Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

A comprehensive review of carbon footprint analysis as an extended

environmental indicator in the wine sector
Benedetto Rugani a, *, Ian Vázquez-Rowe a, Graziella Benedetto b, Enrico Benetto a
a
Public Research Centre Henri Tudor (CRPHT)/Resource Centre for Environmental Technologies (CRTE), 6A, Avenue des Hauts-Fourneaux, L-4362 Esch-sur-
Alzette, Luxembourg
b
Department of Science for Nature and Environmental Resources, University of Sassari, Via Piandanna 4, I-07100 Sassari, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Currently, carbon footprint (CF) analysis is gaining a role of primary interest within the extensive
Received 20 December 2012 literature regarding wine sustainability issues. It envisages the quantification of greenhouse gas emis-
Received in revised form sions that underpin the life-cycle of wine, from viticulture and vinification to wine bottling, distribution,
28 April 2013
consumption and waste end-of-life. This critical review pursues several methodological and conceptual
Accepted 28 April 2013
Available online 9 May 2013
issues behind wine carbon footprinting, such as calculation approaches, labeling and standardization
purposes, combinations with other methods and theories, and CF trends in the wine sector. Most studies
have only addressed specific methodological issues from an attributional life-cycle perspective, or have
Keywords:
Carbon footprint (CF)
directly reported the CF profile of a given wine product. Future studies, however, will have to deal with
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) increasingly complex market interactions linked to the entire life cycle of wine-making. A comprehensive
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) discussion is presented concerning the benefits the CF indicator may provide both to producers and
Viticulture consumers and on the needs for reducing uncertainties and misinterpretations within a growing glob-
Wine alized wine market.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction production phase (Estreicher, 2004). However, changing social

Wine production constitutes one of the most ancient industries
in the agri-food sector, providing important economic revenues in
many regions worldwide. Wine consumption has been linked in
many cases to religious and pagan celebrations. Moreover, an entire
culture around wine tasting has developed on a global scale. These
issues have slowly created a demand for higher quality standards for
commercial wines and an increasing competition between wine
brands, appellations or wineries to attain consumer recognition and
quality awards. Consequently, improvements in wine quality and a
growing number of appellations have resulted in a steady decrease
in wine production in Europe since the early 1980s (OIV, 2010).
Standardized quality criteria in the wine sector initiated in the
18th century in Hungary, Italy and Portugal (UNESCO, 2012), where
the first appellations were created. These first criteria were linked
mainly to soil characteristics, sun hours or the risk of developing
fungus such as Botrytis cinerea, and were possible thanks to im-
provements in cultivation methods and technology in the wine
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ352 425 991 682.
E-mail addresses: benedetto.rugani@tudor.lu, benedettorugani@yahoo.it
(B. Rugani).
demands and expectations have progressively widened these
criteria over the decades. For instance, recent efforts to categorize
aspects linked to wine quality include harvest year, age, aroma,
region, reputation or color (Botonaki and Tsakiridou, 2004; Jover
et al., 2004).
However, the increase in consumer interest concerning the
environmental profile of consumption products, especially those
linked to the food and beverages sector, as well as pressures from
local communities and governments have started a race to
disseminate environmentally relevant results in order to improve
market quota or consumer satisfaction (Garnett, 2007; McLaughlin,
2007). The mounting concern regarding increases in greenhouse
gases (GHGs) with the potential to modify regional climate patterns
has prompted many firms to move toward sustainable grape
growing and wine production practices (Soosay et al., 2012).
Therefore, improvement actions in terms of energy and water
consumption, pesticide use and the polluting effects that these
inputs may have on the biosphere have centered recent research
activities (Marshall et al., 2005). With the aim of performing an
integrated assessment of the different environmental problems
linked to wine production, certain environmental management
tools, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), have been implemented
(ISO, 2006a; EU, 2010).

0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.036
62 B. Rugani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77
Wine LCA studies have proved to be useful methods to account
for the environmental burdens associated with the different life
cycle stages of wine (Petti et al., 2010; Neto et al., 2013; Vázquez-
Rowe et al., 2013), thanks to the multiple impact categories that
can be considered. However, the holism and comprehensiveness of
LCA also presents disadvantages when it comes to reporting and
communicating results to stakeholders and the general public
(Weidema et al., 2008). Consequently, the development of single
issue indicators, such as water footprint or carbon footprint (CF),
has proliferated in life cycle thinking (Cu  
cek et al., 2012; Laurent
et al., 2012; Scipioni et al., 2012).
The appropriateness of using CF as a mechanism for commu-
nicating life cycle environmental results through eco-labeling has
been heavily discussed in literature because the LCA community is
wary of the risks linked to relying on one single environmental
impact for dissemination (Udo de Haes, 2006; Weidema et al.,
2008). However, they do acknowledge an increase in visibility of
life cycle thinking thanks to the popularity that CF has gained in the
market. In fact, two main factors can be highlighted as being
responsible for the acceptance of CF as a valid dissemination indi-
cator by the LCA community. On the one hand, public interest in
global warming is overwhelming in comparison to other environ-
mental concerns. On the other hand, despite the misleading
depiction that a sole indicator may have on reporting results, CF is
strongly linked to energy use and may therefore represent other
underlying environmental impacts (Weidema et al., 2008). To
better understand the role of this single indicator approach in the
dissemination of life cycle-oriented results, the main objective of
this critical review is to identify the key advantages and constraints
of using CF as an extended indicator in the wine sector based on
knowledge from existing publications and stakeholder actions.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Carbon footprint in the wine sector
CF is a worldwide standardized indicator of GHG emissions
throughout the life cycle phases of any goods, service or activity
according to the Kyoto Protocol and Life Cycle Thinking principles
(BSI, 2011a). CF has become extremely relevant both in the public
and private sectors because it is a useful and manageable tool for
identifying areas of emissions reduction and for driving necessary
changes to improve the eco-profile of products and the socio-
environmental awareness and responsibility of people and orga-
nizations. Further readings concerning the CF framework and the
strengths of product carbon footprinting can be found in BSI
(2011b), Finkbeiner (2009), Jensen (2012), Scipioni et al. (2012) or
EU (2007). In Section 3, a comprehensive review regarding CF ap-
plications in the wine supply chain is provided by analyzing studies
from existing literature based on assessment parameters, results
and conclusions.
2.2. Requirements for the literature review
2.2.1. Selection of studies
A total of 35 LCA and CF-related studies have been selected and
discussed according to the following criteria: scientific recognition,
international audience, method, system boundaries and data
requirement, and deliverable characteristics (see further in the
Supplementary information e SI e file, section S1). In general, the
variations of CO2 emissions from the wine making process are
attributable to technical differences linked to the methodological
frameworks and assumptions selected in each study, but may also
reflect the fact that there are substantial geographical differences
between appellations and wineries (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2013). In
fact, the geographic diversity increases variability in the wine
production process based on differing soil and climate character-
istics, production scales and efficiencies, and intended wine mar-
kets (low or high-end consumer cost) (Garnett, 2007). To account
for this variability, nine key issues intrinsically related to CF analysis
in the wine industry were identified from the selected literature
(Section 2.2.2).
2.2.2. Key investigation issues
Several aspects were explored to evaluate the use of CF as a
single indicator throughout the 35 studies reviewed. In order to
examine what improvements can be made to CF in terms of data
sources and uncertainty reduction, methods (e.g. boundaries,
analysis type e attributional or consequential), calculations, tools,
standards, or specialization by viticulture and product type, we
identified and analyzed the following 9 key issues:
1. LCA Methodology and Inventory e CF is an environmental in-
dicator that originated from LCA. Therefore, the limitations,
assumptions and strengths underlying the LCA method directly
influence the use of CF. For instance, the reliability and repre-
sentativeness of results depend on the Functional Unit (FU) and
the background data sources to conduct the Life Cycle In-
ventory (LCI) and the subsequent Life Cycle Impact Assessment
(LCIA). The choice of life cycle perspective, usually oriented
toward an attributional LCA (A-LCA) (EU, 2010), also determines
the scope and the variability of CF results.
2. (Life Cycle) System Boundaries e The delimitation of the pro-
duction system constitutes a key issue when analyzing the
completeness and comparability of results in LCA studies. For
example, the use of a gate to gate perspective (e.g. from wine
making to wine bottling), may provide more accurate and
comparable CF scores, because data are usually collected within
the same appellation and for a limited number of production
processes. In contrast, phases including upstream agricultural
practices (e.g., organic farming, conventional viticulture, etc.),
transport, consumption and end-of-life processes usually need
to be modeled on the basis of several case studies and sce-
narios, which may depend on local scale conditions and on data
availability (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2013). Therefore, the vari-
ability of wine CF results across the literature may be strongly
influenced by the delineation of the system boundaries.
3. CF results (absolute and relative) e The performance (in terms
of GHG emissions) of each single process of the wine life-cycle
is useful to comprehensively interpret the discrepancies in the
absolute values of CF. The reviewed literature offers abundant
material for depicting an average estimation of CF per wine
bottle and per phase of production as a first global proxy.
4. Allocation criteria e Besides the bottled or bulk product, the life
cycle of a wine production system generates several biological
wastes, such as pomace or marc (i.e., pulpy material remaining
after pressing), grape lees (i.e., residues from the fermentation
process), or grape stalks. All these components can be consid-
ered co-products rather than just wastes because they may be
recovered and recycled/reused for other purposes (Barry, 2011;
Bosco et al., 2011; Da Porto, 1998; Hwang et al., 2009; Miralles
et al., 2008; Valderrama et al., 2010; Vázquez-Rowe et al.,
2012a). Therefore, allocation criteria become a key issue in this
review, where studies should suggest if splitting the CF among
co-products (and not just wine) is a reasonable procedure.
5. Product type e Wine types, brands and appellations show a
high degree of variability worldwide (e.g. red, white or rosé
wine; sweet or dry; etc.). This large variability is likely to have
an important influence on the CF results and on its adaptability
to the different production systems.
 B. Rugani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77
6. Viticulture Practices e This aspect is related to the cutting-edge
debate regarding organic vs. conventional agricultural practices.
In the wine sector, a certificate for organic viticulture can be
obtained if the farmer avoids using synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides according to specific standards and regulations (NOP,
2012; BFA, 2010; CGSB, 2006). In addition, organic production
may also differ from conventional activities in the tillage prac-
tice and the level of organic carbon added to the soil (Venkat,
2012). The most recent European standards focus mainly on
the problem of SO2 levels and the application of certain addi-
tives, substances and wine-making processes (EU, 2012). In
contrast, criteria for reducing GHG emissions are not monitored
through these regulations, and thus distinctions between
organic and conventional varieties are not based on CF moni-
toring. Consequently, organic practices may not necessarily lead
to lower CF values than conventional, more agricultural inten-
sive viticulture (Schlich, 2010; Van Hauwermeiren et al., 2007;
Venkat, 2012).
7. CF calculations, methods, standards and tools e Several GHG
accounting standards, protocols and requirements have been
publicly disclosed to support companies in the monitoring and
reporting of their products’ CF. A commonly used and repre-
sentative standard is ISO 14040, which provides robust and
practice-proven requirements for performing transparent and
accepted CF calculations (EU, 2007). ISO 14040 is also the basis
to elaborate other specifications established for the assessment
of GHG emissions of products and systems, such as the PAS
2050 (BSI, 2011a), the GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Ac-
counting and Reporting Standard (WRI and WBCSD, 2011), and
the ISO 14067 (still under development; ISO, 2014). Deeper
analysis related to the similarities and discrepancies between
these guidelines, as well as their advantages and limitations, is
outside the scope of this critical review, but there is ample
literature that may be consulted (Jensen, 2012; Pattara et al.,
2012; Scipioni et al., 2012; Barry, 2011; Bosco et al., 2011;
Brandão and Levasseur, 2011; Pandey et al., 2011; Iribarren
et al., 2010; Del Borghi et al., 2009; Finkbeiner, 2009; Sinden,
2009). In the current review, analysis linked to the underly-
ing CF computational procedures, calculators and reporting
guidelines represents a meaningful issue to define the needs
and challenges for CF standardization in the wine sector.
8. Biogenic carbon e The handling of biogenic carbon balances in
LCA is noteworthy and constitutes an issue of great interest in
the sustainability and climate science community. Accounting
for CO2 at each stage of the life cycle offers the advantage of
allowing the dynamic modeling of emission and removal,
making the analysis consistent with the ‘polluter pays’ princi-
ple and the Kyoto rules, implying that each GHG contribution
(positive or negative) should be allocated to the causing agent
(Rabl et al., 2007). In fact, viticulture and vinification are
intrinsically related to a biogenic carbon balance because car-
bon is sequestered during vine growth (Martin, 1997; Poni
et al., 2006; Soja et al., 2010) and released during the alco-
holic fermentation of wine. The anaerobic reaction of yeasts
with the sugar contained in pressed grapes (wine fermenta-
tion) is of particular importance because it generates the
alcoholic content of wine and CO2 emissions. Hence, the rela-
tionship between biogenic carbon and its influence on the
CF balance and use remains unclear and deserves further
examination.
9. Uncertainty e Uncertainty is a relevant issue in LCA and CF
analysis (Pandey et al., 2011; Laurent et al., 2012; Lenzen,
2006). For example, while data for CO2 and CH4 are usually
readily available or easily gathered, difficulties arise in data
acquisition for the remaining GHGs and uncertainties are
63
increased with the use of GWPs (Wright et al., 2011; Guinée
et al., 2009; IPCC, 2006). Moreover, a debate is currently on-
going in terms of the meaning and representativeness of the
word ‘footprint’, where uncertainties and errors would arise if
converting the total emissions from carbon-equivalent mass to
a land-based metric (Cu  
cek et al., 2012; Wright et al., 2011;
Wiedmann and Minx, 2008). In LCA, the data quality re-
quirements should address information uncertainty (e.g., data,
models and assumptions) for studies used in comparative as-
sertions intended for public divulgation (ISO, 2006b). Similarly,
ISO 14067 and the GHG Protocol Product Standard recommend
providing at least a qualitative statement related to the source
of inventory uncertainty and methodological choices, giving
opportunities for harmonization with PAS 2050, which
currently claims that uncertainty should be minimized through
the application of data-quality requirements and hence the
identification of poor-quality data (BSI, 2011b). All these issues
are relevant to assess how uncertainty, if any, influences the CF
of wine throughout the literature reviewed.
3. Results
Wine CF has been calculated on the basis of different data
sources and methodological assumptions, such as LCA and related
inventory datasets, GHGs analysis guidelines and CF calculators.
Most studies have been based on LCA applications, according to the
impact characterization phase, where Global Warming Potential
(GWP) scores are assessed. Nevertheless, great variability in the
definition of the FU and in the choice of the environmental impact
categories that accompany GWP in the assessment (i.e. GWP is the
only impact category present in all the analyzed studies) can be
observed, together with differences in the assessment of the
environmental impacts of co-products, the management of allo-
cation, or the choice of analyzing processes such as packaging and
end-of-life (Petti et al., 2010).
3.1. LCA literature results
3.1.1. LCA methodology and inventory
Table 1 compares the LCA characteristics (i.e., FU, system
boundary, LCI, LCIA methods, database and tools, and allocation
criteria) for 35 inventoried studies, 24 of which are merely based on
an LCA application.
A total of 16/24 studies are explicitly based on a conventional A-
LCA perspective. In parallel, 63% of the reviewed studies used
common LCA tools and databases. These resources include dedi-
cated softwares like GaBi4 (PE International, 2012) and SimaPro
(PRé Consultants, 2012), LCIA methodologies like CML 2001 (Guinée
et al., 2002) and Eco-Indicator ‘99 (Goedkoop and Spriensma,
2000), and LCI datasets such as ecoinventÒ (The Ecoinvent
Centre, 2012). Other types of methodological criteria have also
been tested recently. These include specific selections of LCI data to
enhance the process operational efficiency analysis (Vázquez-Rowe
et al., 2012b) or the use of lab-experiments to add specific agro-
nomic information to the LCI models (Ruggieri et al., 2009).
Moreover, 22 studies explicitly refer to one single FU: a 0.75 L bottle
of wine, which is a highly consistent way of meeting the purpose of
LCA to name and quantify efficiently the qualitative and quantita-
tive aspects of the function(s) (see in EU, 2010) in the wine pro-
duction process (Table 1). All these life-cycle modeling features
increase the comparability of the CF results between the various
LCA-based analyses. However, disparate assumptions for data
collection and elaboration have been adopted that largely charac-
terize the different studies. For instance, the highest total CF scores
(>3 kg CO2-eq./FU) are usually recorded when various sources for
Table 1

