The Carbon Footprint of the Finnish Beverage Industry for Years 2000- 2012 As Calculated with Ccalc

The carbon footprint of the Finnish beverage industry for years 2000- 2012 as calculated with CCaLC

Pia Karjalainen Master’s Thesis

Environmental Change and Policy Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences

November 2013

Tiedekunta – Fakultet – Faculty Laitos – Institution– Department Biological and Environmental Studies Environmental Sciences Tekijä – Författare – Author Pia Karjalainen Työn nimi – Arbetets titel – Title The carbon footprint of the Finnish beverage industry for years 2000-2012 as calculated with CCaLC Oppiaine – Läroämne – Subject Enviromental Change and Policy Työn laji – Arbetets art – Level Aika – Datum – Month and year Sivumäärä – Sidoantal – Master’s thesis November 2013 Number of pages 81 + appendices (4) Tiivistelmä – Referat – Abstract

The increased use of natural resources puts enormous pressure on the planet and has prompted a desire to find ways of quantifying environmental impacts of products and services. Life cycle assessment (LCA) provides a comprehensive way of measuring the environmental impact a product or service causes from its production to disposal. A simpler way of assessing only greenhouse gas emissions is the carbon footprint, which can also be calculated as part of an LCA.

The purpose of this study is to quantify and assess the changes in the carbon footprint of the Finnish beverage industry. The study is based on data collected by the three largest beverage manufacturers for 2000-2012. As data specific to the producers included in the study was not available, footprint data was sourced from life cycle inventory databases included in the CCaLC tool or in a few cases other sources. An average footprint for each material category was calculated based on more detailed data of materials provided for 2012. The footprints of five categories: beverage raw materials, packaging materials, energy, waste and direct CO 2 emissions were calculated with the CCaLC tool following LCA methodology. As accurate data was not available the results only reflect changes in the footprint and the figures should not be used as absolute values.

The results show that no overall trend is apparent for the carbon footprint of the sector and the results depend on the years which are compared. From 2000 to 2012 the carbon footprint shows an increase of 38 % yet from 2001 to 2012 there is a 4 % decrease. The footprint of packaging materials has increased significantly while those of direct CO 2 emissions, energy use and waste have decreased. The carbon footprint of beverage raw materials has not changed considerably in the time period but fluctuates. Many materials can be bought in bulk or influenced by agricultural yield which can explain part of the fluctuations.

Beverage raw materials and packaging materials are identified as “hot spots” of possible major emission reductions. Further reductions in other categories are desirable. Increased energy and material efficiency would likely also bring monetary savings. The carbon footprint describes only the effects on climate. Thus, other environmental impacts than the carbon footprint must also be considered when aiming to reduce harmful effects as these might have a greater overall influence on the environment.

Studies with data specific to the producers and detailed materials amounts for each year would provide more accurate results for the whole sector. Complete LCA of the sector or of each producer would allow the pinpointing of specific processes for reduction of harmful environmental impacts. More carbon footprint and LCA studies overall allow comparisons between products and services to be made enabling environmentally conscious decisions by organizations and the general public.

Avainsanat – Nyckelord – Keywords carbon footprint, life cycle assessment, beverage industry Ohjaaja tai ohjaajat – Handledare – Supervisor or supervisors Olli Borg, Pekka Kauppi Säilytyspaikka – Förvaringställe – Where deposited Department of Environmental Sciences, Viikki campus library Muita tietoja – Övriga uppgifter – Additional information

Tiedekunta – Fakultet – Faculty Laitos – Institution– Department Bio- ja ympäristötieteellinen tiedekunta Ympäristötieteiden laitos Tekijä – Författare – Author Pia Karjalainen Työn nimi – Arbetets titel – Title Suomalaisen juomteollisuuden hiilijalanjälki vuosina 2000–2012 laskettuna CCaLC –työkalulla. Oppiaine – Läroämne – Subject Ympäristömuutos ja -politiikka Työn laji – Arbetets art – Level Aika – Datum – Month and year Sivumäärä – Sidoantal – Pro gradu -tutkielma Marraskuu 2013 Number of pages 81 + liitteet (4 kpl) Tiivistelmä – Referat – Abstract

Luonnonvarojen yhä lisääntyvä käyttö kuormittaa planeettaa ja on kannustanut löytämään tapoja määrittää tuotteiden ja palveluiden ympäristövaikutuksia. Elinkaariarviointi on kokonaisvaltainen menetelmä mitata tuotteen tai palvelun aiheuttamat ympäristövaikutukset valmistuksesta loppusijoitukseen. Yksinkertaisempi tapa mitata pelkästään kasvihuonekaasupäästöjä on hiilijalanjälki, joka voidaan myös laskea osana elinkaariarviointia.

Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoitus on arvioida määrällisesti muutoksia suomalaisen juomateollisuuden hiilijalanjäljessä. Tutkimus perustuu kolmen suurimman juomavalmistajan keräämiin tilastoihin vuosilta 2000–2012. Koska kohdennettua tietoa tutkimuksessa mukana olevista valmistajista ei ollut saatavilla, hiilijalanjälki tiedot on kerätty elinkaaritietokannoista, jotka ovat sisäänrakennettuja CCaLC –työkaluun ja joissakin tapauksissa myös muista tietolähteistä. Vuodelle 2012 oli saatavilla tarkemmat materiaalilistaukset, joiden perusteella laskettiin hiilijalanjäljen keskiarvo jokaiselle materiaalikategorialle. Viiden materiaalikategorian: juomaraaka-aineiden, pakkausmateriaalien, energian, jätteiden ja suorien hiilidioksidipäästöjen hiilijalanjäljet laskettiin vuosille 2000–2012 CCaLC –työkalulla käyttäen elinkaariarviointimenetelmää. Koska yksityiskohtaisia tietoja ei ollut saatavilla tulokset kertovat ainoastaan hiilijalanjäljen muutoksista ja niitä ei tule tarkastella absoluuttisina arvoina.

Tulokset osoittavat, että yhtenäistä suuntausta ei ole havaittavissa teollisuuden hiilijalanjäljessä ja tulokset riippuvat vertailtavista vuosista. Vuodesta 2000 vuoteen 2012 hiilijalanjälki on kasvanut 38 %, mutta vuodesta 2001 vuoteen 2012 on havaittavissa 4 % pienentyminen. Pakkausmateriaalien hiilijalanjälki on kasvanut merkittävästi, kun taas suorien CO 2 päästöjen, energian käytön ja jätteiden hiilijalanjäljet ovat laskeneet. Juomaraaka-aineiden hiilijalanjälki ei ole juuri muuttunut tarkastellulla ajanjaksolla, mutta nousee ja laskee vaihtelevasti vuositasolla. Monia materiaaleja ja raaka-aineita voidaan ostaa suuria määriä kerralla ja niiden saatavuus voi vaihdella maatalouden satojen mukaan, joka voi selittää osan vaihtelusta.

Juomaraaka-aine- ja pakkausmateriaalikategorioissa on eniten mahdollisuuksia vähentää päästöjä. Vähennykset muissa kategorioissa ovat toivottavia. Energia- ja materiaalitehokkuuden lisääntyminen luultavasti tuo myös rahallisia säästöjä. Hiilijalanjälki kuvaa vain ilmastovaikutuksia. Siksi ympäristövaikutuksia vähennettäessä tulee hiilijalanjäljen lisäksi tarkastella myös muita ympäristövaikutuksia, sillä näillä voi olla kokonaisuudessa suurempi vaikutus ympäristölle.

Kohdennetut tiedot valmistajista sekä materiaalien määristä vuosittain mahdollistaisivat täsmälliset tulokset koko alalle. Alan tai yksittäisten valmistajien täysi elinkaariarviointi sallisi valmistajien löytää tietyt prosessinsa, joissa voidaan vähentää ympäristölle haitallisia vaikutuksia. Useammat hiilijalanjälkitutkimukset sekä elinkaariarvioinnit mahdollistaisivat tuotteiden ja palveluiden keskinäisen vertailun sekä kuluttajien ja organisaatioiden ympäristötietoiset valinnat. Avainsanat – Nyckelord – Keywords hiilijalanjälki, elinkaariarviointi, juomateollisuus Ohjaaja tai ohjaajat – Handledare – Supervisor or supervisors Olli Borg, Pekka Kauppi Säilytyspaikka – Förvaringställe – Where deposited Ympäristötieteiden laitos, Viikin kampuskirjasto Muita tietoja – Övriga uppgifter – Additional information

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 2 Finnish beverage industry ...... 3 2.1 Beer production ...... 4 2.1.1 Previous studies ...... 6 2.2 Cider production ...... 10 2.3 Long drink production ...... 11 2.4 Carbonated and mineral water production ...... 12 2.5 Soft drink production ...... 13 2.6 Beverage packaging ...... 14 2.7 Recycling system in Finland ...... 14 3 Life cycle assessment methodology ...... 16 3.1 Standards and guidelines ...... 16 3.1.1 ISO 14040-series standards ...... 17 3.1.2 ILCD ...... 18 3.1.3 PAS 2050 ...... 18 3.1.4 Greenhouse Gas Product Protocol GHGPP standard ...... 19 3.2 Phases of LCA ...... 19 3.2.1 Goal and scope definition ...... 21 3.2.2 Inventory Analysis ...... 24 3.2.3 Impact Assessment ...... 24 3.2.4 Interpretation ...... 24 3.3 Carbon footprint ...... 25 3.3.1 Guidelines and standards for carbon footprinting ...... 26 3.3.2 Carbon footprint criticism ...... 27 3.4 CCaLC BIOCHEM tool ...... 27 4 Carbon footprint of the Finnish beverage industry ...... 30 4.1 Available data ...... 30 4.2 Goal Definition ...... 31 4.3 Scope Definition ...... 31 4.3.1 Functional unit ...... 32 4.3.2 System boundary ...... 32 4.3.3 Assumptions and allocation ...... 36 4.3.4 Recycling ...... 36 4.4 Inventory Analysis ...... 38 4.4.1 Beverage raw materials ...... 39 4.4.2 Other materials ...... 43 4.4.3 Carbon dioxide ...... 43 4.4.4 Packaging materials ...... 44 4.4.5 Utilities ...... 48 4.4.6 Water ...... 49 4.4.7 Waste ...... 49 4.5 Results ...... 50 4.5.1 Beverage raw materials ...... 52 4.5.2 Energy ...... 53

4.5.3 Direct CO 2 emissions ...... 54 4.5.4 Packaging materials ...... 55 4.5.5 Waste ...... 56 4.5.6 Carbon footprint of beverage industry...... 58 5 Discussion ...... 61 5.1 Method ...... 64 5.2 Uncertainties ...... 66 5.3 Previous studies ...... 67 5.4 Further research ...... 67 6 Conclusions ...... 69 Acknowledgements ...... 71 References ...... 73 Appendix 1. Material carbon footprints and LCI data sources...... 83 Appendix 2. Carbon footprint of materials...... 85 Appendix 3. Carbon footprint of recycling and waste...... 87 Appendix 4. Material descriptions in databases...... 89

1 Introduction

The growing demand for energy and natural resources puts enormous pressure on the planet (Seppälä et al. 2011). It is estimated that the extraction of natural resources could grow a further 50 % by 2030 (Lutz and Giljum 2009). Along with these increases the air, soil and water emissions continue to grow and biodiversity is rapidly decreasing. These environmental impacts affect human health and wellbeing negatively. (Amienyo 2012) The extraction of natural resources is also causing global temperatures to rise as the increasing amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere further enhance the greenhouse effect (IPCC 2007). These pressures have created a need for assessing the total greenhouse gas emissions of products and services and to find ways of reducing them without hindering economic and social development (Edwards-Jones et al. 2009 and Galli et al. 2012).

The simplest way of quantifying emissions is the carbon footprint. The carbon footprint is a way to measure the main greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a product’s or service’s life cycle including raw materials used, manufacturing processes, use-phase, and end-of-life disposal (Wiedmann & Minx 2007).

A more comprehensive way of calculating environmental impact than the carbon footprint is life cycle assessment (LCA), which aims to quantify all the environmental impacts a product causes during its lifetime (ISO 14044). A full life cycle assessment is often called cradle-to-grave assessment as it covers the whole life span of a product. LCA can also be performed as a cradle-to-gate, which means the analysis extends to the product leaving the production site’s gate; or gate-to-gate, which includes the impacts from the production phase but excludes for example the production of raw materials and the use and waste treatment phases. (Baumann & Tillman 2004) Carbon footprint can be calculated as part of an LCA or as a stand-alone study (Wiedmann & Minx 2007)

Globally, as in Finland, the carbon footprinting of products is a rising trend as many organizations aim to reduce their environmental impacts. A carbon footprint calculation or life cycle assessment allows the pinpointing of processes in which impact reductions are possible (Baumann & Tillman 2004 and ISO 14040:2006). In Finland some of the

1 products for which a carbon footprint has been calculated include rye-bread (Fazer 2013), grain-products, such as porridge and flour (Raisio 2013), and tofu (Soya 2013).

A sector which is aiming to reduce its environmental impacts is the Finnish beverage industry. Several advances have already been made in reducing its environmental impact since the first brewery was established in Helsinki in 1819 (Sinebrychoff Oy 2013a). These advances include reducing the use of raw materials for the product itself as well as packaging, better waste treatment and reducing water use. For example, most of the packaging materials are recycled and used again either as packaging or raw material for other products. There has been a shift from reusable glass bottles to recyclable aluminium cans and plastic bottles. Also energy efficiency throughout the process chain has been improved. (Virtanen 2011)

The purpose of this study is to assess changes in the carbon footprint of the Finnish beverage industry on a sector-wide level and quantify changes in the industry’s carbon footprint over the last decade. This study will use data collected by the Finnish Federation of the Brewing and Soft Drinks Industry and its three member organizations, Oy Hartwall Ab, Olvi Oyj, and Oy Sinebrychoff Ab, for the years 2000-2012. The extent of the study is largely restricted by the data.

Specifically this study will aim to answer the following questions:

• What is the carbon footprint of average beverage products as calculated with the CCaLC tool? • How much has the carbon footprint of beverage products changed from 2000 to 2012? • Is the shift from use of glass bottles to aluminium cans apparent in the changes in carbon footprint? • What are hot spots where the emissions are the greatest?

2 Finnish beverage industry

The Finnish beverage industry presented in this study consists of the production of both alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages by the three largest manufacturers in Finland; Hartwall, Olvi and Sinebrychoff. Of these Hartwall is owned by the multinational Royal Unibrew (Hartwall Oy 2013a) and Sinebrychoff by the Carlsberg Group (Sinebrychoff Oy 2013a). All three produce beer, cider, long drink 1, soft drinks and carbonated water. Some also produce other beverages such as juice, but all beverages except those mentioned above are excluded from the study.

In Finland the three manufacturers make up the vast majority of the production of the beverages listed above. Based on data from 2012, these three manufacturers produce 95 % of beer, 80 % of cider and 100 % of long drink consumed (Varis & Virtanen 2013). The most consumed beverages are coffee and milk. The consumption rates of coffee and milk are nearly twice that of the third most popular beverage, beer (Figure 1). The yearly consumption of the most popular beverage included in this study, beer, hovers at around 80 litres per capita. (Panimo- ja virvoitusjuomateollisuusliitto ry 2011)

1 Long drink as referred to in this study is a drink mix made of gin or fermented alcohol and a flavour such as grapefruit juice. Socially the beverage is similar to beer and cider. (Varis & Virtanen 2013) See section 2.3 Long drink production page 11.

180

160 Coffee

Milk

140 Beer

Soft drinks 120 Juice

Buttermilk 100 Carbonated water Cider 80 litres litres / capita Tea

60 Wine Spirits

40 Long drink

Fortified wine 20

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 1. Finnish beverage consumption 2000-2010. Data for soft drinks and carbonated water include only members of the Federation of the Brewing and Soft Drinks Industry as other data is not available. Data from: Panimo- ja virvoitusjuomateollisuusliitto ry 2011.

2.1 Beer production

The history of brewing dates back to the Neolithic era (Meussdoerffer 2009). Possibly even to 7000 BC from when the first signs of fermented beverages have been found in China (McGovern et al. 2004). The four main ingredients of beer are a grain, hops, water and yeast. Beer can be made from a variety of grains such as wheat, rice, or sorghum, but the majority of the world’s beers are made from barley (mostly two-row

4 barley Hordeum distichon but six-row barley: Hordeum vulgare can also be used). Hops (Humulus lupulus ) are only used in small quantities but it has a much bigger impact on the characteristics of beer than the other ingredients. (Bamforth 2006) Ingredients other than the four main ones are called adjuncts. The most common adjuncts are unmalted grains such as corn, rice, barley and wheat. These are often added to provide additional sugar to increase fermentability. Adjuncts can also be added to change the characteristics of beer such as physical stability, flavour, colour, or chemical properties. Often the addition of adjuncts also helps reduce production costs. (Goldammer 1999)

The brewing process has several phases (Figure 2). Brewing involves the fermenting of the source of sugar, usually grain such as barley. Taking barley as an example, the grains are first washed and steeped until small roots appear. Germination or modification of the grain is allowed to continue for a controlled time so that necessary enzymes form and proteins break down but the grain does not go too far into becoming a new barley plant. The grains can be kilned at higher temperatures to produce varying degrees of roasted malt barley for different flavours. The grains are air dried or kilned to stop germination. This combination of steeping, germination and kilning is referred to as malting.

