Organization Life-Cycle Assessment (OLCA): Methodological Issues and Case Studies in the Beverage-Packaging Sector

  • Alessandro Manzardo
  • Andrea Loss
  • Anna Mazzi
  • Antonio ScipioniEmail author
Part of the Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes book series (EFEPP)


The management of packaging materials and their interactions with the environment is central to international debate. The reasons are manifold: packaging is essential to guarantee the good quality of the products they contain; its production can require the significant use of natural resources; and consumers’ decisions are influenced by the environmental performances of packaging with particular reference to their management at the end of life. In this context, packaging companies has proved to be particularly interested in the application of environmental management and improvement tools such as life-cycle assessment. One of the latest developments of this methodology is its application at the organizational level, which was recently standardized in the ISO/TS 14072. Even if the interest around this topic is rapidly increasing and significant experiences are emerging (e.g., Organizational Environmental Footprint Programme of the European Union), no relevant applications have been published in the packaging sector. The objective of this chapter is to present the most relevant challenges in the application of the organizational life-cycle assessment for the packaging sector from the choice of the functional unit and the definition of the system boundaries to the choice on the aggregation approaches and the assessment of environmental impacts. Such issues will also be presented from a practical perspective presenting relevant case studies and lessoned learned in the beverage-packaging sector.


Organizational life cycle assessment Beverage-packaging Organizational system boundaries 


  1. Bayart JB, Worbe S, Grimaud J, Aoustin E (2013) The water impact index: a simplified single-indicator approach for water footprinting. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1336–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boulay AM, Bulle C, Bayart JB, Deschênes L, Margni M (2011) Regional characterization of freshwater use in LCA: modeling direct impacts on human health. Environ Sci Technol 45:8948–8957Google Scholar
  3. CDP (2014a) Carbon Disclosure Project—climate change program guidance website.
  4. CDP (2014b) Carbon Disclosure Project—water program guidance website.
  5. DEFRA (2013) Environmental reporting guidelines: including mandatory greenhouse reporting guidance. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
  6. EC (2009) Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), repealing Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 and Commission Decisions 2001/681/EC and 2006/193/ECGoogle Scholar
  7. EU (2013) Recommendation of the Commission of the European Union on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organizations. 9th of April 2013Google Scholar
  8. EUROSTAT (2010) Environmental statistics and accounts in Europe. ISBN 978-92-79-15701-1.
  9. Finkbeiner M (2014) Product environmental footprint—breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:266–271Google Scholar
  10. Galatola M, Pant R (2014) Reply to the editorial “Product environmental footprint—breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment?” written by Prof. Finkbeiner (Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:266–271). Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1356–1360Google Scholar
  11. Henningsson S, Hyde L, Smith A, Campbell M (2004) The value of resource efficiency in the food industry: a waste minimization project in East Anglia, UK. J Clean Prod 12:505–512Google Scholar
  12. Hyde K, Smith A, Smith M, Henningsson S (2001) The challenge of waste minimization in the food and drink industry: a demonstration project in East Anglia, UK. Jon Clean Prod 9:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struje J, van Zelm R (2013) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonized category indicators at the midpoint and then endpoint level. First edition, Report I: CharacterizationGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2006a) ISO 14040: environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. Switzerland, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2006b) ISO 14040: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines. Switzerland, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2006c) ISO 14040: environmental management—Type III environmental declarations—Principles and procedures. Switzerland, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2006d) ISO14064-1: Greenhouse gases—Part 1: specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals. Switzerland, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2013) ISO/TR 14069 Greenhouse gases—Quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions for organizations—Guidance for the application of ISO 14064-1. Switzerland, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  19. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2014) ISO 14046 Water Footprint, Requirements and guidelines. Switzerland, GeneveGoogle Scholar
  20. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2015a) ISO 14001 Environmental management systems—Requirements with guidance for use. Switzerland, GeneveGoogle Scholar
  21. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2015b) ISO/TS 14072 Environmental management systems—Requirements with guidance for use. Switzerland, GeneveGoogle Scholar
  22. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2005) IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J LCA 8(6):324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kounina A, Margni M, Bayart J-B, Boulay AM, Berger M, Bulle C, Frischknecht R, Koehler A, Milà i Canals L, Motoshita M, Núñez M, Peters G, Pfister S, Ridoutt B, Van Zelm R, Francesca F, Humbert S (2013) Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:707–721Google Scholar
  24. Hellweg S, Milà i Canals L (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 344:1109–1113Google Scholar
  25. Manfredi M, Vignali G (2015) Comparative life cycle assessment of hot filling and aseptic packaging systems used for beverages. J Food Eng 147:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Manzardo A, Ren J, Mazzi A Piantella A, Scipioni A (2014) Integration of water footprint accounting and costs for optimal chemical pulp supply mix in paper industry. J Clean Prod 72:167–173Google Scholar
  27. Martínez-Blanco J, Inaba A, Finkbeiner M (2015) Scoping organizational LCA—challenges and solutions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:829–841Google Scholar
  28. Notarnicola B, Hayashi K, Curran MA, Huisingh D (2012) Progress in working towards a more sustainable agri-food industry. J Clean Prod 28:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Tech 43(11):4098–4104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pelletier N, Allacker K, Pant R, Manfredi S (2014) The European Commission Organisation Environmental Footprint method: comparison with other methods, and rationales for key requirements. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:387–404Google Scholar
  31. Roy P, Nei D, Orikasa T, Xu Q, Okadome H, Nakamura N, Shiina T (2009) A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J Food Eng 90:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scipioni A, Mastrobuono M, Mazzi A, Manzardo A (2010) Voluntary GHG management using a life-cycle assessment approach. A case study. J Clean Prod 18(4)Google Scholar
  33. Scipioni A, Manzardo A, Mazzi A, Mastrobuono M (2012) Voluntary GHG management using a life-cycle assessment approach. A case study. J Clean Prod 36:94–101Google Scholar
  34. UNEP/SETAC (2015) Guidance on organizational life cycle assessment. Life-cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme and Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Paris, France.
  35. UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (1997) Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on climate change. In: Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. FCCC/CP/1997/7/Add.1Google Scholar
  36. Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo CO, Wernet G (2013) Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent Report 1(v3). St. Gallen: The Ecoinvent CentreGoogle Scholar
  37. WRI (World Resource Insititute) and WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development) (2001) GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (GHG Protocol Corporate Standard). Earthprint Limited, USA, p 2001Google Scholar
  38. WPO (World Packaging Organisation) (2008) Market statistics and future trends in global packaging. World Packaging Organisation/PIRA International Ltd a.m. pp 1–44Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Manzardo
    • 1
  • Andrea Loss
    • 1
  • Anna Mazzi
    • 1
  • Antonio Scipioni
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringCESQA C/O University of PaduaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations