ArticlePDF Available

Environmental and economic assessment of food-packaging systems with a focus on food waste. Case study on tomato ketchup

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

In this paper, a sustainability evaluation method for food-packaging systems is proposed. First, food waste due to poor emptiability was determined. Then, these quantities were included in life cycle assessments (LCA) and life cycle costing (value added, VA) of the products. Finally, LCA and VA results were combined using multi-criteria decision analysis, Technique for Order by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), in order to identify the most sustainable food packaging system. As a case study, four different ketchup products were examined. For ketchup in polypropylene bottles, FLW resulting from poor emptiability ranged from 13.12% (±2.05) to 28.80% (±3.30) respectively, while this was only 3.85% (±0.41) for ketchup packaged in glass. After integrating the emptiability results into life cycle assessments, this resulted in greenhouse gas emissions of 5.66 to 9.16 kg CO2eq per 3.80 kg consumed ketchup, the average consumption per capita in Austria. Importantly, poor emptiability of the examined products led to greater environmental impacts than the associated packaging. While greater product loss also pushes up the costs for consumers, it contributes to more value added to the economic system, which is in stark contrast to the goal of decoupling the economy from resource consumption.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Environmental and economic assessment of food-packaging systems
with a focus on food waste. Case study on tomato ketchup
Bernhard Wohner
a,
,Viktoria Helene Gabriel
a,b
, Barbara Krenn
a
,Victoria Krauter
a
, Manfred Tacker
a
a
Section Packaging and Resource Management, University of Applied Sciences Campus Vienna, Helmut-Qualtinger-Gasse 2/2/3, Vienna 1030, Austria
b
Circular Analytics TK GmbH, Otto-Bauer-Gasse 3/13, Vienna 1060, Austria
HIGHLIGHTS
Ketchup waste due to poor emptiability
ranged from 3.85% (±0.41) to 28.80%
(±3.30).
Emptiability of ketchup in glass packag-
ing is better than in polypropylene bot-
tles.
Glass packaging has greater environ-
mental impacts than polypropylene
bottles.
Including packaging-related FLW can
alter the ranking of products.
Poor emptiability increases costs to the
consumer but also economic value
added.
GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 14 January 2020
Received in revised form 25 May 2020
Accepted 29 May 2020
Available online 01 June 2020
Editor: Deyi Hou
Keywords:
Life cycle assessment
Multi-criteria decision analysis
Circular economy
Food packaging
Value added
Food waste
In this paper, a sustainability evaluation method for food-packaging systems is proposed. First,food waste due to
poor emptiability was determined. Then, these quantities were included in life cycle assessments (LCA) and life
cycle costing (value added, VA) of the products. Finally, LCA and VA results were combined using multi-criteria
decision analysis, Technique for Order by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), in order to identify themost sus-
tainable food packaging system.
As a case study, four different ketchup products were examined. For ketchup in polypropylene bottles, FLW
resulting from poor emptiability ranged from 13.12% (±2.05) to 28.80% (±3.30) respectively, while this was
only 3.85% (±0.41) for ketchup packaged in glass. After integrating the emptiability results into lifecycle assess-
ments, this resulted in greenhousegas emissions of 5.66 to 9.16 kg CO
2eq
per 3.80 kg consumed ketchup, the av-
erage consumption per capita in Austria. Importantly, poor emptiability of the examined products led to greater
environmental impacts than the associated packaging. While greater product loss also pushes up the costs for
consumers, it contributes to more value added to the economic system, which is in stark contrast to the goal of
decoupling the economy from resource consumption.
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Science of the Total Environment 738 (2020) 139846
Abbreviations: AC, acidication; CC, climate change; CNV, conventional agriculture; CRITIC, Criteria Importance through Intercriteria Correlation; EMPT, emptiability; FEU,
eutrophication,freshwater; FLW,food losses and waste;FRD, resourceuse, fossils; FU,functional unit;GL, glass; LCA, lifecycle assessment;MCDA, multi-criteria decision analysis; PP, poly-
propylene;ORG, organic agriculture; PEF,product environmental footprint; PM, particulate matter;TOPSIS, techniquefor order by similarityto ideal solution; VA,value added; WU, water
use.
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bernhard.wohner@fh-campuswien.ac.at (B. Wohner).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139846
0048-9697/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Science of the Total Environment
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv
1. Introduction
Today, the world's economy is mainly based on a linear model. Re-
cent studies suggest that globally, only 9% of all raw materials are
reused, recycled or composted after their use (de Wit et al., 2018).
Concerning the European Union (EU), only 67% of packaging and 46%
of municipal waste is currently recycled (eurostat, 2019a). As a result,
initiating a transformation towards a circular economy by adopting
the Circular Economy Packagehas become one of the top priorities of
the EU (European Commission, 2019b).
This package includes goals suchas requiring full recyclability or re-
usability of packaging (European Commission [DG ENV - Directorate C],
2018), increased recycling quotas of packaging as well as halving food
waste by 2050 or 2030 respectively (The European Parliament and the
Council, 2018). In Austria, only 25% of plastic packaging is currently
recycled (Altstoff Recycling Austria AG, 2018), meaning that this must
be approximately doubled by 2030 to fulll the mandatory quota of 55%.
As a possible solution, in addition to increasing the recyclability of
plastic packaging, a general reduction of plastic is highly discussed.
Such a reduction has further gained fresh prominence due to increasing
public disdain concerning plastic. This has been addressed by several
Austrian food retailers, who declared the reduction of plastic packaging
in their mission statements (HOFER, 2018;REWE Group, 2018;SPAR,
2019). Furthermore, the reduction of plastic packaging by 20% to 25%
was ofcially declared a goal of the Austrian government in 2018
(Bundeskanzleramt, Bundesministerium Öffentlicher Dienst und Sport,
Bundesministerium Nachhaltigkeit und Tourimus, 2018). However, en-
vironmental benets of reducing the quantity of plastic packaging could
even lead to greater environmental impacts when it is substituted by
other materials such aspaper, glass or metal (Pilz et al., 2010). Further-
more, a reduction or substitution of plastic packaging could increase the
generation of food loss and waste (FLW) (Pauer et al., 2019;Wohner
et al., 2019a). While muchresearch has been carried out on the evalua-
tion of direct environmental impacts of packaging by conducting life
cycle assessments (LCA), there is still very little scientic understanding
of indirect effects (Molina-Besch et al., 2018;Wohner et al., 2019a).
Since protecting food is in fact the main function of packaging
(Lindh et al., 2016;Pauer et al., 2019), sustainability evaluations of
packaging should not be carried out without considering its impact
on the lling good and thus of holistic evaluations of food together
with its associated packaging (food-packaging systems) (Pauer
et al., 2019). With 14% of food being lost between post-harvest and
retail level (FAO, 2019) together with older estimates of 30% being
lost across the whole supply chain (Gustavsson et al., 2011), it is
clear however that FLW and therefore indirect effects of packaging
are a pressing concern. Several authors already focus on assessing
FLW by using LCA (Beretta and Hellweg, 2019;Scherhaufer et al.,
2018), with an increasing number of authors integrating FLW into
the LCA of packaging (Molina-Besch et al., 2018). Among other as-
pects, this includes (i) FLW related to packaging being difcult to
empty (Meurer et al., 2017;Williams et al., 2012;Williams and
Wikström, 2011;Wohner et al., 2019b), (ii) calculation of break-
even rates between the volume of packaging material and FLW
(Bacenetti et al., 2018;Yokokawa et al., 2018) or (iii) modelling the
quantity of FLW based on shelf life (Conte et al., 2015).
According to Pauer et al. (2019), evaluations of food-packaging sys-
tems should include direct and indirect environmental effects, in addi-
tion to circularity assessments, yet without proposing a combined
evaluation method. Niero and Kalbar (2019) already combined direct
environmental effects (LCA results) of packaging and circularity metrics
using multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). In context of this re-
search, however, we argue that circularity parameters such as recycled
content or recycling quotas may affect LCA results, thus violating the
rules of using only independent attributes in MCDA (Belton and
Stewart, 2003).
In summary, the aim of the present paper is to analyze packaging-
related FLW of food-packaging systems in order to integrate it into en-
vironmental and economic assessments. Against this background, a
case study on tomato ketchup is conducted. Emptiability is quantied,
which is then integrated into LCA and life cycle costing (LCC) of the
products. Finally, the most sustainable product is identied by using
multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA).
Fig. 1. Ketchup products chosen as illustrative examples. a) Conventional ketchup, produced in Austria, 450 g indicated lling quantity, 29.99 g colored polypropylene (PP) bottle with
10.81 g colored PP cap, 0.28 g multilayer seal (assuming a composition of 52% polyethylene, 25% polyethylene terephthalate, 17% adhesive and 6% aluminum) and 0.97 g PP labels.
172 g tomatoes per 100 g ketchup. Sales price: 1.99 (PP-450-CONV). b) Organic ketchup, produced in Austria, 380 g indicated lling quantity, 22.30 g clear transparent PP bottle
with 4.36g colored PP cap, 0.29g multilayer seal and0.63 g PP labels. Salesprice: 2.99 (PP-380-ORG). c) Organic ketchup,produced in the CzechRepublic, 550 g indicatedlling quantity,
30.96 g clear transparent PP bottlewith 9.79 g coloredPP cap, 0.32 g multilayer sealand 1.27 g paper labels.210 g tomatoesper 100 g ketchup. Sales price:1.99 (PP-550-ORG).d) Organic
ketchup, produced in Italy, 480 g indicated lling quantity, 236.61 g int packaging glass with 4.88 g tinplate screw cap and 1.29 g paper labels. 225 g tomatoes per 100 g ketchup. Sales
price: 1.45 (GL-480-ORG).
2B. Wohner et al. / Science of the Total Environment 738 (2020) 139846
2. Materials and methods
In this section, we rst present the case study. Based on this, selected
criteria and their quantication is discussed. Finally, the selection and
calculation of a suitable method for the sustainability evaluation is
presented.
2.1. Case study: tomato ketchup
Tomato ketchup was chosen as a case study. Ketchup is made from
fresh tomatoes or tomato puree, sugar and/or sweetener, spices and
seasoning, salt and vinegar. The nal product must have a minimum
of 28% dry mass (Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales, Gesundheit
und Konsumentenschutz, 2015). In Austria, 3.8 kg of ketchup is con-
sumed per capita and year (Statista GmbH, 2019).
The following products of different brands were purchased at vari-
ous supermarket chains (Fig. 1):
2.2. Life cycle assessment
Life cycle assessment is a well-known method to assess environ-
mental impacts across the life cycle of a product, frequently used in
food and food packagingstudies (Fraval et al., 2019). LCA for this article
was based on ISO 14040 (ISO, 2006a) with additional guidance from the
Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) (European Commission, 2017),
which is being currently developed by the European Commission. In
contrast to ISO 14040, the PEF guidance includes stricter recommenda-
tions. For this study, the PEF guidance was used for:
Selection of life cycle impact categories
Identication of the most relevant life cycle impact categories
Default transport distances
Allocation regarding input and output of secondary materials
Calculations were performed using OpenLCA and the Ecoinvent 3.5
database. LCA for the case study was limited to secondary data only.
