WFL Publisher

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

Life cycle assessment applied to coffee production: investigating environmental impacts to

aid decision making for improvements at company level
Roberta Salomone
Dipartimento RIAM - Università di Messina - Piazza S. Pugliatti 1, 98121 Messina,Italy.
e-mail: roberta.salomone@unime.it

Received 18 January 2003, accepted 29 April 2003.

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

Key words: LCA, environmental impact, coffee production, life cycle impacts.

Introduction material consumption in order to identify the “hot spots” in the

Coffee production has grown by nearly 200 percent since 1950;
after oil it is the most important traded commodity in the world.
Although it is grown only in tropical and equatorial areas (it is the
primary export of many developing countries) most of the coffee
produced is consumed in developed countries (the United States
and the European Community jointly import two out of every three
bags of coffee produced in the world)1. Considering that the cof-
fee chain is very wide-ranging, involving many different types of
company of varying size, each environmental decision, at any point
whatsoever of the coffee chain, should be taken using “life cycle
thinking”. Environmental management has become increasingly
important to productive and innovative businesses and often in-
volves suppliers upstream and the companies downstream. A busi-
ness that wishes to implement an effective internal environmental
management system must first of all analyse the environmental
impacts of its production process and its products/services. In-
evitably, this entails identifying impact factors found at the start
or end of pipeline and therefore outside the physical confines of
the business’ own productive sphere of activity2. Life Cycle As-
sessment (LCA) is making its mark as one of the most interesting
tools available to management for environmental assessment and
control. LCA broadens the vision of a producer giving it a more
generalised view of the environmental impacts of the production
line. The business has to involve suppliers upstream and the com-
panies downstream to collect inventory data in accordance with
the boundaries of the system analysed. This paper presents an en-
vironmental analysis of a coffee business adopting LCA method-
ology. The analysis was carried out on a firm in Sicily (Italy) that
roasts and distributes coffee. The reason for applying LCA to this
business is to examine the ways in which the company itself im-
pacts on the environment in order to identify how to reduce those
impacts and increase the environmental sustainability of the com-
pany in line with “life cycle thinking”. The aim of the study is to
obtain data relating to energy use, waste management and raw
stages of the product’s life cycle in which environmental improve-
ments are easily achievable then to suggest alternatives to minimise
the environmental impact of production phases, thereby improv-
ing processes and company performance.
Methods
The analysis of the environmental impacts of a coffee company
located in Sicily was investigated by applying Life Cycle Assess-
ment (LCA). LCA is a methodology used for analysing and as-
sessing the environmental loads and potential environmental im-
pacts of a material, product or service throughout its entire life
cycle, from raw materials extraction and processing, through
manufacturing, transport, use and final disposal 3. The product sys-
tem studied is delimited from the surrounding environment by
“system boundaries” that define the processes to be included in
the study and calculations are made on the base of a “functional
unit” (e.g. 1 ton of the product studied).
In accordance with ISO standards3, 4, 5, 6 an LCA study consists of
the following steps:
-goal and scope definition: the reason for carrying out the study is
clearly defined; the product, process or service system to be
assessed is described, specifying the individual processes to
be included in the study; a functional unit for calculation is
chosen;
-inventory analysis: inputs and outputs - energy, materials and emis-
sions - of each process included in the product system are
quantified and collected; data collected are related to the func-
tional unit;
-impact assessment: the results of inventory analysis are grouped
into different impact categories according to the kind of envi-
ronmental problem to which they contribute - classification;
contributions to all environmental impact categories are indi-
vidually quantified - characterization; the environmental cat-

