Scholarly article on topic 'Environmental management of confectionery products: Life cycle impacts and improvement strategies'

Environmental management of confectionery products: Life cycle impacts and improvement strategies Academic research paper on "Environmental engineering"

CC BY
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Journal of Cleaner Production
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{Confectionery / Chocolate / "Environmental sustainability" / "Food industry" / "Life cycle assessment" / MCDA}

Abstract of research paper on Environmental engineering, author of scientific article — J.H. Miah, A. Griffiths, R. McNeill, S. Halvorson, U. Schenker, et al.

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

Academic research paper on topic "Environmental management of confectionery products: Life cycle impacts and improvement strategies"

Accepted Manuscript

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

J.H. Miah, A. Griffiths, R. McNeill, S. Halvorson, U. Schenker, N.D. Espinoza-Orias, S. Morse, A. Yang, J. Sadhukhan

PII: S0959-6526(17)33008-1

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.073

Reference: JCLP 11468

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 10 July 2017 Revised Date: 3 December 2017 Accepted Date: 10 December 2017

Please cite this article as: Miah JH, Griffiths A, McNeill R, Halvorson S, Schenker U, Espinoza-Orias ND, Morse S, Yang A, Sadhukhan J, Environmental management of confectionery products: Life cycle impacts and improvement strategies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2018), doi: 10.1016/ j.jclepro.2017.12.073.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Word count = 10,244

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

J. H. Miah ab*, A. Griffiths c, R. McNeill d, S. Halvorson e, U. Schenker f, N.D. Espinoza-Orias f, S. Morse b, A. Yang g, and J. Sadhukhan b

a Nestlé UK Ltd, Rowan Drive, Fawdon, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE3 3TR, UK

b Centre for Environment and Sustainability (CES), Faculty of Engineering & Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK

c Nestlé UK Ltd, Group Technical and Production, Haxby Road, York, YO91 1XlY, UK d Nestlé Confectionery Product & Technology Centre (PTC), Haxby Road, York, YO91 1XY, UK e Nestlé Research Centre (NRC), CT-Nutrition, Health, Wellness & Sustainability, 1000 Lausanne 26, Switzerland f Nestlé Research Centre (NRC), Sustainability & Novel Packaging, 1000 Lausanne 26, Switzerland g Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PJ, UK

Highlights

• Proposed LCA methodology for confectionery products

• Environmental profiles of five confectionery products representative of the confectionery industry

• Sugar confectionery has the lowest aggregated environmental impact compared to dark chocolate confectionery which has the highest.

• Nine key ingredients identified across the five confectionery products which are recommended for confectionery manufacturers to prioritise e.g. sugar, glucose, starch, milk powder, cocoa butter, cocoa liquor, milk liquid, wheat flour and palm oil.

• Combined benefit of implementing alternative raw materials, product reformulations, and zero waste to landfill can on average reduce aggregated environmental impact by 46%.

Abstract

This paper presents the first environmental life cycle analysis for a range of different confectionery products. A proposed Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was developed to characterise and identify the environmental profiles and hotspots for five different confectionery products; milk chocolate, dark chocolate, sugar, milk chocolate biscuit and milk-based products. The environmental impact categories are based on Nestle's EcodEX LCA tool which includes Global Warming Potential (GWP), Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP), ecosystems quality, and two new indicators previously not considered such as land use and water depletion. Overall, it was found that sugar confectionery had the lowest aggregated environmental impact compared to dark chocolate confectionery which had the highest, primarily due to ingredients. As such, nine key ingredients were identified across the five confectionery products which are recommended for confectionery manufacturers to prioritise e.g. sugar, glucose, starch, milk powder, cocoa butter, cocoa liquor, milk liquid, wheat flour and palm oil. Furthermore, the general environmental hotspots were found to occur at the following life cycle stages: raw materials, factory, and packaging. An analysis of five improvement strategies (e.g. alternative raw materials, packaging materials, renewable energy, product reformulations, and zero waste to landfill) showed both positive and negative

environmental impact reduction is possible from cradle-to-grave, especially renewable energy. Surprisingly, the role of product reformulations was found to achieve moderate-to-low environmental reductions with waste reductions having negligible impacts. The majority of reductions was found to be achieved by focusing on sourcing raw materials with lower environmental impacts, product reformulations, and reducing waste generating an aggregated environmental reduction of 46%. Overall, this research provides many insights of the environmental impacts for a range of different confectionery products, especially how actors across the confectionery supply chain can improve the environmental sustainability performance. It is expected the findings from this research will serve as a base for future improvements, research and policies for confectionery manufacturers, supply chain actors, policy makers, and research institutes towards an environmentally sustainable confectionery industry.

Keywords: Confectionery; Chocolate; Environmental Sustainability; Food Industry; Life Cycle Assessment; MCDA

*E-mail address: j.miah@surrey.ac.uk (J.H. Miah)

Abbreviations

ADP Abiotic depletion potential MAVT Multi-attribute value theory

AHP Analytical hierarchy process MCDA Multi-criteria decision analysis

CED Cumulative energy demand MCC Milk Chocolate Confectionery

D4E Design for environment MCBC Milk chocolate biscuit confectionery

DB Database MBC Milk-based confectionery

DCC Dark chocolate confectionery PED Primary energy demand

EQ Ecosystems quality RE Renewable energy

FU Functional unit SC Sugar Confectionery

GWP Global warming potential T Transport

LCA Life cycle assessment UBP Umweltbelastungpunkte

LCI Life cycle inventory W Waste

LU Land use WD Water depletion

MAUT Multi-attribute utility theory WSM Weighted sum model

1. Introduction

Over the past few decades, improving the sustainability of food production and consumption has become a key priority for the food industry, governments and civil society (FAO, 2016; WRAP, 2015; Notarnicola et al, 2011). However, due to the diversity and complexity of the food system - from local to global - there are unprecedented challenges to transition towards a food system which is healthy, nutritious and environmentally sustainable (Wolf et al, 2011; Tukker et al, 2011). For example, some of the environmental challenges includes climate change, resource efficiency, water scarcity, and land availability (UN, 2014; FAO, 2009; Ewert et al, 2005).

In the confectionery sector, these challenges are amplified across the nutrition, health and environmental sustainability nexus due to the fast moving nature of consumption and consumer preference for different confectionery products. For example, it is estimated that a person in the UK consumes per day on average 20g of chocolate, 14g of sugar confectionery, and 32g of fine bakery ware (Statista, 2015, CAOBISCO, 2013). Due to the volume of consumption, confectionery products has formed part of the normal diet for

80 many people in the UK and abroad (FSA, 2014). However, they are not regarded as a staple

81 food since they are consumed as a 'treat' given their inherently low nutrition and health

82 benefits due to their high sugar and fat content.

83 Furthermore, the increasing consumption is exerting unnatural pressures on confectionery

84 supply chains across the globe which have limits to production. For example, the core

85 ingredients such as cocoa and palm oil are only grown in certain parts of world (e.g. Ivory

86 Coast, Nigeria, Brazil and Indonesia). In addition, such commodities are highly sensitive to

87 the growing impacts of climate change e.g. rising temperatures reducing favourable

88 agricultural conditions for high cocoa yields (CIAT, 2011). Overall, due to the changing

89 consumer demand and increasing consumption, there are enormous pressures on the

90 confectionery supply chain, in particular from raw materials acquisition to manufacturing, to

91 be flexible, resilient and environmentally sustainable (Salter, 2017, Pirker and Obersteiner,

92 2016, CIAT, 2011).

93 As a sector, the confectionery industry is highly diverse and complex. For example, there are

94 over 12,700 confectionery manufacturers across Europe producing speciality and mass

95 produced products which can be divided into three main product categories (CAOBISCO,

96 2015); (1) chocolate products, (2) sugar products, and (3) fine bakery ware. The type of

97 chocolate products includes chocolate bars, pralines, white chocolate, and chocolate

98 spreads. Whereas sugar products includes chewing gum, boiled sweets, toffees, caramels,

99 gums, and jelly confectionery. In comparison to both, fine bakery ware products includes

100 chocolate coated biscuits, gingerbreads, crispbreads, rusks, toasted bread, matzos, savoury

101 biscuits and cakes. However, due to the diversity of products there are complex supply

102 chains, ingredients which are grown in specific regions of the world, specialised equipment

103 to process and transform ingredients, different formulation science to create nutritious and

104 tasty recipes, and diverse retailers who have different strategies to sell products (e.g. multi-

105 buy offers). Overall, such diversity and complexity compounds the transition towards

106 environmental sustainability and requires a systems-based approach to analyse and improve

107 the confectionery sector across the full supply chain from raw materials to manufacturing to

108 consumption and disposal i.e. cradle-to-grave.

109 Currently, there are a range of disparate studies investigating the environmental impacts of

110 different types of confectionery products by an advance systems analysis tool known as Life

111 Cycle Assessment (LCA) (Recanati et al, 2018, Konstantas et al, 2017a, Nilsson et al, 2011).

112 For example, a comparison of the existing studies shown in Table 1 reveals major

113 differences and limitations, such as; (1) single product analysis (primarily chocolate) which

114 only provides a limited representation of the diverse confectionery products found in the

115 confectionery industry (Recanati et al, 2018, Konstantas et al, 2017a, Nilsson et al, 2011), (2)

116 inconsistent system boundaries which omit parts of the supply chain resulting in inaccurate

117 environmental impacts (Wallen et al, 2004), (3) lack of environmental impacts categories

118 which do not provide a balanced overview of impacts, especially the impacts associated

119 across the confectionery production - land - water - and energy nexus (Vesce et al, 2016,

120 Jungbluth and Konig, 2014, Nilsson et al, 2011), and (4) outdated data (Recanati et al, 2018,

121 Vesce et al, 2016), and (5) limited-to-none improvement strategies to demonstrate effective

122 improvements to prioritise across the confectionery supply chain (Recanati et al, 2018,

123 Jungbluth and Konig, 2014, Ntiamoah and Afrane, 2008).

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

124 Table 1: Comparison of environmental LCA studies for different confectionery products.

No# Reference Confectionery type Functional Unit Scope of boundary Environmental impact category Environmental hotspots

1 Recanati et al (2018) Chocolate 1 kg of dark chocolate Cradle-to-grave: Agricultural, transportation, manufacturing and disposal Global Warming Potential Eutrophication potential Ozone layer depletion potential Acidification potential Abiotic depletion Cumulative energy demand Photochemical ozone creation potential Cocoa bean provisioning and energy supply for manufacturing

2 Vesce et al (2016) Chocolate 1 kg of chocolate Gate-to-gate: Production and packaging, use and disposal Human health Ecosystem quality Climate change Resources Energy consumption during manufacturing, transportation, packaging

3 Jungbluth and Konig (2014) Chocolate 1 kg of chocolate Cradle-to-grave: Agricultural, manufacturing, retail, use and disposal Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) nonrenewable GWP UBP 2006 UBP2013 Farming and manufacturing

4 Büsser and Jungbluth (2009) Chocolate 1 kg of chocolate Cradle-to-grave: Agricultural, manufacturing, retail, use and disposal Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) nonrenewable Global Warming Potential (GWP) Ozone Layer Depletion Acidification Eutrophication Farming and manufacturing

5 Ntiamoah and Afrane (2008) Chocolate (Cocoa based 1kg of cocoa beans processed Cradle-to-gate: Agricultural and Global Warming Potential Pesticides and fertilizers in cocoa

products e.g. cocoa butter, manufacturing Atmospheric acidification cultivation

cocoa liquor etc.) Eutrophication Photochemical ozone creation Freshwater aquatic eco-toxicity Terrestrial eco-toxicity Human toxicity Ozone layer depletion Depletion of abiotic resources