This type of LCA method can be considered as streamlined LCA,
which has the benet of reducing the expenditure of time and resources
(Speck et al., 2015).
2.2.1. Functional unit, reference ow and system boundaries
The functional unit (FU) was dened as consumption of 3.8 kg
ketchup. This led to different reference ows for the examined prod-
ucts, determined by the loss of ketchup due to poor emptiability. As
an example, if 50% of food loss and waste(FLW) occurs at the consumer,
all environmental impacts up to the point of loss are doubled
(Wikström et al., 2014). System boundaries and the resulting presented
life cycle stages include:
Packaging: Raw materials, manufacturing of glass and plastic bottles,
transport of empty bottles to the ketchup production site, disposal
of packaging
Ketchup processing: Cultivation of tomatoes and sugar, thermal and
electrical energy used in the production of ketchup
Transport of the nal product to an Austrian supermarket
Transport of the nal product from the supermarket to the home of
the consumer
Food loss and waste: Calculated as the difference between provi-
sioned and consumed ketchup
2.2.2. Life cycle inventory of packaging manufacturing
Ketchup bottles were rst emptied (see Section 2.2.8) before the
packaging was disassembled and weighed. Packaging manufacturing
was then modelled using Ecoinvent datasets, taking the respective
datasets for the raw materials and their manufacturing processes. No
recycled content was assumed for plastic packaging and 40% for int
glass bottles (European Commission, 2019a). Transport distances be-
tween the packaging manufacturers to the ketchup production site
were assumed to be (i) 230 km by truck, (ii) 280 km by train and (iii)
87 km by ship for plastic bottles. For glass bottles a transport of
(i) 350 km by truck, (ii) 39 kmby train and (iii) 87 km by ship was cho-
sen (European Commission, 2017).
2.2.3. Life cycle inventory of agricultural production
For the life cycle inventory of ketchup, the quantity of tomatoes used
in processing was taken from the label. From this, the quantity of added
sugar was calculated after subtracting the stated sugar content from the
sugar contained in the tomatoes, assuming a sugar content of 2.6% and a
water content of 95% of the average fruit (USDA, 2019). Among the ex-
amined products wereones of organic and conventional agriculture. Or-
ganic farming is often associated with reduced farm inputs and higher
soil carbon sequestration, therefore reducing environmental impacts
compared to conventional agriculture. However, there is an ongoingde-
bate concerning the actual sustainability of organic agriculture, since
this agricultural practice often leads to lower yields, which increases
greenhouse gas emissions in some cases (Smith et al., 2019). Regarding
tomatoes, organic agriculture may have lower (He et al., 2016;Ronga
et al., 2019) or higher yields (Stanhill, 1990), which in turn leads to
lower (He et al., 2016) or higher (Ronga et al., 2019;Vermeulen and
CJM, 2011) environmental impacts compared to conventionaltomatoes.
Moreover, comparative LCA studies of organic and conventional agricul-
ture are not always able to capture the differences (Meier et al., 2015).
For this paper, it was assumed that organic agriculture is a benecial
concerning sustainability due to it having multiple ecological and social
benets, such as greater biodiversity and fewer potential negative ef-
fects on human health (Shennan et al., 2017). Nonetheless, there is no
Ecoinvent dataset available for organic tomatoes. Since the impact of or-
ganic agriculture could not be considered in the LCA, it wasincluded as
an additional criterion. Quantication of organic agriculture was carried
out by assigning a value of 1for products of organic, and a value of 0
for products of conventional agriculture. Other ingredients of tomato
ketchup such as vinegar and spices were excluded from the analysis
due to their small and unknown quantities.
2.2.4. Life cycle inventory of ketchup processing
In the manufacturing process of ketchup, tomatoes are heated with
steam to up to 99 °C (Amón et al., 2015). Thermal energy consumption
of this process was calculated as the product of the latent heat of vapor-
ization of water at 100 °C(2.26 MJ/kg)and the volumeof water needed
to be evaporated to achieve the nal water content of the respective
ketchup. This water content was estimated as the difference between
100% and the sum of carbohydrates, fat, protein and assumed average
ash content of 3% (Sharoba et al., 2005). It was assumed that waste
heat is not recovered (Amón et al., 2015). The electricity consumption
of ketchup manufacturing was taken from existing literature
(Andersson et al., 1998). Country-specic electricity mixes and trans-
port distances to Austria were considered, with a modal split of 75%
lorry and 25% freight train (eurostat, 2019b)(eurostat, 2019b)forinter-
national transports. The following distances for the transport of the nal
products between productionssites and Austrian retail were estimated:
Ketchup produced in Austria: 200 km
Ketchup produced in the Czech Republic: 375 km
Ketchup produced in Italy: 950 km
2.2.5. Transports of nal products
The transport of the nal products between the supermarket and the
home of the consumer was assumed to be 5 km, of which 62% were al-
located to a passenger car with a trunk of load of 200 l, 5% to a van and
33% were not allocated (Castellani et al., 2018;European Commission,
3B. Wohner et al. / Science of the Total Environment 738 (2020) 139846
2019a). As a result, the distribution of 1 l ketchup is associated with
0.0155 km driven by passenger car.
A summary of data concerning the modelled foreground system is
presented in Table 1.
2.2.6. Selection of impact categories
Initially, all 16 impact categories recommended by PEF (Castellani
et al., 2018) were calculated. Then, the PEF guidance was followed for
the selection of the most relevant impact categories.
First, all impact categories were normalized, meaning that their
magnitude of relative to a reference information (ISO, 2006b) (in the
context of PEF the impacts of an average world citizen per year) were
calculated. Next, the normalized values were weighted using the values
provided by the PEF guidance. Accordingly, the three toxicity impact
categories shall not be used for benchmarking with assigned weights
of 0%, since their methodology is not yet considered as robust enough.
Finally, the most relevant impact categories were identied based on
the ones that contribute at least 80% to the total sum (European Com-
mission, 2017). Relevant impact categories were the same for all prod-
ucts. This is also true for their order of contribution except for GL-480-
ORG, where the ranks of particulate matter and acidication are
swapped (Table 2).
Consequently, results of the most relevant impact categories per
functional unit are used as criteria in the MCDA. Normalized and
weighted results were only used for the procedure of selecting the
most relevant impact categories. Results of all impact categories, their
respective contribution to the total, as well as normalization and
weighting factors are listed in the supplementary material.
2.2.7. End-of-life and allocations
The use of recycled content and the disposal of the packaging was
modelled according to the Circular Footprint Formula listed in the PEF
guidance (European Commission, 2017). Energy savings of 2.5% per
10% recycled content are assumed for the production of glass bottles
(Stettler et al., 2016). Life cycle inventory data of plastic recycling pro-
cesses in Austria was taken from literature (van Eygen et al., 2018b),
with quality factors of recyclate of 1.00 for glass and metal (European
Commission, 2019a), as well as 0.67 for polypropylene (calculated as
the average ratio of market prices between September 2018 and 2019
(plasticker et al., 2019)).
For this article, it was assumed that PP bottles contaminated with
ketchup can be recycled. However, this might not be true since ketchup
residues may affect the sorting and/or recycling process as has been
shown for PET bottles (Boesveld, 2011). It was assumed that all PP bot-
tles consist of 5% by weight of ethylene vinyl alcohol (Hedenqvist,
2018), which still allows the bottle to be recycled (FH Campus Wien,
2019). Consequently, the only non-recyclable packaging components
were multilayer seals and paper labels.
Recycling rates in Austria are 14% for polypropylene bottles (van
Eygen et al., 2018a), 84% for glass and 86% for metal packaging
(eurostat, 2019c). Polypropylene caps are currently not recycled in
Austria (van Eygen et al., 2018a). Due to landll restrictions in Austria
(Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und
Wasserwirtschaft, 2008), only non-recycled quantities of metal and
glass packaging were assumed to be landlled, while non-recycled plas-
tic packaging was assumed to be incinerated.
2.2.8. Indirect environmental effects due to FLW
Quantifying packaging-related FLW is challenging (Wohner et al.,
2019a) and therefore often omitted in studies of food-packaging sys-
tems (Molina-Besch et al., 2018). In a previous study we proposed a
method for testing dairy products on their technical emptiabilityand
its integration in LCA studies (Wohner et al., 2019b) as a possibility to
measure packaging-related FLW. For the present case study, not only
technical but also practical emptiability was tested. Finally, the results
of practical emptiability were taken to calculate the respective reference
ows of the investigated products associated with the functional unit.
Practical emptiability simulates an average emptying behavior by
the consumer. For plastic bottles, rst the bottles were shaken three
times and squeezed until air was released. Next, the bottles were
swiveled and then squeezed again until air was released. This step
was repeated three times. Glass bottles were shaken three times and
then held upside down for 2 min. Subsequently, the bottles were shaken
three times and then held upside for 1 min.
Technical emptiability represents thebest possibleemptying proce-
dure without damaging the packaging. For this, both glass and plastic
bottles including their caps were scraped with a dedicated ketchup
spoon (length of 24.5 cm) after practical emptiability tests.
Finally, the emptiability index was expressed as the ratio of ketchup
left in the bottle to the orig inal lling quantity. Testingwas performed at
room temperature (22 °C ± 1). Based on previous studies, a sample size
of 6 was taken to assure signicant results (Meurer et al., 2017;Wohner
et al., 2019b).
2.3. Economic assessment
Life cycle costing is an approach often used for the economic evalu-
ation of a product. ConventionalLCC represents the historic practice of
economic assessments, which includes costs associated with a product
and which are generally presented only from one, the producer's or
consumer's, perspective (Hunkeler et al., 2008). Further, conventional
LCC is often performed not all along the entire supply chain, often ex-
cluding End-of-Life operations. In contrast, environmental LCCis per-
formed alongside LCA, using the same system boundaries and models
and thus covering thewhole life cycle of aproduct.Moreover, by includ-
ing the full life cycle, environmental LCC enables the economic evalua-
tion of a product from a system's perspective. Therefore, according to
Hunkeler et al. (2008), environmental LCC should be the approach of
choice for sustainability assessments. Hence, the economic evaluation
in this paper is conducted taking the value addedapproach (VA). Gen-
erally, the revenues (R) for selling a product are higher than its produc-
tion costs (C) (Heijungs et al., 2013), resulting in a margin which is
referred to as added value, given in a monetary unit, in this study
Euro ().
VA ¼RC
Consequently, the total life cycle cost is the sum of all value added
over the life cycle(Moreau and Weidema, 2015). Since environmental
impacts are already covered by theLCA, their associated costs are not in-
cluded in VA, as this would be considered as double-counting.