64
Comparison of the life-cycle modeling and carbon footprint characteristics across #35 studies in the wine production sector. Further details are available in the supporting information material, Tables S1eS3.

Study Functional LCA-related Databaseb Softwareb Methodb Allocation System boundaries

unit approachb criteria
Vineyard Viticulture Wine Packaging Transport Storage End-of-
planting & grape making processes & distribution and life
growing consumption processes

Aranda et al., Bottle 0.75 L A-LCA Various dataset sources SimaPro 5 Eco-Indicator’99 H/A n.e.c. U U U U U U
2005 implemented
in SimaPro, e.g. IDEMAT,
BUWAL,
ETH-ESU, etc.
Ardente Bottle 0.75 L POEMS; Various dataset sources, n.s. n.a. n.s.: mass U U U U
et al., 2006 (Simplified) e.g. Boustead, allocation
LCA GEMIS, DMU, etc. apparently
adopted
(bottled vs.
loose wine)
Barry, 2011 Bottle 0.75 L A-LCA GaBi professional, GaBi4 CML 2001 Allocation U U U U U
PlasticsEurope, etc. avoided

B. Rugani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77

Benedetto, Bottle 0.75 L A-LCA EDIP database GaBi4 CML 2001 Only mass U U U U
2010 allocation
between
bulk and
bottled
wine
Bosco et al., Bottle 0.75 L A-LCA GaBi professional; GaBi4 GWP from CML 2001; Stalks, U U U U U U
2011 oriented to a Ecoinvent database 2009 direct and indirect IPCC- skins, pips:
CF analysis GHGs from fertilizers mass
allocation
Carballo Bottle 0.75 L n.a. CO2 emissions estimated n.a. MC3 (method composed n.e.c. U U U U U U
Penela from energy- of financial accounts)
et al., 2009 intensity and land-use
factors
Carta, 2009 Bottle 0.75 L A-LCA Ecoinvent database; SimaPro 7.3 IPCC 2007 n.e.c. U U U U
EMEP-Corinair
Emission factors
Cholette and 6-Bottles box n.a. n.a. CargoScopeÔ Life-cycle GHGs and n.e.c. U
Venkat, transported energy use analysis
2009 a according to ISO 14040,
PAS 2050, and GHG
Protocol
CIV, 2008 1 L wine LCA for EPD Various LCI datasets, i.e. SimaPro 7 n.s. n.e.c. U U U U U U
Ecoinvent,
BUWAL, ETH-ESU
Colman and Bottle 0.75 L n.a. Various emission factors n.a. Development of a n.e.c. U U U U U
Päster, 2009 to calculate Carbon Calculator model
GHGs, e.g. taken from
GHG protocol,
CE Delft et al., 2006; etc.
Comandaru Bottle 0.75 L A-LCA Ecoinvent database SimaPro 7.3 Eco-Indicator’99; n.e.c. U U U U U U U
a
et al., 2012 addition of a new
water impact category
in the “AoP-resources”
Gazulla Bottle 0.75 L A-LCA GaBi professional GaBi4 CML 2001 Pomace, U U U U U
et al., 2010 lees and
press syrup;
economic
allocation
(98.5% to
F.U.)
Gonzalez 1 L wine (Stand Various LCI datasets SimaPro 6.0 Eco-Indicator n.e.c. U U U U U
et al., 2006 alone) LCA stored in SimaPro, e.g. ’99 v2.03 E/E
Ecoinvent, Idemat, ETH-
ESU, þ EPD sources, etc.
Greenhaigh Bottle 0.75 L n.a. Use of several GHG n.a. GHG product No U U U U U U
et al., 2011 emission factors accounting allocation
collected from the guidelines for issues
literature the wine identified
industry, NZ
Kavargiris 1 ha n.a. GWPs n.a. IPCC-GHG n.e.c. U
et al., 2009 inventory
Montedonico, Bottle 0.75 L A-LCA Ecoinvent database SimaPro 5 Eco-Indicator n.e.c. U U U U U
2005 a ’99; EPS

B. Rugani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77

2000; EDIP96
Neto et al., Bottle 0.75 L A-LCA Ecoinvent database SimaPro 7.3 CML 2002 n.e.c. U U U
2013
Notarnicola Bottle 0.75 L A-LCA Different LCI sources n.s. CML 1992 Mass U U U U
a
et al., 2003 of literature; and CML 2000 allocation
LCA databases n.s. between
bottled
wine and
pressed
wine
Pattara (¼in Petti LCA vs n.a. n.a. GWPs and Allocation U U U U
et al., 2012 et al., IWCC GHG emission criteria and
2006) factors: system
different expansion
sources tools not
available
in IWCC
Petti Bottle 0.75 L VerdEE: Various dataset sources, GaBi4 CML 2001 Mass U U U U
et al., 2006 streamlined e.g. I-LCA, allocation
LCA IDEMAT, LCA literature, between
etc. bulk and
bottled wine
Pizzigallo 1 t wine LCI vs. n.s. SimaPro 6 LCIA not n.e.c. U U U U U
et al., 2008 Emergy performed
analysis
Point et al., Bottle 0.75 L A-LCA Various dataset sources SimaPro CML 2 n.e.c. U U U U U U U
2012 for LCI inputs 7.1.6 baseline 2000
and emissions
Reich-Weiser Bottle 0.75 L n.a. Different sources of n.a. GHG impact n.e.c. U
et al., 2010 GHGs factors for analysis
transportation: DEFRA, of shipping
2008; and
Ecoinvent v2.1; CE Delft distribution
et al., 2006; etc. systems
Rugani 100 kg bulk A-LCA vs. Various dataset sources, GaBi4 CML 2001 n.e.c. U U U U
et al., 2009 wine Emergy e.g. EDIP
analysis database, LCA literature, etc.
(continued on next page)

65
Table 1 (continued )

66
Study Functional LCA-related Databaseb Softwareb Methodb Allocation System boundaries
unit approachb criteria
Vineyard Viticulture Wine Packaging Transport Storage End-of-
planting & grape making processes & distribution and life
growing consumption processes

Ruggieri 1 kg N LCA þ lab Various dataset sources, SimaPro CML 2 baseline n.e.c. U
et al., 2009 exp. and e.g. Ecoinvent, 7.0 2000 v2.02
economic LCA literature, etc.
estimations
SAWIA, 2004 1 t grape n.a. n.a.; GHGs are calculated n.a. AGO factors n.s. U U U
from energy and Methods
use, i.e. electricity, Workbook v.3
transport fuels
and stationary fuels
a
Schlich, 2010 Bottle 0.75 L A-LCA i.n.a. i.n.a. i.n.a. i.n.a. U U U U
Soja et al., 1 L wine n.a. n.a.; GHGs calculated n.a. GHGs inventory n.s. U U U U U
2010 from the (factors from
application of different different
models (e.g. RothC- literature

B. Rugani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77

model application and and dataset
IPCC-based estimations) sources)
Soosay i.n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Sustainable Impacts of U U U U U U U
a
et al., 2012 Value Chain byproducts
Analysis e reprocessing:
SVCA allocation
details
not disclosed
Vázquez-Rowe Bottle 0.75 L A-LCA Ecoinvent database; SimaPro CML 2 Mass U U U
et al., 2012a various other models 7.3 baseline 2000; allocation assumed in
and sources to estimate USEtox the winery
direct emissions, etc. stage
Vázquez-Rowe 1.1 kg grape A-LCA þ (¼in Vázquez-Rowe
SimaPro 7.3 (¼in Vázquez- n.e.c. U
et al., 2012b DEA (Data et al., 2012a) Rowe et
Envelopment al., 2012a)
Analysis)
Vázquez-Rowe Bottle 0.75 L A-LCA Ecoinvent database; EMEP- SimaPro 7.3 IPCC 2007 n.e.c. U U
et al., 2013 Corinair Emission factors
Venkat, 2012 1 kg of grape n.a. GHGs from agricultural FoodCarbon Life cycle n.e.c. U
soils and carbon sequest. ScopeÔ GHG
modeled based on the IPCC inventory
tier 1 guidelines according
(CarbonScopeDataÔ) to PAS 2050:
2008 and ISO
14040:2006
standards
WRAP, 2007 Bottle 0.75 L n.a. Source of emission n.a. CO2 emissions n.s. U U U U U
factors i) for transport inventory
processes: Smith analysis
et al. (2005) and ii) for
bottle production: n.s.
Zabalza et al., 100 L wine (Simplified) BUWAL 250 n.s. n.s. n.e.c. U U U U U U
2003 LCA

n.a. ¼ not applicable; n.s. ¼ not specified; n.e.c. ¼ not explicitly considered; i.n.a. ¼ information not available.
a
Studies that do not (or only partially) disclose absolute values of CF (i.e. they are excluded from the calculations provided in Fig. 1; see also Tables S1 and S2).
b
Full references for LCI databases, LCIA methods and other acronyms of data sources can be found in the information material.
 B. Rugani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77 67