After malting the grains are crushed or milled and mixed with hot brewing liquor to produce mash. Any adjuncts, such as other grains for an additional source of starch or flavour, can be added at this point. Liquid from the mash is transferred to a kettle and the grains rinsed to ensure as much of the liquid as possible is extracted. The resulting liquid is called wort. The grains spent after mashing can be used as animal feed. Next the wort is boiled, causing hot trub to form which needs to be removed by straining or filtering. Some types of beer can be made without boiling wort, for example the Finnish Sahti. During boiling hops are added. Depending on the stage of boiling at which hops are added, it adds either bitterness or aroma. Often some hops are added at different stages to produce both of these effects. After boiling the now hopped wort is cooled before fermentation.

In fermentation the wort is aerated to add oxygen and yeast is added. The yeast converts starch in the wort to ethanol and carbon dioxide. After fermentation the beer can be left to mature in casks or bottles. Depending on the type of beer being produced it can be conditioned, filtered and pasteurized. Yeast strains tolerant to high alcohol content can 5 also be used to produce beer in which the alcohol content is higher than desired in the final product. This is called high gravity brewing. The beer is then diluted to the required alcohol level. Finally the beer is usually filtered. (Buglass 2011)

Figure 2. Beer brewing process. Items in square brackets are optional to the process. Source: Buglass 2011.

2.1.1 Previous studies

There is a vast amount of literature on the climate effects of beer. A few of these are presented here for an overview of the subject.

Agrifood Research Finland (Maa- ja elintarviketalouden tutkimuskeskus MTT) completed an LCA of beer in Finland 2005 and has updated the study in 2010 (Virtanen et al. 2006 and Virtanen 2011). Only the summaries were available for this study. Based on the results a very slight improvement from 2005 to 2010 can be observed (Figure 3). The greatest impacts in the life cycle arise firstly from the distribution, retail and consumption of beer (39 % of life cycle impacts). Distribution includes the transport of 6 beer to restaurants and retail facilities; retail includes the storage of beer in the retail facilities, which can be in fridges or room temperature; and consumption includes the end-user’s purchase, storage, actual use and disposal of beer. The second greatest impacts are from the cultivation of barley (36 % of life cycle impacts). Actual brewing of beer contributes only about 13 % of the entire life cycle.

The study includes the production of fertilisers and lime used in cultivation of barley, malting, brewing and transport. The study does not include the use of co-products, such as mash, or the reuse and recycling of packaging materials. (Virtanen et al. 2006 and Virtanen 2011)

Figure 3. Results of the Agrifood Research Finland’s LCA of beer in 2005 and 2010. 2002-2003 results are shown in pink (higher line) and 2010 results in lilac (lower line). Vertical axis numbers show values of the Finnish benchmark –method used in the study. Source: Virtanen 2011 (translated from original).

In an LCA of beer production in Greece site-specific information from a local brewery was used greatly enhancing accuracy. The life cycle phases of barley cultivation and malting were not included in the study. Koroneos et al. (2005) found that the production of green glass bottles has the largest environmental impacts in the production of beer. After this comes other packaging materials and last is the production of the beer itself.

Melon et al. (2012) studied the life cycle of an artisanal Belgian blond beer in different packaging types. They compared the effects of 1) single use brown glass bottle 33 cl, 2) reused brown glass bottle 33 cl, 3) single use keg 20 l and 4) reused keg 20 l. The study states that kegs are reused considerably more than brown glass bottles with kegs having average reuse times of 53.5 and bottles only 9.2 times. Single use bottles and kegs have the greatest environmental impact at 72 % and 87 %, respectively, of the whole product life cycle. However, if the package is reused barley cultivation becomes the greatest environmental impact at 58 % with reused glass bottles and 70 % with steel kegs. In all four scenarios the internal processes in the brewery make only a maximum of 20 % of the environmental impacts (Table 1).

Table 1. Results of Melon et al. (2012) life cycle assessment of a Belgian blond beer packaged in brown glass bottles or steel kegs, both of which can be single use or reused. The phase with the largest impact in each packaging category has been underlined. Figures are rounded to full integers and thus might not add up to 100 %.

Bottle Keg Life cycle phase Single use Reuse Single use Reuse

Cultivation barley (%) 22 58 11 70

Brewing (%) 0 1 0 1

Wort boiling (%) 4 10 2 12

Guard (%) 2 5 1 6

Washing spent grain (%) 0 0 0 0

Packaging (%) 72 27 87 11

Total 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

A comparison of several studies on the carbon footprint of beer, including the above mentioned study by Koroneos et al. (2005), shows that there is a great variation in the life cycle phases included in each study. The range of total impacts varies from 0.4 – 1.5 kg CO 2e per litre of beer (Table 2). Based on these results the study estimated that the full life cycle including the retail and use phase of beer amounts to an average of 1.5 kg 8

CO 2e per 1 litre. Packaging and malting with new technology are identified as phases with most potential for reducing emissions. (Saxe 2010)

Table 2. The total climate impact of beer production per litre of beverage including container, detailing the impact of different production steps according to 10 studies. Literature reference numbers (as cited in Saxe 2010): 1a and 1b: Bottled beer and draft beer, Nørrebro Bryghus (2009); 2: Climate CO2nservancy (2008); 3a and 3b: bottled beer and draft beer, Cordella et al. (2008) – GHG derived from energy use; 4: Garnett T (2007), Thrane and Nielsen (2009), and EEA 2009; 5: Hanssen et al. (2007); 6. Klimaguiden (2010); 7. Madsen and Lund (2007); 8. Koroneos et al. (2005); 9. Talve (2001); 10a, 10b and 10c: Refillable glass bottle, aluminium can, and single-use glass bottle, Bryggeriforeningen (2009b); 11: Saxe et al. (2006). Notes: RC – recycled. Source: Saxe 2010.

Literature reference number (as given above) 1a 1b 2 3a 3b 4 5 6 7 8 9 10a 10b 10c 11

Production steps CO 2e emission (g) per litre beer and container Glass bottles 462 323 103 70 121 220 85 218 444 Barrels 24 89 Cans 44 333 Transport to brewery 18 18 80 Labels 35 40 Cardboard/plastic 36 > 0.5 34 59 Bottle tops < 0.5 Pallets RC Barley 189 102 277 106 106 108 Malt production 79 79 90 249 249 32 100 21 21 22 Malt transport 32 32 277 277 Hop 3 3 Water 8 8 Carbon dioxide 34 34 34 Beer+barrel transport 148 Process energy 692 692 58 35 34 100 405 310 240 100 95 92 Process waste 2 0 Sewage treatment 0 0 Distribution 126 10 48 27 126 Retail 421 User phase 123 80 All other sources 100 361 360 48 60 50 Total g CO 2e 1401 1059 1498 1024 1010 1500 495 1040 1100 785 640 408 527 842 920

The results of Saxe (2010) are interesting since they illustrate the great variability in carbon footprint studies. In a majority of the studies included in Saxe’s comparison the differences are due to the inclusion, or exclusion, of different life cycle phases. However, this does not explain all the differences. The same life cycle phase can be calculated to have CO 2e emissions from 35 g CO 2e to 692 g CO 2e as is the case with process energy (Table 2), which is a 19-fold difference. Many of the life cycle phases

9 have smaller differences between the studies, but still vary considerably from one study to the next.

As Saxe (2010) points out other impacts beside those on climate should also be considered in the process of making or consuming beer. For example, Cordella et al. (2008) found that the most critical environmental impacts were inorganic emissions, land use and fossil fuel consumption. Other environmental impacts or health and socioeconomic effects might in fact play a far greater role in the big picture than just greenhouse gas emissions.

2.2 Cider production

The history of cider is not nearly as well documented as that of beer. However, it is likely that cider was consumed in the last centuries BC. (Buglass 2011) In Europe major cider production began in the late 19 th century and in Finland in 1962 (Panimo- ja virvoitusjuomateollisuusliitto ry 2013c).

Cider is traditionally made from fermented apple or pear juice, which can be concentrated, from crushed and pressed fruit. Pear cider is often called perry. In modern production sugar, yeast and water are also added to the juice to make the final product. Cider can be flavoured with the addition of fruit syrups or essences, for example berries or other fruit.

To produce cider or perry harvested apples or pears are washed and then crushed by grinding or milling to produce pulp. The pulp is then pressed to produce juice called must (Figure 4). The spent remains of the fruit, called pomace, can be used as animal feed, fertilizer or more often in the manufacture of pectin. However, if a lot of pomace is produced it might be difficult to find uses for it and thus its disposal might cause unwanted environmental impacts. Before fermentation the must can be treated by adding sulphite; flash pasteurization; adding sugar syrup, yeast nutrients or other juices (either pressed or concentrated); and adjusting acid content.

In large-scale production apple juice concentrate, usually from China, forms the basis of cider making. Apple juice concentrate is diluted before fermentation and sugar is added. The must is aerated to ensure yeast can grow rapidly. (Buglass 2011) Cider can be fermented to dryness, which means all the sugar is fermented to alcohol by the yeast (Wolke 2012). After fermentation to dryness cider is filtered and possibly flash pasteurized. Acidity, sweetness and colour can be adjusted. Ciders can be blended and diluted to the required flavour and alcohol content. (Buglass 2011)

Figure 4. Production of cider or perry. Items in square brackets are optional modifications. Source: Buglass 2011.

2.3 Long drink production

Long drink traditionally means a cold beverage mixed with alcohol (Cambridge Dictionaries Online 2013). In Finland however, the term long drink has come to mean a specific type of beverage mixture and it is this mixture which is referred to throughout this study. Long drink was originally developed for the 1952 summer Olympics in Helsinki to help restaurants cope with the large increase in customers by having ready- mixed beverages available. The beverage however became so popular, that production continues to this day. (Hartwall Oy 2013b)

Today long drink is made much like soft drinks with the addition of either distilled gin or alcohol from fermentation (Panimo- ja virvoitusjuomateollisuusliitto ry 2013b). Long

11 drink can also be made the same way as cider with the difference that after fermentation the aromas of apple and yeast are removed by nanofiltration and flavourings distinctive to long drink are added (Lounais-Suomen ympäristökeskus 2007). The most popular flavour is grapefruit but long drink can also be made in a variety of other flavours such as cranberry and orange. The percentage of long drink consumption in Finland has steadily been rising (Figure 1). (Panimo- ja virvoitusjuomateollisuusliitto ry 2013b)

Long drink is mostly a Finnish (Panimo- ja virvoitusjuomateollisuusliitto ry 2013b) or at the very broadest a Nordic beverage. Thus its geographical and consumer-reach is fairly limited. There appears to not be much scientific literature on the environmental impact of long drink alone. It can be assumed that the environmental impact is very similar to that of cider or soft drinks production with the addition of a small amount of distilled or fermented alcohol and the impact arising from the production of these. However, assessing the specific environmental impact of long drink in more detail is outside the scope of this study.

2.4 Carbonated and mineral water production

Plain carbonated water was first invented in the 18th century (Priestley 1772). The European Commission defines mineral water as “microbiologically wholesome water originating in an underground water table or deposit and emerging from a spring tapped at one or more natural or bore exits” (Directive 2009/54/EC).

Today mineral water is produced by adding minerals, such as calcium or potassium, to water. If required, the water is then carbonated to make carbonated mineral water. Carbonated water can also be made without the addition of minerals. Flavours other than the minerals themselves, for example lemon or apple, can also be added. (Panimo- ja virvoitusjuomateollisuusliitto ry 2013a)

2.5 Soft drink production

The first marketed soft drink was a type of lemonade (mixture of water and lemon juice) in the 17 th century (Pietka 2013). In Finland the first production site for carbonated water and soft drinks was built in 1836 (Panimo- ja virvoitusjuomateollisuusliitto ry 2013d). Soft drinks are made from a base mixture of flavoured syrup (sugar, starch and flavouring) and water which is either carbonated alone or the whole syrup and water mixture is carbonated together (Nilsson et al. 2011 and Pietka 2013). The variation in soft drinks comes largely from different flavourings and colourings (Nilsson et al. 2011).

A study by Nilsson (2011) of a Swedish beverage production site found that about half of the energy used by the site is used in beer production and the other half in the production of other beverages such as soft drinks, cider and carbonated water. Nilsson found the production of soft drink ingredients produces by far the most emissions out of all the production phases included in the study. This was followed by production of packaging and waste treatment. The study did not include retail or use phases.

One of the largest beverage producers, The Coca-Cola Company, has calculated the carbon footprints of its cola soft drinks produced in Britain. Standard Coca-Cola has a slightly higher carbon footprint than Diet Coke and Coke Zero, presumably due to the addition of sugar in Coca-Cola. The greatest variation comes from the packaging material used. For example a 330 ml can of Coca-Cola has a carbon footprint of 170 g

CO 2e whereas in a glass bottle the same amount of beverage has a carbon footprint of

360 g CO 2e. (The Coca-Cola Company 2010)

2.6 Beverage packaging

In Finland beverages are packaged in several different types and sizes of containers (Table 3). Beverages can be in aluminium cans, plastic bottles or glass bottles to name a few, all of which come in a variety of sizes. Plastic bottles are made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET). There are two types of glass bottles: ones that will be washed and reused and others from which the raw material will be recycled and made into new glass products. In addition to consumer sizes, beverages are packaged in sizes 5-1000 l for restaurants and bars. (Olvi Oyj 2013, Hartwall Oy 2013a and Sinebrychoff Oy 2013a)

Table 3. The packaging options in Finland. Sources: Olvi Oyj 2013, Hartwall Oy 2013a and Sinebrychoff Oy 2013a.

Packaging material Size (litres) aluminium can 0.33, 0.44, 0.5, 0.568, 1.0 glass bottle 0.275, 0.33, 0.35, 0.75

PET -bottle 0.33, 0.45, 0.5, 0.75, 0.95, 1.25, 1.5, 2.0

Many of these single containers are combined into packets of multiple beverage containers. For example, soft drinks are often sold in a two-pack of two 1.5 l bottles. Beer, cider and long drink are sold in plastic and cardboard packets of various multiples from four bottles or cans to 24 cans.

2.7 Recycling system in Finland

Nearly all beverage containers are recycled through a deposit scheme run by Suomen Palautuspakkaus Oy (PALPA). When buying a beverage from retail outlets the consumer pays an additional deposit for the container. When returned to a container- recycling point the consumer will be refunded the deposit. This system ensures that 14 most containers will be returned as they are worth money to the consumer. It also means that many containers are not left outside as litter since picking up beverage containers is profitable. Due to this deposit system the rates of recycling are extremely high; mostly over 90 % and in the case of reusable glass bottles nearly all are recycled. Imported containers however will not give the consumer a refund as no deposit has been paid for them in the first place but generally these containers can also be returned to the recycling points. (Suomen Palautuspakkaus Oy 2013a)

Table 4. Recycling rates of the Finnish beverage packaging deposit system. Includes year in which each material became part of the deposit recycling system. Source: Suomen Palautuspakkaus Oy 2013b (translated from original).

Part of deposit Recycling Recycling Recycling Recycling system in (year) rate 2009 rate 2010 rate 2011 rate 2012

Aluminium 1996 92 % 94 % 96 % 96,50 % cans

PET -bottle 2008 89 % 92 % 94 % 93,50 %

Recyclab le 2012 90 % glass bottle

Reusable glass 1951 almost 100 % almost 100 % almost 100 % almost 100 % bottle

3 Life cycle assessment methodology

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a study of the entire production system of a product or service including the production of raw materials, use of the product and waste treatment. This means following a product from the extraction of raw materials to the final disposal. LCA is generally taken to also mean the procedure for undertaking such a study. (Baumann & Tillman 2004)

LCA was first developed in 1960s although it was only in 1991 that the methodology actually received the name LCA (Baumann & Tillman 2004 and Roy et al. 2009). In the early 1970s the Coca-Cola Company conducted what is considered to be the first LCA study to determine the effects of switching from glass bottles to plastic bottles. At the time the procedure was called resource and environmental profile analysis. Interestingly many of the early LCA studies were done on beverage containers. (Hunt et al. 1996)

Life cycle assessment is presented here as it forms the methodological basis of this study. Even though only the carbon footprint is calculated the same general method is used as would be for a full LCA. Any parts of the LCA method not relevant or possible in calculating the carbon footprint will be left out of the study.