In this paper, VA is calculated following the same principles as for
the LCA. Therefore, the nal VA result is the sum of value added by the
production and disposal of ketchup, its packaging and all related trans-
port, with additional consideration of the nal sales price. This can be
expressed as follows:
VATotal ¼VAINCIN þVAENCEN þVAPA CPA þVATR CTR þRPU CPU
þVAEoL
where:
VA
Total
: Total VA of the respective product
VA
IN
: VA of agricultural production of ingredients (tomatoes and
sugar) (calculated as the totalof the difference between costs for pro-
ducing and revenues of selling tomatoes or sugar, and the VA for all
upstream processes)
C
IN
: Costs to the ketchup producer for purchasing ingredients
VA
EN
: VA of thermal and electrical energy production (calculated as
the total of the difference between costs for producing and revenues
of selling energy, and the VA for all upstream processes)
C
EN
: Costs to the ketchup producer for purchasing energy
4B. Wohner et al. / Science of the Total Environment 738 (2020) 139846
VA
PA
: VA of packagingproduction (calculated as the total of the differ-
ence between costs for producing and revenues for selling packaging,
and the VA for all underlying processes)
C
PA
: Costs to the ketchup producer for purchasing packaging
VA
TR
: VA of transports (calculated as the total of difference between
costs and revenues for providing transport, and the VA for all up-
stream processes)
C
TR
: Costs to the ketchup producer for the transport of products
R
PU
: Revenue to the ketchup producer for selling ketchup to the con-
sumer
C
PU
: Costs to the consumer for purchasing ketchup from the producer
VA
EOL
: VA of disposal of ketchup and packaging (calculated as thetotal
of the difference between costsand revenuesof recycling or incinera-
tion of ketchup or packaging, and the VA for all upstream processes)
For the calculation, default values available in the Ecoinvent 3.5 da-
tabase version of OpenLCA were taken (Ciroth, 2016a). In OpenLCA,
prices already contained but hidden in several Ecoinvent datasets
were made visible by the software publisher, with information on
costs added to further datasets(C iroth, 2016b). Similar to the conducted
LCA, a major limitation is that possible differences between organic and
conventional tomatoes could not be considered due to a lack of data in
Ecoinvent.
2.4. Multi-criteria decision analysis
2.4.1. Selection and calculation
The examined products show different results between LCA impact
categories, as well as between LCA and VA results in general. Hence,
the need for a method to decision making tool arises, able to solve
multi-dimensional issues. In this context, multi-criteria decision analy-
sis methods are increasingly used to identify the best possible solution
out of several alternatives (Wątróbski et al., 2019a). Based on the listed
criteria, a suitable MCDA method was dened as being able to (i) take
different weights into account, (ii) compare criteria on a quantitative
scale and (iii) generate a ranking. Using the MCDA tool (Wątróbski
et al., 2019b), TOPSIS (Hwang et al., 1993) was identied as a method
meeting these requirements. The following terms are dened for better
readability and are frequently used in MCDA:
Alternative: Several predetermined,limited and independent alterna-
tives. For this study, these are the four examined products (Alinezhad
and Khalili 2019).
Criterion: A particular perspective according to which alternatives
may be compared (Belton and Stewart, 2003). In the context of this
study, these are comprised of the six chosen LCA impact categories
and the VA.
Attribute: a quantitative or qualitative measure of performance asso-
ciated with a particular criterion(Belton and Stewart, 2003), which
can be either benecial (with the goal of maximization) or non-
benecial (with the goal of minimization). In this study, theattributes
are the results of VA and the chosen LCA impact categories, with the
former considered as being benecial, and the latter as being non-
benecial.
Normalization: Converting attributes into non-dimensional form to
allow their aggregation into a nal score (Jahan and Edwards, 2015;
Vafaei et al., 2016)
The general calculation steps of TOPSIS can be summarized as fol-
lows (ÇELEN, 2014;Hwang et al., 1993;Kumar et al., 2017):
Table 1
Summary of data for modelling the foreground system. Abbreviations for products represent (i) the packagingmaterial as polypropylene (PP) or glass (GL), (ii) the content of bottles of
380, 450, 480or 550 g and (iii) if the ketchup is a productof conventional(CNV) or organic (ORG)agriculture. Data are given per kg produced and distributedketchup. Remaining abbre-
viations represent: PP, polypropylene; vkm, vehicle-kilometer; tkm, ton-kilometer.
Unit PP-450-CNV PP-380-ORG PP-550-ORG GL-480-ORG
Ingredients Tomatoes kg 1.72 2.85 2.10 2.25
Added sugar kg 0.14 0.15 0.09 0.16
Energy consumption for processing Electricity MJ 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
Thermal energy (steam) MJ 2.34 4.82 2.97 3.62
Packaging PP bottle (blow moulded) g 66.50 59.17 55.60 0
Glass bottle g 458.84 0 0 0
PP cap (injection moulded) g 23.97 11.57 17.58 0
Tinplate cap g 0 0 0 9.46
Multilayer seal g 0.62 0.77 0.57 0
PP label g 2.15 1.67 0 0
Paper label g 0 0 2.28 2.50
Transport from manufacturer to retail Lorry tkm 0.22 0.21 0.30 1.03
Freight train tkm 0 0 0.10 0.37
Transport from retail to consumer Passenger car vkm 0.014 0.019 0.014 0.014
Van tkm 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002
Table 2
Most relevant life cycle impact categories, in descending order of their relevance.
Impact category Indicator Unit Life cycle impact assessment method
Climate change (CC) Radiative forcing as Global Warming Potential (GWP100) kg CO
2eq
IPCC 2013 (IPCC, 2013)
Resource use, fossils (FRD) Abiotic resource depletion fossil fuels (ADP-fossil) MJ CML 2002 (Bruijn et al., 2004)
Water use (WU) User deprivation potential (deprivation-weighted water
consumption)
m
3
world
eq
Available Water Remaining (AWARE) (UNEP,
2016)
Eutrophication, freshwater
(FEU)
Fraction of nutrients reaching freshwater end compartment (P) kg P
eq
EUTREND model (Goedkoop et al., 2013)
Acidication (AC) Accumulated Exceedance (AE) mol H +
eq
Accumulated Exceedance (Posch et al., 2008)
Particulate matter (PM) Impact on human health Disease
incidence
PM method (UNEP, 2016)
5B. Wohner et al. / Science of the Total Environment 738 (2020) 139846
1. Creation of a decision matrix
X¼xij

mxn
consisting of malternatives (A
1
,A
2
,,A
m
)andncriteria (C
1
,C
2
,,C
n
),
with the intersection of each alternative and criteria given as x
ij
.
2. Normalization of the decision matrix:
rij ¼xij
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
m
k¼1x2
kj
q
where i=1,2,,mand j = 1, 2, ,n
3. Calculation of the weighted normalized decision matrix by multipli-
cation of the normalized matrix with the attribute's weights (w
j
):
vij ¼wjrij;
i=1,2,,mand j=1,2,,nwhere wj¼Wj
n
i¼1Wi
j = 1, 2, ,n
4. Determination of worst alternative A
w
(or negative ideal solution)
and best alternative A
b
(or positive ideal solution):
Aw¼max vijji¼1;2;;m

jjJi;minð
hvij i¼1;2;;m
jÞj jJþ
vwj
j¼1;2;;n
Ab¼min vijji¼1;2;;m

jjJi;maxðh vij i¼1;2;;mjjJþ
vbj
j¼1;2;;n;
where for benecial attributes:
Jþ¼j¼1;2;;n
fj
j;
and for non-benecial attributes:
J¼j¼1;2;;nfjj
5. Calculation of the Euclidean distance of each alternative to the worst
(d
iw
) and best solution (d
ib
):
diw ¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X
n
j¼1
vijvwj

2
v
u
u
t
dib ¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X
n
j¼1
vijvbj

2
v
u
u
t
where i=1,2,,m
6. Calculation of the relative closeness (CC
i
) of each alternative to the
ideal solution:
CCi¼diw
diw þdib
7. Ranking of the alternatives according to CCi (i =1,2,,m)
Individual calculation steps of TOPSIS for the case study are listed in
the supplementary material.
2.4.2. Determination of weights
Determination of criteria weights is equally crucial and controversial
since there is an abundant number of methods regarding this procedure
which all produce different results and thus considerably inuence the
outcome of an MCDA. Such methods can be classied either (i) a priori,
where weights are determined before data is collected, or (ii) a
posteriori, were the determination of weights occurs after data collec-
tion. While a priori weights are generally elicited by expert interviews
or questionnaires, a posteriori weights are calculated based on the col-
lected data for each alternative (Kao, 2010).
For this paper, three weighting sets were calculated and used for
TOPSIS, namely (i) equal weighting, (ii) Criteria Importance through
Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) (Diakoulaki et al., 1995) and (iii) en-
tropy (Li et al., 2011), similar to a sustainability assessment of biodiesel
(Anwar et al., 2019).
2.4.2.1. Equal weighting. Equal weighting is the simplest type of
weighting method, in which each criterion is given the same impor-
tance. In this study, 8 criteria were selected, which results in a weight
(w
j
) of 12.5% per criteria.
wj¼1
8
2.4.2.2. Weights of criteria using CRITIC. Calculating weights using CRITIC
is performed by characterizing each vector by its standard deviation and
a subsequent construction of a symmetric matrix with linear correlation
coefcients between the vectors (Alinezhad and Khalili 2019).
First, the decision matrix is normalized as follows:
xij ¼rijr
i
rþ
ir
i
xij ¼rijrþ
i
r
irþ
i
;
where i=1,,mand j=1,,nand x
ij
representing the normalized
value for alternative iand attribute j,with
rþ
i¼max r1;r2;;rm
ðÞ
r
i¼min r1;r2;;rm
ðÞ
Then, the correlation coefcient between attributes is calculated as
follows:
ρjk ¼m
i¼1xijxj

xikxk
ðÞ
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
m
i¼1xijxj

2m
i¼1xikxk
ðÞ
2:
q
with xjandxkrepresenting the mean of jth and kth attributes, calculated
as
xj¼1
nX
n
j¼1
xij
xk¼1
nX
n
k¼1
xik;
where i = 1, 2, ,m.
After that, the standard deviation of each attribute is calculated as
σj¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
n1X
n
j¼1
xijxj

2
v
u
u
t;
where i=1,,m.
6B. Wohner et al. / Science of the Total Environment 738 (2020) 139846
Next, the index (C) is calculated as:
Cj¼σjX
n
k¼1
1ρjk

Finally, the weight of attributes is derived by:
wj¼Cj
Pn
j¼1Cj
2.4.2.3. Weights of criteria using entropy. First, the decision matrix is nor-
malized as follows:
rij ¼rij
m
i¼1rij
;
where j=1,2,,nandrij is the normalized value ofthe decision matrix.
Then, the degree of entropy is determined:
Ej¼1
lnmX
m
i¼1
rij lnrij;
where j=1,2,,nand 0bE
j
b1.
Next, the deviation rate is calculated by:
dj¼1Ej;
where j=1,2,,n.
Finally, weights of attributes are derived by:
wj¼dj
n
j¼1dj
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Emptiability
Practical emptiability of the examined bottles ranges from 3.85% (±
0.41) to 28.80% (±3.30), while this can be substantially reduced to be-
tween 3.37% (±0.29) and 7.08% (±0.61) when a spoon is used (techni-
cal emptiability)(Fig. 2). Variability was calculated as 95% condence
intervals.