6 Wallen et al (2004) Sugar and chocolate 12 kg of chocolate / sugar Manufacturing and packing CO2 emissions Total energy Use of fossil fuels Energy use None provided

7 Nilsson et al (2011) Sugar (1) 125g of foam sweets Cradle-to-gate: Agricultural, Global Warming Potential (GWP) Ingredient production and

(2) 2 kg of jelly sweets manufacturing, distribution, retail, and disposal Eutrophication Primary energy production plant

8 Wiltshire et al (2009) Fine bakery ware 165g of Jaffa Cake Agricultural, manufacturing and disposal GHG emissions Raw materials and factory

9 Konstantas et al (2017a) Fine bakery ware 1kg of packaged biscuits Cradle-to-grave Primary Energy Demand (PED) Global Warming Potential (GWP) Water footprint Land use Raw materials production, manufacturing and transport

10 Konstantas et al (2017b) Fine bakery ware 1kg of packaged cupcake Cradle-to-grave Primary Energy Demand (PED) Global Warming Potential (GWP) Water footprint Raw materials production, manufacturing and transport

Page 4 of 35

Overall, based on the disparity of existing studies, there are inevitably major gaps in developing a full and holistic overview of the environmental sustainability of the confectionery industry. Such analysis is important to critically guide the confectionery industry towards a high performance of environmental sustainability. Some of these gaps in knowledge are defined by the following research questions:

1. What are the environmental impacts of different confectionery products from cradle-to-grave?

2. What are the comparative environmental impacts across the different confectionery product groups?

3. What other environmental impact categories can provide a balanced overview of environmental impacts?

4. Which confectionery product category has the highest environmental impact?

5. How do the environmental impacts vary across different impact categories?

6. How do functional units affect the environmental analysis of ) various confectionery products?

7. What improvement strategies can deliver effective environmental impact reductions across product categories and the confectionery industry?

In this paper, these research questions are addressed by presenting a comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts and improvement actions from cradle-to-grave for different confectionery products which are sugar, milk chocolate, dark chocolate, chocolate biscuit and milk based. The confectionery products are manufactured by Nestle, a multi-national food company at their confectionery factory in the North East of England. The functional unit is defined as the 'production of 1 kg of packaged confectionery product'.

The paper starts with a description of the proposed Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology adopted in Section 2. The results and discussions of the environmental impacts, functional units and improvement actions for different confectionery products are presented in Section 3. Lastly, the conclusions and future work are provided in Section 4.

2. Materials and methods

A transdisciplinary process involving both Nestle practitioners and academics from the University of Surrey was adopted for the development and application of the LCA methodology for confectionery products (Miah et al, 2015a). An attributional process Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was adopted to evaluate the environmental impacts of different confectionery products is by), following the ISO 14040/14044 methodology (ISO, 2006, Bauman and Tillman, 2004, Sadhukhan et al, 2014). In comparison to previous studies (Recanati et al, 2018, Vesce et al, 2016; Jungbluth and Konig, 2014), the novel features of the proposed LCA methodology adopted are:

(1) LCA of confectionery products representing core product groups found in the CI. This is important because current studies do not provide environmentalimpact of all the main confectionery groups.

(2) Full supply chain analysis from cradle-to-grave. By analysing the full system boundary provides a genuine life cycle analysis rather than specific parts of the supply chain.

(3) Inclusion of food waste data. The food waste generated represents inefficiencies where environmental resources are utilised to manufacture.

170 (4) Inclusion of pre-processing stage of chocolate manufacture e.g. milk crumb and milk

171 chocolate. Due to the high composition of chocolate ingredients, the milk crumb and milk

172 chocolate manufacture can potentially have a considerable impact.

173 (5) Analysis from multiple functional units to show how environmental impact vary e.g. mass

174 versus nutritional benefits.

175 (6) Multi-cirteria decision analysis (MCDA). A MCDA allows different environmental impact

176 categories to be compared to each other for benchmarking and decision-making.

177 (7) Assessment of multiple improvement strategies to demonstrate what can be improved and

178 how.

179 (8) A broader range of environmental impact categories relevant for the confectionery industry

180 e.g. water, land use and ecosystems quality.

181 (9) Data sources based on dedicated LCI food databases such as WFLCD. The utilisation of

182 current data ensures the impacts are up-to-date and accurate compared to older studies.

184 By using Life Cycle Inventories (LCI), the environmental impacts across the confectionery supply

185 chains can be calculated by Eq.l as shown below:

Environmental Impact = ^ (Eq ~ 1)

186 where: Ap is the inputs (i) into a product's supply chain including raw material extraction, energy

187 consumption, material production and manufacturing processes, etc.; n is the total number of

188 process input (i) into the product's supply chain and Ep is the emissions intensity across a number

189 environmental sustainability metrics (e.g. GHG emissions, land use etc.), for each input (i) into a

190 product's supply chain emissions. The methodology and assumptions are described in more detail

191 in the following sections. For specific data, please see supplementary.

193 2.1. System boundaries and system definition

194 The life cycle stages considered are shown in Figure 1 for the various confectionery products from

195 'cradle-to-grave'. The key differences between the confectionery products are the ingredients and

196 packaging materials, composition and the pre-processing stage. For example, milk chocolate

197 confectionery product contains pre-processed milk crumb1 and milk chocolate whereas sugar and

198 milk-based confectionery has no pre-processing attributes.

200 201 202

210 211 212

220 221 222

Raw materials

Pre-processing

Manufacturing

Distribution and Retail

Milk chocolate confectionery & chocolate biscuit confectionery system boundary

[Ingredients]

I Packagingl

Milk chocolate (A or B)

Confectionery _

facto^ UW)

Consumption

Consumption |-»(w)

Disposal

I Disposal I

Dark chocolate confectionery system boundary

I Ingredients!

Packaging

Confectionery factory ^W)

Distribution centre

Consumption |-»(w)

Disposal

Sugar & Milk-based confectionery system boundary

Ingredients

Packaging

Confectionery factory

Distribution centre

Consumption |-»(W

Disposal

Figure 1: Life cycle stages for milk chocolate confectionery, milk chocolate biscuit confectionery, dark chocolate confectionery, sugar confectionery and milk-based confectionery products. (T = transport, W = waste, Milk chocolate A & B are two different types of milk chocolate).

1 = Milk crumb is a crystallised mixture made of milk, sugar and cocoa liquor. The main purpose is to enhance flavour and extend shelf-life. (Beckett et al, 2017)

2.1.1. Raw materials, ingredients and packaging

The ingredients used for the various confectionery products including milk crumb, milk chocolate and dark chocolate are shown in Table S1 in supplementary with country of origin and source of Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data.

For the packaging, the environmental impacts involve the conversion of raw materials to packaging components and print format which is used for the final packaging material for the confectionery products. All the primary and secondary packaging has only been considered for the final packaged confectionery product where the packaging conversion process has been assumed and selected from the databases of Ecoinvent v.2.2 integrated with GaBi 6.0 (Thinkstep, 2015). The tertiary packaging components (e.g. pallets and stretch wrapping) have not been considered as the %weight from a system's perspective is negligible. Also, the packaging aspects for ingredients, intermediary ingredients and packaging components have not been considered as they are supplied in bulk bags which are reused and from a system's perspective the %weight is negligible. The data for the packaging of the confectionery products are shown in Table S2 in supplementary.

2.2.3. Pre-processing and manufacturing

The pre-processing stage only includes the processing and manufacture of intermediary materials utilised to manufacture a confectionery product. For milk chocolate confectionery and milk

chocolate biscuit confectionery product, this includes the manufacture of milk crumb and milk chocolate. For the dark chocolate confectionery product, this includes the manufacture of dark chocolate. The pre-processing stage takes place all in-house by the food company in the UK.

For the manufacturing stage, this involves the manufacture of the final packaged confectionery product utilising a diverse range of food and packaging technology at a confectionery factory in the UK. The confectionery factory is a multi-product confectionery factory which employs a range of technologies to manufacture sugar, chocolate, chocolate biscuit and milk based products [Miah et al, 2015b]. For some of the chocolate products, the same technology and/or production lines were used. The LCI data for the confectionery factory is extracted from Miah et al (2017).

2.2.4. Distribution, retail and consumption

The final packaged confectionery product is transported to a distribution centre located in York and stored at ambient room temperature. The storage time for confectionery products is assumed to be four weeks. From the distribution centre, the packaged product is transported to a retailer where the confectionery product is assumed to be stored in ambient room temperature for four weeks. These assumptions are based on industrial practices.

For the consumption stage, this involves the consumption of the confectionery product in a home environment. Since confectionery products are packaged in a ready-to-eat format there is no preparation required for consumption. As such, it is assumed that there are no environmental impacts associated with consumption apart from transportation to-and-from the retailer.

2.2.5. Disposal

This stage considers only the waste generated from the factory to the consumption stage. The waste materials generated are from food waste and packaging. For food waste generated, see Table 2.

Table 2: Food waste generated across the confectionery supply chain on a 1kg basis.

Life Cycle Stage % waste generated End-of-Life

Factory • Sugar products = 4.1%a • Chocolate products = 2%a • Biscuit products = 5.7%a Energy-fro m-waste

Transport 0.12%b Landfill

Distribution 0.23%b Landfill

Retail 0.7%c Landfill

Consumer 5%d j Landfill

a = Miah et al, 2017, b = Espinoza-Orias, 2017, c = WRAP, 2016, d = WRAP, 2014.

For the packaging materials, the disposal includes primary and secondary packaging of the confectionery product only which consist of product packaging and the corrugated-board boxes used to pack the final products. The packaging for other parts of the supply chain (e.g. transport, distribution centre, retail) are assumed to be negligible. The disposal routes for the five different confectionery products are assumed to be recycling (packaging materials only) and incineration that occur in the UK. The disposal assumptions are summarised in Table S3 in supplementary which is based on UK recycling rates (PAFA, 2015, CPI, 2013). The LCI data for disposal have been sourced from the databases of Ecoinvent v2.2 integrated with GaBi 6.0 (Thinkstep, 2015).

2.2.6. Transport

The environmental impacts associated with transport at different LCA stages are combined together as the impact from transportation for some stages is negligible. The transport distances for each ingredient and packaging material have been determined based on existing suppliers to the confectionery factory. For some materials, not all transport distances are disclosed due to confidentiality. The distances between the distribution centre and retailer are assumed to be 100km. The distances between the retailer and consumer are assumed to be 5km. The distances between the consumer and disposal routes are assumed to be 30km. These distances are based on current industrial practices. The transport assumptions are summarised in Table S4 in supplementary. The LCI data for transport have been sourced from the databases of Ecoinvent v.2.2 (Ecoinvent, 2016) integrated with GaBi 6.0 (Thinkstep, 2015).

2.2.7. Environmental impact assessment methodologies

The environmental life cycle impacts of different confectionery products were modelled in Microsoft Excel based on Nestle's EcodEX LCA tool (Schenker et al, 2014). Currently, five environmental impact indicators are taken into account by EcodEX, shown in Table 3. They are: land occupation and water consumption at the inventory level (Goedkoop et al, 2013); GHG emissions at a 100 year perspective (IPCC, 2006) and Non-renewable minerals and fuels (CML, 2014) at the midpoint level; and Ecosystems Quality (based on the IMPACT 2002+ method and modified to exclude land occupation and thus avoid double counting) at the endpoint level (Jolliet et al, 2003). Overall, the indicators adopted in EcodEX are found elsewhere in food LCA applications either on their own or combined (Fusi et al, 2016, Rivera et al, 2014, Roy et al, 2009).

