Environmental Hotspots Analysis A Systematic Framework For Food

Journal of Cleaner Production 305 (2021) 126981
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Environmental hotspots analysis: A systematic framework for food

supply chains and implementation case in the UK poultry industry
Foivos Anastasiadis a, *, Naoum Tsolakis b
a
Department of Agricultural Economics, School of Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture Forestry and Natural Environment, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
Thessaloniki, 54124, Greece
b
Centre for International Manufacturing, Institute for Manufacturing (IfM), Department of Engineering, School of Technology, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, CB3 0FS, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Environmental sustainability analyses of end-to-end food supply chain (SC) operations need to be per-
Received 8 September 2020 formed regularly to accommodate reconfiguration opportunities arising in the global business landscape.
Received in revised form This research scrutinises the pertinent literature and identifies the challenges of data availability, data
17 March 2021
obsolescence, computational complexity, and data specificity that associate to well-established envi-
Accepted 1 April 2021
Available online 9 April 2021
ronmental assessment methodologies, and proposes a stepwise approach that considers key players and
processes for generating “close to real-time snapshots” of the main environmental hotspots for the focus
Handling editor: Kathleen Aviso firm. The applicability of the proposed systematic approach is demonstrated via an implementation at a
resource-intensive sector of significant scale, i.e., the UK poultry industry. Overall, this research con-
Keywords: tributes to the SC environmental sustainability management domain by guiding the mapping and
Environmental sustainability identification of environmental hotspots across end-to-end networks of operations in the form of a
Hotspots analysis stepwise framework, and through articulating several research propositions.
Food supply networks © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Supply chain management
Systematic approach
1. Introduction becomes apparent in the food sector due to the projected increase in
global food demand of 70% by 2050 (FAO, 2009) that also reflects
Discourse on sustainable production and consumption in mul- consumption habits (Sala et al., 2017). The 2030 Agenda for Sus-
tiple industries requires considering the induced environmental tainable Development, compiling of 17 Goals, places high signifi-
stress from an end-to-end supply chain (SC) perspective (Govindan, cance on food systems and population growth (UN, 2015), by
2018; Winkler et al., 2016). Notwithstanding the growth of research particularly focusing on promoting sustainable agriculture (Goal #2)
on production and operations management linked to environmental and ensuring sustainable production and consumption patterns
sustainability, there is still a need for expanding the horizon is this (Goal #12).
field (Sarkis and Zhu, 2018) via introducing integrated sustainability The significant environmental ramifications of food production
assessment tools (Abdella et al., 2020; de Faria et al., 2021). From a and consumption have propelled the development of analytical
practical perspective, owing to the high degree of complexity in disciplines to support impact evaluation from a SC angle, like for
global SCs, environmental analysis tools have to primarily help example the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Notwithstanding the
identify hotspots across individual operations to enable an overall plethora of studies introducing novel analysis methods in the field
understanding of the sustainability performance of the extended (Genovese et al., 2017; Veleva et al., 2001) and the fact that digi-
value chain (Lundie et al., 2019). The emanating transparency can talisation and share of knowledge among firms can help improve
then foster the collaboration among SC actors to proceed to detailed environmental sustainability (Melander and Pazirandeh, 2019), a
environmental analyses, prioritise any required interventions and common denominator refers to the challenge of transparently
catalyse sustainability performance improvements. This need communicating the derived results (Castellani et al., 2017). In this
regard, UNEP (2014) commends the value of hotspot analysis to-
wards allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of re-
sources’, products’ or even sectors’ sustainability profile in
* Corresponding author.
accessible formats to motivate investigation or action by industry
E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Anastasiadis).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126981
0959-6526/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Anastasiadis and N. Tsolakis Journal of Cleaner Production 305 (2021) 126981
and relevant stakeholders. In this vein, the need for a “beyond 2. Research background
traditional impact assessment” view is often proclaimed to extend
the boundaries of a single product’s impact on a specific The academic community has strived to transform the sustain-
geographical location (Roy et al., 2009) and promote workable re- able development concept into business practice (Seuring, 2004).
lationships amid environmental systems and policy schemes Sustainability improvement in end-to-end SC operations, across
(UNEP DPT, 2014). This research subscribes to these tenets and aims several economic sectors, is essential (Green Kenneth et al., 2019;
to provide a novel perspective towards environmental Kogg and Mont, 2012), and new tools/technologies are constantly
sustainability. introduced to this end, e.g., blockchain towards improving visibility,
The scope of the current work is to provide a systematic operational-level capabilities and sustainability (Nandi Madhavi
approach for identifying environmental hotspots across food SCs. et al., 2020; Tsolakis et al., 2020). However, the majority of extant
The existing environmental sustainability assessment tools are research efforts focuses on specific operational echelons, based on
dependent upon cumbersome data gathering processes and ana- analytic evaluations, and rarely takes a multiple stakeholder
lytic computational procedures that require significant time and perspective (Fritz et al., 2017).
effort. Thus, there is a gap for an easy and quick approach that can In subsection 2.1 we provide a review of selected studies that
be applied before committing to detailed evaluations based on elaborate diverse methodological approaches towards evaluating
pertinent established methodologies. Such an approach could the environmental impact of SCs, while in subsection 2.2 several
leverage stakeholders’ inputs on their firms’ operations to over- hotspots-focused tools are summarised. Finally, in section 2.3 we
come, at first-stage, data-relevant challenges (e.g., time, cost). In illustrate the importance of the EWR approach. The provided re-
this regard, this research proposes a qualitative stepwise approach view is by no means a rigid analysis nor is it based on an exhaustive
for identifying environmental hotspots across end-to-end SC op- list of all relevant works, as this would extend the present
erations via considering key players and processes, while gener- research’s scope; the review rather acts as a synthesis of all key
ating “close to real-time snapshots” of the main environmental works that have been identified as part of our on-going study effort.
hotspots for the focus firm. Therefore, the research question un-
derpinning this study is the following: 2.1. Environmental impact evaluation methodologies
“How could we generate close to real-time snapshots of the main
environmental hotspots for the focus firm?” The environmental impact assessment of a supply network
considers the operations which can create significant environ-
mental damage (van Elzakker et al., 2017). Nowadays, environ-
Specifically, the hotspots analysis leverages both primary and mental impact categories extend the traditional view of generated
secondary data, hence enabling its easiness, and informs about the waste and release of harmful chemicals; rather includes diversified
‘Energy e Waste e Resource’ (EWR) environmental impact. From a impact types like noise pollution and gaseous emissions. In this
methodological viewpoint, this research synthesises a framework/ sense, and considering the growing interest in the environmental
systematic approach to identify environmental hotspots. The performance assessment of product SCs, the extant literature is
applicability of the proposed framework is demonstrated through a populated with methodological and conceptual approaches that
single-case study in the food industry. Furthermore, using the result in a gamut of proposed metrics and indicators (Djekic et al.,
findings from the literature review, we articulate research propo- 2019; Genovese et al., 2017). Therefore, the identification of a core
sitions about SC sustainability management. set of key methodological tools and environmental indicators that
This research contributes to the operations management field by can be used for performing comprehensive environmental assess-
proposing a framework/systematic approach for conducting hot- ments is necessitated to avoid engaging with complex datasets and
spot analyses across end-to-end SCs in a quick, easy and low-cost costly data-gathering processes.
manner. We could claim that the proposed framework can be In this sense, Balfaqih et al. (2017) leveraged experts’ consulta-
applied at an initial stage of sustainability evaluations, before tion, through adopting a modified Delphi method, to consent over
proceeding with the application of established analytic methods reviewed performance measures and for further assessing the
that leverage available datasets for more accurate evaluations. The environmental and economic performance of desalination net-
framework aims to provide an approach that helps overcome, at the works through the Analytic Hierarchy Process. The subjectivity of
first instance, detailed data and time-related challenges yet reliably the results is compensated by the ability to promptly identify
indicating environmental hotspots. The resulting visualisation of improvement opportunities from an end-to-end view, depending
the hotspot analysis results informs about hotspots that require on the panels’ structure. Furthermore, Camanzi et al. (2017) used
closer monitoring and further detailed assessments for informing the extended input-output approach to allocate the environmental
targeted interventions to improve environmental sustainability impacts caused by the EU-25 food products SCs. In this case, the
performance. reliance on a methodology developed based in the US, combined
The study is structured as follows. In Section 2, a brief literature with the use of outdated databases, could trigger criticism con-
review is provided. In Section 3 the research approach employed is cerning the abstract, yet aggregated, results informing about the
explained and a framework/systematic approach is proposed to nature and the origin of greenhouse gas emissions along the food
respond to the gaps and challenges identified. In Section 4, a case chain.
study is investigated to test the proposed systematic approach and On the other hand, Kirilova and Vaklieva-Bancheva (2017) pro-
the findings are discoursed. Following that, the overall study results posed an optimisation approach for investigating the environ-
are discussed in Section 5 while we also articulate pertinent mental and economic trade-offs of a “green” products’ portfolio of a
research propositions to encourage potential research streams. SC for curd production. The authors’ findings indicate that
Finally, in Section 6, the study concludes with academic contribu- advanced mathematical modelling techniques can be used to
tions, industry insights, as well as limitations and future research answer specific operations-wise inquiries at the expense of time,
directions. effort and accurate data availability; however, modelling is
2
necessary to capture the essence of real-world SC management concentration” whereas in the field of sustainability a pertinent
factors. Furthermore, Ross and Evans (2003) applied the LCA description points to “a life cycle stage, process or elementary flow
methodology to assess the impact of reuse and recycle strategies for which accounts for a significant proportion of the impact of the
alternative plastic-based packaging systems on landfill waste. The functional unit” (Ratcliffe and McCullagh, 2001; UNEP DPT, 2014).
method is case-specific with narrow boundaries of analysis while it In the field of SC management, the need for hotspot analysis-
is also product unit-oriented excluding for example the environ- oriented tools stems from industry actors who need a facile
mental impact of other supporting operations or resulting by- method for internally identifying environmental impact operations
products. to prioritise and make informed decisions about actions that can
Perrin et al. (2017) elaborated the Sustainability Multicriteria accelerate a shift towards sustainable production and consumption
Multiscale Assessment methodology to calculate respective sus- (Barthel et al., 2017). This presents both a practical and impactful
tainability indicators for a miscanthus biomass SC. The approach approach to help deliver the Sustainable Development Goals of the
helped in identifying the supply system’s stages with considerable United Nations. However, methodological rigour is rather inade-
economic, environmental and social impacts without requiring the quate for the scope of extended SCs with various limitations
collection of high-quality data but lacks methodological robustness. identified on the used approaches.
Similar to the approach by Perrin et al. (2017), Paolotti et al. (2017) Castellani et al. (2017) provided a hotspot analysis of seventeen
evaluated both the economic and environmental aspects connected representative food products based on the annual basket of an
to different wood biomass fuels through elaborating simple eco- average EU-27 citizen, following an LCA methodological stand-
nomic analysis measures and the LCA methodology, respectively. point. From a SC perspective, the authors concluded that agricul-
This approach relies on secondary data sources that might be ture and processing are major hotspots, depending on the food
outdated, as discussed in the case of Camanzi et al. (2017), or product. Other studies extend the LCA boundaries of food product
governed by key assumptions. Likewise, in an analysis of key factors units, like indicatively Ingrao et al. (2017) who applied the LCA
of carbon footprint in the UK food SCs taking into account LCA using approach to the case of trays for fresh-food packaging solutions and
Multilinear Regression and Stochastic Frontier Analysis, the limited found that the highest environmental hotspots are identified in the
LCA data was highlighted as a major limitation (Ferguson Aikins production and transport stages of the utilised biodegradable
and Ramanathan, 2020). polyesters.
A recent study applied a fuzzy synthetic method-decision Focused studies on particular food product cases are dominating
making trial and evaluation laboratory to assess data-driven sus- the extant body of literature. Indicatively, Van Holderbeke et al.
tainable SC management (Tseng et al., 2019). In a novel way, the (2003) used the LCA approach for the case of bread in Belgium
study integrates qualitative, quantitative and social media data; yet and revealed that, in 2000, the main hotspots for emissions
this is a challenging process that requires advanced skills and data include: energy use for fertilizers’ production, the baking process,
fusion capabilities. Another interesting approach introduced the and product distribution to consumers. Noya et al. (2018) employed
principles and method of risk analysis into the environmental the LCA methodology, following the ISO standards (i.e., ISO 14040,
impact assessment field (Zelen a
kova et al., 2020). However, such 2006; ISO 14044, 2006) to assess the environmental profile of three
methodologies can be mainly used in infrastructure and water different gluten-free biscuits’ SCs in the UK. The study findings, in
management construction projects. Similarly, a novel approach was alignment with Van Holderbeke et al. (2003), pointed out that in-
used to assess the environmental impact of municipal solid waste gredients’ production and transportation are the main environ-
management by developing an aggregated indicator that also al- mental hotspots contributing to over 22.2% and 19.4%, respectively.
lows the identification of best management practices (Deus et al., On the diary products’ category, Hospido et al. (2003) analysed a
2020). Nonetheless, the application of this approach is restricted. representative scheme of milk production in Galicia (Spain),
Table 1 summarises indicative, recently published, environ- considering the farming and dairy stages, and concluded that
mental impact assessment studies to demonstrate the gamut of eutrophication, acidification and global warming are the main
elaborated methodological techniques and approaches. Despite the environmental hotspots. In a wider context, Yan et al. (2011) ana-
brief character of the provided taxonomy, it aims to communicate lysed thirteen LCA studies of European milk production systems, up
the diversity of methodologies and metrics within the sustainable to the farm gate, to evaluate the underlining comparability. The
SC management field. Seuring (2013) and Brandenburg et al. (2014) authors concluded that a direct comparison of milk production
provided different reviews of an aggregate number of over 430 systems is challenging due to technical issues, arbitrary choices and
studies modelling approaches of sustainable SCs, hence demon- inconsistent assumptions. Eide (2002) used literature evidence to
strating the broad range of analysis methods in the domain. A key identify end-to-end hotspots for the case of three Norwegian
finding of the abovementioned literature overview is encapsulated dairies, finding that agriculture is the main hotspot for the majority
in the following: of the studied environmental themes. Notably, the research output
indicated that small dairies have a greater environmental impact
Finding 1 e Sustainability assessment methodologies are inter- compared to middle- and large-size dairies owing to the different
connected to the available data types thus often limiting the scope production scales, automation level and products’ transportation.
of analysis to isolated silos of SC operations. Furthermore, Berlin (2002) assessed the cradle-to-gate environ-
mental life cycle of Hushallsost Angsgarden, a semi-hard cheese
producer in Sweden, and recognised that the milk production stage
2.2. Hotspot analysis tools has the greatest environmental impact. To a greater extent,
Sonesson and Berlin (2003) studied the SC of dairy products in
The concept of hotspots is multi-dimensional/disciplinary and Sweden and used LCA to assess environmental-focused in-
initially, it was related to ecological and social vulnerability; thus, terventions from an end-to-end SC perspective. The study indicated
the idea of hotspot analysis originates in fields such as seismology, that important environmental factors include the packaging ma-
volcanology, epidemiology and criminology (Devey, 1988; Ratcliffe, terials and the transportation of the final dairy products to
2004). While there are commonly used definitions in each all of households. On the contrary, Berlin et al. (2007) leveraged data
these areas, they are discipline specific. For example, in crimi- from seventeen conventional dairy industries in Sweden to opti-
nology, analysis hotspots are defined as “areas of the highest crime mise the sequence of twenty-one products and conducted an LCA
3
Table 1
Taxonomy of indicative SC environmental assessment studies.
Author(s) Product/Industry Region Research Method Criteria Supply Chain Limitations

Echelon
F. Pr. Pc. D. R.
Balfaqih et al. (2017) Water Desalination Saudi Delphi Eco-toxicity Subjectivity

Arabia AHP potential
Airborne emissions
Health & safety of
employees
Kirilova and Vaklieva- Dairy Bulgaria Mathematical modelling Biochemical Oxygen Data demanding
Bancheva (2017) Multi-objective optimization Demand (BOD)
Wastewater
Camanzi et al. (2017) Food European Environmentally Extended GHG emissions Outdated databases
Union Input-Output Analysis
Perrin et al. (2017) Miscanthus France Sustainability Multicriteria Climate change Strongly correlated to economic
biomass/Energy Multiscale Assessment Freshwater performance; Multi methods
ecotoxicity
Human toxicity,
cancer effects
Land use
Water resource
depletion
Paolotti et al. (2017) Wood Biomass/ European LCA GHG emissions Outdated databases; Assumptions
Energy Union Energy cost
Ecoindicator 99
indicators
Ross and Evans (2003) Plastic-based Australia LCA Greenhouse gas Generalisation of results is
packaging products emissions challenging
Photochemical
oxidant precursors
Energy consumption
Fattahi et al. (2020) Biomass/Energy Iran Stochastic model GHG emissions Modelling and computational effort
Khounani et al. (2021) Agro-biorefineries Iran LCA Primary energy Outdated databases
consumption
Damage to human
health
Climate change
damage
Symbols: F. for farming/raw material, Pr. for Processing, Pc. for Packaging, R. for Retailing. D. for Distribution, R. for Retailing.
study finding that milk processing is the major environmental environmental consequences are attributed to the packaging and
hotspot owing to the large volumes of generated milk waste. Feitz distribution stages. Koroneos et al. (2005) applied the LCA meth-
et al. (2007) proposed an alternative LCA-focused physico-chemical odology for the case of beer in Greece, and partially confirming the
allocation method based on operational data from seventeen dairy findings by Talve (2001) who found that bottle fabrication, pack-
processing plants in Australia. The study findings suggest that aging and beer production are the main subsystems across the beer
physico-chemical allocation matrices overcome the inherent bias of SC that generate the most significant environmental impacts. In
mass, process energy or price allocations, especially for multi- this vein, Hospido et al. (2005) applied the LCA methodology to
product manufacturing plants, hence providing a more realistic assess the environmental impact associated with the production of
indication of resources’ appropriation and emissions per product beer in Spain and found that the production and distribution of raw
unit. Mourad et al. (2008) applied LCA to evaluate the global materials along with the packaging stages are the main environ-
warming potential of milk packaged in Tetra Pak Aseptic containers mental hotspots.
in Brazil with the assessment revealing that a 48% reduction of Following the growing consumers’ trend toward organic food
global warming potential could be achieved in case the recycling purchases, Cederberg and Mattsson (2000) studied the organic and
rate of post-consumer packages increases by 70%. conventional milk production in Sweden, analysing only the
Several cases focus on hotspot analysis of industrially processed farming stage and concluded that this is the main hotspot in: (i)
food products. For example, Andersson et al. (1998) conducted an LCA both systems due to eutrophication and acidification; (ii) organic
analysis of tomato ketchup in Sweden and concluded that packaging milk as a consequence of the arable land; and (iii) conventional
and food processing are the environmental hotspots for many impact agricultural owing to the use of pesticides. In a following study,
categories with primary energy consumption and refrigerator storage Cederberg and Stadig (2003) applied the LCA approach for the case
time (at household level) being the most critical parameters. Later, of organic milk and beef in Sweden. The authors focused only on
Andersson and Ohlsson (1999) conducted an environmental LCA the farming stage and concluded that milk and beef systems are
study of specific tomato ketchup and found that the processing and closely interconnected, further suggesting that the choice of eco-
packaging echelons of operations have a significant impact on the nomic allocation methods between the two products has a detri-
environmental profile of this food product, concluding that the cur- mental impact on the resulting LCAs. Apropos milk production,
rent geographical location of the manufacturing operations is pref- Thomassen et al. (2008) investigated main environmental hot-
erable with further improvements being feasible. spots in organic and conventional farms in the Netherlands and
In the beverages field, Talve (2001) performed an LCA study found that purchased concentrates constitute the main off-farm
about the basic lager beer in Estonia and concluded that the main environmental burden, whereas in the selected organic farms the
4
concentrates are found to comprise the hotspot in off-farm impact “Greenability”, i.e., the capability to ‘green’ a particular product SC
besides roughage. Equivalently to Cederberg and Mattsson (2000), concerning different environmental intervention strategies. The
de Boer (2003) conducted a pilot study where conventional and literature evidence outlined above indicates the following:
organic milk production in the Netherlands was compared
concluding that: (i) eutrophication is a hotspot for conventional Finding 3 e Sustainability evaluations about supply network
milk production; (ii) global warming potential is a hotspot for echelons shall consider the dimensions of energy consumption,
organic milk; and (iii) land use per unit of milk produced is a resources’ use and waste generation for providing an inclusive view
hotspot in organic farming. about the environmental impact of the respective operations.
Regarding meat food products, Roy et al. (2007) performed an
LCA analysis to compare the environmental impact of different 3. Environmental hotspot analysis approach
meat types in Japan, from an end-to-end perspective. The authors
found that the production of chicken has the least environmental This section summarises the output from the literature review,
load compared to the pork while beef is the least efficient, in case highlighting any major gaps in existing methodologies/approaches
protein content is the functional unit of analysis. In particular, on hotspot analysis, and exemplifies the process employed to
Ogino et al. (2004) used the LCA methodology to study the envi- synthesise and apply the proposed systematic approach respond-
ronmental impacts of the Japanese beef-fattening system, at a ing to these gaps.
cattle level, with the study results indicating that enteric or gut
emissions of beef units is the main impact category of global 3.1. Research gap
warming while cattle waste is the major acidification and eutro-
phication factor. Table 2 summarises key challenges in applying Environmental impact assessment studies have a central role in
existing hotspots analysis approaches in food SCs, as these were the operations management literature, mainly attributed to com-
identified through a taxonomy of selected studies. The aforemen- panies’ engagement in the ‘green’ SC management field. In this
tioned literature observations lead to the following: regard, a plethora of sustainability assessment tools are docu-
mented in the extant literature that mainly consider: (i) indicators/
Finding 2 e The majority of extant hotspot analysis approaches in indexes; (ii) specific products; or (iii) integrated assessments (Ness
food supply networks are based on analytic calculations that et al., 2007).
leverage available databases and yield focused results that may be The literature evidence indicates that hotspot analysis is a
challenged by the availability of required data. screening-level LCA used to identify areas that generate significant
environmental impact. LCA is an extensively developed and
established methodological tool with on-going studies in both
2.3. Energy-waste-recourse approach academia and industry that try to improve it as an environmental
impact assessment approach (Neugebauer et al., 2015) and address
From a sustainable SC viewpoint, efficient utilisation of pro- certain inherent limitations (Millet et al., 2007). The literature in-
duction resources has become more important over the last decade dicates that challenges in conducting an LCA analysis include: (i)
and the literature often focuses on the design and development of complexity, in terms of needed expertise and analytic capabilities;
‘green’ products (Zhang et al., 2017). ‘Green’ products are defined by (ii) granularity, in terms of the amount and level of detail in the
the Commission of the European Communities (2001) as offerings required data; (iii) abstractive, associated to the ability to interpret
that “use less resources, have lower impacts and risks to the envi- and use the obtained results; and (iv) intensity, denoting the time,
ronment and prevent waste generation already at the conception effort and cost required to prepare and execute the analysis
stage”. Therefore, the careful management of energy consumption, (Pesonen and Horn, 2013).
raw materials usage, and hazardous waste generation interface are Considering the dynamic nature of operations and the on-going
significant for aligning actors towards common sustainable SC goals reconfigurations in SCs, business stakeholders tend to be interested
(Veleva et al., 2001). in simple tools that can generate informative environmental ‘close to
Provided the complexity of food supply networks, along with real-time snapshots’ for guiding related decision-making processes
the interconnections between the food and other sectors, inte- (Esty and Simmons, 2011), at a first instance, before delving into the
grated evaluations of energy use are required, particularly consid- application of established analytic assessment methods. Computa-
ering that consumption patterns affect energy demand across end- tionally intensive LCA studies are necessitated in case businesses need
to-end food SCs (Hoolohan et al., 2016). In this regard, LCA is to communicate business performance, especially to make ‘green’
commonly used in the food sector for uncovering in- marketing claims (Esty and Simmons, 2011). In this context, we sug-
terdependencies between processes-products-environment in the gest that initial sustainability assessment tools have to be: (i) simple
context of energy evaluations (Salmoral and Yan, 2018). Moreover, and easy-to-understand; (ii) relatively low cost and data demanding;
the food sector dominates both in terms of technological (Miranda- (iii) low time consuming; (iv) easily validated; and (v) have a degree of
Ackerman et al., 2017) and natural (Aivazidou et al., 2016) re- objectivity (Bienge et al., 2009; Millet et al., 2007).
sources’ appropriation. Food waste is also essential to be captured Synopsising the above analysis and mainly building upon the
by analysis methodologies as the Food and Agricultural Organisa- output of the extensive literature review e specifically the taxon-
tion of the United Nations estimates that about 1/3 of the edible omy in Tables 1 and 2 e it is apparent that the existing environ-
parts of globally produced food (i.e., 1.3 billion tons) is lost or mental impact evaluation methodologies are not recommended for
wasted, annually (Verghese et al., 2018). addressing the need for initial and low-cost screening of SC envi-
Via combining the energy, resource and waste factors that ronmental impacts. Our study tries to address this gap by proposing
characterise every manufacturing value chain, Tridech and Cheng a framework that is: (i) simple and easy; (ii) quick; (iii) not based on
(2010) developed a framework and a software tool for the inte- extensive datasets; and (iv) inexpensive in nature. We suggest that
grated modelling and evaluation of this triple-faceted conception this framework can be applied at an initial stage of environmental
on a specific machine and factory levels. Liu and Srai (2011) evaluations, before proceeding with extensive empirical research
expanded and extended the EWR framework proposed by Tridech (e.g., through questionnaires with representative samples) and
and Cheng (2010) to a SC level for the measurement of a firm’s analytical approaches such as LCA.
5
Table 2
Hotspot analysis approaches in food supply chains.
Author(s) Product/Industry Region Research Method Data Requirement Supply Chain Echelon Scope Key Limitations e
Implementation
F. Pr. Pc. D. R.
Challenges
Ingrao et al. (2017) Foamy Polylactic EU A-LCA (according to ➢ Primary Data ➢ Limited available
Acid Trays as Food ISO14040 and (from a firm) data on emerging
Packaging Material ISO14044) ➢ Secondary Data packaging materials
and technologies.
Castellani et al. 17 edible products EU LCA; LCIA ➢ Secondary Data ➢ Quantification of the
(2017) (e.g., Beer; Oranges; LCA normalization
Bread; Sugar; Milk) factors is
challenging leading
to wrong
prioritization of
compared impact
categories.
Noya et al. (2018) Biscuits UK LCA (according to ➢ Primary Data ➢ Assumed mass
ISO14040 and (from a firm) allocation factors of
ISO14044, 2006) ➢ Secondary Data functional units/
and in compliance outputs’
with the Product environmental
Category Rules burdens.
➢ Distribution and
consumption
scenarios need
further investigation
for a cradle-to-grave
environmental
impact assessment.
Andersson and Tomato Ketchup Sweden LCA ➢ Primary Data ➢ Assumption that
Ohlsson (1999) (from a firm) tomato paste type
➢ Secondary Data and location of
production activities
do not affect the
amount of required
energy.
➢ Data
approximations on
specific raw
materials.
➢ Approximations on
the waste treatment
options-percentage.
➢ Assumed
irrelevance of
geographical
location and
wastewater
treatment
efficiency.
Andersson et al. Tomato Ketchup Sweden LCA ➢ Secondary Data ➢ Great gaps in
(1998) accessible data.
➢ Challenging to
determine system
boundaries of the
agricultural
production and
consumption
phases.
➢ Environmental
impact allocation
challenges for
agricultural co-
products.
➢ LCAs Lack of models
capturing leakage of
nutrients and
pesticides.
➢ Wastewater
treatment is
neglected.
Van Holderbeke Bread Belgium LCA ➢ Literature ➢ Lack and
et al. (2003) Discussion uncertainty of
historical data on
the technologies/
processes’
6
Table 2 (continued )
Implementation
F. Pr. Pc. D. R.
Challenges
environmental
impact.
➢ Different types
kinds of energy
sources in the past.
Typically, animal
and human labour is
not included in an
LCA.
➢ Challenging
assessment of land
use in the past.
Talve (2001) Lager Beer Estonia LCA ➢ Primary Data ➢ Data, information
(from firms) and knowledge is
➢ Secondary Data spread between
different specialists
and not in a central
repository.
➢ Product and
production data is
disaggregated and
outdated.
➢ Consumer
consumption
behaviour is not
captured.
Koroneos et al. Beer Greece LCA ➢ Primary Data ➢ Evaluation factors
(2005) (from a firm) for the importance
➢ Secondary Data of each
environmental
effect may be
lacking for specific
countries leading to
assumptions.
➢ Software databases
are used for
calculating storage/
distribution related
air emissions.
Hospido et al. Beer Spain LCA ➢ Primary Data ➢ Environmental
(2005) (from a firm) impact categories
➢ Secondary Data are calculated based
on corresponding
reference
substances thus
rendering absolute
value comparisons
as not viable.
➢ Normalization of
diverse
environmental
impacts using the
same scale is made
for reference values
available for specific
areas.
➢ Software databases
are used for
calculating
production
processes’
environmental
impact.
Williams et al. 10 edible products UK LCA ➢ Secondary Data ➢ Errors regarding
(2006) (e.g., Beef; measurements of
Potatoes; Poultry; major terms (e.g.
Milk) pollutants and
energy use on farms
or in
manufacturing).
➢ Data on fertiliser use
on grassland is
(continued on next page)
7
Implementation
F. Pr. Pc. D. R.
Challenges
aggregated on a
national level;
models to estimate
the use on different
land types by
different animal
systems is needed.
➢ Assumptions on
environmental
emissions and
transportation
processes.
Cederberg and Organic Milk; Sweden LCA ➢ Secondary Data ➢ Τhe choice of the
Stadig (2003) Organic Beef allocation method
between products
has a decisive
impact on the LCAs
of production.
➢ Monofunctional
allocation
approaches provide
limited information
on the development
of environmental
friendly food
production systems.
➢ Defining system
boundaries and
allocation of co-
products impacts
the results.
Cederberg and Organic Milk; Sweden LCA ➢ Primary Data ➢ Facilities, assets and
Mattsson (2000) Conventional Milk (from farms) utilities are
➢ Secondary Data excluded from the
LCA analysis due to
lack of data.
➢ Outdated data and
challenging
geographical
correlation of
imported materials.
➢ Assumptions
regarding leakages
and chemical losses
from pesticides.
Thomassen et al. Organic Milk; Netherlands LCA ➢ Primary Data ➢ Facilities, assets and
(2008) Conventional Milk (from a firm) utilities are
➢ Secondary Data excluded from the
LCA analysis due to
assumed similarities
between different
farming systems.
➢ Assumption on the
electricity source.
➢ Environmental
effects are assigned
qualitatively to
selected
environmental
impact categories.
de Boer (2003) Organic Milk; Netherlands LCA ➢ Secondary Data ➢ Assumptions
Conventional Milk regarding leakages
and chemical losses
from pesticides, and
CO2-eq. factors.
➢ Direct comparison
of results among
different LCA studies
is not feasible as the
application of LCA
requires in-depth
research to under-
stand underlying
8
Implementation
F. Pr. Pc. D. R.
Challenges
processes and vari-