In previous studies, the emptiability index of ketchup was reported
as 0.5% to 26% (Andersson et al., 1998) in PP bottles and 30% to 52%
(Boesveld, 2011) in PET bottles, which shows that the quantity of
ketchup remaining in the package can even be higher.
From the gure above (Fig. 2), it is apparent that the product in a
glass bottle (GL-480-ORG) has the best emptiability. In contrast, PP-
380-ORG has the poorest. Important to emphasize is that emptiability
is a function of both product and packaging, thus not allowing the gen-
eralization of glass being better than plastic packaging, since the prod-
ucts in different packages were not identical. Emptiability is mainly
inuenced by the packaging geometry, the surface tension of food and
packaging, and particularly by the viscosity of food (Schmidt, 2011). Be-
sides processing conditions, viscosity of ketchup increases with its to-
mato content. Since the product with the highest tomato content
yielded the worst emptiability, this may result in being one of the
major drivers of FLW. One major limitation here is that the portioning
behavior of the products could not be considered. With the glass bottle,
dosing may be more difcult than with the plastic bottles. This could
lead to the consumer emptying more ketchup than required which
may ultimately result in disposing of it.
Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA (Fisher's
with Tukey post hoc test for samples with equality of variances and
Welch's with Games-Howell post hoc test for samples without equality
of variances), after testing for normality with Shapiro Wilk tests. All sta-
tistical tests were performed with the software Jamovi(version 1.1.7)
(The jamovi project, 2019) and can be found in the supplementary
material.
3.2. LCA results
Climate change results of all products (Fig. 3a) range from 5.66 to
9.16 kg CO
2eq
per functional unit (FU) respectively. Packaging is respon-
sible for 24% to 26% of the total for PP-450-CNV, PP-550-ORG and GL-
480-ORG, but only 12% for PP-380-ORG due to its high tomato content
and poor emptiability (Fig. 3a-f). In other impact categories, plastic
packaging contributes 7% to 13% and glass packaging 29% to 31% to
the overall result. Obviously, direct environmental impacts of glass
packagingare associated with greater environmental impacts than plas-
tic bottles, which is well in lin e with results of other LCA studies (Boesen
et al., 2019;Humbert et al., 2009;Niero and Kalbar, 2019). Nonetheless,
this is compensated for by its good emptiability.
Concerning the total LCA results, the most inuential factors are
FLW, the tomato content and the resulting thermal energy required
for water vaporization. Regarding water use, cultivation of tomatoes is
almost solely responsible for environmental impacts. Taken together,
production and loss of food is substantially more relevant than its asso-
ciated packaging concerning environmental impacts. By contrast, trans-
port is of relatively low importance. One interesting outcome is that LCA
results of PP-550-ORG are better than PP-450-CNV, which would not be
the case if FLW would have been excluded. This nding underlines the
value of quantifying and integrating packaging-related FLW into life
cycle assessments.
Detailed LCA results and results of the remaining calculated impact
categories are listed in the supplementary material.
3.3. Value added results
Value added results for the investigated products (Fig. 4)showa
similar picture to that of the LCA results with the important difference
that here, higher values are considered as benecial. Therefore, VA re-
sults are in fact diametrically opposed to most of the impact categories
of the performed LCA. This arises mostly from the effect that a greater
material intensity leads to more value added along the supply chain,
PP-450-CNV PP-380-ORG PP-550-ORG GL-480-ORG
Practical emptiability 20.47% 28.80% 13.12% 3.85%
Technical emptiability 7.08% 6.70% 5.12% 3.37%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
xedni ytilibaitpmE
Practical emptiability Technical emptiability
Fig. 2. Emptiability results of examinedketchup products. Bars represent the mean,while
error bars are 95% condence intervals (n= 6). Abbreviations for products represent
(i) the packaging material as polypropylene (PP) or glass (GL), (ii) the content of bottles
of 380, 450 or 550 g and (iii) if the ketchup is a product of conventional (CNV) or
organic (ORG) agriculture.
7B. Wohner et al. / Science of the Total Environment 738 (2020) 139846
which contradicts the goal of eco-economic decoupling (European
Commission, 2011).
Consequently, since the sales price of a product is higher than its
production costs, poorer emptiability also leads to a greater VA result.
For PP-380-ORG, this is particularly clear, since it has the highest tomato
content as well as the poorest emptiability. Furthermore, the calculated
margin regarding the sales price for this product is substantially greater
compared to the others. This is conrmed by other studies indicating
that smaller packages generally generate higher revenues than larger
ones (Yonezawa and Richards, 2016).
In contrast, GL-480-ORG, is not only the one with the lowest sales
price per kg, but also the one with the best emptiability, leading to the
worst VA results in comparison. Using conventional LCC and taking
the consumer's perspective, the results would be exactly the other
6.15E+00
9.16E+00
5.66E+00
6.54E+00
0.00E+00
2.50E+00
5.00E+00
7.50E+00
1.00E+01
PP-450-CNV PP-380-ORG PP-550-ORG GL-480-ORG
kg CO2eq/FU
Climate change
a
9.40E+01
1.37E+02
8.62E+01
9.65E+01
0.00E+00
2.50E+01
5.00E+01
7.50E+01
1.00E+02
1.25E+02
1.50E+02
PP-450-CNV PP-380-ORG PP-550-ORG GL-480-ORG
MJ/FU
Resource use, fossils
b
1.30E+01
2.15E+01
1.28E+01 1.29E+01
0.00E+00
5.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.50E+01
2.00E+01
2.50E+01
PP-450-CNV PP-380-ORG PP-550-ORG GL-480-ORG
UF/³m
Water use
c
1.40E-03
2.11E-03
1.26E-03
1.58E-03
0.00E+00
5.00E-04
1.00E-03
1.50E-03
2.00E-03
2.50E-03
PP-450-CNV PP-380-ORG PP-550-ORG GL-480-ORG
kg Peq/FU
Eutrophicaon, freshwater
d
3.90E-02
6.06E-02
3.54E-02
4.95E-02
0.00E+00
1.00E-02
2.00E-02
3.00E-02
4.00E-02
5.00E-02
6.00E-02
7.00E-02
PP-450-CNV PP-380-ORG PP-550-ORG GL-480-ORG
UF/
q
e+H lom
Acidificaon
f
3.02E-07
4.72E-07
2.82E-07
4.51E-07
0.00E+00
1.00E-07
2.00E-07
3.00E-07
4.00E-07
5.00E-07
PP-450-CNV PP-380-ORG PP-550-ORG GL-480-ORG
[disease incidence/FU]
Parculate maer
g
Fig. 3. Life cycle assessment resultsof most relevant impactcategories forketchup. Abbreviations forproducts represent(i) the packagingmaterial as polypropylene (PP)or glass (GL), (ii)
the content of bottles of 380, 450, 480 or 550 g and (iii) if theketchup is a product of conventional (CNV) or organic (ORG) agriculture.
8B. Wohner et al. / Science of the Total Environment 738 (2020) 139846
way around. Costs to the consumer for eating 3.8 kg ketchup would be
42.35 for PP-380-ORG, but only 11.12 for GL-480-ORG. In turn,
from the manufacturer's point of view, a higherloss would be preferable
as the quantity sold would increase. As Wood and Hertwich (2013)
point out, life cycle costing results should generally be maximized
from society's perspective to generate economic growth but minimized
from an individual's perspective to save costs. Consequently, we agree
with Heijungs et al. (2013) who raised the question: What do we in
fact want to learn from life cycle costing?
We conclude that taking a system's perspective is more relevant in
the context of sustainability assessments than taking an individual's
perspective. Thus, despite its limitations, we still consider VA as a suit-
able method for performing environmental LCC together with LCA.
Nonetheless, ff this debate is to be moved forward, methods portraying
a broader economic scope should be developed. Previous research has
already demonstrated how not only economic growth, butalso charac-
teristics such as consumer satisfaction, business diversity or long-term
investments could be considered in new methods concerning life cycle
costing (Neugebauer et al., 2016).
3.4. Sustainability evaluation using TOPSIS
After determining LCA and VA results, the decision matrix for TOPSIS
was created (Table 3).
Next, weights were calculated based on the approaches of equal
weighting, CRITIC and entropy (Table 4)describedinSection 2.4.2.
Using CRITIC, VA and organic agriculture are given more, LCA results
less weight compared to equal or entropy weights.
Finally, after following the calculation steps laid out in Section 2.4.1,
the nal closeness values using TOPSIS were determined, with the most
sustainable food-packaging system being the one closest to 1.00
(Fig. 5).
Closeness values ofthe products differ greatlydepending on the cho-
sen weighting set. Nonetheless, PP-550-ORG performs best concerning
all three weighting sets, which is followed by GL-480-ORG. The most
striking observation is the difference in performance of PP-380-ORG
and PP-450-CNV, which is the consequence of the higher importance
of LCA results in the entropy and organic agriculture in the CRITIC
weighting set. As discussed in Section 3.3, VA increases with material in-
tensity and FLW. If TOPSIS were calculated with life cycle costs from the
consumer's perspective, this would have a positive impact on theresults
of GL-480-ORG and a negative impact on PP-380-ORG.
Since the study was limited to the use of secondary data, generaliza-
tion of these results is limited. Furthermore, these results areonly appli-
cable to Austria, due to recycling rates of packaging and costs of these
products are only viable for this country. Depending on the country of
marketing, the evaluation could change substantially. Furthermore,
the difference of organic and conventional agriculture could not be cap-
tured in the calculation of LCA and VA, which however was addressed
by considering it as an additional criterion in the MCDA.
4. Conclusions
The main aim of this study was to combine environmental and eco-
nomic assessments of food-packaging systems, including and putting
the focus on indirect effects of food loss. Historically, most LCA studies
of packaging did not consider FLW (Molina-Besch et al., 2018), predom-
inantly due its quantication being challenging (Wohner et al., 2019a).
In this study, FLW was quantied by testing the emptiability of prod-
ucts, which was then integrated into the LCA and VA calculations of
the examined products. As a result, environmental impacts increased,
and more surprisingly, also the value added to the economy, which is,
however, inherent in the respective method (Wood and Hertwich,
2013).
A further limitation is the exclusion of criteria of taste or qual-
ity. A point could be made that PP-380-ORG is the product with
the highest tomato content and thus the one with the highest
quality. However, this is highly subjective and would have to be
the subject of sensory testing which was outwith the scope of
this study.
We conclude and agree with authors of similar previous studies
that TOPSIS assists in overcoming the limitations inherent in LCA
27.08
42.78
23.69
20.15
7.02
17.39
3.61 0.82
-16.77
-30.15
-13.58
-10.69
-4.32
-12.20
-2.05 -0.43
13.02
17.83
11.67 9.85
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
PP-450-CNV PP-380-ORG PP-550-ORG GL-480-ORG
€/FU
Value Add ed
Provision of original quanty Provision of FLW-related quanty Purchase of original quanty
Purchase of FLW-related quanty SUM
Fig. 4. Value added results. Original quantity is 3.8 kg of ketchup, while the quantity due to food loss and waste (FLW) is generated by the respective emptiability of the products.
