WFL Publisher

Science and Technology Food, Agriculture & Environment Vol.1(2) : 295-300. 2003

www.world-food.net

Life cycle assessment applied to coffee production: investigating environmental impacts to aid decision making for improvements at company level
Roberta Salomone
Dipartimento RIAM - Universit di Messina - Piazza S. Pugliatti 1, 98121 Messina,Italy. e-mail: roberta.salomone@unime.it
Received 18 January 2003, accepted 29 April 2003.

Abstract
Coffee production has grown by nearly 200 percent since 1950; after oil it is the most important traded commodity in the world. Although it is only grown in tropical and equatorial areas (it is the primary export of many developing countries), the majority of coffee is consumed in the developed world (the United States and the European Community combined import two out of every three bags of coffee produced in the world). Considering that the coffee chain is very wide-ranging, involving many companies of different types and sizes, each environmental decision, at any point of the coffee chain, should be taken under a life cycle thinking perspective. It was with this intention that Life Cycle Assessment methodology was applied to analyse the environmental impacts connected to a coffee business located in Sicily. System boundaries were defined to include all life cycle steps: from coffee growing through to its distribution to consumers, consumption and disposal. The aim of the study was to identify the hot spots in the stages of the products life cycle in which environmental improvements were easily achievable and to suggest alternatives to minimise the environmental impact of production phases, thereby improving processes and company performance. Key words: LCA, environmental impact, coffee production, life cycle impacts.

Introduction Coffee production has grown by nearly 200 percent since 1950; after oil it is the most important traded commodity in the world. Although it is grown only in tropical and equatorial areas (it is the primary export of many developing countries) most of the coffee produced is consumed in developed countries (the United States and the European Community jointly import two out of every three bags of coffee produced in the world)1. Considering that the coffee chain is very wide-ranging, involving many different types of company of varying size, each environmental decision, at any point whatsoever of the coffee chain, should be taken using life cycle thinking. Environmental management has become increasingly important to productive and innovative businesses and often involves suppliers upstream and the companies downstream. A business that wishes to implement an effective internal environmental management system must first of all analyse the environmental impacts of its production process and its products/services. Inevitably, this entails identifying impact factors found at the start or end of pipeline and therefore outside the physical confines of the business own productive sphere of activity2. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is making its mark as one of the most interesting tools available to management for environmental assessment and control. LCA broadens the vision of a producer giving it a more generalised view of the environmental impacts of the production line. The business has to involve suppliers upstream and the companies downstream to collect inventory data in accordance with the boundaries of the system analysed. This paper presents an environmental analysis of a coffee business adopting LCA methodology. The analysis was carried out on a firm in Sicily (Italy) that roasts and distributes coffee. The reason for applying LCA to this business is to examine the ways in which the company itself impacts on the environment in order to identify how to reduce those impacts and increase the environmental sustainability of the company in line with life cycle thinking. The aim of the study is to obtain data relating to energy use, waste management and raw
Food, Agriculture & Environment; Vol. 1(2), April 2003

material consumption in order to identify the hot spots in the stages of the products life cycle in which environmental improvements are easily achievable then to suggest alternatives to minimise the environmental impact of production phases, thereby improving processes and company performance. Methods The analysis of the environmental impacts of a coffee company located in Sicily was investigated by applying Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA is a methodology used for analysing and assessing the environmental loads and potential environmental impacts of a material, product or service throughout its entire life cycle, from raw materials extraction and processing, through manufacturing, transport, use and final disposal 3. The product system studied is delimited from the surrounding environment by system boundaries that define the processes to be included in the study and calculations are made on the base of a functional unit (e.g. 1 ton of the product studied). In accordance with ISO standards3, 4, 5, 6 an LCA study consists of the following steps: -goal and scope definition: the reason for carrying out the study is clearly defined; the product, process or service system to be assessed is described, specifying the individual processes to be included in the study; a functional unit for calculation is chosen; -inventory analysis: inputs and outputs - energy, materials and emissions - of each process included in the product system are quantified and collected; data collected are related to the functional unit; -impact assessment: the results of inventory analysis are grouped into different impact categories according to the kind of environmental problem to which they contribute - classification; contributions to all environmental impact categories are individually quantified - characterization; the environmental cat-

295

egories to which each process contributes are compared valuation;interpretation: results are interpreted and translated into opportunities to reduce the environmental impacts of the product system. Results and Discussion Goal and scope definition. The goal of the study is to examine the ways in which the coffee roasting and distribution company makes an impact on the environment in order to identify how to reduce its impacts and increase the environmental sustainability of the product from a life cycle perspective. It is important to ascertain the environmental aspects of coffee processing and include the environmental impacts connected with life cycle stages other than those relating solely to the company itself. The company wishes to use the information obtained from the LCA study as a starting point for the development of its environmental management set-up. This means collecting information about the entire life cycle of the product and using this information to improve the companys eco-efficiency. The functional unit was defined as 1 kg of packaged coffee delivered to the final consumer. The business has a wide product range but the functional unit was chosen in order to avoid allocation (in accordance with ISO 14041), with no distinction between the various products (e.g. difC o ff e e c u l tiv a ti o n

ticular for energy, fertilizer and pesticide use7. Fertilizer and pesticide production data were included using commercially available databases8, 9 while nitrogen and phosphorus emissions and pesticide emissions were quantified using estimation methods10, 11, 12 . Average coffee production per hectare varies in relation to the type and characteristics of the land on which it is planted, together with other ecological factors, as well as to the age of plants. The approximate yield ranges from 2 to 6.5 quintals of finished product per hectare13. We assumed an average yield of 4.25 quintals/ hectare. Coffee beans can be processed in two ways: the dry method or the wet one. We assumed that only the dry method (also called the natural one) was used to process coffee beans and that the coffee berries were both sun-dried and by using machines (assuming heavy fuel oil consumption of 0.11 l/kg) 7 and that the whole process was done by hand. This is very common in small or medium plantations and in regions where the temperatures are warmer and supplies of clean, fresh water are not plentiful. The dry method produces a single residue, the inner skin or outer hull, amounting to about 0.99 t per 5.5 t of coffee beans14. B) Processing. For this step specific site data were collected for each basic process contained within the company box of the system flow chart. The direct material and energy inputs of the coffee processing and packing stage are: green coffee (or dried berries); electricity (to power the equipment); natural gas (for the roasting step) and packing materials. The direct outputs are: roast coffee in primary and secondary packaging; air emissions (from natural gas combustion in the roaster) and waste (dust and scraps from cleaning and coffee chaff from roasting). C) Packaging. The company uses many different types of primary and secondary packaging for roast coffee (aluminium cans, paper filters, etc). All of these have been included in the inventory analysis (specific site data) whilst commercially available databases have been used for the manufacturing of packaging materials8, 9. D) Transport. The main transportation activities take place at different life-cycle stages as follows: 1. Pesticides and fertilizers to coffee growers; 2. Green coffee from growers to the coffee company premises; 3. Packaging from manufacturers to the coffee company premises; 4. Packaged coffee from the coffee company premises to local wholesalers and final points of sale; 5. Packaged coffee from the coffee company premises to national and international wholesalers; 6. Packaged coffee from each national and international wholesaler to final points of sale. Point 1 is not included in the transport calculation. Primary data for points 2 and 3 were collected regarding distances travelled and quantities delivered. Primary data for point 4 were collected on diesel oil consumption for the quantities delivered (transported using company vehicles). In relation to point 5 it was extremely difficult to ascertain the deliveries made by carriers to each wholesaler. Therefore estimates of the average distance between the factory and a market town (discriminating between three market areas: regional, national and international) were made on the basis of data provided by the company. Point 6 is not included in the transport calculation since it was nearly impossible to collect

T ra n sp o r t cr u d e c o ff e e C om pany S to ri n g , c le a n in g a n d w e ig h in g

W as te

R o a s tin g

W as te

C o o li n g

Blending

R o a s te d c o ffe e tr a n s p o r t P r o c e s s in g a t ex terna l i n d u s tr ie s T re a te d c o ffe e tr a n s p o r t

P a c k a g in g m a n u fa c tu r e

G rin d i n g

P a c k a g in g tr a n s p o r t

Pac k aging

T ra n s p o r t w i th c a r r ie r

T r a n s p o r t u s in g c o m p a n y v e h ic le s

D i str ib u tio n

C o n su m p tio n

W a s te

W a ste m a n a g e m e n t

Figure 1: Coffee life cycle. ferent blends, different types of packaging, traditional and decaffeinated coffee, etc.). System boundaries were defined to include all life cycle steps from coffee cultivation through to its distribution to consumers, consumption and disposal. Production of machinery and equipment are excluded from the system. In Figure 1 the coffee life cycle is presented: steps in the dotted boxes are not included in the study. Inventory analysis. The inventory analysis includes the following stages: A) Cultivation. For this step literature data were collected, in par-

296

Food, Agriculture & Environment; Vol. 1(2), April 2003

accurate data about quantities delivered regionally, nationally and internationally to each supermarket and shop, and from these points of sale to each consumer. For these reasons this step is clearly underestimated. E) Consumption. The consumption step is very difficult to measure and/or estimate because it depends on so many different factors: consumer nationality and tastes (the amounts of coffee and water used to make French coffee and Italian espresso differ greatly) or the type and brand of coffee machine used (in particular for energy consumption) amongst others and these differences are highly significant (+-30%). Nevertheless, in order to obtain some general information, selected data from a Pr Consultant LCA study9 and specific information provided by Illycaff Spa15 were used. Data for the international market refer to two different filter coffee machines used by households throughout Europe9: an electric aluminium coffee machine with a thermos jug (machine A) and a coffee maker for use on an ordinary gas stove (machine B); we assumed that 50% of the coffee delivered onto the international market was prepared with the first kind of machine and 50% with the second. We further assumed the use of 7-gram mono-dose filters. Data for the Italian market refer to an electric espresso coffee machine (machine C) used by households throughout Italy15 assuming that 7 grams of coffee are used for a single cup of espresso. The use of professional coffee machines is not included because they are far more complicated (they generally have other accessories that consume more energy). Water consumption (for coffee preparation and for cleaning the machine) and sugar are also excluded as they are assumed to be of little importance to the whole life cycle of the product and are also too difficult to model. F) Disposal. Waste management includes packaging, coffee chaff and coffee grounds. We assumed that all these materials were disposed of without any recycling. Data quality and assumptions are expressed in the previous description of the stages included in the inventory analysis. In general, specific on-site data were collected for the most important aspects of the life cycle; or were obtained from scientific literature and/or commercially available databases where on-site data were not available. The reference period for data collection was the year 2001. The LCA software used was TEAM 3.0 by Ecobilan16. Impact assessment: main results. The impact assessment step was performed investigating eight different impact categories (Table.1); Ecopoints were used as a general weighting factor and for the sensitivity analysis. Figure 2 shows the individual contribuTable 1. Impact categories.
Impact categories Air acidification Aquatic Eco-toxicity Eutrophication (water) Human toxicity Terrestrial Eco-toxicity Greenhouse effect (direct, 100 y.) Depletion of ozone layer Photochemical oxidant formation. Method

Cultivation
Photochemical oxidant formation

Processing

Packaging

Transport

Consumption

Disposal

Depletion of the ozone layer

Greenhouse effect

Terrestrial Eco-toxicity

Human Toxicity

Eutrophication (water)

Aquatic Eco-toxicity

Air Acidification

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 2. Impact categories studied.

tions of the process stages (in %) to the category results where the total of all contributions to each impact category is set at 100%. From the figure it can be seen that the cultivation and the consumption stages make the greatest impacts. The cultivation stage contributes the most to Terrestrial Eco-toxicity and Eutrophication (contributions greater than 97%); the consumption stage contributes the most to air acidification, aquatic eco-toxicity, human toxicity, greenhouse effect, depletion of ozone layer and photochemical oxidant formation (contribution exceeds 68% for all categories cited). The disposal stage contributes to aquatic ecotoxicity (after consumption) and to eutrophication (after cultivation). The contributions made by transport are very limited but influence photochemical oxidant formation, greenhouse effect, human toxicity and air acidification (after consumption and cultivation) and the depletion of ozone layer and aquatic eco-toxicity (after consumption but before cultivation). The contributions of the processing and packaging stages are almost negligible (less than 1.7% for all categories).

Figure 3. CML Air Acidification (g eq. H+) Main pollutants. Unit g eq. hydrogen (H+) 1e3 m3 g eq. phosphates (PO43-) g t g eq. carbon dioxide (CO2) g eq. trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) g eq. ethylene

University of Leiden, Centre of Environmental Science (CML) University of Leiden, Centre of Environmental Science (CML) University of Leiden, Centre of Environmental Science (CML) University of Leiden, Centre of Environmental Science (CML) University of Leiden, Centre of Environmental Science (CML) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPPC) World Meteorological Organization (WMO) World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

Food, Agriculture & Environment; Vol. 1(2), April 2003

297

Figure 5. CML Eutrophication, water (g eq. PO43-)Main pollutants. Figure 4. CML - Aquatic Eco-toxicity (1e3m3)-Main pollutants.