ations in emissions.
➢ Agricultural LCAs
assess only the
potential
environmental
impact of
agricultural
production with the
corresponding
impact realised
locally being highly
variable depending
on local climate and
soil type.
Hospido et al. Milk Spain LCA ➢ Primary Data ➢ Limited
(2003) (from firms) consideration of
➢ Secondary Data system boundaries
owing to limited
accessibility of
required data.
➢ Consumption and
waste management
phases are excluded
from the analysis
due to the limited
experience of
stakeholders in the
sustainable
management of
urban solid waste.
➢ Material and energy
flows’ allocation is
made according to
economic criteria.
Yan et al. (2011) Milk Europe LCA ➢ Literature ➢ The food production
Review system should be
appropriately
defined.
➢ Allocation
procedures should
be provided
according to the ISO
standards.
➢ A common
functional unit
should be used to
enable future
comparisons.
➢ Site-specific
emission and
characterization
factors should be
used in
environmental
hotspots.
➢ Biodiversity should
also be included as
an impact category.
➢ Sensitivity analysis
related to the
choices of methods
and uncertainty of
results should be
evaluated.
Berlin (2002) Cheese Sweden LCA ➢ Secondary Data ➢ Assumption on the
functional unit at
the consumption
phase.
application of waste
(continued on next page)
9
Implementation
F. Pr. Pc. D. R.
Challenges
treatment
processes.
➢ Assumption on
energy losses.
Eide (2002) Milk Norway LCA ➢ Secondary Data ➢ Assumption on the
consumer phase.
application of waste
treatment
processes.
➢ Assumption on
energy generation.
Berlin et al. (2007) 21 dairy products Sweden Heuristics on ➢ Secondary Data ➢ Assumption on
product energy sources.
sequencing; LCA ➢ Assumption on
transport distances
of raw materials.
Sonesson and Dairy Sweden LCA; Material Flow ➢ Primary ➢ Transportation
Berlin (2003) Accounting; interview related
Substance Flow evidence (for environmental
Analysis scenarios effects are not
building) comprehensively
➢ Secondary Data captured, e.g., noise
and traffic accidents.
➢ Assumptions
regarding
production
technology and
consumers’
behaviour.
➢ Selection of system
boundaries is
questionable, e.g.,
agriculture was
excluded from this
study.
➢ Transportation
related
environmental
impacts are not
captured due to lack
of specific data.
Feitz et al. (2007) Dairy Australia LCA ➢ Primary Data ➢ The physico-
(from firms) chemical allocation
➢ Secondary Data of resource inputs
and wastewater is
assumed to be fixed
regardless of
whether the alloca-
tion is on an eco-
nomic, mass or
protein basis.
Ogino et al. (2004) Beef Japan LCA ➢ Secondary Data ➢ Assumptions
regarding indirect
energy consumption
for the production of
chemical fertilizers
or pesticides.
➢ Assumptions on the
environmental
loads from the feed
transport.
➢ Normalization and
weighting of the
LCA results are not
conducted.
Foster et al. (2006) General UK LCA ➢ Secondary Data ➢ Few data on the
specifics of
particular
production/import,
processing,
distribution and
final consumption
10
Implementation
F. Pr. Pc. D. R.
Challenges
processes for a
range of food
products.
➢ Considerable
inconsistencies in
the input data
leading to limited
consistencies of
impact results.
➢ Limited data
coverage of
environmental
impact beyond the
farm gate.
Pelletier et al. Beef USA LCA ➢ Primary Data ➢ Assumption
(2010) (from firms) regarding farming
➢ Secondary Data and transportation
processes.
biomass treatment.
emissions of
pesticides.
➢ Assumed soil
organic carbon
equilibrium
conditions for all
feed input
production systems.
Roy et al. (2008) Meat (chicken, Japan LCA ➢ Secondary Data ➢ Use of secondary
pork, beef) data for the analysis.
➢ Packaging stage is
not included in the
analysis due to lack
of data.
➢ Animal waste
incineration
emissions are not
considered in the
analysis.
Hyde et al. (2001) Food and Drink UK Critical Discussion ➢ Primary Data N/A
Industry (from firms)
➢ Secondary Data
Mourad et al. Milk Brazil LCA ➢ Primary Data ➢ Assumptions on the
(2008) (from a firm) consumption phase.
➢ Secondary Data ➢ Assumptions on the
waste treatment.
➢ Use of outdated data
for the analysis.
Loiseau et al. (2020) Food France LCA ➢ Primary Data ➢ Computation to
(from a firm) overcome data
➢ Secondary Data issues on distances
➢ Use of outdated data
for the analysis.
Maiolo et al. (2021) Fish Italy LCA ➢ Primary Data ➢ Assumptions made
(from a firm) to fill inventory gaps
➢ Secondary Data ➢ Use of outdated data
for the analysis.
Symbols: F. for farming/raw material, Pr. for Processing, Pc. for Packaging, R. for Retailing. D. for Distribution, R. for Retailing.
3.2. Methodology 3.3. Systematic analysis approach
A variety of research methodologies and techniques exists in the The term sustainable SC management is not valid since to date
broader field of SC management; among those frequently used are no “truly sustainable supply chain” exists (Pagell and Shevchenko,
the following: substantive justification for theory building; sur- 2014), with a key reason being the neglecting of stakeholders’ in-
veys; case study research; action research; modelling (Seuring clusion to the environmental perspectives of SC management (Fritz
et al., 2005). The current research proposes a framework/system- et al., 2017). Motivated by the latter and building upon the outcome
atic approach to identify environmental hotspots. Thereafter, we of the critical comparison and the key output of the literature re-
demonstrate its applicability via a single-case study (Yin, 2009). view (see Table 1), we developed a 3-stages framework/systematic
11
Fig. 1. Environmental impact hotspot systematic approach.
Table 3
Interviewees’ details.
Company Type Industry Sector Interviewee Position
A Processor Convenience Foods Factory Manager

B Lobbying Dairy Environmental Manager
C Distribution/Retailing Large Scale Retailing Supply Chain Director
D Trader Farming Market Development Manager
E Distribution/Retailing Premium Retailing Ethical Trade Manager
F Processor Packaging Operations Manager
G Processor Oils and Fats Category Planning Manager
H Processor Beverages Supply Planning Team Leader
I Processor Beverages Manufacturing Development
Manager
J Processor Dairy Industrial Services and Environment Manager
K Farming Seeds Manufacturing Marketing Intelligence Manager
L Distribution/Retailing Large Scale Retailing Owner
M Farming Farming Owner
approach for environmental impact hotspot analysis. The key un- to rank the EWR elements; and (ii) analysis to revise the initial
derpinning idea is to perform an end-to-end SC environmental maps through incorporating the hotspots. Engagement with C-
impact evaluation through the EWR lenses to reveal hotspots level executives representing every key echelon of operations in
following a stepwise process: the SC under evaluation helps to gather first-hand feedback (for
validation and ranking purposes) and ensure that the analysis
1. Map Supply Network e The first stage is a SC network and outcome is up-to-date and organization-specific. An illustration
processes mapping to ensure that both the structure of the SC of the framework/systematic approach is provided in Fig. 1.
under evaluation and every major process/element having any
significant environmental impact is considered. Implementing the framework/systematic approach in practice
2. Identify EWR Elements e The second stage involves the iden- requires several additional activities, the majority of which are
tification of key EWR elements, pertinent to the SC-processes flexible from a methodological perspective, given that the quality of
from the previous stage, to generate a more inclusive repre- the requested output shall be of informative standards. Therefore,
sentation of the key factors that relate to environmental impact. the precise form and manner of execution depend entirely on the
The outcome of this stage is an environmental impact catalogue researcher/practitioner; for example, there are different tools for SC
of the main EWR-impact related elements in food SCs and and network mapping (Stage 1), yet the proposed systematic
especially in the industry under examination. approach does not dictate a specific one as long as the outcome of
3. Generate Hotspots Maps e The final stage is the generation of the mapping is desirable. Thereafter, the EWR elements per SC
the revised maps and involves: (i) interviews for validation of process are recognised based on available secondary data that can
both the initial maps (Stage 1) and the EWR catalogue (Stage 2) be retrieved from diverse repositories (Stage 2). A few additional
12
Fig. 2. SC structure (initial map).
activities are not so straightforward, e.g., ranking and evaluating 4. Case study in food industry
interviews’ data (Stage 3). The case study in the following section
demonstrates a practical implementation of the framework/sys- 4.1. Justification of the case
tematic approach and most importantly elaborates on the details of
additional activities/elements. Investigating sustainability in meat SCs is thought-provoking
and usually results in stimulating output (Golini et al., 2017). We
Fig. 3. SC process level (initial map).
13
Table 4
Processes and their respective EWR environmental impacts.
Environmental Impacts
Energy Waste Resources
Crops production oil preparation soil preparation and maturing (agrichemicals waste) soil preparation
sowing harvesting, maturing (agrichemicals utilisation,
harvesting shelling water intensive and land intensive)
shelling threshing
threshing cleaning
cleaning sorting (excess solid material, such as stems and husks)
sorting (machinery driven by
fossil fuel consumption)
pre-drying and drying (high
temperature processing)
Transportation (between crop the main protein feed (soy)
production and feed production) comes from far distant locations
Feed mill pelletizing dosifying dosifying
drying (heat intensive processes) packaging (solid waste from operational packaging (excessive raw material
mismanagement and secondary packaging waste utilisation)
generation)
Breeding and hatching farm bird stock bird stock bird stock
growth growth growth
hatching (temperature controlled egg laying (manure from livestock and wastewater from egg laying (feed and water
environment) animal consumption) consumption for animals)
Broiler farm chicken broiling (temperature chicken broiling (manure from livestock and chicken broiling (feed and water
controlled environment) wastewater from animal consumption) consumption for animals)
Slaughter and packing house scalding scalding scalding
de-feathering (heat intensive de-feathering de-feathering
processes) washing washing
chilling evisceration evisceration
storage (temperature controlled cutting (waste water with suspended organic materials) cutting (water intensive)
environment) packaging (solid waste from operational packaging (excessive raw material
mismanagement and secondary packaging waste utilisation)
generation)
Retail facilities warehousing (temperature warehousing warehousing
controlled environment) distribution (emissions) distribution
distribution retailing retailing (temperature controlled
retailing environment)
Fig. 4. SC structure revised map for processed chicken meat.
selected the UK poultry industry as a case to illustrate the appli- water footprint compared to other agricultural products (Tsolakis
cability of the proposed environmental impact assessment frame- et al., 2018), while poultry is generally more efficient than other
wrok/systematic approach based on volume, SC configuration and protein products characterised by high feed-conversion rates (US
environmental impact criteria. Beginning with the latter, in terms Environmental Protection Agency, 2018); for example, compared
of resource utilisation, poultry meat exhibits a higher consumptive to pork and beef (around 60% and 240%, respectively). The origin of
14
Fig. 5. SC process level (revised map).
Table 5
Average scores of processes/sub-processes EWR rankings.
Process Sub-process Energy (mean) Water (mean) Resource (mean)
Crops production Soil preparation and Sowing 3.31 3.77 3.92