Abbreviations for products represent (i) the packaging material as polypropylene (PP) or glass (GL), (ii) the content of bottles of 380, 450, 480 or 550 g and (iii) if the ketchup is a
product of conventional (CNV) or organic (ORG) agriculture.
9B. Wohner et al. / Science of the Total Environment 738 (2020) 139846
studies (Maxim, 2014;Niero and Kalbar, 2019), such as only consid-
ering environmental performance, while excluding assessments of
other sustainability dimensions (Zimek et al., 2019) or compliance
with environmental regulations (Levy, 2017). The proposed
sustainability assessment of food-packaging systems can solve
multi-dimensional issues, particularly of conicting sustainability
goals. TOPSIS provides a single score and therefore an easy to un-
derstand indication of the best possible solution. However, it is
not without its limitations. TOPSIS does not provide a nal word
since the selection of criteria and weights strongly inuence the re-
sults, again shown in this study. Furthermore, sustainability may be
considered as a social construct and, arguably, weighting sets
should then only be determined subjectively (Mollayoseet al.,
2019). While this may be a benet due to it being highly adaptable
to the preferences of one decision maker, it is then challenging to
compare the results of one such study to those of others (Maxim,
2014). A natural progression of this work would be to apply this
method to an increasing number of different food-packaging sys-
tems. Furthermore, future studies could incorporate social life
cycle assessments to depict all three pillars of sustainability. Addi-
tionally, the economic assessment could be enhanced by developing
environmental LCC methods which cover a more extensive scope of
economic sustainability. Finally, while admittedly challenging, a
greater focus on quantifying FLW besides emptiability and the inte-
gration into such assessments would produce a better and broader
insight into the sustainability of food-packaging systems.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Bernhard Wohner:Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Validation,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization.
Viktoria Helene Gabriel:Conceptualization, Writing - review &
editing.Barbara Krenn:Conceptualization, Formal analysis.Victoria
Krauter:Conceptualization, Validation, Writing - review & editing, Su-
pervision.Manfred Tacker:Conceptualization, Validation, Resources,
Writing - review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inu-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
Reinhard Zeilinger assisted with the statistical analysis. Vivienne
Nieuwenhuizen created gures. Mary Wallis provided comments on
the manuscript.
Table 3
Decisionmatrix of TOPSIS for case study. Abbreviationsfor products represent (i) thepackaging materialas polypropylene(PP) or glass (GL), (ii)the content of bottles of 380, 450,480 or
550 g and (iii) if the ketchup is a product of conventional (CNV) or organic (ORG) agriculture.
Abbreviations for criteria represent, benecial (B) or non-benecial (NB): CC (climate change), FRD (resource use, fossils), WU (water use), FEU (Eutrophication, freshwater), AC (acid-
ication), PM (Particulate matter), and VA (Value Added).
Type of
criterion
Unit
PP-380-ORG
PP-550-ORG
GL-480-
ORG
LCA
CC
NB
kg CO2eq/FU
5.97E+00
9.16E+00
5.66E+00
6.54E+00
FRD
NB
MJ/FU
9.40E+01
1.37E+02
8.62E+01
9.65E+01
WU
NB
eq/FU
1.23E+01
2.15E+01
1.28E+01
1.29E+01
FEU
NB
kg Peq/FU
1.40E-03
2.11E-03
1.26E-03
1.58E-03
AC
NB
mol H+eq/FU
3.90E-02
6.06E-02
3.54E-02
4.95E-02
PM
NB
disease
incidence/FU
3.02E-07
4.72E-07
2.82E-07
4.51E-07
Organic
agriculture
B
yes (1) / no (0)
0
1
1
1
Value added
B
€/FU
13.02
17.83
11.67
9.85
Table 4
Weights of criteria, calculated using equal weighting (EQUAL), CRITIC and entropy. Ab-
breviations for criteria represent: CC (climate change), FRD (resource use, fossils), WU
(water use),FEU (eutrophication, freshwater), AC (acidication),PM (particulate matter),
and VA (value added).
Category Criteria Equal Critic Entropy
Life cycle assessment CC 12.5% 6.8% 14.4%
FOSSILS 12.5% 7.5% 13.9%
WATER 12.5% 8.4% 17.3%
FW_EUTROPH 12.5% 6.8% 14.3%
FW_ACID 12.5% 8.0% 14.2%
RESP 12.5% 15.2% 13.3%
Organic agriculture Yes/no 12.5% 32.2% 7.5%
Economic assessment VA 12.5% 15.2% 5.1%
0.50
0.77
0.33
0.49
0.23
0.65
0.79
0.85
0.90
0.63
0.77
0.65
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Weights: Equal Weights: CRITIC Weights: Entropy
Ideal soluon = 1.00
PP-380-ORG PP-450-CNV PP-550-ORG GL-480-ORG
Fig. 5. Relative closeness values of products.Abbreviations for productsrepresent (i) the
packaging material as polypropylene (PP) or glass (GL), (ii) the content of bottles of
380, 450, 480 or 550 g and (iii) if the ketchup is a product of conventional (CNV) or
organic (ORG) agriculture.
10 B. Wohner et al. / Science of the Total Environment 738 (2020) 139846
Funding
This research did not receive any specic grant from funding agen-
cies in the public, commercial, or not-for-protsectors.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139846.
References
Alinezhad, A., Khalili, J., 2019. CRITIC method. In: Alinezhad, A., Khalili, J. (Eds.), New
Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM). Springer
International Publishing, Cham, pp. 199203.
Altstoff Recycling Austria AG, 2018. Transparenzbericht 2018: Die Zukunft der
Kreislaufwirtschaft. Austria, Vienna.
Amón, R., Maulhardt, M., Wong, T., Kazama, D., Simmons, C.W., 2015. Waste heat and
water recovery opportunities in California tomato paste processing. Appl. Therm.
Eng. 78, 525532.
Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., Olsson, P., 1998. Screening life cycle assessment (LCA) of to-
mato ketchup: a case study. J. Clean. Prod. 6 (34), 277288.
Anwar, M., Rasul, M.G., Ashwath, N., 2019. The efcacy of multiple-criteria design matrix
for biodiesel feedstock selection. Energy Convers. Manag. 198, 111790.
Bacenetti, J., Cavaliere, A., Falcone, G., Giovenzana, V., Banterle, A., Guidetti, R., 2018.Shelf
life extension as solution for environmental impact mitigation: a case study for bak-
ery products. Sci. Total Environ. 627, 9971007.
Belton, V., Stewart, T.J., 2003. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach.
2nd ed. Kluwer Acad. Publ, Boston, Mass.
Beretta, C., Hellweg, S., 2019. Potential environmental benets from food waste preven-
tion in the food service sector. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 147, 169178. http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344919301284.
Boesen, S.,Bey, N., Niero, M., 2019. Environmental sustainability of liquidfood packaging:
is there a gap betweenDanish consumersperceptionand learnings from life cycleas-
sessment? J. Clean. Prod. 210, 11931206.
Boesveld, E., 2011. The Recycling of Heinz PET Packaging in Europe. Bachelor thesis. En-
schede, Netherlands. https://essay.utwente.nl/62202/4/Verslag_Els_Boesveld.pdf,
Accessed date: 7 November 2019.
Bruijn, H., Duin, R., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Guinee, J.B., Gorree, M., Heijungs, R., et al., 2004.
Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Bundeskanzleramt, Bundesministerium Öffentlicher Dienst und Sport,
Bundesministerium Nachhaltigkeit und Tourimus, 2018. Maßnahmen der
österreichischen Bundesregierung zur Reduktion von Plastikabfällen in Österreich.
38/18.
Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales, Gesundheit und Konsumentenschutz, 2015.
Österreichisches Lebensmittelhandbuch. Codexkapitel/B 24/Gemüse und
Gemüsedauerwaren.
Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, 2008.
Bundesrecht konsolidiert: Gesamte Rechtsvorschrift für Deponieverordnung 2008,
Fassung vom 08.11.2019: DVO 2008.
Castellani, V., Diaconu, E., Fazio, S., Sala, S., Schau, E.M., Secchi, M., et al., 2018. Supporting
Information to the Characterisation Factors of Recommended EF Life Cycle Impact As-
sessment Methods: New Methods and Differences with ILCD. Publications Ofce of
the European Union, Luxembourg.
ÇELEN, A., 2014. Comparative analysis of normalization procedures in TOPSIS method:
with an application to Turkish deposit banking market. Informatica 24 (2), 185208.
Ciroth, A., 2016a. Life Cycle Costing and Calculation of Value Added in openLCA. https://
www.openlca.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Life-Cycle-Costing-in-openLCA.pdf,
Accessed date: 15 April 2020.
Ciroth, A., 2016b. Life Cycle Costing in openLCA 1.5 with Ecoinvent 3.2 Extended. https://
www.openlca.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Webinar-Life-Cycle-Costing-in-
openLCA-1.5-with-ecoinvent-3.2-extended.pdf, Accessed date: 14 May 2020.
Conte, A., Cappelletti, G.M., Nicoletti, G.M., Russo, C., Del Nobile, M.A., 2015. Environmen-
tal implications of food loss probability in packaging design. Food Research Interna-
tional (Ottawa, Ont.) 78, 1117.
Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., Papayannakis, L., 1995. Determining objective weights in
multiple criteria problems: the critic method. Comput. Oper. Res. 22 (7), 763770.
European Commission, 2011. Communication from the Commission to the European Par-
liament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Commitee and the Commit-
tee of the Regions: Roadmap to a Resource Efcient Europe. European Commission,
Brussels.
European Commission, 2017. PEFCR Guidance Document: Guidance for theDevelopment
of Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRSs). version 6.3. http://ec.
europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/PEFCR_guidance_v6.3.pdf, Accessed date:
17 April 2019.
European Commission,2019a. Product Environmental Footprint Guidance: Annex C List
of Default Values for A, R1, R2, R3 and Qs/Qp. https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
permalink/Annex_C_Transition_CFF.xlsx, Accessed date: 29 April 2020.
European Commission, 2019b. Circular Economy: Implementation of the Circular Econ-
omy Action Plan. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.
htm, Accessed date: 11 December 2019.
EuropeanCommission (DG ENV - Directorate C), 2018. A European Strategy for Plastics in
a Circular Economy: Communication from the Commission to the European Parlia-
ment. the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions,
Brussels, Belgium.
eurostat, 2019a. Circular Economy in the EU: Record Recycling Rates and Use of Recycled
Materials in the EU. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9629294/8-
04032019-BP-EN.pdf/295c2302-4ed1-45b9-af86-96d1bbb7acb1, Accessed date: 7
January 2020.
eurostat, 2019b. Freight Transport Statistics - Modal Split - Statistics Explained. https://ec.
europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Freight_transport_statis-
tics_-_modal_split#Modal_split_in_the_EU, Accessed date: 2 D ecember 2019.
eurostat, 2019c. Statistics | Eurostat: Recycling Rates for Packaging Waste. https://ec.eu-
ropa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ten00063/default/table?lang=en, Accessed
date: 7 November 2019.
van Eygen, E., Laner, D., Fellner, J., 2018a. Circular economy of plastic packaging: current
practice and perspectives in Austria. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.)72, 5564.
van Eygen, E., Laner, D., Fellner, J., 2018b. Integrating high-resolution material ow data
into the environmental assessment of waste management system scenarios: the
case of plastic packaging in Austria. Environmental Science & Technology 52 (19),
1093410945.