GHG emissions and/or emission factors are mixed with LCI data- evaluation). On the other hand, a gate to gate perspective is usually
bases (Carballo Penela et al., 2009; Colman and Päster, 2009; developed when there is a precise aim of decisional support, ob-
Gonzales et al., 2006; Point et al., 2012; Ruggieri et al., 2009; tained by comparing different scenarios, or the LCA is not expressly
Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012a). In fact, the adoption of datasets within the scope priorities. Accordingly, 6 analyses have only dealt
other than conventional LCI sources such as ecoinventÒ is usually with a single process or stage within the life cycle to increase the
made to increase the accuracy and specificity of certain emission completeness of the CF study by addressing specific questions on
factors (e.g. for transportation or end-of-life) or the representa- the viticulture phase (Kavargiris et al., 2009; Venkat, 2012), trans-
tiveness and completeness of emission models which are possibly portation (Cholette and Venkat, 2009; Reich-Weiser et al., 2010),
missing (e.g. for in situ modeling of fertilizer emissions). Most of the and end-of-life (Ruggieri et al., 2009).
studies are intended to provide information on the critical steps of For boundary consistency, companies should reference the
LCA, to improve or update the eco-profile of different types of wine, currently available guidelines (see below) to calculate and report
or to combine and compare impact scores (see also Table S1 in the product CFs. Ultimately, boundary selection will depend on the
SI for additional information). It is worth highlighting that most objectives of the CF study. For example, the New Zealand guidelines
studies calculate a broad range of LCIA impact categories (e.g., po- for GHG reduction at the sector level (Greenhaigh et al., 2011) as-
tentials of acidification, eutrophication or resource depletion), sume that all processes from vineyard planting to consumption
including GWP, or are oriented to designing new or complementary should be included. However, a contract grape grower will only
indicators for the wine sector (Comandaru et al., 2012; Pizzigallo consider the annual growing and harvesting of grapes if the vini-
et al., 2008; Rugani et al., 2009). In contrast, some authors specif- fication activities are performed by another company. In addition,
ically address the problem of CF assessment (Bosco et al., 2011; GHG emissions related to vineyard construction, capital equipment,
Pattara et al., 2012; Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012a). The use of winery infrastructures, and retail and consumption processes are
different LCIA methods and software tools, however, does not ul- considered optional because they are either a one-time occurrence
timately influence the variability of CF values observed in the or are beyond the direct control of the wine company (Greenhaigh
literature. et al., 2011).

3.1.2. System boundaries 3.2. CF literature results

To analyze the completeness of the life-cycle evaluation, the
system boundaries of 35 studies were compared by dividing the 3.2.1. Worldwide estimated average
wine supply chain into six main processes according to the most The average CF values collected for 29 literature studies are
commonly applied framework (see Table 1). Independently of the shown in Fig. 1A. To assess the variability of the CF data, standard
FU, the cut-off processes and the method used, 14 studies quantify a deviation values were also quantified given the considerable
CF value for wine production from cradle to grave; 71% of these amount of data retrieved (see Table S2 in the SI). On average, the CF
studies assume that the use phase impacts are negligible (Gonzales for a generic bottle of wine is 2.2  1.3 kg CO2-eq. Given the vari-
et al., 2006). In contrast, 6 studies use a cradle to gate perspective, ability in technological, geographical and viticulture conditions and
with boundaries set at the gate of the winery, while another 8 the uncertainty they imply, Fig. 1 is essentially used here to give a
studies also model the transportation and distribution phase. The global proxy of the total CF distribution among the life cycle phases
choice of embedding a cradle to grave rather than a cradle to gate of wine production. According to this assumption, the contribution
approach mostly depends on data availability. While data are of the wine sector to the global annual CF of worldwide human
typically available for phases like viticulture and wine-making, activities can be roughly estimated as 0.3%, a value that should
which are the most representative of the wine LCA boundaries, definitely not be overlooked (see Table S4 in the SI).
sufficient information may not always be accessible to consistently
model transportation or end-of-life. As a consequence, for these 3.2.2. Contribution analysis of life cycle processes
latter phases, the variability of the CF values can be larger and more Viticulture activities (17%), packaging processes (22%) and end-
influenced by value choices (see Section 3.2.2 for more quantitative of-life (22%) are the most significant processes with regard to the

3.6 2.4
kg CO2- eq./wine bottled, 0.75 L

2.17 ± 1.34
3.2
1.36 ± 0.66
1.09 ± 0.83
kg CO2- eq./wine bottled, 0.75 L

2.8
1.06 ± 0.73
2.4
2.0 1.6
0.48 ± 1.02
1.6
0.47 ± 0.24
1.2 0.79 ± 0.30
0.38 ± 0.31 0.26 ± 0.29
0.8 0.26 ± 0.33 0.25 ± 0.29
0.07 ± 0.12
0.4
0.8
0.0

0.0
Red White Organic Conventional

A) B)
Fig. 1. A) average values and standard deviation range of the carbon footprint (CF) of wine per life cycle phase from a cradle to grave approach; 29 studies of wine life cycle are
considered starting from a selection of 35 studies (see Table 1 and Table S2 in the Supporting Information - SI - for further details); B) average values and standard deviation range of
the CF of different wine typologies (red vs. white) and agricultural practices of wine production (organic vs. conventional); the average CF scores are quantified from cradle to gate
(i.e. wine bottled at winery gate) starting from a selection of 22 studies (see Table S3 in the SI).
68 B. Rugani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77
total CF score (Fig. 1A). However, the CF values reported by Ruggieri
et al. (2009) for two landfill scenarios greatly influence the vari-
ability and increase the average end-of-life score (see Fig. 1A and
Table S2 in the SI). In fact, if these values are excluded from the
analysis, results change considerably in terms of absolute value and
variability, i.e., the contribution from end-of-life management de-
creases to 12% (see Fig. S2 in the SI). The large uncertainty in CF
scores for the life cycle processes is dependent on the same issues
identified for LCA studies. For example, large variability was
observed in results for wine-making, transportation and end-of-
life. These processes are influenced by assumptions made when
modeling the technology, industry, and market rather than by the
local ecosystems and physico-chemical parameters that control
agricultural processes. In the latter case, local climate conditions,
land texture and different agricultural practices and grape types
will determine yields, which can substantially differ between har-
vest years (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012a), products (Bosco et al.,
2011; Pizzigallo et al., 2008) and locations (Montedonico, 2005;
Colman and Päster, 2009; Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2013).
3.3. Allocation strategy
The problem of allocating the CF-impact among wine products
(high vs. low quality wines, the latter derived from second grape-
juice pressing) and co-products is limited by the scope of the
analysis and the definition of the FU (Notarnicola et al., 2003). Only
some authors explicitly address the allocation problem by applying
specific cut-off rules and criteria to avoid assigning the full impact
burden exclusively to the bottled wine. Gazulla et al. (2010) allo-
cated the calculated environmental indicators to the co-products of
wine on the basis of the associated economic revenues. As a result
of an allocation larger than 98%, the total CF was essentially due to
only wine production rather than pomace, lees and press syrup.
This allocation criterion is justified by the authors stating that
economic allocation can reflect the actual thrust behind the whole
wine industry much better than either mass- or energy-based allo-
cation, because the main product by far is obviously wine itself and not
any of the other by-products (Gazulla et al., 2010). In contrast, Bosco
et al. (2011) applied a mass allocation approach to assign a CF
impact to stalk, skin and pip products. In this case, we can observe
an increase of CF from 24% to 34% if the allocation is applied 100% to
bottled wine only (see Footnotes to Table S2 in the SI), which may
approximately demonstrate the extent to which we can estimate
the variability of CF results on the basis of different allocation
criteria. Finally, a third group of studies explicitly excluded treat-
ment of rasp, lees and marc as solid waste by considering them
feedstock for other production processes (e.g., compost from rasps
and tartaric acid from marc) (Notarnicola et al., 2003). This is a
general case in which the mass allocation choice can determine a
decrease in the CF of the bottled wine, because the model assumes
co-products are recovered and not disposed.
Literature findings suggest co-product allocation has not been
analyzed any further due to the lack of useful data and information
to expand the evaluation of the system boundaries. Although ISO
standard 14044 (ISO, 2006b) recommends avoiding allocation
whenever possible, through either system subdivision or expan-
sion, Gazulla et al. (2010) found that neither of these strategies was
viable in their case study. The grape residues and fermentation
sediments cannot be produced separately, so it makes no sense to
divide the wine-making process into two or more independent
sub-processes. Moreover, detailed information was unavailable
regarding the alternative products that could be replaced by
pomace, lees, and press syrup, making an appropriate system
expansion unfeasible (Gazulla et al., 2010). Similarly, Vázquez-
Rowe et al. (2012a) failed to expand the system to include the
avoided emissions from the landfill, because this would imply
going back to waste disposal measures that are not recommended
by current waste policy legislation in Spain. As a result, the compost
process they included in the LCI model substantially increased the
CF value of the wine under analysis (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012a). If
compost production were excluded assuming these impacts are
attributable to waste treatment phase of prior processes, then the
CF could be reduced by 38%.
3.4. Product type
The literature analyzed includes the evaluation of several types
and brands of wine, which derive from different viticulture prac-
tices and from a variety of grapevines (Jackson, 2009). A compari-
son of average CF values for both wine type (red vs. white) and
viticulture practice (organic vs. conventional) is shown in Fig. 1B
based on data from 19 studies (see Table S3 in the SI). For the
purpose of comparison, CF values were calculated from cradle to
gate. It can be observed that white wines typically have higher CF
values than red ones, despite the higher variability of the latter
(SD ¼ 76%, Fig. 1B). Several factors may help explain this variance,
though finding a general rule is not easy due to the multiple
abovementioned factors. For example, harvest yield could play an
important role because yields for white varieties are usually higher
than those for red ones, but may require more inputs per unit of
crop area (Venkat, 2012). However, while some authors have
analyzed both white and red wines (Bosco et al., 2011; Point et al.,
2012; Carta, 2009; Colman and Päster, 2009), or vine systems of
white and red grapes (Venkat, 2012), none specifically focused on
identifying the sources of variability between the two types, a po-
tential topic for future research in this area.
3.5. Viticulture practices
Numerous studies have explicitly compared organic and con-
ventional wine productions (Gonzales et al., 2006; Kavargiris et al.,
2009; Pizzigallo et al., 2008; Rugani et al., 2009; Aranda et al.,
2012; Venkat, 2012; Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2013). The average CF
value for organic wine from cradle to gate was found to be around
25% lower than conventional wine (Fig. 1B). However, this result
should not be considered unconditionally. It is worth noting that
LCIs for specialized organic inputs to agriculture and associated
emission factors after application are generally not available (see
also in Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2013). Therefore, the absence of these
datasets should not be interpreted as providing “no impact”, but as
a lack of ability to quantify those impacts or benefits. Current
literature suggests that increased CF values for conventional wines
are linked to a higher use of synthetic substances and other inputs
(e.g., diesel, wood) during the agricultural phase (Niccolucci et al.,
2008; Point et al., 2012; Pizzigallo et al., 2008), as well as other
factors including wine age (Bosco et al., 2011; Gazulla et al., 2010;
Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2013), bunch selection (Niccolucci et al.,
2008), and harvest year (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012a). In
contrast, other authors find that GHG emissions show relatively
minimal differences between the two due to the higher yield of
conventional viticulture (Colman and Päster, 2009). This is even
more noticeable on a large scale, where conventional grape
growing and wine-making practices may result in marginally less
GHG emissions per hectare than in the case of organic production
(Venkat, 2012; Pizzigallo et al., 2008; Waye, 2008; Aranda et al.,
2012). Consequently, the interpretation of CF values remains too
uncertain and inexplicit when comparing viticulture practices,
while at the same time it is associated with many other envi-
ronmental factors involved in the organic vs. conventional debate
(e.g. impact on local riparian habitats, biodiversity loss, soil type,
 B. Rugani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77 69

etc.) (Colman and Päster, 2009). These could directly or indirectly
influence the dynamics of carbon emissions in the life cycle and
thus be worthy of inclusion in future CF assertions of organic and
conventional wines.
3.6. CF calculations, methods, standards, and tools
As depicted in Table 2, wine CFs reporting is centered around the
ISO 14040 and 14044 standards, although only some authors have
explicitly followed those standards (Barry, 2011; Bosco et al., 2011;
Cholette and Venkat, 2009; Soja et al., 2010; Venkat, 2012).
Table 2 also lists other A-LCA oriented guidelines and standards
that can be potentially applied in the carbon footprint of wine, such
as the PAS 2050, the GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting
and Reporting Standard, or the forthcoming ISO 14067. However,
methods that do not necessarily follow an A-LCA perspective also
exist (Carballo Penela et al., 2009; Pattara et al., 2012; Reich-Weiser
et al., 2010; WRAP, 2007), but may range from carbon calculators to
classical IPCC GHG-based analyses (see Table 1). In the former case,
software is developed to allow stakeholders to calculate and
monitor their CF trends in an automatic and simplified way, while
in the latter case different emission factors enable the profiling of

Table 2
Summary of potential international standardization tools and guidelines to report carbon footprint in the wine sector.