Maturing 2.85
Harvesting and Threshing 3.08 2.15
Drying (optional) 1.92
Storage 1.77 1.77
Transportation Distant locations 3.54
Feed mill Raw materials storage
Drying (optional) and Cleaning 1.85
Mixing 1.77 1.62
Pelletizing and Crumbling 1.54 3.15 2.15
Cooling
Drying 3.85
Packing
Breeding and hatching farm Egg stock
Setters 1.92
Hatching 3.92
Chick handling 2.31
Animal dispatch 1.92 2.31
Broiler farm Shed Reception 2.08
Chicken growing 1.92 1.69 3.46
Chicken catching 1.77 1.77
Animal dispatch
Slaughter and packing house Animal reception
Scalding 3.85 2.15 2.85
De-feathering 1.92 1.92 1.92
Washing 1.77 3.69 3.92
Evisceration 1.92 3.23 3.77
Chilling 2.69 1.77 2.23
Cutting 1.85 2.38 2.31
Packaging 2.23 2.15
Storage 2.23
Retail facilities Warehousing
Retailing
Distribution
15
Fig. 6. Processes map (revised) with EWR hotspots.
the crops used to produce the feed is also related to environmental industry reports and academic studies on EWR related impact in
impacts due to increased food-miles, e.g., soy is mainly produced in food SCs (Appendix I; Table B). Concerning primary data, semi-
South America (Dalgaard et al., 2007). Moreover, the poultry in- structured interviews were conducted with a selected group of
dustry is energy-intensive due to temperature-controlled envi- interviewees (Table 3) from different functions and roles, securing
ronments in several stages (Gonzalez-Garcia et al., 2014; Manning the end-to-end representation of the UK poultry SC. The selection
et al., 2008) and also generates more wastewater than other meat of the industry experts was based upon their long-term occupation
industries; for example, more than 7 times (in volumetric terms) in the UK poultry sector. The interviewed experts’ field of special-
compared to beef (Dieu, 2009). isation covers all stages of a poultry SC and is representative of the
In terms of SC configuration, the UK poultry industry is an following: (i) farming; (ii) processing; (iii) distribution/retailing;
interesting case to apply the proposed framework/systematic and (iv) trading and lobbying.
approach since it is vertically integrated and shorter, thus allowing The scope of the interviews was twofold, i.e., validation of the
for more efficient control and traceability (The British Poultry outputs from the first two stages of the framework implementation
Council, 2015). Finally, UK is a leading chicken meat market in and ranking the EWR impacts. In particular, the interviewees were
terms of both consumption rates and production volumes: (i) UK is first asked to review and validate the initial SC and processes maps
the 2nd producer of chicken meat in the EU (14th globally); (ii) UK (Stage 1) as well as the EWR catalogue (Stage 2). Second, the in-
is 11th in the total consumption of chicken meat, globally (ac- terviewees were invited to assess the significance of the updated
counting for 17% of the total volume consumed); and (iii) UK is the and validated EWR catalogue via a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not
2nd market in the EU in terms of chicken meat consumption with important) to 5 (extremely important) (Stage 3).
an average consumption of almost 24 kg/capita (International
Poultry Council, 2015).
4.3. SC mapping results
4.2. Data gathering
The structure of the analysis and the presentation of results
Both primary and secondary data involved in the implementa- follows the stages of the proposed framework/systematic approach.
tion of the framework/systematic approach in the UK poultry case. Methodological comments regarding the analysis and discussion
Concerning the latter, we have two subsets: (i) general information on the results serve as a means for a comprehensive illustration of
of the UK Poultry Industry (Appendix I; Table A); and (ii) review of the proposed framework/systematic approach.
16
Stage 1 e Mapping SC structure and processes (initial maps) average score for every sub-process (Table 5) provides further un-
derstanding of their EWR relevance by indicating its respective
Literature review and poultry industry analysis (Appendix I) significance.
resulted in the elaboration of the initial maps presented below. The above analysis resulted in forty-nine distinct average scores
Fig. 2 presents the SC structure initial map starting from the (means); thus, forty-nine hotspots are capturing those sub-
extracted and primary processed raw materials, while Fig. 3 illus- processes evaluated about their energy, waste and resources
trates the main processes involved in each of the stages mentioned impact. Aiming to provide further insights regarding the relative
before, excluding the packaging manufacturing stage. importance of every hotspot, we performed a clustering analysis in
all forty-nine average scores resulting in three clusters. Based on
Stage 2 e Identification of key EWR elements the characteristics of every cluster the thresholds distinguishing
every hotspot from the others include: those equal or above 3.46;
This stage involved the identification of the areas with high EWR those between 3.46 and 2.69; and those below 2.69 (for details see
environmental impacts based on the reviewed secondary data clustering statistics including boxplot and variance analysis in
(Appendix I). Table 4 presents the processes initially identified as Appendix II). Reviewing all hotspots under these thresholds, we
EWR intensive, providing an initial assessment of the sector. developed respectively three categories with different levels of
environmental impact urgency. The first one is the “emergent
Stage 3 e Validation and development of (revised) SC-processes hotspots” including the highest scores, the second is the “urgent
maps hotspots” consisting of the average scores and the last one “less
urgent hotspots” with the lowest scores. This classification allows
The final stage involves the interviews with the SC stakeholders, the listing of interventions to improve the environmental impact
the analysis and results. Initially, there was a validation of the SC performance of the SC under evaluation.
and processes maps generated in the previous stages, followed by a Incorporating the analysis’ output into the (validated) processes
ranking of the main associated EWR elements. map, we developed its revised version pointing out the hotspots
Validation of SC structure initial map per process/sub-process (Fig. 6). Also, the figure illustrates the type
As part of the interviews, the respondents were asked to comment of environmental impact (energy or waste or resources) and its
on the initial maps to validate and revise them according to the spe- level of urgency.
cific case. The main changes that occurred during that process are: (1) The high number and urgency of hotspots in both crop pro-
solar energy use at farm level for power generation; (2) diesel use for duction and slaughtering processes indicate their heavy environ-
machinery at the crops/animal production level; (3) noting of maize/ mental impact, suggesting prioritisation in terms of interventions/
corn are the main raw materials in feeding; (4) breeder farmer and further exploration. From an EWR perspective, energy seems to be
hatchery house are two distinct stages having eggs as intermediate the most populated category (twenty hotspots) followed by waste
material; (5) grandparent eggs are considered raw material for (sixteen hotspots) and resources (thirteen hotspots). However, re-
breeder farms; (6) antibiotics are considered a raw material in both sources should be equally considered by the UK poultry industry
farm stages; (7) dead animals are considered a waste stream in both due to the high number of “emergent” hotspots.
farm stages; and (8) secondary packaging is considered a waste
stream. Incorporating these changes into the initial SC map resulted in 5. Discussion
the development of the revised one, as presented in Fig. 4.
Based on the feedback received from the interviewees, the main The development of a stepwise systematic approach to map a
changes on the initial map concerning the processes per SC stage food SC structure along with performing an environmental hot-
are: (1) in crops production there is a variation regarding some spots analysis, based on easily accessible primary and secondary
processes such as soil preparation, sowing and harvesting, since evidence, can help: (i) develop an overall understanding of the
depending on the technology there could be merging of processes; structure and processes across the food SC under investigation; and
(2) cleaning and sorting are no longer required; (3) in trans- (ii) generate an initial evaluation about the respective environ-
portation there is an extra intermediary storage step known as mental hotspots. Such mapping outputs can then indicate the sig-
‘gran merchant’; (4) in feed mill an optional drying and cleaning nificant SC hotspots and inform the implementation of more
stage depends on weather conditions and a crumbling process after analytic approaches such as LCA for the accurate evaluation of the
pelletising; (5) hatchery was introduced as a new process, bearing respective environmental impacts. We, therefore, suggest that:
new hotspots; and (6) in the broiler farm, the main energy con-
Proposition 1. e Mapping the structure of a SC in the food sector
sumers are the chicken growing (controlled temperatures) and
whilst accessing ‘close to real-time snapshots’ of respective environ-
chicken catching (involves transportation), while the waste feed is
mental hotspots can help diagnose sustainably challenging operations
an additional stream from the growing stage and in terms of re-
to then inform focused and detailed environmental assessments, and
sources, animal feed is required for the broiler growth. In the
identify emerging network reconfiguration opportunities.
slaughter-packing house and retail facilities, there are no changes.
Fig. 5 captures these modifications in the revised processes map. Concluding environmental hotspots analysis via capturing the
understanding of C-level executives can help to overcome data
4.4. EWR assessment results obsolescence challenges since data input, in this case, is based on
understanding about the current state of suppliers and input ma-
After validating the initial SC structure and process maps, we terials, while the vast majority of similar well-established tools
provided to the respondents the full list of the revised processes and might often rely on possibly outdated third-party datasets and
sub-processes (as presented in Table 5) requesting to assess the generic industry reports. The active involvement of corporate
respective EWR environmental impacts on a scale from 1 (not managers in the proposed framework assures extra added-value
important) to 5 (very important). The output from this methodolog- due to their essential role in understanding and implementing an
ical step is to generate scores for every environmental impact related organization’s environmental sustainability objectives. A recent
element per SC stage/process. The ranked elements denote the po- study supports the importance of an individual’s personal attitude
tential hotspots since stakeholders acknowledged them as such. The towards environmental sustainability behaviour (Swaim et al.,
17
2016). Therefore, industrialists’ involvement in the identification focuses on particular indices and detailed computational methods
and assessment process of environmental hotpots eventually is which often require detailed datasets that are challenging to access.