FAO, 2019. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019: Moving Forward on Food Loss and
Waste Reduction. Rome. .
FH Campus Wien, 2019. Circular Packaging Design Guideline: Design Recommendations
for Recyclable Packaging. https://www.fh-campuswien.ac.at/leadmin/redakteure/
Veranstaltungen/Circular_Packaging_Day/FH-Campus-Wien_Circular-Packaging-De-
sign-Guideline_V02.pdf, Accessed date: 8 November 2019.
Fraval, S., van Middelaar, C.E., Ridoutt, B.G., Opio, C., 2019. Life cycle assessment of food
products. Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainability. Elsevier, pp. 488496.
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., An, D.S., Jaap, S., vZ, Rosalie, 2013. ReCiPE
2008: A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method which Comprises Harmonised Cate-
gory Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level.
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., 2011. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Ex-
tent, Causes and Prevention; Study Conducted for the International Congress Save
Food! At Interpack 2011, [1617 May], Düsseldorf, Germany. Rome, Food and Agri-
culture Organization of the United Nations.
He, X., Qiao, Y., Liu, Y., Dendler, L., Yin, C., Martin, F., 2016. Environmental impact assess-
ment of organic and conventional tomato production in urban greenhouses of Beijing
city, China. J. Clean. Prod. 134, 251258.
Hedenqvist, M.S., 2018. Barrier packaging materials. In: Hedenqvist, M. (Ed.), Handbook
of Environmental Degradation of Materials. Elsevier, pp. 559581.
Heijungs, R., Settanni, E., Guinée, J., 2013. Toward a computational structure for life cycle
sustainability analysis: unifying LCA and LCC. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (9),
17221733.
HOFER, 2018. Medieninformation: HOFER packt aus: Diskonter startet Offensive zur
Reduktion von Verpackungsmüll. https://www.hofer.at/de/unternehmen/presse/
presseaussendungen/projekt-2020/verpackungsmission/, Accessed date: 7 Novem-
ber 2019.
Humbert, S., Rossi, V., Margni, M., Jolliet, O., Loerincik, Y., 2009. Life cycle assessment of
two baby food packaging alternatives: glass jars vs. plastic pots. Int. J. Life Cycle As-
sess. 14 (2), 95106.
Hunkeler, D., Lichtenvort, K., Rebitzer, G., 2008. Environmental Life Cycle Costing. CRC
Press, Hoboken.
Hwang, C.-L., Lai, Y.-J., Liu, T.-Y., 1993. A new approach for multiple objective decision
making. Comput. Oper. Res. 20 (8), 889899.
IPCC, 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis: Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
ISO (Ed.), 2006a. Environmental management Life cycle assessment Requirements
and guidelines: 14040:2006(en), 2006th ed. ISO.
ISO (Ed.), 2006b. Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Requirements
and Guidelines: 14044:2006, 2006th ed. ISO. (13.020.10).
Jahan, A., Edwards, K.L., 2015. A state-of-the-art survey on the inuence of normalization
techniques in ranking: improving the materials selection process in engineering de-
sign. Materials & Design (19802015) 65, 335342.
Kao, C., 2010. Weight determination for consistently ranking alternatives in multiple
criteria decision analysis. Appl. Math. Model. 34 (7), 17791787.
Kumar, A., Sah, B., Singh, A.R., Deng, Y., He, X., Kumar, P., et al., 2017. A review of multi
criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy develop-
ment. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 69, 596609.
Levy, M., 2017. Life cycle analysis: strengths and limitations of LCA. Encyclopedia of Sus-
tainable Technologies. Elsevier, pp. 233236.
Li, X., Wang,K., Liu, L., Xin, J.,Yang, H., Gao, C., 2011. Application of the entropy weightand
TOPSIS method in safety evaluation of coal mines. Procedia Engineering 26,
20852091.
Lindh, H., Williams, H., Olsson, A., Wikström, F., 2016. Elucidating the indirect contribu-
tions of packaging to sustainable development: a terminology of packaging functions
and features. Packag. Technol. Sci. 29 (45), 225246.
Maxim, A., 2014. Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies using
weighted multi-criteria decision analysis. Energy Policy 65, 284297.
Meier, M.S., Stoessel, F., Jungbluth, N., Juraske, R., Schader, C., Stolze, M., 2015. Environ-
mental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural productsare the differ-
ences captured by life cycle assessment? J. Environ. Manag. 149, 193208.
Meurer, I.R., Lange, C.C., Hungaro, H.M., Valenzuela Bell, M.J., de Carvalho dos Anjos, V.,
Antonio de Sá Silva, C., et al., 2017. Quantication of whole ultra high temperature
UHT milk waste as a function of packages type and design. J. Clean. Prod. 153,
483490.
11B. Wohner et al. / Science of the Total Environment 738 (2020) 139846
Molina-Besch, K., Wikström, F., Williams, H., 2018. The environmental impact of packag-
ing in food supply chainsdoes life cycle assessment of food provide the full picture?
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 492 Part 3.
Mollayose, M.M., Hayati, B., Pishbahar, E., Nematian, J., 2019. Selecting weighting meth-
odologies for evaluating agricultural sustainability in Iran. Proceedings of the Institu-
tion of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability 172 (4), 207217.
Moreau, V., Weidema, B.P., 2015. The computational structure of environmental life cycle
costing. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (10), 13591363.
Neugebauer, S., Forin, S., Finkbeiner, M., 2016. From life cycle costing to economic life
cycle assessmentintroducing an economic impact pathway. Sustainability 8 (5),
428.
Niero, M., Kalbar, P.P., 2019. Coupling material circularity indicators and life cycle based
indicators: a proposal to advance the assessment of circular economy strategies at
the product level. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 140, 305312.
Pauer, E., Wohner, B., Heinrich, V., Tacker, M., 2019. Assessing the environmental sustain-
ability of food packaging: an extended life cycle assessment including packaging-
related food losses and waste and circularity assessment. Sustainability 11 (3), 925.
Pilz H, Brandt B, Fehringer R. The Impactof Plastics on Life Cycle Energy Consumptionand
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Europe: Summary Report, 2010. https://www.
plasticseurope.org/application/les/9015/1310/4686/september-2010-the-impact-
of-plastic.pdf (accessed April 15, 2020).
plasticker, Markt, Preise, 2019. https://plasticker.de/preise/preise_monat_single.php,
Accessed date: 7 November 2019.
Posch, M., Seppälä, J., Hettelingh, J.-P., Johansson, M., Margni, M., Jolliet, O., 2008. The role
of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the determination of
characterisation factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions in LCIA. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 13 (6), 477486. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/
s11367-008-0025-9.pdf.
REWE Group, 2018. REWE International AG will Raus aus Plastik: BILLA, MERKUR,
PENNY und ADEG starten großangelegte Initiative für umweltfreundliche
Verpackungen. https://www.rewe-group.at/de/newsroom/pressemitteilungen/riag-
1817-Raus-aus-Plastik, Accessed date: 7 November 2019 ).
Ronga, D., Gallingani, T., Zaccardelli, M., Perrone, D., Francia, E., Milc, J., et al., 2019. Carbon
footprint and energetic analysis of tomato production in the organic vs the conven-
tional cropping systems in southern Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 220, 836845.
Scherhaufer, S., Moates, G., Hartikainen, H., Waldron, K., Obersteiner, G., 2018. Environ-
mental impacts of food waste in Europe. Waste Manag. 77, 98113.
Schmidt, M.C., 2011. Untersuchung und Verbesserung des Entleerungsverhaltens von
Füllgut-Verpackungssystemen. Dissertation. Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart.
Sharoba, A.M., Senge, B., El-Mansy, H.A., Bahlol, H.E., Blochwitz, R., 2005. Chemical, sen-
sory and rheological properties of some commercial German and Egyptian tomato
ketchups. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 220 (2), 142151.
Shennan, C., Krupnik, T.J., Baird,G., Cohen, H., Forbush, K., Lovell, R.J., et al., 2017. Organic
and conventional agriculture: a useful framing? Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 42 (1),
317346.
Smith, L.G., Kirk, G.J.D., Jones, P.J., Williams, A.G., 2019. The greenhouse gas impacts of
converting food production in England and Walesto organic methods. Nat. Commun.
10 (1), 4641.
SPAR, 2019. Gemeinsam Plastik sparen mit Spar. https://www.spar.at/nachhaltigkeit/
produkte/verpackungen, Accessed date: 7 November 2019.
Speck, R., Selke, S., Auras, R., Fitzsimmons, J., 2015. Choice of life cycle assessment soft-
ware can impact packaging system decisions. Packag. Technol. Sci. 28 (7), 579588.
Stanhill, G., 1990. The comparative productivity of organic agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. En-
viron. 30 (12), 126.
Statista GmbH, 2019. Ketchup - Österreich | Statista Marktprognose. https://de.statista.
com/outlook/40070100/128/ketchup/oesterreich, Accessed date: 24 October 2019.
Stettler, C., Rüttimann, S., Kägi, T., 2016. Ökobilanz Verwertungen von Altglas -
ökologischer Nutzen der Sammlung von Verpackungsglas: Grundlagenbericht für
Empfehlungen zum Verteilschlüssel der vorgezogenen Entsorgungsgebühr (VEG).
https://carbotech.ch/cms/wp-content/uploads/%C3%96kobilanz_Verwertung_von_
Altglas_de.pdf, Accessed date: 7 November 2019.
The EuropeanParliament and the Council, 2018. Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on
waste: EU 2018/851.
The jamovi project. jamovi, 2019. https://www.jamovi.org/ (accessed November 15,
2019).
UNEP, 2016. Global guidance for life cycle impact assessment indicators. https://www.
lifecycleinitiative.org/download/5746/, Accessed date: 9 March 2020.
USDA, 2019. FoodData central: tomatoes, red, ripe, raw, year round average. https://fdc.
nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/170457/nutrients, Accessed date: 29 Octo-
ber 2019.
Vafaei, N.,Ribeiro, R.A., Camarinha-Matos, L.M.,2016. Normalizationtechniques for multi-
criteria decision making: analytical hierarchy process case study. In: Camarinha-
Matos, L.M., Falcão, A.J., Vafaei, N., Najdi, S. (Eds.), Technological Innovation for
Cyber-Physical Systems. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 261269.
Vermeulen PCM, van der Lans CJM. Combined heat and power (CHP) as a possible
method for reduction of the Co2 Footprint Of Organic Greenhouse Horticulture. In:
Dorais M, Bishop SD, Meijer RJM. Proceedings of the First International Conference
on Organic Greenhouse Horticulture; Bleiswijk, The Netherlands, October 1114,
2010: International Society for Horticultural Science;International Conference on Or-
ganic Greenhouse Horticulture. Leuven: Secretariat of ISHS Int. Soc. for Horticultural
Science; 2011.
Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Ziemba, P., Karczmarczyk, A., Zioło, M., 2019a. Generalised
framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega 86, 107124.
Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Ziemba, P., Karczmarczyk, A., Zioło, M., 2019b. MCDA method
selection tool: An innovative tool for selecting MCDA method tailored to the decision
problem. http://mcda.it/.
Wikström, F., Williams, H., Verghese, K., Clune, S., 2014. The inuence of packaging attri-
butes on consumer behaviour in food-packaging life cycle assessment studies - a
neglected topic. J. Clean. Prod. 73, 100108.
Williams, H., Wikström, F., 2011. Environmental impact of packaging and food losses in a
life cycle perspective: a comparative analysis of ve food items. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (1),
4348.
Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M., Gustafsson, A., 2012. Reasons for
household food waste withspecial attention to packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 24, 141148.
de Wit, M.,Hoogzaad, J., Ramkumar, S., Friedl, H., Douma, A., 2018.The Circularity GapRe-
port: An Analysis of the Circular State of the Global Economy. https://bfc732f7-80e9-
4ba1-b429-7f76cf51627b.lesusr.com/ugd/ad6e59_
733a71635ad946bc9902dbdc52217018.pdf, Accessed date: 11 December 2019.
Wohner, B., Pauer, E., Heinrich, V., Tacker, M., 2019a. Packaging-related food losses and
waste: an overview of drivers and issues. Sustainability 11 (1).
Wohner, B., Schwarzinger, N., Gürlich, U., Heinrich, V., Tacker, M., 2019b. Technical
emptiability of dairy product packaging and its environmental implications in
Austria. PeerJ 7 (12), e7578.
Wood, R., Hertwich, E.G., 2013. Economic modelling and indicators in life cycle sustain-
ability assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (9), 17101721.
Yokokawa,N., Kikuchi-Uehara, E., Sugiyama, H.,Hirao, M., 2018. Framework for analyzing
the effects of packaging on food loss reduction by considering consumer behavior.
J. Clean. Prod. 174, 2634.
Yonezawa, K., Richards, T.J., 2016. Competitive package size decisions. J. Retail. 92 (4),
445469.
Zimek, M., Schober, A., Mair, C., Baumgartner, R.J., Stern, T., Füllsack, M., 2019. The third
wave of LCA as the decade of consolidation. Sustainability 11 (12), 3283.
12 B. Wohner et al. / Science of the Total Environment 738 (2020) 139846
... This allows to compare different environmental impact categories together and to ease decision-making and benchmarking. Accordingly, MCDA is increasingly being used in LCA [223]. ...
... With respect to the convenience aspect of packaging, several authors take up the topic of developing packaging with a high consumer value or target group orientation. This includes, inter alia, packaging that is easy to open, reclosable or easy to empty and, in general, does not frustrate or even encourage consumers to re-pack products at home [10,11,43,46,111,223,258]. A point emphasized several times is also the right-sizing of portions to avoid food waste at the consumer level. ...
Article
Full-text available
The usefulness of food packaging is often questioned in the public debate about (ecological) sustainability. While worldwide packaging-related CO2 emissions are accountable for approximately 5% of emissions, specific packaging solutions can reach significantly higher values depending on use case and product group. Unlike other groups, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and life cycle assessment (LCA) of cereal and confectionary products have not been the focus of comprehensive reviews so far. Consequently, the present review first contextualizes packaging, sustainability and related LCA methods and then depicts how cereal and confectionary packaging has been presented in different LCA studies. The results reveal that only a few studies sufficiently include (primary, secondary and tertiary) packaging in LCAs and when they do, the focus is mainly on the direct (e.g., material used) rather than indirect environmental impacts (e.g., food losses and waste) of the like. In addition, it is shown that the packaging of cereals and confectionary contributes on average 9.18% to GHG emissions of the entire food packaging system. Finally, recommendations on how to improve packaging sustainability, how to better include packaging in LCAs and how to reflect this in management-related activities are displayed.
... Research by Goossens et al. (2019) has proved that secondary packaging in food loss, waste and food security aspects are very important and in some cases can create losses in the distribution stage, although customers can waste food as well. From another point of view, Wohner et al. (2020) note that packaging itself is a problem due to shape, composition, and other factors. The problem regarding quality standards may be invisible because significant amounts of goods are left in the field and will never be transported to the consumer (Gillman et al., 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose – This paper aims to reveal potential research possibilities for enhancing climate-smart agriculture through short supply chains. Research question – How can short supply chains assure food security and the promotion of climate-smart agriculture? Research methodology – Bibliographic and bibliometric coupling techniques were employed using data from 1990–2022. The raw data was processed using the VOSviewer 1.6.18 software version. Findings – The results confirm the positive effect of the systemically important relationship between the short supply chain and food security. Research limitations – Climate-smart agriculture is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. Additional variables may have moderating and mediating effects on the impact of short supply chains on food security. Practical implications – The results establish the importance of having a short supply chain for food security in different aspects of the process from the harvest to the table. Originality and value – This study confirms the rationale for developing shorter food supply chains to assure food security and climate-smart agriculture when possible.
... For example, EuroFir (2021) offers the datasets in Box 1 plus others. Commercial websites often allow users to delve deeper into nutritional composition of food items by enabling them to calculate the nutrient density of multiple individual ingredients which comprise a single product, thus allowing subscribers to assess food items that contain multiple ingredients (ketchup, which contains tomatoes, sugar, salt, in addition to many other minor ingredients that may originate in multiple countries, as demonstrated recently by Wohner et al., 2020). ...
... As mentioned earlier, petroleum-based packaging materials are widely used in the food industry because of their relatively low costs, good optical, mechanical and barrier properties, robustness, and heat-sealing ability. However, it is difficult to recycle or dispose of these materials, which causes environmental damage (Wohner et al. 2020). In addition, pollution caused by inadequate disposal of petroleum-based packaging materials may have adverse effects on human health (Yates et al. 2021). ...
Article
Full-text available
There are numerous challenges facing the modern food and agriculture industry that urgently need to be addressed, including feeding a growing global population, mitigating and adapting to climate change, decreasing pollution, waste, and biodiversity loss, and ensuring that people remain healthy. At the same time, foods should be safe, affordable, convenient, and delicious. The latest developments in science and technology are being deployed to address these issues. Some of the most important elements within this modern food design approach are encapsulated by the MATCHING model: Meat-reduced; Automation; Technology-driven; Consumer-centric; Healthy; Intelligent; Novel; and Globalization. In this review article, we focus on four key aspects that will be important for the creation of a new generation of healthier and more sustainable foods: emerging raw materials; structural design principles for creating innovative products; developments in eco-friendly packaging; and precision nutrition and customized production of foods. We also highlight some of the most important new developments in science and technology that are being used to create future foods, including food architecture, synthetic biology, nanoscience, and sensory perception.
... In the last 20 years, research has recommended decision models focusing on relative cost-based analysis, 8 life cycle assessment (LCA) analysis, 9 carbon emission analysis, 10 or a combination of these with multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). 11,12 The subjects of these models have ranged widely in terms of packaging, from the automotive sector to the food and agriculture industry. There are studies that considered the cost structure of packaging systems 13 and investigated consumer behavior using game theory. ...
Article
Background In modern food supply chains, the sustainable product-packaging system is becoming increasingly important for companies. In addition, the protection, marketing and logistical function of packaging with optimal cost is a very complex decision situation for professionals. Most often the decision is between disposable (single-use) and reusable (returnable) packaging solutions and their special characteristics. In general practice, the focus of this decision is based on historical experience and traditions with cost-based and/or some criteria-based approach. This primarily considers the wide range of cost factors. On the one hand packaging cost is an important factor, but not the only one to determine a real optimal solution. Results This study presents a three-dimensional fuzzy signature model with fuzzy method that can be made for the packaging decision problem to investigate the interconnection among factors that affect the final results, beyond the simple two-valued logic. Two types of food packaging (beverage glass and PET bottle) were chosen to validate the model, which validate the usability of the model. Conclusion Fuzzy signatures can model the subjectivity of human definitions and criteria using the knowledge of professionals; human knowledge, which is experienced under real conditions; and that which is used in practice in the food-packaging decision process. The food-packaging decision components and it's final decision can be determined by fuzzy algorithm using membership functions on aggregation and weighted values. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
... For example, EuroFir (2021) offers the datasets in Box 1 plus others. Commercial websites often allow users to delve deeper into nutritional composition of food items by enabling them to calculate the nutrient density of multiple individual ingredients which comprise a single product, thus allowing subscribers to assess food items that contain multiple ingredients (ketchup, which contains tomatoes, sugar, salt, in addition to many other minor ingredients that may originate in multiple countries, as demonstrated recently by Wohner et al., 2020). ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) initiated a project to identify opportunities for further developing environmental and nutritional LCA methodology and building consensus about best practice, and to propose future research needs. The project involved 30 environmental and nutritional LCA researchers from 18 countries and ran between May and November 2021. The project focused on assessing food items as opposed to raw materials, meals and/or diets, and it is a step towards more comprehensive meal and dietary LCA studies.
Article
Full-text available
The world's population is expected to grow at an increasing rate, leading to increased food consumption and waste production. Even though food waste represents one of the most challenging economic and environmental issues of the 21st century, it also provides a vast array of valuable resources. To address the challenge, this study uses resource recovery from food waste to close the supply chain loop, which is the cornerstone of a circular economy. By applying the bibliometric review technique, trends and patterns in food waste and circular economy were studied. The analysis of frequent keywords in the field provided insights into further research directions. A Boolean search of the keywords in the Scopus database resulted in 288 articles, published between 2015 and 2021. Further screening of titles, keywords, and abstracts resulted in 155 journal articles. Biblio-metric coupling, including authors' co-citation data, co-occurrence, and the occurrence of keywords, was graphically mapped using VOSviewer software. From the analysis of the publications, eight broad themes emerged: (1) anaerobic digestion of food waste for circular economy creation; (2) food waste systems and life cycle assessments for circular economy; (3) bio-based circular economy approaches ; (4) consumer behavior and attitudes toward circular economies; (5) food supply chains and food waste in a circular economy; (6) material flow analysis and sustainability; (7) challenges, policies, and practices to achieve circularity; and (8) circular economy and patterns of consumption. Based on the eight themes, we emphasize an urgent need to promote the collaboration of governments , the private sector, educational institutions, and researchers, who should combine efforts to promote, integrate and accelerate acceptance of circularity, which will potentially mitigate greenhouse emissions associated with food loss and waste. We also highlight an opportunity to encourage consumer acceptance of upcycled food in the food waste hierarchy. In addition, we deduce that there is a need to quantify food waste and emissions of greenhouse gases due to this waste along the food value chain; this is important as it is one pathway of examining the 'food leaks' along the food supply chain. This can then inform optimal strategies targeting specific areas of the food supply chain experiencing food leaks. Lastly, food wastage affects the entire globe; however, future studies and funding need to be channeled towards investigating the possibility of implementing circularity in developing countries.