Food, Agriculture & Environment; Vol. 1(2), April 2003 295

 egories to which each process contributes are compared –
valuation;interpretation: results are interpreted and translated
into opportunities to reduce the environmental impacts of the
product system.
Results and Discussion
Goal and scope definition. The goal of the study is to examine
the ways in which the coffee roasting and distribution company
makes an impact on the environment in order to identify how to
reduce its impacts and increase the environmental sustainability
of the product from a life cycle perspective. It is important to
ascertain the environmental aspects of coffee processing and in-
clude the environmental impacts connected with life cycle stages
other than those relating solely to the company itself. The com-
pany wishes to use the information obtained from the LCA study
as a starting point for the development of its environmental man-
agement set-up. This means collecting information about the en-
tire life cycle of the product and using this information to im-
prove the company’s eco-efficiency. The functional unit was de-
fined as 1 kg of packaged coffee delivered to the final consumer.
The business has a wide product range but the functional unit was
chosen in order to avoid allocation (in accordance with ISO
14041), with no distinction between the various products (e.g. dif-
C o ff e e c u l tiv a ti o n
T ra n sp o r t cr u d e
c o ff e e
S to ri n g , c le a n in g
a n d w e ig h in g
R o a s tin g
C o o li n g
Blending
P a c k a g in g
m a n u fa c tu r e
G rin d i n g
P a c k a g in g
Pac k aging
tr a n s p o r t
T ra n s p o r t T r a n s p o r t u s in g
w i th c a r r ie r c o m p a n y v e h ic le s
D i str ib u tio n
C o n su m p tio n
W a ste m a n a g e m e n t
Figure 1: Coffee life cycle.
ferent blends, different types of packaging, traditional and decaf-
feinated coffee, etc.). System boundaries were defined to include
all life cycle steps from coffee cultivation through to its distribu-
tion to consumers, consumption and disposal. Production of ma-
chinery and equipment are excluded from the system. In Figure 1
the coffee life cycle is presented: steps in the dotted boxes are
not included in the study.
Inventory analysis. The inventory analysis includes the follow-
ing stages:
A) Cultivation. For this step literature data were collected, in par-
296
ticular for energy, fertilizer and pesticide use7. Fertilizer and pes-
ticide production data were included using commercially avail-
able databases8, 9 while nitrogen and phosphorus emissions and
pesticide emissions were quantified using estimation methods10,
11, 12
.
Average coffee production per hectare varies in relation to the
type and characteristics of the land on which it is planted, together
with other ecological factors, as well as to the age of plants. The
approximate yield ranges from 2 to 6.5 quintals of finished prod-
uct per hectare13. We assumed an average yield of 4.25 quintals/
hectare.
Coffee beans can be processed in two ways: the dry method or the
wet one. We assumed that only the dry method (also called the
natural one) was used to process coffee beans and that the coffee
berries were both sun-dried and by using machines (assuming
heavy fuel oil consumption of 0.11 l/kg) 7 and that the whole proc-
ess was done by hand. This is very common in small or medium
plantations and in regions where the temperatures are warmer and
supplies of clean, fresh water are not plentiful. The dry method
produces a single residue, the inner skin or outer hull, amounting
to about 0.99 t per 5.5 t of coffee beans14.
B) Processing. For this step specific site data were collected for
each basic process contained within the company box of the sys-
tem flow chart.
The direct material and energy inputs of the coffee processing
and packing stage are: green coffee (or dried berries); electricity
(to power the equipment); natural gas (for the roasting step) and
C om pany
packing materials. The direct outputs are: roast coffee in primary
W as te
and secondary packaging; air emissions (from natural gas com-
bustion in the roaster) and waste (dust and scraps from cleaning
W as te
and coffee chaff from roasting).
C) Packaging. The company uses many different types of primary
R o a s te d c o ffe e and secondary packaging for roast coffee (aluminium cans, paper
tr a n s p o r t
filters, etc). All of these have been included in the inventory analysis
P r o c e s s in g a t
ex terna l (specific site data) whilst commercially available databases have
i n d u s tr ie s
been used for the manufacturing of packaging materials8, 9.
T re a te d c o ffe e
tr a n s p o r t
D) Transport. The main transportation activities take place at dif-
ferent life-cycle stages as follows:
1. Pesticides and fertilizers to coffee growers;
2. Green coffee from growers to the coffee company premises;
3. Packaging from manufacturers to the coffee company premises;
W a s te
4. Packaged coffee from the coffee company premises to local
wholesalers and final points of sale;
5. Packaged coffee from the coffee company premises to national
and international wholesalers;
6. Packaged coffee from each national and international whole-
saler to final points of sale.
Point 1 is not included in the transport calculation. Primary data
for points 2 and 3 were collected regarding distances travelled
and quantities delivered. Primary data for point 4 were collected
on diesel oil consumption for the quantities delivered (transported
using company vehicles). In relation to point 5 it was extremely
difficult to ascertain the deliveries made by carriers to each
wholesaler. Therefore estimates of the average distance between
the factory and a market town (discriminating between three mar-
ket areas: regional, national and international) were made on the
basis of data provided by the company. Point 6 is not included in
the transport calculation since it was nearly impossible to collect
Food, Agriculture & Environment; Vol. 1(2), April 2003
accurate data about quantities delivered regionally, nationally and Cultivation Processing Packaging Transport Consumption Disposal
internationally to each supermarket and shop, and from these points
Photochemical oxidant formation
of sale to each consumer. For these reasons this step is clearly
underestimated. Depletion of the ozone layer