Figure 7. CML Terrestrial Eco-toxicity (t) Main pollutants. Figure 6. CML Human Toxicity (g)Main pollutants.

Figure 8. IPCC Greenhouse effect (g eq. CO2)Main pollutants.

Figure 9. WMO Depletion of the ozone layer (g eq. CFC-11)Main pollutant.

Figure 10. WMOPhotochemical oxidant formation (g eq. ethylene) Main pollutants.

Figure 11. Ecopoints.

298

Food, Agriculture & Environment; Vol. 1(2), April 2003

Table 2. Variables changed in sensitivity analysis.

Life Cycle Cultivation Cultivation Cultivation Consumption Consumption Variable Machine-drying Fertilizer use Pesticide used Energy consumption Coffee machine Base case Heavy Fuel Oil Mineral fertilizer Yes 100% Machine A Machine B Machine C Assumptions changed Natural gas Organic fertilizer No 50% Only machine B Only machine C

The impact categories investigated are presented in Figures 310 to show the relative contributions made by major pollutants to the environmental problems examined split according to the stages in the life cycle in which they occur. Figure 11 shows a general weighting factor based on ecopoints16 relating to energy and waste, air emissions and water emissions for each life cycle stage considered. It is evident that air emissions are the most relevant and the consumption stage accounts for the greatest impacts. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to make an in-depth evaluation of the environmental impact assessment by examining the
E c o p o in ts A ir
45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 C ase base N a tu r a l g a s N o p e s tic id e s O rg a n ic fe rtilize rs 5 0 % e n e rg y c o n s u m p tio n O n ly M a c h in e B O n ly m a c h in e C

effects of varying the base case data for certain parameters. These parameters and changes made to them are shown in Table 2. Each parameter was changed independently of all others so that the extent of its effects on the base case could be assessed alone. Therefore, no single sensitivity case represents the best or worst situation under which these systems might operate. Figure 12 shows the sensitivity analysis results using a general weighting factor based on ecopoints for energy and waste, air emissions and water emissions for each of the variables considered. From the sensitivity analysis it is evident that the exclusive use of gas stove coffee making (machine B) instead of a mix of gas stove and electric coffee machines has the largest positive effect on the system analysed, while the exclusive use of electric coffee machine (machine C) has the worst effect. Energy efficiency in the consumption step would also improve the eco-balance of the system, while the other assumptions (localized in the cultivation steps) make only slight differences in comparison to the base case.

E c o p o in ts E n e rg y & W a s te
1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 C ase base N a tu ra l g a s N o p e s tic id e s O r g a n ic fe r tilize r s 5 0 % e n e rg y c o n s u m p tio n O n ly M a c h in e B O n ly m a c h in e C

Conclusions For a better understanding of the importance of environmental management conducted under a life cycle perspective, Figure 13 shows the ecopoints applicable solely to the company (i.e. from Figure 1 the steps included in the company box plus the step relating to distribution made by company vehicles). An analysis of environmental impacts made at company level alone in order to make environmental improvements would steer management towards targeting almost exclusively the distribution stage (e.g. improvements to the company vehicle pool) and the coffee roasting stage (e.g. improving energy consumption, air emissions and waste management). Accordingly, at company level, the main environmental improvements that could be addressed are the following. Air emissions - principally due to fuel consumption of vehicles for local deliveries (all the vehicles used for local deliveries run on diesel fuel) and to a lesser extent from the combustion of fossil fuels in the roaster (natural gas). Improvements in fuel consumption would enable air emissions to be lowered. Energy consumption - electricity consumption refers to single processing steps and to forklifts that are powered by electric batteries. Improvements in energy efficiency would also enable air emissions to be lowered. Waste management - waste management at company level is mainly related to coffee chaff. At present this solid waste is disposed of alongside other urban refuse. Although the company would be interested in seeking an alternative use, it has been discouraged from taking any initiative due to the small quantities concerned.
299

E c o p o in ts W a te r
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 C ase base N a tu r a l g a s N o p e s tic id e s O rg a n ic fe rtilize rs 5 0 % e n e rg y c o n s u m p tio n O n ly M a c h in e B O n ly m a c h in e C

Figure 12. Sensitivity analysis results:ecopoints.