Table 3: Different life cycle impact assessment methods used to estimate a range of environmental impacts.

Life cycle impact assessment method Indicator name Nestle EcodEX definition

CML 2001 (Guinée et al, 2002) Global warming potential (GWP) Greenhouse gas emissions

CML 2001 (Guinée et al., 2002) Abiotic depletion (ADP elements and fossil) Non-renewable resources & Fuels

ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al, 2013) Water depletion Freshwater consumption

ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al, 2013) Agricultural land occupation Land use

ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al, 2013) Urban land occupation

Impact 2002+ (Humbert et al, 2012) Aquatic acidification Ecosystems quality

Impact 2002+ (Humbert et al, 2012) Aquatic eutrophication

Impact 2002+ (Humbert et al, 2012) Terrestrial ecotoxicity

The EcodEX tool contains LCI data sourced from several public LCI databases which are continually uploaded to the latest versions such as Ecoinvent (Frischknecht et al, 2005), the World Food LCA Database (Quantis, 2014), Agribalyse database (ADEME, 2014) and Agrifootprint (Agri-footprint gouda, 2014). In practice, the integration of data from different sources is routinely applied to complete data gaps (Roy et al, 2009). However, a critical perspective must be taken in the interpretation of results due to methodological differences in different LCI DBs.

For gaps in data (e.g. ingredients, packaging etc) and where no datasets are currently available in public databases, datasets are created based on LCA studies done by consultants for Nestlé and/or collected directly from suppliers. For datasets which were collected from suppliers (e.g. Miah et al,

2017), the data were converted to environmental impacts categories defined by EcodEX using Gabi LCA software V6.4 (Thinkstep, 2015), shown in Table 3.

In the Nestle EcodEX tool, the environmental impact categories are presented on their own. There is no feature to aggregate environmental impact categories together as this is a subjective exercise involving multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). As such, in this paper, the environmental impacts are presented both on their own and in an aggregated format after the application of MCDA. The application of MCDA allows different environmental impact categories to be compared and combined together, especially when there are conflicting criteria, qualitative and quantitative data and information on different scales. There are many types of MCDA methods which include Weighted Sum Model (WSM), multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT), The Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), multi-attribute value theory (MAVT) and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) (Azapagic and Perdan, 2005).

For the purposes of comparing aggregated environmental impacts, the WSM has been used as it allows a simple consideration of all five environmental impact categories by applying weights to criteria. It is assumed each environmental impact category is valued equally since the elicitation of preferences by decision makers and stakeholders was outside the scope of the study. The typical steps involved in WSM include normalisation, weighting and aggregation.

For the normalisation stage, each environmental impact category is rescaled from 0 (best value) to 1 (worse value) to avoid scale affects in the aggregation of parameters inside each environmental impact category. The best value represents the lowest environmental impact. Whereas the worse value represents the highest environmental impact. Normalisation was done using Diaz-Balteiro and Romero (Diaz-Balteiro and Romero, 2004) Equation (2).

v _ Xj Xmin

An — ~Z v

Xmax Xmin

In Equation (2), Xt is the value of /'th parameter in the environmental impact category. Xmax and Xmin are the best and worst values of the /'th environmental impact category.

For the weighting and aggregation stage, it is assumed each environmental impact has equal importance during the aggregation. The aggregated environmental impacts (AEI) is calculated according to Equation (3).

In Equation (3), the AEI is the sum of all normalised environmental impacts. The weight (wt) of each environmental impact category is 1.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Comparison of environmental impacts for different confectionery products 3.1.1. Global Warming Potential (GWP) impact

A comparison of the greenhouse gas emissions impact for different confectionery products is shown in Figure 2. In addition, the sensitivity analyses of the contributing ingredients by ±20% of mass weight are carried out to assess the influence on total GWP impact, shown in Figure 3. The procedure for the sensitivity analysis is to only change one of the key contributing ingredients by ±20% of mass weight whilst keep all other parameters the same. The procedure is repeated for other ingredients to find the most sensitive ingredients.

7.20 6.80 6.40 6.00 5.60 5.20 4.80 4.40 4.00 3.60 3.20 2.80 2.40 2.00 1.60 1.20 0.80 0.40 0.00

■ Transportation I Disposal

■ Consumption

■ Distribution and retail

■ Food factory

■ Pre-processing

■ Packaging

■ Raw materials & Ingredients

Figure 2: A comparison of the GWP impact for different confectionery products. (SC = Sugar confectionery, MCC = Milk chocolate confectionery, DCC = Dark chocolate confectionery, MCBC = Milk chocolate biscuit confectionery, and MBC = Milk based confectionery)

114.0% 112.0% 110.0% 108.0% 106.0% ' 104.0% 102.0% 100.0% 98.0% 96.0% ' 94.0% 92.0% 90.0% 88.0% 86.0% 84.0% 82.0% 80.0%

_Sugar

confectionery

Milk chocolate confectionery

Cocoa Butter

Cocoa Milk-based Liquor

Dark chocolate confectionery

Cocoa Liquor

Cocoa Milk-based Butter

_Milk chocolate

biscuit confectionery

Cocoa Butter

Cocoa Milk-based Liquor

_Milk-based

confectionery

Milk-based Palm Oil

Figure 3: Sensitivity of key ingredients contributing to GWP impact across five confectionery products.

For the GWP impact, it can be seen that the dark chocolate confectionery has the highest impact whereas the sugar confectionery has the lowest impact, shown in Figure 2. The milk chocolate

confectionery has the second highest followed by the milk chocolate biscuit confectionery and milk-based confectionery, respectively. Overall, the dark chocolate confectionery can cause greater than 395% global warming potential impact compared to the sugar confectionery. The major reason for the difference between the highest and lowest impact confectionery products is due to the raw materials. For example, the sensitivity analysis shown in Figure 3 shows that cocoa butter, cocoa liquor and milk-based ingredients are largely responsible for the high raw materials stage impact in DCC.

Some of the contributing factors for the different GWP hotspots are related to the types of ingredients used and processing technology. For example, sugar confectionery has a high impact at raw materials stage due to ingredients such as sugar, glucose syrup, and gelatine powder. Such ingredients are intrinsically energy intensive. Whereas for the chocolate based confectionery, the high percentage of cocoa based ingredients increases the GWP impact due to high energy demand to cultivate and process cocoa beans into milk chocolate and associated deforestation. Similarly, for the milk-based confectionery, the high impact at raw materials stage is due to ingredients such as dairy-based products, sugar, and palm oil. Overall, the selection of a few ingredients can considerably contribute to the GWP impact of confectionery products.

The factory stage accounts for the second highest environmental impact area across all seven confectionery products. This is primarily due to the energy used for the different processing technology. Further analysis shows that on average, for this particular case study, the direct energy (e.g. natural gas) accounts for 66% of energy utilisation whereas 34% accounts for indirect energy (e.g. grid electricity), shown in Figure 4. As such, there are opportunities to reduce energy demand, especially the application of HI reduce natural gas consumption.

■ Direct energy (Natural gas) ■ Indirect (Electricity)

Figure 1: Comparison of direct and indirect energy percentage for different confectionery products.

Furthermore, one of the key differences between the GWP impacts of different confectionery products is the high percentage attributed to manufacturing for sugar confectionery. In comparison to the rest of the confectionery products, the manufacturing stage for sugar confectionery attributes nearly 50% of the total GWP impact. The reasons for the high impact at manufacturing stage is due to energy intensive sugar processing technology which involves batch cooking and long durations of temperature controlled heating. Whereas chocolate confectionery products are

produced in a semi-continuous operations involving less energy intensive processing and higher throughput of production to increase overall efficiency.

3.1.2. Water depletion impact

An alternative environmental impact category that is growing in importance in the food industry is water impacts (FDF, 2016). Some of the primary drivers are related to water scarcity, resource efficiency, and environmental stewardship. A comparison of the water depletion impact for different confectionery products is shown in Figure 5. In addition, the sensitivity analysis (as described in Section 3.1.1) of the contributing ingredients by ±20% of mass weight are carried out to assess the influence on total water depletion impact, shown in Figure 6.

1.60 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

Transportation Disposal Consumption Distribution and retail Food factory Pre-processing Packaging Raw materials & Ingredients

SC MCC DCC MCBC

Figure 5: A comparison of the water depletion impact for different confectionery products.

120.0% 118.0% 116.0% 114.0% 112.0% 110.0% 108.0% 106.0% 104.0% 102.0% 100.0% 98.0% 96.0% 94.0% 92.0% 90.0% 88.0% 86.0% 84.0% 82.0% 80.0%

Milk chocolate

Dark chocolate

-confectionery confectionery confectionery confectionery confectionery

■ ■ 1

1 _ _

Sugar Gelatine Gum Arabic Cocoa Cocoa Milk-based Cocoa Cocoa Milk-based Cocoa Cocoa Milk-based Milk-based Palm Oil Sugar I Butter Liquor I Liquor Butter I Butter Liquor

Milk chocolate biscuit

-Milk-based

Figure 6: Sensitivity of key ingredients contributing to water depletion impact across five confectionery products.

408 In comparison to the GWP impact, it can be seen that the sugar confectionery product has the

409 highest water depletion impact whereas the milk chocolate confectionery has the lowest impact,

410 shown in Figure 5. The milk chocolate biscuit confectionery has the second highest impact followed

411 by the dark chocolate confectionery and milk-based confectionery, respectively. Overall, the sugar

412 confectionery is more than 165% of the milk chocolate confectionery. The major contributor

413 between the highest and lowest impact confectionery products is due to the raw materials. In

414 particular, for the sugar confectionery the high water impacts are attributed to gelatine powder

415 (48% of total water impacts). In comparison to other sugar confectionery ingredients, it was found

416 from the data collected from suppliers, the processing sites for gelatine powder generated energy

417 from different sources (e.g. natural gas, coal, fuel oil and wood) requiring high water consumption

418 (Miah et al, 2017).

421 Another interesting difference between the seven confectionery products for water depletion

422 impact is the similar percentage attributed by both raw materials and manufacturing stage. Some

423 of the contributing factors for raw materials stage are similar to factors contributing to GWP

424 impact. However, for the manufacturing stage, the energy mix from indirect sources has shown to

425 have a strong role in the water depletion impact. For example, the chocolate biscuit manufacturing

426 stage involves a higher electricity contribution than the other chocolate-based confectionery

427 products. As such, alternative energy sources can potentially reduce water depletion impacts.

428 Another significant difference is the water depletion impact attributed to packaging stage (inc.

429 packaging conversion) across the five confectionery products. In particular, the packaging stage for

430 dark chocolate confectionery product accounts for nearly 17% of total water depletion impact. The

431 reasons for the high impact at packaging stage are primarily due to the large percentage weight of

432 packaging material compared to other confectionery products. However, further investigation of

433 the LCI data found the following contributing factors: (1) energy mix associated with the

434 manufacture of plastic packaging and cardboard and (2) open loop water systems during plastics

435 and cardboard manufacturing compared to closed-loop where water is recycled. Furthermore,

436 another key difference is that the dark chocolate confectionery product (for this example) is

437 regarded as a seasonal product e.g. sold during the winter period. Due to seasonal nature, these

438 types of products can have a higher packaging weight due to unique packaging formats e.g.

439 different shapes and textures. Overall, packaging weight should be optimised within the constraints

440 of quality parameters and product requirements.