expected to have a positive impact compared to an external tech- In this study, we argue that environmental sustainability hotspots
nical report that just needs to be implemented. Moreover, the key analyses can be performed quickly and easily to acquire ‘close to
benefit of using stakeholders’ feedback as the main source of data real-time snapshots’ and provide pertinent managerial indications.
results in company-specific results. For this reason, we put forward For this reason, three research propositions are articulated to
our second proposition as: elaborate on the necessity for systematic approaches towards the
preliminary evaluation of environmental sustainability hotpots
Proposition 2. e Involving industrial experts in the identification
across SC operations and processes.
and preliminary assessment of environmental hotspots can allow the
Our paper provides academic implications in several ways. First,
encapsulation of the current understanding about the particular
backed-up by the relevant literature, this research indicates that
manufacturing processes and the status of production inputs to
well-established methodologies in environmental assessment can
generate a quasi-realistic view about the SC performance whilst
provide analyses that are associated with a degree of imple-
helping to align with defined environmental sustainability goals.
mentation difficulty due to the considerable analytic and compu-
Finally, yet importantly, an advantage of the proposed frame- tational skills, cost and resources required to generate detailed and
work is the fairly easy and quick consideration of end-to-end SCs. informative results (Esty and Simmons, 2011). Though sounded
As illustrated in the indicative application at the UK poultry case, rudimentary, this realisation is key in recognising the need to
the entire SC and every process across all of the operational eche- propose a portfolio of systematic methodologies that could be
lons are analysed in a fairly quick manner compared to other more applied in a relatively cost-effective manner for conducting envi-
analytic methodologies which typically require detailed and hard ronmental assessments and identifying echelons and processes
to access/retrieve datasets. Also, the analysis that can be performed that can negatively impact the sustainability of SCs. To accommo-
by applying the proposed framework is simple and fast while other date such requirements, this research proposes a stepwise frame-
tools/methods could require advanced analytics skills, intensive work. Using our proposed framework, it is arguably straightforward
training and are usually time-consuming. An additional contribu- to overcome the challenges of the quick and easy identification of
tion of the current approach is the visualization of the results that environmental hotspots, at least for internal purposes.
combines representations of the SC structure, all processes/sub- Moreover, our framework implies that the intrinsic knowledge
processes and different levels of hotspots. In this regard, we artic- of industrial experts on the particular SC operations is required to
ulate the following research proposition: be captured, in a balanced manner. This could be particularly
relevant in emergent instances that may impose abrupt network
Proposition 3. e Retrieving and communicating ‘close to real-time
reconfigurations (Stone and Rahimifard, 2018), such as during the
snapshots’ of environmental hotspots across echelons and processes in
Covid-19 pandemic outbreak, where knowledge about the shop
end-to-end supply networks requires non-resource-intensive system-
floor is required to perform pertinent assessments, whilst the
atic tools which can help to visually express the environmental sus-
datasets are updated.
tainability performance, across certain dimensions.
6.2. Management implications
6. Conclusions
The main implications of the proposed framework at a managerial
Hotspots analysis is recognised as a tool that helps understand level concern strategic considerations and upper management
resources’, products’ and sectors’ sustainability profile in accessible decision-making. First, company-specific environmental hotspots
formats (UNEP, 2014). Owing to the increasing and changing di- identify areas that require further improvements, while SC structure
etary demand patterns and the globalisation of respective maps provide insights for any interactions among different stages
manufacturing and distribution operations, this need is even more and processes. This output is also valuable for the classification of
prominent to food SCs. In this regard, based on an extensive anal- processes that require deeper analysis/optimisation and the design
ysis of the literature, we provide a generic template of the major of respective environmental impact mitigation strategies. In terms of
works following the hotspots analysis methodology in assessing resilience in agri-food SCs, given the established networks’
the environmental sustainability impact of food SCs. More impor- complexity, disruptions cannot be seen as an one-off event; thus, the
tantly, we propose a stepwise systematic process for environmental management in such sectors should adapt to changing conditions
hotspots analysis of food networks and we demonstrate the (Stone and Rahimifard, 2018). Time-consuming environmental
applicability of the approach through a specific case. assessment based on historical data might not be effective. There-
Our research discovers that environmental hotpots assessments fore, capturing the hotspots in SCs with the proposed framework is
across SCs have to be implemented regularly to inform, at least crucial towards an overall impact on greening the entire network.
internally, about the implications of possible reconfigurations like Second, the classification of hotspots in “emergent” e “urgent” e
for example the use of alternative production input suppliers. Well “less urgent” allows a degree of prioritisation of interventions to
established tools can generate accurate environmental impact re- improve the environmental impact performance of the SC under
sults at the expense of effort, time and detailed data requirements. evaluation. For example, instead of implementing LCA though the
In this regard, our proposed stepwise framework aims to provide a entire SC (time-consuming e high cost), the proposed systematic
systematic approach for industrialists to map the structure and approach could identify (easy and quick) the most urgent areas.
environmental hotspots of their operations easily. This will allow a Then, an LCA (or a similar tool) could be further explored, hence
more effective structuring of environmental management di- saving time and cost.
rections in a supply network, specifically on the shop floor. Third, the proposed framework/systematic approach could have
several implications from a policy-making perspective. Application
6.1. Academic contributions at an entire sector (at a regional or even country level) shall deliver
‘close to real-time snapshots’ regarding the environmental hotspots,
In the environmental sustainability assessment field, a plethora thus allowing governments to easily monitor the current policy and
of approaches exists (Seuring, 2013). However, extant research proceed with targeted adjustments or further investigation. Detailed
18
environmental impact assessment studies at a national level are a environmental assessments. This need naturally opens up future
time-consuming and expensive endeavour. Using the proposed research avenues to conduct case studies for refining the proposi-
framework/systematic approach could result is a quick, easy and tions. Future research efforts could also expand further the scope of
relatively low-cost assessment, identifying the hotspots that require the proposed approach by developing similar systematic ap-
closer monitoring and further meticulous attention. For instance, a proaches for economic and social hotspots, hence resulting in a
useful recommendation is to apply the environmental hotspot synthesis of an integrated sustainability analysis hotspots tool. This
analysis in every region accommodating processing companies e will ultimately help to guide the design of more robust SC envi-
which typical require a lot of energy and recourses, while producing ronmental assessment tools following the need to continually
significant waste. In this way, institutional stakeholders could easily monitor sustainability performance and inform about operations
identify if current policies are properly implemented, are sufficient and processes that might present irregular behaviours.
or require further amendments.
In terms of the particular food sector, the application of the CRediT authorship contribution statement
proposed framework/systematic approach in the UK poultry in-
dustry confirmed previous food SC environmental hotspots and Foivos Anastasiadis: Conceptualization, Methodology, Soft-
identified others specific to that case. The agricultural stage is the ware, Visualization, Writing e original draft, preparation. Naoum
main environmental hotspot due to the high consumption of fossil Tsolakis: Data curation, Methodology, Investigation, Validation,
fuels (energy), animal waste from bird mortality at farms (waste) Writing e review & editing.
and extensive use of land and water (resources). The processing
stage follows, with main hotspots related to heat/temperature- Declaration of competing interest
controlled environment (energy), packing waste and wastewater
at slaughtering and packinghouses (waste) and water for washing The authors declare that they have no known competing
(resource). Finally, the least intensive environmental hotspot is the financial interests or personal relationships that could have
retail stage due to non-significant resource hotspots, low energy appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
related hotspots, e.g., storage temperature-controlled environ-
ments and main waste intensive hotspots are packing and in-
Acknowledgement
ventory (e.g., forecasting failures result in food waste).
The authors would like to acknowledge Dr Mukesh Kumar and
6.3. Limitations
Mr Manuel Pina-Dreyer for their contribution concerning industry
insights and primary data.
Research limitations are inherent in this study, which simulta-
neously provide grounds for future work. First, the proposed
framework/systematic approach is based on secondary evidence Appendix I
that needs to be further validated and improved through con-
ducting action research in several SCs across different sectors. This
will allow the standardisation of the stepwise process whilst Table A
encapsulating any idiosyncratic elements that are worth assessing, General information of the UK chicken industry (Source: Manning et al. 2008; The
except for the EWR dimensions, and develop mechanisms that may British Poultry Council 2015).
help decrease any degree of subjectivity when considering the Item Observation
views of industrial experts.
Supplier base ca. 2500 Poultry Farms
Second, the proposed framework/systematic approach does not Main processor stage ca. 30 chicken and slaughterhouses
adequately represent the retailing echelon and the consumption SC key stakeholders Slaughter and packing houses, broiler farms,
stage. A more comprehensive end-to-end approach should elabo- (upstream) hatcheries, breeder farms, parental stock farms