3.1 Standards and guidelines

Several different standards and guidelines have been developed for LCA, partial LCAs and carbon footprinting. These standards overlap somewhat but all strive to provide a new perspective on the assessment of environmental impacts. Although the ISO and ILCD method was selected to be used in this study, other relevant standards are also described in this section.

3.1.1 ISO 14040-series standards

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has produced two main standards in an attempt to harmonize the method for performing an LCA study (Finnveden et al. 2009).

The two main standards are:

- ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework , and - ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines .

In addition to these there are three technical reports which offer examples on the application of ISO 14040 and 14044 and serve to give more practical guidance.

These are:

- ISO/TR 14047:2012 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Illustrative examples on how to apply ISO 14044 to impact assessment situations , - ISO/TS 14048:2002 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Data documentation format , and - ISO/TR 14049:2012 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Illustrative examples on how to apply ISO 14044 to goal and scope definition and inventory analysis .

These two standards and three technical reports (later referred to collectively as ISO standards ) define what is now considered to be the general methodological framework for LCA, which consists of four separate phases; goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment and interpretation (see section 3.2. Phases of LCA , page 19) (Guinee et al. 2010). The standards however do not specify the methods of performing a LCA.

Although the aim of the standards is to make LCA studies comparable to each other the standard also specifies that there is no one technique for conducting LCA (ISO

14040:2006). Therefore different studies can be performed in very different ways depending on the practitioner while still claiming compliance with the standard.

3.1.2 ILCD

International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) has been developed by the European Commission under its European Platform for LCA. As part of the ILCD a Handbook has been developed which is a series of documents aiming to harmonise the methods for conducting life cycle studies and ensuring the quality and consistency of data. This would allow studies to be compared more reliably. (European Commission 2010) The ILCD is essentially the first practical and technical guide for carrying out LCA studies compliant with the ISO –standards. The ILCD Handbook is used as background guidance in the relevant sections of the carbon footprinting process in this study.

3.1.3 PAS 2050

The Publicly Available Specification 2050:2008 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services (PAS 2050:2008) was first presented in 2008 and revised in 2011. PAS 2050:2008 aims to clarify and simplify earlier LCA methods for carbon footprinting. It is the first standardized method specifically for carbon footprinting of products and was prepared by British Standards Institution (BSI) and sponsored by the Carbon Trust and UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (Sinden 2009)

3.1.4 Greenhouse Gas Product Protocol GHGPP standard

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) is a tool developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The tool is aimed at corporations and organizations and helps them to “understand, quantify, and manage greenhouse gas emissions”.

There are four different standards under the GHG Protocol. The most relevant of these to the current study is the Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard (Product Standard) which was introduced in 2011 and builds on the PAS 2050:2008. The Product Standard guides companies in quantifying and reporting the GHG emissions from the manufacture of their products.

The GHG Protocol has been the basis for ISO 14064-1:2006 Greenhouse gases – Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organization level for the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals . (Greenhouse Gas Protocol 2013)

3.2 Phases of LCA

A life cycle assessment as specified by the ISO standards is divided broadly into four or five stages (Figure 5). These are:

• Goal and scope definition, which can be considered as separate phases, • Inventory analysis, • Impact assessment, and • Interpretation.

Without an impact assessment phase, the study is called a life cycle inventory (LCI).

Figure 5. The stages of a life cycle assessment framework. Source: ISO 14040:2006.

The ILCD Handbook gives a more detailed description of the LCA process (Figure 6). LCA is an iterative process meaning that as more information becomes available in the inventory analysis, impact assessment or interpretation phases the goal and scope of the study might need to be revised or data requirements reassessed. (European Commission 2010)

Figure 6. Detailed LCA process including the iterative approach Source: European Commission 2010.

Each life cycle assessment phase is described in more detail in the following sections.

3.2.1 Goal and scope definition

Goal and scope definition sets the basis for the whole LCA study. According to the set goal(s) and scope the requirements of the system modelling are also specified. (Baumann & Tillman 2004) The results of the study should be interpreted through the

21 defined goals and thus ensured that the results are interpreted correctly. (European Commission 2010)

According to the ILCD Handbook the items stated in the goal definition should include:

• the intended application of the deliverables or results; • limitations due to method, assumptions and impact coverage; • the reasons for carrying out the study and decision context; • the intended audience, i.e. to whom the results of the study are intended to be communicated; • whether the results are intended to be used in comparative assertions intended to be disclosed to the public, and • commissioner of the study and other influential actors.

The scope of the study is derived from the goals set for the study. Firstly, the target of the analysis, a product or system, is named and defined including the functional unit. The scope of a study also includes defining the system boundaries and any allocation procedures. Secondly, the methods for impact assessment and any requirements for data or the quality of data, reporting and reviewing are described. Lastly any assumptions and limitations of the study are also addressed. (European Commission 2010 and ISO 14040:2006)

The initial scope definition may need to be revised or redefined as more information becomes available during the other phases (European Commission 2010). Scoping is the most important phase of LCA as it determines the outcomes of the study (Schenck 2000).

Functional unit

The functional unit is a definition of the qualitative and quantitative qualities of the product or service under study. These qualities can answer such questions as how much, how well, what, how long and where. Accurate definition of the functional unit enables the study to be compared with other studies of similar functional units even if the products are not entirely the same, for example a 0.5 l PET-bottle and a 0.5 l glass bottle. (European Commission 2010) 22

System boundary

System boundary defines the phases of the life cycle of a product or service which are included in the study. Any co-product or raw materials production chains included need to be specified by the system boundary. Any product flows or processes not included in the system boundary will not be shown in the final results regardless of their impact level. (European Commission 2010)

Allocations and assumptions

An allocation procedure is necessary if a process is multifunctional, that is it produces multiple products or co-products. Most processes have multiple outputs. As such only the life cycle of the product under study is to be calculated and needs to be separated from those of the co-products. This can be done through subdivision of processes, system expansion, system substitution, or allocation.

In subdivision a multifunctional process is divided into smaller unit processes to isolate the single process under study. In system expansion additional functions or processes are included to expand the system boundaries. In substitution unnecessary functions or processes are removed by substituting them with alternative production methods. Lastly the inputs and outputs can be allocated between products based on physical characteristics, economic values or some other criteria for example energy content. (European Commission 2010)

In any life cycle assessment assumptions need to be made to fill for missing data and to make methodological choices. Assumptions can include such issues as transport distances, means of electricity production, and recycling. These assumptions can cause major differences in LCAs of similar products. (European Commission 2010) Nonetheless, assumptions need to be consistent throughout the study and well documented to ensure transparency (Guinee et al. 2002).

3.2.2 Inventory Analysis

Actual data collection and system modelling are done in the inventory analysis phase. This means data is collected for flows of materials, products and waste. Typically the inventory analysis is the most labour-intensive phase of a life cycle assessment. (European Commission 2010)

3.2.3 Impact Assessment

In the impact assessment phase (LCIA) of life cycle assessment the results of the inventory analysis are reported as potential impacts on human health, natural environment and resource depletion. The results can be normalised to represent the impacts for a country or an average person. In weighting the results are differentiated by the relevance of impact categories. The relevance is based on values and choices made in conducting the LCA. Normalisation and weighting allows a single overall impact indicator to be calculated. (European Commission 2010) The impact assessment phase is not included in this study as only the carbon footprint is calculated.

3.2.4 Interpretation

The interpretation phase is the last phase of a life cycle assessment. In this phase significant issues in the study are identified. These include issues such as the greatest sources of the impacts and most relevant impact categories. Different scenarios are compared based on the possible different choices which can be made during the study, for example methods, assumptions and data used. (European Commission 2010)

As it is not possible to define different impact categories in the impact assessment phase and assessing different scenarios is not within the scope, the interpretation phase as

24 defined in life cycle assessment is not included in this study. Naturally, some interpretation of the results will be done in later sections.

3.3 Carbon footprint

There are many, slightly different, definitions of carbon footprints. Generally though carbon footprint is understood to mean the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a product’s life cycle including raw materials, manufacture, use and disposal; or in short all the direct and indirect emissions of a product (Wiedmann & Minx 2007). The emissions are usually expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2e). There are variations as to which GHG gases are included and which global warming potential (GWP) factors are assessed in each carbon footprint calculation. (Sinden 2009) Often the carbon footprint is represented more as a carbon weight as it is in units of mass rather than area. (Hammond 2007)

The main anthropogenic greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), nitrous oxide (N 2O) and halocarbons which are molecules of carbon and halogens such as fluorine, chlorine and bromine. Of these CO 2 is the most abundant in the atmosphere. Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a measure of the amount of heat a gas traps in the atmosphere compared to the same amount of carbon dioxide. GWP allows the gases to be compared to each other and their impacts to be summed together and presented as one numerical value of carbon dioxide equivalents. Carbon dioxide has a GWP of 1; methane has a GWP of 25 and nitrous oxide 298, as considered for a 100-year period. (IPCC 2007)

Berners-Lee (2010) aimed to list carbon footprints of certain products. He emphasizes that as there is so much variation in the calculation it is more important to understand the magnitude of the footprint rather than exact values. Examples of the carbon footprint of various beverages:

- 568 ml of tap water: 0.14 g CO 2e;

- a 500 ml bottle of water: 110-215 g CO 2e;

- 568 ml beer: 300-900 g CO 2e (300 g CO 2e for locally brewed cask ale at the

pub; 500 g CO 2e for local bottled beer from the shop or a pint of imported beer

in a pub; 900 g CO2e for bottled beer from the shop, extensively transported);

- a bottle of wine: 400 g CO 2e for wine from a carton, with few road miles: 1040

g CO 2e for average wine; 1500 g CO 2e for over-elaborate bottles, transported for thousands of miles by road (Berners-Lee 2010).

3.3.1 Guidelines and standards for carbon footprinting

There are several guidelines and standards for carbon footprinting as most standards for LCA also apply to carbon footprinting. There are the international standards ISO 14040 (2006) and 14044 (2006) for life cycle assessment which include carbon footprinting. There is also the British standard PAS 2050:2008 (Section 3.1.3 PAS 2050 page 18). Recently the European Commission has also produced its own International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook which aims to give clear guidelines to practitioners for decisions which need to be made when following the standards. An ISO standard is now being developed for carbon footprinting of products. The ISO 14067 is expected to be released in March 2014. The new standard aims to make “carbon footprinting data comparable worldwide”. (ISO 2012)

The carbon footprint was chosen as an indicator because of the widespread popularity it has gained in the media. (Weidema et al. 2008) There are several free and easily accessible carbon footprint calculators available online that can be used by the general

26 public. 2 The footprint is relatively easy to understand without scientific knowledge and thus serves as a good way to raise awareness of climate impacts and possibly encourage further environmentally conscious choices. (Weidema et al. 2008)

3.3.2 Carbon footprint criticism

Carbon footprint is of course not without its limitations. (Finkbeiner 2009) There is a lot of criticism that focusing only on minimising the carbon footprint could easily lead to other worse environmental impacts. For example the carbon footprint of virgin paper is smaller than that of recycled paper (Carbon Trust 2006). This would imply that virgin paper should be preferred, while this of course would not be an environmentally good practice. Also depending on which calculation or system model is used, greatly varying results will be achieved. (Kenny & Gray 2009) From the conscious consumer’s point of view it is not always clear which choices have a lower carbon footprint so it is important to try to establish the magnitudes of footprints rather than find exact values which only apply under the boundaries of the specific study (Berners-Lee 2010).

3.4 CCaLC BIOCHEM tool

CCaLC is a freely available tool for calculating carbon footprints of supply chains. The tool is developed by the University of Manchester in a project funded by the European Commission. 3 CCaLC BIOCHEM (referred to as CCaLC from here) is a variation of this tool which is specifically formulated for bio-based studies. The tool is used in Microsoft Office Excel and runs with macros. The formulation of the tool follows the

2 Carbon fooprint calculator by The Nature Conservancy at http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/index.htm and by Carbon Fooprint Ltd at http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx . 3 The tool can be found at http://ccalc.org.uk/biochem.php . 27

ISO 14044:2006 and PAS 2050:2008 guidelines and is specifically aimed at non-expert users. The basic operation of the tool is relatively simple and offers different levels of complexity for users of different levels of experience. Unlike many other life cycle assessment programs CCaLC has the system process built-in (Figure 7). This means that the user does not need to build a production system from scratch in the tool. The in-built system process includes raw materials, production phases, storage of final products, use phase and waste management. Utilities such as electricity, heat and steam as well as water can all be defined separately. Transport between each phase can be also be defined. Two different life cycle inventory databases are also included with the tool. These are Ecoinvent database and CCaLC database. (CCaLC 2013a)

Figure 7. The main screen of an analysis in CCaLC, with the in-built system process from raw materials through production and storage to use. Transport and waste management are also included. Source: CCaLC 2013b.

For a carbon footprint study, the user inputs the raw materials used, the process in which each raw material is used, the energy used by the system and waste leaving the system under study. Any inventory data which is not included in the built-in databases

28 can be added by the user. There is also an option to add co-products and allocate impacts between products. The program then produces a graph on the carbon footprint of the product or system. The tool also calculates other environmental impacts such as water footprint, acidification potential eutrophication potential, ozone layer depletion potential, photochemical smog potential and human toxicity potential based on the information from the user or from the in-built databases.

According to its developers, a study done with the CCaLC tool is compliant with ISO 14044:2006 and PAS 2050:2008 guidelines (CCaLC 2013a).

4 Carbon footprint of the Finnish beverage industry

This study is done under a general LCA framework of the ISO standards and guided by the ILCD Handbook (European Commission 2010) (described in section 3.2. Phases of LCA page 19). LCA methodology is used to guide the process of calculating the carbon footprint of the Finnish beverage industry. The framework is followed in order to provide transparent and repeatable results. LCA methodology is applied in relevant sections.

4.1 Available data

This study is based on yearly data collected by the three largest beverage manufacturers in Finland: Hartwall, Olvi and Sinebrychoff. The data is combined so that no single manufacturer’s data can be singled out. The data has been collected for the years 2000- 2012.

The data lists the raw materials used by the three beverage manufacturers as well as electricity and heat energy used in the production process. Waste and recycling are also included. The figures used in the calculation for packaging materials include production and import. For all other materials only domestic production is included as they were provided in the data. Detailed data of each raw material and utilities is provided for 2012. More general data, in which the raw materials are grouped into categories, is provided for the years 2000-2012.

4.2 Goal Definition

The goal of this study is to assess the changes in the carbon footprint of the Finnish beverage manufacturing for approximately the past decade from 2000 to 2012. This will be done by analysing a provided set of data with the CCaLC tool. This will produce the carbon footprint for the functional unit of one thousand litres of beverage. This analysis is done separately for each of the years for which data is collected and then combined to get trends on the impacts. As the impact data of each material is mostly from databases and not accurate to the specific material and conditions of use, the results should be viewed as magnitudes and indicators of “hot spots” or processes which have the largest environmental impacts rather than as absolute figures. As such the results are not directly comparable to other carbon footprint studies.

4.3 Scope Definition

The scope of this analysis is defined by the data provided as additional data was not available and specific data would be difficult to find from outside sources. The data includes information on the use of materials in the beverage manufacturing process and electricity, heat energy and water used in the factories. It includes raw materials for the beverages and packaging materials. Some recycling, transport, waste and materials required for the running of the production site are also included. The data does not include transport of raw materials to the production site, impacts from the use stage, storage, and capital goods. As such the data is sufficient for a simplified black box gate- to-gate analysis including utilities.

4.3.1 Functional unit

The selected functional unit is one thousand litres of beverage. The units used in the provided data are kilograms and cubic metres (1 m 3 = 1000 l), therefore dividing the quantities into smaller units is not necessary. As the data is not allocated between the different types of beverages produced, the results will be for an average of all the beverages produced in the manufacturing plants.

4.3.2 System boundary

The system boundaries are defined by the materials which are listed in the provided data. The data includes materials used in the process of beverage manufacturing at the production site. Processes outside the site are excluded from the study as a baseline but will be determined in detail by the data items listed in the databases.

Raw materials for the production of beverages are transported to the production site. Each different beverage is produced according to its own specifications. Beer raw materials include raw and malted barley, hops and yeast. Juice or concentrated juice, sugar and yeast are needed for cider. Juice or concentrated juice and possibly gin are used to make long drink. Ethanol is added to some of the alcoholic beverages. Soft drinks and mineral or carbonated water also require juice, concentrated juice or other flavouring such as essence and sugar. Minerals such as magnesium chloride and potassium carbonate are added to mineral water (Bottled Water Information 2013 and Glacéau 2013). Water is necessary for all beverages. Diatomaceous earth is used in filtering of beverages. The beverages are carbonated with the addition of carbon dioxide and then packaged. The beverage raw materials are all grouped into one category excluding the use of water which is listed separately.