442 3.1.3. Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP) impact

443 Another environmental impact category that is widely considered in environmental LCA is Abiotic

444 Depletion Potential (ADP). The ADP is an indication of depletion of non-renewable resources i.e.

445 fossil fuels, metals and minerals (Guinee, 2015). A comparison of the Abiotic Depletion Potential

446 (ADP) impact for different confectionery products is shown in Figure 7. In addition, the sensitivity

447 analysis (as described in Section 3.1.1) of the contributing ingredients by ±20% of mass weight are

448 carried out to assess the influence on total ADPl impact, shown in Figure 8.

8.80E-03 8.40E-03 8.00E-03 7.60E-03 7.20E-03 6.80E-03 6.40E-03 6.00E-03 5.60E-03 5.20E-03 4.80E-03 4.40E-03 4.00E-03 3.60E-03 3.20E-03 2.80E-03 2.40E-03 2.00E-03 1.60E-03 1.20E-03 8.00E-04 4.00E-04 0.00E+00 -4.00E-04

■ Transportation I Disposal

■ Consumption

I Distribution and retail I Food factory I Pre-processing I Packaging

I Raw materials & Ingredients

8 08E-03

8.41E-03

SC MCC DCC MCBC MBC

Figure 7: A comparison of the Abiotic Depletion Potential impact for different confectionery products

120.0% 118.0% 116.0% 114.0% 112.0% 110.0% 108.0% 106.0% 104.0% 102.0% 100.0% 98.0% 96.0% 94.0% 92.0% 90.0% 88.0% 86.0% 84.0% 82.0% 80.0%

Sugar Milk chocolate Dark chocolate Milk chocolate biscuit Milk-based

confectionery confectionery confectionery confectionery confectionery

I I 1

1 _ 1 1

Cocoa Butter

Glucose Milk-based I Cocoa Cocoa Milk-based I Cocoa

Sugar Milk-based Milk-based Palm Oil

Liquor I Liquor Butter I Butter Liquor

Figure 8: Sensitivity of key ingredients contributing to ADP impact across five confectionery products.

For the five confectionery products, it can be seen the dark chocolate confectionery has the highest ADP impact whereas the sugar confectionery has the lowest impact, shown in Figure 7. The milk chocolate confectionery has the second highest followed by milk-based confectionery and milk chocolate biscuit confectionery. Overall, the milk chocolate confectionery is more than 196% of the sugar confectionery. Some of the major contributor factors for the difference are due to the raw materials found in chocolate-based products such as cocoa based ingredients, dairy-based products, sugar, and palm oil.

In comparison to GWP impact, the environmental hotspots are primarily due to the raw materials and ingredients, transportation and packaging, respectively. The factors influencing raw materials and ingredients impact are similar to GWP impact. However, the reasons for the high impact at transportation stage is due to the numerous travel journeys made for many different ingredients

sourced from different locations both within the UK and internationally. Whereas the reason the packaging stage has a high impact, in particular for dark chocolate confectionery, is due to the PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) material used in the confectionery product.

Another interesting difference between GWP and ADP impact is the disposal stage. For all five confectionery products, the disposal stage contributes to improving the environmental impact as a large proportion of material is recycled, represented as negative value in Figure 6. As such, further initiatives to recycle and reuse materials especially can have positive impact on the environment. However, further environmental and economic analysis is required on the reverse logistics supply chain that is created to facilitate material recovery and re-use.

3.1.4. Land use impact

Another environmental impact indicator that has formed part of previous environmental analysis in the food industry is land use (Foresight, 2010). The assessment and reduction of land use is highly important for decision makers given the finite resources available and multiple competitions of land use for different purposes such as human settlements, industry and recreation (Canals et al, 2013). A comparison of the land use impact for different confectionery products is shown in Figure 9. In addition, the sensitivity analysis (as described in Section 3.1.1) of the contributing ingredients by ±20% of mass weight are carried out to assess the influence on total land use impact, shown in Figure 10.

5.4 5.0 4.6 4.2 3.8 3.4 3.0 2.6 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.2 -0.2 -0.6 -1.0

Transportation I Disposal I Consumption I Distribution and retail I Food factory I Pre-processing I Packaging

I Raw materials & Ingredients

Figure 9: A comparison of the land use impact for different confectionery products.

confectionery confectionery confectionery confectionery confectionery

Glucose Sugar Starch Cocoa Cocoa Glucose Milk-based Butter Liquor Cocoa Cocoa Milk-based Liquor Butter Cocoa Cocoa Wheat flour Milk-based Butter Liquor Milk-based Palm Oil Sugar

Figure 10: Sensitivity of key ingredients contributing to land use impact across five confectionery products.

For the five confectionery products, it can be seen that the dark chocolate confectionary has highest land use impact whereas the sugar confectionery has the lowest impact, shown in Figure 9. The milk chocolate confectionery has the third highest followed by milk chocolate biscuit confectionery and milk-based confectionery. Overall, the dark chocolate confectionery impact is more than 1200% of the sugar confectionery. Some of the contributing factors are common for all three chocolate-based confectionery products as the majority of the impact is generated at the raw materials stage, see sensitivity analysis of key ingredients in Figure 10. Several common ingredients shared in the chocolate-based confectionery such as sugar, milk and cocoa-based ingredients which have a relatively high land use requirement. However, the reason dark chocolate confectionery total impact is higher is due to the high percentage of cocoa-based ingredients. For the milk-based confectionery product, the majority of impacts arises from high land use requirements from ingredients such as sugar, dairy-based ingredients and palm oil. In addition, dairy-based ingredients require land for grazing and/or feed cultivation. As such, initiatives developed as part of a corporate sustainability strategy should seek to work with farmers by providing assistance and technical training to encourage environmental reductions.

A key finding shown in the land use impact is the positive role recycling can have on the environment. Similar to the ADP impact, the five confectionery products have a positive impact on the environment at the disposal stage since a large proportion of material is recycled, represented as a negative value in Figure 9. Further research should be carried out on developing packaging materials with a high percentage of recycled material and seeking disposal routes higher up the waste hierarchy such as energy from food waste.

3.1.5. Ecosystems quality impact

Another emerging environmental impact indicator which is growing in importance for decision makers in the food industry is related to natural capital and biodiversity, called 'ecosystems quality' (FDF, 2016). The consideration of natural capital in its widest sense and protection of biodiversity is primarily driven by the role nature plays in supporting a healthy and functioning ecosystem for food production (Bordt, 2018). A comparison of the Ecosystems Quality (EQ) impact for different

confectionery products is shown in Figure 11. In addition, the sensitivity analysis (as described in Section 3.1.1.) of the contributing ingredients by ±20% of mass weight are carried out to assess the influence on total EQ impact, shown in Figure 12.

■ Transportation

■ Consumption I Food factory I Packaging

Disposal

Distribution and retail Pre-processing I Raw materials & Ingredients

120.0% 118.0% 116.0% 114.0% 112.0% 110.0% 108.0% 106.0% 104.0% 102.0% 100.0% 98.0% 96.0% 94.0% 92.0% 90.0% 88.0% 86.0% 84.0% 82.0% 80.0%

Figure 4: A comparisc _Sugar n of the ecosystems c Milk chocolate uality impact for diff Dark chocolate erent confectionery Milk chocolate products. Milk-based

-confectionery confectionery confectionery confectionery confectionery

> > 1 I i 1 i ■ i ■ '

Gelatine Sugar Gum Arabic Cocoa Cocoa Milk-based Butter Liquor Cocoa Cocoa Milk-based Liquor Butter Cocoa Sugar Milk-based Butter Milk-based Palm Oil Sugar

Figure 5: Sensitivity of key ingredients contributing to ecosystem quality impact across five confectionery products.

530 A key finding is the role the factory contributes to the overall EQ environmental impact which is

531 primarily driven by the energy sources such as natural gas and electricity. As such, reducing energy

532 demands and considering alternative energy source may help reduce EQ impact. Overall, the EQ

533 profile for different confectionery products is similar to the water depletion profile. As such, the

534 contributing factors and remediation are similar such as supplier initiatives to reduce

535 environmental impact, reduction in packaging weight, energy reductions and alternative energy

536 sources.

537 3.1.6. Total environmental impacts of confectionery products

For all five environmental impact categories, a comparison of the aggregated environmental impact is shown in Figure 13 based on equal weighting. Overall, the confectionery product with the highest aggregated environmental impact is the dark chocolate confectionery due to the high chocolate and dairy-based product content. It was found the dark chocolate confectionery was higher than milk chocolate biscuit confectionery by 21.7%, milk chocolate confectionery by 35.8%, milk-based confectionery by 42.2%, and sugar confectionery by 48.4%.

4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.00 2.80 2.60 2.40 2.20 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00

I Ecosystems Quality I Land use I Non-renewable I Freshwater GHG

Sugar confectionery

Milk chocolate confectionery

Dark chocoloate confectionery

Milk chocolate biscuit confectionery

Milk-based confectionery

Figure 6: Aggregated environmental impacts after normalisation for five confectionery products.

3.2. Comparison with other food products

A general comparison with other food products is provided to demonstrate how the calculated GWP impact benchmark with other food products. A GWP impact was selected for comparison because this is the most common and advanced environmental indicator amongst LCA studies (Muijica et al, 2016, Stoessel et al, 2012). Despite this, for such comparisons, there are major limitations due to differences in system boundary, life cycle impact assessment methodologies and data quality. Nonetheless, the comparative GWP impact for different food products is shown in Figure 14.

Beef (6) Cheese (9) Ready-made meals (4) Dark chocoloate confectionery Milk chocolate confectionery Milk chocolate biscuit confectionery Milk-based confectionery White chocolate (1) Sugar confectionery (8) Milk chocolate (1) Dark chocolate (10) Sugar confectionery (8) Dark chocolate (1) Chocolate coated biscuit (7) Sugar confectionery Bread (2) Banana (5) Dry pasta (3)

m 7.77 6.77

5.30 5.04

4.26 4.10 3.92

3.60 2.63 2.50 1.90 ^m 1.81 ^m 1.75 1.56 0.93 0.43

0.00 2.00 4.00

6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 Greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2-eq per 1 kg)

557 Figure 14: Comparison of the GWP impacts for confectionery products highlighted in orange with other food products. (1) =

558 Jungbluth and Konig, 2014, (2) = Espinoza-orias et al, 2011, (3) = Fusi et al, 2016, (4) = Rivera et al, 2014, (5) = Cirad, 2012, (6) =

559 Beauchemin et al, 2010, (7) = Konstantas et al, 2017a, (8) = Nilsson et al, 2011, (9) = Santos et al, 2017, and (10) = Recanati et al, 56 0 2018.

561 The calculated GWP for the five confectionery products are generally higher than the

562 environmental impacts of other confectionery products e.g. calculated impacts range from 1.75 -

563 6.77 kg CO2-eq per 1 kg of product compared to 1.9 - 4.1 kg CO2-eq per 1 kg of product (Jungbluth

564 and Konig, 2014). In particular, the dark chocolate confectionery products and biscuit-based

565 products presented in the work is significantly different from Racanati et al (2018), Jungbluth and

566 Konig (2014) and Konstantas et al (2017a). For the dark chocolate confectionery, it was found the

567 difference between Recanati et al (2018) and the work produced in this research was due to

568 different recipes e.g. higher sugar content and dairy products. However, further analysis of the

569 difference between the values by Jungbluth and Konig (2014) and Konstantas (2017a) was not

570 possible as the information presented is limited on the product recipes. It is expected the

571 difference arises due to the energy mix of manufacturing, data sources and composition of

572 ingredients. As such, the environmental life cycle impacts presented in this paper is the most

573 transparent environmental LCA on confectionery products. Such information will be extremely

574 valuable in the future to researchers working on improving the environmental sustainability of

575 confectionery manufacturing.