E) Consumption. The consumption step is very difficult to meas- Greenhouse effect

ure and/or estimate because it depends on so many different fac- Terrestrial Eco-toxicity
tors: consumer nationality and tastes (the amounts of coffee and
water used to make French coffee and Italian espresso differ Human Toxicity

greatly) or the type and brand of coffee machine used (in particu- Eutrophication (water)

lar for energy consumption) amongst others and these differences

are highly significant (+-30%). Nevertheless, in order to obtain Aquatic Eco-toxicity

some general information, selected data from a Pré Consultant Air Acidification

LCA study9 and specific information provided by Illycaffè Spa15

were used. Data for the international market refer to two different
filter coffee machines used by households throughout Europe9:
an electric aluminium coffee machine with a thermos jug (ma-
chine A) and a coffee maker for use on an ordinary gas stove (ma-
chine B); we assumed that 50% of the coffee delivered onto the
international market was prepared with the first kind of machine
and 50% with the second. We further assumed the use of 7-gram
mono-dose filters. Data for the Italian market refer to an electric
espresso coffee machine (machine C) used by households through-
out Italy15 assuming that 7 grams of coffee are used for a single
cup of espresso.
The use of professional coffee machines is not included because
they are far more complicated (they generally have other acces-
sories that consume more energy). Water consumption (for cof-
fee preparation and for cleaning the machine) and sugar are also
excluded as they are assumed to be of little importance to the
whole life cycle of the product and are also too difficult to model.
F) Disposal. Waste management includes packaging, coffee chaff
and coffee grounds. We assumed that all these materials were dis-
posed of without any recycling. Data quality and assumptions are
expressed in the previous description of the stages included in the
inventory analysis. In general, specific on-site data were collected
for the most important aspects of the life cycle; or were obtained
from scientific literature and/or commercially available databases
where on-site data were not available. The reference period for
data collection was the year 2001. The LCA software used was
TEAM 3.0 by Ecobilan16.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 2. Impact categories studied.
tions of the process stages (in %) to the category results where
the total of all contributions to each impact category is set at 100%.
From the figure it can be seen that the cultivation and the con-
sumption stages make the greatest impacts. The cultivation stage
contributes the most to Terrestrial Eco-toxicity and Eutrophica-
tion (contributions greater than 97%); the consumption stage con-
tributes the most to air acidification, aquatic eco-toxicity, human
toxicity, greenhouse effect, depletion of ozone layer and photo-
chemical oxidant formation (contribution exceeds 68% for all
categories cited). The disposal stage contributes to aquatic eco-
toxicity (after consumption) and to eutrophication (after cultiva-
tion). The contributions made by transport are very limited but
influence photochemical oxidant formation, greenhouse effect,
human toxicity and air acidification (after consumption and culti-
vation) and the depletion of ozone layer and aquatic eco-toxicity
(after consumption but before cultivation). The contributions of
the processing and packaging stages are almost negligible (less
than 1.7% for all categories).

Impact assessment: main results. The impact assessment step

was performed investigating eight different impact categories (Ta-
ble.1); Ecopoints were used as a general weighting factor and for
the sensitivity analysis. Figure 2 shows the individual contribu-

Table 1. Impact categories. Figure 3. CML – Air Acidification (g eq. H+) – Main pollutants.

Impact categories Method Unit

Air acidification
Aquatic Eco-toxicity
Eutrophication (water)
Human toxicity
Terrestrial Eco-toxicity
Greenhouse effect (direct, 100 y.)
Depletion of ozone layer
Photochemical oxidant formation.
University of Leiden, Centre of Environmental Science (CML) g eq. hydrogen (H+)
University of Leiden, Centre of Environmental Science (CML) 1e3 m3
University of Leiden, Centre of Environmental Science (CML) g eq. phosphates (PO43-)
University of Leiden, Centre of Environmental Science (CML) g
University of Leiden, Centre of Environmental Science (CML) t
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPPC) g eq. carbon dioxide (CO2)
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) g eq. trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11)
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) g eq. ethylene

Food, Agriculture & Environment; Vol. 1(2), April 2003 297

 Figure 5. CML – Eutrophication, water (g eq. PO43-)–Main pollutants.

Figure 4. CML - Aquatic Eco-toxicity (1e3m3)-Main pollutants.

Figure 7. CML – Terrestrial Eco-toxicity (t) – Main pollutants.