The packaging materials included in the data are different types of glass bottles; white, mixed including green and other undefined glass as well as steel caps. For plastic bottles the polyethylene (PE) caps, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) label film, various types of low-density polyethylene (LDPE) 32 plastic film for multi-packets, bags, cardboard handles, boxes and crates are included. Aluminium cans are listed separately. Other packaging materials include corrugated board boxes, wooden shipping pallets as well as glue for labels and multi-packets. In the data the packaging materials are divided, based on their material, into six different categories: fibre, glass, glue, metal, plastic and wood. These categories will be used in the study.

Caustic soda or sodium hydroxide and other chemicals such as disinfectants, soaps and oils, are used in washing, disinfecting and as lubricants for production lines. Carbon dioxide is used to fill the tanks after washing. Grease and oil are used to ensure the smooth running of the machinery. These are listed under the two categories chemicals and lubricants.

Electricity and heat are used throughout all the processes. The carbon dioxide emissions of energy use and transport are listed. Each of the three manufacturers produces or purchases electricity from heavy fuel oil and heat from various fuel sources. Transport emissions are calculated differently in each beverage manufacturer and include the transport from the production site to distributors such as shops and restaurants. Transport emissions also include the transport of empty glass bottles from the collection points to the producers where they are washed and refilled.

Waste from the production site is divided into four categories: biodegradable, energy, hazardous, and mixed. These will be described further below. Volume of wastewater is listed also. In Finland the rate of package recycling is very high and it can be assumed that most beverage packages are returned to be used again as raw material or washed and refilled. Recycling is credited back into the system under the waste category of materials.

Based on the data provided, the production processes of all the materials are outside the system boundary. This includes the base materials included in this study, such as water, pesticides, energy used in the production, capital goods and the impacts of the staff involved in the production. The capital goods and staff impacts, such as uniforms and commuting, in the production sites under study are also excluded. Transport other than that from the production sites to the distributors is not included. This means for

33 example, transport of raw materials to the production site and waste products to waste disposal centres are excluded.

The use phase includes delivery of the beverage to the consumer, the consumer’s storage of the beverage, consumption of the beverage and disposal of the packaging either to recycling or waste disposal. The use phase from the delivery to the distributor is excluded completely as there is endless variation in how the beverage reaches the end-user, how the end-user stores and consumes the product and how the end-user disposes of the packaging material. For example, the beverage could be consumed in a restaurant or purchased from a grocery store and then consumed immediately. It could be stored in a refrigerator or stored at room temperature for an undefined period of time. Also the consumer can recycle the packaging material or dispose of it with other mixed waste.

Figure 8. Generic beverage life cycle showing the rough system boundary (thick dashed line). Transport is not included in the system boundary although it is in the picture. Edited from original in Amienyo 2012.

The system boundaries can be defined in short as including raw materials, packaging materials, the manufacturing process, reuse and recycling, waste management and energy and other utilities used (Figure 8). However it is important to note that transport is not included in the life cycle under study. Also, the processes for the manufacturing of raw or packaging materials are only included in as much detail as they are defined in in the CCaLC database as no other information is available.

4.3.3 Assumptions and allocation

Due to the limitations of data a number of assumptions need to be made in the inventory analysis phase. As data specific to the producers included in the study is not available, life cycle inventory databases need to be used as data sources. As a general rule the closest matches for the materials in terms of geographical location and product description have been selected from the databases. No allocation of the materials and utilities is possible between beverage types or for production phases so results will reflect those of the whole sector. Each material choice is explained below. Without more specific data it is not possible to expand the system to include co-products such as mash.

It is assumed that the data includes all materials used in the beverage manufacturing process at the production sites or that any materials not included would have a negligible impact.

4.3.4 Recycling

As stated in section 2.7 Recycling system (page 14), the rates of recycling in Finland are very high. Fibre, glass, metal, plastic and wood materials are all recycled. The recycling of these materials is credited back into the system under study and reduces the carbon footprint of waste produced from the system.

The data are divided into two categories of packaging materials being used again: reuse as is and recycling. Any packaging not returned from the consumer is assumed to not be recycled in any way.

Figure 9 shows the material flows for the plastic category for the year 2012. The differences between reuse and recycling are explained by using Figure 9 as an example.

Figure 9. The material flows of plastic packaging material in the three Finnish beverage manufactures for the year 2012. Data from the Federation of the Brewing and Soft Drinks Industry (2013e)

Reuse of the packaging as is includes for example washing and refilling bottles. This is calculated by subtracting the amount of material that is sent to be reused from the amount that is returned from the consumers. This is further divided by the amount of production that leaves the plant. Based on the values from Figure 9 this is calculated as:

ʚͦͬͨͤͤ /ͯͥͤͥͬͤ /ʛ reuse rate ʠ ͧͤͥͦͤ / ʡ ∗ 100 Ɣ 60 %

Reuse is not included in the study as it is assumed reuse of packaging materials as is decreases the amount of new materials purchased. Therefore, without reuse, the figures for materials used would most likely be considerably higher.

The second category is material recycling. This means that the material will be reprocessed to make new packaging material. For example used plastic is crushed and formed again to make new plastic bottles. This is calculated by dividing the amount of material which is discarded or scrapped at the plant with the amount of new material which is brought into the plant. Based on the values in Figure 9 this can be calculated as follows:

ͥͤͥͬͤ / recycling rate ʠͥͥͭͤͤ /ʡ ∗ 100 Ɣ 86 %

The rate of recycling is used for crediting into the system. Any recycling rate above 100 % is calculated as 100 %.

4.4 Inventory Analysis

The raw materials listed in the provided set of data were used as inputs into the CCaLC tool. The figures in the data were kg of raw material per m3 of final product. Any data found in the CCaLC tool which clearly matched the raw material was used. The closest match was selected. If data was not available at all in the CCaLC databases it was sourced from a variety of different databases and entered manually. The material selections are explained further in the following sections.

In the next section the materials specified in the data will be listed. Also their role in the production process is explained and their specific impacts listed according to the category in which they are grouped for the yearly comparison.

As detailed data was available for 2012 the products listed for this year were used to calculate the impacts of broader categories of materials. The categories used are those which are found in the data provided for 2000-2012.

Based on the carbon footprint of the materials in each category, an average carbon footprint for the category is calculated. This is done by summing the individual carbon footprints together and dividing by the number of materials included. This average carbon footprint is used to calculate the yearly impact of each category as well as the whole sector. Subsequently the changes between years can be determined.

4.4.1 Beverage raw materials

Beverage raw materials include all the materials input to the beverages. These include raw and malted barley, ethanol, fruit juices and extracts, hops, sugar and yeast. Diatomaceous earth is also included in this category in the provided data although it is not an ingredient in the beverages. According to the Federation of the Brewing and Soft Drinks Industry, all the beverage raw materials except for hops are of Finnish origin (Ussa 2013a). This is used as a basis for selecting each of the materials. Materials with the closest geographical location were selected.

Barley

Unmalted or raw barley is used in brewing as an additional source of starch to that of malted barley. Starch provides a source of sugar for yeast in the fermentation process. (Goldammer 1999)

The method for barley cultivation varies slightly based on the end-use of the barley. Different varieties are grown for different uses, such as animal feed, malting or starch. Each has varying criteria for the quality of barley. (Mäkinen et al. 2006) Barley can be sown in autumn or in spring. In Finland the soil usually requires liming to reduce the acidity ensuring a stable pH level of the soil. Fertilizers (for example, nitrogen, phosphorous and other minerals) are used to ensure high yield. (Vilja-alan yhteistyöryhmä 2012) According to Mäkinen et al. (2006) barley requires 100 kg nitrogen, 18 kg phosphorous and 30 kg potassium per hectare when cultivated on loam soil. These are not included separately.

Herbicides and pesticides are used to control weeds and diseases. Growth regulators can be used to control lodging. (Vilja-alan yhteistyöryhmä 2012 and Franssila 2011) In Finland the average yield of barley is about 3860 kg per hectare (Sinkko et al. 2010). After the barley is harvested it is dried and stored (Vilja-alan yhteistyöryhmä 2012).

In CCaLC barley produced by conventional agricultural practices in Germany was selected. This was the closest geographical location for which both raw barley and

39 malted barley are listed. According to CCaLC barley cultivation produces 0.35 kg CO 2e per kg of barley.

Malt Barley

Malt barley is used in the brewing of beer and is the main ingredient after water (Buglass 2011). Beer can also be made of raw barley and added enzymes although this is quite rare; the vast majority of barley beer is made from malted barley. In the malting process the barley is steeped, germinated and kilned. (Bamforth 2006) Barley is the most widely cultivated grain (Tike 2013) and all the malt used is produced in Finland (Ussa 2013b).

The malt barley selected in CCaLC is produced from barley cultivated under conventional agricultural practices and malted in Germany. This was selected to be in line with the selection of barley above. The carbon footprint for malt barley is 0.65 kg

CO 2e per kg according to CCaLC.

Brewing beer produces about 0.15 kg mash co-product per 1 litre of beer (Carlsberg 2005). Mash can be used as animal feed and in Finland most of it is used for this purpose (Suomen Rehu 2010). Due to lack of data, allocation between the beverage products and mash is not possible in this study

Hops

Hops are added at different stages of the brewing process to provide bitterness and aroma (Buglass 2011). Hops are the only beverage raw material which is not of Finnish origin. Hops are not found in the CCaLC database. Rape seed was used as a substitute for hops in a case study of land use impact assessment of beer (Mattila et al. 2012) and thus rape seed is also used here.

In the Ecoinvent database, which is included in the CCaLC tool, rape seed produces

0.95 kg CO 2e per kg.

Yeast

Yeast is used in the fermentation process. Yeast can be either top- or bottom- fermenting. Yeast multiplies during the process and about 2-4 kg of yeast is produced per 100 litres of fermented beer. Some of this used yeast can be used to culture more yeast for future fermentations. Yeast can also be disposed of as animal feed. (Bamforth 2006)

In CCaLC yeast is listed as producing 0.96 kg CO 2e per kg of raw material.

Fruit juices and extracts

Fruit juices and other flavouring extracts are added to beverages for flavour. There is no further information on the specific products included in this raw material category. Therefore the item fruit juices and syrups , which was found in the CCaLC database was used as it is assumed to be the closest equivalent.

According to CCaLC, 1 kg of fruit juices and syrups produces 0.99 kg CO 2e

Ethanol

Ethanol is produced through a process of mashing, fermenting and distilling from a source of starch (Pöyry Environment Oy 2006). In Europe wheat and barley are the most common sources whereas sugarcane and corn are used in Brazil and USA respectively (Linde et al. 2008). In Finland, ethanol is mainly produced from barley by Altia Corporation in Koskenkorva (Altia 2013).

According to a study on ethanol production in Finland, 1 kg of ethanol produced from barley produces 1.22 kg CO 2e (Sinkko et al. 2010).

Sugar

Sugar is generally produced from either sugar beet or sugar cane. Most of the world’s sugar is produced from sugar cane which grows in tropical climates. Sugar beet however grows in colder climates such as northern Europe.

Sugar beet was selected as the source of sugar as most of the world’s sugar beet production is in the European Union. (European Commission 2013) Sugar beet produced in Sweden was also included in the Nillson et al. (2011) study of a Swedish cola soft drink. It is assumed that most of the sugar used in Finland is produced from sugar beet either in Finland or elsewhere within the EU.

Sugar is given a carbon footprint of 1.37 kg CO 2e per kg in CCaLC.

Diatomaceous earth

Diatomaceous earth is not an ingredient for the beverages themselves, but is used in beer filtration (Ediz et al. 2010) and thus collects yeast and protein from the beer. Diatomaceous earth or diatomite consists of fossils of unicellular organisms, typically algae (Al-Degs et al. 2001). It is rapidly being replaced by other filtering processes (Grönqvist et al. 2013). According to the provided data, all the used diatomaceous earth is recycled from the manufacturer to be used in improving soil for agricultural use. Due to lack of data the system cannot be expanded to include the end disposal of diatomite.

Diatomite was not found in the CCaLC tool. Perlite, which is a volcanic glass, (Sulpizio 1999) is another filtering material found in the CCaLC database which can be used instead of diatomite (Ediz et al. 2010) and is substituted for diatomite.

According to CCaLC perlite produces 0.998 kg CO 2e per kg of raw material.

Beverage raw material category

The carbon footprints of each material above are summed together and divided by the total number of materials. This gives an average footprint of 0.936 kg CO 2e per kg material for the category. As only information combined for all beverage materials is

42 provided, this average footprint will be used for the beverage raw materials category in the yearly calculations.

4.4.2 Other materials

Sodium hydroxide is bought as a concentrate and used diluted in washing (Pohjois- Savon ympäristökeskus 2003). 49 % concentrated sodium hydroxide in CCaLC has a carbon footprint of 1.2 kg CO 2e per kg.

Lubricants such as grease and oil are used for the smooth running of the production machines. These are estimated in CCaLC to have a carbon footprint of 0.54 kg CO 2e per kg.

In the calculation these are included in the beverage raw materials category, as they are required for producing the beverages themselves. Also, the amount of these materials is so small that separating them into their own category is not necessary.

4.4.3 Carbon dioxide

Liquid carbon dioxide is used in carbonating beverages as well as filling tanks when they are not in use for manufacturing. Some of this carbon dioxide is collected and this is credited into the system already in the base values. Bottled carbon dioxide has a footprint of 0.82 kg CO 2e per kg in CCaLC and is included into the beverage raw materials in the final footprint comparison.

In the provided data, the emissions from some transport between the production facilities and distributors are indicated by a figure for carbon dioxide emissions but it is unclear whether or not this includes all transport of this category. This has been included as direct CO 2 emissions . As this is the only measure of transport which is included in the study it is not sufficient to indicate all the emissions from transportation.

Generally transport is included in carbon footprint studies as the emissions from product and material transportation can contribute significantly to the overall footprint. It is likely that the sources of raw materials vary somewhat from year to year and as a result the footprint of the transport phase would change accordingly. However, as no accurate information is available on the sources of raw materials, transport distances, transport within production facilities or transport to distributors, transport is not considered in this study

It is stated that the direct CO 2 emissions included in the provided data cover the emissions of the electricity and heat supplier as well as CO 2 from the production process itself. However, without more specific data, it is not possible to allocate direct CO 2 emissions between its sources. Therefore direct CO 2 emissions are included separately and some double-counting may occur. As the study focuses on the year-to-year changes it is assumed that this possible double-counting will not have a great impact on the final results.

Naturally, direct CO2 emissions have a carbon footprint of 1 kg CO 2e per kg (CCaLC 2013b and IPCC 2007).

4.4.4 Packaging materials

Packaging materials for the beverages are mostly made of glass, metal and plastic. These are combined into multiple packets which are held together by glue and packed into larger containers from fibre-based materials, such as cardboard, or with plastic. For transporting the containers are packaged into plastic crates and onto wooden pallets.

Fibre-based

Fibre-based materials include mainly cardboard materials, such as corrugated board boxes and multi-packets. These are used for packing several beverage containers together for transport or retail. Other fibre-based materials include paper, cardboard

44 cups and trays. No data is available for these materials separately so they are all combined into one database item.

For fibre-based packaging CCaLC gives the values 1.03 kg CO 2e per kg for fresh fibre and 0.99 kg CO 2e per kg for recycled fibre. These figures are used in the calculation and crediting of recycling.

Plastic

Several types of plastic are used in beverage packaging. The most common is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) out of which beverage bottles are made. The PET- bottles are delivered as preforms, which are inflated into the final shape. Preforms are essentially a compressed form of the final bottle with the bottle-top threads already precast. During transport and storage they require much less space than full-sized bottles. The manufacturers under study began using preforms in 2008. There is a trend that plastic bottles have replaced glass bottles. (Grönqvist et al. 2013)

High-density polyethylene (HDPE) is used for bottle caps, boxes and crates, which are used in transportation and storage. Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) is used for labels on bottles, beverage bags, multi-packet handles and other flexible plastic packaging.

In the calculation the plastic materials are roughly divided into the above mentioned three types of plastic as each material is not found separately in CCaLC. In CCaLC the product polyethylene bottle (HDPE) was selected to represent all the plastic assumed to be made from HDPE. This has a carbon footprint of 3.15 kg CO 2e per kg (CCaLC

2013). A fizzy drink bottle with a carbon footprint of 4.56 kg CO 2e per kg is used for the PET-preforms. This data item in CCaLC includes the polypropylene bottle top and label (LDPE) so some of these are double-counted. However it is assumed that this does not have great impact on the final result as the top and label form only a small share of the entire bottle weight. The LDPE plastic packaging materials are included as polyethylene film (LDPE) in CCaLC with a carbon footprint of 2.45 kg CO 2e per kg.

The average carbon footprint of these three plastic materials is 3.387 kg CO 2e per kg material. As only combined information for plastic materials together is provided, this

45 average footprint will be used for the plastic packaging materials category in the yearly calculations.

CCaLC gives a carbon footprint of 2.53 kg CO 2e per kg for plastic bottles produced entirely from recycled material, which is used for crediting the recycling of plastic back into the system under study in the waste category.

