaire to global low carbon leaders

Dear (insert wine producer)

I am studying a Masters in environmental sustainability and I am looking into how wine producers in England could be motivated to use low carbon practises.

I have identified you as a low carbon leader in wine production and I would be very grateful if you could answer three questions about why you decided to become carbon neutral?

1. Why did you decide to become carbon neutral?

2. Did you come across any barriers in trying to become carbon neutral?

3. Have there been co-benefits of your carbon neutral practises?

Either a) Would you be happy for me to attribute answers you give to your vineyard? Or b) Would you prefer me not to just refer to the country your vineyard is located?

58 Appendix C – Interview questions for Sussex wine producers

Date and Time: Wine Producer: Setting: Participant:

Vineyard background 1. What stages of wine production are included in your wine business? (tick) Vineyard? Winery? Bottling? Distribute to retailers? Sell directly to customers? 2. Vineyard size? (ha) 3. What grape varieties do you grow? (%) 4. Do you produce still or sparkling wine or both? 5. How long have you been established? 6. Average amount of bottles produced a year?

Climate change 7. a) Are you concerned about the impact of climate change on your vineyard? b)Future concerns about climate change? IF YES c) What are your concerns?

59 Vineyard baseline I’m interested in what low carbon practices vineyards are currently adopting and may be interested in adopting. Low carbon practices are defined in this study as practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions (for example carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide), either by reducing emissions or increasing the storage of carbon on the vineyard site. This list of practices has been compiled from wine producers around the world who I have identified as having a part of their wine production certified as carbon neutral.

8. a) Do you currently adopt any of these low carbon practices in the vineyard for any reason? (please tick the options from the table - explain) b) How are these low carbon practices used? c) Have they replaced other practices?

9. Do you use any low carbon practices in the vineyard that are not included in this list? IF YES a) Which low carbon practices? b) How are these low carbon practices used? c) Have they replaced other practices?

IF YES to any vineyard low carbon practices 10. a) Why did you decide to use these low carbon practices?

Increasing the use of low carbon practices in the vineyard 11. a) Have you considered using (more) low carbon practices from the list you tick ed earlier? IF YES b) Which low carbon practices have you considered? c) What disadvantages have you considered for using this/these practices? d) What benefits have you considered for using this/these practices? e) Why have you decided not to adopt these? IF NO f) What might motivate you to adopt (more) low carbon practices? g) What are the barriers, preventing you from adopting (more) low carbon practices?

Bottling baseline 12. a) Do you currently use any of these low carbon bottling options? (show pictures) IF YES b) Why? c) Do you use any low carbon bottling practices that are not in this list? IF YES d) Why?

60

Increasing the use of low carbon bottling practices 13. a) Have you considered widening your use of low carbon bottling?

IF YES d) Which low carbon bottling practices have you considered? e) What disadvantages have you considered for using this/these bottling practices? f) What benefits have you considered for using this/these bottling practices? g) Why have you decided not to adopt these bottling practices?

IF NO h) What might motivate you to adopt (more) low carbon practices? i) What are the barriers, preventing you from adopting (more) low carbon practices?

Carbon neutral – measuring your greenhouse gas emissions and then working to reduce these emissions and potentially offsetting the rest 14. a) Have you considered becoming carbon neutral? IF YES b) What are your motivations for becoming carbon neutral? c) What are your barriers for you to become carbon neutral? IF NO d) What might motivate you to become carbon neutral? e) What are the barriers, preventing you from becoming carbon neutral?

Control of low carbon choices 15. a) Are you aware of th e UKVA sustainability strategy? IF YES b) Do you find the UKVA sustainability strategy helpful to guide your practices? In what way? IF NO c) Why do you think that the UKVA sustainability strategy is not helpful to guide your practices?

16. a) Do you think that you have access to enough information to make informed decisions about low carbon practices? IF YES b) In what form do you access the information? c) Could the form in which you receive this information be improved? IF NO d) In what form would you like to receive information about low carbon practices?