576 Overall, when the five confectionery products are compared to different food products such as

577 bread (Espinoza-orias et al, 2011), ready-made meals (Rivera et al, 2014), dry pasta (Fusi et al,

578 2016), bananas (Cirad, 2012), and beef (Beauchemin et al, 2010), the GWP impact for the

579 confectionery products is positioned as a medium-to-low environmental impact. For the remaining

580 four environmental impacts, it was not possible to find a diverse range of comparable

581 environmental impacts. As such, future research is required to gauge how these environmental

582 impacts compare with other food products.

584 3.3. Comparison of functional units

585 Recently, the consideration of alternative functional units based on nutrition has emerged

586 compared to conventional mass basis (kg CO2-eq/kg of product) to provide a different perspective

587 on the environmental life cycle impacts of food products regarding functionality. For example, kg

588 CO2-eq/kg of protein, kg C02-eq/1000 calories, kg CO2-eq/mg B12 vitamin, and kg CO2-eq/mg

589 calcium etc (Meija et al, 2017, Saarinen et al, 2017, Sonesson et al, 2017).

591 In this section, a range of functional units (FU) is explored for the first time in confectionery

592 manufacturing. The aim is to understand the changes in total environmental impact and how this

593 may affect communication strategies for the wider public. Compared to Meija et al (2017), Saarinen

594 et al (2017) and Sonesson et al (2017), three new FU are also considered; serving size, 1 g of fat,

595 and 1 g of sugar. The FU of 100kcal is also analysed. The 100 kcal is defined as the amount of

596 confectionery product required to deliver 100 kcal. The serving size is defined as the recommended

597 portion of food to be eaten by food manufacturers. They are typically related to nutritional value

598 balanced across daily calorie intake but are not defined by any empirical formula. The 1 g of fat is

599 defined as the amount of product required to consume 1 g of fat. The 1 g of sugar is defined as the

600 amount of product required to consume 1 g of sugar. Overall, a comparison of the total

601 environmental impact after normalisation for the different FUs are shown in Figure 15.

610 611 612

620 621 622

CuO CD

5.20 4.80 4.40 4.00 3.60 3.20 2.80 2.40 2.00 1.60 1.20 0.80 0.40 0.00

Figu re

1 kg product 100 kcal Serving size lg Fat lg Sugar

t7 = 0.88

a = 0.92

a = 0.1.28

£7= 1.06

MCC DCC MCBC

7: Comparison of total environmental impacts based on different functional units for five confectionery

products, including standard deviations.

Across the different FUs considered, it can be seen from Figure 15 that different FUs result in different total environmental impact. For example, in the original analysis, the 1 kg of packaged product showed the DCC to have the highest total environmental impact. However, when compared with other FUs (e.g. lg of sugar and serving size) the dark chocolate confectionery becomes the 2nd or 3rd highest. Such flexibility in selecting alternative functional units can be useful to communicate key messages and/or for internal audiences to reduce sugar and fat content relative to environmental impact reductions.

Furthermore, for each product the variation of environmental impact changes to different degrees. For example, the least variation is generally found in the MCC and SC (standard deviation is 0.70 and 0.88, respectively). Whereas, the largest variation is found in the MCBC and MBC (standard deviation is 1.28 and 1.06, respectively). For the products with a large degree of change, the selection of functional units can have a profound impact on how environmental impacts are communicated, especially in a comparative format. As such, it is recommended that environmental results are presented alongside alternative functional units to provide a fair comparison across different functions.

3.4. Improvement analysis

From the environmental hotspots identified in Section 3.1, the following improvement areas are explored; raw materials sourcing, packaging materials, renewable energy, product reformulations, and zero waste to landfill.

3.4.1. Raw materials sourcing

For the five confectionery products, a total of 17 key ingredients were identified which contribute to the majority of the environmental impacts e.g. greater than 90%. For the key ingredients identified, several LCI databases were searched for the same materials but with lower environmental impacts such as Agri-footprint LCA database (Agri-Footprint, 2016), and Ecoinvent v 2.2 (Econinvent, 2016). The selection of materials with lower environmental impacts is based on the MCDA process described in Section 3.1.5.

4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 S 3.20 £ 3.00 E 2.80 I 2.60 2.40 2.20 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 ä 0.80

£ 0.60

gg 0.40

01 ■n

From the 17 key ingredients identified, only 8 ingredients were not changed as alternatives were not available in the LCI databases. Nonetheless, the ingredients which were changed have resulted in a considerable change in total environmental impact across all five confectionery products, shown in Figure 16 and Table S5.

0.20 0.00

O 5û S= ^

ro -—■ CL <_J U

<-J CO U

O 5û S= ^

ro -—■ CL <_J CQ U

Figure 8: Contribution of key ingredients in reducing aggregated environmental impacts of different confectionery products

On average, across all seven confectionery products, the GWP reduction is 49.1%, WD is 13.4%. ADP is 22.2%, LU is 14.8%, and EQ is 9.5%, respectively. The largest reduction was observed for the milk-based confectionery whereas the lowest reduction was seen in sugar confectionery. The majority of the changes are attributed to ingredients with a lower environmental impact resulting from best management practice for crop cultivation/processing. Such practices include: increasing the efficiency and precision of agrochemical use, reducing waste, soil conversation, pest control, reducing nutrient loading and water pollution (Asare and David, 2011, Donough et al, 2011, Clay, 2003).

In addition, three materials are replaced with a different ingredient belonging to same food category e.g. milk and soya. A comparative example of the environmental reductions for changing milk liquid to soya milk is shown in Figure 17.

100% -

20% 0%

I Milk Liquid I Soya Milk

GWP WD ADP LU EQ

Figure 9: A comparative example of the environmental benefits of changing milk liquid to soya milk.

655 As can be seen in Figure 16, the environmental reductions from changing milk liquid to soy milk can

656 achieve an environmental reduction across the five environmental categories ranging from 70 -

657 99%. However, for the materials which have been replaced with different ingredients (e.g. soya-

658 based instead of milk-based), further research is required to understand how ingredient changes

659 impact final products in terms of taste, nutrition, physical appearance, shelf-life, manufacturing,

660 and consumer acceptance etc.

661 Overall, from the 17 ingredients identified only 9 were changed to lower environmental profiles

662 generating considerable environmental reductions. However, further reductions may be possible if

663 alternative LCI profiles are collected for the remaining 8 materials which includes; buttermilk, whey

664 permeate powder, lactose powder, concentrated milk, gelatine powder, glucose syrup, gum arabic,

665 and natural flavours. Despite this, it is clear from Figure 16 and previous analysis that the priority

666 ingredients (max number of 5) to focus on should be as follows for the five confectionery products

667 shown in Table 4.

669 Table 4: Priority ingredients to reduce environmental impacts at raw materials stage.

Sugar confectionery Milk chocolate confectionery Dark chocolate confectionery Milk chocolate biscuit confectionery Milk-based confectionery

Priority ingredients 1. Sugar 2. Glucose 3. Starch 1. Milk powder 2. Cocoa butter 3. Cocoa liquor 4. Milk liquid 5. Sugar 1. Milk powder 2. Cocoa liquor 3. Cocoa butter 4. Sugar 1. Cocoa butter 2. Milk liquid 3. Sugar 4. Cocoa liquor 5. Wheat flour 1. Milk powder 2. Palm oil 3. Sugar

670 3.4.2. Renewable energy

671 As part of reducing the environmental impacts from factory operations, the integration of

672 renewable energy (RE) is considered as an intervention. In this paper, the scenario of transitioning

673 to 100% RE is analysed. The 100% RE supply consists of wind energy for all the electricity, biomass

674 for steam heating for the site and biogas for the gas ovens such as biscuit ovens, see Table S6 for

675 LCI profiles. The change in total environmental impacts before and after renewable energy

676 application for the different confectionery products is shown from Table S7.

677 The integration of 100% RE at factories was found to demonstrate both positive and negative

678 environmental impacts, shown in Figure 18. For all five confectionery products, the ADP, LU and EQ

679 did not improve, while the impact categories, GWP and WD are improved. The negative

680 environmental impact, especially the large increase observed in EQ, arises from the different

681 inventory flows found for natural gas and biomass. A contribution analysis of EQ impact via GaBi

682 LCA software found the release of heavy metals, in particular Zinc to be considerably higher for

683 biomass than natural gas, see Table S8 and S9. The source was found to be the fly ash resulting

684 from biomass combustion (Zhang et al, 2014, Wiinikka et al, 2013, Demibras, 2005). In this case, the

685 consideration of biomass energy would require changes in fuel types, modifications to the

686 combustion technology and particle removal technologies to ensure environmental pollutants are

687 reduced e.g. improving combustion efficiency, pyrolysis, scrubbers, Electrostatic Precipitators (ESP)

688 (Sikarwar et al, 2016, Kovacs and Szemmelveisz, 2016, Sadhukhan et al, 2014). However, further

689 research is required to ensure any improvements are across all five environmental categories and

690 not just in one area such as GWP by adopting a systems analysis approach such as LCA.

691 Alternatively, the adjustment of weights for each environmental impact category can be applied to

692 change the importance of different environmental impact category by a rank preference system

693 (Ren et al, 2015, Kim et al, 2013). For example reducing the significance of EQ. However, such

attributions are open to debate since the importance varies from across different stakeholders (Azapagic et al, 2016).

Another approach can be to accept the environmental damage but to allocate a cost for the environmental pollution to be remediated in the future e.g. carbon tax. However, in this case study, the development of the cost for EQ damage resonates with valuing natural capital. Such assessment tools are based on a Willingness-To-Pay principle and are still under development (Bordt, 2018, Natural Capital, 2016, Nomura and Akai, 2004)

№ ON

: (N *H

" « §

S ^e 8 fc

1 ■¥ &

2.5% % *H o % <H

1 IS o m ■

o + £

£ * m co

<H ON _

ui co % oi3

*H rH

2% O os *H -1-

J O. Q

Figure 10: Contribution of different environmental impact categories on total change from the transition to 100% RE.

3.4.3. Packaging materials

Similar to raw materials sourcing, the packaging materials have been changed to materials with a lower aggregated environmental impacts where available in the same LCI databases. From the 5 packaging materials identified, only one material was kept the same, see Table S10. Nonetheless, the packaging materials that were changed has resulted in a mix change in total environmental impact across all five confectionery products, shown in Table S11. On average, across all seven confectionery products, the GWP is increased by 0.7%, water depletion decreased by 7.9%, ADP increased by 12.3%, land use increased by 3.6%, and ecosystems quality decreased by 9.2%, respectively. As an example, a contribution analysis of ADP for the alternative corrugated board found copper and gold elements to be responsible for the increased ADP, see Table S12. The main sources for heavy metals can be found from the use of colorants (e.g. paints and pigments) (Metoglu-Elmas, 2017).

Alternatively, packaging materials based on biomaterials could potentially reduce environmental impacts but requires a systems analysis approach to ensure reductions are made across all five

719 environmental impact categories (Saraiva et a I, 2016, McDevitt and Grigsby, 2014, Yates and

720 Barlow, 2013). As such, further research is required to develop packaging materials that have a

721 lower concentration of heavy metals and reduce the overall environmental impact. Such materials

722 can be achived by designing packaging materials based on 'Design for the Environment' principles in

723 collaboration with packaging manufacturers and research institiutes (D4E) (UNEP, 2009).