Glass

Glass is used as bottles for the beverages. Glass can be white or clear, green or brown. Brown glass bottles are mostly washed and reused as is. Other types of glass can be crushed and made into new bottles.

Clear or white glass in CCaLC has a carbon footprint of 0.89 kg CO 2e per kg. For green glass the carbon footprint listed in CCaLC is 0.87 kg CO 2e per kg. Brown glass was not included separately as no new brown glass is included in the data for 2012. It is assumed very little new brown glass is bought as old bottles are washed and reused.

The average footprint of 0.882 kg CO 2e per kg material is used in the yearly calculations for the glass packaging material category.

According to British Glass (2003) making glass containers out of 100% recycled glass compared with 100% virgin materials resulted in 37 % saving in carbon dioxide emissions. Based on this figure, the carbon footprint of 100% recycled glass has been calculated from the footprint given in CCaLC for 100 % virgin glass. (British Glass

2003) This results in a carbon footprint of 0.56 kg CO 2e per kg for recycled glass, which is used in the crediting of recycling.

Metal

Aluminium is used to produce beverage cans. CCaLC gives a footprint of 11 kg CO 2e per kg for a 0.5 l primary aluminium beverage can.

Another type of metal packaging material is the caps or tops of bottles, which are commonly made of tin plated steel. They can also be made of tin-free or chromium plated steel. (ArcelorMittal 2013)

According to the World Steel Association (2013) the carbon footprint for tinplated steel is 2.58 kg CO 2e per kg and for tin-free steel 2.64 kg CO 2e per kg. The average of these two values, 2.61 kg CO 2e per kg will be used for the calculation as it is not completely certain which kind of steel is used. Also, the values are very close to each other, so selecting either figure should not considerably impact the results.

The average footprint of 6.805 kg CO 2e per kg material is used in the yearly calculations for the metal packaging material category as data is not available for aluminium and steel separately in the provided data for 2000-2012.

Aluminium can be recycled almost endlessly. However, the demand for aluminium is so high that recycled material will only cover about 40 % of the world demand and the rest will need to be sourced from primary aluminium. (The Aluminum Association 2013)

According to CCaLC can produced from 48 % recycled aluminium has a footprint of

6.39 kg CO 2e per kg. Most likely the carbon footprint does not decrease in a linear fashion, however, in the absence of other information a linear relationship was assumed. The resulting footprint calculated from this linear reduction for a can from 100 % recycled aluminium is 1.4 kg CO 2e per kg.

Recycling aluminium consumes 95 % less energy than producing primary aluminium from ore. Also 90 % less capital goods are required in the production of secondary aluminium than for primary aluminium. (The Aluminum Association 2013) Based on these figures, it can be assumed that the calculated carbon footprint of 1.4 kg CO 2e per kg is roughly in the correct range

Wood

Wood is mostly used in the form of pallets which are used to transport multiple beverage packages. Pallets come in several different sizes. The only wooden packaging material listed in CCaLC is the EURO pallet , which in CCaLC is stated to be reused 20 times. The EURO pallet has a carbon footprint of 0.017 kg CO 2e per kg according to CCaLC

A 50 % reduction in the already low carbon footprint was assumed for recycled material resulting in 0.008 kg CO 2e per kg as more accurate data was not readily available. Also the footprints for both virgin and recycled materials are so small that a more accurate figure would not significantly affect the results.

Glue

Glue is used to hold the packaging materials together and in shape. For example, label ends are glued together around a bottle and cardboard boxes are glued at the edges. For these two different types of glue are used: carboxylmethyl cellulose and ethylvinylacetate, which according to CCaLC have a carbon footprint of 4.21 and 2.71 kg CO 2e per kg respectively. As yearly information is not available separately for the types of glue used, the average footprint of 3.46 kg CO 2e per kg is used in the yearly calculations.

4.4.5 Utilities

The amount of heat and electricity used per 1000 litres is listed in the data. Heat is used to keep the production facilities warm and for heating up materials in the production process as well as washing of the process equipment. According to representatives from the manufacturers, heat is produced from various fuel sources, such as natural gas or wood. (Grönqvist et al. 2013) It goes without saying that the whole production process is powered by electricity.

For heat and electricity specific footprints of the Finnish production are used as these are assumed to best reflect the likely production emissions. Also, no specific data for electricity or heat produced at the manufacturer is available. For electricity Myllymaa et al. (2006) gives 0.32 kg CO 2e per kWh. For heat the value is also 0.32 kg CO 2e per kWh. These are used in the carbon footprint calculation and included in the energy category.

4.4.6 Water

Water is used for washing production containers and is usually the main beverage ingredient. Municipal tap water, which can be filtered in the manufacturing plants, is used in the production processes. In CCaLC (2013b) tap water has a very low carbon footprint of 0.00032 kg CO 2e per kg. Water is included in the beverage raw materials category in the yearly comparison.

Wastewater going out of the manufacturing plant is treated in municipal treatment facilities. Specific data for wastewater from the processes under study was not found in CCaLC (2013b) so wastewater treatment from another organic production process, maize starch production, was used instead. It is assumed the composition of its wastewater would have a similar environmental impact as that from the beverage production process. The process of wastewater treatment from maize starch production has a carbon footprint of 0.003 kg CO 2e per kg. Wastewater treatment is included in the waste category in the overall calculations.

4.4.7 Waste

Waste produced in the manufacturing plants is divided into four categories: biodegradable, energy, hazardous, and mixed.

Biodegradable waste is mostly food waste from the canteens in the factories. This is waste which will decompose over time in a composting facility as it is of organic origin. 49

In CCaLC the treatment of biodegradable waste has a carbon footprint of 0.51 kg CO 2e per kg.

Energy waste is mostly plastic waste which is combusted with heat recovery to produce energy. This process has a carbon footprint of 0.89 kg CO 2e per kg (CCaLC 2013b).

Hazardous waste is most likely composed of oils and grease used in the plant which are not suitable for other waste collections and can potentially be harmful to the environment if disposed of in mixed waste. The hazardous waste treatment process has a carbon footprint of 2.85 kg CO 2e per kg (CCaLC 2013b).

Mixed waste or solid waste consists of materials which cannot be recycled into other types of waste collection and it is sent directly to landfill. This process has a carbon footprint of 0.70 kg CO 2e per kg (CCaLC 2013b).

4.5 Results

An average carbon footprint for each broad material category – beverage raw materials, energy, direct CO 2 emissions and waste – was calculated based on the materials in the provided detailed data for 2012. Packaging material was included in the categories fibre, glass, glue, metal, plastic and wood. The beverage raw materials include ingredients used in the beverages such as barley and yeast, but also materials used in the process such as chemicals and lubricants. Liquid carbon dioxide and water are also included in the beverage raw materials category. The energy category includes electricity and heat energy. Waste includes biodegradable, energy, hazardous, mixed waste and wastewater. Recycling of the fibre, glass, metal, plastic and wood packaging materials are credited in the waste category. For the years 2000-2011 only combined data for each category is provided. The average footprint of each category was used to calculate a total footprint for each of the years 2000-2012.

This footprint allows the year-to-year change to be observed. The results are explained below. Firstly, an example year is used to illustrate the general magnitudes of the 50 different categories. Next, the changes in each of the categories are inspected separately. Finally, changes in the whole carbon footprint are examined. It must be remembered that carbon footprint values are only theoretical and should not be used as absolute values.

Figure 10 shows the proportions of the carbon footprint of 2004, which is used as an example. Direct CO 2 emissions contributed the majority of the footprint and beverage raw materials just over a quarter. Electricity and heat energy were the third highest category at 22 %. Packaging produced 17 % of the total footprint.

The percentage of waste was close to zero due to the crediting of recycling back into the system. Because of the crediting, a 0 % value does not mean that there was no waste, simply that the credits from recycling were roughly equal to the negative impacts of other waste.

Waste 0 %

Packaging 17 % Beverage raw materials 27 %

Direct CO2 emissions 34 % Energy 22 %

Figure 10. Carbon footprint by data category for 2004.

The ratios of the categories of raw materials, energy, direct GHG emissions, packaging and waste were roughly the same from year to year. For several years, the percentage of

51 waste with crediting from recycling came to a negative value. This will be elaborated on later.

4.5.1 Beverage raw materials

The highest beverage raw material carbon footprint is for the years 2000-2002 when the footprint was between 137 and 141 kg CO 2e per 1000 litres (Figure 11). The lowest footprint was in 2005 when it dropped below 122 kg CO 2e per 1000 litres. The footprint did not change considerably in the time period under study although overall the footprint decreased slightly.

160

140

120

100

80 e e 1000 / litres 2 60

kgCO 40

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 11. Theoretical carbon footprint of raw materials used in beverage production 2000-2012.

4.5.2 Energy

The carbon footprint of energy, which includes electricity and heat energy used in the production process decreased (Figure 12). There was a slight increase from 2000 to 2002 after which the trend was mostly decreasing with slight fluctuation. The difference between lowest and highest footprint for the time period 2000-2012 is about 35 kg CO 2e per 1000 litres.

140

120

100

80 e e 1000 / litres

2 60

40 kgCO

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 12. Theoretical carbon footprint of energy used in beverage production 2000-2012.

4.5.3 Direct CO 2 emissions

The direct carbon dioxide emissions decreased (Figure 13), which is in line with the decrease of the carbon footprint of electricity and heat energy as the production of these produces a lot of emissions. The data for 2000 is omitted since it does not include energy or transport as do the other years. In some years, for example 2004 and 2011, there was a slight increase when compared with the previous year. However, some of the manufacturers have changed their method of calculating CO 2 emissions, so decreases may be due to this change. This is especially the case for the decrease from 2011 to 2012 which was most likely due to a difference in method, not actual emission reductions. Comparing 2001 with 2012 shows an overall reduction of 43 kg CO 2e per 1000 litres.

Between the footprint for energy use and that of direct carbon dioxide emissions some double counting may occur. This however, should not greatly impact the overall results.

200

180

160

140

120

100

80 e e 1000 / litres 2 60

kgCO 40

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 13. Theoretical carbon footprint of direct carbon dioxide emissions from beverage production 2001-2012.

4.5.4 Packaging materials

The carbon footprint of packaging materials fluctuates in the time period under study (Figure 14). There was a great increase from 2007 to 2008. After 2008 the change was quite small, although it slightly increased each year. Overall the footprint for packaging increased. Comparing year 2000 with year 2012 shows an overall increase of 122 kg

CO 2e per 1000 litres, or 88 %, between the two years. The packaging materials category has experienced the largest increase out of all the categories. The magnitude of the carbon footprint is also the largest of all the categories after the year 2008.

250

200

150 e e 1000 / litres 2 100 kgCO

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 14. Theoretical carbon footprint of packaging materials used in beverage production 2000-2012.

4.5.5 Waste

Biodegradable, energy, and hazardous waste were not measured in 2000 and 2001 so the figures for 2000 and 2001 include only mixed waste and wastewater. The waste carbon footprint without crediting from recycled materials clearly decreased (Figure 15). Since 2006 the amount of waste has decreased every year. Wastewater contributed the largest share to the footprint. The footprint for wastewater treatment per litre is very small. However the volume of wastewater is so large that overall its footprint becomes quite large.

e e 1000 / litres 8 2 6

kgCO 4

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 15. Theoretical carbon footprint of waste discarded from beverage production 2000-2012, excluding recycling.

Biodegradable, energy, and hazardous waste were not measured in 2000 and 2001 so the corresponding figures include only mixed waste, wastewater and recycled materials. The recycled materials include fibre, glass, metal, plastic and wood. The footprint of waste was negative for all years except 2004 (Figure 16). The rates of recycling generally increased over the whole period explaining most of the decrease. In addition, the amount of actual waste discarded from the system also decreased.

A negative footprint does not mean that there was a negative amount of waste but is due to the crediting back of recycling. Recycling levels were very high, which means their positive impact was often greater than the negative impact of waste disposal. Calculating together the negative impact of waste disposal (shown as a positive footprint value) and the positive impact of recycling (shown as a negative footprint value) produced an overall negative footprint for waste disposal. It must be remembered that producing materials even from 100 % recycled material still requires energy and causes some emissions as the manufacturing process itself is still required.

-10

-20

-30 e e 1000 / litres 2 -40 kgCO -50

-60

-70 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 16. Theoretical carbon footprint of waste discarded from beverage production 2000-2012, including recycling.

4.5.6 Carbon footprint of beverage industry

Comparing the theoretical carbon footprints of the different categories (Figure 17) it can be seen that the energy and waste footprints decreased. The footprint of direct CO 2 emissions follows the trend of the energy carbon footprint and also decreased. The footprint of packaging materials shows a clear increase. The footprint of raw materials changed considerably from year to year but overall it decreased slightly over the time period studied. Most of the categories’ footprints were the same magnitude, between 75 and 200 kg CO 2e per 1000 litres. Waste carbon footprint was much lower than the other categories and even reached negative values in all but one year.

250

200

Beverage raw materials 150 Energy

100 Direct CO2 emissions e e 1000 / litres 2 50 Packaging kgCO Waste 0

-50

-100

Figure 17. Carbon footprint of all different categories for 2000-2012.

Although the calculation of the absolute value of carbon footprint is only theoretical and the values should not be used as a measure of the real footprint, any relative changes and the overall trend can still be assessed. The footprint increased considerably from 58

2000 to 2001 after which it reached peak level of 532 kg CO 2e per 1000 litres in 2002 (Figure 18). The footprint decreased dramatically in 2003 and stayed low in comparison to other years in 2004-2006. The carbon footprint was lowest in 2004 at 487 kg CO 2e per 1000 litres, if the exceptionally low footprint of 360 kg CO 2e per 1000 litres in 2000 is not taken into account. After 2006 the footprint increased again until 2009. 2010 experienced a slight decrease from the previous year, while 2011 again increased and 2012 showed a small decrease from 2011.

The comparison of 2000 to 2012 shows an increase of 135 kg CO 2e per 1000 litres, or

38 %. This however is largely due to the exclusion of most of the direct CO 2 emissions in the figures for 2000. Therefore, a better comparison is from 2001 to 2012 in which the footprint did not change so dramatically. If 2012 is compared with 2001, which includes CO 2 emissions from energy and transport, there was an overall decrease of 20 kg CO 2e per 1000 litres or 4 %.

600

500

400

300 e e 1000 / litres 2

200 kgCO

100

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 18. The value of a theoretical carbon footprint calculation for the beverage industry 2000-2012.

Based on the calculations and graphs above it is difficult to confirm a general trend for the overall footprint. A decrease of 4 % is very small. If complete data was included for 2000 the trend might be different. Overall it can be said that the total footprint has decreased slightly for the time period 2001-2012

Figure 19 shows the change in all categories as a percentage of the entire footprint. For

2000 direct CO 2 emissions did not include energy or transport so were considerably lower than in other years. Figure 19 clearly shows that the share of the different categories stayed relatively equal for all years. The greatest change is shown in the direct CO 2 emissions and packaging materials categories. Toward the end of the time period, from about 2008, the packaging materials contributed the largest share of the total footprint.

100 %

80 % Beverage raw materials 60 % Energy

40 % Direct CO2 emissions

Packaging 20 %

Waste

0 %

-20 %

Figure 19. Theoretical carbon footprint of beverage production by category 2000-2012.

The results and possible reasons for the changes observed are discussed further in the following section.

5 Discussion

As can be seen from the results there is no overall trend that would be uniform in all the different categories studied. The carbon footprint of packaging materials increased while the other categories decreased or stayed roughly the same. For example, the carbon footprint of packaging materials changed by 122 kg CO 2e per 1000 litres from lowest to highest year. The smallest change was in the footprint of energy, where the difference between lowest and highest year was only 37 kg CO 2e per 1000 litres. Also the change from one year to the next could be a decrease or increase and did not clearly correlate with the changes in previous years.

Many of these changes were probably due to fluctuations in the economy and demand. Changes in yield of agricultural products and supply of other materials can greatly influence the availability of materials. Also some materials can be bought in bulk and stored for many years which would only be apparent with more detailed data. Other issues which are not in the scope of this study could also influence the changes.

The footprint of each material or each category used in the calculations did not change as one value was used for all of the years. As such, any decrease or increase in the footprint was a result of a change in the amount of materials. It is likely that the increased use of materials also brings increased monetary costs. Therefore, it can be assumed that a decrease in the footprint would also provide cost savings, which should provide an additional or perhaps greater incentive to work toward reducing the footprint.

In large scale production, such as that under study, the sourcing of raw materials is an important and topical issue. In choosing their suppliers, large producers are able to influence environmental impacts and social conditions in the source countries. By preferring suppliers with responsible and sustainable practices manufacturers can support these practices and by process of exclusion discourage harmful practices. Such value choices can also send a powerful positive message to consumers.

Beverage raw materials

The results show that the beverage raw materials contributed more than energy and waste to the overall footprint but less than direct CO 2 emissions. The footprint did not change considerably in the time period studied but instead fluctuated when compared with each year previous. Many materials are probably bought in bulk or their availability might fluctuate due to agricultural yields which would explain some of the changes.