Standard/Reporting guideline Scope and objectives Alignment with carbon Adoption in the wine sector
footprint concept

British standard PAS 2050:2011 Publicly available specification Full Yes/No Venkat, 2012 (via
(BSI, 2011a) for the assessment of the life FoodCarbonScopeÔ)
cycle GHG emissions of goods
and services based on key life
cycle techniques and principles
(explicitly built on ISO 14040)
GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Step-by-step guide for Full Yes/No Cholette and Venkat,
Accounting and Reporting companies to use in quantifying 2009 (via Cargo
Standard (WRI and WBCSD, 2011) and reporting their GHG ScopeÔ);Colman
emissions and Päster, 2009
(data source of GHG
emission factors)
ISO 14001:2004 e Environmental Certification process for Indirect (organizations Yes/No Ardente et al., 2006
Management System (EMS) environmental management, can monitor GHGs (via POEMS);Hughey
established as a voluntary performance and et al., 2005
standard to support environmental adopt solutions for
protection and prevent emission reduction)
pollution through monitoring
according to organization’s
environmental policies
ISO 14040:2006 e Environmental Guidelines on the principles Partial/Full (CF as Yes Barry, 2011;Bosco
Management e Life Cycle and conduct of LCA studies GWP indicator can be et al., 2011; Cholette
Assessment e Principles and that provide an organization included within the and Venkat, 2009;
Framework (ISO, 2006a) with information on how to set of analyzed LCIA Soja et al., 2010;
ISO 14044:2006 e Environmental reduce the overall environmental indicators or accounted Venkat, 2012
Management e Life Cycle impact of its products and services for separately)
Assessment e Requirements
and Guidelines (ISO, 2006b)
ISO 14025:2006 e Environmental Specifically established to use ISO Yes CIV, 2008
labels and declarations e Type 14040 in the development of
III environmental declarations Environmental Product
e Principles and procedures Declarations (EPD), eco-labels
(ISO, 2006c) intended for use in business-to-
business communication
Greenhouse gases-Parts 1e3: International GHG accounting Partial/Full (the scope Yes NZWC, 2010
Family of ISO 14064 (see ISO, and verification standards is to address carbon
2006d) providing a set of clear and emissions only but with
verifiable requirements to criteria different from
support organizations and other full CF alignments)
proponents of GHG emission
reduction projects
Carbon footprint of products e Will provide specific requirements Full (developed to No e
Requirements and guidelines for the quantification and increase transparency
for quantification and communication of GHGs in quantifying and
communication (ISO/DIS associated with products reporting carbon
14067.2 e Under development; emissions over the
ISO, 2013) entire lifecycle of
products and services)
International Wine Carbon Calculator Designed primarily as an enterprise Full Yes Pattara et al., 2012;
Protocol (FIVS, 2010) and/or facility level calculating Soja et al., 2010
tool for the International Wine
Industry in compliance with
current international standards
and practices for GHG accounting
Method composed of financial Method to assess and Full Yes Carballo Penela
statements (MC3) (Carballo-Penela communicate CF of products et al., 2009
and Doménech, 2010) with an organization-based LCA
perspective
70 B. Rugani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77
the CF of wine according to various guidelines and protocols listed
in Table 2 (IPCC, 2006; Russell, 2011). Among the several existing
carbon calculators for products (e.g. FoodCarbonScopeÔ; in:
Cholette and Venkat, 2009; CargoScopeÔ; Venkat, 2012; Tables 1
and 2), some are specifically implemented to assess the CF of
wine. For example, the International Wine Carbon Calculator-IWCC
is a wine industry specific GHG protocol and calculator in compli-
ance with international GHG accounting guidelines such as PAS
2050 (Pattara et al., 2012; Soja et al., 2010). Because of the highly
enterprise-oriented scope of IWCC, results from the application of
this calculator seem to be consistent only for communication pur-
poses and improvement at the specific wine industry level. As
comprehensively observed by Pattara et al. (2012), CF values
calculated with IWCC are scarcely comparable to classical LCA-
based results because of several departures underlying IWCC and
LCA with regard to modeling assumptions (e.g. use of different GHG
emission factors, system boundary, etc.) and the aggregation of
items per life cycle phase. In fact, results can differ substantially in
absolute terms, i.e. CF/FU calculated with IWCC >40% of CF/FU
calculated with LCA (see Table 1 in Pattara et al., 2012). Moreover,
the process contributions are extremely variable, whereby they are
compliant across IWCC and LCA only in that the greatest contri-
bution in terms of emissions (more than 70%) arrives from pack-
aging, followed by product distribution and agricultural operations
(Pattara et al., 2012).
Besides these calculator and reporting systems, other authors
(Colman and Päster, 2009; Greenhaigh et al., 2011; Kavargiris et al.,
2009; Reich-Weiser et al., 2010; SAWIA, 2004; Soja et al., 2010;
WRAP, 2007) computed the CF of wine with GHG emission factors
for fuel production and combustion, fertilizer use and energy
generation (WRI and WBCSD, 2011; DEFRA, 2008; CE Delft et al.,
2006; IPCC, 2006; Smith et al., 2005; AGO, 2004; Table 1). Most
of the latter sources are usually applied in programs of GHG ac-
counting and policy support on different scales of product and
economic system. Therefore, they include a set of GHG emission
factors that can be used to assess wine CF in combination and/or
as alternative databases to traditional LCI frameworks, although
this could imply reduction in the accuracy and representativeness
of the inventoried inputs, as well as substantial discrepancies in
the final CF results. Whilst it is obviously difficult to evaluate the
extent to which CF is varying depending on the use of different
GHG inventory tools, some observations can be made. For
example, it is worth noting that emissions from specific life cycle
processes such as lime and nitrogen application in viticulture soils,
when emission factors from the IPCC method are used, can greatly
influence the record of total wine CF (around 25% in Point et al.,
2012, or around 50% in Neto et al., 2013). However, when only
ecoinventÒ is used, GHG emissions from these phases can show
lower relative contributions in comparison with the GHG emis-
sions generated by fossil fuel-based processes, although these are
clearly dependent on the inventoried input (Vázquez-Rowe et al.,
2013).
The use of generic emission factors seems a reasonable way of
estimating process CF at least to cover possible gaps in the LCI.
However, trusted emission factors, in particular estimating trans-
portation emissions relative to total CF, can vary depending on
sources and assumptions of the study, regional variability in fuels,
and regional variability in vehicles. Therefore, the use of these es-
timates for conclusive results is risky (Reich-Weiser et al., 2010).
Similar conclusions can be drawn for the estimates of emissions for
fertilizers, where considerations are usually omitted about fertilizer
application timing, soil characteristics, and climatic conditions at
the time of application, all of which could be important factors for a
more detailed analysis of a vineyard’s nutrient flow dynamics
(Point et al., 2012; Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2013).
3.7. Biogenic carbon issues
Despite the potential relevance of biogenic carbon emissions for
the wine CF calculation (see Section 2.2.2), only 5 out of the 35
studies reviewed quantitatively accounted for biogenic emissions.
For example, CO2 emissions from fermentation contributed from
15% to 24% of the CF of the vinification process and, thus, circa 2e3%
to the total CF of white wine. This observation is compliant with the
findings of Colman and Päster (2009) and Neto et al. (2013), while it
is only comparable to the calculations performed by Zabalza et al.
(2003). Indeed, they found that fermentation produces 0.13 kg of
CO2 emissions per liter of wine, which represents 9% of the total life
cycle CO2 emissions. However, they did not account for GHGs other
than CO2. On the other hand, Soosay et al. (2012) observed that
viticulture in the vineyards may provide up to 28% of the emissions
due to decomposing biomass, timber decay and sequestration
linked to vine growth and sugar production in the grapes. However,
the authors did not disclose any additional information to support a
comprehensive understanding of the impact due to these biogenic
emissions.
As a result, the contribution from biogenic carbon emissions to
the overall CF of wine is only marginal. Moreover, neither the bal-
ance with carbon removals during for example photosynthesis nor
the notion of time is usually taken into account. Indeed, the reason
for the widespread lack of biogenic carbon assessment can be
attributed to the common LCA practice of assigning an impartial
weighing between emission and removal activities. The general
belief is that fermentation is considered negative due to the CO2
sequestered by the vines and grape growth (Ardente et al., 2006;
Barry, 2011; Benedetto, 2010; Greenhaigh et al., 2011; Neto et al.,
2013; Notarnicola et al., 2003; Point et al., 2012; SAWIA, 2004;
Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012a) and that CO2 derived from the pro-
cesses of photosynthesis and must fermentation may be calculated
but excluded from the balance. This is either because it is part of the
short-term carbon cycle (e.g., CO2 from wine fermentation, emis-
sions from combustion or breakdown of vine pruning, etc.) (Pattara
et al., 2012) or because it is assumed to be equal to the amount of
CO2 released back into the atmosphere on account of the oxidation
of carbon contained in the pruning wastes and in the grapes (Neto
et al., 2013). Moreover, Bosco et al. (2011) explicitly excluded car-
bon emissions due to stalk degradation in soil on account of the
difficulties in obtaining a specific spatial estimate without a sam-
pling campaign or validated models. As a consequence, wine CF
usually includes only fossil-based GHG sources, although the
biogenic carbon issues (in particular with regard to carbon re-
movals) have been recently taken up by CF guidelines such as the
GHG Protocol Product Standard and PAS 2050 (see further in Sec-
tion S3.6 of the SI).
3.8. CF uncertainty
Only a small group of studies analyzed here dealt with uncer-
tainty issues related to the accuracy of model parameters, by per-
forming sensitivity analyses and evaluating the significance of key
inventory inputs, processes and emission factors used in wine LCA
(Bosco et al., 2011; Barry, 2011; Kavargiris et al., 2009;
Montedonico, 2005; Neto et al., 2013; Point et al., 2012; Venkat,
2012; Soja et al., 2010; Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012b). For instance,
Bosco et al. (2011) performed a sensitivity analysis in order to
validate the robustness of the LCA model, by applying a 20% SD
factor to the main parameters affecting the CF (e.g. electricity for
vinification, bottle weight, fuel consumption for field operation,
fertilizer in production, etc.), and a 70% SD factor to the N2O
emissions according to the uncertainty values reported in the IPCC
methodology (IPCC, 2006). They found that the most sensitive
 B. Rugani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77
parameters affecting CF were the harvest yield (potential change in
CF between 3 and 8%) and the glass bottle weight (potential change
in CF between 6 and 10%) for the four wine brands analyzed, which
ultimately allow to claim that the impact of the inputs per hectare is
affected by the yield obtained (Bosco et al., 2011). Similarly,
Montedonico (2005) and Point et al. (2012) applied different sce-
narios of container substitution and observed that the use of lighter
bottles could yield important environmental benefits, even greater
than those associated with the adoption of organic grape growing
practices. Moreover, Barry (2011) extended the sensitivity analysis
to a wider number of life cycle issues, varying parameters, such as
frost events, field-based spray emissions, harvest yield or energy
efficiency in the winery. However, authors could also provide
variability and error estimations with greater margin of accuracy
when the sample of available farms for data collection was
numerous (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012b; Soja et al., 2010; Kavargiris
et al., 2009).
Even though uncertainty analysis may add valuable information
regarding the uncertainties in food product CFs (Röös et al., 2011),
to date uncertainty in wine CF has not been treated in depth.
Therefore, the need to strengthen research toward a standardiza-
tion action for an acceptable level of uncertainty analysis and
reporting in the carbon footprinting of wine should be tackled in
future studies.
4. Discussion
4.1. Open research issues in the environmental assessment of wine
The study of wine CF is inherently linked to many other envi-
ronmental issues and management procedures as LCA has been
shown to provide contrasting information concerning a wide set of
impact categories. In Section 4.1, we identify a number of useful
insights with a view to improving the evaluation of wine CF.
4.1.1. The use of consequential LCA in the wine sector
A-LCA applied to the wine sector is primarily aimed at attributing
part of the total environmental burden of the economy to the wine
production processes, to allow companies to identify the ‘hot-spots’
or critical phases of the life cycle of wine and for communication
purposes (Aranda et al., 2005; Benedetto, 2010; Vázquez-Rowe
et al., 2013). Therefore, A-LCA is of particular relevance when the
aim of the wine firm is to reduce the CF of their product using
specific environmental strategies such as eco-labeling (Ardente
et al., 2006; CIV, 2008; Barry, 2011; Gonzales et al., 2006), mitiga-
tion of GHG emissions (Bosco et al., 2011), and, to a limited extent,
eco-design for the delivery of more environmentally sound products
(Petti et al., 2006). However, a CF indicator based on an A-LCA
approach disregards possible consequences on the market and
economic system engendered by large modifications in the wine
production system, e.g. following an eco-design approach. The
C-LCA approach was therefore proposed to evaluate the (direct and
indirect) environmental consequences generated by (large scale)
changes implemented on the production system, most often by
modeling the physical and market cause and effect chains origi-
nating from the decision to change the production system (Mason
Earles and Anthony Halog, 2011; Weidema, 2003; Marvuglia et al.,
2013).
None of the studies analyzed explicitly identifies the materials or
energy inputs in wine LCI which may indirectly affect the provision
of commodities for other production systems, nor do they take into
account the possible marginal effects on the market of increasing
or decreasing wine production. Wineries can have a limited share
of the total national wine production, so changes in their operations
would have limited to negligible consequences on the market
71
(Barry, 2011). Nevertheless, future research addressing CF evalua-