Figure 6. CML – Human Toxicity (g)–Main pollutants.

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

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

Figure 10. WMO–Photochemical oxidant formation (g eq. ethylene)–

Main pollutants. Figure 11. Ecopoints.

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

 Table 2. Variables changed in sensitivity analysis.
Life Cycle Variable Base case Assumptions changed
Cultivation Machine-drying Heavy Fuel Oil Natural gas
Cultivation Fertilizer use Mineral fertilizer Organic fertilizer
Cultivation Pesticide used Yes No
Consumption Energy consumption 100% 50%
Machine A
Consumption Coffee machine Machine B Only machine B
Machine C Only machine C

The impact categories investigated are presented in Figures 3- effects of varying the base case data for certain parameters. These
10 to show the relative contributions made by major pollutants to parameters and changes made to them are shown in Table 2. Each
the environmental problems examined split according to the stages parameter was changed independently of all others so that the ex-
in the life cycle in which they occur. Figure 11 shows a general tent of its effects on the base case could be assessed alone. There-
weighting factor based on ecopoints16 relating to energy and waste, fore, no single sensitivity case represents the best or worst situa-
air emissions and water emissions for each life cycle stage con- tion under which these systems might operate. Figure 12 shows
sidered. It is evident that air emissions are the most relevant and the sensitivity analysis results using a general weighting factor
the consumption stage accounts for the greatest impacts. based on ecopoints for energy and waste, air emissions and water
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to make an in-depth evalu- emissions for each of the variables considered.
ation of the environmental impact assessment by examining the From the sensitivity analysis it is evident that the exclusive use
of gas stove coffee making (machine B) instead of a mix of gas
E c o p o in ts A ir
stove and electric coffee machines has the largest positive effect
on the system analysed, while the exclusive use of electric coffee
45000
40000
machine (machine C) has the worst effect. Energy efficiency in
35000 the consumption step would also improve the eco-balance of the
30000 system, while the other assumptions (localized in the cultivation
25000 steps) make only slight differences in comparison to the base case.
20000
15000
10000
5000 Conclusions
0 For a better understanding of the importance of environmental
C ase base N a tu r a l g a s N o p e s tic id e s O rg a n ic 5 0 % e n e rg y O n ly M a c h in e B O n ly m a c h in e C
fe rtilize rs c o n s u m p tio n
management conducted under a life cycle perspective, Figure 13
shows the ecopoints applicable solely to the company (i.e. from
E c o p o in ts E n e rg y & W a s te Figure 1 the steps included in the company box plus the step relat-
1600
ing to distribution made by company vehicles). An analysis of en-
1400
vironmental impacts made at company level alone in order to make
1200
environmental improvements would steer management towards
1000
targeting almost exclusively the distribution stage (e.g. improve-
800
ments to the company vehicle pool) and the coffee roasting stage
600
(e.g. improving energy consumption, air emissions and waste man-
400
agement). Accordingly, at company level, the main environmental
200

0
improvements that could be addressed are the following.
C ase base N a tu ra l g a s N o p e s tic id e s O r g a n ic 5 0 % e n e rg y O n ly M a c h in e B O n ly m a c h in e C
fe r tilize r s c o n s u m p tio n Air emissions - principally due to fuel consumption of vehicles
for local deliveries (all the vehicles used for local deliveries run
E c o p o in ts W a te r
50 on diesel fuel) and to a lesser extent from the combustion of fos-
45 sil fuels in the roaster (natural gas). Improvements in fuel con-
40
sumption would enable air emissions to be lowered.
35
30 Energy consumption - electricity consumption refers to single
25 processing steps and to forklifts that are powered by electric bat-
20 teries. Improvements in energy efficiency would also enable air
15
10
emissions to be lowered.
5
0 Waste management - waste management at company level is
C ase base N a tu r a l g a s N o p e s tic id e s O rg a n ic 5 0 % e n e rg y O n ly M a c h in e B O n ly m a c h in e C
fe rtilize rs c o n s u m p tio n
mainly related to coffee chaff. At present this solid waste is dis-
posed of alongside other urban refuse. Although the company would
be interested in seeking an alternative use, it has been discour-
Figure 12. Sensitivity analysis results:ecopoints.
aged from taking any initiative due to the small quantities con-
cerned.