As beverage raw materials formed such a large share of the footprint it is likely that this is a key area in which the footprint could be relatively easily reduced.

It is likely that with beverage raw materials in particular the carbon footprint would vary yearly as materials are sourced from different locations. Although it was stated that beverage raw materials except for hops are all of Finnish origin, it is not clear which materials exactly this means. Also materials not used for the beverages themselves but here included into the beverage raw materials category, such as chemicals and lubricants, are probably sourced from outside Finland. Materials from cheaper production sources, such as developing countries, will have a higher footprint than materials with lower transport distances affecting the total footprint for the sector. This yearly change of material sources could not be calculated due to insufficient data.

Energy

Favourable results showed in energy use for which the carbon footprint decreased most years. This reduction was probably due to increases in the energy efficiency of the production process. This could be brought about by a desire for cost savings, but regardless of the reason produced less overall emissions. The same trends were apparent for waste disposal and direct CO 2 emissions

It can be assumed that the electricity and heat energy use by the production sites has been cut down to a minimum. Both utilities can be quite expensive so wasting them would not be sensible. Increasing energy efficiency might be possible by inspecting practices or processes already in place and ensuring they are the most efficient. Further

62 reductions could also be made through the use of new technologies and more efficient machinery.

Direct CO 2 emissions

Direct CO 2 emissions contributed the largest share of the total carbon footprint before

2008. The category of direct CO 2 emissions is slightly ambiguous since it is not completely clear which emissions are included. However, it formed quite a large share of the overall footprint so could not be left out of the study.

The direct CO 2 emissions were linked with those of the energy category as most likely the production of electricity and heat energy form the largest portion of the direct CO 2 emissions. Some transport between the production sites and retail outlets was also included. As with the carbon footprint of energy, it is likely that transport has been reduced as much as possible as unnecessary transport distances would be wasteful. Other transport of materials to and from the production sites would likely increase the emissions from this category considerably and perhaps be an area in which reductions could be made. The transport of raw materials however, was not included in the study.

Packaging

The packaging material category changed the most. The carbon footprint of packaging materials almost doubled in the period under study. This indicates that the amount of packaging material increased considerably. Increased use of materials surely also brings increased costs.

It is likely that PET-preforms coming on the market in 2008 explain the increase from 2007 to 2008. From 2005 the use of aluminium cans has increased and the use of glass bottles decreased. The amount of metal packaging materials used has more than doubled from 2000 to 2012. This is most likely due to a shift from using washable glass bottles to recyclable aluminium cans.

Based on the results these shifts in packaging materials resulted in a clear increase of the carbon footprint. It can be assumed that PET-bottles and aluminium cans are

63 preferred to glass bottles as they do not need to be washed and are easier and lighter to transport. There has also been a shift from cardboard to plastic packaging. Plastic has a far higher carbon footprint than cardboard so this explains a portion of the increase.

Waste

The carbon footprint of waste was negative in all years except 2004 when it was close to zero. The waste category included waste discarded from the system as well as recycled materials. As has been stated previously, a negative footprint arises when the amount of recycling credited into the beverage production system is larger than the footprint of waste itself. The recycling of course could have been credited in a different category, for example packaging, but the waste category seemed most logical. Changing the crediting category would not influence the overall result.

The amount of actual waste decreased consistently throughout the time period. At the same time, the rate of recycling increased for most packaging materials.

Logically the reduction in the amount of waste is easy to understand, as any wasted material produces unnecessary costs. The amount of recycling is not directly influenced by the producers as it is dependent on consumer behaviour. However, the producers are able to use materials which can easily be recycled and work together with the recycling deposit scheme to strive for increased recycling.

5.1 Method

The CCaLC tool used formed a simple carbon footprint calculation method which can be done by non-experts. The in-built databases in the tool provided most of the carbon footprint information. Combined with the data provided by the Federation of the Brewing and Soft Drinks Industry the carbon footprint was calculated. No information other than the provided data set was available directly from the beverage manufacturers. The materials selected from the databases were chosen based on the description and

64 closest match. It is possible that selecting different materials from the databases would slightly alter the results. In some cases close matches were not possible and, for example rape seed was substituted for hops. However, the exact value of the carbon footprint of each material does not greatly influence the final results. Because of this it was decided that the database values will be used even if they do not provide an exact match. Sourcing all data from credible sources outside of the databases would have been quite laborious.

As detailed data for all materials was not available for all years an average footprint for each broad material category was calculated. For more accurate results this average footprint could have been weighted based on the detailed data provided for 2012. However, the calculated average carbon footprint for each material category would not change from year to year. Regardless of its exact value the results would change in a similar fashion.

Due to the lack of information, most of the life cycle of the beverages had to be excluded from the system boundary of the study and as such the study is not indicative of the whole life cycle.

For the results of a carbon footprint study to be accurate, uniform calculation methods are required throughout the system under study. Also for different studies to be comparable against each other they need to be done under similar methodology. The ILCD Handbook is aiming to address this need by providing detailed guidance for performing life cycle and carbon footprint studies. However differences still arise from the choices and assumptions which need to be made to fill in gaps in the data. As the calculation of GHG emissions or all the environmental impacts of a product or service become even more mainstream hopefully the methodological differences will decrease.

Even with the methodological challenges, the carbon footprint is still a very easily understandable indicator of the magnitude of the environmental impacts of a product. As such it can easily be communicated to consumers and allows, at least in theory, consumers to compare alternative products to each other and as a result make environmentally friendly decisions if they so wish.

It must be remembered that the carbon footprint is only one environmental indicator and does not measure other impacts such as eutrophication or ozone depletion. It also does 65 not include social or economic factors which might have a far greater role when all impacts are compared together.

5.2 Uncertainties

The lack of specific data means that there are uncertainties in the calculations. One major uncertainty is the calculation of recycling which has been credited back into the system. The recycling rates of all packaging materials are quite high though producing packaging even from recycled materials consumes energy and causes emissions. The credit for recycling was calculated to be as representative of reality as possible. As the carbon footprint reduction from 100 % virgin material to 100 % recycled material is not a linear relationship considerable assumptions needed to be made in the calculation of the footprint for recycled material. Without specific information complete accuracy cannot be achieved.

There are probably differences in the calculation methods of the three beverage manufacturers. It was stated that at least two of the manufacturers have changed their calculations of direct CO 2 emissions to match those of their multi-national parent company (Grönqvist et al. 2013). These differences would present themselves most clearly in a comparison of the three manufacturers but this was outside the scope of this study. Assuming that the differences are uniform throughout the time period 2000-2012 no great errors should arise. If the calculation methods of a manufacturer have changed during the time period, as is likely, this will result in inaccurate data. However, without knowledge of both the calculation methods and when this change has happened it is not possible to pinpoint where the results change due to the calculation method.

It is likely that the transport of materials would contribute a large share of the total footprint, perhaps even the largest, since some of the materials can be transported extremely long distances, even from the other side of the world. Due to lack of information transport was mostly excluded from the study.

5.3 Previous studies

The results are quite similar to those presented in some of the previous studies. In Saxe’s (2010) comparison of several different beer life cycle assessment studies the results were between 500 and 1500 kg CO 2e per 1000 litres. According to Melon et al. (2012) single-use packaging, such as plastic bottles and aluminium cans, contribute the highest share of the overall emissions. In the present study packaging was found to contribute the largest share of the footprint after the year 2008. Also the overall footprint of the life cycle phases included fluctuated around 500 kg CO 2e per 1000 litres which is equal to the lower values in Saxe’s study.

Virtanen et al. and Virtanen (2006 and 2011) conducted a life cycle assessment of Finnish beer production for 2010 and 2005 and found a small improvement to have taken place. In this study, the overall footprint from 2005 to 2010 improves only by 5 kg CO 2e per 1000 litres or 1 %. Actual figures were not provided in their study so it is not certain if the change observed here is the same magnitude but it does show a similar trend.

Many previous studies are able to inspect more phases of the life cycle, such as production processes of raw materials and transportation, whereas here only the production phase is included. Because of this, results in other studies are often presented by life cycle phase and processes or materials within each phase are not detailed. Because of these differences more detailed comparison to previous studies is not possible.

5.4 Further research

Further research should be done in which the transport of materials is also included as this could produce very different results. More detailed data would also provide more accurate results. Detailed data for all individual materials for each year would also enhance accuracy. Specific data from the producers studied would enable the specific 67 pinpointing of hot spots for these producers rather than on a sector wide level. A longer time series would better enable trends to be seen.

Generally more carbon footprint and life cycle assessment studies will over time hopefully cause methods to become more standardised and produce results which can more accurately be compared. As the results become more reliable and widely presented to the public consumers can be directed toward environmentally favourable choices.

6 Conclusions

The carbon footprint of average beverage products was calculated with the CCaLC tool for each of the years 2000-2012. The footprint ranged between 360 and 532 kg CO 2e per 1000 litres of final products. Due to lack of information the footprint is only a theoretical value which showed the change between years but should not be used as an absolute value. The change from 2000 to 2012 was an increase of approximately 38 %.

The data for 2000 however did not include direct CO2 emissions from energy and transport which brought the footprint of the entire year to a lower total than it would have been otherwise. If 2012 is compared with 2001 there was a decrease of approximately 4 %. No major overall trend is apparent and any trend is entirely dependent on the years which are compared.

The shift from glass bottles to aluminium cans happened approximately in 2005. The carbon footprint of packaging materials mostly increased after 2005. The shift has definitely not brought about a decrease in the footprint of packaging products. The increase of plastic packaging at the same time as aluminium cans probably explains the lack of a decrease.

Hot spots in the system were found in the beverage raw materials and packaging materials, which had the highest footprints. A reduction in the footprints of beverage raw materials and packaging materials would also result in monetary savings. The carbon footprints of other categories generally decreased but of course further reductions are encouraged.

Environmental impacts other than the carbon footprint were not possible to be calculated as data was not included in CCaLC. Sourcing this data for all the materials from other databases was not in the scope of this study. However, other environmental impacts might overall be more important than the carbon footprint alone. Also, too much focus must not be put on just the footprint as reducing the footprint might cause other harmful environmental impacts if the whole picture is not considered.

Based on the current public opinion it is likely that the manufacturers will continue to strive for more environmentally sound practices. Decreasing material use also reduces monetary costs, which in the short-term is likely a greater incentive for the producers than the carbon footprint alone.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to my wonderful thesis instructor Olli Borg for patiently guiding the process and always answering my questions. This work would have been quite difficult and probably very different without your help. Thank you as well as to Pekka Kauppi for first introducing me to this extremely interesting topic.

Thank you to the Finnish Federation of the Brewing and Soft Drinks Industry for commissioning this study and their thesis grant without which this work would not have been possible. Thank you also to Elina Ussa and the representatives of the three beverage producers for information and feedback.

A huge thank you to my wonderful family and friends for their continuing support throughout my studies and especially during the writing of this thesis. Last but not least, thank you Colm for all your patience and support!

References

Al-Degs, Y., Khraisheh, M. A. M. & Tutunji, M. F. 2001: Sorption of lead ions on diatomite and manganese oxides modified diatomite. — Water Research 35 (15): 3724-3728. doi: 10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00071-9

Altia Corporation 2013: Tuotanto . — [Available at http://www.altiacorporation.fi/fi/Tuotanto/ . Cited 18.9.2013]

The Aluminum Association 2013: Sustainability . — [Available at http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NewsStatistics/Sustainabili ty/default.htm . Cited 9.10.2013]

Amienyo, D. 2012: Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment in the UK Beverage Sector . Doctoral thesis — The University of Manchester, United Kingdom. [Available at https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:183515 . Cited 2.10.2013]

ArcelorMittal 2013: Steel for Packaging: Product Catalogue . — [Available at http://www.arcelormittal.com/packaging/494 . Cited 9.10.2013]

Bamforth, C. W. 2006: Scientific principles of malting and brewing . — American Society of Brewing Chemists, St. Paul.

Baumann, H. & Tillman, A-M. 2004: The Hitch Hiker's Guide to LCA. An orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application . — Studentlitteratur, Lund.

Berners-Lee, M. 2010: How bad are bananas? The carbon footprint of everything . — Green Profile, London.

Bottled Water Information 2013: What's in bottled water . — [Available at http://www.bottledwaterinformation.co.uk/default.asp?section=3 . Cited 7.9.2013]

British Glass 2003: Glass Recycling - Life Cycle Carbon Dioxide Emissions. A Life Cycle Analysis Report. — [Available at http://www.packagingfedn.co.uk/images/reports/Enviros_Report.pdf . Cited 2.10.2013]

Buglass, A. J. (ed.) 2011: Handbook of alcoholic beverages: technical, analytical and nutritional aspects, Volume I and II . — John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online 2013: English definition of “long drink” . — [Available at http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/long-drink . Cited 14.6.2013]

Carbon Trust 2006: Carbon footprints in the supply chain: the next step for business . — [Available at http://www.carbontrust.com/media/84932/ctc616-carbon- footprints-in-the-supply-chain.pdf . Cited 27.5.2013]

Carlsberg 2005: Environmental Report 2003 and 2004 . — Carlsberg Breweries, Denmark. [Available at http://www.carlsberggroup.com/csr/reports/Pages/default.aspx . Cited 7.9.2013]

CCaLC 2013a: CCaLC© BIOCHEM Manual (V3.0) . — The University of Manchester. [Available at http://www.ccalc.org.uk/downloads/Manual_CCaLC_BIOCHEM_V3.0.pdf . Cited 15.5.2013]

CCaLC 2013b: CCaLC© BIOCHEM tool V3.0 — The University of Manchester. [Available at http://ccalc.org.uk/biochem.php . Cited 15.5.2013]

The Coca-Cola Company 2010: What’s the carbon footprint of a Coca-Cola — [Available at http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/environment/what-s-the-carbonfootprint-of-a-coca-cola.html . Cited 10.10.2013]

Cordella, M., Tugnoli, A., Spadoni, G., Santarelli, F. & Zangrando, T. 2008: LCA of an Italian lager beer. — The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13 (2): 133-139. doi; 10.1065/lca2007.02.306.

Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (Recast). — Official Journal L 164: 45-58.

Ediz, N., Bentli, İ & Tatar, İ. 2010: Improvement in filtration characteristics of diatomite by calcination. — International Journal of Mineral Processing 94 (3-4): 129-134. doi: 10.1016/j.minpro.2010.02.004.

Edwards-Jones, G., Plassmann, K., York, E. H., Hounsome, B., Jones, D. L. & Milà i Canals, L. 2009: Vulnerability of exporting nations to the development of a carbon label in the United Kingdom. — Environmental Science & Policy 12 (4): 479-490. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2008.10.005.

European Commission 2010: International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook – General guide for Life Cycle Assessment – detailed guidance. First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN . — European Commission, Joint Research Centre. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. [Available at http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/assessment/pdf-directory/ . Cited 3.5.2013]

European Commission 2013: Sugar . — European Commission’s Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development, thematic site on EUROPA. [Available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sugar/ . Cited 11.9.2013]

Fazer 2013: Ruispuikula-leivän hiilijalanjälki. — [Available at http://www.fazer.com/fi/Yritysvastuu/Yritysvastuun-osa-alueet/Vastuu- ymparistosta/hiilijalanjalki/Ruispuikulan-hiilijalanjalki/ . Cited 11.6.2013]

Finkbeiner, M. 2009: Carbon footprinting—opportunities and threats. — The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14 (2): 91-94. doi: 10.1007/s11367-009-0064-x.

Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinee, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D. & Suh, S. 2009: Recent developments in life cycle assessment. — Journal of Environmental Management 91 (1): 1-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018.

Franssila, E. (ed.) 2011: Ohrasta oluen synty – käsikirja mallasohran tuottajille . — [Available at http://www.agronet.fi/mallasohra/Tulostusversiomallas.pdf . Cited 26.9.2013]

Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., & Giljum, S. 2012: Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “footprint family” of indicators: definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. — Ecological Indicators 16: 100-112. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.017 .

Glacéau 2013: smartwater® Bottled Water Report . — [Available at http://www.drinksmartwater.com/img/smartwater_water_quality.pdf . Cited 7.9.2013] 75

Goldammer, T. 1999: The Brewers' Handbook; The Complete Book to Brewing Beer. — Apex Publishers.

Greenhouse Gas Protocol 2013: The Greenhouse Gas Protocol. — [Available at http://www.ghgprotocol.org/ . Cited 18.6.2013]

Grönqvist, A., Hortling, P. & Vehviläinen, A. 2013: Personal communication 6.5.2013. Helsinki.

Guinee, J. B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R. & De Koning, A. 2002: Hanbook on life cycle assessment: Operational guide to the ISO standards. — Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.

Guinee, J. B., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Zamagni, A., Masoni, P., Buonamici, R., Ekvall, T. & Rydberg, T. 2010: Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future. — Environmental Science & Technology 45 (1): 90-96. doi: 10.1021/es101316v .