725 3.4.4. Product reformulations

726 From the sensitivity analysis of key ingredients, it can be seen that changing the %weight of

727 different ingredients may or may not increase the environmental impact i.e. zero-sum. This is

728 because other ingredients will need to be compensated by increasing to ensure the functional unit

729 is satisfied. However, in reality, the reformulation of a product would involve multiple dimension

730 not just related to environmental impacts but other factors related to product quality, taste, and

731 processing conditions. Despite this, a simple analysis is performed to illustrate the impact of

732 product reformulations on environmental impacts. For the five confectionery products, the

733 ingredient which showed the largest sensitivity is considered; glucose for sugar confectionery, milk

734 crumb for milk chocolate confectionery and milk chocolate biscuit confectionery, sugar for dark

735 chocolate confectionery and palm oil for the milk-based confectionery. For example, if the %weight

736 of the selected ingredient (xf) is reduced by 20%, then, the %weight for other ingredients can be

737 readjusted. For the other ingredients (xi, x2, x3, etc), the %weight is readjusted by the factor (RF)

738 calculated in Equation 3.

D _ 1 — ingredient selected)

Hp —-z-r--(J)

(Xi+X2 +x3+•••)

739 The change in total environmental impacts before and after product reformulation application for

740 the different confectionery products is shown in Table S13. It can be seen that the application of

741 product reformulation has resulted in medium-to-low reductions. On an average, across all five

742 confectionery products, the GWP has reduced by 4.7%, water depletion reduced by 0.7%, ADP

743 reduced by 4.2%, land use reduced by 8.9%, and negligible change for ecosystems quality,

744 respectively. The largest reduction was observed for the milk-based confectionery whereas the

745 lowest reduction was seen from milk chocolate confectionery (e.g. the summation of %change of all

746 environmental impacts as listed in Table S13). Overall, further research is required to investigate

747 the implications of product reformulations across multiple dimensions as part of an integrated

748 product design process.

750 3.4.5. Food waste reduction from factory to consumer boundary

751 Across the confectionery supply chain, there are several stages where food waste is generated and

752 sent to landfill and incineration. In this section, three scenarios are investigated to analyse the

753 environmental benefits of different food waste reduction strategies which are aligned with the food

754 waste target by the UK Food and Drink Federation (FDF, 2016). These are: (1) zero food waste sent

755 to landfill, (2) 50% food waste reduction, and (3) combined 50% food waste reduction with zero

756 food waste sent to landfill. It is assumed, the alternative route to divert food waste from landfill is

757 waste incineration with energy recovery. A comparison of the GWP benefits is shown in Figure 19

758 as reductions in the four environmental categories were negligible, see Table S14.

2.00% 1.80% ^ 1.60% C 1.40% 'u 1.20%

"g 1.00% | 0.80% U5 0.60% 0.40% 0.20% 0.00%

Fruit Pastille Tube RoloTube Matchmakers Tray Breakaway Bar Caramacbar

Figure 19: Comparison of food reduction options on reducing total GWP for different confectionery products.

760 Overall, it can be seen that the application of a zero waste to landfill strategy involving different

761 scenarios has resulted in very low reductions. For example, scenario 3 offers the highest reductions

762 with an average of 0.86% across the five confectionery products. Clearly, a food waste reduction

763 strategy involving the different scenarios does not yield the highest environmental reductions

764 compared to other interventions such as raw material changes and integration of renewable

765 energy. Even more so, the environmental reductions are not expected to increase considerably

766 even if the food waste from farms and agricultural processing was included. Despite this, food

767 waste is a major problem in society (Kummu et al, 2012). There are many economic and social

768 reasons to pursue reductions irrespective of the environmental benefits such as food security,

769 reduced costs, resource efficiency, and consumer behaviour change.

771 3.4.6. Comparison of before and after improvements

772 The combined impact of the five improvement strategies shows mixed environmental reduction

773 across all five environmental impact categories due to the RE and packaging materials having a

774 negative impact for SC, MCC and DCC. As such, the benefits of strategies demonstrating an

775 aggregated environmental impact reduction only is shown in Figure 20. Overall, the aggregated

776 environmental impact before and after improvement strategies shows an average reduction of 46%

777 is possible across the five confectionery products (Figure 20). The major interventions to achieve

778 this is from sourcing raw materials with lower environmental impact, product reformulations and

779 combined zero food waste to landfill and 50% food waste reduction. The role of RE and packaging

780 materials are still important but requires further research to investigate alternative energy and

781 materials with lower environmental impact across all five environmental impact categories. For the

782 five confectionery products the recommended strategies based on their scope for environmental

783 reductions are shown in Table 5.

■ ZeroFW to landfill

■ 50% FW reduction

■ Zero FW to landfill + 50% FW reductl on

■ ■

■ ■ ■■ 1

784 Table 5: Recommended improvement strategies to reduce environmental impact across all seven confectionery products.

Improvement strategy Confectionery product

SC MCC DCC MCBC MBC

Raw materials sourcing YES YES YES YES YES

50% food waste reduction + Zero food waste to landfill YES YES YES YES YES

Product reformulations YES YES YES YES YES

Renewable energy integration at manufacturing STFA STFA STFA STFA STFA

Packaging materials STFA STFA STFA STFA STFA

785 STFA = Subject to further analysis

a 3.50 E

75 3.00

2.50 2.00

53 1.50 -a 01

1.00 0.50 0.00

787 Figure 20: Comparison of aggregated environmental impact before and after improvement strategies

788 4. Conclusions and future work

789 An environmental life cycle analysis has been presented for first time for a range of different

790 confectionery products produced by the same factory, such as: sugar confectionery, milk chocolate

791 confectionery, dark chocolate confectionery, milk chocolate biscuit confectionery, and milk-based

792 confectionery. In comparison to previous studies (Recanati et al, 2018, Vesce et al, 2016; Jungbluth

793 and Konig, 2014), there are several key methodological differences which improves our

794 understanding of the environmental sustainability of confectionery products. These are: (1) a range

795 of products representing the core product categories found in the confectionery sector, (2) full

796 confectionery supply chain analysis from cradle-to-grave, (3) inclusion of pre-processing stages for

797 chocolate pre-cursors, (4) inclusion of food and packaging waste, (5) five environmental impact

798 categories (GWP, water depletion, ADP, land use and ecosystems quality) which are more aligned

799 with metrics used in the food industry, and (6) multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to aggregate

800 environmental impacts to aid decision-making.

802 The analysis of five confectionery products at a confectionery factory in the UK found that sugar

803 confectionery had the lowest aggregated environmental impact compared to dark chocolate

804 confectionery which had the highest. It was found the dark chocolate confectionery was higher

805 than milk chocolate biscuit confectionery by 21.7%, milk chocolate confectionery by 35.8%, milk-

806 based confectionery by 42.2%, and sugar confectionery by 48.4%. Some of the key factors

807 contributing to the difference was primarily due to the ingredients such as cocoa liquor, milk

powder, and cocoa butter for dark chocolate confectionery. In comparison, sugar, glucose and starch were major contributing factors for sugar confectionery. Overall, a range of key ingredients were identified which are recommended for confectionery manufacturers to focus on as part of their sustainability strategy.

In addition, an investigation of different functional units has shown the selection of functional units can have a profound impact on how environmental impacts are communicated, especially in a comparative format. As such, it is recommended that food manufacturers should explore different functional units to understand the wider implications on public communications and consumer understanding.

The general environmental hotspots across all five confectionery products were found to occur at the following life cycle stages: raw materials, factory, and packaging. An analysis of five improvement strategies (alternative raw materials and packaging materials, renewable energy, product reformulations, and zero food waste to landfill) showed a range of mixed improvements were possible as interventions. Some of the key findings are:

(1) Transitioning to 100% renewable energy at the factory stage has both positive and negative environmental impact. On average, GWP reduced by 17.3%, WD reduced by 23.5%, negligible change for ADP, LU increased by 5.8%, and EQ increased by 550.8%;

(2) Raw material changes to alternative ingredients and/or lower environmental impact ingredients can reduce on average: GWP by 49.1%, WD by 13.4%. ADP by 22.2%, LU by 14.8%, and EQ by 9.5%;

(3) Product reformulations can generate medium-to-low environmental life cycle impact reductions. On average, GWP reduced by 4.7%, WD reduced by 0.7%, ADP reduced by 4.2%, LU reduced by 8.9%, and negligible change for EQ;

(4) Reducing food waste across the confectionery supply chain from gate-to consumer by 50% and sending zero food waste to landfill generates low-to-negligible environmental life cycle impact. On average, GWP reduced by 0.9%, negligible change for WD, ADP, LU, and EQ;

(5) The combined improvement strategies of raw materials changes, product reformulations and zero food waste to landfill (including 50% food waste reduction) can on average reduce: GWP by 54.6%, WD by 14.1%, ADP by 26.6%, LU by 23.7%, and EQ by 9.6%.

Overall, future research should seek to: (1) understand how changes to recipe formulations affect final products, (2) collaborate with suppliers, research institutes and relevant actors to develop raw materials and packaging materials with lower environmental impact, and (3) investigate alternative renewable energy which can reduce environmental impacts across all five environmental impact categories.

Acknowledgements

We wish to gratefully acknowledge and thank the EPSRC and Nestlé UK Ltd for their assistance and support in funding this research as part of the Engineering Doctorate on Sustainability for Engineering & Energy Systems (EngD SEES) at the University of Surrey. From Nestlé, the following people are gratefully acknowledged; Richard Martin, Brett Whitfield, Simon Finch, Ben Thornton-Jones, and Richard Hastings.

References

Agri-Footprint. 2016. Agri-Footprint LCA database. [Online] [Accessed: 02/12/2016] Available from World Wide Web: http://www.agri-footprint.com/

Asare, R. David, S. 2011. Good agricultural practices for sustainable cocoa production: a guide for farmer training. Manual no. 1: Planting, replanting and tree diversification in cocoa systems, sustainable tree crops programme. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. Accra, Ghana.

Azapagic, A. Perdan, S. 2005. An integrated sustainability decision-support framework: methods and tools for problem analysis, Part II. International Journal for Sustainable Development and World Ecology. Vol 12. pp 112 - 131.

Baumann, H. Tillman, A.M. 2004. The Hitchhikers guide to LCA. An orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. 1st ed. Studentlitteratur AB.

Beauchemin, K.A. Janzen, H.H. Little, S.M. McAllister, T.A. McGinn, S.M. 2010. Life cycle assessment of GWP from beef production in western Canada: A case study. Agricultural Systems. Vol 103. pp 371 - 379.

Bordt, M. 2018. Discourses in ecosystem accounting: A survey of the expert community. Ecological Economics. Vol 144. pp 82 - 89.

Büsser, S. Jungbluth, N. 2009. LCA of Chocolate Packed in Aluminium Foil Based Packaging. ESU-services Ltd. Uster, Switzerland, 2009. Commissioned by German Aluminium Association (GDA) in cooperation with European Aluminium Foil Association (EAFA), Düsseldorf, Germany.

CAOBISCO. 2015. CAOBISCO annual report [Online] [Accessed: 10/01/2016] Available from World Wide Web: http://caobisco.eu/public/images/page/caobisco-31032016102825-CAOBISCO-2015-Annual-Report-WEB.pdf

CAOBISCO, 2013. Statistical Bulletin. [Online] [Accessed: 03/08/2017] Available from: www.caibisco.eu/public/images/page/caobisco-10072013170141-Ranking_of_concumption_FBW.pdf

Canals, L.M. Rigarlsford, G. Sim, S. 2013. Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Ass. Vol 18. pp 1265 - 1277.