Chapter
Full-text available
Green chemistry focuses on eliminating and/or reducing the environmental pollution that protects the environment for the next generations. Green nanotechnology, one of the most important branches of green chemistry, is expected to solve the current drawbacks in different fields, including medicine, food, and the nutraceutical industries. Biocomposites have been formulated from clove (Syzygium aromaticum) chemical constituents. Clove oil is extracted from Syzygium aromaticum and is traditionally used inter alia as an antimicrobial agent. Eugenol is the main chemical constituent of oil and has a broad spectrum of biological activities. Recently, Syzygium aromaticum chemical constituents, including clove oil, have been included in many studies of green nanotechnology and have been embedded in different sustainable nanocomposites formulations as effective bactericidal and bacteriostatic agents for foodborne pathogens and in the control of Aedes aegypti. Biocomposite film containing oleoresin from Syzygium aromaticum and other herbs is an effective packaging material for maintaining bread’s physicochemical, microbiological, and sensory quality without adding preservatives during storage. Edible bionanocomposite film fabricated from pectin and clove essential oil nanoemulsion is used for application as an active edible package with strong antimicrobial activity toward Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. This chapter covers the most recent studies on the employment of different constituents isolated from Syzygium aromaticum in the formulation of biosafe and green nanocomposites.
Article
Packaging decreases food losses during transportation and the loss-related environmental load. However, excessive packaging can increase the environmental load for package production. We assessed environmental impacts throughout the peach life cycle and predicted the relationship between food loss reduction via packaging and environmental impact with certain models. Life cycle assessment was employed to evaluate the environmental loads from peach cultivation and package production to waste management. The relationships for certain impact categories indicate that the minimization of food losses did not necessarily lead to a minimization of environmental loads. This highlights the importance of assessing both food loss reduction and environmental influence in producing environmentally optimized packaging. A reusable plastic box and single-use cardboard box were compared on an environmental basis. The environmental loads throughout the life cycle were nearly similar between these two packaging conditions because the environmental load of reusable box production was lower but the associated food loss ratio was higher.
Article
Full-text available
Determining the circularity of a system through a criteria and indicators approach has been the focus of research in many branches of science. In this way, this work aims to review multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods employed for measuring circular economy (CE) indicators and CE aspects at different levels (micro, meso, and macro). For this purpose, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in ISI Web of Science and Scopus databases. Further, the results summarized 22 MCDM techniques, 27 CE aspects, and 36 CE indicators The SLR provides a concept map highlighting the relation of the level of circularity implementation (subdivided into micro-, meso-, and macro-levels) and MCDM techniques and demonstrates the interaction between CE aspects and indicators. The review provides an outline as to how MCDM techniques can solve problems related to CE aspects and marks the relevance in the use of CE indicators to support circularity aspects and to construct criteria in the methodologies applied.
Article
Full-text available
Agriculture is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and must feature in efforts to reduce emissions. Organic farming might contribute to this through decreased use of farm inputs and increased soil carbon sequestration, but it might also exacerbate emissions through greater food production elsewhere to make up for lower organic yields. To date there has been no rigorous assessment of this potential at national scales. Here we assess the consequences for net GHG emissions of a 100% shift to organic food production in England and Wales using life-cycle assessment. We predict major shortfalls in production of most agricultural products against a conventional baseline. Direct GHG emissions are reduced with organic farming, but when increased overseas land use to compensate for shortfalls in domestic supply are factored in, net emissions are greater. Enhanced soil carbon sequestration could offset only a small part of the higher overseas emissions. The greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential of organic methods is poorly understood. Here, the authors assess the GHG impact of a 100% shift to organic food production in England and Wales and find that direct GHG emissions are reduced with organic farming, but when increased land use abroad to allow for production shortfalls is factored in, GHG emissions are elevated well-above the baseline.
Article
Full-text available
Background Food waste is a major ecological concern around the globe. While the main function of packaging is to contain and protect food, it may also lead to food waste if residues remain in a package after emptying. Such residues could be attributed to wasteful behavior of consumers, but also to properties of packaging (e.g., geometry, surface tension) and food (e.g., surface tension, viscosity). Methods In this study, the technical emptiability (ability of packaging to be emptied entirely) of 36 dairy products is analyzed. Firstly, the amount of food residues in packaging after emptying at room and refrigerator temperature was weighed and set in relation to the original filling quantity. Secondly, streamlined life cycle assessments (LCAs) based on the Product Environmental Footprint guidance with a functional unit of “one kg of consumed dairy product at room or refrigerator temperature in the home of the consumer” are conducted. Finally, technical emptiability was included in the streamlined LCA and attributed to the primary packaging in order to evaluate its environmental impact. Results Technical emptiability for both temperatures combined was found to be between 0.25% (±0.11) and 5.79% (±0.43) for the analyzed dairy products. While there were differences in emptiability results of the same product and different temperatures, no significant trend ( p = 0.94) between emptiability and temperature could be observed. Liquid yogurt, cream, and buttermilk in beverage cartons and plastic bottles yielded the highest amounts, while milk in beverage cartons and glass bottles yielded the lowest amounts regarding food residues. Looking at global warming potential, poor technical emptiability of cream in a beverage carton leads to even higher environmental impacts than the production and waste management of its packaging. Discussion The streamlined LCA results show that food residues can contribute substantially to the footprint of packaging and can have similar or even higher environmental impacts than packaging production and waste management. Yet, emptiability is remarkably under-researched to this day. Future studies should further develop the methods presented in this paper, while LCA analysts should include technical emptiability when assessing the sustainability of packaging, particularly for those containing resource-intensive goods.
Article
Full-text available
Several authors have pointed out the importance of systems thinking, and have considered both environmental and social aspects (holistic perspective) of sustainability assessment in the past. Sustainability assessment tools which integrate different aspects (e.g., environmental/social aspects) in order to identify negative impacts have already been developed. Common tools used to assess environmental, social, or economic impacts include the life cycle assessment (LCA), social life cycle assessment (S-LCA), life cycle costing (LCC) and life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) approaches. The goal of the present study was to investigate how and to what extent the three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, social, economic; holistic sustainability perspective) have been integrated into the field of LCA. A topic modeling method was applied to examine whether the emphasis placed on integrating environmental, social, and economic aspects in sustainability assessment has resulted in a more comprehensive application of the LCA approach. The results show that topics related to energy and infrastructure are currently prevailing, and that topics related to methods have been decreasing since 1997. A minor discussion of social aspects and a lack of discussion on economic aspects were identified in the present study. These results do not support the predicted “decade of life cycle sustainability assessment.” Consequently, a new period of LCA extension and application is predicted, namely, the third wave of LCA as the “decade of consolidation.” During this period, the LCA framework will be enhanced to reduce existing practical and methodological difficulties and integrate environmental and social aspects in a sustainability assessment to support global sustainable development.
Article
Full-text available
Food packaging helps to protect food from being lost or wasted, nevertheless it is perceived as an environmental problem. The present study gives an overview of methods to assess the environmental sustainability of food packaging. Furthermore, we propose a methodological framework for environmental assessment of food packaging. There is a broad consensus on the definition of sustainable packaging, which has to be effective, efficient, and safe for human health and the environment. Existing frameworks only provide general guidance on how to quantify the environmental sustainability of packaging. Our proposed framework defines three sustainability aspects of food packaging, namely direct environmental effects of packaging, packaging-related food losses and waste, as well as circularity. It provides a list of key environmental performance indicators and recommends certain calculation procedures for each indicator. The framework is oriented towards the Product Environmental Footprint initiative and the Circular Economy Package of the European Union. Further research should develop a method to determine the amount of packaging-related food losses and waste. Moreover, future studies should examine the potential environmental benefits of different measures to make food packaging more circular.
Article
Full-text available
Packaging is often criticized as a symbol of today's throwaway society, as it is mostly made of plastic, which is in itself quite controversial, and is usually used only once. However, as packaging's main function is to protect its content and 30% of all food produced worldwide is lost or wasted along the supply chain, optimized packaging may be one of the solutions to reduce this staggering amount. Developing countries struggle with losses in the supply chain before food reaches the consumer. Here, appropriate packaging may help to protect food and prolong its shelf life so that it safely reaches these households. In developed countries, food tends to be wasted rather at the household's level due to wasteful behavior. There, packaging may be one of the drivers due to inappropriate packaging sizes and packaging that is difficult to empty. When discussing the sustainability of packaging, its protective function is often neglected and only revolves around the type and amount of material used for production. In this review, drivers, issues, and implications of packaging-related food losses and waste (FLW) are discussed, as well as the implication for the implementation in life cycle assessments (LCA).
Article
Approximately 88 Mt of food are wasted every year in the European Union and are responsible for 15–16% of the environmental impact of its entire food value chain. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12.3 demands per capita global food waste (FW) at the retail and consumer levels to be halved by 2030. This study aims to identify whether the SDG 12.3 is realistic and to assess the associated climate, biodiversity, and aggregated environmental benefits from FW prevention in the food service sector. The FW reduction potential is assessed in 13 case studies that implemented measures for reduction. We estimate status quo avoidable FW at 108 g/meal (13% of purchased food), causing 238 g CO2-eq/meal. FW reduction achieved in the case studies ranges from 32% of status quo in the education subsector to 62% in the business subsector. On average, a 38% decrease in FW amounts reduces climate impacts of FW by 41% and biodiversity impacts by 30%. In an extended reduction scenario, food services use 50% non-marketable vegetables that would otherwise be wasted throughout the food value chain. In combination, FW amounts are reduced by 70%. We conclude that the SDG 12.3 is realistic and can even be exceeded in the long term. Initial investments and political support are important to reach individual food services.
Article
Sustainable agriculture aims to reduce its environmental impact. In this research, the carbon footprint and energetic analysis have been performed for three consecutive years to investigate the actual environmental impact of processing tomato production, in the organic (OS) vs the conventional cropping systems (CS), in a specialized Mediterranean area in Southern Italy. The global warming potential (GWP, in term of kg CO 2 -eq) and primary energy demand (PED, in term of MJ) of processing tomato produced in the two systems (average of three years) were compared in this study. Our results indicate that GWP was on average + 22% in the OS than in CS using 1 ton of marketable fresh fruits as FU. On the other hand, GWP recorded in the OS was, on average, −40% compared to the CS, if 1 ha was considered. A similar impact was registered for PED. The OS showed +28% vs −38% of PED than the CS, using 1 t of marketable fresh fruit vs 1 ha. Pesticide and fungicide applications and soil tillage had the highest impacts among management inputs on GWP and PED, for both farming systems. Hence, the environmental efficiency of these practices could be largely improved in the production of processing tomato aiming at sustainable farming. In conclusion, the differences of sustainability observed between the two farming systems were mainly due to the far lower marketable yield recorded in the OS vs the CS. Therefore, the priority future challenge of organic processing tomato farming should be the reduction of the yield gap between the OS and the CS, through the development of both new genotypes and innovative management methods, designed to reduce the gap, but not increasing the environmental impact on the agroecosystem.