rate further on these stages, increasing at the same time the total Annual production 875 million chickens/year
Predominant farming 95% reared in large, specially designed houses
number of involved stakeholders and providing a wider represen-
method
tation of the SC. Without a shred of doubt, there is a need for ho- Broiler stage lead-times 38 - 52 days
listic sustainability assessment approaches (Abdella et al., 2020; de Main chicken 2 Sisters, Moy Park, Faccenda Group,
Faria et al., 2021) and more focus on corporate social sustainability processing Cargill Meat Solutions
companies
(Barbosa and de Oliveira, 2021; Chuah et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2020).
Hatchery stage lead- 21 days
Third, the framework/systematic approach is not appropriate for times
quantifying or measuring environmental impact, but to provide a Breeder lead-times 18 - 56 weeks
better understanding of SC processes, environmental management Breeder lead-times 0 - 17 weeks
practices and targeted interventions. We clarify that our systematic Current Local/Imported 67 / 33 %
ratio
approach shall be applied at the first stage of environmental
(chicken from Brazil and
assessment initiatives to create respective ‘close to real-time Thailand)
snapshots’. The role of the proposed framework is informative
and should be only complementarily used to well-established Table B
methodologies (e.g., LCA) that can generate analytic results and Environmental Impact (EWR) Literature Review.
enable the quantification of impact and comparative analysis of
Generic Perspective Poultry Industry Specific
particular functional units (Williams et al., 2006).
Eide (2002) Dalgaard et al. (2007)
Hospido et al. (2003) Gonzalez-Garcia et al. (2014)
6.4. Future research Liu and Srai (2011) International Poultry Council (2015)
Millet et al. (2007) Manning et al. (2008)
While this study has provided a stepwise framework/systematic Neugebauer et al. (2015) The British Poultry Council (2015)
approach with a set of propositions, we are mindful of the need to Pesonen and Horn (2013) US Environment Protection Agency (2018)
Roy et al. (2009)
further validate, stadnardise and improve this via additional
19
References
Appendix II
Abdella, G.M., Kucukvar, M., Onat, N.C., Al-Yafay, H.M., Bulak, M.E., 2020. Sustain-
ability assessment and modeling based on supervised machine learning tech-
niques: the case for food consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 251, 119661.
Aivazidou, E., Tsolakis, N., Iakovou, E., Vlachos, D., 2016. The emerging role of water
footprint in supply chain management: a critical literature synthesis and a hi-
Clusters Number of Items Centers F2 erarchical decision-making framework. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 1018e1037.
Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., 1999. Including environmental aspects in production
Cluster 1 7 3.002 development: a case study of tomato ketchup. Food Sci. Technol. Lett. 32 (3),
Cluster 2 32 1.9688 134e141.
Cluster 3 10 3.7692 Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., Olsson, P., 1998. Screening life cycle assessment (LCA) of
Not Clustered s tomato ketchup: a case study. J. Clean. Prod. 6 (3), 277e288.
Balfaqih, H., Al-Nory, M.T., Nopiah, Z.M., Saibani, N., 2017. Environmental and eco-
nomic performance assessment of desalination supply chain. Desalination 406,
2e9.
Barbosa, M.W., de Oliveira, V.M., 2021. The Corporate Social Responsibility profes-
Analysis of Variance
sional: a content analysis of job advertisements. J. Clean. Prod. 279, 123665.
Barthel, M., Fava, J., James, K., Hardwick, A., Khan, S., 2017. Hotspots Analysis: an
overarching methodological framework and guidance for product and sector
level application. United Nations Environment. In: Economy Division e Sus-
tainable Lifestyles, Cities and Industry Branch, Paris.
Variable F- p- Model Sum of DF Error Sum of DF
Berlin, J., 2002. Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Swedish semi-hard
statisticx value Squares Squares
cheese. Int. Dairy J. 12 (11), 939e953.
F2 21.32 4.755 2 46 Berlin, J., Sonesson, U., Tillman, A.M., 2007. A life cycle based method to minimise
environmental impact of dairy production through product sequencing.
J. Clean. Prod. 15 (4), 347e356.
Bienge, K., Von Geibler, J., Lettenmeier, M., Adria, O., Kuhndt, M., 2009. Sustain-
ability Hot Spot Analysis: a streamlined life cycle assessment towards sus-
tainable food chains. In: 9th European International Farming System
Association Symposium. Vienna (Austria).
Brandenburg, M., Govindan, K., Sarkis, J., Seuring, S., 2014. Quantitative models for
sustainable supply chain management: developments and directions. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 233 (2), 299e312.
Camanzi, L., Alikadic, A., Compagnoni, L., Merloni, E., 2017. The impact of green-
house gas emissions in the EU food chain: a quantitative and economic
assessment using an environmentally extended input-output approach. J. Clean.
Prod. 157, 168e176.
Castellani, V., Sala, S., Benini, L., 2017. Hotspots analysis and critical interpretation of
food life cycle assessment studies for selecting eco-innovation options and for
policy support. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 556e568.
Cederberg, C., Mattsson, B., 2000. Life cycle assessment of milk production d a
comparison of conventional and organic farming. J. Clean. Prod. 8 (1), 49e60.
Cederberg, C., Stadig, M., 2003. System expansion and allocation in life cycle
assessment of milk and beef production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8 (6), 350e356.
Chuah, S.H.-W., El-Manstrly, D., Tseng, M.-L., Ramayah, T., 2020. Sustaining
customer engagement behavior through corporate social responsibility: the
roles of environmental concern and green trust. J. Clean. Prod. 262, 121348.
Commission of the European Communities, 2001. Green Paper on Integrated
Product Policy. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
Dalgaard, R., Schmidt, J., Halberg, N., Christensen, P., Thrane, M., Pengue, W., 2007.
LCA of soybean meal. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13 (3), 240.
de Boer, I.J.M., 2003. Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic
milk production. Livest. Prod. Sci. 80 (1e2), 69e77.
de Faria, D.R.G., de Medeiros, J.L., Araújo, O.Q.F., 2021. Sustainability assessment for
the chemical industry: onwards to integrated system analysis. J. Clean. Prod.
278, 123966.
Deus, R.M., Mele, F.D., Bezerra, B.S., Battistelle, R.A.G., 2020. A municipal solid waste
indicator for environmental impact: assessment and identification of best
management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 242, 118433.
Devey, C.W., 1988. Mapping present-day geochemical variations across the society
hotspot. Chem. Geol. 70 (1e2), 47e47.
Dieu, T.T.M., 2009. Food Processing and Food Waste. In: Baldwin, C. (Ed.), Sustain-
ability in the Food Industry. Wiley-Blackwell, Ames, Iowa, pp. 23e55.
Djekic, I., Poji
c, M., Tonda, A., Putnik, P., Bursa c Kovacevi
c, D., Rezek-Jambrak, A.,
Tomasevic, I., 2019. Scientific challenges in performing life-cycle assessment in
the food supply chain. Foods 8(8).
Eide, M.H., 2002. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of industrial milk production. Int. J.
Life Cycle Assess. 7 (2), 115.
Esty, D.C., Simmons, P.J., 2011. The Green to Gold Business Playbook: How to
Implement Sustainability Practices for Bottom-Line Results in Every Business
Function. John Wiley & Sons, New Jer.
FAO, 2009. How to Feed the World in 2050. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, Rome.
Fattahi, M., Govindan, K., Farhadkhani, M., 2020. Sustainable supply chain planning
for biomass-based power generation with environmental risk and supply un-
certainty considerations: a real-life case study. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1e25.
Feitz, A.J., Lundie, S., Dennien, G., Morain, M., Jones, M., 2007. Generation of an
industry-specific physico-chemical allocation matrix - application in the dairy
industry and implications for systems analysis. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12 (2),
109e117.
Ferguson Aikins, E., Ramanathan, U., 2020. Key factors of carbon footprint in the UK
20
food supply chains: a new perspective of life cycle assessment. Int J Oper Prod Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., Olsson, L., 2007. Categorising tools for
Man ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print) 40 (7/8), 945e970. sustainability assessment. Ecol. Econ. 60 (3), 498e508.
Foster, C., Green, K., Bleda, M., Dewick, P., Evans, B.A.F., Mylan, J., 2006. Environ- Neugebauer, S., Martinez-Blanco, J., Scheumann, R., Finkbeiner, M., 2015. Enhancing
mental Impacts of Food Production and Consumption: A Report to the the practical implementation of life cycle sustainability assessment - proposal
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Deftra. Manchester of a Tiered approach. J. Clean. Prod. 102, 165e176.
Business School, London. Noya, L.I., Vasilaki, V., Stojceska, V., Gonzalez-Garcia, S., Kleynhans, C., Tassou, S.,
Fritz, M.M.C., Schoggl, J.P., Baumgartner, R.J., 2017. Selected sustainability aspects for Moreira, M.T., Katsou, E., 2018. An environmental evaluation of food supply
supply chain data exchange: towards a supply chain-wide sustainability chain using life cycle assessment: a case study on gluten free biscuit products.
assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 141, 587e607. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 451e461.
Genovese, A., Morris, J., Piccolo, C., Koh, S.C.L., 2017. Assessing redundancies in Ogino, A., Kaku, K., Osada, T., Shimada, K., 2004. Environmental impacts of the
environmental performance measures for supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 167, Japanese beef-fattening system with different feeding lengths as evaluated by a
1290e1302. life-cycle assessment method. J. Anim. Sci. 82 (7), 2115e2122.
Golini, R., Moretto, A., Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Kalchschmidt, M., 2017. Developing Pagell, M., Shevchenko, A., 2014. Why research in sustainable supply chain man-
sustainability in the Italian meat supply chain: an empirical investigation. Int. J. agement should have No future. J. Supply Chain Manag. 50 (1), 44e55.
Prod. Res. 55 (4), 1183e1209. Paolotti, L., Martino, G., Marchini, A., Boggia, A., 2017. Economic and environmental
Gonzalez-Garcia, S., Gomez-Fernandez, Z., Dias, A.C., Feijoo, G., Moreira, M.T., assessment of agro-energy wood biomass supply chains. Biomass Bioenergy 97,
Arroja, L., 2014. Life Cycle Assessment of broiler chicken production: a Portu- 172e185.
guese case study. J. Clean. Prod. 74, 125e134. Pelletier, N., Pirog, R., Rasmussen, R., 2010. Comparative life cycle environmental
Govindan, K., 2018. Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United
chain: a conceptual framework. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 195, 419e431. States. Agr Syst 103 (6), 380e389.
Green Kenneth, W., Inman, R.A., Sower Victor, E., Zelbst Pamela, J., 2019. Compre- Perrin, A., Wohlfahrt, J., Morandi, F., Ostergard, H., Flatberg, T., De la Rua, C.,
hensive supply chain management model. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 24 (5), Bjorkvoll, T., Gabrielle, B., 2017. Integrated design and sustainable assessment of
590e603. innovative biomass supply chains: a case-study on miscanthus in France. Appl.
Hoolohan, C., McLachlan, C., Mander, S., 2016. Trends and drivers of end-use energy Energy 204, 66e77.