CIAT. 2011. Predicting the impact of climate change on the Cocoa-growing regions in Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire. [Online] [Accessed: 01/06/2017] Available from World Wide Web: http://www.ciatnews.cgiar.org/wp-

content/uploads/2011/09/Ghana_ivory_coast_climate_change_and_cocoa.pdf

Cirad. 2012. Carbon footprint analysis in banana production. [Online] [Accessed: 02/12/2016] Available from World Wide Web:

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/banana/documents/WGs outputs/WG01/Carbon Footpr int study on banana Final Oct12.pdf

Clay, J.W. 2003. World agriculture and the environment: A commodity-by-commodity guide to impacts and practices. Island Press. 4th edition.

CPI. 2013. Recovery and Recycling of Paper and Board. [Online] [Accessed: 02/12/206] Available from World Wide Web: http://www.paper.org.uk/information/factsheets/recovery and recycling.pdf

Demirbas, A. 2005. Heavy metal contents of fly ashes from selected biomass samples. Energy Sources. Vol 27. pp 1269 - 1276.

Diaz-Balteiro, L. Romero, C. 2004. In search of a natural systems sustainability index. Ecological Economics. Vol 49. pp 401 - 405.

Donough, C.R. Witt, C. Fairhurst, T.H. 2011. Yield intensification in oil palm plantations through best management practice. Better Crops. Vol 93. pp 12 - 14.

Ecoinvent. 2016. The ecoinvent database. http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/. Accessed 12/04/2016

Espinoza-orias, N. Stichnothe, H. Azapagic, A. 2011. The carbon footprint of bread. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. Vol 16. pp 351 - 365.

Espinoza-Orias, N.D. 2017. Personal communications.

Ewert, F. Rounsevell, M.D.A. Reginster, I. Metzger, M.J. Leemans, R. 2005. Future scenarios of European agricultural land use I. Estimating changes in crop productivity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. Vol 107. pp 101 - 116.

FAO. 2016. The state of food and agriculture: Climate change, agriculture and food security. [Online] [Accessed: 02/12/206] Available from World Wide Web: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6030e.pdf

FAO. 2009. Global Agriculture towards 2050. [Online] [Accessed: 01/06/2017] Available from World Wide Web:

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture. pdf

FDF. 2016. Ambition 2025 - Shaping Sustainable Value Chains. [Online] [Accessed: 01/06/2017] Available from World Wide Web: https://www.fdf.org.uk/sustainability-ambition2025.aspx

Foresight. 2010. Land use futures project. Final project report. The Government Office for Science. London.

FSA. 2014. National Diet and Nutrition Survey Rolling programme Results from Years 1-4 (combined) for Scotland (2008/09-2011/12). [Online] [Accessed: 01/06/2017] Available from World Wide Web: http://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/national-diet-and-nutrition-survey-rolling-programme-results-years-1-4-combined-scotland-200809

926 Fusi, A. Riccardo, G. Azapagic, A. 2016. Evaluation of environmental impacts in the catering sector: the

927 case of pasta. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol 132. pp 146 - 160.

928 Guinée, J.B.; Gorrée, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huppes, G.; Kleijn, R.; Koning, A. de; Oers, L. van; Wegener

929 Sleeswijk, A.; Suh, S.; Udo de Haes, H.A.; Bruijn, H. de; Duin, R. van; Huijbregts, M.A.J. 2002.

930 Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic

931 Publishers. Dordrecht

932 Goedkoop, M. Heijungs, R. Huijbregts, M. de Schryver, A. Struijs, J. van Zelm, R. 2009. ReCiPe 2008. A

933 life assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the

934 endpoint level. Report I: characterisation. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment.

935 Amsterdam.

936 IPCC. 2006. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on

937 Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland.

938 ISO. 2006. ISO 14044, Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and

939 Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland, 2006

940 Jungbluth, N. Konig, A. 2014. Environmental impacts of chocolate in a life cycle perspective. ESU-

941 services Ltd, Surich, Switzerland.

942 Kim, S-H. Choi, M-S. Mha, H-S. Joung, J-Y. 2013. Environmental impact assessment and eco-firendly

943 decision-making civil structures. Journal of Environmental Management. Vol 126. pp 105 - 112.

944 Konstantas, A. Stamford, L. Azapagic, A. 2017a. Energy consumption and environmental impacts in the

945 biscuits supply chain. [Online] [Accessed: 12/08/2017] Available from:

946 http://www.foodenergy.org.uk/userfiles/downloads/ConferencePresentations/20April2017/4-

947 OS5A/ID129%20KONSTANTAS%20Energy%20consumption%20and%20environmental%20impacts%

948 20in%20the%20biscuits%20supply%20chain.pdf

949 Konstantas, A. Stamford, L. Azapagic, A. 2017b. Primary energy demand, global warming potential and

950 water footprint evaluation of production and consumption of cakes. International conference on

951 quantitative tools for sustainable food and energy in the food chain. Q-Safe, April 10 - 12th, Syros,

952 Greece.

953 Kovacks, H. Szemmelveisz, K. 2016. Heavy metal contaminated biomass combustion as treatment after

954 phytoremediation - A review. Materials Science and Engineering. Vol 41. pp 69 - 78.

955 McDevitt, J.E. Grigsby, W.J. 2014. Life cycle assessment of bio- and petro-chemical adhesives used in

956 fibreboard production. Journal of Polymers and the Environment. Vol 22. pp 537 - 544.

Meija, A. Harwatt, H. Jaceldo-Siegl, K. Sranacharoenpong, K. Soret, S. Sabate, J. 2017. Greenhouse gas emissions generated by Tofu production: A case study. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition. DOI: 10.1080/19320248.2017.1315323.

Mertoglu-Elmas, G. 2017. The effect of colorants on the content of heavy metals in recycled corrugated board papers. BioResources. Vol 12. pp 2690 - 2698.

Miah, J.H. Griffiths, A. McNeill, R. Poonaji, I. Martin, R. Morse, S. Yang, A. Sadhukhan, J. 2017. A framework for increasing the availability of life cycle inventory data based on the role of multinational companies. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1391-y

Miah, J.H. Griffiths, A. McNeill, R. Poonaji, I. Martin, R. Morse, S. Yang, A. Sadhukhan, J. 2015a. A small-scale transdisciplinary process to maximising the energy efficiency of food factories: insights and recommendations from the development of a novel heat integration framework. Sustain Sci. Vol 10. Issue 4. pp 621 - 637.

Miah, J.H. Griffiths, A. McNeill, R. Poonaji, I. Martin, R. Morse, S. Yang, A. Sadhukhan, J. 2015b. Creating an environmentally sustainable food factory: A case study of the Lighthouse project at Nestlé. Procedia CIRP. Vol 26. pp.229 - 234.

Muijica, M. Blanco, G. Santalla, E. 2016. Carbon footprint of honey produced in Argentina. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol 116. pp 50 - 60.

Nestle SA. 2016. Nestle LCI database. Personal communication.

Nilsson, K. Sund, V. Floren, B. 2011. The environmental impact of the consumption of sweets, crisps and soft drinks. TemaNord 2011:509. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen.

Nomura, N. Akai, M. 2004. Willingness to pay for green electricity in Japan as estimated through contingent valuation method. Applied Energy. Vol 78. pp 453 - 463.

Notarnicola, B. Tassielli, G. Renzulli, P.A. Castellani, V. Sala, S. 2017. Environmental impacts of food consumption in Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol 140. pp 753 - 765.

Ntiamoah, A. Afrane G. 2008. Environmental impacts of cocoa production and processing in Ghana: life cycle assessment approach. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol. 16. pp 1735 - 1740.

PAFA. 2015. Plastics Industry Recycling Action Plan (PIRAP). [Online] [Accessed: 02/12/206] Available from World Wide Web:

http://resource.co/sites/default/files/PIRAP Plastics%20Industry%20Recycling%20Action%20Plan. pdf

Pirker, J. Obersteiner, M. 2016. What are the limits to oil palm expansion? Global Environmental Change. Vol 40. pp 73 - 81.

Quantis. 2014. World Food LCA Database. http://www.quantis-intl.com/wfldb/. Accessed: 04/03/2016

Ren, J. Manzardo, A. Mazzi, A. Zuliani, F. Scipioni, A. 2015. Priortisation of bioethanol production pathways in China based on life cycle sustainability assessment and multi criteria decision-making. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. Vol 20. pp 842 - 853.

Rivera, X.C.S. Espinoza-Orias, N. Azapagic, A. 2014. Life cycle environmental impacts of convenience food: Comparision of ready and home-made meals. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol 73. pp 294 -309.

Saarinen, M. Fogelholm, M. Tahvonen, R. Kurppa, S. 2017. Taking nutrition into account within the life cycle assessment of food products. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol 149. pp 828 - 844.

Saraiva, A.B. Pacheco, E.B.A.V. Gomes, G.M. Visconte, L.L.Y. Bernardo, C.A. Simoes, C.L. Soares, A.G. 2016. Comparative lifecycle assessment of mango packaging made from a polyethylene/natural fiber-composite and from cardboard material. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol 139. pp 1168 -1180.

Santos, H.C.M. Maranduba, H.L. Neto, J.A.A. Rodrigues, L.B. 2017. Life cycle assessment of cheese production process in a small-sized dairy industry in Brazil. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. Vol 24. pp 3470 - 3482.

Sadhukhan, J. Ng, K.S. Hernandez, E.M. 2014. Biorefineries and Chemical Processes. Design, Integration and Sustainability Analysis. Wiley. UK.

Salter, A.M. 2017. Improving the sustainability of global meat and milk production. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. Vol 76. pp 22 - 27.

Schenker, U. Espinoza-Orias, N. Popovic, D. 2014. EcodEX: A simplified eco-design tool to improve the environmental performance of product development in the food industry. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector. San Francisco.

Sikarwar, V.S. Zhao, M. Clough, P. Yao, J. Zhong, X. Memon, M.Z. Shah, N. Anthony, E.J. Fennel, P.S. 2016. An overview of advances in biomass gasification. Energy and Environmental Science. Vol 9. pp 2939 - 2977.

Statista. 2017. Chocolate consumption volume worldwide in 2020, by country (in 1,000 tons). [Online] [Accessed: 02/12/2017] Available from World Wide Web:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/238834/projected-leading-10-chocolate-consumers-by-country/

Stoessel, F. Juraske, R. Pfsiter, S. Hellweg, S. 2012. Life cycle inventory and carbon and water foodprint of fruits and vegetables: Application to a swiss retailer. ENVIRON SCI TECHNOL. Vol 46. pp 3253 -3262.