tion should definitely consider a larger scope including substitution
scenarios, thus enhancing the value of results interpretation in the
larger context of the agri-food and energy sectors (Vázquez-Rowe
et al., 2013). Broadening the scope of CF analysis by considering
the causal relationships of the wine life cycle processes to other
commodity supply-chains would provide winemakers with more
robust information to take decisions about their materials supply
and savings. In addition, the reuse or recycling of wine co-products
should be thoroughly assessed to enhance the characterization of CF
and consider positive and negative feedbacks to the wine product
itself. By including those effects that may occur outside the system
boundaries and affect other production systems, the C-LCA
perspective could provide a source of results enrichment through
the analysis of the consequences of changes in the levels of pro-
duction (Ekvall and Weidema, 2004; Thomassen et al., 2008).
A consequential approach applied to the wine sector would
certainly allows enhancing the utility of LCA (including CF assess-
ments) by providing policy making activities with concrete profiles
regarding the environmental consequences linked to future policy
amendments.
4.1.2. Labor inclusion in wine LCA
The contribution of human activities and in particular of Human
Labor (HL) to climate change is not usually included in LCA and CF
analyses (Rugani et al., 2012; Zhang and Dornfeld, 2007), despite
the fact that this phenomenon is directly and indirectly linked to
anthropogenic activities. In contrast, other environmental assess-
ment and embodied energy or exergy analysis methods (Fluck,
1992; Giampietro and Pimentel, 1990; Pimentel, 1993;
Krausmann, 2004; Sciubba et al., 2008) do explicitly evaluate the
role of HL as a resource input and its intrinsic influence on the final
production of specific goods or services. This is particularly true for
agricultural systems (Loake, 2001; Guzmán and Alonso, 2008) and
viticulture in particular (Gabzdylova et al., 2009; Trioli and
Hofmann, 2009; Delmas and Grant, 2008). In fact, the emergy
evaluation method (Odum, 1988) considers accounting for HL as an
integral part of the human-dominated systems analysis. Within the
emergy-oriented wine production analyses explored in this study,
the HL contribution to the total emergy of both organic and con-
ventional systems is highly relevant (Pizzigallo et al., 2008; Rugani
et al., 2009). HL can fully support the wine production during the
entire life cycle, and in turn consume resources and release emis-
sions. Based on this assumption, Rugani et al. (2012) determined
that 1 h of work can generate up to 0.4e0.5 kg CO2-eq through
hybridization between inputeoutput tables and LCI. The HL-based
CF component can provide information linked to the ‘indirect’ GHG
emissions associated with the goods and services used by the
person to live (Rugani et al., 2012). As a first approximation, this
contribution may line up to an additional 6% in the production of 1
bottle of wine (see Table S5 in the SI), a score which is eventually
noteworthy to bear in mind for future CF assertions (see Section
S3.3 in the SI for further analysis on HL).
4.1.3. Delving into the single-issue perspective of CF
Narrowing the focus on CF, rather than performing an integrated
environmental assessment of a cluster of different indicators, may
allow wine stakeholders to obtain straightforward solutions to
solve broad decisional questions in compliance with environmental
value improvement purposes. This is mainly due to the fact that
GHG emissions arise diffusely and massively throughout the most
relevant inputs of the wine life cycle system (e.g. energy and fuel
consumptions, fertilizers production and application, land use and
land use change, packaging products’ use and end-of-life, etc.). As a
matter of fact, CF may be perceived as the most significant indicator
72 B. Rugani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77
to assess the environmental sustainability of wine, at least when
considering impacts that have a global scale perspective.
However, wine producers have to face economic, institutional
and social risks, which can occur simultaneously and are not
commonly considered in climate change and viticulture assess-
ments (Hadarits et al., 2010). Therefore, the possibility of relying on
integrated sustainability analysis systems, such as the recently
proposed Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis (LCSA) framework
(Guinée et al., 2011), can become a necessity (see Section S3.4 in
the SI).
The natural step subsequent to the use of specific CF tools and
calculators is voluntary adaptation to ecolabeling standards. In this
respect, Mobius wine, from The New Zealand Wine Company
(NZWC) e Mobius Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc e is highly repre-
sentative because it constitutes the first certified wine for the
Australian and New Zealand markets with a Carbon Reduction La-
bel, which is an easily recognizable on-pack tag for consumers to
check whether the purchased wine is committed to reducing car-
bon emissions according to PAS 2050 and the Carbon Trust Code of
Good Practice (NZWC, 2010). Other environmental standards also
exist to enable wine companies to undertake voluntary processes of
certification, such as the adoption of certified Environmental
Management System (EMS) or Environmental Product Declaration
(EPD) (see Table 2), which include analysis of CO2 emissions while
broadening the scope of the impact assessment. For instance, the
Italian company CIV&CIV pioneered on a worldwide scale when it
obtained the first EPD and related Climate Declaration for its wine
Lambrusco Grasparossa doc Righi (CIV, 2008). In fact, wine com-
panies aligned with such or similar GHG reporting standards can
benefit notably from continuous CF monitoring and emission
reduction programs, improvements in the wine eco-profile and
industrial efficiency and increases in the attractiveness for con-
sumers (Delmas and Grant, 2008; Hughey et al., 2005; Röös and
Tjärnemo, 2011).
Nevertheless, an in-depth survey reveals that CF may benefit
significantly from being placed alongside other indicators to un-
cover issues that would be missed by focusing on GHGs alone. In
fact, some studies (Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012b) have not only
demonstrated the benefits of expanding on the environmental di-
mensions that are included from a life-cycle perspective, but have
also shown that the interpretation of results and discussion of
environmental assessment studies in the wine sector may benefit
from applying integrated methodologies, in which CF or LCA are
combined with external tools (e.g. Geographic Information Systems
e GIS) with the objective of enhancing a specific research question.
A common practice to allow mutual assertions and scope benefits
for CF reporting is to combine LCA with other methodological ap-
proaches (Table 1), such as Emergy (to enhance ecosystem services’
biophysical evaluation; Pizzigallo et al., 2008; Rugani et al., 2009;
Neri et al., 2012), Data Envelopment Analysis-DEA (to identify wine
production operational efficiencies, see Section S3.5 in the SI;
Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012b), lab experiments and benefit-cost es-
timations (Ruggieri et al., 2009), the use of key performance in-
dicators such as management systems, environmental investment
costs, amount of wastes or water consumption, or biodiversity
areas (SAWIA, 2004), and the analysis of trade-offs between envi-
ronmental benefits in the wine supply chain and the consumer
perceptions of wine product value (Soosay et al., 2012). Other
strategies, such as Product-Oriented Environmental Management
Systems (POEMS), aim at individualizing the ‘hot spots’ of the
production chain across the entire wine life cycle, to foster dialog
among stakeholders, while implementing efficient improvement
strategies (Ardente et al., 2006). In these cases, the strength of using
not only one single indicator, but a larger range of metrics is un-
challenged and adds several advantages to the consistency of
information behind an environmental certificate. Comparing and
reporting CF with indicators or techniques other than LCA can ul-
timately i) support the identification of hidden critical aspects
related to wine supply-chain, and ii) provide an added value to
broaden the coverage of environmental as well as economic and
social issues related to the wine’s sustainability. However, in the
context of an environmental certification, the use of a single-issue
indicator (i.e. CF) may aid in terms of interpretation. Accordingly,
recent surveys have revealed either the policy-decisional or
methodological strategy needs to assess the potential threat to
regional and local water reservoirs (in terms of freshwater deple-
tion and pollution) due to the increase of wine production practices
in certain areas of the globe, such as New Zealand (Herath et al.,
2013) or Romania (Ene et al., 2013). Moreover, another issue that
remains partially out of the wine CF scope, but of great environ-
mental concern (Neto et al., 2013; Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012a,b;
Ruggieri et al., 2009), is represented by the use of chemicals for
wine growing and making processes. However, not much attention
has been paid to this issue within the reviewed LCA studies, while
the (eco)toxicological impacts related to the consumption of syn-
thetic chemicals in conventional wine productions may be signifi-
cant. For example, the spreading of fertilizers and the application of
pesticides and fungicides containing different metal compounds
can lead to an increase in the amounts of these elements in soil,
grapes and wine (Diaz et al., 2003; Fiket et al., 2011).
The combined use of CF with other single-issue indicators that
have largely different scope and claims seems to offer a better
platform for impacts’ depiction than the use of single-score
methods (common practice in wine-LCAs, see Table 1), which
aggregate and weight multi-objective and multi-scale indicators in
a way that typically does not rely on the system boundary re-
quirements of the wine product investigated, and, thus, may
hamper a meaningful and transparent interpretation of results. The
following section further explores the potentials to address multi-
criteria approaches related to CF in the sustainability analysis of
wine.
4.2. Consequences of using CF as an extended indicator
The information gathered in the previous sections broadened
the discussion on the market and consumption effects of applying
the CF indicator in the wine sector. The choice of a wine-making
organization of introducing a CF reporting system does not lack
certain consequences. While the ‘internal’ benefits and limitations
of this introduction have been researched before, analyzing the
‘external’ impacts associated with the adoption of CF reduction
actions at the level of single wineries or extended consortiums
remains an open issue. This brings up the question of the effects
emerging upstream and downstream the supply chain due to
innovative actions achieved to improve the wine sustainability
profile, with the aim of reflecting the criticality and necessary ad-
justments the winery system will have to face for reorganizing the
process under a life cycle thinking perspective (on both a global and
local scale). The focus here is on the following areas of observation:
market supply, demand and instruments.
4.2.1. The market supply
This market supply component specifically refers to the modi-
fication of the intra- and extra-supply chain interrelation mecha-
nisms that appear with the winery and which underpinned a CF
improvement oriented strategy. To present the idea, it is useful to
start from the classical Supply Chain-LCA scheme, which is directly
superimposable to the representation of winery chain à la Malassis
defined in agri-food economics (Malassis and Ghersi, 1995). The
chain is a series of technological productions, inter-dependent but
 B. Rugani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77
vertically distinct and separate, exchanging raw materials and
finished products to satisfy the food needs of the population in a
given place and given time (Christopher, 1998). In wine economics,
the different steps in the supply chain are not always managed by
different actors. Accordingly, two situations may be described: i)
the wine integrated enterprise, which manages all the production
phases from the grape-growing to the distribution of wine and
disposal of industrial waste, and ii) the single wine-producing
company, which is the integral part of a larger system of com-
panies that, together, manage one or more production phases (e.g.
viticulture, winemaking, wine sales, etc.).
In the former case, the implementation of LCA may lead to an
extensive involvement of all the company’s functions and, in the
best scenario, to a change in the company’s philosophy toward
sustainability (e.g., reduction of synthetic fertilizer use, efficiency
enhancement in irrigation and pesticide spreading, etc.). This
virtuous process may have positive external feedback in terms of
better selection of suppliers and customers (e.g., air companies that
ship only ‘eco-friendly’ wines). Therefore, the enterprise can pro-
vide backward and forward modifications in market relationships,
soliciting a shakedown of the system and a demand for alternative
solutions. This case matches the on-going situation with the pro-
duction of lighter glass bottles, or the retail of bulk wine that is
bottled only at the destination market, allowing a reduction in
transport costs and environmental burdens (see e.g. WRAP, 2007).
In the latter case, the production of inputs such as manure,
pesticides or glass, and the associated emissions remain out of the
enterprise’s control. The introduction of a system of emissions’
allocation (i.e. system of GHGs responsibility assignment) may
contribute to a better distribution of responsibilities among the
supply chain’s actors which may also improve transparency
(Bastianoni et al., 2004; Röös and Tjärnemo, 2011). Regardless of the
position along the supply chain covered by the wine production
system, the assignation of individual responsibilities for GHG
emissions may also contribute to the distrust of many wine firms,
and even category associations, of adhering to GHG emission
reduction protocols or carbon footprinting (Gadema and
Oglethorpe, 2011) (refer to Section 4.2.3 for further discussion on
this concept).
4.2.2. Market demand
Regarding consumption demand, there are numerous economic
implications deriving from the introduction of a CF label, including
the consumer interpretation capacity and the related purchase
decision model when a variation in the qualitative characteristics of
the product occurs. Indeed, reporting GHG emission levels may
entail an element of quality differentiation among the wines sold,
transforming quality attributes from a credence (i.e., food qualities
which are invisible to the consumer both before and after the
purchase; Grunert, 2002) to a search (i.e., dimensions whose quality
can be ascertained by the buyer at the time of purchase; Grunert,
2002) (Darby and Karni, 1973). This would offer a beneficial judg-