Norms 17. How do you think the local community would perceive you if you carried out (more) low carbon practices? 18. How do you think local wine producers would perceive you if you carried out (more) low carbon practices? 19. Do you see potential for wine producers to collaborate to increase their use of low carbon practices?

61 Appendix D - Carbon footprint of each stage of wine production and assumptions from each paper. n/a stage not included in paper

Y Y Y Y Y N N N

to %? Converted n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a recycling. Collection and returns, storage 100% recyclable. bottles assumed Stopper and label Retailer waste and assumed to landfill. management. Glass CF% & assumptions Waste management Transport and waste 3% 1% 1% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Waste CF% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Consumer assumptions consumption. Storage, travel Car 5km drive. Consumer CF% & refrigeration of wine. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 37% 11% 23% CF% Consumer n/a info. Lorries. disposal. Transport assumptions supermarket. Distribution & Transport from UK & car trip to wine transport. Customer collects Shipping from NZ to Transport to retailer. 12%. Cardboard box, winery to consumer. wine from winery. No 8% 6% n/a CF% 36% 14% 12% 12% 28% Transport only. waste pallet. No info. transport Packaging label & cap glass bottle bottle from label & cap. Glass bottle transport on assumptions Bottling (glass), cap production. storage, export, Filling, labelling, Of which 7% oak production, cork, Cardboard boxes. Transport trucks. European pallets. capping, material average 5kg), cap Glass bottle, cork, production. Bottle 400g, 60% recycled truck, bottle (glass, approval, despatch, years. Glass bottles, barrel. Barrels last 7 labelling, packaging, Bottle manufacture European pallets by Cardboard. Wooden and label, packaging manufacturer, screw Transport to bottling, (cardboard or wood). production, transport glass, label, cork, cap. 53% 51% 39% 85% 14% 39% 30% 27% CF% Packaging wine. No info. Storage. Organic. Crushing, stemming, Electricity. oil, ethanol winemaking, Crushing, de- Aged 2 years. refrigeration, fermentation, cleaning, adding Electricity. Water despatch, waste. Transport grapes, blending, storage, for 12-18 months, cleaning. Sulphite. material transport. ageing in barriques electricity, heating emissions, transport Winery assumptions enzymes, potassium, 5% 4% 6% 5% CF% 11% 12% 17% 12% Winery growth. despatch. Viticulture harvest and assumptions Not artificially accounted for. decomposition Pruning residue and machinery. fuel, machinery. returned to soil. emission. Carbon Land preparation workers transport and 3,000kg/ha of inorganic fertilizer irrigation, biomass Cultural practises, Fuel, fertiliser, soil pest management, pest management, irrigated. 500kg/ha material transport. viticulture practise, per year. Transport Land management, pruning, harvesting, transport to winery, and trellis. Fertiliser, Just frost protection Fertiliser application fertilisation, weed & & vine maintenance. Grass/legume cover. sequestration in vine of fertiliser. Diesel for organic fertilizer used 6% 15% 50% 25% 31% 28% 10% CF% -28% +3% / Viticulture n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Vineyard preparation assumptions vine planting, management. wooden posts). & trellising (inc. irrigation system, material transport, Diesel for soil prep, tillage, weed & pest fertiliser & chemicals fertilisation, manure, Seedlings, rootstock, 7% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 23% Vineyard prep. CF% NZ. Italy paper in 2009. Africa and 2006-2009 . export to UK Austria. Data Produced and Traisen valley, small vineyards Tuscany, Italy. 4 collected from 9 'Oxford Landing' other New World Organic red wine, wine regions that Wine produced in Wine produced in Wine produced in produced in South transported to UK. mainly Australia & vineyards assessed One wine product - Rioja, Spanish wine. Overall assumptions consumed in Canada Paper WRAP (2011) (2007) (2012) (2010) al. (2012) al. (2012) al. (2010) Soosay et Gazulla et Pattara et Soja et al., Point et al. Bosco et al. Barry (2011)

62