Food, Agriculture & Environment; Vol. 1(2), April 2003

Under a life cycle perspective the company should approach its environmental management decision making differently and concentrate mostly on the cultivation and consumption stages. Natural resource use although not all the data relating to cultivation have been included, it is evident (see Figure 2) that this step has a significant impact on the entire coffee life cycle, therefore it is fundamental for the company to include the data in its environmental considerations. Environmental improvements could certainly be achieved by choosing organic and/or sustainable coffee farms as suppliers. Solid wastes at company level the main solid waste is coffee chaff, but when the consumption step is also taken into consideration then coffee grounds make up the largest proportion of solid waste (apart from packing materials). Instead of being disposed of, coffee grounds could be used as food for worms as well as for compost. The company should place bins for composting food waste in each point of consumption to which they deliver. These can then be collected when subsequent deliveries are made and contents used for composting in a worm farm. The worms would process the coffee grounds into fertilizers. The amounts obtained through collecting coffee grounds in this way together with the coffee chaff produced on the company premises could allow it to start up a small-scale enterprise for vermiculture or compost production. Energy consumption other methods to increase the environmental sustainability of the company could involve setting up projects in collaboration with manufacturers of coffee machines where such projects undertake joint research aimed at improving energy efficiency. Energy waste could also be prevented by information campaigns to heighten consumer awareness (both at professional and household level). Packaging - even though this step makes no great impact, investigating more recyclable alternatives to the current types of packaging used could nevertheless be very worthwhile. From the above LCA clearly emerges as a useful tool to provide information for effective environmental management under a life cycle perspective, and as one that does not limit improvement opportunities to the physical confines of a company alone.

Acknowledgement We would like to thank the staff of Miscela dOro SpA, Messina (Italy), for their cooperation. Special thanks to Dr. Marilena Cioni for her active collaboration. www.misceladoro.com References
1

www.wri.org 2 Mirulla, R. 2001. La gestione ambientale nella supply chain: esperienze e metodi di coinvolgimento dei fornitori. In Scaramazza, R. (eds.). La fabbrica verde. Certificazione ambientale e imprese sostenibili. Roma: Nuovo Studio Tecna. p. 143-150. 3 ISO 14040: 1997. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Principles and framework. 4 ISO 14041: 1998. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. 5 ISO 14042: 2000. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Life cycle impact assessment. 6 ISO 14043: 2000. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Life cycle interpretation. 7 Diers, A., Langowski, H.-C., Pannkoke, K., Hop, R. 1999. Produkt-kobilanz vakuumverpackter Rstkaffee. Bobingen: Eco-Informa Press. LCA Documents. vol.3. 8 Ecobilan Group Data for Environmental Analysis and Management (DEAMTM). 1999. Version 3.0. 9 Pr Consultants SimaPro 5.1. 2003. Amersfoort, Netherlands. 10 Brentrup, F., Ksters, J., Lammel, J., Kuhlmann, H. 2000. Methods to estimate on-field nitrogen emissions from crop production as an input to LCA studies in the agricultural sector. International Journal of LCA. 5 (6): 349-357. 11 Heathwaite, L. 2000. Flows of phosphorous in the environment: identifying pathways of loss from agricultural land. In: Weidema, B.P., Meeusen, M.J.G. Agricultural data for Life Cycle Assessment. The Hague: Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI). vol. II. 12 Hauschild, M. 2000. Estimating pesticide emissions for LCA of agricultural products. In: Weidema, B.P., Meeusen, M.J.G. Agricultural data for Life Cycle Assessment. The Hague: Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI). vol. II. 13 Barbiroli, G. 1970. Produzione e commercio internazionale del caff. Bologna: Riccardo Patron. 14 Camaggio Sancinetti, G., Nicoletti, G.M. 1995. Il ciclo di lavorazione del caff ed i sui sottoprodotti Nota 1: Aspetti quantitativi. Industrie alimentari. XXXIV: 1137-1146. 15 Illycaff Spa. 2003. e.mail 4/4/03. 16 Ecobilan Group Tools for Environmental Analysis and Management (TEAMTM). 1999. Version 3.0.

A ir
1 20

W a te r

E n e rg y & W a s te

1 00

80

E c o p o in ts

60

40

20

S t o ri n g , c le a n in g a n d w e ig h t in g

R o a s t in g

M i ll i n g
P r o ce s s in g s te p s

P a c k a g in g

Di s t rib u t io n

Figure 13. Company level - Ecopoints. 300 Food, Agriculture & Environment; Vol. 1(2), April 2003