ment factor to reduce the time of wine selection by consumers
careful to maximize their own utility function but also the com-
munity’s welfare. Hence, it would be of interest to evaluate the
willingness to pay for wines that, through ‘eco-sustainable’ label-
ing, communicate the commitment of the appellation or winery to
safeguarding their environmental impact and show sensibility to
environmental sustainability issues.
One of the conditions for effective eco-labels is that customers
should be willing to pay a price premium that may help defray the
higher cost of improved environmental management practices
(Delmas and Grant, 2008). Thereafter, criticality may arise from
communication aspects between the enterprise and the consumer
when dealing with responsibility as issued before. In other words, it
73
remains an open question whether the system boundaries behind
the CF number on the label must include the total GHG emissions of
the wine life cycle, only the direct gate-to-gate emissions, or a
combination of the two. Even informed consumers will find it hard
to interpret the meaning of that number. The reason for this
misunderstanding should probably be examined given that there
are several different tools which are used for defining the CF of
wine. In fact, the problem of information overload may also add
dysfunctional consequences in consumer behavior, due to the dif-
ficulty a person may have in interpreting issues and thus making
choices when faced with ‘too much’ information (Jacoby, 1984). A
desirable scenario would be to standardize a unique wine CF
calculation method and labeling form, which should be
internationally-scaled to meet the purposes of a globalized wine-
market demand, allowing consumers worldwide to perform
conscious purchases.
In connection with this discussion, the recent resolution of OIV
(Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin) concerning GHG
accounting for the vine and wine sector (OIV, 2011) is clearly
addressed to unifying the CF calculation procedures defined by
several international standardization methods (e.g. ISO 14040, ISO
14064, IWCC; see Table 2) in one common and consensual protocol.
This international effort is claimed to encompass the most critical
aspects behind the CF accounting and reporting, distinguishing
between enterprise- and product-oriented protocols and
embracing issues which have been only rarely included in tradi-
tional CF analyses (e.g. short and long-term biogenic carbon
assessment, emissions arising from land use change, use of biomass
and biofuels, oak barrels etc.; see Section 3).
4.2.3. Market instruments for wine carbon footprinting
As pointed out in Section 4.2.1, the most challenging issue is to
find solutions to assign responsibilities throughout the phases
coming after the company’s gate, e.g. a company that produces
grapes but does not manage their distribution and further wine-
making process. In that case, the meaning of a possible CF value
reported on the final wine bottle’s label, albeit highly accurate, can
be misleading and not transparent because it misses identification
of upstream responsibilities and includes confusing information.
Such a problem could be overcome by introducing a voluntary
procedure of supply chain and product traceability (Banterle and
Stranieri, 2008; Dani and Deep, 2010; Sanfiel-Fumero et al., 2012)
for the wine product carbon footprinting, which may foresee the
management of GHG emissions’ information throughout the life
cycle steps of wine production and consumption. A traceability
procedure of product quality is already internationally envisaged,
for example by the standard ISO 22005:2007 (ISO, 2007). Moreover,
several chemometric methods already exist and are internationally
adopted for the authentication of wine quality and samples control
(Arvanitoyannis et al., 1999; Reid et al., 2006). Therefore, the
introduction of a CF traceability system would definitely enable
transferring consistent and comprehensive information to the final
consumer, and also facilitate the development of systems that
wine-management organizations and public institutions can use to
monitor carbon trades in the wine market.
An effective instrument to allow such a traceability system could
be a Product Category Rule (PCR) for wine, created with support
from industry representatives, LCA experts, and third parties.1 PCRs
are defined in ISO 14025 as the necessary framework to outline
1
The reference refers particularly to the recent PCR guidance development
initiative (http://www.pcrguidance.org/) and to the available documentation pro-
vided by the PCR committee of the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment
(ACLCA) (http://www.lcacenter.org/product-category-rule.aspx).
74 B. Rugani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77
specific rules for products serving the same function, providing a
harmonized methodology and greater transparency (ISO, 2006c).
However, PCRs may also be used for multiple purposes beyond the
strict form of EPD proposed in the standard, e.g., consumer labeling,
general guidance to business to aid uptake, etc. (Subramanian et al.,
2012). They refer to product category-specific rules that govern
quantitative assessment of products for all other environmental
claims that are life-cycle based and primarily quantitative,
including product CF claims or other quantitative product sus-
tainability claims or indices (Ingwersen and Stevenson, 2012). PCRs
are linked to labeling programs; therefore, auditing and verification
could be performed to provide traceability. In fact, Ingwersen and
Stevenson (2012) provide useful insights and recommendations
on how to define, propose, manage/align, apply and communicate
PCRs and related labeling instruments.
There is currently great interest among program operators, ac-
ademics, consultants, researchers, and industry personnel to
establish consensus on the use of the PCR framework and to pro-
vide effective actions for global alignment of PCRs (Ingwersen et al.,
2012). Therefore, it seems as if wine carbon footprint reporting
attempts could benefit in future from a definition and standardi-
zation under a specific PCR framework, to allow tuning an accurate
process of inventory harmonization, GHGs traceability, compara-
bility and monitoring at different scales of the market.
However, side-effects underlying the implementation of trace-
ability, standardization, labeling or other global-based reporting
initiatives in the wine market may exist, which are due to rebound
effects and transport-related issues (see Sections S3.1 and S3.2,
respectively, for a more comprehensive overview).
A high demand for environmental certifications and labels in the
wine sector is expected in years to come. This is particularly true for
wineries located in the New World, which seem to be more sen-
sitive to environmental care and to organic production transitions
than Old World wineries (Cholette et al., 2005; White et al., 2009).
This is probably due to the relatively younger tradition in producing
wine, and thus to the higher flexibility in shifting and conforming
to eco-friendly practices according to market changes, which is
increasingly oriented to ecosystems preservation and climate
change mitigation.
5. Conclusions
Despite the strong proliferation of wine CF studies in recent
years, this extensive review demonstrates the wide range of ap-
plications that remain unexplored in this field. To date, most
studies have focused on analyzing specific methodological issues
from an A-LCA perspective, or to directly reporting the CF profile of
a given wine product.
Future studies, however, will have to deal with increasingly
complex interactions linked to the entire life cycle of wine-making.
Current methodological hot topics in life cycle thinking suggest that
an integrated sustainability assessment (i.e. LCSA), which includes
the evaluation of economic and social issues, will also develop in
the wine sector, whereby it may become easier beginning with a CF
analysis and then broadening the scope to the other two pillars of
sustainability. However, from an exclusively environmental sus-
tainability approach, it remains to be seen if current climate change
focalization, through CF reporting, will be maintained, or if it will be
expanded to cover other environmental issues such as impacts
related to land use change (BSI, 2011b; IPCC, 2006).
Parallelly, a widespread use of the CF in combination with other
single-issue indicators would be recommended to increase trans-
parency and impacts coverage, avoid value judgments and arbitrary
weighing and promote integrated perspectives. While CF is an
outstanding indicator for supply chain improvements and
enterprise communications (internal and external), it seems less
useful to evaluate strategies and take decisions at macro scale.
Finally, from a market supply and demand perspective, future
standardization developments in wine CF will start to provide
feedback on the success or failure of eco-labeling dissemination
strategies and how their implementation will influence consumer
behavior and patterns.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.036.
References
AGO-Australian Greenhouse Office, 2004. AGO Factors and Methods Workbook e
August 2004 e For Use in Australian Greenhouse Office Programmes. Available
at: http://www.soe-townsville.org/data/factors_methods_workbook.pdf (last
access December 2012).
Aranda, A., Scarpellini, S., Zabalza, I., 2005. Economic and environmental analysis of
the wine bottle production in Spain by means of life cycle assessment. Int. J.
Agric. Res. Gov. Ecol. 4 (2), 178e191.
Aranda, A., Scarpellini, S., Ferreira, G., Zambrana, D., 2012. Comparison of CO2
emissions in the wine production from traditional and organic farming tech-
niques. A Spanish case study. In: 8th International Conference on Life Cycle
Assessment in the Agri-food Sector. St. Malo, France, October 1ste4th, 2012.
Ardente, F., Beccali, G., Cellura, M., Marvuglia, A., 2006. POEMS: a case study of an
Italian wine-producing firm. Environ. Manage. 38 (3), 350e364.
Arvanitoyannis, I.S., Katsota, M.N., Psarra, E.P., Soufleros, E.H., Kallithrakay, S., 1999.
Application of quality control methods for assessing wine authenticity: use of
multivariate analysis (chemometrics). Trends Food Sci. Technol. 10 (10), 321e336.
Banterle, A., Stranieri, S., 2008. The consequences of voluntary traceability system
for supply chain relationships. An application of transaction cost economics.
Food Policy 33 (6), 560e569.
Barry, M.T., 2011. Life Cycle Assessment and the New Zealand Wine Industry: a Tool
to Support Continuous Environmental Improvement. Master thesis. Massey
University, Wellington, New Zealand.
Bastianoni, S., Pulselli, F.M., Tiezzi, E., 2004. The problem of assigning responsibility
for greenhouse gas emissions. Ecol. Econ. 49 (3), 253e257.
Benedetto, G., 2010. Life cycle environmental impact of Sardinian wine. In: EAAE
Seminar ‘Sustainability in the Food Sector: Rethinking the Relationship be-
tween the Agro-food System and the Natural, Social, Economic and Institutional
Environments’, Capri, Italy, June 30theJuly 2nd, 2010.
BFA-Biological Farmers of Australia, 2010. Australian Certified Organic Standard,
2010-Version: 1.0. Available at: http://www.bfa.com.au/Portals/0/ACO_2010_
Standard_full.pdf (last access December 2012).
Bosco, S., Di Bene, C., Galli, M., Remorini, D., Massai, R., Bonari, E., 2011. Greenhouse
gas emissions in the agricultural phase of wine production in the Maremma
rural district in Tuscany, Italy. Ital. J. Agron. 6 (e15), 93e100.
Botonaki, A., Tsakiridou, E., 2004. Consumer response evaluation of a Greek quality
wine. Acta Agr. Scand. C e Econ. 1 (2), 91e98.
Brandão, M., Levasseur, A., 2011. Assessing Temporary Carbon Storage in Life Cycle
Assessment and Carbon Footprinting e Outcomes of an Expert Workshop.
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Available at: http://lct.
jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf-directory/Workshop-Report-final.pdf (last access
December 2012).
BSI-British Standards Institution, 2011a. PAS 2050:2011 e Specification for the
Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services.
British Standards Ed., London, UK. Available at: http://www.bsigroup.com/en/
Standards-and-Publications/How-we-can-help-you/Professional-Standards-
Service/PAS-2050/PAS-2050/ (last access December 2012).
BSI-British Standards Institution, 2011b. The Guide to PAS 2050:2011 e How to
Carbon Footprint Your Products, Identify Hotspots and Reduce Emissions in
Your Supply Chain. Chiswick High Road, London, UK. Available at: http://www.
bsigroup.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/How-we-can-help-you/
Professional-Standards-Service/PAS-2050/PAS-2050 (last access December
2012).
Carballo Penela, A., do Carme García-Negro, M., Doménech Quesada, J.L., 2009.
A methodological proposal for corporate carbon footprint and its application to
a wine-producing company in Galicia, Spain. Sustainability 1 (2), 302e318.
Carballo-Penela, A., Doménech, J.J., 2010. Managing the carbon footprint of prod-
ucts: the contribution of the method composed of financial statements (MC3).
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15, 962e969.
Carta, G., 2009. Evaluation of Environmental Sustainability of Two Italian Wine
Productions Through the Use of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Method. MSc
thesis. University of Sassari, Italy (in Italian).
CE Delft, Lloyd, Germanischer, Marintek, Veritas, Det Norske, 2006. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions for Shipping and Implementation Guidance for the Marine Fuel
Sulphur Directive. Delft, Netherlands. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/air/pdf/transport/final_report.pdf (last access December 2012).
 B. Rugani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77
CGSB-Canadian General Standards Board, 2006. Organic Production Systems
Permitted Substances List. ICS 67.040. Canadian General Standards Board.
Available from: http://www.cog.ca/documents/311.pdf (last access December
2012).
Cholette, S., Venkat, K., 2009. The energy and carbon intensity of wine distribution:
a study of logistical options for delivering wine to consumers. J. Clean Prod. 17
(16), 1401e1413.
Cholette, S., Castaldi, R.M., Fredericks, A., 2005. The globalization of the wine in-
dustry: implications for old and new world producers. In: Proceedings of the
Fourth International Business and Economy Conference (2005 IBEC), Waikiki,
Hawaii, January 6e9 2005.
Christopher, M., 1998. Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Strategies for
Reducing Cost and Improving Service, second ed. Financial Times/Prentice Hall,
Great Britain, UK.
CIV-Consorzio Interprovinciale Vini s.c.agr., 2008. Environmental Product Declara-
tion (EPD) and Climate Declaration e Bottled Red Sparkling Wine “Grasparossa
Righi”. Validated EPD N S-P-00109, Rev. March 2008, Italy. Available at: http://
www.environdec.com/Detail/?Epd¼6078#.UDX7KaDwqtR (last access
December 2012).
Colman, T., Päster, P., 2009. Red, white, and ‘green’: the cost of greenhouse gas
emissions in the global wine trade. J. Wine Res. 20 (1), 15e26.
Comandaru, I.M., Bârjoveanu, G., Peiu, N., Ene, S.-A., Teodosiu, C., 2012. Life Cycle
Assessment of wine: focus on water use impact assessment. Environ. Eng.
Manag. J. 11 (3), 533e543.
 