demand and the implications for managing energy in food supply chains: Pesonen, H.L., Horn, S., 2013. Evaluating the Sustainability SWOT as a streamlined
synthesising insights from the social sciences. Sustainable Production and tool for life cycle sustainability assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (9),
Consumption 8, 1e17. 1780e1792.
Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2003. Simplified life cycle assessment of Ratcliffe, J.H., 2004. Strategic Thinking in Criminal Intelligence. Federation Press,
Galician milk production. Int. Dairy J. 13 (10), 783e796. Sydney.
Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2005. Environmental analysis of beer pro- Ratcliffe, J.H., McCullagh, M.J., 2001. Chasing ghosts? Police perception of high crime
duction. International journal of agricultural resources. Governance and Ecol- areas. Br. J. Criminol. 41 (2), 330e341.
ogy 4 (2), 152e162. Ross, S., Evans, D., 2003. The environmental effect of reusing and recycling a plastic-
Hyde, K., Smith, A., Smith, M., Henningsson, S., 2001. The challenge of waste min- based packaging system. J. Clean. Prod. 11 (5), 561e571.
imisation in the food and drink industry: a demonstration project in East Roy, P., Orikasa, T., Nei, D., Nakamura, N., Shiina, T., 2007. A comparative study on
Anglia, UK. J. Clean. Prod. 9 (1), 57e64. the life cycle of different types of meats. Abstracts for ILCAJ meeting 2007,
Ingrao, C., Gigli, M., Siracusa, V., 2017. An attributional Life Cycle Assessment 114e114.
application experience to highlight environmental hotspots in the production Roy, P., Orikasa, T., Nei, D., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Shiina, T., 2008.
of foamy polylactic acid trays for fresh-food packaging usage. J. Clean. Prod. 150, A Comparative Study on the Life Cycle of Different Types of Meat, Proceedings
93e103. of the Third LCA Society Research Symposium. Nagoya, Japan.
International Poultry Council, 2015. Chicken meat production and production for Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q.Y., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Shiina, T., 2009.
top producing countries. In: Council, I.P. (Ed.). A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J. Food Eng. 90
Khounani, Z., Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., Moustakas, K., Talebi, A.F., Goli, S.A.H., (1), 1e10.
Rajaeifar, M.A., Khoshnevisan, B., Salehi Jouzani, G., Peng, W., Kim, K.-H., Sala, S., Anton, A., McLaren, S.J., Notarnicola, B., Saouter, E., Sonesson, U., 2017. In
Aghbashlo, M., Tabatabaei, M., Lam, S.S., 2021. Environmental life cycle quest of reducing the environmental impacts of food production and con-
assessment of different biorefinery platforms valorizing olive wastes to biofuel, sumption. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 387e398.
phosphate salts, natural antioxidant, and an oxygenated fuel additive (tri- Salmoral, G., Yan, X., 2018. Food-energy-water nexus: a life cycle analysis on virtual
acetin). J. Clean. Prod. 278, 123916. water and embodied energy in food consumption in the Tamar catchment, UK.
Kirilova, E.G., Vaklieva-Bancheva, N.G., 2017. Environmentally friendly management Resources,. Conserv. Recycl. 133, 320e330.
of dairy supply chain for designing a green products’ portfolio. J. Clean. Prod. Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., 2018. Environmental sustainability and production: taking the
167, 493e504. road less travelled. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (1e2), 743e759.
Kogg, B., Mont, O., 2012. Environmental and social responsibility in supply chains: Seuring, S., 2004. Industrial ecology, life cycles, supply chains: differences and in-
the practise of choice and inter-organisational management. Ecol. Econ. 83, terrelations. Bus. Strat. Environ. 13 (5), 306e319.
154e163. Seuring, S., 2013. A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain
Koroneos, C., Roumbas, G., Gabari, Z., Papagiannidou, E., Moussiopoulos, N., 2005. management. Decis. Support Syst. 54 (4), 1513e1520.
Life cycle assessment of beer production in Greece. J. Clean. Prod. 13 (4), Seuring, S., Müller, M., Reiner, G., Kotzab, H., 2005. Is There a Right Research Design
433e439. for Your Supply Chain Study. In: Kotzab, H., Seuring, S., Müller, M., Reiner, G.
Liu, Y., Srai, J.S., 2011. Sustainable supply chain configuration: proposing a hot spot (Eds.), Research Methodologies in Supply Chain Management. Physica-Verlag,
analysis methodology. In: Annual M3 Conference. Heidelberg, pp. 1e14.
Loiseau, E., Colin, M., Alaphilippe, A., Coste, G., Roux, P., 2020. To what extent are Sonesson, U., Berlin, J., 2003. Environmental impact of future milk supply chains in
short food supply chains (SFSCs) environmentally friendly? Application to Sweden: a scenario study. J. Clean. Prod. 11 (3), 253e266.
French apple distribution using Life Cycle Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 276, Stone, J., Rahimifard, S., 2018. Resilience in agri-food supply chains: a critical
124166. analysis of the literature and synthesis of a novel framework. Supply Chain
Lundie, S., Wiedmann, T., Welzel, M., Busch, T., 2019. Global supply chains hotspots Manag.: Int. J. 23 (3), 207e238.
of a wind energy company. J. Clean. Prod. 210, 1042e1050. Swaim, James Anthony, Maloni, Michael J., Henley, Amy, Campbell, Stacy, 2016.
Maiolo, S., Forchino, A.A., Faccenda, F., Pastres, R., 2021. From feed to fork e life Motivational influences on supply manager environmental sustainability
Cycle Assessment on an Italian rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) supply behavior. Supply Chain Manage: An Int. J. 21 (3), 305e320.
chain. J. Clean. Prod. 289, 125155. Talve, S., 2001. Life cycle assessment of a basic lager beer. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 6
Manning, L., Baines, R., Chadd, S., 2008. Benchmarking the poultry meat supply (5), 293e298.
chain. Benchmark Int. J. 15 (2), 148e165. The British Poultry Council, 2015. About the poultry industry. In: Council, T.B.P.
Melander, L., Pazirandeh, A., 2019. Collaboration beyond the supply network for (Ed.).
green innovation: insight from 11 cases. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 24 (4), Thomassen, M.A., van Calker, K.J., Smits, M.C.J., Iepema, G.L., de Boer, I.J.M., 2008.
509e523. Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in The
Millet, D., Bistagnino, L., Lanzavecchia, C., Camous, R., Poldma, T., 2007. Does the Netherlands. Agr Syst 96 (1e3), 95e107.
potential of the use of LCA match the design team needs? J. Clean. Prod. 15 (4), Tridech, S., Cheng, K., 2010. An investigation on the framework for EREE-based low
335e346. carbon manufacturing, 5th International Conference on Responsive
Miranda-Ackerman, M.A., Azzaro-Pantel, C., Aguilar-Lasserre, A.A., 2017. A green Manufacturing-Green Manufacturing (ICRM 2010). Ningbo. China 257e267.
supply chain network design framework for the processed food industry: Tseng, M.-L., Wu, K.-J., Lim, M.K., Wong, W.-P., 2019. Data-driven sustainable supply
application to the orange juice agrofood cluster. Comput. Ind. Eng. 109, chain management performance: a hierarchical structure assessment under
369e389. uncertainties. J. Clean. Prod. 227, 760e771.
Mourad, A.L., Garciaa, E.E.C., Vilela, G.B., Von Zuben, F., 2008. Influence of recycling Tsolakis, N., Srai, S.J., Aivazidou, E., 2018. Blue water footprint management in a UK
rate increase of aseptic carton for long-life milk on GWP reduction. Resour. poultry supply chain under environmental regulatory constraints. Sustainability
Conserv. Recy. 52 (4), 678e689. 10 (3).
Nandi Madhavi, L., Nandi, S., Moya, H., Kaynak, H., 2020. Blockchain technology- Tsolakis, N., Niedenzu, D., Simonetto, M., Dora, M., Kumar, M., 2020. Supply network
enabled supply chain systems and supply chain performance: a resource- design to address United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: a case study
based view. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 25 (6), 841e862. of blockchain implementation in Thai fish industry. J. Bus. Res. In press.
21
UN, 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable developme. In: Zhang, Y.B., Hafezi, M., Zhao, X., Shi, V., 2017. The impact of development cost on
Division for Sustainable Development (Ed.), UN. United Nations, New York. product line design and its environmental performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 184,
UNEP DPT, 2014. Hotspots Analysis: mapping of existing methodologies, tools and 122e130.
guidance and initial recommendations for the development of global guidance
in: 1), U.S.L.C.I.-F.P.a.P. (Ed.). Paris.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2018. Poultry production. AG 101. In: US Foivos Anastasiadis is a Researcher at the Department of
Environment Protection Agency. https://p2infohouse.org/ref/02/01244/www. Agricultural Economics, School of Agriculture, Aristotle
epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/printpoultry.html. University of Thessaloniki, whose research interests
van Elzakker, M.A.H., Maia, L.K.K., Grossmann, I.E., Zondervan, E., 2017. Optimizing include management of sustainable agrifood supply
environmental and economic impacts in supply chains in the FMCG industry. chains, exploring consumer behaviour about food con-
Sustainable Production and Consumption 11, 68e79. sumption from a supply chain perspective and configuring
Van Holderbeke, M., Sanju an, N., Geerken, T., De Vooght, D., 2003. The history of healthy nutrition food supply networks.
bread production: using LCA in the past, 4th international conference on life
cycle assessment in the agri-food sector. Bygholm, Denmark.
Veleva, V., Hart, M., Greiner, T., Crumbley, C., 2001. Indicators of sustainable pro-
duction. J. Clean. Prod. 9 (5), 447e452.
Verghese, K., Lockrey, S., Rio, M., Dwyer, M., 2018. DIRECT, a tool for change: Co-
designing resource efficiency in the food supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 172,
3299e3310.
Williams, A.G., Audsley, E., Sandars, D.L., 2006. Determining the Environmental
Burdens and Resource Use in the Production of Agricultural and Horticultural Naoum Tsolakis is a Research Associate at the Centre for
Commodities, Defra Research Project IS0205 Cranfield University and Defra. International Manufacturing, Institute for Manufacturing,
Bedford. University of Cambridge, where he focuses on industrial
Winkler, T., Schopf, K., Aschemann, R., Winiwarter, W., 2016. From farm to fork - a systems and network analysis issues across a range of
life cycle assessment of fresh Austrian pork. J. Clean. Prod. 116, 80e89. industrial applications and with an inter-disciplinary
Yan, M.J., Humphreys, J., Holden, N.M., 2011. An evaluation of life cycle assessment outlook. More specifically, his main research and practice
of European milk production. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (3), 372e379. interests are in the areas of simulation modelling and
Ye, N., Kueh, T.-B., Hou, L., Liu, Y., Yu, H., 2020. A bibliometric analysis of corporate analysis of intelligent autonomous systems along with
social responsibility in sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 272, 122679. supply chain design and management for the industrial
Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research : Design and Methods, 4th Ed. Ed. SAGE, manufacturing, pharmaceutical and agrifood sectors.
London.