Sonesson, U. Davis, J. Flysjo, A. Gustavsson, J. Witthoft, C. 2017. Protein quality as functional unit - A methodological framework for inclusion in life cycle assessment of food. Journal of cleaner Production. Vol 140. pp 470 - 478. Thinkstep. 2015. GaBi LCA software. [Online] [Accessed: 02/12/2017] Available from World Wide Web:

https://www.thinkstep.com/software/gabi-lca/ Tukker, A. Goldbohm, R.A. Konig, A. Verheijden, M. Kleijn, R. Wolf, O. Perez-Dominguez, I, Rueda-Cantuche, M. 2011. Environmental impacts of changes to healthier diets in Europe. Ecological Economics. Vol 70. pp 1776 - 1728. UNEP. 2009. Design for Sustainability - a practical approach for developing economies. (Online) (Accessed: 10/03/2012) Available from World Wide Web: http://www.d4s-de.org/manual/d4stotalmanual.pdf UN. 2014. Water scarcity. [Online] [Accessed: 01/06/2017] Available from World Wide Web:

http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml Vesce, E. Olivieri, G. Pairotti, M.B. Romani, A. Beltramo, R. 2016. Life Cycle Assessment as a tool to integrate environmental indicators in food products: A chocolate LCA case study. International Journal of Environment and Health. Vol 8. pp 21 - 37. Wallen, A. Brandt, N. Wennersten, R. 2004. Does the Swedish consumer's choice of food influence

greenhouse gas emissions? Environmental Science & Policy. Vol 7. pp 525 - 535. Winikka, H. Gronberg, C. Boman, C. 2013. Emissions of heavy metals during fixed-bed combustion of six

biomass fuels. Energy and Fuels. Vol 27. pp 1073 - 1080. Wiltshire, J. Wynn, S. Clarke, J. Chambers, B. Cottrill, B. Drakes, D. Gittins, J. Nicholson, C. Phillips, K. Thorman, R. Tiffin, D. Walker, O. Tucker, G. Thorn, R. Green, A. Fendler, A. Williams, A. Bellamy, P. Audsley, E. Chatterton, J. Chadwick, D. Foster, C. 2009. Scenario building to test and inform the development of a BSI method for assessing GHG emissions from food - FO0404. [Online] [Accessed: 02/12/2016] Available from World Wide Web:

http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Co mpleted=0&ProjectID=15650 Wolf, O. Perez-Dominguez, I. Rueda-Cantuche, M. Tukker, A. Kleijn, R. A. Konig, Goldbohm, R . A. Verheijden, M. Do healthy diets in Europe matter to the environment ? A quantitative analysis.

Journal of Policy Modelling. Vol 33. pp 8 - 28. WRAP. 2015. Food futures: from business as usual to business unusual. [Online] [Accessed: 02/12/2016] Available from World Wide Web:

http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Food Futures %20report 0.pdf

1056 WRAP. 2014. Household food and drink waste Hotspots, opportunities & initiatives: Sugar

1057 Confectionery. [Online] [Accessed: 02/12/2017] Available from World Wide Web:

1058 http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Sugar%20Confectionery%20v1.pdf

1059 WRAP. 2016. Quantification of food surplus, waste and related materials in the grocery supply chain.

1060 [Online] [Accessed: 02/12/2017] Available from World Wide Web:

1061 http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/quantification-food-surplus-waste-and-related-materials-supply-

1062 chain

1063 Yates, M.R. Barlow, C.Y. 2013. Life cycle assessment of biodegradeable, commercial biopolymers - A

1064 critical review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. Vol 78. pp 54 - 66.

1065 Zhang, W. Tong, Y. Wang, H. Chen, L. Ou, L. Wang, X. Liu, G. Zhu, Y. 2014. Emission of metals from

1066 pelletized and uncompressed biomass fuels combustion in rural household stoves in China.

1067 Scientific Reports. Vol 4. pp 1 - 7.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

confectionery products. (T = transport, W = waste, Milk chocolate A & B are two different types of milk chocolate).

SC MCC DCC MCBC

Figure 2: A comparison of the GWP impact for different confectionery products.

114.0% 112.0% 110.0% 108.0% 106.0% ' 104.0% 102.0% 100.0% 98.0% 96.0% n 94.0% 92.0% 90.0% 88.0% 86.0% 84.0% 82.0% 80.0%

_Sugar Milk chocolate Dark chocolate Milk chocolate _Milk-based

confectionery confectionery confectionery biscuit confectionery confectionery

1 fe

Glucose Sugar Gelatine Cocoa Cocoa Milk-based Butter Liquor Cocoa Cocoa Milk-based Liquor Butter Cocoa Cocoa Milk-based Butter Liquor Milk-based Palm Oil Sugar

Figure 3: Sensitivity of key ingredients contributing to GWP impact across five confectionery products.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

■ Direct energy (Natural gas) ■ Indirect (Electricity)

Figure 4: Comparison of direct and indirect energy percentage for different confectionery products.

■ Transportation

■ Disposal Consumption

■ Distribution and retail

■ Food factory Pre-processing Packaging Raw materials & Ingredients

Figure 5: A comparison of the water depletion impact for different confectionery products.

120.0% 118.0% 116.0% 114.0% 112.0% 110.0% 108.0% 106.0% 104.0% 102.0% 100.0% 98.0% 96.0% 94.0% 92.0% 90.0% 88.0% 86.0% 84.0% 82.0% 80.0%

Sugar confectionery Milk chocolate confectionery Dark chocolate —confectionery -M lilk chocolate biscuit confectionery Milk-based confectionery

1 I I 1 - - —f-F—

Sugar Gelatine Gum Arabic Cocoa Cocoa Milk-based Butter Liquor Cocoa Cocoa Milk-based Liquor Butter Cocoa Cocoa Milk-based Butter Liquor Milk-based Palm Oil Sugar

Figure 6: Sensitivity of key ingredients contributing to water depletion impact across five confectionery products

8.80E-03 8.40E-03 8.00E-03 7.60E-03 7.20E-03 6.80E-03 6.40E-03 6.00E-03 5.60E-03 5.20E-03 4.80E-03 4.40E-03 4.00E-03 3.60E-03 3.20E-03 2.80E-03 2.40E-03 2.00E-03 1.60E-03 1.20E-03 8.00E-04 4.00E-04 0.00E+00 -4.00E-04

■ Transportation i Disposal

Consumption

■ Distribution and retail Food factory

l Pre-processing I Packaging

■ Raw materials & Ingredients

8.08E-03

8.41E-03

Figure 7: A comparison of the Abiotic Depletion Potential impact for different confectionery products

120.0% 118.0% 116.0% 114.0% 112.0% 110.0% 108.0% 106.0% 104.0% 102.0% 100.0% 98.0% 96.0% 94.0% 92.0% 90.0% 88.0% 86.0% 84.0% 82.0% 80.0%

Sugar confectionery Milk chocolate confectionery Dark chocolate confectionery Milk chocolate biscuit confectionery Milk-based confectionery

1 \zz I I I

1 1 1

Glucose Sugar Starch Cocoa Cocoa Glucose Milk-based Butter Liquor Cocoa Cocoa Milk-based Liquor Butter Cocoa Cocoa Sugar Milk-based Butter Liquor Milk-based Palm Oil Sugar

Figure 8: Sensitivity of key ingredients contributing to ADP impact across five confectionery products.

-0.2 -

-0.6 -

-1.0 -

i Transportation i Disposal

Consumption i Distribution and retail i Food factory I Pre-processing I Packaging I Raw materials & Ingredients!

Figure 9: A comparison of the land use impact for different confectionery products.

120.0% 118.0% 116.0% 114.0% 112.0% 110.0% 108.0% 106.0% 104.0% 102.0% 100.0% 98.0% 96.0% 94.0% 92.0% 90.0% 88.0% 86.0% 84.0% 82.0% 80.0%

Sugar confectionery

Milk chocolate confectionery

Cocoa Butter

Cocoa Liquor

Glucose Milk-based

Dark chocolate confectionery

Cocoa Liquor

Cocoa Milk-based Butter

Milk chocolate biscuit confectionery

Cocoa Butter

Cocoa Wheat flour Milk-based Liquor

Milk-based confectionery

Milk-based Palm Oil

Figure 10: Sensitivity of key ingredients contributing to land use impact across five confectionery products.

■ Transportation Consumption Food factory

■ Packaging

i Disposal

■ Distribution and retail l Pre-processing i Raw materials & Ingredients

Figure 11: A comparison of the ecosystems quality impact for different confectionery products.

120.0% 118.0% 116.0% 114.0% 112.0% 110.0% 108.0% 106.0% 104.0% 102.0% 100.0% 98.0% 96.0% 94.0% 92.0% 90.0% 88.0% 86.0% 84.0% 82.0% 80.0%

_Sugar -confectionery _Milk chocolate confectionery _Dark chocolate confectionery Milk chocolate confectionery Milk-based confectionery

I ■ r ' i I r 1 —f-r-

Gelatine Sugar Gum Arabic :igure 12: Sensitivity of k Cocoa Cocoa Milk-based Butter Liquor ey ingredients contribut Cocoa Cocoa Milk-based Liquor Butter ing to ecosystem qualit Cocoa Sugar Milk-based Butter / impact across five cor Milk-based Palm Oil Sugar ifectionery products.

Ecosystems Quality 3.88

u ¿30 ■ Land use

Sugar confectionery Milk chocolate Dark chocoloate Milk chocolate Milk-based

confectionery confectionery biscuit confectionery confectionery

Figure 13: Aggregated environmental impacts after normalisation for five confectionery products.

Beef (6) 22.00

Cheese (9) 14.45

Ready-made meals (4) 7.77

Dark chocoloate confectionery 6.77

Milk chocolate confectionery Milk chocolate biscuit confectionery Milk-based confectionery White chocolate (1) Sugar confectionery (8) Milk chocolate (1) Dark chocolate (10) Sugar confectionery (8) Dark chocolate (1) Chocolate coated biscuit (7) Sugar confectionery Bread (2) Banana (5) Dry pasta (3)

B 1.56

■ 0: 93

■ 0.4: !

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 Greenhouse gas emissions (kg C02-eq per 1 kg)

Figure 14: Comparison of the GWP impacts for confectionery products highlighted in orange with other food products. (1) = Jungbluth and Konig, 2014, (2) = Espinoza-orias et al, 2011, (3) = Fusi et al, 2016, (4) = Rivera et al, 2014, (5) = Cirad, 2012, (6) = Beauchemin et al, 2010, (7) = Konstantas et al, 2017a, (8) = Nilsson et al, 2011, (9) = Santos et al, 2017, and (10) = Recanati et al, 2018.

5.20 4.80 4.40

4.00 iS 3.60 ^ 3.20 § 2.80 ■5 2.40

S 2.00

1j 1.60

S> 1.20

m 0.80 CuO

< 0.40 0.00

1 kg product 100 kcal Serving size lg Fat lg Sugar

0 = 0.88

0 = 0.1.28

0 = 0.70

0 = 1.06

MCC DCC MCBC MBC

Figure 15: Comparison of total environmental impacts based on different functional units for five confectionery products,

including standard deviations.

4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 3.00 2.80 2.60 2.40 2.20 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00

<u <u o T3

T3 +J 'n

s CT CT

o CQ '—I

Q_ ro ro

(J (J 5

i o u o u

<u o (D TO (D ■M M— < ou <u T3 TO o

T3 s o C7 ■M ■M CÛ M CO o 4— <u +J +J ZJ CQ 'n CT '—I tfl CO C7

Q_ TO TO (J OD ro ro

I o (J o o (J o u Q u CQ o (J o I o (J o

u u (-J u u

<-J CQ

CO V in <

Figure 16: Contribution of key ingredients in reducing aggregated environmental impacts of different confectionery products

№ ON

: (N *H

" « §

O 01 ? $

£ * m oi

ui ois

J O. Q

Figure 4: Contribution of different environmental impact categories on total change from the transition to 100% RE.

2.00% 1.80% ¡ç 1.60%

= 1.40%

S 1.20% =

"g 1.00%

1 0.80%

w 0.60%

0.40% 0.20% 0.00%

I Zero FW to landfill I 50% FW reduction

Zero FW to landfill + 50% FW reduction

.Il .11

Fruit Pastille Tube

RoloTube Matchmakers Tray Breakaway Bar Caramacbar

Figure 19: Comparison of food reduction options on reducing total GWP for different confectionery products.

£i 3.50 E

75 3.00 -

£ 2.50

| 2.00

5 1.50 ■a 01

~ 1.00 Bg 01

fe 0.50

< 0.00

Figure 20: Comparison of aggregated environmental impact before and after improvement strategies