Cu cek, L., Klemes, J.J., Kravanja, Z., 2012. A review of footprint analysis tools for
monitoring impacts on sustainability. J. Clean Prod. 34, 9e20.
Da Porto, C., 1998. Grappa and grape-spirit production. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 18 (1),
13e24.
Dani, S., Deep, A., 2010. Fragile food supply chains: reacting to risks. Int. J. Logistics
Res. Appl. 13 (5), 395e410.
Darby, M.R., Karni, E., 1973. Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud.
J. Law Econ. 16 (1), 67e88.
DEFRA-Department for Environment, Food Rural Affairs, 2008. 2008 Guidelines to
Defra’s GHG Conversion Factors: Methodology Paper for Transport Emission
Factors. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Available at:
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/pdf/passenger-
transport.pdf (last access December 2012).
Del Borghi, A., Gallo, M., Strazza, C., Alfieri, F., 2009. Carbon Footprint vs Climate
Declaration: Two Tools in Comparison. Article available on-line at: http://www.
environdec.com/en/Articles/Climate-Declarations/Carbon-Footprint-vs-
Climate-Declaration-two-tools-in-comparison/#.UDde_6DwqtQ (last access
December 2012).
Delmas, M.A., Grant, L.E., 2008. Eco-labeling Strategies: the Eco-premium Puzzle in
the Wine Industry. Working Paper No. 13. AAWE-American Association of Wine
Economists. Available at: http://www.wine-economics.org/workingpapers/
AAWE_WP13.pdf (last access December 2012).
Diaz, Conde, J.E., Estevez, D., Perez Olivero, S.J., Perez Trujillo, J.P., 2003. Application
of multivariate analysis and artificial neural networks for the differentiation of
red wines from the Canary Islands according to the island of origin. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 51, 4303e4307.
Ekvall, T., Weidema, B.P., 2004. System boundaries and input data in consequential
life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 9 (3), 161e171.
Ene, S.A., Teodosiu, C., Robu, B., Volf, I., 2013. Water footprint assessment in the
winemaking industry: a case study for a Romanian medium size production
plant. J. Clean Prod. 43, 122e135.
Estreicher, J.K., 2004. Wine the Past 7,400 Years. Available at: http://www1.mpi-
halle.mpg.de/wmd_simul/data/special-data/wine-history.pdf (last access
December 2012).
EU-European Commission, 2007. CARBON FOOTPRINT e What It Is and How to
Measure It. European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment. EU e Joint Research
Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Ispra (VA), Italy. Available
at: http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf-directory/Carbon-footprint.pdf (last access
December 2012).
EU-European Commission, 2010. International Reference Life Cycle Data System
(ILCD) Handbook e General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment e Detailed Guid-
ance. EUR 24708 EN, first ed. Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg, LU.
EU-European Commission, 2012. European Commission Regulation of the 9th
March 2012, “New Implementing Regulation (EU) 203/2012”. Available at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼OJ:L:2012:071:0042:
0047:EN:PDF (last access December 2012).
 Mikac, N., Kniewald, G., 2011. Arsenic and other trace elements in wines of
Fiket, Z.,
eastern Croatia. Food Chem. 126, 941e947.
Finkbeiner, M., 2009. Carbon footprinting-Opportunities and threats. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 14 (2), 91e94.
FIVS, 2010. Greenhouse Gas Protocol and Accounting Tool. Available at: http://www.
wineinstitute.org/ghgprotocol (last access March 2012).
Fluck, R.C., 1992. Energy of human labor. In: Fluck, R.C. (Ed.), Energy in Farm Pro-
duction. Energy in World Agriculture, vol. 6. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 31e36.
Gabzdylova, B., Raffensperger, J.F., Castka, P., 2009. Sustainability in the New Zea-
land wine industry: drivers, stakeholders and practices. J. Clean Prod. 17 (11),
992e998.
Gadema, Z., Oglethorpe, D., 2011. The use and usefulness of carbon labelling food: a
policy perspective from a survey of UK supermarket shoppers. Food Policy 36
(6), 815e822.
75
Garnett, T., 2007. The Alcohol We Drink and Its Contribution to the UK’s Greenhouse
Gas Emissions: A Discussion Paper. Working Paper Produced as Part of the Work of
the Food Climate Research Network. Center for Environmental Strategy, University
of Surrey, UK, p. 101. Available at: http://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/
ALCOHOL%20final%20version%20TG%20feb%202007.pdf(last access December
2012).
Gazulla, C., Raugei, M., Fullana-i-Palmer, P., 2010. Taking a life cycle look at crianza
wine production in Spain: where are the bottlenecks? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15
(4), 330e337.
Giampietro, M., Pimentel, D., 1990. Assessment of the energetics of human labour.
Agr. Ecosys. Environ. 32 (3e4), 257e272.
Goedkoop, M., Spriensma, R., 2000. The Eco-indicator 99. A Damage Oriented
Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology Report and Annex. Pré
Consultants, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Gonzales, A., Klimchuk, A., Martin, M., 2006. Life Cycle Assessment of Wine Pro-
duction Process. Finding Relevant Process Efficiency and Comparison to Eco-
wine Production. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, p. 43.
Greenhaigh, S., Mithraratne, N., Sinclair, R., Smith, S., McConachy, E., Barber, A., 2011.
GHG Product Accounting Guidelines for the Wine Industry. MAF Technical
Paper No: 2011/16; March 2011. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New
Zealand.
Grunert, K.G., 2002. Current issues in the understanding of consumer food choice.
Trends Food Sci. Technol. 13 (8), 275e285.
Guinée, J.B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., van Oers, L., Wegener
Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., de Bruijn, H., van Duin, R.,
Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2002. Life Cycle Assessment: an Operational Guide to the ISO
Standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, NL.
Guinée, J.B., Heijungs, R., van der Voet, E., 2009. A greenhouse gas indicator for
bioenergy: some theoretical issues with practical implications. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 14 (4), 328e339.
Guinée, J.B., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Zamagni, A., Masoni, P., Buonamici, R.,
Ekvall, T., Rydberg, T., 2011. Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 90e96.
Guzmán, G.I., Alonso, A.M., 2008. A comparison of energy use in conventional and
organic olive oil production in Spain. Agric. Syst. 98 (3), 167e176.
Hadarits, M., Smit, B., Diaz, H., 2010. Adaptation in viticulture: a case study of
producers in the Maule Region of Chile. J. Wine Res. 21 (2e3), 167e178.
Herath, I., Green, S., Singh, R., Horne, D., van der Zijpp, S., Clothier, B., 2013. Water
footprinting of agricultural products: a hydrological assessment for the water
footprint of New Zealand’s wines. J. Clean Prod. 41, 232e243.
Hughey, K.F.D., Tait, S.V., O’Connell, M.J., 2005. Qualitative evaluation of three
‘environmental management systems’ in the New Zealand wine industry.
J. Clean Prod. 13, 1175e1187.
Hwang, J.-Y., Shyu, Y.-S., Hsu, C.-K., 2009. Grape wine lees improves the rheological
and adds antioxidant properties to ice cream. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 42 (1),
312e318.
Ingwersen, W.W., Stevenson, M., 2012. Can we compare the environmental perfor-
mance of this product to that one? An update on the development of product
category rules and future challenges toward alignment. J. Clean Prod. 24, 102e108.
Ingwersen, W., Subramanian, V., Schenck, R., Costello, A., Thoma, G., Lahd, H., Bushi, L.,
Ryding, S.-O., Tam, L., East, C., 2012. Product category rules alignment workshop,
October 4, 2011 in Chicago, IL, USA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 (2), 258e263.
IPCC-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2006. In: Eggleston, H.S.,
Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K. (Eds.), 2006 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IGES, Japan. Prepared by the National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme.
IPCC-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007 e
the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth IPCC
Assessment Report. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/
publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_
science_basis.htm (accessed December 2012).
Iribarren, D., Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2010. Carbon footprint of canned
mussels from a business-to-consumer approach. A starting point for mussel
processors and policy makers. Environ. Sci. Pol. 13 (6), 509e521.
ISO, 2006a. ISO14040:2006 e Environmental Management-life Cycle Assessment e
Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO, 2006b. ISO14044:2006 e Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment e
Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO, 2006c. ISO14025:2006 e Environmental Labels and Declarations e Type III
Environmental Declarations e Principles and Procedures. International Orga-
nization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO, 2006d. ISO14064-1:2006 e Greenhouse Gases-Part 1: Specification with
Guidance at the Organization Level for Quantification and Reporting of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals. International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO, 2007. ISO 22005:2007 e Traceability in the Feed and Food Chain e General
Principles and Basic Requirements for System Design and Implementation.
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO, 2014. (expected) ISO/DIS 14067 e Carbon Footprint of Products e Re-
quirements and Guidelines for Quantification and Communication. Interna-
tional Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jackson, R., 2009. Wine Tasting. A Professional Handbook, second ed. Elsevier, ISBN
978-0-12-374181-3.
76 B. Rugani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77
Jacoby, J., 1984. Perspectives on information overload. J. Consum. Res. 10 (4),
432e435.
Jensen, J.K., 2012. Product carbon footprint developments and gaps. Int. J. Phys. Dist.
Log. Manage. 42 (4), 338e354.
Jover, A.J.V., Montes, F.J.L., Fuentes, M.M.F., 2004. Measuring perceptions of quality
in food products: the case of red wine. Food Qual. Prefer. 15 (5), 453e469.
Kavargiris, S.E., Mamolos, A.P., Tsatsarelis, C.A., Nikolaidou, A.E., Kalburtji, K.L., 2009.
Energy resources’ utilization in organic and conventional vineyards: energy
flow, greenhouse gas emissions and biofuel production. Biomass Bioenerg. 33
(9), 1239e1250.
Krausmann, F., 2004. Milk, manure, and muscle power. Livestock and the trans-
formation of preindustrial agriculture in Central Europe. Hum. Ecol. 32 (6),
735e772.
Laurent, A., Olsen, S.I., Hauschild, M.Z., 2012. Limitations of carbon footprint as
indicator of environmental sustainability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (7), 4100e
4108.
Lenzen, M., 2006. Uncertainty in impact and externality assessments e implications
for decision-making. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11 (3), 189e199.
Loake, C., 2001. Energy accounting and well-being e examining UK organic and
conventional farming systems through a human energy perspective. Agric. Syst.
70 (1), 275e294.
Malassis, L., Ghersi, G., 1995. Introduzione all’Economia Agroalimentare. Il Mulino,
Bologna, Italy.
Marshall, R.S., Cordano, M., Silverman, M., 2005. Exploring individual and institu-
tional drivers of proactive environmentalism in the US wine industry. Bus. Strat.
Environ. 14 (2), 1e18.
Martin, D., 1997. The Carbon Dioxide Budget of the New Zealand Grape and Wine
Industry. HortResearch Client Report No. 97/161 commissioned by Wine In-
dustry of New Zealand Ltd.. The Horticulture and Food research Institute of New
Zealand Ltd, Palmerston north, NZ. Available at: http://wineinf.nzwine.com/
research_outputs.asp?id¼3&cid¼2&type¼r (last access December 2012).
Marvuglia, A., Benetto, E., Rege, S., Jury, C., 2013. Modelling approaches for conse-
quential Life Cycle Assessment (C-LCA) of bioenergy: critical review and pro-
posed framework for biogas production. Ren. Sust. Energy Rev.. Submitted for
publication.
Mason Earles, J., Anthony Halog, A., 2011. Consequential life cycle assessment: a
review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16 (5), 445e453.
McLaughlin, L., 5 March 2007. Virtuous vino. Time Magazine 169, 76.
Miralles, N., Martínez, M., Florido, A., Casas, I., Fiol, N., Isabel Villaescus, I., 2008.
Grape stalks waste as low cost biosorbents: an alternative for metal removal
from aqueous solutions. Solvent Extr. Ion Exc. 26 (3), 261e270.
Montedonico, C.M., 2005. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a Chilean Cabernet
Sauvignon Wine Bottle. Master thesis. University of Bologna, Italy. In: Revista
ECOENGEN, Articulo N 04, 2009, Santiago, Chile. Available at: http://www.
faceaucentral.cl/pdf/eco11_art04.pdf (last access December 2012).