Zelen akova, M., Labant, S., Zvij akov
a, L., Weiss, E., Cepelov
a, H., Weiss, R., Fialov
a, J.,
Minda s, J., 2020. Methodology for environmental assessment of proposed ac-
tivity using risk analysis. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 80, 106333.
22

Environmental Hotspots Analysis A Systematic Framework For Food

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Hotspots Analysis A Systematic Framework For Food

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Hotspots Analysis A Systematic Framework For Food

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production 305 (2021) 126981

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

Environmental hotspots analysis: A systematic framework for food

Author(s) Product/Industry Region Research Method Criteria Supply Chain Limitations

Balfaqih et al. (2017) Water Desalination Saudi  Delphi  Eco-toxicity  Subjectivity

processes and vari-

3.2. Methodology 3.3. Systematic analysis approach

Fig. 1. Environmental impact hotspot systematic approach.

Company Type Industry Sector Interviewee Position

A Processor Convenience Foods Factory Manager

Fig. 2. SC structure (initial map).

Fig. 3. SC process level (initial map).

Energy Waste Resources

Fig. 4. SC structure revised map for processed chicken meat.

Fig. 5. SC process level (revised map).

Process Sub-process Energy (mean) Water (mean) Resource (mean)

Crops production Soil preparation and Sowing 3.31 3.77 3.92

Fig. 6. Processes map (revised) with EWR hotspots.

You might also like

Balfaqih et al. (2017) Water Desalination Saudi Delphi Eco-toxicity Subjectivity