Food, Agriculture & Environment; Vol. 1(2), April 2003 299

Under a life cycle perspective the company should approach its Acknowledgement
environmental management decision making differently and con- We would like to thank the staff of Miscela d’Oro SpA, Messina
centrate mostly on the cultivation and consumption stages. (Italy), for their cooperation. Special thanks to Dr. Marilena Cioni
Natural resource use – although not all the data relating to culti- for her active collaboration. www.misceladoro.com
vation have been included, it is evident (see Figure 2) that this
step has a significant impact on the entire coffee life cycle, there-
References
fore it is fundamental for the company to include the data in its 1
www.wri.org
environmental considerations. Environmental improvements could 2
Mirulla, R. 2001. La gestione ambientale nella supply chain: esperienze e
certainly be achieved by choosing organic and/or sustainable cof- metodi di coinvolgimento dei fornitori. In Scaramazza, R. (eds.). La
fee farms as suppliers. fabbrica verde. Certificazione ambientale e imprese sostenibili. Roma:
Nuovo Studio Tecna. p. 143-150.
3
Solid wastes – at company level the main solid waste is coffee ISO 14040: 1997. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment.
chaff, but when the consumption step is also taken into considera- Principles and framework.
4
tion then coffee grounds make up the largest proportion of solid ISO 14041: 1998. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Goal
and scope definition and inventory analysis.
waste (apart from packing materials). Instead of being disposed 5
ISO 14042: 2000. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Life
of, coffee grounds could be used as food for worms as well as for cycle impact assessment.
compost. The company should place bins for composting food 6
ISO 14043: 2000. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Life
waste in each point of consumption to which they deliver. These cycle interpretation.
can then be collected when subsequent deliveries are made and 7
Diers, A., Langowski, H.-C., Pannkoke, K., Hop, R. 1999. Produkt-Ökobilanz
contents used for composting in a worm farm. The worms would vakuumverpackter Röstkaffee. Bobingen: Eco-Informa Press. LCA
process the coffee grounds into fertilizers. The amounts obtained Documents. vol.3.
8
through collecting coffee grounds in this way together with the Ecobilan Group Data for Environmental Analysis and Management
coffee chaff produced on the company premises could allow it to (DEAMTM). 1999. Version 3.0.
9
Pré Consultants SimaPro 5.1. 2003. Amersfoort, Netherlands.
start up a small-scale enterprise for vermiculture or compost pro- 10
Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Lammel, J., Kuhlmann, H. 2000. Methods to
duction. estimate on-field nitrogen emissions from crop production as an input to
LCA studies in the agricultural sector. International Journal of LCA. 5
Energy consumption – other methods to increase the environ- (6): 349-357.
mental sustainability of the company could involve setting up 11
Heathwaite, L. 2000. Flows of phosphorous in the environment: identifying
projects in collaboration with manufacturers of coffee machines pathways of loss from agricultural land. In: Weidema, B.P., Meeusen,
where such projects undertake joint research aimed at improving M.J.G. Agricultural data for Life Cycle Assessment. The Hague: Agri-
energy efficiency. Energy waste could also be prevented by infor- cultural Economics Research Institute (LEI). vol. II.
12
mation campaigns to heighten consumer awareness (both at pro- Hauschild, M. 2000. Estimating pesticide emissions for LCA of agricul-
tural products. In: Weidema, B.P., Meeusen, M.J.G. Agricultural data
fessional and household level).
for Life Cycle Assessment. The Hague: Agricultural Economics Re-
search Institute (LEI). vol. II.
Packaging - even though this step makes no great impact, inves- 13
Barbiroli, G. 1970. Produzione e commercio internazionale del caffè. Bolo-
tigating more recyclable alternatives to the current types of pack- gna: Riccardo Patron.
aging used could nevertheless be very worthwhile. 14
Camaggio Sancinetti, G., Nicoletti, G.M. 1995. Il ciclo di lavorazione del
From the above LCA clearly emerges as a useful tool to provide caffè ed i sui sottoprodotti Nota 1: Aspetti quantitativi. Industrie alimentari.
information for effective environmental management under a life XXXIV: 1137-1146.
15
cycle perspective, and as one that does not limit improvement op- Illycaffè Spa. 2003. e.mail 4/4/03.
16
portunities to the physical confines of a company alone. Ecobilan Group Tools for Environmental Analysis and Management
(TEAMTM). 1999. Version 3.0.

A ir W a te r E n e rg y & W a s te
1 20

1 00

80
E c o p o in ts

60

40

20

S t o ri n g , c le a n in g a n d R o a s t in g M i ll i n g P a c k a g in g Di s t rib u t io n
w e ig h t in g
P r o ce s s in g s te p s

Figure 13. Company level - Ecopoints.

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