Hammond, G. 2007: Time to give due weight to the 'carbon footprint' issue. — Nature 445 (7125): 256. doi: 10.1038/445256b.

Hartwall Oy 2013a: Company website . — [Available at http://www.hartwall.fi/ . Cited 20.6.2013]

Hartwall Oy 2013b: Long-drink juomat . — [Available at http://www.hartwall.fi/fi/juomat/tuoteryhmat/long-drink-juomat . Cited 12.6.2013]

Hunt, R. G. & Franklin, W. E. 1996: LCA – How it came about. — The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 1 (1): 4-7. doi: 10.1007/BF02978624 .

[IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva.

[ISO 14040] International Organization for Standardization 2006: International Standard 14040. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - principles and framework . — International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.

[ISO 14044] International Organization for Standardization 2006: International Standard 14044. Environmental management—Life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelines — International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.

ISO 2012: ISO News: Greenhouse gas emissions - ISO 14067 to enable worldwide comparability of carbon footprint data . — [Available at http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/news.htm?refid=Ref16 43 . Cited 10.10.2013]

Kenny, T. & Gray, N. F. 2009: Comparative performance of six carbon footprint models for use in Ireland. — Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (1): 1- 6. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2008.06.001 .

Koroneos, C., Roumbas, G., Gabari, Z., Papagiannidou, E. & Moussiopoulos, N. 2005: Life cycle assessment of beer production in Greece. — Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (4): 433-439. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.09.010 .

Linde, M., Galbe, M. & Zacchi, G. 2008: Bioethanol production from non-starch carbohydrate residues in process streams from a dry-mill ethanol plant. — Bioresource Technology 99 (14): 6505-6511. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.11.032

Lounais-Suomen ympäristökeskus 2007: Laitilan Wirvoitusjuomatehdas Oy:n ympäristölupapäätös dnro: LOS-2007-Y-239-111.

Lutz, C. & Giljum, S. 2009: Global resource use in a business-as-usual world until 2030. Updated results from the GINFORS model. — In: Bleischwitz, R., Welfens, P. J. J., & Zhang, Z. X. (eds.), Sustainable Growth and Resource Productivity. Economic and Global Policy Issues : 30–41. Greenleaf Publishing.

Mattila, T., Helin, T. & Antikainen, R. 2012: Land use indicators in life cycle assessment. — The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 17 (3): 277- 286. doi: 10.1007/s11367-011-0353-z.

McGovern, P. E., Zhang, J., Tang, J., Zhang, Z., Hall, G. R., Moreau, R. A., Nuñez, A., Butrym, E. D., Richards, M. P. & Wang, C. 2004: Fermented beverages of pre- and proto-historic China. — Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of

the United States of America 101 (51): 17593-17598. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0407921102 .

Melon, R. P., Wergifosse, V., Renzoni, R. & Léonard, A. 2012: Life Cycle Assessment of an artisanal Belgian blond beer. — Proceedings 2 nd LCA Conference 6: 7.

Meussdoerffer, F. G. 2009: A comprehensive history of beer brewing. — In: Eßlinger, H. M. (ed.) Handbook of brewing: processes, technology, markets: 1–42. WILEY- VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim. doi: 10.1002/9783527623488.ch1 .

Myllymaa, T., Tohka, A., Dahlbo, H. & Tenhunen, J. 2006: Ympäristönäkökulmat jätteen hyödyntämisessä energiana ja materiaalina. Valtakunnallinen jätesuunnitelma vuoteen 2016: Taustaselvitys, Osa III. — Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 12 / 2006. Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki. [Available at http://www.ym.fi/fi- FI/Ymparisto/Jatteet/Valtakunnallinen_jatesuunnitelma . Cited 3.9.2013]

Mäkinen. T., Soimakallio, S., Paappanen, T., Pahkala, K. & Mikkola, H. 2006: Liikenteen biopolttoaineiden ja peltoenergian kasvihuonekaasutaseet ja uudet liiketoimintakonseptit. — VTT tiedotteita 2357. Teknologian tutkimuskeskus VTT, Helsinki. [Available at http://www.mmm.fi/attachments/ymparisto/5AvncKFFP/Liikenteen_biopolttoai neiden_yms_khk_taseet_2006.pdf . Cited 20.9.2013]

Nilsson, K., Sund, V. & Florén, B. 2011: The environmental impact of the consumption of sweets, crisps and soft drinks . — Nordic Council of Ministers report, Copenhagen.

Olvi Oyj 2013: Company website . — [Available at http://www.olvi.fi/web/fi . Cited 20.6.2013]

Panimo- ja virvoitusjuomateollisuusliitto ry 2011: Tilastot: Juomien kulutus 2000 – 2010 . — [Available at http://www.panimoliitto.fi/panimoliitto/tilastot . Cited 13.6.2013]

Panimo- ja virvoitusjuomateollisuusliitto ry 2013a: Kivennäisvedet . — [Available at http://www.panimoliitto.fi/panimoliitto/juomat/kivennaisvedet . Cited 14.6.2013]

Panimo- ja virvoitusjuomateollisuusliitto ry 2013b: Long drink . — [Available at http://www.panimoliitto.fi/panimoliitto/juomat/long_drink/ . Cited 12.6.2013]

Panimo- ja virvoitusjuomateollisuusliitto ry 2013c: Siiderit . — [Available at http://www.panimoliitto.fi/panimoliitto/juomat/siiderit/ . Cited 14.6.2013]

Panimo- ja virvoitusjuomateollisuusliitto ry 2013d: Virvoitusjuomat . — [Available at http://www.panimoliitto.fi/panimoliitto/juomat/virvoitusjuomat . Cited 12.6.2013]

Panimo- ja virvoitusjuomateollisuusliitto ry 2013e: Ympäristötase laaja laskentatavat — Personal communication 6.5.2013, Helsinki.

[PAS 2050] British Standards Institution 2008: Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services . — United Kingdom. [Available at http://shop.bsigroup.com/en/forms/PASs/PAS-2050/ . Cited 4.9.2013]

Pietka, M. J. 2013: Soft drink . — Encyclopædia Britannica Online. [Available at http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/552397/soft-drink . Cited 14.6.2013]

Pohjois-Savon ympäristökeskus 2003: Olvi Oyj:n Ympäristölupapäätös dnro: PSA- 2002-Y-356-111 .

Priestley, J. 1772: Directions for impregnating water with fixed air: in order to communicate to it the peculiar spirit and virtues of Pyrmont water, and other mineral waters of a similar nature . — J. Johnson, London.

Pöyry Environment Oy 2006: Altia Corporationin Koskenkorvan tehtaan laajennus, Ympäristövaikutusten arviointiselostus. — [Available at http://www.ymparisto.fi/fi- FI/Asiointi_ja_luvat/Ymparistovaikutusten_arviointi/YVAhankkeet/Koskenkorvan _tehtaan_laajennus_Ilmajoki . Cited 9.10.2013]

Raisio Oyj 2013: Raision hiilijalanjälkimerkityt elintarvikkeet. — [Available at http://www.ekologia.fi/hiilijalanjalkimerkityt-tuotteet . Cited 11.6.2013]

Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N. & Shiina, T. 2009: A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. — Journal of Food Engineering 90: 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.06.016 .

Saxe, H. 2010: LCA-based comparison of the climate footprint of beer vs. wine & spirits . — Institute of Food and Resource Economics, Report 207. Copenhagen.

Schenck, R. C. 2000: LCA for Mere Mortals: A Primer on Environmental Life Cycle Assessment . — Institute for Environmental Research and Education.

Seppälä, J., Mäenpää, I., Koskela, S., Mattila, T., Nissinen, A., Katajajuuri, J-M., Härmä, T., Korhonen, M-R., Saarinen, M. & Virtanen, Y. 2011: An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and material flows caused by the Finnish economy using the ENVIMAT model. — Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (16): 1833- 1841. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.021 .

Sinden, G. 2009: The contribution of PAS 2050 to the evolution of international greenhouse gas emission standards. — The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14 (3): 195-203. doi: 10.1007/s11367-009-0079-3.

Sinebrychoff Oy 2013a: Company website . — [Available at www.sinebrychoff.fi . Cited 20.6.2013]

Sinebrychoff Oy 2013b: Oluen historiaa. — [Available at http://www.sinebrychoff.fi/juomamme/oluesta/Pages/Oluenhistoriaa.aspx . Cited 13.6.2013]

Sinkko, T., Hakala, K. & Thun, R. 2010: Biopolttoaineiden raaka-aineeksi viljeltävien kasvien aiheuttamat kasvihuonekaasupäästöt Suomessa. Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivin 2009/28/EY mukainen laskenta. — MTT Raportti 9 . Maa- ja elintarviketalouden tutkimuskeskus, Jokioinen. [Available at http://www.mtt.fi/mttraportti/pdf/mttraportti9.pdf . Cited 20.9.2013]

Soya 2013: Hiilijalanjälki ja ympäristö . — [Available at http://www.soya.fi/yritys/hiilijalanjaelki-ja-ympaeristoe/ . Cited 11.6.2013]

Sulpizio, T. E. 1999: Advances in filter aid and precoat filtration technology . — Presentation at the American Filtration & Separations Society Annual Technical Conference, Boston . [Available at http://www.advancedminerals.com/pdf/amc07_adv._in%20filter_aid_precoat_t ech.pdf . Cited 22.9.2013]

Suomen palautuspakkaus Oy 2013a: Juomateollisuus. — [Available at http://www.palpa.fi/juomateollisuus . Cited 29.5.2013]

Suomen palautuspakkaus Oy 2013b: Palautusasteet. — [Available at http://www.palpa.fi/yritys/palautusasteet-1. Cited 29.5.2013]

Suomen rehu 2013: Company website. — [Available at http://suomenrehu2.xetnet.com/etusivu/ . Cited 7.9.2013]

Tike 2013: Matilda maataloustilastot. Vlijelykasvien sato vuonna 2012 . — Maa- ja metsätalousministeriön tietopalvelukeskus. [Available at http://www.maataloustilastot.fi/tilasto/4 . Cited 20.9.2013]

Ussa, E. 2013a: Personal communication 12.4.2013. Helsinki.

Ussa, E. 2013b: Personal communication 6.5.2013. Helsinki.

Varis, T. & Virtanen, S. 2013: Alkoholijuomien kulutus 2012. Tilastoraportti 10/2013 . — Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos THL, Helsinki. [Available at http://www.thl.fi/fi_FI/web/fi/tilastot/aiheittain/paihteet_ja_riippuvuudet/alko holi/alkoholijuomien_kulutus . Cited 28.5.2013]

Vilja-alan yhteistyöryhmä 2012: Mallasohran viljelyopas . — [Available at http://www.vyr.fi/multimagazine/web/mallasohraopas/fi/ . Cited 26.9.2013]

Virtanen, Y. 2011: ”Ohrasta olueksi” -ketjun ympäristövaikutusten kehitys . — Maa- ja elintarviketalouden tutkimuskeskus MTT. [Available at http://www.sinebrychoff.fi/SiteCollectionDocuments/Olutketjun%20ymp%C3%A 4rist%C3%B6vaikutusten%20kehitys%202011.pdf . Cited 14.6.2013]

Virtanen, Y., Usva, K. & Katajajuuri, J. 2006: Suomalaisen keskioluen ympäristövaikutusten elinkaariarviointi, Tiivistelmä. Mallasohra – toimintoverkon kestävyyden parantamisen työkalut (MOKE) .

Weidema, B. P., Thrane, M., Christensen, P., Schmidt, J. & Løkke, S. 2008: Carbon Footprint. — Journal of Industrial Ecology 12 (1): 3-6. doi:10.1111/j.1530- 9290.2008.00005.x.

Wiedmann, T. & Minx, J. 2007: A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. — Ecological Economics Research Trends 2: 55-65.

Wolke, R. L. 2012: What Einstein Kept Under His Hat: Secrets of Science in the Kitchen . — W. W. Norton & Company.

World Steel Association 2013: LCI data for steel products . Data available through online LCI request form. — [Form available at http://www.worldsteel.org/contact-us/lca-lciForm.html . Data provided 8.10.2013]

Appendix 1. Material carbon footprints and LCI data sources.

Carbon footprint (kg CCaLC tool Database item selected CO 2e / kg) database Original Database Year Location Beverage raw materials Malt, from conventional barley, DE 0.649 CCaLC PROBAS Database 2008 2008 Germany Barley, conventional, DE 0.354 CCaLC PROBAS Database 2008 2008 Germany Rape seed extensive, at farm 0.954 Ecoinvent Ecoinvent data V2.2 (2010) 2003 Switzerland Yeast 0.96 CCaLC Broekema and Blonk, 2009 2009 Netherlands Expanded perlite, at plant 0.998 Ecoinvent Ecoinvent data V2.2 (2010) 2000 Switzerland Fruit juices and syrups 0.99 CCaLC Wallén et al. 2004 2004 Sweden Ethanol from barley 1.221 User-defined Sinkko et al. 2010 2010 Finland Sugar, from sugar beet, conventional, DE 1.37 CCaLC PROBAS Database 2008 2008 Germany Tap water, at user, Europe 0.000319 Ecoinvent Ecoinvent data V2.2 (2010) 2000 Europe Carbon dioxide liquid, at plant 0.816 Ecoinvent Ecoinvent data V2.2 (2010) 1999 Europe Lubricant oil 0.54 CCaLC Nielsen et al. 2004 Denmark Sodium hydroxide (Caustic soda 49% conc.) 1.2 CCaLC Mortimer N. et al. (2009) 2006 UK Fibre -based packaging material Corrugated board, fresh fibre, single wall, at plant, CH 1.03 CCaLC ILCD 2002 Europe Glass packaging material Packaging glass, white, at plant, Europe 0.889 Ecoinvent Ecoinvent 2000 Europe Packaging glass, green, at plant, Europe 0.874 Ecoinvent Ecoinvent 2000 Europe Glue packaging material Carboxylmethyl cellulose, powder, at plant 4.21 Ecoinvent Ecoinvent data V2.2 (2010) 1993 Europe Ethylvinylacetate, foil, at plant 2 2.71 Ecoinvent Ecoinvent data V2.2 (2010) 1997 Europe Metal packaging material

Steel bottle caps 2.61 User-defined World Steel Association 2013 Europe Aluminium can (0.33 l) 11 CCaLC CCaLC 2009 UK Plastic packaging material Polyethylene bottle (HDPE) 3.15 CCaLC PlasticsEurope 2004 Europe Fizzy drink bottle2 (PET, 0,5l, 100%V 100%L) 4.56 CCaLC CCaLC 2009 UK Polyethylene film (LDPE) 2.45 CCaLC PlasticsEurope 2004 Europe Wood packaging material EURO pallet (20 times-reuse) 0.0171 CCaLC CCaLC 2009 Europe Waste Carbon dioxide emissions 1 CCaLC CCaLC Landfill - municipal waste, 4 0.703 CCaLC ILCD 2006 EU-27 Disposal, used mineral oil, 10% water, to hazardous waste 2.85 Ecoinvent Ecoinvent data V2.2 (2010) 2000 Switzerland incineration Landfill - biodegradable waste 0.513 CCaLC ILCD 2006 EU-27 Incineration - plastics, PE/PB/PS/PP (w. energy credit) 0.887 CCaLC ILCD 2006 EU-27 Wastewater treatment, maize starch production effluent, to 0.00321 Ecoinvent Ecoinvent data V2.2 (2010) 2000 Switzerland wastewater treatment, class 2 Utilities Heat energy FI 0.32 User-defined Myllymaa et al. 2006 2006 Finland Electricity mix FI 0.323 User-defined Myllymaa et al. 2006 2006 Finland

Appendix 2. Carbon footprint of materials.

The carbon footprint for each material is calculated by multiplying the carbon footprint of the category (kg CO 2e per kg) with the amount of material (kg per 1000 litres).

Amount of material (kg / 1000 litres) Carbon footprint for category (kg Material CO 2e / kg) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Beverage raw materials Beverage raw materials 0.936 129 127 128 120 116 109 115 115 111 120 115 120 120 Carbon footprint 120.74 118.87 119.81 112.32 108.58 102.02 107.64 107.64 103.90 112.32 107.64 112.32 112.32

CO 2 liquid 0.816 12.630 15.57 19.98 19.4 19.6 17.2 17.467 20.8 18.3 17.7 15.8 21.3 22.4 Carbon footprint 10.31 12.71 16.30 15.83 15.99 14.04 14.25 16.97 14.93 14.44 12.89 17.38 18.28 Lubricant oil 0.54 0.017 0.019 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.005 Carbon footprint 0.009 0.010 0.011 0.005 0.011 0.011 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.003 Sodium hydroxide 1.2 4.014 4.019 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.9 3.7 3.6 3 3 2.8 2.4 2.3 Carbon footprint 4.82 4.82 4.44 4.44 4.32 4.68 4.44 4.32 3.60 3.60 3.36 2.88 2.76 Tap water 0.000319 3978 3931 3900 3800 4000 3700 3800 3900 3500 3200 3100 2800 2700 Carbon footprint 1.27 1.25 1.24 1.21 1.28 1.18 1.21 1.24 1.12 1.02 0.99 0.89 0.86 Packaging materials Fibre-based 1.03 10.6 10.7 10.4 9.2 12.1 14.6 13.6 14.3 13.3 13.3 12.8 12 10.9 Carbon footprint 10.92 11.02 10.71 9.48 12.46 15.04 14.01 14.73 13.70 13.70 13.18 12.36 11.23 Glass 0.882 10 9 14.7 8.7 13 16 9.3 4.7 5.7 4.4 4.8 6.4 7.2 Carbon footprint 8.82 7.94 12.97 7.67 11.47 14.11 8.20 4.15 5.03 3.88 4.23 5.64 6.35 Glue 3.46 0.647 0.711 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 Carbon footprint 2.24 2.46 2.08 2.42 2.08 2.42 2.08 1.73 1.38 1.04 1.04 0.69 0.35 Metal 6.805 7.7 8.1 7.3 8.4 5.6 8.2 9.5 13 15.6 17.4 18.4 19.7 20.2 Carbon footprint 52.40 55.12 49.68 57.16 38.11 55.80 64.65 88.47 106.16 118.41 125.21 134.06 137.46

Plastic 3.387 10.2 7.2 6.6 4.3 5.5 7.9 4.2 4.1 15.5 15.6 15.1 14.8 14.5 Carbon footprint 34.55 24.39 22.35 14.56 18.63 26.76 14.23 13.89 52.50 52.84 51.14 50.13 49.11 Wood 0.017 3.3 2.9 4.1 3.9 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.5 1.7 1.7 2.4 2.7 Carbon footprint 0.056 0.049 0.070 0.066 0.056 0.053 0.046 0.044 0.043 0.029 0.029 0.041 0.046 Utilities Heat energy FI 0.32 220 240 251 219 215 223 216 208 193 193 189 156 158 Carbon footprint 70.40 76.83 80.32 70.08 68.80 71.36 69.12 66.56 61.76 61.76 60.48 49.92 50.56 Electricity mix FI 0.323 101.2 111.3 123 110 114 115 113 111 113 112 107 102 102 Carbon footprint 32.70 35.95 39.73 35.53 36.82 37.15 36.50 35.85 36.50 36.18 34.56 32.95 32.95

Appendix 3. Carbon footprint of recycling and waste.

The carbon footprint for each material is calculated by multiplying the carbon footprint of the category (kg CO 2e / kg) with the amount of material (kg per 1000 litres).

Amount of material (kg / 1000 litres) Carbon footprint for category (kg CO 2e / Material kg) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Waste Carbon dioxide 1 15.09 172 174 160 167 166 162 157 159 149 142 146 129 emissions Biodegradable waste 0.513 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.04 Carbon footprint 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 Energy waste 0.887 4.40 2.80 3.90 1.70 2.50 2.30 1.80 2.20 1.20 1.30 1.20 Carbon footprint 3.90 2.48 3.46 1.51 2.22 2.04 1.60 1.95 1.06 1.15 1.06 Hazardous waste 2.85 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 Carbon footprint 0.13 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.09 Mixed waste 0.703 4.93 4.40 3.80 2.70 1.60 1.10 1.10 0.80 0.90 0.80 0.40 0.40 0.30 Carbon footprint 3.47 3.09 2.67 1.90 1.12 0.77 0.77 0.56 0.63 0.56 0.28 0.28 0.21 Wastewater treatment 0.00321 2761 2800 2900 2900 3000 2800 3000 2900 2600 2300 2100 1800 1800 Carbon footprint 8.86 8.99 9.31 9.31 9.63 8.99 9.63 9.31 8.35 7.38 6.74 5.78 5.78 Recycling of fibre -based packaging material Recycling rate (%) -0.99 5 5 6 1 5 5 6 5 5 8 11 10 9 Amount of recycled 0.57 0.55 0.60 0.09 0.61 0.73 0.82 0.72 0.67 1.06 1.41 1.20 0.98 material (kg / 1000 litres) Carbon footprint -0.57 -0.54 -0.59 -0.09 -0.60 -0.72 -0.81 -0.71 -0.66 -1.05 -1.39 -1.19 -0.97

Recycling of glass packaging material Recycling rate (%) -0.56 100 88 37 58 22 31 42 100 55 87 100 61 63 Amount of recycled 10.00 7.96 5.48 5.05 2.86 4.96 3.91 4.70 3.14 3.83 4.80 3.90 4.54 material (kg / 1000 litres) Carbon footprint -5.60 -4.46 -3.07 -2.83 -1.60 -2.78 -2.19 -2.63 -1.76 -2.14 -2.69 -2.19 -2.54 Recycling of metal packaging material Recycling rate (%) -1.4 21 22 19 27 44 50 89 100 87 92 95 100 100 Amount of recycled 1.60 1.79 1.35 2.27 2.46 4.10 8.46 13.00 13.57 16.01 17.48 19.70 20.20 material (kg / 1000 litres) Carbon footprint -2.24 -2.51 -1.89 -3.18 -3.45 -5.74 -11.84 -18.20 -19.00 -22.41 -24.47 -27.58 -28.28 Recycling of plastic packaging material Recycling rate (%) -2.53 32 74 74 100 53 46 74 97 100 100 100 100 86 Amount of recycled 3.25 5.34 4.88 4.30 2.92 3.63 3.11 3.98 15.50 15.60 15.10 14.80 12.47 material (kg / 1000 litres) Carbon footprint -8.23 -13.52 -12.35 -10.88 -7.37 -9.19 -7.86 -10.06 -39.22 -39.47 -38.20 -37.44 -31.55 Recycling of wood packaging material Recycling rate (%) -0.008 35 41 25 10 30 19 42 32 30 62 61 43 49 Amount of recycled 1.16 1.19 1.00 0.39 0.99 0.59 1.13 0.83 0.75 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.32 material (kg / 1000 litres) Carbon footprint -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01

Appendix 4. Material descriptions in databases.

Item Database description of item Beverage raw materials Malt, from conventional barley, Malt, from conventional barley, DE. Production of malt from barley cultivated under conventional agricultural practices. DE Umwelt Bundes Amt, Öko Institut e.V. Prozessorientierte Basisdaten für Umweltmanagement-Instrumente (PROBAS database). 2008. http://www.probas.umweltbundesamt.de Barley, conventional, DE Barley, conventional, DE. Production of barley under conventional agricultural practices. Umwelt Bundes Amt, Öko Institut e.V. Prozessorientierte Basisdaten für Umweltmanagement-Instrumente (PROBAS database). 2008. http://www.probas.umweltbundesamt.de Rape seed extensive, at farm Rape seed extensive, at farm. Inventory refers to the production of 1 kg rape seed extensive, at farm with a moisture content of 6%. Fresh matter yield/ha at 6% moisture is 2683kg. The inventory includes the processes of soil cultivation, sowing, weed control, fertilisation, pest and pathogen control, harvest and drying of the grains. Machine infrastructure and a shed for machine sheltering is included. Inputs of fertilisers, pesticides and seed as well as their transports to the regional processing center (10km) are considered. The direct emissions on the field are also included. Yeast Yeast. Broekema, R. and H. Blonk. Milieukundige vergelijking van vleesvervangers. Blonk Milieuadvies, Gouda, 2009. Expanded perlite, at plant Expanded perlite, at plant. Expanded by shock heating at a temperature of 870 – 1090 °C. It is assumed that light fuel oil is used for heating. Density of expanded perlite: 60 - 300kg/m3. Includes the raw material, the transport to the finishing plant and some internal transports, the heating energy carrier, some packaging materials, the infrastructure and the emissions. Fruit juices and syrups Fruit juices and syrups. Wallén, A., N. Brandt and R. Wennersten. Does the Swedish consumer's choice of food influence grenhouse gas emissions? Environmental Science & Policy, Vol 7 (2004), pp. 525-535. Ethanol from barley Sinkko, T., Hakala, K. & Thun, R. 2010: Biopolttoaineiden raaka-aineeksi viljeltävien kasvien aiheuttamat kasvihuonekaasupäästöt Suomessa. Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivin 2009/28/EY mukainen laskenta. — MTT Raportti 9. Maa- ja elintarviketalouden tutkimuskeskus, Jokioinen Sugar, from sugar beet, Sugar, from sugar beet, conventional, DE. Extraction and refining of sugar from conventional sugar beets. Umwelt Bundes conventional, DE Amt, Öko Institut e.V. Prozessorientierte Basisdaten für Umweltmanagement-Instrumente (PROBAS database). 2008. http://www.probas.umweltbundesamt.de

Tap water, at user, Europe Tap water, at user, Europe. Rough estimation investigated for Switzerland and data for energy use in Germany.

Carbon dioxide liquid, at plant Carbon dioxide liquid, at plant. The functional unit represents 1 kg of liquid carbon dioxide. Data are based on a Swiss study about different cooling mediums. This module contains material and energy input and emissions for the production of liquid carbon dioxide out of waste gases from different production processes. Water consumption and infrastructure have been estimated. Other beverage raw materials Sodium hydroxide (Caustic soda Sodium hydroxide (Caustic soda 49% conc.). Data from: Mortimer, N., A. Evans, A. Ashley, C. Hatto, V. Shaw, C. 49% conc.) Whittaker and A. Hunter (2009) Life cycle assessment workbooks for selection of major renewable chemicals, NNFCC and North Energy. Lubricant oil Lubricant oil. Nielsen, P.H., A. M. Nielsen, B. P. Weidema, R. Dalgaard and N. Halberg. LCA Food Database. In www.lcafood.dk , 2003. Fibre -based packaging material Corrugated board, fresh fibre, Corrugated board, fresh fibre, single wall, at plant, CH. This module includes the production of corrugated board out of the single wall, at plant, CH corrugated base papers. The following steps are included: energy production, corrugated board production itself, waste water treatment. Glass packaging material Packaging glass, white, at plant, Packaging glass, white, at plant, Europe. A production site with a sorting capacity of 100 kt per year and a total life span of Europe 50 a is assumed. This module includes the material and energy efforts for: preparation and sorting of cullets, melting, forming of glass containers, cooling down, packaging and palletting until glass containers are ready for transport to customer. Transports for the input materials are included as well as direct emissions to air, waste water and waste. Packaging glass, green, at plant, Packaging glass, green, at plant, Europe. A production site with a sorting capacity of 100 kt per year and a total life span Europe of 50 a is assumed. This module includes the material and energy efforts for: preparation and sorting of cullets, melting, forming of glass containers, cooling down, packaging and palletting until glass containers are ready for transport to customer. Transports for the input materials are included as well as direct emissions to air, waste water and waste. Glue packaging material Carboxylmethyl cellulose, Carboxymethyl cellulose, powder, at plant. Data based on company information for a former detergent study of EMPA. powder, at plant This module contains material and energy input, production of waste and emissions for the production of carboxy methyl cellulose. Transport and infrastructure have been estimated. Ethylvinylacetate, foil, at plant 2 Ethylvinylacetate, foil, at plant. This process contains the plastic amount and the transport of the plastic from the production site to the converting site as well as the dataset "extrusion, plastic film".

Metal packaging material Steel bottle caps Obtained by electro plating a thin finished cold rolled coil with a thin layer of tin or chrome. It can be found on the market in coil or in sheets and is further processed into finished products by the manufacturers. Tin or chrome plated steel is used primarily in food cans, industrial packaging (e.g. small drums). Typical thickness between 0.13 - 0.49 mm. Typical width between 600 - 1100 mm. Aluminium can (0.33 l) 0.33-litre aluminium cans used in packaging fizzy drinks. The average wieght per can is 13 g. The can body is made from 48% recycled aluminium alloy while the can ends are made from 100% virgin aluminium alloy. The system boundary is 'cradle-to-grave' including raw materials, manufacturing, filling, secondary packaging, distribution and end-of-life. Plast ic packaging material Polyethylene bottle (HDPE) Polyethylene bottle (HDPE). Data are from the Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry (PlasticsEurope); http://lca.plasticseurope.org/index.htm Fizzy drink bottle2 (PET, 0,5l, Fizzy drink bottle2 (PET, 0.5 l, 60%R, 40%L). Functional unit (litres of drink contained in the packaging) 1000, Material 100%V 100%L) PET, Capacity (litres) 0.500, Average weight per bottle (g) 27.00, Material for top PP, Average weight of top (g) 2.00, Material for label LDPE film, Average weight of label (g) 2.00, Bottle weight per functional unit (kg per 1000 l) 54.00, Top weight per functional unit (kg per 1000 l) 4.00, Label weight per functional unit (kg per 1000 l) 4.00, Total weight (Bottle + top + label) (kg/1000l) 62, -V = Virgin; L = Landfill; R = Recycling; r = reuse; I = Incineration; IER: Incineration with Energy Recovery. Source: The University of Manchester. Polyethylene film (LDPE) Polyethylene film (LDPE) . Data are from the Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry (PlasticsEurope); http://lca.plasticseurope.org/index.htm Wood packaging material EURO pallet (20 times-reuse) EURO Pallet (20 times-reuse). Average pallet used in Europe. Biogenic CO2 has been removed from the process. It is assumed that the pallet is re-used 20 times. Waste Landfill - municipal waste, 4 Landfill - municipal waste,4. Landfill of municipal solid waste; landfill including landfill gas utilisation and leachate treatment, without collection, transport and pre-treatment; FR, GB, IE, FI, NO technology mix, at landfill site; Data from: European Reference Life Cycle Database (ILCD), European Commission - Joint Research Centre, http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea.vm

Disposal, used mineral oil, 10% Disposal, used mineral oil, 10% water, to hazardous waste incineration. Inventoried waste contains 100% waste oil; . water, to hazardous waste waste composition (wet, in ppm): upper heating value 41.8 MJ/kg; lower heating value 34.7 MJ/kg; H2O 100000; O n.a.; H incineration 120000; C 778270; S n.a.; N n.a.; P 750; B n.a.; Cl n.a.; Br n.a.; F n.a.; I n.a.; Ag n.a.; As 1.2; Ba n.a.; Cd 0.8; Co n.a.; Cr 11.2; Cu 100; Hg 0.0012; Mn n.a.; Mo n.a.; Ni 3.2; Pb 184; Sb n.a.; Se n.a.; Sn n.a.; V n.a.; Zn 680; Be n.a.; Sc n.a.; Sr n.a.; Ti n.a.; Tl 0.6; W n.a.; Si n.a.; Fe n.a.; Ca n.a.; Al n.a.; K n.a.; Mg n.a.; Na n.a.; Share of carbon in waste that is biogenic 0%. Net energy produced in HWI: 25.82MJ/kg electric energy and 2.44MJ/kg thermal energy Allocation of energy production: no substitution or expansion. 100% of burden allocated to waste disposal function of HWI. One kg of this waste produces 0.01143 kg of residues, which are landfilled. Additional solidification with 0.004571 kg of cement.

Landfill - biodegradable waste Landfill - biodegradable waste. Landfill of biodegradable waste; landfill including landfill gas utilisation and leachate treatment and without collection, transport and pre-treatment; at landfill site; Data from: European Reference Life Cycle Database (ILCD), European Commission - Joint Research Centre, http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea.vm Incineration - plastics, Incineration - plastics, PE/PB/PS/PP (w. energy credit). Waste incineration of plastics (PE, PP, PS, PB); average PE/PB/PS/PP (w. energy credit) European waste-to-energy plant, without collection, transport and pre-treatment; at plant; Includes credit for energy recovery. Data from: European Reference Life Cycle Database (ILCD), European Commission - Joint Research Centre, http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea.vm Wastewater treatment, maize Wastewater treatment, maize starch production effluent, to wastewater treatment, class 2. Wastewater purified in a starch production effluent, to moderately large municipal wastewater treatment plant (capacity class 2), with an average capacity size of 71100 per- wastewater treatment, class 2 capita-equivalents PCE. Wastewater contains (in kg/m3): COD: 7.34 (GSD=217%); BOD: 6.13 (GSD=154%); Ntot.: 0.569

Utilities Heat energy mix FI Heat energy FI. Myllymaa T, Tohka A, Dahlbo H, Tenhunen J. 2006. Ympäristönäkökulmat jätteen hyödyntämisessä energiana ja materiaalina. Valtakunnallinen jätesuunnitelma vuoteen 2016, Taustaselvitys osa 3. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 12/2006. http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=57493 Electricity mix FI Electricity mix FI. Myllymaa T, Tohka A, Dahlbo H, Tenhunen J. 2006. Ympäristönäkökulmat jätteen hyödyntämisessä energiana ja materiaalina. Valtakunnallinen jätesuunnitelma vuoteen 2016, Taustaselvitys osa 3. Suomen ympäristökeskuksen raportteja 12/2006.