Neri, E., Rossetti, F., Rugani, B., Pulselli, F.M., Marchettini, N., 2012. Life cycle-based
eMergy analysis to compare organic and conventional production systems. In:
8th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food Sector.
St. Malo, France, October 1st-4th, 2012.
Neto, B., Dias, A.C., Machado, M., 2013. Life cycle assessment of the supply chain of a
Portuguese wine: from viticulture to distribution. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18,
590e602.
Niccolucci, V., Galli, A., Kitzes, J., Pulselli, R.M., Borsa, S., Marchettini, N., 2008.
Ecological footprint analysis applied to the production of two Italian wines. Agr.
Ecosys. Environ. 128 (3), 162e166.
NOP-National Organic Program, 2012. USDA Organic Regulations. Available at:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOP (last access December 2012).
Notarnicola, B., Tassielli, G., Nicoletti, M., 2003. LCA of wine production. In:
Mattsonn, B., Sonesson, U. (Eds.), Environmentally-friendly Food Processing.
Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge, UK, pp. 306e326.
NZWC-The New Zealand Wine Company, 2010. Mobius To Australia. Available at:
http://www.carbon-bonding.com/ (last access December 2012).
Odum, H.T., 1988. Self-organization, transformity, and information. Science 242
(4882), 1132e1139.
OIV-International Organization of Vine and Wine, 2010. Situation and Statistics of
the Vine and Wine Sector Worldwide. 8th General Assembly of the OIV, Tblisi,
Georgia.
OIV-International Organization of Vine and Wine, 2011. General Principles of the
OIV Greenhouse Gas Accounting Protocol (GHGAP) for the Vine and Wine
Sector. Resolution OIV-CST 431-2011. General Assembly of Member States,
Montpellier, France. Available at: http://www.oiv.int/oiv/info/enresolution (last
access February 2013).
Pandey, D., Agrawal, M., Pandey, J.S., 2011. Carbon footprint: current methods of
estimation. Environ. Monit. Assess. 178 (1e4), 135e160.
Pattara, C., Raggi, A., Cichelli, A., 2012. Life cycle assessment and carbon footprint in
the wine supply-chain. Environ. Manage. 49 (6), 1247e1258.
PE International, 2012. GaBi Software. Available at: http://www.gabi-software.com/
international/index/ (last access December 2012).
Petti, L., Raggi, A., De Camillis, C., Matteucci, P., Sára, B., Pagliuca, G., 2006. Life cycle
approach in an organic wine-making firm: an Italian case-study. In: Pro-
ceedings Fifth Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment, Melbourne,
Australia, November 22nde24th, 2006. Available at: http://www.conference.
alcas.asn.au/2006/Petti%20et%20al.pdf (last access December 2012).
Petti, L., Ardente, F., Bosco, S., De Camillis, C., Masotti, P., Pattara, C., Raggi, A.,
Tassielli, G., 2010. State of the art of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in the wine
industry. In: International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-food
Sector. Bari, Italy, September 22nde24th, 2010.
Pimentel, D., 1993. Economics and energetics of organic and conventional farming.
J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 6 (1), 53e60.
Pizzigallo, A.C.I., Granai, C., Borsa, S., 2008. The joint use of LCA and emergy eval-
uation for the analysis of two Italian wine farms. J. Environ. Manage. 86 (2),
396e406.
Point, E., Tyedmers, P., Naugler, C., 2012. Life cycle environmental impacts of wine
production and consumption in Nova Scotia, Canada. J. Clean Prod. 27, 11e20.
Poni, S., Palliotti, A., Bernizzoni, F., 2006. Calibration and evaluation of a STELLA
software-based daily CO2 balance model in Vitis vinifera L. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci.
131 (2), 273e283.
PRé Consultants, 2012. SimaPro Software. Available at: http://www.pre-
sustainability.com/simapro-lca-software (last access December 2012).
Rabl, A., Benoist, A., Bron, D., Peuportier, B., Spadaro, J.V., Zoughaib, A., 2007. How to
account for CO2 emissions from biomass in an LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12
(5), 281.
Reich-Weiser, C., Paster, P., Erickson, C., Dornfeld, D., 2010. The role of transportation
on the GHG emissions of wine. J. Wine Res. 21 (2e3), 197e206.
Reid, L.M., O’Donnell, C.P., Downey, G., 2006. Recent technological advances for the
determination of food authenticity. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 17 (7), 344e353.
Röös, E., Tjärnemo, H., 2011. Challenges of carbon labelling of food products: a
consumer research perspective. Brit. Food J. 113 (8), 982e996.
Röös, E., Sundberg, C., Hansson, P.-A., 2011. Uncertainties in the carbon footprint of
refined wheat products: a case study on Swedish pasta. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
16 (4), 338e350.
Rugani, B., Niccolucci, V., Pulselli, R.M., Tiezzi, E., 2009. A cradle-to-gate Life Cycle
Assessment integrated with Emergy evaluation: sustainability analysis of an
organic wine production. In: Proceedings of the SETAC Europe 19th Annual
Meeting, “Protecting Ecosystem Health: Facing the Challenge of a Globally
Changing Environment”, Göteborg, Sweden, May 31steJune 4th, 2009, p. 274.
Rugani, B., Panasiuk, D., Benetto, E., 2012. An input-output based framework to
evaluate human labour in life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 (6),
795e812.
Ruggieri, L., Cadena, E., Martínez-Blanco, J., Gasol, C.M., Rieradevall, J., Gabarrell, X.,
Gea, T., Sort, X., Sánchez, A., 2009. Recovery of organic wastes in the Spanish
wine industry. Technical, economic and environmental analyses of the com-
posting process. J. Clean Prod. 17 (9), 830e838.
Russell, S., 2011. Corporate Greenhouse Gas Inventories for the Agricultural Sector:
Proposed Accounting and Reporting Steps. WRI Working Paper. World Re-
sources Institute, Washington, DC, p. 29. Available at: http://pdf.wri.org/
working_papers/corporate_ghg_inventories_for_the_agricultural_sector.pdf
(last access March 2012).
Sanfiel-Fumero, M.A., Ramos-Dominguez, A.M., Oreja-Rodríguez, J.R., 2012. The
configuration of power in vertical relationships in the food supply chain in the
Canary Islands: an approach to the implementation of food traceability. Brit.
Food J. 114 (8), 1128e1156.
SAWIA-South Australian Wine Industry Association, 2004. Australian Wine Industry
State of the Environment 2003. South Australian Wine Industry Association
Incorporated, Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage
and Winemakers’ Federation of Australia, p. 40.
Schlich, E.H., 2010. From vineyard to point of sale: allocation of energy use and CO2-
emission to entire supply chains of wine. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual
Conference, American Association of Wine Economists, June 25e28, 2010.
University of California, Davis, California USA.
Scipioni, A., Manzardo, A., Mazzi, A., Mastrobuono, M., 2012. Monitoring the carbon
footprint of products: a methodological proposal. J. Clean Prod. 36, 94e101.
Sciubba, E., Bastianoni, S., Tiezzi, E., 2008. Exergy and extended exergy accounting
of very large complex systems with an application to the province of Siena,
Italy. J. Environ. Manage. 86 (2), 372e382.
Sinden, G., 2009. The contribution of PAS 2050 to the evolution of international
greenhouse gas emission standards. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14 (3), 195e203.
Smith, A., Watkiss, P., Tweddle, G., McKinnon, A., Browne, M., Hunt, A., Treleven, C.,
Nash, C., Cross, S., 2005. The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable
Development. Final Report produced for DEFRA, ED50254 Issue 7. Available at:
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/
foodmile.pdf (last access March 2012).
Soja, G., Zehetner, F., Rampazzo-Todorovic, G., Schildberger, B., Hackl, K.,
Hofmann, R., Burger, E., Omann, I., 2010. Wine production under climate change
conditions: mitigation and adaptation options from the vineyard to the sales
booth. In: Darnhofer, I., Grötzer, M. (Eds.), Building Sustainable Rural Futures:
the Added Value of Systems Approaches in Times of Change and Uncertainty,
Proceedings of the 9th European IFSA Symposium. University of Natural Re-
sources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria, pp. 1368e1378.
Soosay, C., Fearne, A., Dent, B., 2012. Sustainable value chain e a case study of
Oxford Landing. Supply Chain Manage. 17 (1), 68e77.
Subramanian, V., Ingwersen, W., Collie, H., Hensler, C., 2012. Comparison of product
category rules: learned outcomes towards global alignment. Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 17, 892e903.
The Ecoinvent Centre, 2012. Ecoinvent Database. Swiss Centre for Life cycle Inventory,
CH. Available at: http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/ (last access March 2012).
Thomassen, M.A., Dalgaard, R., Heijungs, R., de Boer, I., 2008. Attributional and
consequential LCA of milk production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13 (4), 339e349.
Trioli, G., Hofmann, U., 2009. In: Hofmann, U. (Ed.), ORWINE: Code of Good Organic
Viticulture and Wine-making. ECOVIN-Federal Association of Organic Wine-
 B. Rugani et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 54 (2013) 61e77
Producer, Wormserstrasse 162; 55276 Oppenheim-Germany. Available at:
http://www.orwine.org/intranet/libretti/-orw%20gb%20bassa_264_01_0_.pdf
(last access March 2012).
Udo de Haes, H.A., 2006. Life-cycle assessment and the use of broad indicators.
J. Ind. Ecol. 10 (3), 5e7.
UNESCO-United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 2012.
World Heritage Convention. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/ (last access
March 2012).
Valderrama, C., Arévalo, J.A., Casas, Ignasi, Martínez, M., Miralles, N., Florido, A.,
2010. Modelling of the Ni(II) removal from aqueous solutions onto grape stalk
wastes in fixed-bed column. J. Hazard. Mater. 174 (1e3), 144e150.
Van Hauwermeiren, A., Coene, H., Engelen, G., Mathijs, E., 2007. Energy lifecycle
inputs in food systems: a comparison of local versus mainstream cases.
J. Environ. Policy Plan. 9 (1), 31e51.
Vázquez-Rowe, I., Villanueva-Rey, P., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2012a. Environmental
analysis of Ribeiro wine from a timeline perspective: harvest year matters
when reporting environmental impacts. J. Environ. Manage. 98 (1), 73e83.
Vázquez-Rowe, I., Villanueva-Rey, P., Iribarren, D., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2012b. Joint
life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis of grape production for
vinification in the Rías Baixas appellation (NW Spain. J. Clean Prod. 27, 92e102.
Vázquez-Rowe, I., Rugani, B., Benetto, E., 2013. Tapping carbon footprint variations
in the European wine sector. J. Clean Prod. 43, 146e155.
Venkat, K., 2012. Comparison of twelve organic and conventional farming systems: a
life cycle greenhouse gas emissions perspective. J. Sustain. Agric. 36 (6), 620e649.
Waye, V., 2008. Carbon footprints, food miles and the Australian wine industry.
Melbourne J. Int. Law 9 (1), 271e300.
Weidema, B.P., 2003. Market Information in Life Cycle Assessment. Environmental
Project no. 863. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, DK, Copenhagen.
77
Available at: http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2003/87-7972-991-6/
pdf/87-7972-992-4.pdf (last access March 2012).
Weidema, B.P., Thrane, M., Christensen, P., Schmidt, J., Løkke, S., 2008. Carbon
footprint e a catalyst for life cycle assessment? J. Ind. Ecol. 12 (1), 3e6.
White, M.A., Whalen, P., Jones, G.V., 2009. Land and wine. Nat. Geosci. 2,
82e84.
Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., 2008. A definition of ‘carbon footprint’ (Chapter 1). In:
Pertsova, C.C. (Ed.), Ecological Economics Research Trends. Nova Science Pub-
lishers, Hauppauge NY, USA, pp. 1e11.
WRAP-Waste Resources Action Programme, 2007. The Life Cycle Emissions of
Wine Imported to the UK. Manufacturing/Final Report. Banbury, Oxon, UK,
p. 28.
WRI-World Resources Institute, WBCSD-World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, 2011. GHG Protocol e Product Life Cycle Accounting and
Reporting Standard. Available at: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/
product-standard (last access March 2012).
Wright, L.A., Kemp, S., Williams, I., 2011. ‘Carbon footprinting’: towards a universally
accepted definition. Carbon Manag. 2 (1), 61e72.
Zabalza, I., Aranda, A., Scarpellini, S., 2003. Analysis and improvement of energy and
environmental costs for small and medium enterprises in the wine sector. In:
Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Efficiency, Costs, Optimi-
sation, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems (ECOS 2003.
June 30theJuly 2nd, 2003, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Zhang, T.W., Dornfeld, D.A., 2007. Energy use per worker-hour: a method of eval-
uating the contribution of labour to manufacturing energy use. In: Shozo, T.,
Yasushi, U. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engi-
neering 2007, Advances in Life Cycle Engineering for Sustainable Manufacturing
Businesses. Waseda University, Tokyo, 189e19.